Planning Commission Paperless Packet

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware AGENDA Written comments are accepted via mail to City of Dover – Planning Commission, P.O. Box 475 Dover DE 19903 and via email at CompPlan@dover.de.us. VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE The Planning Commission Meeting for June 20, 2023 will be held as an In-Person Meeting at City Hall in City Council Chambers. The public is welcome to attend in person. The Meeting will also be provided as a Virtual Meeting using WebEx, an audio/visual conferencing system as an electronic means of communication. See participation information below to join by phone or computer. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION City of Dover Planning Commission Meeting of June 20, 2023 Join by Phone Dial: 1-650-479-3208 Access code: 253 847 92886 (Password: 3683772) Join Online https://bit.ly/PCMeeting6202023 Webinar Number: 2538 478 2886 Webinar Password: DoverPC If you are new to WebEx get the app now at https://www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. For problems accessing the meeting, please call the Planning Office at (302) 736-7196. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ADOPTION OF AGENDA Conditional Use Application C-23-02 The Hive: Business and Event Center at 28 W. Loockerman Street will not be heard by the Planning Commission on June 20, 2023 due to incomplete public notice. This Application and its Public Hearing will be rescheduled for a future Planning Commission Meeting and will be subject to Public Notice requirements for the new meeting date. 1

PLANNING COMMISSION - June 20, 2023 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Adoption of Minutes of May 15, 2023 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Meeting Reminder: The next Planning Commission regular meeting date is scheduled for Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:00pm. Update on City Council Actions Department of Planning & Inspections Updates Education & Training Opportunities 2. Land Use Law, FOIA & Ethics Training Session - Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 6:00pm in City Council Chambers OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING MEETING PROCEDURES FOR APPLICATIONS OLD BUSINESS Request Extension of Planning Commission Approval Pending Development Application: 3. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street – Continued Review of Site Development Plan for construction of two 6-story mid-rise apartment buildings with a total of 385 units consisting of studio, 1 bedroom, and 2 bedroom units. The ground level of each apartment building is parking and the other site improvements include six 7-car garage buildings, parking lots, landscaping, and recreation areas. The Project also includes street construction/improvements to Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. A Lot Consolidation Plan will combine the four parcels located east of Railroad Avenue for a total of 31.08 acres of land. These properties are zoned RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments). The subject area is located north of, but not adjacent to College Road, and east of the Railroad corridor in the vicinity of Raymond Street, Railroad Avenue, and Grove Street. Property Owners: Patel College Properties, LLC and Patel Excess College Road, LLC. Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.00-02-53.00-000, ED-05-067.00-02-54.00-000, ED-05- 067.00-02-55.00-000, and ED-05-067.00-02-56.00-000. Council District 4. Waiver Requests: Reduction of Parking Requirement. Consideration of Active Recreation Area Plan. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and began review of this application at their March 20, 2023 Meeting and deferred action seeking additional information. The Planning Commission continued review of this application at their April 17, 2023 and deferred action until the June 2023 Meeting seeking additional information. NEW APPLICATIONS 4. S-23-12 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District – Revised Implementation Plan (Phases 4, 5 & 6 Areas: Lot Configuration, Open Space Areas & Unit Count) – Public Hearing and Review of Revised Implementation Plan for the Residential District component of the Traditional Neighborhood Design project known as Eden Hill Farm TND. The Revised Plan for the 2

PLANNING COMMISSION - June 20, 2023 PAGE 3 Residential District proposes to revise Phase 4, 5 & 6 areas: to correct sizes of Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 (Multi-family Lots); to reconfigure Lot 10 (Multi-family) and adjacent alleys; to convert Lot 11 from Open Space to Townhouse Lots; to consolidate lots (Lots 190-234, 327-338, Open Space) to create Signers Park Open Space of 6.12 acres and to create a Multi-family Lot of 5.28 acres; to consolidate lots (Lots 434-450) to create Open Space of 2.18 acres adjacent to railroad corridor; to abandon certain street and alley rights-of-way; to adjust alignment of Red Haven Way; to increase total unit count from 665 to 725 dwelling units; and to revise phase line of Phases 5 and 6. The Residential District consists multiple parcels totaling of 109.034 acres ± of land and is zoned TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design). The project is located south of West North Street and Wemyss Road and east of the POW-MIA Parkway. The owners of record for the areas of revision are Eden Hill Apartments Acquisition Co., LCC and Eden 4DS, LLC. Tax Parcels: Multiple parcels of the Residential District on map ED-05-076.04. Council District 2. SB-06-03 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District - Implementation Plan consisting of 665 dwelling units received Planning Commission conditional approval on June 19, 2006. S-19-25 Eden Hill Farm TND: Residential District - Revised Implementation (Phase 2 Area, Club Houses and Unity Types) received Planning Commission conditional Approval on January 21, 2020. There have also been subsequent approvals related to lot layout and Pattern Book revisions. Related Applications: SB-07-01, MI-08-03, MI-08-20, MI-09-03, MI-09-13, MI-10-04, MI-10-14, MI-10-20, S-19-25, and MI-21-06. NEW BUSINESS ADJOURN Posted Agenda: June 9, 2023 THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING 3

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2023 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 15, 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. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), Mrs. Malone (virtual), and Mrs. Maucher. Mr. Hartman was absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Mary Ellen Gray, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, Mr. Jason Lyon and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Mr. Douglas Barry, and Mr. Jonathan Street. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Dr. Jones moved to approve the Agenda as submitted, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Hartman absent. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2023 Mr. Baldwin moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2023, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Hartman absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Gray provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on April 24 & 25, 2023 and May 8 & 9, 2023. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 20, 2023, at 7:00PM in the City Hall Council Chambers. The Monday of that week is the Juneteenth holiday which the City now observes. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Planning & Inspections Department has a job opening. They are looking for a Code Enforcement Inspector. We have a retirement on our Building Inspections side with Mr. Mike McGregor; and, we have one of our Code Enforcement staff members, Mr. Michael Bailey who is moving into that new role on the building side. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that for the Planning Commission, we have a number of education and training opportunities. One was this past Friday on “Creating a Flood Ready Community”. Staff member Ms. Katherine Oehmke attended that on behalf of our office. The Commission does have the opportunity to attend the “Intro to Land Use Administration” which is another presentation by the Institute for Public Administration for the University of Delaware. It is scheduled for Wednesday, May 24, 2023 from 9am - noon. It is an in-person event at the Kent County Levy Court facility here in Dover. If you are interested in attending, please reach out to Planning Staff and they will get you registered for that event. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the In- Person Meeting and Virtual Meeting using the WebEx system. 1 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2023 Item 1. OLD BUSINESS Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: C-21-04 Bay Pointe Apartments (One Building Concept) at 1080 and 1106 Bay Road - Request for a One Year Extension of Planning Commission Approval granted on May 17, 2021 for a Conditional Use Site Plan Application and associated Lot Consolidation Plan to permit the construction of one Multiple Dwelling-Unit (Apartment) Building as a three-story 54,105 SF building with 54 apartment units and associated site improvements. The proposed Apartment building requires Conditional Use review in the C-4 zoning district. The three existing lots to be consolidated total 3.302 +/- acres and are zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The property is located on the southwest side of Bay Road at the intersection with Lafferty Lane. The owner of record is Patel Hospitality Properties. Property Addresses: 1080 and 1106 Bay Road and an unaddressed parcel. Tax Parcel Numbers: ED-05-086.00-01-18-00-000, ED-05-086.00-01-19.00- 000, and ED-05-086.00-01-20.00-000. Council District 2. Representative: Mr. Douglas Barry, Pennoni & Associates Mr. Swierczek stated that this is a Conditional Use Site Plan and an associated Lot Consolidation Plan for three parcels on Bay Road. This originally came before the Planning Commission at their May 2021 meeting. It has been going through the Check Print Review Process with the DAC agencies involved in the process. In their letter requesting the extension of approval dated April 14, 2023, they note as such stating that one of the primary sort of delays in the plan moving forward a little more quickly were some requested edits to the plans per DelDOT. Having said that, he will note that with the Planning Office they are aware at least that they have obtained Fire Marshal and Kent Conservation District approvals and they have submitted a Check Print for review. So, the Planning Staff is at least satisfied that they are moving forward with the project. As a brief reminder, this is for one apartment building on Bay Road with a total of 54 units. They did have an Active Recreation Plan where they were presenting beyond sort of what the required minimum. It was recommended for approval by the Parks and Recreation Committee and approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Barry stated that it took a little longer to navigate through the DelDOT process. They had to redesign the intersection to accommodate the fourth leg into the site which meant they are going to be taking down all of the existing tension wires and putting all new mast arms and everything; so, it’s going to look great. But it did take longer to do that but they have received DelDOT’s approval. They have all of the agency approvals; they are just requesting an extension so that they can finalize the process with the Planning Department. Mrs. Denney moved to approve C-21-04 Baypoint Apartments One Building Concept at 1080 & 1100 Bay Road for a one year extension as it appears as though they have had some difficulty and delays caused by agencies such as DelDOT and sometimes it’s hard to navigate those processes especially with all of the changes that they are going to have to make, seconded by Mr. Cooper and the motion carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Hartman absent. Mrs. Denney voting yes; as she mentioned in her motion, she thinks it’s a reasonable request in light of the 2 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2023 Item 1. fact that sometimes dealing with some of the agencies takes a little longer and this time specifically DelDOT. DelDOT is asking them to make a lot of changes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; they are making progress. Dr. Jones voting yes; the applicant is making satisfactory progress. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons stated in the motion. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons stated in the motion. Mr. Cooper voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons stated in the motion. NEW APPLICATIONS S-23-10 Parking Lot of Landing Square at 560 and 600 Bay Road: Revised Phase 3A - Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan for development of a 99-space parking lot area and associated site improvements instead of a previously proposed 6,400 SF restaurant for Phase 3A of the Landing Square development. The subject area is 1.02 acres+/- of the Lot 2 parcel consisting of 4.6493 acres +/- fronting on Bay Road in the northern portion of the site. The property is located on the west side of Bay Road north of its intersection with Blue Hen Boulevard and the Bay Court Plaza entrance drive. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The owner of record is BAYROADCAP, LLC. Property Addresses: 560 and 600 Bay Road. Tax Parcel Number: ED-05-077.00-01-09.01-000. Council District 2. Waiver Requested: Reduction of Arterial Street Buffer. Application C-20-02 Landing Square (Previously Bay Road Commercial): Revised Phase 2 Area approved by the Planning Commission on August 17, 2020 received Final Plan approval on February 25, 2021 for the commercial development of the Lot 2 area. Minor Subdivision Plan SB-22-03 Lands of Bayroadcap, LLC dividing the overall property into three Lots was approved by the Planning Commission on April 18, 2022 and recorded on May 24, 2022. Representative: Mr. Jonathan Street, Becker Morgan Group Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Site Development Plan Application that is before the Commission this evening. It may look somewhat familiar to you as our report highlights that there have been a number of applications; both Site Plans and Subdivision projects over the years involving this property now called the Landing Square Complex. It is located on the west side of Bay Road. It is on the right hand side of the image of the plan and it shares an entrance drive with the Bay Court Plaza. The entrance drive is along the bottom edge of the plan image. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) and is previously developed with an Office Building along its western portion of the property which is now part of Lot 1. Lot 2 consists of a northern Office Building and part of the central parking area. Then Lot 3 is kind of the southeast corner which would be where there is a proposed restaurant location. What they are dealing with this evening is a redesign to what they are identifying as Phase 3A. It is actually part of the Lot 2 parcel and it is the northeast corner of the tract of the land directly adjacent to Bay Road. As mentioned, the project for Landing Square started with a Site Development Plan back in 2017 and then later plans in both 2019 and 2020 developed those first two office buildings on the site. Then most recently, a couple of Minor Subdivision Plans created multiple lots for the complex. Tonight, the Phase 3A is a focus on converting what was originally proposed as a restaurant location to a 99-space parking lot to meet some of the parking needs of the current occupants on the site. This does adjoin the main circulation pattern that exists on the property that’s on the edge of this image that is shown. The parking lot does have landscaping around it to meet some 3 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2023 Item 1. of the tree planting requirements. The Phase 3A does satisfy those requirements for the plan. With this parking facility, they will be looking to confirm that the impervious surface coverage continues to be met. There are limitations for this tract overall. The parking likewise triggers us to look at whether they have adequate bicycle parking and if those are already installed on the campus. We will confirm the number of spaces with this increase of vehicle parking spaces. There are lighting that is proposed for the parking lot. This evening, the Planning Commission has one Waiver Request to consider and that is a reduction of the Arterial Street Buffer. That is a requirement along the Bay Road frontage of the property. Previous applications on the site have sought that Waiver Request and have been successful. The Waiver seeks to reduce that Arterial Street Buffer from 30 feet to 20 feet. That’s what’s shown here. The row of parking that’s closest to Bay Road is in the same location as the row of parking for the proposed restaurant that was at a portion of this site. The Development Advisory Committee Report has been provided to Commission members. The Planning Staff is recommending approval of the reduction of that Arterial Street Buffer. They are also recommending that the construction of the sidewalk that is in the form of a multi-use path directly adjacent to this Phase 3 area, go ahead and be constructed as activity is happening in this area of the site. As always, they are encouraging the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. It is a lot easier to put in at least the infrastructure ahead of time even if you are not ready to install the charging stations specifically. Our Code does not have a requirement but it is something that they have been encouraging with most applications. The rest of the DAC Report includes comments from the other regulatory agencies that they will also have to seek approval from with this change to the Phase 3 area. Mr. Street stated that he thinks this is a great project and a great example of a project that won’t die. This has been revitalized and revamped a couple of times here as Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned. The application in front of you looks to expand the parking area for one of the current occupants of the north building. It is Government Services right now and Government Services currently is parking a lot of their fleet vehicles out there and additional parking is what they require which is why the owner has basically take that north restaurant pad and converted it into a parking lot. He wants to go over a few things and he will try and keep this brief. This is pretty simple from a plan perspective. They are looking to just build a parking lot where they had previously planned a restaurant and a parking lot. They are just really converting building space into parking lot space. The overall footprint of the area that we are looking at right now on the screen is actually slightly smaller than what was designed before; so, the impervious coverage limits that Mrs. Melson-Williams was mentioning, they are not too concerned about. They had calculated that initially because obviously they have a set limit that they can’t encroach on. A couple items of note, there are at least two cross access easements that are located on the property now. They are not impacted by anything that they are proposing on changing. The landscaping for the area was roughly 52,000-53,000 SF for just this little corner of the property which requires somewhere in the neighborhood of seventeen trees. He stopped counting at 38-40 trees that are planned for this corner. They fully intend on executing the Landscape Plan as it was approved previously. For the 20-foot Arterial Street Buffer, they are not looking to reduce the plantings in the buffer, just the buffer width itself to what was originally approved. He doesn’t want to take that for granted but they are requesting that it remain at the 20-foot limit. Additionally, they have met with both DelDOT and Kent Conservation District with at least 4 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2023 Item 1. informal conversations with KCD and they are aware of what’s going on. Stormwater for these parking lots has already been accounted for the existing stormwater infrastructure. He believes that KCD’s comments were “Really? Again? You are coming back?” So, yes they are and it’s already accounted for so it should be relatively straight forward. They have already met with DelDOT on the secondary access, shared use path, and all of the infrastructure improvements along Bay Road. DelDOT is interested in getting the second entrance built and all of the improvements done out on Bay Road with the construction of the parking lot. Timing of that is yet to be hammered out. We have had preliminary conversations and meetings with them. They have to go back and get the entrance plans reapproved. With that re-approval, they (DelDOT) are going to require them to build those entrances. The exact timing of that will be set by DelDOT but he just wanted to bring that up to Staff and to the Planning Commission. Other than that, he went through the Report and he doesn’t really have any comments on Staff Report and/or the other departments. It is pretty straight forward. Most of the Staff’s reporting is based on identifying what is already built and what is to be built. With that, he doesn’t know that he has any other further comments, but he is happy to take questions from the Commission or Staff. Mrs. Maucher asked if they were intending on putting in any EV infrastructure. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Street stated that the State actually has a requirement. Just off the screen at the top there are 4 or 5 spaces that are up at the top that the State actually wants there to be EV parking places. The infrastructure is put in already as part of the GSS Building, that top 20,000 SF building. So, there are places that are either active or they have the infrastructure for it. It is ongoing and he doesn’t know if they want more spaces than what is already out there; that will really be dictated by the State. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve S-23-10 Parking Lot of Landing Square at 560 & 600 Bay Road Revised Phase 3A revision as indicated inclusive of the previous Waiver Request for the reduction of the Arterial Street Buffer on application C-20-02, seconded by Mrs. Malone and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Hartman absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; apparently the change and the revision to the phases of the project require additional parking to accommodate existing clients and that sounds like a great solution to the problem. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for the same reasons stated. Mr. Cooper voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mrs. Denney voting yes; she thinks that extra parking spaces in lieu of a restaurant are always a good idea and the waiver reduction of the street buffer as previously stated this evening had three successful prior grants so she thinks that kind of goes with what’s happening out there. She thinks it would be helpful to help move this along and let it come to fruition completely. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on Staff recommendations and the progress that is being made. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons stated. NEW BUSINESS Mrs. Denney stated that she would like to make a comment in regard to the letter that the Commissioners have yet again received. Obviously, this is our constant companion and she is addressing it just for housekeeping with the record. The letter that they have been receiving 5 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2023 Item 1. periodically from Mr. John Paradee with regard to an issue with water in the Woodcrest Subdivision is actually stormwater drainage issues. It says every member of Council is receiving it but she really would just like to suggest to them that someone at least address it in some way. We are powerless other than to say please move this forward or suggest that you move it forward. She just wants to say that she had (an issue) in May 2021. She lives in an old house in the Historic District and the same piping that is running around our streets was running through her basement. It happened due to reverberation from work other where in the City. But it burst, leaving her basement more than ankle deep in sewage. $19,000 later, all of the walls removed and it took from May to October for the cleanup because of the type of waste. Although her insurance paid for it, she thinks that it just gives an example of what is going on in Dover. And it’s not just Dover; it’s everywhere. We have antiquated infrastructure and we are very fortunate because the City of Dover has been working on it hard over the years. So, this may seem like it’s a stormwater drainage issue but she would like to remind everybody that water is very powerful. One good example would be that it dug this big thing out west called the Grand Canyon. She just hopes someone will take a look and please help this resident. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 6 9

Item 2. From: Bennett, Andria To: Melson-Williams, Dawn Subject: FW: Land Use Law Training with Max Walton - Tuesday, June 27, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. Date: Friday, June 09, 2023 9:29:37 AM Attachments: image001.png Dawn, Per our conversation this morning, please see the email below that was sent on Wednesday, May 17, 2023, regarding Land Use Law training scheduled for Tuesday, June 27, 2023. Andria Bennett City Clerk City of Dover P: (302) 736-7009 F: (302) 736-5068 abennett@dover.de.us From: Bennett, Andria Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 8:17 PM To: City Clerks Office <CityClerk@dover.de.us> Subject: Land Use Law Training with Max Walton - Tuesday, June 27, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. Good evening Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Board of Adjustment, City Council has scheduled a Land Use Law, FOIA, and Ethics training session on Tuesday, June 27, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. and would like to invite members of the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment to attend. The training will be held in City Council Chambers. Per Council President Hare’s suggestion, this training session will be held in lieu of the Council Committee of the Whole Meeting scheduled for that evening. A calendar invite is forthcoming. For more information about Max Walton, please see the link below: https://www.bidenschool.udel.edu/ipa/people/mwalton?uid=mwalton&Name=Max%20Walton If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the City Clerk’s office at 302-736-7008. Respectfully, Andria Bennett City Clerk 10

Item 2. City of Dover P: (302) 736-7009 F: (302) 736-5068 abennett@dover.de.us This email has been blind copied to members of Council, Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, and the Mayor. 11

Item 3. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street • Originally submitted to the Planning Commission for review at their March 20, 2023 meeting where action was deferred. • Review continued at the Planning Commission Meeting of April 17, 2023 where action was deferred until the June 2023 Meeting. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street – Continued Review of Site Development Plan for construction of two 6-story mid-rise apartment buildings with a total of 385 units consisting of studio, 1 bedroom, and 2 bedroom units. The ground level of each apartment building is parking and the other site improvements include six 7-car garage buildings, parking lots, landscaping, and recreation areas. The Project also includes street construction/improvements to Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. A Lot Consolidation Plan will combine the four parcels located east of Railroad Avenue for a total of 31.08 acres of land. These properties are zoned RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments). The subject area is located north of, but not adjacent to College Road, and east of the Railroad corridor in the vicinity of Raymond Street, Railroad Avenue, and Grove Street. Property Owners: Patel College Properties, LLC and Patel Excess College Road, LLC. Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.00-02-53.00-000, ED-05- 067.00-02-54.00-000, ED-05-067.00-02-55.00-000, and ED-05-067.00-02- 56.00-000. Council District 4. Waiver Requests: Reduction of Parking Requirement. Consideration of Active Recreation Area Plan. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and began review of this application at their March 20, 2023 Meeting and deferred action seeking additional information. The Planning Commission continued review of this application at their April 17, 2023 and deferred action until the June 2023 Meeting seeking additional information. The following is a listing of items distributed to the Planning Commission. 1) Original Attachments as submitted for March 20, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting: a. Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) Report (including Agency Comments and Location Map) of March 8, 2023 b. Active Recreation Area Plan Report of March 14, 2023 (PRCE) with Active Recreation Area Plan c. Parking Waiver Request Letter d. PLUS Review Response Letter of January 25, 2023 and PLUS Comment Letter of January 23, 2023 e. Site Plan Set 12

Item 3. f. Architectural Elevations Set and Color Elevation Drawing g. Public Comments Received (as of 3/20/2023) Set 1 2) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2023 3) Additional Items provided for the April 17, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting: a. Letter of April 14, 2023 with enclosures to Mary Ellen Gray, Director of Planning, Inspections and Community Development from Nick Rodriguez RE: Site Plan Approval – College Road Apartments (sent via email by Planning Staff on 4/14/2023 to Planning Commission and hard copies provided at meeting) b. Copy of Email distribution by City Clerk to Planning Commission of April 13, 2023 Letter from John A. Sergovic, Jr. Esquire c. Letter of April 13, 2023 with exhibits to Mary Ellen Gray, Director from John A. Sergovic, Jr. Esquire 4) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2023 5) Additional Items distributed to the Planning Commission: a. Copy of Email distribution by City Clerk’s Office to Planning Commission of June 2, 2023 Letter from John A. Sergovic, Jr. Esquire b. Letter of June 2, 2023 with enclosures to Nicholas H. Rodriguez, Esquire and to Mary Ellen Gray, Director from John A. Sergovic, Jr. Esquire Additional Information for the June 2023 Planning Commission Meeting on Application S-23-06 will be forwarded when available from the legal counsel for the Planning Commission. 13

Item 3. City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF March 8, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF March 20, 2023 Plan Title: College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street, S-23-06 Plan Type: Site Development Plan Associated Plan: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements, S-22-04 Location: North of College Road and East of the Lands of Delaware Railroad Address: Unaddressed off Railroad Avenue Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.00-02-53.00-000 ED-05-067.00-02-55.00-000 ED-05-067.00-02-54.00-000 ED-05-067.00-02-56.00-000 Applicant: Patel College Properties, LLC and Patel Excess College Road, LLC Site Area: 31.08 acres +/- (30.50 acres +/- net) Zoning: RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments) Current Use: Vacant Land (Open Space and Woodland) Proposed Use: Mid-Rise Apartments Dwelling Units: 385 units Parking: Required: 867 spaces Proposed: 683 spaces Sewer & Water: City of Dover Waiver Requests: Reduction of Parking Requirement For Consideration: Active Recreation Area Plan Recreation Area: Required – 1.61 acres +/- Provided – 1.67 acres +/- (72,771 SF) P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 14

Item 3. City of Dover CITY OF DOVER Planning Office DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: March 8, 2023 APPLICATION: College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street FILE #: S-23-06 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning CONTACT PERSON: Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP, Principal Planner PHONE: 302-736-7196 I. PLAN SUMMARY This application is for review of Site Development Plan for construction of two 6-story mid-rise apartment buildings with a total of 385 units consisting of studio, 1 bedroom, and 2 bedroom units known as College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street. The ground level of each apartment building is parking and the other site improvements include six 7-car garage buildings, parking lots, landscaping, and recreation areas. The Project also includes street construction/improvements to Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. A Lot Consolidation Plan will combine the four parcels located east of Railroad Avenue for a total of 31.08 acres of land. These properties are zoned RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments). The subject area is located north of, but not adjacent to College Road, and east of the Railroad corridor in the vicinity of Raymond Street, Railroad Avenue, and Grove Street. Property Owners: Patel College Properties, LLC and Patel Excess College Road, LLC. Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.00- 02-53.00-000, ED-05-067.00-02-54.00-000, ED-05-067.00-02-55.00-000, and ED-05-067.00- 02-56.00-000. Council District 4. Waiver Requests: Reduction of Parking Requirement. Consideration of Active Recreation Area Plan. Existing Property: The subject project area for the project consists of four parcels with three parcels aligned east of the railroad corridor and a larger tract extending east to a boundary near the Fork Branch (waterway). The subject properties have frontage on the rights-of-way for Raymond Street, Railroad Avenue, and Grove Street. The property includes woodlands, wetlands, floodplain areas, and other open lands. In the northwest corner of the property is an area (former Atlantic Coast Environmental (A.C.E.) Facility) that is subject to an Environmental Covenant with DNREC. Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding parcels are a mix of zoning classifications, and some adjacent properties are not within the City of Dover. To the east across the Fork Branch is the Delaware State University main campus zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and Subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). To the north is a parkland area (part of Fork Branch Nature Preserve) owned by the State of Delaware (DNREC) zoned RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District) in 15

Item 3. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street DAC Report of March 8, 2023 Page 2 Kent County. To the west is the right-of-way of Railroad Avenue, the railroad corridor, and then on the west side of the railroad the College Business Park with properties zoned M (Manufacturing zone) and CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone. To the south on the north side of Raymond Street. are two parcels also zoned RG-5 including the Mishoe Towers apartment complex and a property zoned RS-1 and RMH (Residential Manufactured Home) in Kent County. To the south in the area between Raymond Street and College Road, are a series of residential lots with RM-2 (Medium Density Residential Zone) and R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) in the City and other residential lots zoned RMH in Kent County and a parcel zoned IG (General Industrial) in Kent County. This area to the south includes single family detached dwelling, manufactured homes/mobile homes, and a multiplex (3-unit building at 299 College Road). There are several parcels zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) including a Delaware State University building at 255 College Road adjacent to the railroad tracks, Vera’s Haven a transitional housing development by People’s Place, and an area adjacent to the Fork Branch. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Site Development Plan as submitted by the applicant for the College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue consists of two (2) mid-rise apartment buildings with ground level parking (first floor) and five stories of residential units above. The site also has a series of parking lots and six (6) small garage buildings each with seven interior parking spaces. There is a sidewalk network throughout the site and walking paths connecting to active recreation areas. The applicant proposed street improvements for the extension of Raymond Street and the construction of Railroad Avenue in this area with Site Development Plan Application S-22-04 in order to provide street access to the apartment complex as the street network has not been fully constructed. The associated Plan proposed the realignment and continuation of Raymond Street for a distance of approximately 525 feet and the construction of Railroad Avenue for a distance north of approximately 400 feet ending in a cul-de-sac. The plan also proposes the dedication of right-of-way to bring the total right-of-way along its frontages with Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue to 60 feet in width. Preliminary Land Use Services Review (PLUS) An application (PLUS Review #2022-12-08) related to this Collage Road Apartments project was reviewed by the State’s Preliminary Land Use Services, as required by the City of Dover’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). It was reviewed by the State at the meeting on December 21, 2022. 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. Copies of the PLUS Review Comments are provided. The Applicant’s Response to PLUS have also been received and provided. III. PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS The subject property was annexed into the City of Dover in 2006 with Application AX-06-02– Lands of College Road Management Inc., Kent Storage Facilities, LLC, and Loralex Company, LLC consisting of four (4) parcels containing 30.766 acres north of Raymond Street (aka Jason Street) and east of the railroad corridor and Railroad Avenue with the eastern boundary of the subject area being the river. At the time of annexation, it was rezoned M (Manufacturing Zone). Following an attempt for create an industrial subdivision with Application SB-08-01C College 16

Item 3. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street DAC Report of March 8, 2023 Page 3 Road Professional Park (a Conceptual Subdivision Plan that later expired), the properties were zoned in 2011 to RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments) with Application Z- 11-02 and Comprehensive Plan Amendment MI-11-01B for a change in land use classification. In 2021, the nearby street rights-of way were part of recent clarifying annexation into the City of Dover. The Annexation Application AX-21-04 was meant to clarify if the Rights-of-Way of Raymond Street (aka Jason Street), Grove Street, and Railroad Avenue were in the City Limits of the City of Dover. The right-of-way (width of 35 feet) was originally documented in a subdivision plat of “The College Settlement Company” of 1899. However, over the years many properties in the vicinity were annexed into the City, but it was unclear if the Rights-of-Way were consistently included. The Annexation Application went to Planning Commission in November 2021 and was referred to City Council on December 13, 2021, where Ordinance #2021-23 was adopted for the annexation clarification of the Rights-of-Way of Raymond Street, Grove Street, and Railroad Avenue totaling 1.6791 acres +/-. The Planning Commission in March 2022 granted conditional approval to S-22-04 Site Development Plan Application to permit the construction of street improvements in the Rights- of-Way of Railroad Avenue and Raymond Street; a series of Subdivision Waiver Requests related to the streets were not approved by City Council. These street improvements are to include paved roadways, curbing, sidewalks, and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, and stormwater drainage). Raymond Street is proposed to be extended west as a 24 ft. paved width roadway to intersect with Railroad Avenue. Railroad Avenue is proposed to be constructed as a 24 ft. paved width roadway extending to the north and ending in a cul-de-sac. IV. ZONING REVIEW: The subject area is unaddressed and is zoned as RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments). The RG-5 zone allows for the housing unit types of single family detached dwellings and mid-rise apartments (as defined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 12). Mid-rise apartment: Multiple dwellings where individual dwelling units share a common outside access, and elevators serve each floor. The dwelling units share a common lot area, which is the sum of the required lot areas of all dwelling units within the buil ding. The RG-5 zone requires that 25% of the lot area (property) be an open area which is not parking areas. See the following code excerpt for the bulk standards from Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 Section 4.6. RG-5 For Multiple Dwellings: Minimum required: Lot area (sq. ft.) 900 per dwelling unit Lot width (ft.) 100 Lot depth (ft.) 125 Front yard (ft.) 25 Side yard (ft.) At the ground level or at any setback level, one-sixth of the height of the nearest outside wall of the building measured in each case from the average level of the finished grade along the side of the building, but in no case less than 25 feet. 17

Item 3. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street DAC Report of March 8, 2023 Page 4 Rear yard (ft.) At the ground level or at any setback level, one-sixth of the height of the nearest outside wall of the building measured in each case from the average level of the finished grade along the rear of the building, but in no case less than 25 feet. Off-street parking 2/Du spaces Accessory 1 per employee or 1 per 300 sq. ft. of floor area, whichever is greater. commercial uses parking spaces Open space 25% of the lot area shall be devoted to open area, not including parking areas. Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 6 Feet 70 V. PARKING SUMMARY: The parking requirement for multiple dwellings in the RG-5 is listed as two spaces per dwelling unit. 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 (385 units), this site would require 867 parking spaces. The plans submitted identify a total of 683 parking spaces located as the first floor of each apartment building, in parking lot around the perimeter of the complex including handicapped accessible parking spaces near each building, and within six (6) small garage buildings. Waiver Request: Reduction of Parking Requirement (Number of Parking Spaces) The Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 Section 3.9 allows the Planning Commission to consider adjustments to parking requirements. The Planning Commission in granting a parking reduction can require that an area of open space be designated where parking could be constructed. Parking is required at a rate of 2.25 spaces per dwelling unit for apartments (Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 6); this requires 867 parking spaces based on the unit count and the proposed plan is for 683 parking spaces. The applicant has proposed a parking rate based on the type of apartment unit (studio, 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom) and a visitor rate resulting in an overall rate of 1.78 parling spaces per dwelling unit. See Request Letter with analysis. Bicycle Parking The site plans submitted identify two (2) bike rack locations listed as covered parking outside of each building. Bicycle parking is required at a ratio of one space for every twenty parking spaces. Based on the 683 vehicle parking spaces, then thirty-five (35) bicycle parking spaces are required. Upright Curbing The upright cubing for parking lots and drive isles is required by the requirements of the Article 6 Section 3.6(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. 18

Item 3. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street DAC Report of March 8, 2023 Page 5 VI. SITE CONSIDERATIONS Access The project will include construction of a 24-foot paved width roadway with upright curbing on both sides for Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. Railroad Avenue will also have on-street parking along its west side. There are two access (entrance/exit) points from the adjacent streets onto the apartment complex site. The main entrance is off the cul-de-sac terminus of Railroad Avenue and continues onsite as a main drive aisle leading east to Building #2 and connecting to multiple drive aisles of the parking lots. A second entrance is from Raymond Street connecting into a drive aisle within the southernmost parking lot area. All parking lota are interconnected by drive aisles. Rear Emergency Access Rear Emergency Access is required for some residential dwelling types. According to Article 5, Section 17 of the Zoning Ordinance a 24-foot Primary Fire Lane is required for Apartments that are 4 stories and greater to serve as rear access. This is to provide access to rear building areas. The plan has a series of fire lanes that encircle each 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. Sidewalks Sidewalks are proposed along both sides of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue where these streets front this subject site. The street improvements to Raymond Street will also continue the sidewalk along its south side completing the sidewalk system to Mishoe Street (which has existing sidewalk continuing to College Road. On-site, sidewalks are shown on the plans between the parking lots and fully surrounding the apartment buildings access points. Key board style crosswalks are shown on the plans at street intersections and across drive aisles on-site. On the east side of the parking lots and leading to the Active Recreation Area is a pathway system of sidewalk and then connecting to a paved trail system among the recreation amenities. Lighting The Plan proposes a series of light poles along the Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. The lighting continues throughout all areas of the parking lots surrounding the apartment buildings and continuing east to the recreation areas. 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 385 apartment units, a total of sixteen (16) Dumpsters are required. There are five (5) dumpster enclosures (with space for 16 units) located at the parking lot perimeters. There must be space for both trash and recycling containers in these Dumpsters. VII. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE: The applicant has submitted example floor plans for the apartment buildings depicted the first floor (ground level) as parking and several entrance points to the building including a main lobby with elevator (found at building interior corner location0 and other elevator and stair towers. The 19

Item 3. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street DAC Report of March 8, 2023 Page 6 residential floors of each Building show a mix of studio, 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units and also a Yoga/Game Room per floor. Each apartment includes an inset balcony space. Each Apartment Building consists of six floors with the first floor as parking and the floors o2-6 as residential. The first floor is clad in stacked stone masonry with select areas of same masonry veneer continuing vertically. The exterior finishes of the apartment building walls consist of several colors (tan and white) of siding in both horizontal and vertical patterns with white trimwork. Window openings are predominately paired windows sets with glass door also utilized at the balcony areas. The hipped roof also includes paired turned gables highlighting the balcony areas. The main lobby points of entry for each building have a covered portico entry element. The Small Garage Buildings have a stone veneer watertable with stone cap and then horizontal vinyl siding for the wall surface along with an asphalt shingled hipped roof. There are seven (7) garage doors across the front of the structure leading to individualized garage bays (10’6” by 20’ bay). The second long side (rear) of the garage buildings is not depicted in the plan set. 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 10001C0166H effective date May 5, 2003. Portions of the subject property are within the Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year floodplain/ 1% chance of annual of flooding) as Zone AE; these are found in the eastern portion of the site. Additionally, the area immediately adjacent to the Fork Branch are also within the Floodway. The floodplain and floodway 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 existing woodland on-site is generally found in the eastern area of the property. 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 23.14 acres of existing woodlands, and they propose to preserve 19.65 acres (84.9%) of these woodlands. Based on the 10.85 acres of non-woodland area for this development site, the minimum required number of trees is 158 trees. The site plans show 268 trees spread over the site around the parking lots and in the internal open space areas. The trees are a mix of deciduous, ornamental, and evergreen trees. The evergreen trees are placed as a screening of the adjacent properties to the southeast. Shade Trees The Land Subdivision Regulations references street trees but does not list specific spacing requirements. Shade trees are required to be located so as not to interfere with utilities or sidewalks. The Plan shows that some existing trees (in the right-of-way) are to be removed by the construction 20

Item 3. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street DAC Report of March 8, 2023 Page 7 for the extension of Raymond Street. The Plan proposes the planting of Greenspire Little Leaf Linden trees along Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. 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 wetlands which coincide with a water body that boarders the property and also in floodplain areas. A 100- foot setback is required; however, this setback can be reduced to 50 feet with implementation of a Riparian Buffer. Adjacent to the large wetland area, the plan shows a 50 foot riparian buffer where existing woodland/vegetation will be maintained, and also additional plantings implemented. A complete Wetlands Report is on file in the Planning Office for the subject property. 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 105,875 SF (2.43 acres) of area. However, the Zoning Ordinance does cap the amount of recreation area required at 10% of the gross area of the development. An itemized listing of the Recreation Areas and materials is given on the Plan sheet (Revised Sheet 10) See Recreation Plan Review Report for more detailed review (attached document). XI. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: The subject proposal has been reviewed for code compliance, plan conformity, and completeness in accordance with the agency’s authority and area of expertise. The following items have been identified as elements which need to be addressed by the applicant (Review of Plan Submission dated 1/23/2023 Sheets 1-10): 1) Active Recreation Area: The applicant is responsible for providing an Active Recreation Area of a minimum 1.61acres. The Plans Applicant has provided information indicating they intend to provide 1.67 SF of Active Recreation Area. See Recreation Plan Review Report and Addendum 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. 21

Item 3. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street DAC Report of March 8, 2023 Page 8 b) The Active Recreation Area is scheduled to be reviewed by the Council Committee of the Whole: Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee on March 14, 2023. 2) 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 if type of curbing proposed. 3) Cover Sheet/Sheet 1: a) Check spelling in all notes throughout plan set. b) The soils map is difficult to read; change soil labeling font style. c) List names of signees on behalf of property owners. d) Property Summary Column: i) Provide complete address of property owners (only street address line is provided). ii) List difference between gross and net property area. iii) Check survey dates. e) Identify any special name for the apartment complex. The has previously reviewed another project referred to as “College Road Apartments.” f) The Final Plan set will also need to include the Entrance Plan set, Stormwater Management Plan set, and a Record Plan for the Lot Consolidation Plan. 4) Sheet 2 – Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan: a) Adjust drawing to make College Road right-of-way visible at railroad crossing. b) Adjust label for railroad corridor ownership and add tie line. c) Label ownership information for the parcel at 255 College Road. d) Label Railroad Avenue right-of-way. e) Use different linework or method to identify the area subject to the environmental covenant. Provide information on details/limitations of this environmental covenant. f) Identify small circles shown on plan drawing (monitoring or testing wells?) g) Label Floodplain line for clarity. h) Label nearby street rights-of-ways, i.e., College Road, Mishoe Street, Conwell Street. i) Plan sheet doesn’t read as a Demolition Plan. This information may need to be provided on a separate sheet showing tree protection areas for tree preservation, items to be removed, etc. 5) Sheet 3 – Overall Site Plan (and also Sheet 4 – Site Plan): a) Fire Marshal Notes #3: for the Lock Box (Knox Box) contact the City of Dover Fire Marshal’s Office (not Fire Chief). b) Clarify the footprints of the small garage units as some linework is missing. c) Identify distance of northernmost row of parking to property line. d) Data Column listing: i) Check listing for missing spaces. ii) Clarify what is being considered the gross development area (for recreation area). iii) Required number of Dumpsters is 16 units. e) Waivers Required Notation: Remove reference to variances. Add action taken on this waiver request. f) List floodplain information. 22

Item 3. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street DAC Report of March 8, 2023 Page 9 g) Ensure parking spaces shown under building match building architectural plans and clarify elevator and entry locations to the apartment buildings. h) Number the garage buildings. i) Identify paving material for trail system on east side. j) Label wetland buffer areas to ensure existing woodland remains or new tree plantings are implemented in the buffer areas. 6) Sheet 6 – Utility Plan: Hydrants are also required along the new streets. 7) Sheets 7 and 8 –Landscape Plan: a) Label the tree species on the plan drawings; the use of graphic depictions for each tree specific is difficult to read/review. Also label the shrub plantings for clarity. b) The Landscape Plan must include certification note and signature/seal of authorized design professional (Landscape architect, architect, or Delaware Certified Nursery Professional). c) Identify any landscape planting plan around each apartment building. d) Tree placements providing shade to recreation amenity areas is encouraged. e) There a several conflicts of tree placement with other site improvements i.e., garage building, light poles, parking lot, plantings within existing woodland areas, etc. Also evaluate trees proposed on south side of Building #1 for conflicts with fire protection requirements. f) Please be aware of placement of any trees/landscaping with regards to any underground utilities/storm water management systems. 8) Clarify the preferred type of light fixtures for streetlights along Railroad Avenue and Raymond Street per City of Dover Electric Department. 9) Sheet 10 - Active Recreation Area Plan: See Revised Plan Sheet (clarified submission) of March 2, 2023 for current proposal. See the Active Recreation Area Report for review comments. 10) The Small Garage Buildings are technically accessory structures. In order to comply with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance, Article 1 Section 1.2, the two garage buildings located south of Apartment Building #2 must be relocated so that they are not between the building and the street (Raymond Street). 11) Dumpsters enclosures with unit counts have been added to the plans. Please provide detail on the dumpster enclosure construction and materials. 12) Please provide one or more detail sheets depicting required site details, including but not limited to bike racks, Dumpsters, traffic control signage, stormwater, and utility details, etc. 13) Provide the distance from the edge of parking/ drive aisles to each apartment building. With Multifamily Dwellings (Buildings) the Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 Section 5.3 requires a distance of 15 feet from the parking to the building. 14) Any Erosion & Sediment Control Plans and Stormwater Management Plans granted approval by the Kent Conservation District and/or DNREC must reflect the Site Plan layout and 23

Item 3. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street DAC Report of March 8, 2023 Page 10 design conditionally approved by the Planning Commission and be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and technical review requirements of other agencies. a) Clarify the approach to stormwater management for the project. b) Continued work should be done to communicate with the Kent Conservation District and/or DNREC and the City of Dover Public Works Department to identify how storm water flow will be managed from the construction of the Street Rights-of-Way. 15) Site development plan and uses must comply with any provisions of Brownfield Remedial Action Plans as approved by DNREC. 16) A separate Record Plan sheet must be submitted to show the consideration of the parcels to complete the Lot Consolidation to create the main parcel and to document the right-of-way dedication. a) The Record Plan must include cross access easements, any easements, or other items affecting the property lines. 17) Signs are subject to a separate review and approval process in the City of Dover. However, advice may be given on the locations of freestanding signs if they are included on the Site Plan. 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: Reduction of Parking Requirements: Planning Staff recommends approval of the Waiver Request for the reduction in Parking Requirements. The Applicant is requesting a rate based on the type of apartment unit. Planning Staff further notes the overall proposed vehicle parking space figure is 683 parking spaces for the site overall, which should be sufficient and also reduces impact to natural areas on the site. The site includes bicycle parking and has proposed a sidewalk system connecting to sidewalks along proposed and current streets. The site may be within proximity of public transit routes along College Road. 2) Site Improvements: The Planning Staff has identified the following suggestions for improvements to the project/site design: a) Include some handicapped parking spaces within the ground level (covered) parking area. b) Include bicycle parking and/or storage areas within the ground level parking area. c) Add detailing to rear elevations of the small garages. d) Add handicapped parking spaces at east end of parking lot near recreation areas. e) Add clearance alerts for under building parking area entries. f) Add fencing and other recommended protection measures along the north property line adjacent to the State park area – Fork Branch Nature Preserve. Implement Nature Preserve 24

Item 3. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street DAC Report of March 8, 2023 Page 11 signage as recommended by DNREC. g) Ensure accessible pathways are connected to the sport court surfaces and fitness amenities. 3) Tree Plantings: Planning Staff encourage 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) Planning Staff encourages this project to include the installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in its parking lots/parking areas. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not require them, but many other jurisdictions have implemented such requirements. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations formats include EV-Capable, EV-Ready, and EV- Installed. 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. 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. 4) Following Planning Commission approval of the Site Development Plan and Record 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. 5) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any development or ground disturbing activities on the site the appropriate site inspections and permits are required. This includes activities to clean-up existing vegetation, the import of fill dirt, etc. 6) The addresses for the new buildings proposed on the property will need to be confirmed with 25

Item 3. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street DAC Report of March 8, 2023 Page 12 the City’s Tax Assessment Office. 7) 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. 8) 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. 9) 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. 10) The applicant shall be aware that Plan approval does not represent a Sign Permit, nor does it convey permission to place any sign on the premises. Any proposed site or building identification sign may require a Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to placement of any such sign in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible. 26

Item 3. CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: MARCH 1, 2023 APPLICATION: College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street FILE #: S-23-06 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. 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. Submerged pipe inlets to ponds may only be permitted if they are so designed that the permanent pool elevation of the storm water management area doesn’t surcharge back into the City of Dover’s storm drain structures and system. 4. The City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications require all culverts to be designed for the 25-year storm frequency and all storm sewers to be designed for the 10-year storm frequency. The Manning’s equation shall be utilized in design as applicable. Storm sewers are required to provide a minimum full flow velocity of 2 fps. Provide the calculations for each proposed pipe segment that, at a minimum, include: upstream and downstream inverts, upstream and downstream ground elevations, and ground cover provided; pipe slope, length, material, n value, and diameter; design flow, depth and velocity; and full flow and velocity. 5. The City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications require that all inlets (catch basins) be designed for the 10-year storm frequency (25-year storm frequency for sump conditions) and that the spread of water shall not exceed eight feet (8’) from the flow line of the curb. The design must also meet the requirement that the hydraulic grade line may be no higher than one foot (1’) below the top of the inlet. Provide the calculations for each proposed catch basin utilizing flows determined by each catch basin’s contributory drainage area, for the appropriate storm frequency. Spread, depth of flow and hydraulic grade line data for each inlet must also be included. Any carryover should also be noted and included at appropriate downstream catch basins as applicable. 6. Provide all stormwater management calculations and erosion and sedimentation control plan as required by Article 5, Section 11.2 and 11.2 of the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance. Ensure that individual lot grading, house locations with finished floor 27

Item 3. College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street File #: S-23-06 March 1, 2023 Page 2 of 5 elevations, and driveway locations and grades are provided on the plans in order to verify the adequacy of the design. The provided information should also show adequate conveyance of runoff from each lot. 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 current City of Dover standard street section provides for a 3’ grass strip between the curb and sidewalk. This standard was administratively revised to meet ADA and FHA compliance with cross slope requirements and to prevent cars from scrapping at driveways. The revised standard utilizes a five feet (5’) wide public sidewalk with a five feet (5’) wide grass strip behind the curb. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person to alter the curb of any street so as to create a curb depression for the purpose of permitting vehicles to enter onto or exit from the city streets, without a permit issued by the city manager. 4. When determined to be necessary, dead-end streets, designated to be so permanently, shall not be longer than 400 feet and shall be provided at the closed end cul-de-sac with a turnaround having an outside roadway diameter of 80 feet and a street right-of-way diameter of 100 feet. In no instance shall more than 20 percent of the lots in a proposed development front on the turnaround section of a cul-de-sac. 5. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles. The inner right-of-way line of a street intersecting another street at an angle of less than 90 degrees shall be tangent to and follow a curve with a minimum radius of 150 feet centered on the nearest right-of-way line and shall be parallel to said inner right-of-way line. 6. Street right-of-way lines deflecting from each other at any point shall be connected with a curve, the radius of which, for the centerline of the right-of-way, shall not be less than 500 feet on arterial streets, 300 feet on collector streets and 150 feet on minor streets. The outer and inner right-of-way line shall be parallel to said center right-of-way line. 7. Street rights-of-way lines at intersections shall be connected with a curve, the radius of which shall be at least 25 feet. The required radius may be increased by the city engineer if the increased radius is necessary for public safety. 8. Street grades shall not exceed five percent. 9. Street grades shall not be less than one-half percent wherever feasible. WATER 1. All water utility components must meet the requirements of the Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information. 2. The following notes must be added to the plans: a. Hydrant connections by the contractor are prohibited. This method may not be utilized during any phase of the project. b. Any existing water lines not to be utilized by the proposed facility must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with the City of Dover Department of Water & Wastewater specifications and requirements. c. The site contractor shall contact the City of Dover Department of Water & Wastewater Construction Manager at (302) 736- 7025 prior to the start of construction. A representative from the City of Dover Department of Water & Wastewater must observe and approve all City owned water and sanitary sewer interconnections and testing. All water taps must be performed by a City of Dover approved contractor. The proposed location for the water connection may need to be adjusted in the field due to conditions of the existing main. Possible conditions that would require tapping relocation include proximity to pipe joints, other taps, concrete encasements, conflict with other utilities, and the like. Test holes must be performed by the contractor to determine the best tapping location. The City of Dover will not be held responsible for field conditions requiring adjustment of the tapping location or for any work required by the contractor to make an appropriate and lawful connection. 3. The size, type, and location of all proposed and existing water lines and valves must be shown on the plan. Please be advised that effective May 1, 2022, water mains can now be constructed using C900 PVC pipe. 4. Water usage projections (peak demand or plumbing fixtures) must be submitted to our office to correctly determine the size of the domestic and irrigation (if applicable) water meter for the proposed building. These projections must be submitted prior to 28

Item 3. College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street File #: S-23-06 March 1, 2023 Page 3 of 5 approval so the meter size can be placed on the final site plan. The proposed water meter must be installed in a pit per City of Dover requirements and manufacturer’s recommendations. Also, a dual check valve is required downstream of the meter. 5. The domestic service, fire main connection and valves must be clearly shown for each building. A valve must be installed at the tee to isolate combined fire and domestic water service to the building from the water loop. Typically, this valve is installed at the tee or an acceptable distance from the building. A valve must be provided on the domestic water service, which must be tapped off of the combined eight-inch (8”) fire/domestic service outside of the building. The domestic water tap and valve should be as close to the building as possible. Typically, the domestic tap and valve are located within five feet (5’) to ten feet (10’) of the building. A blow up detail of this layout is recommended. 6. Provide a construction detail for the proposed restraining system for the fire main located within the buildings. The Department of Public Works will test and inspect all fire mains to a blind flange located inside the buildings. The blind flange with tap is used for hydrostatic pressure testing (200 psi for two (2) hours) and dechlorination. The flange must be restrained in the direction of the pipe entering the facility. A pipe entering horizontally through a wall sleeve shall be restrained with rods through the wall. A pipe entering vertically through a slab shall be restrained through the floor to the ninety degree (90 ) bend and thrust block. All rods shall be a minimum of ¾” all thread. All pipes through walls and slabs must be Class 52 cement lined ductile iron pipe. Confirm particulars to meet this requirement with mechanical designer. 7. Based on the number of units proposed, the water main will be required to be twelve inches (12”). This would also require the existing water main on Raymond Street and Mishoe Street to be upgraded to twelve inches (12”) as well. This is required to meet the necessary fire flow protection in this area. This upgrade will be the responsibility of the developer. 8. Each building shall have one (1) water service. 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. The downstream pump station must be evaluated by the developer / engineer to verify it can handle the additional effluent flow. 29

Item 3. College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street File #: S-23-06 March 1, 2023 Page 4 of 5 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). 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. The City of Dover water system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, the water system plans must be submitted to the Division of Public Health, Office of Drinking Water for review and approval. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing all completed forms and plan sets to the City of Dover as required for submission to the Office of Drinking Water. Plans will not be submitted to the Office of Drinking Water until review has been completed by our office. 3. Hydrant flow testing is currently only performed during the spring and fall. The applicant must call the Department of Water & Wastewater directly to schedule these tests. This applies to both existing hydrants as well as those proposed for the site. 4. Water impact fees will be required to be paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy for this project. 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. 30

Item 3. College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street File #: S-23-06 March 1, 2023 Page 5 of 5 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 . 31

Item 3. CITY OF DOVER ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: MAR 1, 2023 APPLICATION: College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street FILE #: S-23-06 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. 32

Item 3. College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street File #: S-23-06 Mar 1, 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. 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 . 33

C F S-23-06 I I Item 3. T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: March 1, 2023 D S O H V A E L APPLICATION: College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street R FILE #: S-23-06 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposed occupancy classification is residential/apartments and storage/garages. 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 100% for the apartments and 50% for the garages 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. 5. Fire lanes shall cover 75% for the apartments of the proposed building. 34

Item 3. 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) 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. 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. 35

Item 3. 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). 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 36

Item 3. residential, rowhouses and townhouses, assembly, health care, business, education, storage, industrial, mercantile, and mini storage. (702, Chapter 6) 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. 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. 37

Item 3. (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. 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. 38

Item 3. 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 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, 39

Item 3. 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. 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 40

Item 3. 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. 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) 41

Item 3. 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. 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. 42

Item 3. 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. This is a midrise building, please refer to the 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations for additional requirements (supplied at the end of this packet) 2. Please confirm that the garages has 50% perimeter access as outlined in item # 4 listed above 3. Please confirm that the Fire Lane is 24’ wide at building 1 by the garages 4. Please confirm that there is 15’ between the building and parking as outlined in item # 6 listed above 5. Please confirm that the cul-de-sac is in compliance with the 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations as outlined in item # 14 listed above. 6. Please confirm that the fire hydrant spacing is 800’ on center as outlined in item # 17 listed above. 7. Please confirm that a fire hydrant is within 300’ of each FDC as outlined in item # 25 listed above 8. Please confirm/ensure the landscape plan does not interfere with Fire Lanes and Perimeter Access 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. 43

Item 3. “Mid Rise Building” Any building within the following occupancy classification that exceeds 50 feet in height and up to 75 feet in height. Health Care Occupancies Ambulatory Health Care Detention and Correction Occupancies Residential to include Hotels, Dormitories, Lodging and Rooming Houses, Apartments/Condominiums, Residential Board and Care Chapter 5 Mid Rise, High Rise and Large Area Buildings 1.0 Application 1.1 This chapter shall apply to all new buildings and this chapter shall apply to all existing buildings that undergo a change in occupancy. 1.2 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. 1.3 Any proposal that is presented to the Office of the State Fire Marshall 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. 19 DE Reg. 843 (03/01/16) 2.0 Mid Rise Building Fire Protection Features Required. 2.1 Fire Command Center 2.1.1 Every Mid Rise building shall contain a fire command center for fire department operations in a location reviewed by the responsible Fire Chief and approved by the Office of the State Fire Marshal. 2.1.2 The fire command center shall contain the following: 2.1.2.1 Fire detection and alarm system annunciator panels and smoke management panels 2.1.2.2 Status indicator for elevator and annunciator indicating which elevators are operational 2.1.2.3 Status indicators and controls for air handling 2.1.2.4 Emergency power, light and system controls; and status indicators 2.1.2.5 Telephone and internet access for fire department use 2.1.2.6 Emergency and standby power status indicators 2.1.2.7 Generator supervision devices and manual start and transfer features 2.1.2.8 Controls for unlocking fire exit stairway doors simultaneously 2.1.2.9 Controls required for smoke control 2.1.2.10 Important Keys to include 44

Item 3. 2.1.2.10.1 Elevator machine room 2.1.2.10.2 Elevator hoistway door access key 2.1.2.10.3 Side access door elevator car key 2.1.2.10.4 Electric room keys 2.1.2.10.5 Fire pump room keys 2.1.2.10.6 Mechanical room keys 2.1.2.10.7 Any master key 2.1.2.11 As built drawings. Specific types and format of drawings to be determined by the Office of the State Fire Marshal at time of plan review. 2.1.3 The Office of the State Fire Marshal may reduce the requirements of §1.1.2 of this Chapter if the Office of the State Fire Marshal determines that a specific item is not necessary for a specific building. 2.1.4 It is not the intent of this section to require a room solely for the purpose of a fire command center. The fire command center can be constructed as part of a lobby, security office, or other accessible gathering area. However, this area must meet the minimum criteria specified in this section for equipment, location, and personnel use. 2.2 Fire Alarm and Detection 2.2.1 Every Mid Rise building shall be provided with a fire alarm and detection system in accordance with the Life Safety Code, (NFPA 101) and other provisions of the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations. 2.2.2 Every Mid Rise building shall be provided with a standard manual fire alarm system with audio and visual devices in accordance with the National Fire Alarm Code (NFPA 72). 2.3 Smoke Management 2.3.1 Every Mid Rise building shall have fire exit stair tower pressurization in accordance with NFPA 92 and include Areas of Refuge if located in an enclosed area other than an exit stair tower. 2.3.2 Except for the lobby at main entrance level, all elevators lobbies shall be separated from the remainder of the floor by a smoke barrier. The elevator lobby is permitted to serve additional elevators. 2.3.3 The elevator lobbies shall be permitted to be open to the remainder of the floor in buildings equipped with a mechanical smoke control system that will restrict smoke and hot gases from entering the elevator shaft on the fire floor. 2.4 Standby Power, Light, and Emergency Systems 2.4.1 Every Mid Rise building shall be provided with an emergency power supply. 2.4.2 Standby power, light and emergency systems shall comply with the provisions of NFPA 110, or NFPA 111 as adopted and modified by these Regulations. 2.4.3 The fuel supply located on premises shall be sufficient for not less than two hours of the full demand operation of the system. 2.4.4 The standby system shall have a rated capability needed to simultaneously supply all equipment required to be operational during an emergency. 2.4.5 All required lighting, smoke management pressurization, electrically powered fire pumps and at least one elevator shall be connected to the standby power source. Elevators shall be provided with a selective load switch to allow transfer of power to each elevator. This will permit each elevator to be returned to the lobby and placed out of service except for fire department service. 45

Item 3. 2.4.6 Emergency Systems. Exit signs, exit illumination, and elevator car lighting shall be considered emergency systems, shall be connected to the standby source and shall operate within ten seconds of failure of the normal power supply. 2.4.7 Areas of Refuge. Areas of Refuge shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of this Regulation, Chapter 3. 13 DE Reg. 629 (11/01/09) 19 DE Reg. 843 (03/01/16) 46

Item 3. CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O T =============================================================== APPLICATION: College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue / Grove Street FILE#: S-23-06 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Johnson 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. The developer should schedule a pre-submittal meeting to discuss the development with DelDOT Subdivisions. The intersection of College Road and Mishoe Street should be evaluated as the site entrance. 47

KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT Item 3. 1679 SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY • DOVER, DELAWARE 19901• (302) 608-5370 • WWW.KENTCD.ORG CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY MARCH 2023 APPLICATION: College Road Apartments at Railroad Ave/Grove Street FILE #: S-23-06 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. A Stormwater Assessment Study (SAS) and pre-application meeting are required. 2. As the disturbance for this site will exceed 5,000 square feet, a detailed sediment and stormwater management plan must be reviewed and approved by 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. 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. A soils investigation in the proposed Stormwater facility areas is required to determine impacts of the seasonal high groundwater level and soils for any Best Management Practice (BMP) design. 2. 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. 3. It is recommended that the stormwater management areas be incorporated into the overall landscape plan to enhance water quality and to make the stormwater facility an attractive community amenity. 4. A letter of no objection to recordation will be provided once the detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan has been approved. 48

Item 3. De l awa re S ta te Univ ersity ge lle Co Old a M is h M ilm ol ay is W ra m ho ti a Ve Area on d e R Ja 2 1 R so n Area re C a o A St nw 3 re e l et l ol le C ge nw Pa ge Co le ol el l rk C Scar bo r gh ou ins tm es W ter Location Map Exhibit S-23-06 College Road Apartments at W o o d c r es t z pa Railroad Avenue/ Grove Street To M Date Prepared: 03/07/2023 Ü cK e e e in m ar Source: Esri, Maxar,0GeoEye, 112.5 Earthstar 225 450 Geographics, 675 CNES/Airbus Feet 900 DS, ua 49 Aq USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

Item 3. City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR RECREATION PLAN REVIEW Review of Active Recreation Area Plan PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF March 14, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of March 20, 2023 Plan Title: College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street, S-23-06 Plan Type: Active Recreation Area Plan Associated with Site Development Plan, S-23-06 Associated Plan: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements, S-22-04 Location: North of College Road and East of the Lands of Delaware Railroad Address: Unaddressed off Railroad Avenue Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.00-02-53.00-000 ED-05-067.00-02-55.00-000 ED-05-067.00-02-54.00-000 ED-05-067.00-02-56.00-000 Applicant: Patel College Properties, LLC and Patel Excess College Road, LLC Site Area: 31.08 acres +/- (30.50 acres +/- net) Zoning: RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments) Current Use: Vacant Land (Open Space and Woodland) Proposed Use: Mid-Rise Apartments Dwelling Units: 385 units Recreation Area: Required – 1.61 acres +/- Provided – 1.67 acres +/- (72,771 SF) P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 50

Item 3. S-23-06: College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue: Active Recreation Area Plan Report to Parks, Recreation & Community Development Committee - March 14, 2023 Page 2 of 6 I. PROJECT SUMMARY: This application is for review of a Site Development Plan for construction of two 6-story mid- rise apartment buildings with a total of 385 units consisting of studio, 1 bedroom, and 2 bedroom units known as College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street. The ground level of each apartment building is parking and the other site improvements include six 7-car garage buildings, parking lots, landscaping, and recreation areas. The Project also includes street construction/improvements to Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. A Lot Consolidation Plan will combine the four parcels located east of Railroad Avenue for a total of 31.08 acres of land. These properties are zoned RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments). The subject area is located north of, but not adjacent to College Road, and east of the Railroad corridor in the vicinity of Raymond Street, Railroad Avenue, and Grove Street. Property Owners: Patel College Properties, LLC and Patel Excess College Road, LLC. Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.00- 02-53.00-000, ED-05-067.00-02-54.00-000, ED-05-067.00-02-55.00-000, and ED-05-067.00- 02-56.00-000. Council District 4. Proposed Residential Development Each Apartment Building consists of six floors with the first floor as parking and the floors 2-6 as residential. The apartment buildings depict the first floor (ground level) as parking and several entrance points to the building including a main lobby with elevator (found at building interior corner location) and other elevator and stair towers. The residential floors of each Building show a mix of studio, 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units and also a Yoga/Game Room per floor. Each apartment includes an inset balcony space. Site Considerations The subject site includes woodland areas, areas of wetlands, and Special Flood Hazard Areas (floodplain). The Zoning Ordinance contains provisions that regulate, and place limitations related to these features. A maximum of 50% of the woodland on a property may be cleared for development. This site has 23.14 acres of woodland and will preserve 19.65 acres of woodland (84.9%). Wetland areas over 0.25 acres in size require a buffer; a 50-foot riparian buffer will be established adjacent to the wetland areas. The Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §11.21 requires that flood hazard areas (1% Annual Chance Flood/100-year floodplain) remain as open natural areas with no impervious surfaces. The proposed development activity is not located within wetlands or floodplain areas. It is also noted that the RG-5 zone requires that 25% of the lot area (property) be an open area which is not parking areas. For the subject property, at total of 923,907 SF (69.5%) is open space (not buildings, parking, or other impervious surfaces). II. ACTIVE RECREATION AREA PLAN SUMMARY: The Site Development Plan set as submitted by the applicant for the College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue consists of multiple plan sheets including an Active Recreation Area Plan. This information is provided to show how the Plan is achieving the aims set out in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 10: Open space, recreation, and other public facilities. The Active Recreation Area is required at a rate of 275 SF per unit or a half-acre (21,780 SF), whichever is greater. With this project of 385 units, the Active Recreation Area requirement calculates to 105,875 SF (2.43 acres) which is greater than the half-acre (21,780 SF). Additionally, 51

Item 3. S-23-06: College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue: Active Recreation Area Plan Report to Parks, Recreation & Community Development Committee - March 14, 2023 Page 3 of 6 the Zoning Ordinance limits the recreation area requirement to 10% of the development area. The development area was calculated from the overall lot size of 30.50 acres minus the wetlands area of 14.32 acres; this results in a development area of 16.18 acres for the property. Thus, the maximum Active Recreation Area required is 1.618 acres. The Active Recreation Areas proposed are shown within the Plan set and specifically on the Active Recreation Plan (Sheet 10 of 10; as revised 3/2/2023). See Summary Table below of Active Recreation Areas. Active Recreation Area (Article 5 §10.1) Required Provided on Plan 275 S.F. per dwelling unit or ½ • Multi-Sport Court (Basketball, Tennis, Pickleball) acre (21,780 SF) whichever is • Sand Volleyball Court greater to be provided on site. • Picnic Pavilion with picnic tables • Paved Walking Trail (1,640 linear feet) 385 DU = 105,875 SF (2.43 acres) • Woodland Walking Trail (1,807 linear feet) • Outdoor Fitness Stations Maximum required: 10% of gross • Covered Bike Racks development area (16.18 acres +/) • Interior to Buildings: Maximum Required = 1.618 SF o Yoga/Game Room (~520 SF Each, one per floor) Provided: 72,771 SF (1.67 acres) Article 5 Accessible Each floor within the Apartment Building has a Yoga/Game §10.151 Room space. The recreation amenities and trail areas are located to the east of the buildings and are accessed via paved sidewalks and trail systems. 10.152 Pedestrian oriented In addition to the sidewalk system, there is a paved trail on the east side of the parking lot area and then a wooded walking trail. 10.153 Age Oriented The types of recreation areas outlined in the plans show a variety of options that could be utilized by all age groups. 10.154 Parking The parking is provided for the buildings and in the vicinity of the multi-sport court and picnic pavilion. 10.155 Walking, jogging There are 2 covered bike racks on the plan near the apartment and biking trails buildings. The requirement is 1 bike space for every 20 car spaces (Article 6, Section 3 of the Zoning Ordinance): thus requiring 34 bicycle spaces. A total of 36 spaces are shown. 10.156 Setbacks The recreation areas on these site plans appear to follow the setback requirements from property lines. 10.157 Landscaping A total of 19.65 acres of woodland will retain on the property. The site also requires 158 new tree plantings, and the Plan proposes 268 trees and a number of shrub plantings over the site adjacent to parking lot, along property lines as screening, and adjacent to the trail system. 52

Item 3. S-23-06: College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue: Active Recreation Area Plan Report to Parks, Recreation & Community Development Committee - March 14, 2023 Page 4 of 6 10.158 Area Exterior Areas: Total 67,771 SF • Multi-Sport Court (Basketball, Tennis, Pickleball) • Sand Volleyball Court • Picnic Pavilion with picnic tables • Outdoor Fitness Stations Total Area of 47,083 SF • Paved Walking Trail – Total Area of 9,845 SF • Woodland Walking Trail – Total Area of 10,843 SF Interior Areas in Buildings: Total Area of 5,000 SF Yoga/Game Room per floor 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. The Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee will review the Recreation Area Plan at their meeting on March 14, 2023. The Planning Commission Public Hearing and Review of the Site Development Plan S-23-06 and the Recreation Area Plan is scheduled for March 20, 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, 53

Item 3. S-23-06: College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue: Active Recreation Area Plan Report to Parks, Recreation & Community Development Committee - March 14, 2023 Page 5 of 6 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The following are comments and recommendations from staff of the Planning Office following review of the Active Recreation Area Plan. 1) Active Recreation Area: As a residential development, there is a requirement for Active Recreation area(s) and the project has proposed areas to satisfy the required size of 1.618 SF. Staff Recommends the following regarding these Recreation Areas: a. Multi-Sport Courts: The Multi-Sport Court appears to show features indicating for paved surface with markings and select equipment. Clarify the materials used for court areas. i. Add connecting path to this area from the Walking Trail to allow for wheelchair and stroller access. b. Sand Volleyball Court: Placement is nearby to Multi-Sport Court and may be able to share seating options. c. Picnic Pavilion: The design includes a sidewalk connection to the trail and ADA compliant picnic tables. i. Clarify if other equipment like grills will be provided. d. Walking Trails: There are two trail systems: a Paved Trail adjacent to the parking lot area and a Woodland Walking Trail. i. Clarify surface material, width, and edge treatment of the trails. e. Outdoor Fitness Stations: Plans submitted show that there are proposed features identified as fitness areas placed within a wooded area. i. Clarify surface treatments. 2) Bicycle Parking: Bicycle parking is located at each of the Apartment Buildings. If any Bike Parking facilities are proposed internal to the buildings, then the Plans should note as such. a) Staff recommends adding bike racks near the recreation amenities at the end of the parking lot cul-de-sac. 3) Identify locations of any benches for seating at recreation amenities and along trails. 4) Adequate Lighting for the Site: The Plan shows site lighting as pole fixtures within and adjacent to parking lots and apartment building. Clarify if there is any trail level lighting for the Woodland Walking Trail. 5) Landscape Plan: a) Label the tree species on the plan drawings; the use of graphic depictions for each tree 54

Item 3. S-23-06: College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue: Active Recreation Area Plan Report to Parks, Recreation & Community Development Committee - March 14, 2023 Page 6 of 6 specific is difficult to read/review. Also label the shrub plantings for clarity. a) The Landscape Plan must include certification note and signature/seal of authorized design professional (Landscape architect, architect, or Delaware Certified Nursery Professional). b) Tree placements providing shade to recreation amenity areas is encouraged. c) There a several conflicts of tree placement with other site improvements i.e., garage building, light poles, parking lot, plantings within existing woodland areas, etc. 2) 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. 6) The subject property is adjacent to State parkland that is part of the Fork Branch Nature Preserve. Recommendations were made as part of the PLUS (Preliminary Land Use Services) Review process regarding this proximity. a) Add fencing and other recommended protection measures along the north property line adjacent to the State park area. Implement Nature Preserve signage as recommended by DNREC. 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: • Location Map Exhibit • Active Recreation Area Plan (Sheet 10) S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue • Select Other Sheets from Site Plan Set: Overall Site Plan (Sheet 3) Landscape Plan (Sheets 7 and 8) 55

Item 3. De l awa re S ta te Univ ersity ge lle Co Old a M is h M ilm ol is W ay m ho ti a Vera Area ond e R Ja 1 R so n 2 Area re C a o A St nw 3 re e l et l le ge ol nw ge C Co Pa le rk ol el l C Scar bo r ough ins tm Wes ter Location Map Exhibit S-23-06 College Road Apartments at W o o d c r es t Railroad Avenue/ Grove Street pa z To Date Prepared: 03/07/2023 M e Ü cK e e m ar in Source: Esri, Maxar,0GeoEye, 112.5 Earthstar 225 450 Geographics, 675 CNES/Airbus Feet 900 DS, ua USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 56 Aq

Item 3. PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. PROPERTY SUMMARY Christiana Executive Campus TAX PARCEL NUMBERS: 2-05-06700-02-5600-00001 - 26.13 Acres 2-05-06700-02-5500-00001 - 1.42 Acres 2-05-06700-02-5400-00001 - 1.72 Acres 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 2-05-06700-02-5300-00001 - 1.81 Acres OWNERS: PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, LLC Newark, DE 19713-4310 LOT SIZE GROSS (CONSOLIDATED): 31.08 ACRES (1,353,974 SQ. FT.) LOT SIZE NET (CONSOLIDATED): 30.50 ACRES (1,328,578 SQ. FT.) ZONING: RG-5 T 302.655.4451 F 302.654.2895 PROPOSED USE: MID-RISE APARTMENTS TH R NO ACTIVE RECREATION AREA CALCULATION: ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR AREA REQUIREMENTS PER CITY OF DOVER CODE, ARTICLE V, SECTION 10.16: · 275 SQ. FT. PER DWELLING UNIT OR 21 ACRE MIN. (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) 385 DWELLING UNITS * 275 SQ. FT. = 105,875 SQ. FT. (2.43 ACRES) · IN NO CASE SHALL THE COMMISSION REQUIRE MORE THAN 10% OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BE PROPOSED AS ACTIVE RECREATION. DEVELOPMENT AREA = NET LOT AREA (30.50 ACRES) MINUS WETLAND AREAS (14.32 ACRES) = 16.18 ACRES MULTI-SPORT COURT (BASKETBALL, TENNIS, PICKLEBALL) AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY 10% OF DEVELOPABLE PORTION OF SITE = 1.61 ACRES (MIN. REQUIRED ACTIVE RECREATION AREA) PROPOSED ACTIVE RECREATION AREA: · INTERIOR BUILDING = 5,000 SF - RECREATION / FITNESS ROOMS (500 SF / FLOOR OR 2,500 SF PER BLDG.) · EXTERIOR = 67,771 SF ···· 1,640 ± LF PAVED TRAIL ALONG PARKING (9,845 SF) ···· 1,807 ± PAVED WOODED WALKING TRAIL (10,843 SF) DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK ···· SPORTS COURTS, PICNIC AREAS, FITNESS ACTIVITY STATIONS (47,083 SF) · TOTAL ACTIVE RECREATION AREA = 72,771 SQ. FT. (1.67 ACRES) PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS ACTIVE RECREATION PLAN RAILROAD AVENUE & GROVE STREET 67,771 SF (1.55 ACRES) OUTDOOR FITNESS STATIONS 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE ACTIVE RECREATION AREA EX. 35. 00 NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE MULTI-SPORT COURT LLC (TENNIS, PICKLEBALL, BASKETBALL, ETC.) VOLLEYBALL COURT 6 FOOT WIDE PAVED TRAIL FITNESS STATIONS TYP. - PICNIC PAVILION LOCATED TO AVOID IMPACT TO EX. TREES BY PROJECT STATUS: ---- S elev. elev. equip. TRACK U:\Accounts\PLAWX\PLAWX19001 - DSU Student Housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\CS1002.dwg PLOTTED:3/2/2023 4:29 PM , BY:Gregory Rishel PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb LROAD COVERED PICNIC REVISIONS ) PAVILION WITH R (UNOPAILROAD PICNIC TABLES OF RAI RLINE EN RO ADWA Grove S Y (35' Widtreet CENTE NO. e) 35.00 SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT Ex. R/W DATE 35.00 ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE Ex. R/w PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED 35.00 TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS Raymond Street (35' Wide) SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. PROJECT PLAWX19001 DATE 2023-01-23 DRAWING SCALE 1"= 40' DRAWN BY ALS APPROVED BY GBR OVERALL SITE RECREATION PLAN SCALE: 1" = 80' 0 80' 160' COVERED BICYCLE RACK ADA COMPLIANT PICNIC TABLE CS1002 SHEET 10 OF 10 57

Item 3. SITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES: PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. 1. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE, FEDERAL AND LOCAL CODES. ALL NECESSARY LICENSES AND PERMITS SHALL BE Christiana Executive Campus OBTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS EXPENSE UNLESS PREVIOUSLY OBTAINED BY OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ERECT AND MAINTAIN, AS REQUIRED BY THE CONDITIONS AND PROGRESS OF THE WORK, ALL NECESSARY SAFEGUARDS FOR SAFETY AND PROTECTION. 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY INFORM THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR ERRORS THEY DISCOVER IN THE PLAN. 3. DEVIATION FROM THESE PLANS AND NOTES WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE OR THE ENGINEER MAY BE CAUSE FOR THE WORK TO BE REJECTED. Newark, DE 19713-4310 4. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE NEW AND SHALL BE ASBESTOS AND VERMICULITE FREE. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE STORED SO AS TO ASSURE H THE PRESERVATION OF THEIR QUALITY AND FITNESS FOR THE INTENDED WORK. RT NO T 302.655.4451 F 302.654.2895 5. DRAWINGS DO NOT INCLUDE NECESSARY COMPONENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION SAFETY. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED. IT MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED AND ALL RULES AND REGULATIONS THERETO APPURTENANT. 6. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR TO FIELD LOCATE AND RECORD AND DAMAGE TO EXISTING PAVING, SIDEWALK, CURB OR STRUCTURES NOT TO BE REMOVED OR REPLACED, ENGINEER TO VERIFY LOCATION AND EXTENT OF DAMAGE. ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ONE COMPLETE SET OF CONTRACT DRAWINGS ON WHICH HE SHALL NOTE, IN RED, THE ALIGNMENTS AND INVERTS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES INSTALLED OR ENCOUNTERED DURING THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK. ALL DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLAN LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF BOTH THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE AS-BUILT DRAWINGS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN THE FIELD. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OPEN ONLY THAT SECTION OF TRENCH OR ACCESS PITS WHICH CAN BE BACKFILLED AND STABILIZED AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY. STEEL PLATES SHALL BE USED ON ANY TRENCH OR ACCESS PITS WHICH MUST REMAIN OPEN OVERNIGHT. 25.00' SY THIS REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO AREAS COMPLETELY CLOSED AND SECURE FROM VEHICULAR OR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. 9. DAMAGE TO EXISTING PAVING, SIDEWALK, CURB OR STRUCTURES NOT TO BE REPLACED OR REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO ENGINEER, CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL DAMAGED WORK WITHOUT CHARGE TO THE OWNER. 10. MISS UTILITY SHALL BE NOTIFIED THREE (3) DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. 59.71' 11. ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE, BUT NOT IN PAVEMENT, SHALL BE TOP-SOILED (6" MINIMUM), SEEDED AND MULCHED. IF THE ENGINEER DETERMINES THAT A SATISFACTORY STAND OF GRASS DOES NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION, ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RE-ESTABLISHING A SATISFACTORY STAND OF GRASS SHALL BE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. SE 12. ALL SIGNING FOR MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY, AND SHALL FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SHOWN IN TB DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK AC LATEST EDITION OF "DELAWARE TRAFFIC CONTROLS FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, UTILITY, AND K EMERGENCY OPERATIONS." 7 CA R AN GARA D 1,470 EG 13. DESIGN, FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF ALL PERMANENT SIGNING SHALL BE AS OUTLINED IN THE LATEST VERSION OF THE DE ET LANE L MUTCD. SQ. F 'W T 35' E .00 X. R. O .W. 50 14. DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND STRIPING SHALL BE AS OUTLINED IN THE LATEST VERSION OF THE DE FIRE FRESH WATER MUTCD. FOR FINAL PERMANENT PAVEMENT MARKINGS: WETLANDS AR a) EPOXY RESIN PAINT SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR LONG LINE STRIPING. EA 0.54± ACRES b) THERMO PLASTIC (EXTRUDED OR PREFORMED MATERIAL) WILL BE REQUIRED ON ASPHALT SURFACES, FOR SHORT LINE STRIPING, I.E. PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, SYMBOLS/LEGENDS. c) PERMANENT PAVEMENT MARKING TAPE (PER DELDOT APPROVED MATERIALS LIST) WILL BE REQUIRED ON CONCRETE SURFACES, FOR SHORT LINE STRIPING, I.E. SYMBOLS/LEGENDS. LANE FIRE 15. BREAKAWAY POSTS SHALL BE USED WHEN INSTALLING ALL SIGNS. REFERENCE DELDOT STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAIL T-15. LANE 7 CA R FIRE 1,470 GARAGE 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE FOLLOWING, TWO (2) WEEKS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION: 175 U COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS NIT - BUILDIN 16.1. THE OWNER, KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT, & SITE ENGINEER SQ. F 1 FLR 6 FLR. A G #1 PAR T PARK ING - TMENT 17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN PUBLIC ROADS AND STREETS IN A BROOM SWEPT CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. EX. 3 80 SP BL ACES DG. LANE 5.00 RAILROAD AVENUE & GROVE STREET OVERALL SITE PLAN 18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND IMMEDIATELY REPLACE, RELOCATE, RESET OR RECONSTRUCT ALL OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE WORK FIRE AREA, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MAILBOXES, SIGNS, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, PLANTERS, CULVERTS, DRIVEWAYS, PARKING LANE LANE 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE FIRE AREAS, CURBS, GUTTERS, FENCES, OR OTHER NATURAL OR MAN-MADE OBSTRUCTIONS. TRAFFIC CONTROL REGULATORY, WARNING AND FRESH WATER INFORMATION SIGNS SHALL REMAIN FUNCTIONAL AND VISIBLE TO THE APPROPRIATE LANES OF TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES, WITH THEIR WETLANDS AR RELOCATION KEPT TO A MINIMUM DISTANCE. FIRE EA 12.09± ACRES 7 CA RG 19. TRANSITIONS FROM PROPOSED SIDEWALK AND CURB TO EXISTING SHALL BE MADE AT THE NEAREST EXISTING JOINT. C 1,470 ARAGE SQ. F PURPOSE NOTE ENTE FIRE T LANE RLIN NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 25.00 THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS TO SHOW THE CONSOLIDATION OF 4 EXISTING TAX PARCELS INTO ONE PARCEL AND TO PROPOSE TWO MID-RISE, CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE ' FY EO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDINGS WITH PARKING, ACTIVE RECREATIONAL AREAS, AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES. Y) LLC (UNORAILRO 21 F RA LANE B 7 CA AD PROPERTY SUMMARY 0 50. PEN IT - 6 UILDING U 00' R WE 1,470 GARAGE N ILRO TLA ROA ND TAX PARCEL NUMBERS 2-05-06700-02-5600-00001 - 26.13 Acres AD FIRE SET DWA BAC SQ. F 2-05-06700-02-5500-00001 - 1.42 Acres FLR #2 K 2-05-06700-02-5400-00001 - 1.72 Acres 1 T F PARK . APARTM TRAC 2-05-06700-02-5300-00001 - 1.81 Acres L R LANE FRESH WATER WETLANDS AR OWNER PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC KS EA 1.53± ACRES ING EN PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, LLC 9 SP T BLDG. FIRE - LOT SIZE GROSS (CONSOLIDATED) 31.08 ACRES (1,353,974 SQ. FT.) 9 LOT SIZE NET (CONSOLIDATED) 30.50 ACRES (1,328,578 SQ. FT.) ACES ZONING RG-5 PROPOSED USE MID-RISE APARTMENTS 60' P LANE ROP OSE D R.O .W. FRESH WATER ZONING (RG-5) REQUIREMENTS WETLANDS AR 7 CA 0.16± ACRES EA RG FIRE ALLOWED / REQUIRED PROPOSED BY 1,470 ARAGE PROJECT STATUS: ---- H MINIMUM LOT AREA (MAX DENSITY) 900 SF / DU (1,476 DU) 385 DU (3,451 SF/DU) NGT SQ. F T LE T MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 FEET 172 ± FEET MINIMUM LOT DEPTH 125 FEET 1,015 ± FEET TREE 7 CA 77.60' MINIMUM FRONT YARD 25 FEET 25 FEET ND S R 1,470 GARAGE MINIMUM SIDE YARD 25 FEET 25 FEET PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb MINIMUM REAR YARD 25 FEET >25 FEET (VARIES) AD E SQ. F25.00 ' FY T MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 70 FEET OR 6 STORIES 6 STORIES < 70 FEET 0' DE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE 25% LOT AREA (7.73 AC.) >= 21.21 ACRES (69.5%) 400.0 REVISIONS MINIMUM ACTIVE RECREATION 10% of GROSS DEVELOPMENT Gro AREA(16.18*10%=1.61 ACRES) 72,771 SF (1.67 ACRES) v 35.0 Ex. R 0 e S treet /W REQUIRED PARKING (APARTMENTS) 2.25 PER DU(2.25X385UNITS = 867) ( 3 5 ' W PROPOSED PARKING (APARTMENTS) PLOTTED:1/23/2023 12:55 , PMBY:Andrew Shields ide) 25.00 WAIVER REQUIRED* 1.5 PER STUDIO (233) 1.5 PER 1 BEDROOM(263) 179- GARAGE (INT.) 42 - GARAGE (EXT.) ' 2 PER 2 BEDROOM(110) 462 - SURFACE 35.00 1 PER 5 UNITS(77) 683 MIN. SPACES REQUIRED 683 PROPOSED ADA SPACES 2% OF TOTAL PROPOSED(15) 16 PROPOSED NO. REQUIRED BIKE PARKING 1 PER 20 PARKING SPACE Raymond Street (3 683 SPACES/20= 34 REQUIRED 36 PROPOSED BIKE SPACES F G 5' Wide) WETLAND PAVING SETBACK 100 FEET OR 50 FEET DATE IP IN ON 50 FEET W/ PROPOSED EV AN T RIPARIAN BUFFER PLANTINGS LE ES W OP 35.00 ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES T PARKING SETBACKS NOT ALLOWED IN FRONT YARD COMPLIES (25' MIN.) ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE Ex. R/w MIN. 3' OTHER YARDS 5 FEET PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED u:\Accounts\PLAWX\plawx19001 - dsu student housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\CS1001.1.dwg TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION DUMPSTERS REQUIRED 15 15 OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL (1 PER FIRST 48 DU, 1 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL 24 DU) EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND DWELLING UNIT TYPE BREAKDOWN EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. PROPOSED CITY OF DOVER GENERAL NOTES: PROJECT PLAWX19001 5. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS ARE PROPOSED FOR THIS STRUCTURE AND SHALL BE MONITORED BY AN 2 BEDROOM APARTMENT 55 UNITS (15% OF TOTAL) FIRE MARSHAL NOTES: APPROVED FIRE ALARM SYSTEM. 1. OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVE RECREATION AREA SHALL BE RETAINED BY THE 1 BEDROOM APARTMENT 175 UNITS DATE 2023-01-23 6. FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION SHALL BE WITHIN 50 FEET OF MAIN ENTRANCE. ACCESS TO THE FIRE DEPT. STUDIO APARTMENT 155 UNITS DEVELOPER OR A DESIGNATED HOMEOWNER'S / MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION. THE CONNECTION SHALL BE CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED AS DEFINED BY THE STATE FIRE REGULATIONS. FIRE TOTAL 385 UNITS DRAWING SCALE 1"= 80' 1. ALL FIRE LANES, FIRE HYDRANTS, AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MARKED IN ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE, INSURANCE AND TAXES ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE FIRE PREVENTION REGULATIONS. DEPT. CONNECTION SHALL BE WITHIN 300 FEET OF A FIRE HYDRANT, MEASURED AS HOSE WOULD OFF THE ON THE RECREATION AREA. FIRE EQUIPMENT. DRAWN BY ALS 2. THE FOLLOWING WATER FOR FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS APPLY: MAIN SIZES: 6" MINIMUM. 7. ADDRESS NUMBERS OF AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN HEIGHT MUST BE PLACED ON THE STREET SIDE OF THE 2. SANITATION SERVICES SHALL BE PROVIDED BY A PRIVATE SANITATION HAULER. WAIVERS OR VARIANCES REQUIRED MINIMUM CAPACITY: 1,000 GPM @ 20 PSI RESIDUAL FOR 1 HOUR DURATION. HYDRANT SPACING: 800' ON BUILDING AND VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. APPROVED BY GBR CENTER (DSFPR REGULATION 702, CHAPTER 6, SECTION 3). PROPOSED LAND USE SUMMARY A WAIVER IS REQUESTED FROM ARTICLE VI, SECTION 3, WHICH REQUIRES 2.25 PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT TO PERMIT 1.78 SPACES 0 80' 160' PER DWELLING UNIT USING RATIOS AS FOLLOWS: 3. 4. LOCK BOX WILL BE REQUIRED. CONTACT LOCAL FIRE CHIEF FOR ORDERING INFORMATION AND LOCATION OF BOX ON THE BUILDING. THE PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL BE SIX STORY (70 FT MAX.) BUILDINGS OTHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE OPEN SPACE 79,493 SF (6.0%) INCLUDES GARAGES 325,178 SF (24.5%) 404,671 SF (30.5%) 923,907 SF (69.5%) 1.5 SPACES PER STUDIO 1.5 SPACES PER 1-BEDROOM APARTMENT 2.0 SPACES PER 2-BEDROOM APARTMENT CS1001.1 1.0 SPACE PER 5 UNITS FOR VISITOR OVERFLOW PARKING TOTAL 1,328,578 SF SHEET 3 OF 10 58

WLF1-30 Item 3. PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. MATCHLINE SEE SHEET CS2002 SEE SHEET CS2001 Christiana Executive Campus A 1 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 P4W 0 -4 :2 F2 Newark, DE 19713-4310 MH L WL W F2-4 2 0 1 -4 T 302.655.4451 F 302.654.2895 F1- 2 3 LF WL W H RT WLF NO P4WA MH: 20 2-43 ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR WLF2 -64 P5 -44 MH W F2 :2 0 WL AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY -6 3 F2 2 WL 1 -3 P4 W LF LF MH WA 2- W :2 45 0 WLF2-46 DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK 2 WLF 2-6 WLF2-47 3 1-3 WLF3-65 LF WLF3-66 W WLF3- 4 67 1 PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, 1-3 WLF2-6 F WL WLF3-78 P4 MH WA -3 5 6 8 :2 0 WLF 1 3- W LF W LF -54 2-48 WLF2-60 WLF2 6 WL F1-3 3-69 F2 COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS WL LF W -53 W WLF W 77 2- 3- LF 2-55 LF 59 49 WL F2- RAILROAD AVENUE & GROVE STREET WLF WLF3-76 F2-58 WL LANDSCAPE PLAN WLF2-57 2-52 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE 70 P4W WLF2-56 3- A P4 MH 1 LF : 20 M WA WLF2-5 H: W 20 0 75 F 2-5 WL WL F3- WLF3-71 P W 4 P4W P W 4 P4W A A A A MH MH MH MH : 20 : 20 : 20 : 20 NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE LLC F3- 74 WL WA P4 20 W : 3- MH LF P4W 72 P5W MH A ' Wide) : 20 -73 MH : 20 LF3 W A P4W 0 :2 MH eet (35 ond Str BUILDING #2 P4WA 210 UNIT - 6 FLR. APARTMENT BLDG. 0 MH: 2 1 FLR PARKING - 99 SPACES P4WA P4W Raym P4W A MH: 20 A MH BUILDING #1 MH : 20 : 20 BY PROJECT STATUS: ---- P4WA 175 UNIT - 6 FLR. APARTMENT BLDG. P4W P4W MH: 20 A A MH MH : 20 : 20 P5W P5W P5W P5W P5W MH MH MH MH : 20 : 20 : 20 : 20 MH : 20 Grove Street (35' Wide) 1 FLR PARKING - 80 SPACES P4W PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb A MH : 20 P4WA REVISIONS P4W MH: 20 A MH : 20 P4WA P5W P5W P5W MH: 20 MH MH MH : 20 : 20 : 20 u:\Accounts\PLAWX\plawx19001 - dsu student housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\CS2001.dwgPLOTTED:1/23/2023 12:56 , PMBY:Andrew Shields P4W NO. A MH P5W P5W : 20 P5W P5W MH MH P4WA : 20 : 20 MH MH P4W : 20 : 20 MH: 20 P4W A A DATE MH MH : 20 : 20 P4WA P5W P5W MH: 20 P4W A MH MH MH : 20 : 20 : 20 ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE WA 1,470 SQ. FT SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS 1,470 SQ. FT P4 : 20 SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL MH EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI P4WA ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE MH: 20 EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT P4W P4W P4W P4W A A A A MH MH MH MH : 20 : 20 : 20 : 20 PROJECT PLAWX19001 P4W P4W A A MH MH DATE 2023-01-23 : 20 : 20 DRAWING SCALE 1"= 40' RAILROAD DRAWN BY ALS (UNOPEN ROADWAY) APPROVED BY GBR 0 40' 80' CS2001 SHEET 7 OF 10 59

Item 3. PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. PLANT SCHEDULE Christiana Executive Campus GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES: CANOPY TREE CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT TREE DENSITY WORKSHEET 1. ALL NEW TREES SHALL HAVE A ONE YEAR REPLACEMENT GUARANTEE. 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 2. ONLY PRUNE OR REMOVE EXISTING TREES WHERE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS. AB 15 ACER RUBRUM 'BOWHALL' BOWHALL RED MAPLE 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER TOTAL LOT AREA: 30.50 AC. 3. NO PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN TEN FEET (10') TO UTILITIES. BN 16 BETULA NIGRA RIVER BIRCH 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER Newark, DE 19713-4310 TOTAL AREA OF WOODLANDS ON SITE: 23.14 AC. GB 14 GINKGO BILOBA 'AUTUMN GOLD' TM AUTUMN GOLD MAIDENHAIR TREE 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER TOTAL AREA OF WOODLANDS TO BE T 302.655.4451 F 302.654.2895 19.65 AC. (84.9%) PRESERVED (MUST BE >= 50%): GI 22 GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS THORNLESS HONEY LOCUST 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER NON-WOODLAND AREA (SITE AREA MINUS AREA OF NS 20 NYSSA SYLVATICA 'DAVID ODOM' TM AFTERBURNER TUPELO 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER PRESERVED WOODLAND): 10.85 AC. (472,626 SF) ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR QB 12 QUERCUS BICOLOR SWAMP WHITE OAK 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER NEW TREE PLANTINGS REQUIRED (1 TREE PER 3,000 158 SQUARE FEET OF NON-WOODLAND AREA ON SITE): TD 15 TAXODIUM DISTICHUM BALD CYPRESS 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER TREE PLANTINGS PROPOSED: 268 TG 30 TILIA CORDATA 'GREENSPIRE' GREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF LINDEN 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER EVERGREEN TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY IO 33 ILEX OPACA AMERICAN HOLLY 6` HT. B&B FULL FORM TO GROUND PG 15 PICEA GLAUCA WHITE SPRUCE 6` HT. B&B FULL FORM TO GROUND TP 25 THUJA PLICATA WESTERN RED CEDAR 6` HT. B&B FULL FORM TO GROUND DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK FLOWERING TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT AM 21 AMELANCHIER CANADENSIS CANADIAN SERVICEBERRY MULTI-TRUNK6` HT. B&B H RT NO CC 12 CERCIS CANADENSIS EASTERN REDBUD MULTI-TRUNK 6` HT. B&B PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, MV 18 MAGNOLIA VIRGINIANA SWEETBAY MAGNOLIA 6` HT. B&B SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT HEIGHT REMARKS AA 37 ARONIA ARBUTIFOLIA 'BRILLIANTISSIMA'BRILLIANT RED CHOKEBERRY #5 CONT. 24" - 30" MIN. 5 STEMS CA 42 CLETHRA ALNIFOLIA SUMMERSWEET #5 CONT. 24" - 30" MIN. 5 STEMS COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS IW 46 ILEX VERTICILLATA WINTERBERRY #5 CONT. 24" - 30" MIN. 5 STEMS RAILROAD AVENUE & GROVE STREET RG 123 RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO-LOW' GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC #3 CONT. 18" - 24" MIN. 5 STEMS LANDSCAPE PLAN 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE VD 48 VIBURNUM DENTATUM 'ARROWWOOD' ARROWWOOD VIBURNUM #5 CONT. 24" - 30" MIN. 5 STEMS WLF1-14 1-1 5 WLF 1-13 NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE WLF LLC WLF 1-12 - 16 1 F1 1- L W LF LF W W 1- F1- 11 2 WL 3 1- LF W WL -1 F1 0 F1- 4 WLF1- 17 WL BY PROJECT STATUS: ---- LF 1-18 W 1- 9 WL WLF WLF -5 9 4-80 F1 -7 -82 WLF4 4 WLF4 WLF4 PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb LF -81 W WLF1 -83 REVISIONS -25 F1 -96 WLF4-84 LF1 -26 WL F4 W WLF1-21 W -19 LF WL WLF4-89 LF 1 4-9 -6 LF WL 5 WLF1-20 7 W -2 W 4- 8 F1- 7 1 1- LF 6 LF 4-8 8 W WLF4-85 W 4-90 LF 87 u:\Accounts\PLAWX\plawx19001 - dsu student housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\CS2002.dwgPLOTTED:1/23/2023 12:56 , PMBY:Andrew Shields WLF - WLF W L F4 WLF 8 4-94 W 1-24 NO. 8 4- 1-2 WLF WLF1-22 WL 1 F DATE 4-9 93 WL W F W LF 4- ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES 1- LF ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE 23 92 PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS 1-29 SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER WLF SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. PROJECT PLAWX19001 DATE 2023-01-23 WLF1-30 DRAWING SCALE 1"= 40' MATCHLINE SEE SHEET CS2002 DRAWN BY ALS SEE SHEET CS2001 APPROVED BY GBR 0 40' 80' CS2002 SHEET 8 OF 10 60

Christiana Executive Campus Item 3. 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 Newark, DE 19713 T: 302-655-4451 F: 302-654-2895 www.pennoni.com January 23, 2023 PLAWX-19001 Ms. Mary Ellen Gray, AICP, Director City of Dover Department of Planning & Inspections 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, Delaware 19901 RE: College Road Apartments Project – Off-Street Parking Waiver Request Railroad Avenue/Grove Street – City of Dover, Kent County, Delaware Dear Ms. Gray: As you are aware, the proposed College Road Apartments Project consists of two six-story apartment buildings with a total of 385 units. According to the City of Dover Zoning Code, off-street parking in the amount of 2.25 spaces per unit is required. This would equate to 867 off-street parking spaces (385*2.25=867). Please consider that, between the two buildings, the units are broken down as follows: • 155 Studio Units • 175 1-Bedroom Units • 55 2-Bedroom Units 385 Total Apartment Units As discussed at our December 20, 2022 Pre-Application Meeting, we believe that the requirement of 2.25 parking spaces per unit for these buildings – considering the fact that 330 of 385 of the proposed apartments will be studio or 1-bedroom units – is excessive. By comparison, we researched adjacent municipal zoning codes to determine what their off-street parking requirement would be for this project. These municipalities include the following: • City of Newark • Kent County • New Castle County • City of Seaford The following table summarizes our analysis: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS Municipality Parking Requirement Required Spaces City of Newark 2 Per Unit 770 Kent County 1.5 Per Efficiency, 1.75 Per 1-Bed, 2 Per 2-Bed 650 New Castle County 1.5 Per 1-Bed, 2 Per 2-Bed + 1 Per 5 Units 683 City of Seaford 2 Per Unit 770 City of Dover 2.25 Spaces Per Unit 867 61

PLAWX-19001 January 23, 2023 Page 2 Ms. Mary Ellen Gray, AICP College Road ApartmentsItem 3. We believe that an off-street parking requirement for this project shall be based more on the type of unit (i.e., studio, 1-bedroom) rather than the total amount of units, similar to what Kent County and New Castle County incorporate in their zoning codes. Therefore, the parking rationale illustrated on our Preliminary Site Plans incorporates the following formula (similar to New Castle County): Proposed Parking Rationale: 1.5 Per Studio & 1-Bed, 2 Per 2-Bed + 1 Per 5 Units (Overflow) (1.5*330)+(2.0*55)+(385/5) 683 Spaces Based on this approach, there should be 683 off-street parking spaces for the unit mix proposed with this project. There are 683 parking spaces proposed on the Preliminary Site Plans. On behalf of the developer, please consider this letter as a formal waiver request from the off-street parking requirement of 2.25 spaces per unit (867 parking spaces). An off-street parking requirement of 1.5 Per Studio & 1-Bed, 2 Per 2-Bed Plus 1 Per 5 Units is being sought (683 parking spaces). Thank you for your continued assistance with this project. If you have any questions/comments or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at this office. Respectfully submitted, PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. Gregory B. Rishel, RLA Division Manager 62

Christiana Executive Campus 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 Item 3. Newark, DE 19713 T: 302-655-4451 F: 302-654-2895 www.pennoni.com January 25, 2023 PLAWX-19001 Mr. David L. Edgell, AICP Director, Office of State Planning Coordination State of Delaware Executive Department 122 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard South Haslet Armory – Third Floor Dover, Delaware 19901 RE: PLUS Review 2022-12-08 College Road Apartments Dear Mr. Edgell: Thank you for meeting with us on December 21, 2022 to discuss the above referenced project. We have received your review letter dated January 23, 2023 (attached as reference). On behalf of the developer, we acknowledge receipt of these comments which will be fully considered during the land development design phase of the project. The following responses shall be noted at this time: Strategies for State Policies and Spending • The proposed improvements are located within a Level 1 investment area where infrastructure is existing or readily available, and where future redevelopment projects are expected and encouraged. • The Office of State Planning Coordination has no objections to the site plan. Code Requirements/Agency Permitting Requirements Department of Transportation • DelDOT will accept an Area Wide Study (AWS) Fee in lieu of a Traffic Impact Study. • The developer will submit a Letter of No Objection to Recordation (LONOR) Application and Entrance Plan Application to DelDOT. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control • Provisions will be incorporated so that access to the Fork Branch Nature Preserve is provided through the subject property within the Railroad Avenue right-of-way. • Fencing with wind screening and signage (to be provided by the Office of Nature Preserves) may be added between the subject site and the Fork Branch Nature Preserve, where appropriate. • There is no proposed impact to wetland areas. • A 50’ wide vegetated buffer is proposed adjacent to wetland areas. • No structures or features, except for a proposed active recreation trail, are proposed within the floodplain. • A Detailed Sediment and Stormwater Plan Application will be prepared. 63

PLAWX-19001 January 25, 2023 Page 2 Item 3. Office of State Planning Coordination College Road Apartments • There is no land disturbance within the Excellent Groundwater Recharge Area. • The subject property is not located within the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for the Salem Nuclear Power Plant. • There are no known archaeological sites or known National Register listed or eligible properties on the parcel assemblage. Recommendations/Additional Information DART First State • Covered bicycle parking may be provided. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control • Natural habitats will be conserved to the maximum extent practicable. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures will be taken curing construction activities. • Removing forested areas for development will be avoided to the greatest extent possible. • The developer will consider voluntarily participating in the Natural Areas Preservation Program. • Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations may be incorporated within the parking areas. • According to FEMA’s National Risk Index, the parcel is considered relatively low for overall natural hazards risks. Delaware State Housing Authority • DSHA supports the site plan. We thank you for your continued assistance with this project. If you have any questions/comments or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at this office. Respectfully submitted, PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. Douglas D. Barry, PE Associate Vice President Attachments 64

Item 3. Srlrp orDpuw.qRn Expcurtvn DBP.tRrnnnNr Opnrco or Srarp Pl,tNNtNc CooRotNluou January 23,2023 Andrew Shields Pennoni Associates, Inc. Christiana Executive Campus 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 Newark, DE 19713 RE: PLUS review -2022-12-08; College Road Apartments Dear Mr. Shields: Thank you for meeting with State agency planners on Decembet 21, 2022 to discuss the proposed plans for the Colege Road Apartments. According to the information received and the teuised siie plan presented at the PLUS meeting, you are seeking review of a site plan for the construction of 2 six-story apartment buildings with a total of 332 dwelling units, parking, and other site improvements. Please note that changes to the plan, other than those suggested in this letter, could result in additional comments from the Stut". Additionally, these comments reflect only issues that are the responsibility of the agencies represented at the meeting. The developers will also need to comply with any Federal, State, and local regulations regarding this property. We also note that as the City of Dover is the governing authority over this land, the developers will need to comply with any and all regulations/restrictions set forth by the City. Stratesies for State Policies and Spendins The proposed improvements to the site are located in a Level 1 investmerrt atea, which is consistent with the 2020 Strategies for State Policies and Spending. A large portion of parcel2- 05-06700-02-5600-00001 is located in an Out of Play area according to the 2020 Strategies for State policies and Spending. Out of Play areas are defined as areas not available for private development. Specifically, this site contains 100 Year Floodplain, requires a wetland buffer, and is part of the Delaware Ecological Network. The site is located in the municipal boundary of the City of Dover. Investment Level 1 reflects areas that are already developed in an urban or suburban fashion, where infrastructure is existing or readily available, and where future redevelopment or infill L22 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. South - Haslet Armory ' Third Floor ' Dover, DE 19901 phone (302)739-3090 . Fax (302) 739-5661. www. stateplanning.delaware.gov 65

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page2 of 19 projects are expected and encouraged by State policy. Development in Level 1 is consistent with the 2020 Strategies for State Policies and Spending; therefore, the Office of State planning Coordination has no objections to this site plan provided that no development occurs in the Out of Play areas directly adjacent to the Level I areaand the improvements avoid environmental features on the site and meet the relevant codes and ordinances of The City of Dover. Code Requirements/Agencv Permitting Requirements Department of rransportation - contact stephen Bayer 302-760-4834 o The following access comments refer to what DeIDOT will be looking at regarding entrances during the plan review process. As there are different ways for sites to access the state-maintained road network, the comments reflect what roads and access points DeIDOT will be looking at when the applicant submits plans for review and approval. The site access on College Road (KCR 99) through Mishoe Street (Municipal Road) must be designed in accordance with DeIDOT's Development Coordination Manual, which is available at http:/hwvw.deldot.gov/Business/subdivisions/index.shtml?dc:changes. o Pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Manual, a Pre-Submittal Meeting is required before plans are submitted for review. The form needed to request the meeting and guidance on what will be covered there and how to prepare for it is located at 022 17. Previous Project Coordination meetings are not sufficient for this pu{pose. Section 1.7 of the Manual addresses fees that are assessed for the review of development proposals. DeIDOT anticipates collecting the Initial Stage Fee when the record plan is submitted for review and the Construction Stage Fee when construction plans are submitted for review. o Per Section 2.2.2.1of the Manual, Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) are warranted for developments generating more than 500 vehicle trip ends per day or 50 vehicle trip ends per hour in any hour of the day. Using the 1lth edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual, DeIDOT estimates that the subject development, consisting of 332 mid-rise multifamily housing units, would generate 1,504 vehicle trip ends per day and estimates the weekday morning and evening peak hour trip ends at 131 and I27, respectively. Therefore, a TIS would normally be required. o Section 2.2.2.2 of the Development coordination Manual provides that for developments generating less than 2,000 vehicle trip ends per day and less than 200 vehicle trip ends per hour in any hour of the day, DelDor may accept an Area Wide Study (AWS) Fee in lieu of the TIS if the local government does not require a TIS. The AWS Fee is calculated as $10 per daily trip or, in this case, $15,040. AWS Fees are used to fund traffic studies, not to build improvements. 66

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page 3 of 19 o The purpose of a TIS, per DeIDOT regulations, is to determine the offsite improvements for which the developer should be responsible to build or contribute toward. DeIDOT anticipates requiring the developer to improve College Road, within the limits of their frontage or within the limits needed for construction of any required auxiliary lanes, to meet DeIDOT's standards associated with its Functional Classification. College Road is a Minor Arterial, for which the standard includes 12-foot lanes and 8-foot shoulders. Frontage, as defined in Section 1.8 of the Manual, includes the length of roadway perpendicular to lines created by the projection of the outside parcel corners to the roadway. o Questions regarding the requirement to improve the site frontage should be directed to the Kent County Review Coordinator, Mr. Olayiwola Okesola. Mr. Okesola may be reached at Olayiwola.Okesola@.delaware.gov or (302) 760-2409. a Referring to Section 3.4.2.I of the Manual, the following items, among other things, are required on the Record Plan: o A Traffic Generation Diagram. See Figure 3.4.2-a for the required format and content. o Depiction of all existing entrances within 300 feet of the proposed entrance on College Road. o Notes identiffing the type of off-site improvements, agreements (signal, letter) contributions and when the off-site improvements are warranted. a Section 3.5.4.4 of the Manual addresses accessways, paved pathways connecting a sidewalk or path along a road frontage to an intemal sidewalk or path. DeIDOT anticipates requiring an accessway to connect the site to the sidewalk along College Road. a In accordance with Section 3.8 of the Manual, storm water facilities, excluding hlter strips and bioswales, shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from the ultimate State right- of-way along College Road. a In accordance with Section 5.2.9 of the Manual, the Auxiliary Lane Worksheet should be used to determine whether auxiliary lanes are warranted at the site entrances and how long those lanes should be. The worksheet can be found at http ://www.deldot. gov/Business/subdivisions/index. shtml. a In accordance with Section 5.4 of the Manual, sight distance triangles are required and shall be established in accordance with American Association of State Highway and 67

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page 4 of 19 Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. A spreadsheet has been developed to assist with this task. It can be found at http ://www. deldot. gov/Business/subdivisions/indexshtml. a In accordance with Section 5.14 of the Manual, all existing utilities must be shown on the plan and a utility relocation plan will be required for any utilities that need to be relocated. a The project has frontage along the Delmarva Secondary rail line. The applicant is to work with the railroad program manager for DelDoT, Rich Sinegar. Mr Sinegar can be reached at Richard.Sinegar@delaware.eov regarding any requirements associated with the rail line when the project comes in for plan review. ofN and 3480 Disclaimer Clause: Staff from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) reviewed the project submitted for PLUS review. The absence of comments regarding specific resources does not indicate that there are not additional constraints or environmental issues on site, nor does it indicate DNREC support of a project. Concerns Identified Within the Development Footprint Nature Preserves The site is located adjacent to the Fork Branch Nature Preserve, which borders the project parcel along the northwestern edge. The Articles of Dedication for the Fork Branch Nature preserve have been provided for your reference. Requirements: a As the owner of parcel 2-00-06700-01-0101-00001, DNREC has the right to retain access to this property through the established right-of-way, known as Railroad Avenue. Currently, the project plan does not include a cut out in the cul-de-sac at the end of Railroad Avenue. It is required for the engineer to include this cut out on the project site plan to ensure access is still available to DNREC's property. a The developer must maintain pre-development hydrology to prevent impacts to the adjacent Nature Preserve. The pre-development hydrology should be verified by another engineering firm or an expert in urban hydrology. o The location of the northernmost parking spaces and trail is an area of concern for the Office of Nature Preserves, as these features are proposed only 3-5 feet from the shared 68

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page 5 of 19 boundary. The Office of Nature Preserves requires a provision for fencing at this boundary, to be temporary during construction and permanent afterwards' a A wind screen should be added to the required fencing along the northern boundary of the project parcel to ensure that litter from the nearby dumpsters is caught at the fence line. This windbreak should then be maintained at least weekly, if not daily. o Nature preserve signage will be supplied by the Office of Nature Preserves to ensure it is known that encroachment from both the construction workers and the residents into the Nature Preserve is prohibited. Contact: DNREC Division of Parks and Recreation, Office of Nature Preserves at (302) 739- 9039. Website: https ://dnrec.alpha.delaware. gov/parks/natural-areas/ Natural Areas The forested area that currently exists on the northern third of the site is connected to a much larger contiguous forest complex extending into land designated as the Fork Branch Natural Area. Natural Areas contain lands of statewide significance identified by the Governor's Natural Areas Advisory Council as containing a high quality of natural features unique to Delaware. Requirements: o Local codes and ordinances may apply to protect areas designated as Natural Areas. please consult with local planning agencies to see how local codes and ordinances may impact the proposed development of this site. Contact: DNREC Division of Parks and Recreation, Office of Nature Preserves at(302)739- 9039. Website : https://dnres.alpha.delaware. gov/parks/natural-areas/ Wetlands and Subaqueous Lands Maps from the Statewide Wetlands Mapping Project indicate the potential presence of non-tidal wetlands on the northern half of the site. The application indicates that wetlands have been delineated. The application does not propose direct impacts to the wetlands' Requirements: o If the site design changes and dredge or fiIl of wetlands or subaqueous lands becomes necessary, permitting andlor authorization requirements may apply. 69

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page 6 of l9 Federal Contact: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Dover office) at(267)240-527g web site : http s :/hwvw. nap. usace. arm mil/Mi ssions/Re gulatoryicontacts/ . State Contact: DNREC Wetlands and Subaqueous Lands Section at (302) 139-9943 website: httpr,//d*.".ulphu.d"lu*ut.. gou/*ut"r/-.tlundr-rrbuqreour/ Vegetated Buffer Zones Site plans show 50-foot vegetated buffer zones along non-tidal wetlands. Vegetated buffer zones placed adjacent to waterways and wetlands help improve water quality by reducing sediment and pollutants loads. They also provide valuable habitat and can help prevent encroachment of human activities into ecologically sensitive areas. Vegetated buffers are not equivalent to setbacks, as residential lots, walkways, and stormwater management facilities should not be contained within the vegetated buffer zone. Requirements: o The applicant must comply with minimum vegetated buffer widths as identihed within county and municipal codes. Contact: DNREC Wildlife Species Conservation & Research Program at (302) 735-3600. Website : https://dnrec.alpha.delaware. gov/fi sh-wildlife/contact-informalion/ Special Flood Hazard Area According to the newest Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), a portion of this parcel is situated within a Special Flood HazardArea, specifically within the mapped 100-year floodplain (1% annual chance of flooding). The Special Flood HazardArea identified on the site lies within zone AE. In lands contained within the 1OO-year floodplain, the National Flood Insurance program's floodplain management regulations must be enforced through the local floodplain ordinance, which can have higher standards. A portion of this is also situated within the moderate risk floodplain, or 500-year floodplain (0.2% annual chance of flooding), identified as a shaded zone- X. No structures or features, except for a trail, are proposed within the floodplain. Requirements a The applicant must comply with the local floodplain ordinance and regulations applicable to development or construction within the 100-year floodplain. In determining the boundary of the floodplain, use the most recent FIRM maps available, which can be found at https://floodplannine.dffec.delaware. gov/ 70

Item 3. PLUS revisw 2022-12-08 Page 7 of 19 Contact: DNREC Shoreline and Waterway Management Section at (302) 739-9921- Website Stormwater Management This application proposes greater than 5000 square feet of land disturbing activities, therefore, this project will be subject to Delaware's Sediment and Stormwater Regulations. Requirements: a A Sediment and Stormwater Plan must be developed, then approved by the appropriate plan review agency prior to any land disturbing activity taking place on the site. For this project, the plan review agency is the Kent Conservation District. a Additionally, to address federal requirements, construction activities that exceed 1.0 acre of land disturbance require Construction General Permit coverage through submittal of an electronic Notice of Intent for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This form must be submitted electronically (https://apps.dnrec.delaware.gov/enoi/, select Construction Stormwater General Permit) to the DNREC Division of Watershed Stewardship, along with the $195 fee. a Schedule a project application meeting with the appropriate plan review agency prior to moving forward with the stormwater and site design. As part of this process, you must submit a Stotmwater Assessment Study. Plan review agency contact: Kent Conservation District at (302) 608-5370. Website : http ://kentcd.org/ General stormwater contact: DNREC Sediment and Stormwater Program at(302) 739-9921 E-mail : DNREC. Stormwater@delaware. gov. Website: Excellent Groundwater Recharge Area A small portion of an Excellent Groundwater Recharge Area is located on the northern portion of the site. These areas have soils that are conducive to water infiltrating downward from surface water into groundwater. Preservation of these areas is important for replenishing groundwater supplies and ensuring drinking water for future generations' 71

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page 8 of 19 Requirements o The applicant must comply with all county and municipal requirements for construction and uses in Excellent Groundwater Recharge Areas. Contact: DNREC Source Water Assessment and Protection Program at (302) 739-gg4l. Website: https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/water/suppl]'/ground-water-protectiorV Nutrient Management Plan This project proposes open space of approximately 24 acres. Requirements: o A nutrient management plan is required for all persons or entities who apply nutrients to lands or areas of open space of 10 acres or more. Contact: Delaware Department of Agriculture's Nutrient Management Program at (302) 693- 4s58. Website: https://agriculture.delaware. gov/nutrient-management/ 302-6s Proposed Project Parcel Flood Concern o This parcel primarily is located within an area of Minimal Flood Concern of 1000 years or greaterl however, some sections appear to be within a lo/" Flood Concern for 100 years and a Regulatory Floodway identified as Flood Zone AF-. t41 !\4LNUTSh {)d,r,,:.:',., €{ze.-5 < 3oll b ilX Regulatory Floodway Ft..J 7.nP AF Sp..ial Flood Ha.ard AEa t'bl;ca.;an Oate: Apnt 2t.2A2A 72

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page 9 of 19 Parcel Status within County Evacuation Zone Location o The parcel(s) is/are located within Kent County's Evacuation Zone D. @w P E s .r' l_ll i a.ooo DE_EvacuationZone "6 lo|le d" r"\ d ,d L A 6 q L u J qW t. d @dd@ L] ***DEMA recommends and encourages the County Evacaation Zone Location be made publicly available to businesses and patrons through signs, pamphlets, or other means. parcel Status within the lO-mile Emergency PlanningZone (EPZ) for the Salem Nuclear Power Plant o The parcel is not located within the 10-mile EPZ for the Salem Nuclear Power Plant. State Historic Preservation Office - Contact Carlton Hall302- 7400 a There are no known archaeological sites or known National Register listed or eligible properties on the parcels. While there are no archaeological sites immediately within the proposed project area, there are numerous sites adjacent to the parcels in question' a The project areacarries a high potential for historic resources based on the presence of numerous agricultural dwellings in the area, as indicated by historic maps. Furthermore, the project area carries high potential for native American archaeological resources based on the presence of several environmental factors conducive to human settlement; some of those factors would include immediate access to fresh water, well drained soils, and the preponderance of previously recorded archaeological sites nearby which are located in similar environments. The project area has also seen minimal disturbance, based on 73

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page 10 of 19 historic aerials, and is still predominantly wooded. This high potential for historic and precontact archaeological remains in conjunction with the limited amount of disturbance may indicate that archaeological resources may still be present in the project area. This office recommends an archaeological survey prior to any ground disturbance. o If any project or development proceeds, the developer should be aware of the Unmarked Human Burials and Human skeletal Remains Law (Del. c. Title 7, ch.54). T-)elnrrle State Fire Mars I's C)ffice - Duane Fox 302-739-4394 This document is for information purposes only and does not constitute any type of approval from the Delaware State Fire Marshal's Office o The Office of State Fire Marshal does not have jurisdiction in the City of Dover Comments should come from the City of Dover Fire Marshal. Recom m endations/Additional Inform ation This section includes a list of site-specific suggestions that are intended to enhance the project. These suggestions have been generated by the State Agencies based on their expertise ind subject area knowledge. These suggestions do not represent State code requirements. They are offered here in order to provide proactive ideas to help the applicant enhance the site design, and it is hoped (but in no way required) that the applicant will open a dialogue with the relevant agencies to discuss how these suggestions can benefit the project. of Transnortation - Stenhen Raver i 02-760-4834 o Please be advised there is aCapital Transportation Program (CTP) project in the area. College Road, Kenton Road to McKee Road (Project number T202311701) is a project in the current FY23-FY28 Program that may affect the site. The applicant should coordinate with DelDor during the project's plan review and building process. a The applicant should expect a requirement that any substation andlor wastewater facilities will be required to have access from an internal driveway with no direct access to College Road. o The applicant should expect a requirement that all PLUS and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comments be addressed prior to submitting plans for review. Please be advised that the Standard General Notes have been updated and posted to the DeIDOT website. Please begin using the new versions and look for the revision dates of March 21,2019 and March 16,2022. The notes can be found at 74

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page 11 of19 DART F State - Contact J Kauffman 302- s76-6062 o Covered bicycle parking is recommended. ofN Ouinlan 302-735-3480 State of Delaware Rareo Threatened, or Endangered Species The DNREC Division of Fish and Wildlife has records of a historic heron rookery (nesting area for herons) in Fork Branch Natural Area, within the forested portion of the proposed project site. As aerial imagery suggests, suitable habitat is also present within the project site and could potentially support breeding herons. a Scientists from the DNREC Division of Fish and Wildlife request a site visit to survey the project area andensure wildlife and critical resources will not be impacted. Contact the Species Conservation and Research Program if the landowner will gtant a site visit. a To minimize negative impacts to these species, we recommend that natural habitats be conserved to the maximum extent practicable. a If conserving the forested area is not feasible, we recommend that tree clearing not occur April 1st and September 15th to protect breeding herons. This clearing recommendation would only protect these species during one breeding season, because once trees are cleared the result is an overall loss of habitat. Contact: DNREC Division of Fish and Wildlife, Species Conservation and Research Program at (302) 735-3600. Website: https://dnrec.alpha.delaware. gov/fish-wildlife/conservationr Key Wildlife Habitat Thi non-tidal coastal plain stream on this property is mapped as a Key Wildlife Habitat in the Delaware Wildlife Action Plan because it is part of a large wetland complex that can support an array of plant and animal species across the landscape. o Key Wildlife Habitat should be conserved to the maximum extent practicable and negative impacts should be minimized. o Maintain an upland buffer of at least 100 feet, comprised of the existing vegetation or planted with Delaware native species of trees, shrubs, grasses, or wildflowers. 75

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page 12 of 19 a The St. Jones River supports diadromous species, including blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), white perch (Morone americana) and American eel (Anguilla rostrata). To minimize potential impacts to these species, appropriate erosion and sediment control measures should be taken during construction activities and adequate shoreline buffers should be maintained. Contact: DNREC Division of Fish and Wildlife, Species Conservation and Research Program at (302) 73s-3600. website : https://dnrec.alpha.delaware. gov/fi sh-wildlife/conservation/ Wildlife Displacement Development of this site is anticipated to displace local wildlife. Delaware is home to a rich array of wildlife species, which greatly depend on forests and other habitat types for food, water and cover. a Removing forested areas for development, especially mature forests, should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Forests are a key habitat type for wildlife in Delaware. a Deer, groundhogs, and rabbits will browse on ornamental landscaping. Reduce the potential for future conflicts between future residents and wildlife by maintaining large blocks of forest, as opposed to small pockets of wooded areas. Contact: DNREC Division of Fish and Wildlife, Species Conservation and Research Program at (302) 73s-3600. Website : https ://dnrec.alpha.delaware. gov/fi sh-wildlife/wildlife/ Delaware Ecological Network Most of the parcel lies within lands designated within the Delaware Ecological Network, a statewide network of interconnected lands of significant ecological value. This GIS d,atalayer is based on principles of landscape ecology and conservation biology, providing a consistent framework to identift and prioritize areas for natural resource protection. Forest disturbances on this site will jeopardize habitat on the parcel and likely beyond the parcel's boundary. o Removing forested areas within the Delaware Ecological Network should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. These areas provide wildlife habitat, uptake nutrients, infiltrate stormwater, and improve water quality. Forests also provide shading and cooling, while also reducing carbon that contributes to climate change. Contact: DNREC Wildlife Species Conservation and Research Program at (302) 735-3600 Website: https ://dnrec.alpha.delaware. gov/fi sh-wildlife/contact-information/ 76

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page 13 of19 Removal of Mature Forest The preliminary plan proposes the elimination of forest on the site. An analysis of historical data indicates that the forest aiea located on the site has likely maintained some degree of forest cover since 1937 and could be considered mature forest. Mature forests possess the potential for rare, threatened, or endangered species that rely on this type of habitat. o Removing forested areas for development, especially mature forests, should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Forests filter water for improved water quality, provide habitat for wildlife, absorb nutrients, infiltrate stormwater, moderate temperatures, and store atmospheric carbon which would otherwise contribute to climate change. o A forest assessment should be conducted to determine if mature forest resources exist on the property and to delineate their boundaries. Additionally, a forest assessment would include the identification of specimen trees and forest-dependent wildlife. If mature forests are found, these areas should be conserved to the maximum extent practicable. Contact: DNREC Division of Fish and Wildlife, Species Conservation and Research Program at (302)73s-3600. Natural Areas and Nature Preserves o As proposed, reduce environmental impacts in Natural Areas by avoiding development or destruction of sensitive natural features such as, but not limited to, wetlands, hardwood forests, or riparian buffers. o Consider voluntarily participating in the Natural Areas Preservation Program' which would permanently protect the Fork Branch Natural Area located on the parcel by dedicating it as part of the Fork Branch Nature Preserve. Conservation options include fee-simple sale of land within the Natural Area, donation of the land within the Natural Area, or placing a Conservation Easement on the Natural Area. Placing a Conservation Easement would allow the landowner to retain ownership of the land while selling the development rights to a Conservation Entity, in this case, DNREC. Contact: DNREC Division of Parks and Recreation, Ofhce ofNature Preserves at(302)739- 9039. Website Wetlands and Subaqueous Lands o As proposed for this project, do not disturb wetland areas. Wetlands are a citical part of our natural environment. They reduce the impacts of flooding, absorb pollutants' and 77

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page 14 of 19 improve water quality. Wetlands provide habitat for animals and plants and many contain a wide diversity of life, supporting plants and animals that are found nowhere else. Federal Contact: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Dover office) at (267) 240-5279 Website: State Contact: DNREC Wetlands and Subaqueous Lands Section at(302) 739-9943. website: https ://dnrec.alpha.delaware. gov/water/wetlands-subaqueous/ Vegetated Buffer Zones Expand the proposed 50-foot vegetated buffer zones to 100 feet. These zones should be placed from the edge of wetlands and all waterways to protect water quality and to provide an additional margin of safety for flooding. o Vegetated buffer zones should be left undisturbed during construction and should be identified outside of the Limit of Disturbance on the engineering plans. In some instances, stormwater outfalls, conveyances, and emergency spillways may cross through these zones, and will require temporary disturbance during construction. o Vegetated buffer zones should be deeded as community open space. Signage should be installed at the edge and within the buffer zones to deter residents from encroaching into these common areas. o Maintain vegetated buffer zones as either grasslands/meadows or forest. Buffer zones should be planted exclusively with native trees and plants. Native plants are well-suited to our climate and require limited maintenance. They also provide an increasingly important role in the survival of native birds and beneficial insects whose habitat is shrinking due to development and climate change. o Grass cutting for vegetated buffer zones if maintained as meadow should not occur between April l st to July 31st to reduce impacts to nesting birds and other wildlife species that utilize meadows and grasslands for breeding habitat. Contact: DNREC Wildlife Species Conservation & Research Program at (302) 735-3600. Website: https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/fish-wildlife/contact-information/ website : https ://dnrec.alpha.delaware. gov/fi sh-wildlife/conservation/ 78

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page l5 of 19 Stormwater Management . Where the site and soil conditions allow, integrate runoff reduction techniques including infiltration basins, bioretention (rain gardens), filter strips, and pavers to encourage on- site stormwater infiltration and reduce runoff. a For improved stormwater management, preserve existing trees, wetlands, and passive open space. Plan review agency contact: Kent Conservation District at (302) 608-5370. Website : http://kentcd.org/ General stormwater contact: DNREC Sediment and Stormwater Program at (302) 739-9921 E-mail : DNREC. Stormwater@delaware. gov. Website: https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/watershed-stewardship/sediment-stormwater/ Drainage o All existing drainage ditches on the property should be evaluated for function and cleaned, if needed, prior to the construction of the project. a Environmental permits or exemptions may be required by the County Conservation District (Standard Plan), the DNREC Sediment and Stormwater Program (eNOIA{OT), Army Corp of Engineers, andlor DNREC Wetlands and Subaqueous Lands Section prior to clearing and/or excavating ditch channels. a All precautions should be taken to ensure the project does not hinder any off-site drainage upstream of the project or create any off-site drainage problems downstream by the release of on-site stotm water. Contact: DNREC Drainage Program at(302) 855-1930. Website : https://dnrec.alpha.delaware. gov/drainage-stormwater/ Water Quality (Pollution Control Strategies) This site lies within the St. Jones River Watershed. Surface water quality in this watershed does not meet Federal andlor State Water Quality Standards and aPollution Control Strategy is in place for this watershed. o Implement vegetated buffers with a width of at least 100 feet around all water features on or adjacent to the site. 79

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page l6 of 19 o Reduce impervious surfaces on the project site by eliminating areas of impervious pavement and/or using pervious pavement where practicable. o Reduce stormwater runoff by integrating infiltration basins, bioretention (rain gardens), filter strips, and by preserving existing trees, wetlands, and passive open space. o Reduce the necessity for nutrient application by maintaining open space as meadow or forest planted exclusively with native plants. Native plants are well-suited to our climate and require limited maintenance. Contact: DNREC Division of Watershed Stewardship's Watershed Assessment Section at (302) 739-9939. https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/watershed-stewardship/ Excellent Groundwater Recharge Area o For Excellent Groundwater Recharge Areas, limit impervious surfaces to no more than 20o/o of the entire area designated as having excellent recharge. Contact: DNREC Source Water Assessment and Protection Program at (302) 739-gg4|. Website al Mosquitoes The project is expected to be impacted by mosquitoes due to its location near large expanses of wetlands. Mosquito control issues are increasing as developments infringe on wetland areas, often leading to increased demands for mosquito control services beyond what DNREC has the resources to provide. o If necessary, affange for long-tern mosquito control services through a private company licensed in this area of specialty. In some cases, the DNREC Mosquito Control Section may be able to provide these services free of charge. Contact: DNREC Division of Fish and Wildlife, Mosquito Control Section at(302)739- 99t7. Website: https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/fish-wildlife/mosquito-control/ Additional Sustainable Practices a Install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for your residents. Increasingly, residents will expect EV charging. Installation costs can vary significantly depending on the parking and electricity distribution at a given location, so it is often easier and cheaper to plan for the installation at construction, rather than doing costly retrofits later. The DNREC Division of Climate, Coastal and Energy offers rebates of up to 90% of the cost of the charging station for commercial, multi-unit dwelling and other public properties. 80

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page 17 of19 These programs address climate change goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving overall air quality (https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/climate-coastal- energy/c lean-transPoft a Use renewable energy infrastructure such as solar or geothermal to reduce energy costs and further reduce pollution created from offsite generation. Grant funds and incentives are available for Delmarva Power customers through the DNREC Green Energy Fund, which includes several funding types through the state's major electric utilities a Include space for recycling dumpsters within the preliminary site design stage' These can be placed adjacent to trash dumpsters. o Incorporate nonmotorized connectivity and install bicycle racks where feasible to help facilitate non-vehicular travel modes. a Use efficient Energy Star rated products and materials in construction and redevelopment. Energy efficient appliances use less energy over time. This saves consumers and businesses money, while also helping to reduce pollution from power generation. o Use structural paint coatings that are low in Volatile Organic Compounds to help protect air quality. Air pollution from new construction is generated through the use of maintenance equipment, paints, and consumer products like roof coatings and primers. o Use recycled materials, such as reclaimed asphalt pavement, to reduce heat island effects on paved surfaces, prevent landfill waste, and lower material costs. Contact: DNREC Division of Climate, Coastal & Energy at (302) 735-3480. Website: https://dnrec.alpha.delaware. gov/climate-coastal-energ)'/ Delaware t Asencv - Phillio Cane302- 6s9-2325 Population o The county has a population density of 3 10.20 per square mile based on the US 2020 Census report: an increase from 2010 at27l.30 persons per square mile. a The specific census block(s) the project is located on has atotal population of 40, though, with development, this will undoubtedly change. The adjacent blocks aggregated brings the area to a total population of I 193. 81

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page 18 ofl9 FEMA National Risk Index a The FEMA National Risk Index is an online mapping application that identifies communities most at risk to 18 naturalhazards: Avalanche, Coastal Flooding, Cold wave, Drought, Earthquake, Hail, Heat wave, Hurricane, Ice Storm, Landslide, Lightning, Riverine Flooding, strong wind, Tornado, Tsunami, volcanic Activity, Wildfire, and Winter Weather. The FEMA National Risk Index is calculated by multiplying the Expected Annual Loss times the Social Vulnerability and dividing that by the Community Resilience. Fxpected Annual Loss x Social Vulnerability + ComlnunityResilience = Risk lndex o According to FEMA's National Risk Index, the parcel is considered relatively low for overall natural hazards risks. o Community Resilience is a consequence reduction risk component and a community risk factor that represents the ability of a community to prepare for anticipated natural hazards, adapt to changing conditions and withstand/recover rapidly from disruptions. Social Vulnerability is a consequence-enhancing risk factor that represents the susceptibility of social groups to the adverse impacts of natural hazards. a Its community resilience is rated as relativety high. In contrast, its social vulnerability is rated as relatively moderate. Renewable Energy Commitment o Regarding energy use and consumption, the parcel utilizes utility gas as the predominant fuel type for heating purposes. a DEMA strongly encourages the use of renewable energies and high-effrciency appliances and utilities. a Regarding utilities, DEMA suggests incorporatingg}Yo series furnaces/HVAC systems; the closer to 99Yo, the better, as well as A/c units of 20 Seer or greater. DEMA recommends using tankless water heaters, and battery backup systems for sump pumps to reduce potential water damage from power failure. 82

Item 3. PLUS review 2022-12-08 Page 19 of 19 a Lastly, DEMA encourages the integration of modern and emerging technologies, such as the poiential for electriCvehicles in garages/parking lots, green roofs where applicable and allowable, and the like. 3 a DSHA supports the site plan for the construction of 332 rcntal units on 31 acres located north of Raymond St. and east of Railroad Ave. in Dover. Two six-story multi-family buildings will include first-floor parking and residential in the upper floors. While market-rate, multi- family rental units offer a more affordable option to the many county residents experiencing housing insecurity. a Due to the intensity of the proposal, we recommend a human-scaled and pedestrian-oriented site layout that incorporates attractive streetscapes, significant landscaping measures and connections to adjacent neighborhoods and trail networks. In addition, visually-appealing fagade treatments are important for creating a desirable quality community where all households can thrive. Following receipt of this letter and upon filing of an application with the local jurisdiction, the applicant shall provide to the local jurisdiction and the Office of State Planning Coordination a written response to comments received as a result of the pre-application process, noting whether comments were incorporated into the project design or not and the reason, therefore. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at 302-739-3090. Sincerely, David L. Edgell, AICP Director, Office of State Planning Coordination Attachment: DNREC Forestdale Articles of Dedication 83

Item 3. 84

Item 3. 85

Item 3. 86

Item 3. 87

Item 3. 88

Item 3. 89

Item 3. OWNER'S CERTIFICATION: I, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, THAT THE PLAN WAS MADE AT MY DIRECTION, AND THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE THE GENERAL SITE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS SAME TO ME BY ACT AND DESIRE THE PLAN TO BE DEVELOPED AS SHOWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BITUMINOUS PAVING GENERAL DATE 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT THESE SECTIONS IN DETAIL, AS HE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WORK INDICATED AND GOVERNED BY PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, LLC CONDITIONS SET FORTH THERE IN. QUALITY ASSURANCE TAX PARCEL # 2-05-06700-02-5300, -5400, -5500, & -5600 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 OWNER'S CERTIFICATION: 1. PERFORM WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS I, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, THAT THE PLAN WAS MADE AT MY DIRECTION, AND THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE THE 2. MIXING PLANT: DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROVED FACILITY. SAME TO ME BY ACT AND DESIRE THE PLAN TO BE DEVELOPED AS SHOWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. 3. OBTAIN MATERIALS FROM SAME SOURCE THROUGHOUT. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. DO NOT PLACE BITUMINOUS WHEN AMBIENT AIR OR COARSE STONE BASE COURSE SURFACE TEMPERATURE IS LESS THAN 40 DEGREES F, NOR WHEN SURFACE IS WET OR FROZEN. CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE DATE ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 MATERIALS 1. BINDER COURSE: DELDOT TYPE B INITIAL SUBMISSION: JANUARY 23, 2023 PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION: I, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A REGISTERED ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF 2. WEARING COURSE: DELDOT TYPE C DELAWARE, THAT THE INFORMATION SHOWN HERON HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THE THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF REPRESENTS GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES AS 3. TACK COAT: EMULSIFIED ASPHALT PREPARED FOR: REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. 4. FORMS: WOOD FORM MATERIAL, PROFILED TO SUIT CONDITIONS. AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY 5. PAVEMENT MARKINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. OWNER/DEVELOPER STEVEN ANDERSON JR., PE (DE PE# 13187) PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. 121 CONTINENTAL DRIVE, SUITE 207 DATE EXECUTION NEWARK, DE 19713-4310 PHONE: (302) 351-5227 FAX: (302) 654-2895 1. 2. 3. VERIFY THAT COMPACTED SUBBASE IS DRY AND READY TO SUPPORT PAVING AND IMPOSED LOADS, SEE STRUCTURAL FILL SECTION. VERIFY GRADIENTS AND ELEVATIONS OF BASE ARE CORRECT. APPLY TACK COAT TO VERTICAL CONTACT SURFACES OF EXISTING CURBS, PAVEMENTS, AND STRUCTURES. PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PROPERTY SUMMARY TAX PARCEL NUMBERS 2-05-06700-02-5600-00001 - 26.13 Acres 2-05-06700-02-5500-00001 - 1.42 Acres DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, LLC 4. COAT SURFACES OF MANHOLE OR INLET FRAMES WITH OIL TO PREVENT BOND WITH BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT. DO NOT TACK 2-05-06700-02-5400-00001 - 1.72 Acres COAT THESE SURFACES. 2-05-06700-02-5300-00001 - 2.81 Acres 5. PLACE BITUMINOUS MIXTURE WHEN TEMPERATURE IS NOT MORE THAN 15 F DEGREES FROM THE TEMPERATURE OF THE COMPLETED OWNERS PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC MIXTURE AT THE PLANT. PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, LLC 6. PLACE WEARING COURSE WITHIN TWO HOURS OF PLACING AND COMPACTING BINDER COURSE. IF NOT PLACED WITHIN TWO HOURS, 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE APPLY TACK COAT OVER BINDER COURSE TO ASSURE ADHESION. 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE LOT SIZE GROSS (CONSOLIDATED) 31.08 ACRES (1,353,974 SQ. FT.) 7. COMPACT PAVEMENT BY ROLLING WITH MINIMUM 10 TON ROLLER. DO NOT DISPLACE OR EXTRUDE PAVEMENT FROM POSITION. HAND LOT SIZE NET (CONSOLIDATED) 30.50 ACRES (1,328,578 SQ. FT.) PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, COMPACT IN AREAS INACCESSIBLE TO ROLLING EQUIPMENT WITH HOT IRON TAMPERS, WEIGHING NOT LESS THAN 25 LBS. 8. PERFORM ROLLING WITH CONSECUTIVE PASSES TO ACHIEVE EVEN AND SMOOTH FINISH, WITHOUT ROLLER MARKS. NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 DEED REFERENCE SURVEYED BY D 6009/140 PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC MAY 2031 & MARCH. 2022 9. LONGITUDINAL JOINT IN ONE LAYER SHALL OFFSET THE PREVIOUS JOINT IN THE LAYER IMMEDIATELY BELOW BY APPROXIMATELY 6 INCHES. WHERE ABUTTING PAVING IS NOT PLACED THE SAME DAY OR THE ABUTTING JOINT IS DISTORTED, THE JOINT SHALL BE TRIMMED TO A TRUE SURFACE AND PAINTED WITH A TACK COAT. ---- DATUM NAVD 88, NAD 83 ZONING RG-5 10. TRANSVERSE JOINTS SHALL BE STRAIGHT-EDGED TO ASSURE SMOOTHNESS, AND THE JOINT FACE SHALL BE PAINTED WITH A TACK COAT. COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS CROSS ROLL, TO OBTAIN THOROUGH COMPACTION OF JOINT. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION N:429958.27 E:618299.47 EXISTING USE VACANT LOT 11. IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLACEMENT, PROTECT PAVEMENT FROM MECHANICAL INJURY UNTIL ADEQUATE STABILITY AND ADHESION HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AND THE MATERIAL HAS COOLED SUFFICIENTLY TO PREVENT DISTORTION OR LOSS OF FINES. PROPOSED USE MID-RISE APARTMENTS RAILROAD AVENUE & GROVE STREET 12. NO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC SHALL BE PERMITTED ON THE NEW SURFACE IN LESS THAN SIX (6) HOURS AFTER THE SURFACE HAS BEEN FINISHED. 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE COVER SHEET PAVEMENT MARKINGS GENERAL SITE 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT THESE SECTIONS IN DETAIL, AS HE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WORK INDICATED AND GOVERNED BY 2. CONDITIONS SET FORTH THERE IN. THIS WORK SHALL CONSIST OF FURNISHING AND INSTALLING OF PAVEMENT MARKINGS TO VARIOUS SURFACES AT LOCATIONS AND NORTH SITE NORTH SITE NORTH NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 PATTERNS AS SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER/ARCHITECT. THIS INCLUDES DURABLE AND CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE NONDURABLE LINE MARKINGS (STRIPING), LEGENDS (LETTERS AND NUMBERS), AND SYMBOLS. LLC MATERIALS 1. MATERIALS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DELAWARE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION AND AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. EXECUTION 1. INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DELAWARE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION AND AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. 2. MAINTAIN THE STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS, EXISTING OR CONSTRUCTED BY THIS CONTRACTOR, IN “LIKE NEW” CONDITION FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. REPAIR OR REPLACE UNSUITABLE PAVEMENT MARKINGS WITH NEW PAVEMENT MARKINGS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SPECIFICATION. EARTHWORK AD RO QUALITY INSURANCE RO 1. FILLS SHOULD BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT EXCEEDING 8 INCHES COMPACTED MEASURE. THIS CRITERION MIGHT BE ADJUSTED BY THE E E GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER IN THE FILED DEPENDING ON THE CONDITIONS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, ON THE UT L EG AD L COMPACTION EQUIPMENT USED, AND ON FILL MATERIAL SELECTED. FILLS FOR SUPPORT OF PAVEMENTS SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO AT 15 CO LEAST 95 PERCENT OF THE LABORATORY DETERMINED DRY DENSITY, ASTM D-698, WHEN SMALL, HAND-OPERATED COMPACTION EQUIPMENT US USED, AND TO AT LEAST 95 PERCENT OF THE LABORATORY DETERMINED DRY DENSITY, ASTM D-1557, WHEN R O SELF-PROPELLED, HEAVY DUTY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT IS USED. E E G BY LL 2. UNDER PAVEMENTS, PREPARED SUBGRADES SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY PROOF ROLLED USING A MINIMUM 10-TON VIBRATORY ROLLER OPERATED IN STATIC MODE OR A FULLY LOADED DUMP TRUCK IN AN ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY UNSTABLE (SOFT, YIELDING, ETC.) SURFACE AREAS. DURING PROOFROLLING ANY UNSTABLE AREA FOUND SHOULD BE STABILIZED BY EXCAVATING AND REPLACING THOSE SOILS WITH C O PROJECT STATUS: ---- SUITABLE SOILS. 3. A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OR TECHNICIAN, PAID FOR BY THE OWNER, SHALL MONITOR ALL SITE PREPARING, GRADING, AND FILL CONSTRUCTION. THE ENGINEER/ TECHNICIAN SHOULD OBSERVE AND DOCUMENT THE SITE PREPARATION, EXISTING FILL MATERIAL REMOVAL, AND FILL/BACKFILL CONSTRUCTION WORK, AND MAKE APPROPRIATE FILED TESTS, AS NECESSARY, TO VERIFY THAT ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS ARE BEING USED AND THAT CONSTRUCTION IS BEING PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ACCEPTABLE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES. LOCATION MAP LOCATION MAP SOILS MAP PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb STRUCTURAL BACKFILL Scale: 1" = 400' Scale: 1" = 1200' Scale: 1" = 400' REVISIONS 1. STRUCTURAL FILL SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. GRANULAR FILL SHOULD CONSIST OF WELL-GRADED MATERIAL WITH MAXIMUM PARTICLE SIZE LESS THAN 3 INCHES, MOT MORE THAN 20 PERCENT PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE AND HAVE A PLASTICITY PREPARED BY: 2. INDEX (PI) NOT GREATER THAN 8 PERCENT. IMPORTED STRUCTURAL FILL SHOULD BE APPROVED AND SAMPLED BY TESTING AGENCY PRIOR BACKFILL OPERATIONS. PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. 3. UNIFORMLY MOISTEN OR AERATE SUBGRADE AND EACH SUBSEQUENT FILL OR BACKFILL SOIL LAYER BEFORE COMPACTION TO WITHIN 3 u:\Accounts\PLAWX\plawx19001 - dsu student housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\CS0001.dwgPLOTTED:1/23/2023 12:55 , PMBY:Andrew Shields PERCENT OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT . 4. DO NOT PLACE BACKFILL OR FILL SOIL MATERIAL ON SURFACES THAT ARE MUDDY, FROZEN, OR CONTAIN FROST OR ICE. Christiana Executive Campus FIELD QUALITY CONTROL 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 NO. 1. TESTING AGENCY TO INSPECT AND TEST SUBGRADES AND EACH FILL OR BACKFILL LAYER. PROCEED WITH SUBSEQUENT EARTHWORK ONLY AFTER TEST RESULTS FOR PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED WORK COMPLIES WITH REQUIREMENTS. Newark, DE 19713-4310 2. TESTING AGENCY WILL TEST COMPACTION OF SOILS IN PLACE ACCORDING TO ASTM D 1556, ASTM D2167, ASTM D 2922, AND ASTM D 2937, T 302.655.4451 DATE AS APPLICABLE. 3. TEST PAVED AREA SUBGRADES AND AT EACH COMPACTED FILL AND BACKFILL LAYER, AT LEAST 1 TEST FOR EVERY 2000 SQUARE FEET, F 302.654.2895 ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES BUT NO FEWER THAN 3 TESTS. LEGEND ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON 4. WHEN TESTING AGENCY REPORTS SUBGRADE, FILLS, OR BACKFILLS HAVE NOT ACHIEVED DEGREE OF COMPACTION SPECIFIED, SCARIFY THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER AND MOISTEN OR AERATE, OR REMOVE AND REPLACE SOIL TO DEPTH REQUIRED; RECOMPACT AND RETEST UNTIL SPECIFIED COMPACTION IS OBTAINED. EXISTING BUILDING COMBINED SEWER PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PROPOSED WATER MAIN Sheet List Table PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS RIGHT-OF-WAY / PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY CONCRETE DEWATERING PROPOSED UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS Sheet Number Sheet Title SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATE; AND OWNER SHALL CURB UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI ASSOCIATES 1. PREVENT SURFACE WATER AND GROUND WATER FROM ENTERING EXCAVATIONS, FROM PONDING ON PREPARED SUBGRADES, AND FROM 1 COVER SHEET FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND EXPENSES UNDERGROUND TELECOMM LINE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND NATURAL GAS ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. FLOODING PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREAS. THE BIDDER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETE DEWATERING FOR ALL SITE WORK SIDEWALK PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY ASPHALT INCLUDING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES. ALL DEWATERING METHODS MUST BE APPROVED BY DNREC 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLAN UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS LINE PROPOSED STORM SEWER ≤ 12" AND MUST BE PER THE DNREC ESC HANDBOOK, LATEST VERSION EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY, 2019. PAVEMENT PROPOSED MILL/OVERLAY PAVING 3 OVERALL SITE PLAN PROJECT PLAWX19001 PROPOSED STORM SEWER > 12" 2. PROTECT SUBGRADES FROM SOFTENING, UNDERMINING, WASHOUT, AND DAMAGE BY RAIN AND EATER ACCUMULATION. REROUTE SIGN PROPOSED WILDFLOWER PLANTING MANHOLES PROPOSED SITE LIGHTING 4 SITE PLAN DATE 2023-01-23 SURFACE WATER RUNOFF AWAY FROM EXCAVATED AREAS. DO NOT ALLOW WATER TO ACCUMULATE IN EXCAVATIONS. WHERE PONDING UTILITY POLE AND LIGHT 5 PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR DOES OCCUR, THE WATER SHOULD BE PUMPED IMMEDIATELY, AND GRADES SHOULD THEN BE ESTABLISHED TO PREVENT FURTHER 5 GRADING PLAN PONDING. FH DRAWING SCALE NTS HYDRANT VALVES 4 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR 6 UTILITY PLAN 5 MAJOR CONTOUR INLET TB TOP OF BANK ELEVATION DRAWN BY ALS 7 LANDSCAPE PLAN 4 MINOR CONTOUR TREE BS BOTTOM OF SWALE ELEVATION APPROVED BY GBR 8 LANDSCAPE PLAN CALL BEFORE YOU DIG WATER LINE PROPOSED BUILDING EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT ELEVATION CS0001 9 LIGHTING PLAN Call Miss Utility of Delmarva UNDERGROUND GAS LINE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EC EDGE OF CONCRETE ELEVATION 800-282-8555 10 ACTIVE RECREATION PLAN UNDERGROUND STEAM LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB TC/BC TOP/BOTTOM OF CURB ELEVATION Ticket Number(s): ---- SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SHEET 1 OF 10 90

Item 3. PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. NOTES: 1. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE REFERENCED AS TAX MAP: 2-05-06700-02-5600-00001 Christiana Executive Campus 2-05-06700-02-5500-00001 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 Map #: 2-00-06700-01-0101-000 2-05-06700-02-5400-00001 89' 1278. Owner: STATE OF DELAWARE 2-05-06700-02-5300-00001 Deed Reference(s): D 7425/287 '4 4 " E 26 TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION WAS TAKEN FROM FIELD SURVEYS PERFORMED BY PENNONI N 34° ZONING:RS1 Newark, DE 19713-4310 ASSOCIATES, INC 2. MISS UTILITY SHALL BE NOTIFIED THREE (3) CONSECUTIVE WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION, AT 1-800-282-8555. 39 F1- WLF1-37 L T 302.655.4451 F 302.654.2895 3. ALL SIGNING FOR MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY, AND SHALL RT WL F1-38 W FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SHOWN IN LATEST EDITION OF "DELAWARE TRAFFIC CONTROLS FOR H NO STREETS AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, UTILITY, AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS." 3 F1- 4. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED OR SHOWN HEREON TO THE CONTRARY, THIS SURVEY IS MADE WL SUBJECT TO AND DOES NOT LOCATE OR DELINEATE: WLF3-71 ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR 72 6W 4.1. RIGHTS OR INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR STATE OF DELAWARE OVER - LANDS NOW OR FORMERLY FLOWED BY TIDEWATER, BUT NO LONGER VISIBLE OR PHYSICALLY F3 70 5W 1-3 L 3- EVIDENT, OR LANDS CONTAINING ANY ANIMAL, MARINE OR BOTANICAL SPECIES REGULATED BY F O W R T LF OR UNDER THE JURISDICTION OR ANY FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL AGENCY. C ES EV ER W LF 4.2. BUILDING SETBACK LINES, ZONING REGULATIONS OR LINES ESTABLISHED BY ANY FEDERAL, EXISTING STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY WHICH MAY AFFECT THE BUILDING OR DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF LF1 M OVERHANG THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. WL E STRUCTURE WL N 6 -34 4.3. ANY SUBSURFACE OR SUBTERRANEAN CONDITION, EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS, INCLUDING, BUT F3- 7 F3- NOT LIMITED TO MINERAL OR MINING RIGHTS, OR THE LOCATION OF OR RIGHTS TO ANY SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES, CONTAINERS OR FACILITIES OR ANY OTHER NATURAL OR 9W AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY 33 3 MAN-MADE SUBSURFACE CONDITION WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT AFFECT THE USE OR F1- FRESH WATER LF WL WETLA NDS AREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. WL F3 3-6 WLF3-66 -74W 0.54± ACRES 8 LF 7 WLF 5. UTILITY NOTES: 3-7 3 -7 WLF3-7 3-67 5WLF3 8 -76LF 5.1. THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN HAVE BEEN W WLF3-65 TAKEN FROM EXISTING UTILITY RECORDS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THESE PLANS WERE Map #: 2-05-06700-02-5500-00001 W Owner: PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE 2 PREPARED AND FROM SURFACE OBSERVATION OF THE SITE. LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES AS ROAD LLC 1-3 SHOWN AND MAY OR MAY NOT BE COMPLETE. THE NATURE AND EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING Deed Reference(s): D 6009 0140 D LF UTILITIES SHOULD BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY ACTIVITY THAT MAY AFFECT THEIR DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK 5983 0056 D 0649 0110 USE OR LOCATION. 5.2. COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF LOCATION AND DEPTH OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES IS NOT GUARANTEED. TIE LINE S 44°56'30" E 1266.44 TIE LINE 5.3. THE CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES BEFORE THE START OF WORK. W 5.4. IF CONFLICTS ARE FOUND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE OWNER AND LF DESIGN ENGINEER FOR INSTRUCTION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK. 1-3 1 FRESH WATER WETLANDS AREA 6. THIS SITE IS ZONED RG-5 (GENERAL RESIDENCE ZONE FOR MID-RISE APARTMENTS) Limits of former Atlantic Coast 12.09± ACRES Environmental (A.C.E.) Facility PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, EX. 35.0 subject to an Environmental WLF1- EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLAN 0 30 Covenant with DNREC as recorded WL in DB 6009, PG 132 & 140. F1- 29 WL 59F2-W 60L F2- F2-6 1 W W L LF W F2 LF2 1- -58 - 62 28 WL 1-2 COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS F2 LF WL 77.47' 2-57 W CENTE WLF -63 7 W Map #: 2-0 RAILROAD AVENUE & GROVE STREET WL 5 LF1- RLIN -0 F2- 6 7 N(U3N4O°P5E6NRROOAAD 0 64 0 -02-5400-0 Ow n WETLANDS 1 TABLE WETLANDS 1 TABLE E er: P 0001 26 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE A Map #: 2-05-06700-02-5600-00001 O T E PROPERT L COLLEGE WLF2- F Owner: PATEL COLLEGE 25 RAILRO F1- LINE # BEARING DISTANCE LINE # BEARING DISTANCE 56 PROPERTIES LLC '16" DW W Se c IE S Owner: PA LLC o Secondary Owner: PATEL EXCESS n LF WL d a ry WLF1-1 S 74°58'11" E 8.79' WLF1-21 N 62°23'54" E 30.48' WAY) AD TR COLLEGE ROAD LLC FRESH WATER W0 24 2-4 WLF1- RAIL TEL EX Deed Reference(s): D 0649 0106 10 COL -23 WETLANDS AREA WLF1-2 N 77°24'26" E 19.90' WLF1-22 N 57°14'45" E 62.21' Deed RefeLEGE ROAD LLC CESS 4 WF1LF1-22 W WL 1.53± ACRES 2- L F2- LF W L F1 9 W-L2F11LF1-1W LF1 WLF1-3 N 89°58'11" E 28.36' WLF1-23 S 14°21'43" W 31.34' rence(s): 2 55 LF 1 W -20 -18 0649 0106D 5983 0056 D 2-4 WLF1-24 S 36°07'12" W 96.00' WLF2-54 WLF1-4 N 44°51'32" E 67.47' W ACKS NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 W -7 LF CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE 3 LF4-94 92LF4-9W F4 1 -17 WLF1-5 N 27°04'30" E 56.44' WLF1-25 S 22°36'54" E 27.60' WLF2-43 4-W WL 6 LLC F 2-5 3 44 WL WLF1-26 S 58°14'59" E 59.80' WLF WL F F2- 95 4- 9 WLF1-6 N 12°34'42" E 34.45' -5L1F2-52 2W WL FRESH WATER 4- LF Map #: 2-05-05700-01-2100-000 5 W WLF1-27 S 77°33'46" E 36.79' -4 91 WETLANDS AREA LF W WLF1-7 S 72°47'11" E 48.08' WLF 2 4- Owner: STATE OF DELAWARE LF W LF WL0.16± ACRES WLF4-89 80 9 W 11 H Deed Reference(s):113 WLF1-8 S 30°46'51" W 52.21' WLF1-28 N 85°57'49" E 80.48' W F4 16 2-50 EV -46 -90 F4-W 1- ZONING: IO 88 8L1F LF WLF1-29 N 69°59'41" E 66.34' F4- WLF1-9 S 16°03'48" W 102.90' IP '50" W WLF2 WL F W LF 4- WLF1-30 N 56°43'31" E 33.05' -86 2 W WLF1-10 S 26°30'19" W 67.02' -49 LF F4 84 WL WLF4-82 8 WLF2-47 WLF2-4 L 110.48' M S 45°38'15" W 475.00' 4- W 87 WLF4- WLF1-11 S 11°48'17" W 70.82' WLF1-31 N 80°17'34" E 170.62' WLF1-15 O N Map #: 2-00-06700-01-1700-00001 WLF4-85 WLF1-12 S 17°09'52" E 26.93' WLF1-32 S 75°58'22" E 118.11' FN Owner: MISHOE, WILMA D WLF4-83 WLF1-13 S 73°28'00" W 33.60' WLF1-33 S 67°54'00" E 47.63' Deed Reference(s): D 6648 0198 C 0054 0162 WETLANDS 2 TABLE Map #: ZONING:RS1 2 -0 WLF1-34 S 62°14'59" E 72.45' 5 WLF1-14 S 27°04'08" E 54.26' -0 310.53' Owner: P 6700-02-5300-0000 1-14 LINE # BEARING DISTANCE N 35°44 WLF1-15 S 51°25'46" E 63.66' WLF1-35 S 75°31'25" E 14.57' WLF2-60 N 48°50'27" E 10.55' A WLF T E 1 -12 PROPERT L COLLEGE N 43°55'23" E 235.20' WL WLF1-16 S 89°32'43" E 121.35' WLF1-36 S 66°01'35" E 80.47' F1 F1 WLF2-61 N 64°04'56" E 50.15' -13 WLF1-37 S 48°26'03" E 13.29' O WL WLF1-17 N 78°29'09" E 77.06' IES LLC F M Deed 229.03' '08" W M IP N WLF2-62 N 69°00'46" E 54.62' R O EV 1 e WLF1-38 S 38°18'14" W 48.84' fe FN -1 WLF1-18 N 70°21'07" E 40.76' re N n 1 c 5983 0061e(s): D 6009 0132 FN LF WLF2-63 S 64°32'21" E 69.91' D D W WLF1-19 N 29°25'16" E 24.64' WLF1-39 S 21°35'21" W 39.30' BY Map #: WLF2-64 N 65°59'42" E 42.35' N 35°26 D Map #: 2-05-06707-01-0100-00001 2-05-06707-01-0200-00001 10 D 0649 01 F1- Grove S WLF1-20 N 59°36'34" E 12.41' Owner: APARTMENTS AT MISHOE COVE LLC Owner: APARTMENTS AT WL 06 '04" W PROJECT STATUS: ---- Deed Reference(s): D 6657 0294 C 0054 0162 MISHOE COVE LLC t (35' Widreet 35.00 ZONING: RG5 Deed Reference(s): D 6657 -9 Ex. R/W EXISTING 0294 C 0054 0162 F1 WETLANDS 2 TABLE WETLANDS 4 TABLE EX. STRM. IN LET WL CONCRETE WETLANDS 3 TABLE e) M H Map #: 2-05-06700-02-4700-00001 EX. SA N . N 34°50 PAD RIM:31.00 LINE # BEARING DISTANCE LINE # BEARING DISTANCE ATER EXISTING RIM: 31.44 T: 27.2C7 INV. O.U18 1- 8 WLF1-4 EXISTING W YP.) WATER PIPE 24 .1 9 E X " PV WLF 1-5 W IN V .: WL WLF LINE # BEARING DISTANCE 1 VALVES (T H LF WL WLF2-40 S 76°02'54" E 60.33' WLF4-79 S 74°05'45" E 28.85' EX. STRM. M 1-6 WL F1 35.00 RIM: 31.27 -7LF -2 F1 PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb -3 WLF2-41 S 80°27'50" E 12.08' WLF3-65 N 05°22'03" W 12.74' WLF4-80 S 19°55'40" E 34.63' INV. IN: 27.64.59 W F1 EXISTING INV. OUT: 27 8 S 44°37'45" W 529.14' -1 WLF2-42 S 09°25'33" E 44.72' WLF3-66 N 39°08'51" W 14.08' WLF4-81 S 22°46'45" E 20.10' REVISIONS .5 Owner: DEL. R.R. REAL ESTATE AGENT TR ES (TYP.) INV. OUT: 27 Owner: RYDER, E EX. 18" PVC WLF3-67 S 65°11'39" W 24.28' Map #: Raymond Street (35' Wide) EX. 8" SEWE R EX. STRM. IN LET WLF2-43 S 38°18'33" W 61.98' WLF4-82 S 48°18'04" E 38.45' Secondary Owner: M WLF3-68 N 77°39'05" W 53.69' RIM:30.87 LINE M WLF2-44 S 26°11'58" W 66.18' WLF4-83 S 42°49'04" W 16.60' 2-00-06700-01-2000-00001 O Map #: 2-05-06707-01-0600-00001 O .69 DICKERSON, MYRTLE W. N S 45°36'29" W 198.38' IP F IPIPFNIN INV. OUT: 27 Map #: F FN 35.00 EV M H WLF3-69 N 68°12'04" W 27.28' Owner: WATERS, WYATT T. Deed Reference(s): WF 0008 0138 EX. SAN. M WLF2-45 S 00°06'31" E 46.26' WLF4-84 N 32°57'44" W 41.28' EEVVEA O D 2-05-06707-01-0701-00001 N F LRIM: 33.91 Map #: Ex. R/w Map #: 2-05-06707-01-0300-00001 FN WLF3-70 N 83°09'45" W 110.84' Secondary Owner: WATERS, Map #: 2-05-06707-01-0400-00001 Deed Reference(s): U 0052 0253 X 0036 0227 X 0032 0239 M 0017 0073 E 0008 0077 INV.: 24.16 2-05-06707-01-0700-00001 Map #: 2-05-06707-01-0800-00001 WLF2-46 S 30°06'31" E 47.62' WLF4-85 S 75°42'54" W 20.10' IP Map #: 2-00-06700-01-1900-00001 G Owner: PAIGE, JAMES Owner: SUDLER, WILMA MISHOE D Map #: 2-05-06707-01-0702-00001 Owner: BURDEN, JOE W. JR. u:\Accounts\PLAWX\plawx19001 - dsu student housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\CS0201.dwgPLOTTED:1/23/2023 12:55 , PMBY:Andrew Shields Owner: MISHOE, WILMA WLF3-71 S 50°28'50" W 0.67' SHERRY L. Secondary Owner: Deed Reference(s): D 6657 Deed Reference(s): IS 0026 0403 WLF2-47 S 52°39'14" W 51.84' WLF4-86 S 14°31'23" W 28.06' WQ 0010 0164 K 0050 0064 Deed Reference(s): D 7536 0288 C 0054 0162 WLF3-72 S 10°45'24" W 114.99' Owner: FISHER, RAYMOND WLF2-48 S 37°01'39" W 51.98' WLF4-87 N 82°18'17" W 17.12' PAIGE, RITA MISHOE ZONING:RM2 ZONING:RM2 Deed Reference(s): K 0046 0250 EV 0045 D 0292 0065 D Owner: BURDEN, JOE W. JR. WLF3-73 S 65°03'33" E 85.70' T Reference(s): L FNDeed0044 0139 WLF2-49 S 79°37'47" W 60.53' WLF4-88 N 21°21'08" E 28.46' Map #: 2-05-06707-01-0500-00001 Owner: DOVER, CITY OF N NO. ZONING:TND WLF3-74 N 77°45'02" E 35.96' BE E N WLF2-50 N 61°54'48" W 48.04' WLF4-89 N 36°55'39" W 15.56' Owner: MISHOE, WILMA F Deed Reference(s): E 0008 0077 H IP G 0034 0219 ZONING:RM2 WLF3-75 N 75°22'35" E 41.05' PVF E WLF2-51 N 64°23'48" E 28.71' WLF4-90 S 71°47'42" W 43.96' EV DATE EI IP R E Deed Reference(s): M 0032 0349 WLF3-76 N 55°29'58" E 45.75' F NVV TF N WLF2-52 N 39°12'38" E 28.87' WLF4-91 S 81°30'30" W 48.31' 0028 0421 M R OEE Y R OG M EX. SAN. MH O O WLF3-77 N 00°18'12" E 26.42' C R VBIPCFCIRN ON N N WLF2-53 N 25°40'15" E 48.87' WLF4-92 N 17°43'08" E 20.09' RIM: 31.44 Deed Reference(s): D 6388 0032 E Map #: 2-05-06700-02-2600-00001 FN FN ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES R EV CC EEV CAN ST D WLF3-78 N 58°58'30" E 60.11' Owner: DOVER, CITY OF D M C WLF2-54 N 46°54'58" W 48.37' WLF4-93 N 39°10'33" E 32.32' ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE PK EV O EV PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED EV C M C ME C N Map #: 2-05-06700-02-2500-00001 F Map #: 2-05-06700-02-2700-00001 R TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON WLF2-55 S 69°57'15" W 59.59' WLF4-94 N 40°59'45" E 35.71' INE P L D Map #: 2-05-06707-01-1500-00001 F F Map #: 2-05-06707-01-1300-00001 THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER IN FN Map #: 2-00-06700-01-2500-00001 Map #: 2-05-06707-01-1400-00001 W Deed Reference(s): L 0048 0107 BENCHMARK: IRON PIPE, PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION TO WLF2-56 N 33°20'11" W 77.56' WLF4-95 N 88°18'41" E 13.76' OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE NORTHING=429958.27 SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS 0008 0077 L 0025 0220 EASTING=618299.47 Owner: WAWEM, LLC WLF2-57 N 27°29'48" W 58.02' WLF4-96 N 84°54'02" E 26.10' SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL Owner: PAIGE, RITA MISHOE ELEV 39.26 Owner: BURDEN, JOE W. JR. EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER Owner: MISHOE, WILMA Owner: MISHOE, WILMA Map #: 2-00-06700-01-2100-00001 WLF2-58 N 12°20'14" W 39.78' SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI Owner: RIVERA PROPERTY GROUP LLC ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND Deed Reference(s): Z 0051 0195 Owner: MISHOE, WILMA SANDRA L. PARCEL B lots 179, 181, 182, 183 EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. WLF2-59 N 08°32'22" E 33.80' Secondary Owner: PAIGE, JAMES E. DBC54 PG162 Secondary Owner: MISHOE, HENRY C Deed Reference(s): D 6388 0032 Deed Reference(s): IS 0026 0403 WQ Deed Reference(s): 2-05-06707-01-1300 PLAWX19001 Deed Reference(s): I 0045 0022 PROJECT Deed Reference(s): D 6648 0195 C 0054 0162 0700, 0100 &2-00-06700-01-1700 Deed Reference(s): D 6809 0042 D 2-00-06700-01-2100 ZONING:RG5 50.00 DATE 2023-01-23 Deed Reference(s): D 0581 0315 E 0008 0077 L 0025 0220 D 8160 0057 D 4147 0282 REF:DB6657 PG288 02-05-06707-01-0700 0010 0164 E 0008 0077 6657 0291 C 0054 0162 DRAWING SCALE 1"= 80' DRAWN BY ALS 83.95 APPROVED BY GBR 0 80' 160' CS0201 SHEET 2 OF 10 91

Item 3. SITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES: PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. 1. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE, FEDERAL AND LOCAL CODES. ALL NECESSARY LICENSES AND PERMITS SHALL BE Christiana Executive Campus OBTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS EXPENSE UNLESS PREVIOUSLY OBTAINED BY OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ERECT AND MAINTAIN, AS REQUIRED BY THE CONDITIONS AND PROGRESS OF THE WORK, ALL NECESSARY SAFEGUARDS FOR SAFETY AND PROTECTION. 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY INFORM THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR ERRORS THEY DISCOVER IN THE PLAN. 3. DEVIATION FROM THESE PLANS AND NOTES WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE OR THE ENGINEER MAY BE CAUSE FOR THE WORK TO BE REJECTED. Newark, DE 19713-4310 4. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE NEW AND SHALL BE ASBESTOS AND VERMICULITE FREE. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE STORED SO AS TO ASSURE H THE PRESERVATION OF THEIR QUALITY AND FITNESS FOR THE INTENDED WORK. RT NO T 302.655.4451 F 302.654.2895 5. DRAWINGS DO NOT INCLUDE NECESSARY COMPONENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION SAFETY. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED. IT MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED AND ALL RULES AND REGULATIONS THERETO APPURTENANT. 6. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR TO FIELD LOCATE AND RECORD AND DAMAGE TO EXISTING PAVING, SIDEWALK, CURB OR STRUCTURES NOT TO BE REMOVED OR REPLACED, ENGINEER TO VERIFY LOCATION AND EXTENT OF DAMAGE. ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ONE COMPLETE SET OF CONTRACT DRAWINGS ON WHICH HE SHALL NOTE, IN RED, THE ALIGNMENTS AND INVERTS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES INSTALLED OR ENCOUNTERED DURING THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK. ALL DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLAN LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF BOTH THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE AS-BUILT DRAWINGS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN THE FIELD. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OPEN ONLY THAT SECTION OF TRENCH OR ACCESS PITS WHICH CAN BE BACKFILLED AND STABILIZED AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY. STEEL PLATES SHALL BE USED ON ANY TRENCH OR ACCESS PITS WHICH MUST REMAIN OPEN OVERNIGHT. 25.00' SY THIS REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO AREAS COMPLETELY CLOSED AND SECURE FROM VEHICULAR OR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. 9. DAMAGE TO EXISTING PAVING, SIDEWALK, CURB OR STRUCTURES NOT TO BE REPLACED OR REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO ENGINEER, CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL DAMAGED WORK WITHOUT CHARGE TO THE OWNER. 10. MISS UTILITY SHALL BE NOTIFIED THREE (3) DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. 59.71' 11. ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE, BUT NOT IN PAVEMENT, SHALL BE TOP-SOILED (6" MINIMUM), SEEDED AND MULCHED. IF THE ENGINEER DETERMINES THAT A SATISFACTORY STAND OF GRASS DOES NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION, ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RE-ESTABLISHING A SATISFACTORY STAND OF GRASS SHALL BE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. SE 12. ALL SIGNING FOR MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY, AND SHALL FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SHOWN IN TB DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK AC LATEST EDITION OF "DELAWARE TRAFFIC CONTROLS FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, UTILITY, AND K EMERGENCY OPERATIONS." 7 CA R AN GARA D 1,470 EG 13. DESIGN, FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF ALL PERMANENT SIGNING SHALL BE AS OUTLINED IN THE LATEST VERSION OF THE DE ET LANE L MUTCD. SQ. F 'W T 35' E .00 X. R. O .W. 50 14. DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND STRIPING SHALL BE AS OUTLINED IN THE LATEST VERSION OF THE DE FIRE FRESH WATER MUTCD. FOR FINAL PERMANENT PAVEMENT MARKINGS: WETLANDS AR a) EPOXY RESIN PAINT SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR LONG LINE STRIPING. EA 0.54± ACRES b) THERMO PLASTIC (EXTRUDED OR PREFORMED MATERIAL) WILL BE REQUIRED ON ASPHALT SURFACES, FOR SHORT LINE STRIPING, I.E. PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, SYMBOLS/LEGENDS. c) PERMANENT PAVEMENT MARKING TAPE (PER DELDOT APPROVED MATERIALS LIST) WILL BE REQUIRED ON CONCRETE SURFACES, FOR SHORT LINE STRIPING, I.E. SYMBOLS/LEGENDS. LANE FIRE 15. BREAKAWAY POSTS SHALL BE USED WHEN INSTALLING ALL SIGNS. REFERENCE DELDOT STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAIL T-15. LANE 7 CA R FIRE 1,470 GARAGE 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE FOLLOWING, TWO (2) WEEKS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION: 175 U COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS NIT - BUILDIN 16.1. THE OWNER, KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT, & SITE ENGINEER SQ. F 1 FLR 6 FLR. A G #1 PAR T PARK ING - TMENT 17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN PUBLIC ROADS AND STREETS IN A BROOM SWEPT CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. EX. 3 80 SP BL ACES DG. LANE 5.00 RAILROAD AVENUE & GROVE STREET OVERALL SITE PLAN 18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND IMMEDIATELY REPLACE, RELOCATE, RESET OR RECONSTRUCT ALL OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE WORK FIRE AREA, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MAILBOXES, SIGNS, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, PLANTERS, CULVERTS, DRIVEWAYS, PARKING LANE LANE 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE FIRE AREAS, CURBS, GUTTERS, FENCES, OR OTHER NATURAL OR MAN-MADE OBSTRUCTIONS. TRAFFIC CONTROL REGULATORY, WARNING AND FRESH WATER INFORMATION SIGNS SHALL REMAIN FUNCTIONAL AND VISIBLE TO THE APPROPRIATE LANES OF TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES, WITH THEIR WETLANDS AR RELOCATION KEPT TO A MINIMUM DISTANCE. FIRE EA 12.09± ACRES 7 CA RG 19. TRANSITIONS FROM PROPOSED SIDEWALK AND CURB TO EXISTING SHALL BE MADE AT THE NEAREST EXISTING JOINT. C 1,470 ARAGE SQ. F PURPOSE NOTE ENTE FIRE T LANE RLIN NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 25.00 THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS TO SHOW THE CONSOLIDATION OF 4 EXISTING TAX PARCELS INTO ONE PARCEL AND TO PROPOSE TWO MID-RISE, CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE ' FY EO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDINGS WITH PARKING, ACTIVE RECREATIONAL AREAS, AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES. Y) LLC (UNORAILRO 21 F RA LANE B 7 CA AD PROPERTY SUMMARY 0 50. PEN IT - 6 UILDING U 00' R WE 1,470 GARAGE N ILRO TLA ROA ND TAX PARCEL NUMBERS 2-05-06700-02-5600-00001 - 26.13 Acres AD FIRE SET DWA BAC SQ. F 2-05-06700-02-5500-00001 - 1.42 Acres FLR #2 K 2-05-06700-02-5400-00001 - 1.72 Acres 1 T F PARK . APARTM TRAC 2-05-06700-02-5300-00001 - 1.81 Acres L R LANE FRESH WATER WETLANDS AR OWNER PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC KS EA 1.53± ACRES ING EN PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, LLC 9 SP T BLDG. FIRE - LOT SIZE GROSS (CONSOLIDATED) 31.08 ACRES (1,353,974 SQ. FT.) 9 LOT SIZE NET (CONSOLIDATED) 30.50 ACRES (1,328,578 SQ. FT.) ACES ZONING RG-5 PROPOSED USE MID-RISE APARTMENTS 60' P LANE ROP OSE D R.O .W. FRESH WATER ZONING (RG-5) REQUIREMENTS WETLANDS AR 7 CA 0.16± ACRES EA RG FIRE ALLOWED / REQUIRED PROPOSED BY 1,470 ARAGE PROJECT STATUS: ---- H MINIMUM LOT AREA (MAX DENSITY) 900 SF / DU (1,476 DU) 385 DU (3,451 SF/DU) NGT SQ. F T LE T MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 FEET 172 ± FEET MINIMUM LOT DEPTH 125 FEET 1,015 ± FEET TREE 7 CA 77.60' MINIMUM FRONT YARD 25 FEET 25 FEET ND S R 1,470 GARAGE MINIMUM SIDE YARD 25 FEET 25 FEET PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb MINIMUM REAR YARD 25 FEET >25 FEET (VARIES) AD E SQ. F25.00 ' FY T MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 70 FEET OR 6 STORIES 6 STORIES < 70 FEET 0' DE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE 25% LOT AREA (7.73 AC.) >= 21.21 ACRES (69.5%) 400.0 REVISIONS MINIMUM ACTIVE RECREATION 10% of GROSS DEVELOPMENT Gro AREA(16.18*10%=1.61 ACRES) 72,771 SF (1.67 ACRES) v 35.0 Ex. R 0 e S treet /W REQUIRED PARKING (APARTMENTS) 2.25 PER DU(2.25X385UNITS = 867) ( 3 5 ' W PROPOSED PARKING (APARTMENTS) PLOTTED:1/23/2023 12:55 , PMBY:Andrew Shields ide) 25.00 WAIVER REQUIRED* 1.5 PER STUDIO (233) 1.5 PER 1 BEDROOM(263) 179- GARAGE (INT.) 42 - GARAGE (EXT.) ' 2 PER 2 BEDROOM(110) 462 - SURFACE 35.00 1 PER 5 UNITS(77) 683 MIN. SPACES REQUIRED 683 PROPOSED ADA SPACES 2% OF TOTAL PROPOSED(15) 16 PROPOSED NO. REQUIRED BIKE PARKING 1 PER 20 PARKING SPACE Raymond Street (3 683 SPACES/20= 34 REQUIRED 36 PROPOSED BIKE SPACES F G 5' Wide) WETLAND PAVING SETBACK 100 FEET OR 50 FEET DATE IP IN ON 50 FEET W/ PROPOSED EV AN T RIPARIAN BUFFER PLANTINGS LE ES W OP 35.00 ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES T PARKING SETBACKS NOT ALLOWED IN FRONT YARD COMPLIES (25' MIN.) ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE Ex. R/w MIN. 3' OTHER YARDS 5 FEET PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED u:\Accounts\PLAWX\plawx19001 - dsu student housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\CS1001.1.dwg TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION DUMPSTERS REQUIRED 15 15 OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL (1 PER FIRST 48 DU, 1 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL 24 DU) EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND DWELLING UNIT TYPE BREAKDOWN EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. PROPOSED CITY OF DOVER GENERAL NOTES: PROJECT PLAWX19001 5. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS ARE PROPOSED FOR THIS STRUCTURE AND SHALL BE MONITORED BY AN 2 BEDROOM APARTMENT 55 UNITS (15% OF TOTAL) FIRE MARSHAL NOTES: APPROVED FIRE ALARM SYSTEM. 1. OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVE RECREATION AREA SHALL BE RETAINED BY THE 1 BEDROOM APARTMENT 175 UNITS DATE 2023-01-23 6. FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION SHALL BE WITHIN 50 FEET OF MAIN ENTRANCE. ACCESS TO THE FIRE DEPT. STUDIO APARTMENT 155 UNITS DEVELOPER OR A DESIGNATED HOMEOWNER'S / MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION. THE CONNECTION SHALL BE CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED AS DEFINED BY THE STATE FIRE REGULATIONS. FIRE TOTAL 385 UNITS DRAWING SCALE 1"= 80' 1. ALL FIRE LANES, FIRE HYDRANTS, AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MARKED IN ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE, INSURANCE AND TAXES ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE FIRE PREVENTION REGULATIONS. DEPT. CONNECTION SHALL BE WITHIN 300 FEET OF A FIRE HYDRANT, MEASURED AS HOSE WOULD OFF THE ON THE RECREATION AREA. FIRE EQUIPMENT. DRAWN BY ALS 2. THE FOLLOWING WATER FOR FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS APPLY: MAIN SIZES: 6" MINIMUM. 7. ADDRESS NUMBERS OF AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN HEIGHT MUST BE PLACED ON THE STREET SIDE OF THE 2. SANITATION SERVICES SHALL BE PROVIDED BY A PRIVATE SANITATION HAULER. WAIVERS OR VARIANCES REQUIRED MINIMUM CAPACITY: 1,000 GPM @ 20 PSI RESIDUAL FOR 1 HOUR DURATION. HYDRANT SPACING: 800' ON BUILDING AND VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. APPROVED BY GBR CENTER (DSFPR REGULATION 702, CHAPTER 6, SECTION 3). PROPOSED LAND USE SUMMARY A WAIVER IS REQUESTED FROM ARTICLE VI, SECTION 3, WHICH REQUIRES 2.25 PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT TO PERMIT 1.78 SPACES 0 80' 160' PER DWELLING UNIT USING RATIOS AS FOLLOWS: 3. 4. LOCK BOX WILL BE REQUIRED. CONTACT LOCAL FIRE CHIEF FOR ORDERING INFORMATION AND LOCATION OF BOX ON THE BUILDING. THE PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL BE SIX STORY (70 FT MAX.) BUILDINGS OTHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE OPEN SPACE 79,493 SF (6.0%) INCLUDES GARAGES 325,178 SF (24.5%) 404,671 SF (30.5%) 923,907 SF (69.5%) 1.5 SPACES PER STUDIO 1.5 SPACES PER 1-BEDROOM APARTMENT 2.0 SPACES PER 2-BEDROOM APARTMENT CS1001.1 1.0 SPACE PER 5 UNITS FOR VISITOR OVERFLOW PARKING TOTAL 1,328,578 SF SHEET 3 OF 10 92

Item 3. PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. Christiana Executive Campus 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 19 N O COVERED PICNIC PAVILLION Newark, DE 19713-4310 RT H MULTI-SPORT COURT T 302.655.4451 F 302.654.2895 (BASKETBALL, TENNIS, PICKLEBALL) 2' ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR S 45°38 9.7 ' .50 3 R4 R 475.00' '15" W AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY WATER FRESH DS AREA 24' N WETLA ACRES 50' R4. DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK 21 1.53± 23 ' .50 R4 9' PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, TLAND S 6' WIDE PAVED TRAIL ETBACK 18' .0 0' R2 50.00' W COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS ' .50 R4 E 35.00 Ex. R/w RAILROAD AVENUE & GROVE STREET 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE WATER SITE PLAN FRESH DS AREA 0' 8 R2 5.0 N 35°44'50" W 110.48' N WETLA ACRES 17 LANE FIRE DUMPSTER (4) ' .00 24' ENCLOSURE 0.54± DUMPSTER (3) 0' R5 0' K AC ENCLOSURE 9.0 4.5 ETB R1 NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 ND CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE S R15.0 R3 TLA 0' 23 18' LLC WE 50. 8 00' LANE FIRE LANE FIRE 24' 24' 24.00' ' Wide) 77.60' N 43°5 eet (35 ond Str DUMPSTER (4) ENCLOSURE BUILDING #2 14 LANE 210 UNIT - 6 FLR. APARTMENT BLDG. 5'23" E ' 1 FLR PARKING - 99 SPACES 24 11 24.00' Raym BUILDING #1 11 9' 235.20 ' ' 18 FIRE 24' 22 5 R92.7 LANE BY FIRE ' 0' ' 175 UNIT - 6 FLR. APARTMENT BLDG. ' ' 00 R 5 .0 0 5. 24' R 0 ' .0 COVERED BICYCLE RACK .0 0 R 5 R 3.0 R 4.5 R3 (18 SPACES) LANE 0' PROJECT STATUS: ---- 24' 9 Grove Street 35.00 6 ' LE F .00 (35' Wide) 1 FLR PARKING - 80 SPACES 24' 36 16 W AN IP 9 TO EST ING V LANE 10 0' FIRE R3 R1 E ' .00 24' 5.0 FIRE P O N 0' PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb N 34°50'04" W 229.03' ' .0 R3 .0 0' ' 0 25.00' 3 24' .0 0 5.0 R 9' ' R2 R5 00 R REVISIONS R5 LANE . 18' 9 16 00' R2. 32 ' 0' 0' 0' 0' .00 .5 .5 24.00' ' R5 24' .0 R5 FIRE R3 9' R4 R4 2 .00' .0 R u:\Accounts\PLAWX\plawx19001 - dsu student housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\CS1001.dwgPLOTTED:1/23/2023 12:55 , PMBY:Andrew Shields .0 S 45°36 DUMPSTER (2) 0 0' 0' ENCLOSURE .0 R39 .0 R3 31' R5 18' NO. 24.00' '29" W COVERED BICYCLE 18 18 16 0' .0 RACK (18 SPACES) R5 71' ' 59. .50 5 R4 0' DATE Y 0' S 23.45' 25.0 0 18 32 0' 5. .5 R 198.38' .00' R 4 ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES 0' LANE R39 LANE FIRE FIRE R5.0 ' ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE 76 00 ' 0' 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED R3 . 9' R3. 24' R5 .0 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT 8 TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER 19 R15 PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION .00' 25.00' FY OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE 7 CAR GARAGE SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS 18' 10 7 CAR GARAGE 3 7 CAR GARAGE 4 7 CAR GARAGE SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI 0' ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND R4 25.00' FY EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. 60' PROPOSED R.O.W. PROJECT PLAWX19001 35' EX. R.O.W. N 34°56'16" W 1077.47' EX. 35.00 DATE 2023-01-23 DUMPSTER (3) RAILROAD 35.00 ENCLOSURE (UNOPEN ROADWAY) DRAWING SCALE 1"= 40' Ex. R/W DRAWN BY ALS APPROVED BY GBR CENTERLINE OF RAILROAD TRACKS 400.00' DEAD END STREET LENGTH 0 40' 80' CS1001 SHEET 4 OF 10 93

. MH NLE RM. I TRM EX. S 31.27 T . S " PVC C RIM: IN: 27.64 EX 30.87 WLF1-30 INV. OUT: 27. Item 3. 8" P V RIM: OUT: 27.6 PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. 26 INV. OUT: 27. 8 31 LET EX. 1 INV. GRADING NOTES: INV. M. IN S T R EX. 1 EX. 31.00 7 1. BEDDING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED HEREIN ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS MINIMUMS FOR RELATIVELY RIM: OUT: 27.2 Christiana Executive Campus DRY, STABLE EARTH CONDITIONS. ADDITIONAL BEDDING SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ROCK TRENCHES AND . WET AREAS. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE SUCH ADDITIONAL BEDDING 27 INV AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO PROPERLY CONSTRUCT THE WORK. 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 2. COMPACTION OF THE BACKFILL OF ALL TRENCHES SHALL BE COMPACTED TO THE DENSITY OF 95% OF 31 THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (ASTM D698). BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE FREE FROM ROOTS, - 41 STUMPS, OR OTHER FOREIGN DEBRIS AND SHALL BE PLACED IN LIFTS NOT TO EXCEED 8 INCHES IN F2 Newark, DE 19713-4310 L WL COMPACTED FILL THICKNESS. CORRECTION OF ANY TRENCH SETTLEMENT WITHIN A YEAR FROM THE W F2 -42 DATE OF APPROVAL WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. MATERIAL THAT CANNOT BE TH COMPACTED AS REQUIRED SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, NO R F1- 40 OVER EXCAVATED, AND THEN REPLACED WITH SUITABLE1FILL. 2- 3 T 302.655.4451 F 302.654.2895 31 27 LF H 31 AN. M WL W 3. THE CONTRACTOR WILL INSURE THAT POSITIVE AND ADEQUATE DRAINAGE IS MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES EX. S : 31.44 28 WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS. THIS MAY INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, REPLACEMENT OR WLF RIM 24.19 RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES THAT HAVE BEEN DAMAGED OR REMOVED OR INV.: REGRADING AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEER, EXCEPT FOR THOSE DRAINAGE ITEMS SHOWN AT SPECIFIC 2-43 LOCATIONS AND HAVING SPECIFIC PAY ITEMS IN THE DETAILED ESTIMATE. NO SEPARATE PAYMENT WILL ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR BE MADE FOR ANY COSTS INCURRED TO COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ANY AND ALL EXCAVATION AND MATERIAL SAMPLES NECESSARY TO 32 AND SCHEDULING FOR THE TESTING SHALL BE CONDUCT REQUIRED SOIL TESTS. ALL ARRANGEMENTS 28 29 ER THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY. -64 " SEW EX. 8 WLF2 5. SOILS TESTING AND ON-SITE INSPECTION SHALL BE PERFORMED BY AN INDEPENDENT GEOTECHNICAL -4 F2 LINE ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL PROVIDE COPIES OF TEST REPORTS TO THE CONTRACTOR, THE 28 WL OWNER AND THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND SHALL PROMPTLY NOTIFY THE OWNER, HIS H AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY REPRESENTATIVE AND THE CONTRACTOR, SHOULD WORK PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR FAIL TO AN. M 4 MEET BUILDING STANDARDS. 33 EX. S 33.91 RIM: 24.16 3 G 2-6 F F IN INV.: F 29 WL 6. IP N BARRICADES AROUND THE WORK AREA CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND MAINTAIN ALL NECESSARY EV - 32 W AND SHALL PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST WATER DAMAGE E V AAND SOIL EROSION. IP LF1 LF 2- L W 4 5 7. MAXIMUM SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPE IS 2% AND MINIMUM SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPE IS 1% FOR ADA WATER WLF2-46 ACCESSIBLE AREAS. 34 FRESH DS AREA 27 DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK WLF 8. VERTICAL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVD 88. 2-62 N TING WETLA ACRES 28 EXIS PIPE 30 WLF2-47 9. ALL SLOPES MAXIMUM 3:1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 1.53± 29 R ATE 3 29 1-3 WLF3-65 35 LF WLF3-66 W subject W 67 30 F IP WLF3- .) FacilityB 60209, V 1 E -34 PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, WLF2-6 1 LF WLF3-78 W 31 36 .E .C 2-48 l (A 35 8 D LANE ta -6 WLF 1- 9 vironmen 3 corded in LF LF CK W W -54 31L WLF2 2-60 ND SETB 32F Coast Enith DNREC as re W WL A 6 25 F1 -3 3 -69 -5 COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS WL LF F2 tic W W 55 n W 50.00' W 3 LF a LF 3 tl WLF 26 IP A -77 32 30 59 F former enant w ETLA 312 2- 2- -49 EV 3 WL WL RAILROAD AVENUE & GROVE STREET 334 WLF Limits of vironmental Cov WLF3-76 -37 35 35 F2- F2 WLF1 27 3 58 TER 35.00 2-52 G WA YP.) WLF2-57 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE 0 Ex. R/w GRADING PLAN -7 WLF2-56 IN 3 T 1 LF EXIS LVES (T WLF2-5 n FN E W D 37 to an N D 0 F VA 33 2-5 N N 75 F & 140. 26 WL O MO WATER F3- M FRESH DS AREA PG 132 WL WLF3-71 N WETLA ACRES 27 38 FIRE NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE 0.54± LLC 74 28 KSE F3- D TBA 39 27 C D AN WL 34 FN 29 WE TL N W 00' STORM INLET TYP. O 50. M LF LANE FIRE LANE 3- FIRE 72 35 38 Wide) 29 3 35 30 F 3-7 36 37 WL 35 39 ' 31 33 5 32 ( 3 33 77.60' t tree 34 35 34 36 37 37 38 36 35 BUILDING #2 TING dS 35 36 LANE 210 UNIT - 6 FLR. APARTMENT BLDG. EXIS TYP.) 40 aymon 36 1 FLR PARKING - 99 SPACES 37 S( TREE 37 35 36 BUILDING #1 38 R 39 FIRE 37 36 BY 37 40 38 PROJECT STATUS: ---- LANE FIRE 39 38 E 175 UNIT - 6 FLR. APARTMENT BLDG. BYVIPV 40 PF 37 STORM INLET TYP. 40 F 40 IP EV 38 F 41 V I E LANE E IP TR BE MCVCR V 40 E EE N 39 T CR F 41 38 D Grove Street E 35.00 FN F O N ON F N N G (35' Wide) 1 FLR PARKING - 80 SPACES 38 F EV IP NCI T O PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb IP N CR C R E V E EIAN ES LANE O FIRE V 39 E M 38 MC 41 FIRE IN C L W O P REVISIONS 40 T 25.00' 40 LANE 39 41 42 37 u:\Accounts\PLAWX\plawx19001 - dsu student housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\CS1501.dwgPLOTTED:1/23/2023 12:55 , PMBY:Andrew Shields 42 41 37 40 FIRE 39 38 40 43 41 NO. 44 42 40 45 DATE 39 41 71' Y 59. 0' S ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES 25.0 40 44 41 40 39 ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE 40 PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED 40 TING TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON EXIS RETE THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER 40 LANE FIRE LANE FIRE PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION 40 44 C 40 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE CON PAD 42 41 41 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL 45 EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER 43 SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI 25.00' FY 41 ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT 42 43 41 41 PROJECT PLAWX19001 25.00' FY 60' PROPOSED R.O.W. 42 43 42 43 43 DATE 2023-01-23 44 DRAWING SCALE 1"= 40' 35' EX. R.O.W. E EX. 35.00 N F TO RAILROAD 42 41 35.00 40 DRAWN BY ALS EV S (UNOPEN ROADWAY) CR R E Ex. R/W E APPROVED BY GBR M 0 40' 80' CS1501 SHEET 5 OF 10 94

. MH TRM NLET RM. I X . S 31.27 E S T RIM: IN: 27.64 59 . EX 30.87 C 8" PV Item 3. C INV OUT: 27. 5 . 9 WLF1-30 8" PV RIM: OUT: 27.6 PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. CITY OF DOVER UTILITY NOTES (WATER SERVICE): GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: T INV. OUT: 27. . . IN LE V EX. 1 INV. IN EX. 1 1. M ALL WATER UTILITY COMPONENTS MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER WASTEWATER HANDBOOK, EFFECTIVE DATE MARCH 22, 2010. R T EX. S31.00 Christiana Executive Campus 2. 7 ALL PROPOSED WATER MAINS SHALL BE CEMENT LINED CLASS 52 DUCTILE IRON PIPE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA C151, LATEST REVISION. RIM: OUT: 27.2 1. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE STATE, FEDERAL AND LOCAL CODES. ALL NECESSARY LICENSES AND PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THE . I NV CONTRACTOR AT HIS EXPENSE UNLESS PREVIOUSLY OBTAINED BY THE OWNER. 3. THE USE OF HYDRANTS DURING/FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES SHALL BE PROHIBITED. THIS METHOD MAY NOT BE UTILIZED DURING ANY PHASE OF THE PROJECT. 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY INFORM THE ENGINEER OF ANY 4. ANY EXISTING WATER LINES NOT TO BE UTILIZED BY THE PROPOSED FACILITY MUST BE PROPERLY ABANDONED AT THE MAINS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF DISCREPANCIES OR ERRORS THEY DISCOVER IN THE PLAN. WATER & WASTEWATER SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. 3. DEVIATION FROM THESE PLANS AND NOTES WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF 41 5. THE SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT (302) 736-7025 PRIOR TO THE START OF 2- Newark, DE 19713-4310 THE OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE OR THE ENGINEER MAY BE CAUSE FOR LF WL CONSTRUCTION. A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF WATER & WASTEWATER MUST OBSERVE AND APPROVE ALL CITY OWNED WATER INTERCONNECTIONS AND THE WORK TO BE REJECTED. W F 2-4 2 TESTING. ALL WATER TAPS MUST BE PERFORMED BY A CITY OF DOVER APPROVED CONTRACTOR. THE PROPOSED LOCATION FOR THE WATER CONNECTION MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED IN THE H TH AN. M 4. UTILITIES ENTER THE PREMISES FROM PUBLIC STREETS OR RIGHTS OF WAY. NO FIELD DUE TO CONDITIONS OF THE EXISTING MAIN. POSSIBLE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD REQUIRE RELOCATION INCLUDE PROXIMITY TO PIPE JOINTS, OTHER TAPS, CONCRETE ENCASEMENTS, R 19 EX. S : 31.44 0 T 302.655.4451 F 302.654.2895 31 -4 CONFLICT WITH OTHER UTILITIES, AND THE LIKE. TEST HOLES MUST BE PREFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO DETERMINE THE BEST TAPPING LOCATION. THE CITY OF DOVER WILL NOT BE 5. ALL NON-CONDUCTIVE UTILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH DETECTABLE 2 WL LF HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD CONDITIONS REQUIRING ADJUSTMENT OF THE TAPPING LOCATION OR FOR ANY WORK REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO MAKE APPROPRIATE AND LAWFUL H AN. M RIM WARNING TAPE OR TRACER WIRE. F1- W CONNECTION. 6. ALL PIPE LENGTHS AND DISTANCES BETWEEN STRUCTURES ARE MEASURED EX. S : 31.44 WLF RIM 24.19 FROM CENTER OF STRUCTURE TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE ALONG A 6. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO FINAL GRADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT CITY OF DOVER REQUIREMENTS AND PRACTICES. INV.: HORIZONTAL PLANE. 2-43 ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR 7. NO TREES MAY BE PLANTED WITHIN TEN FEET (10') OF UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE. 7. ALL STORM DRAINAGE PIPE SHALL BE LAID ON SMOOTH CONTINUOUS GRADES WITH NO VISIBLE BENDS AT JOINTS. 8. BEDDING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED HEREIN ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS 0 40' 80' MINIMUMS FOR RELATIVELY DRY, STABLE EARTH CONDITIONS. ADDITIONAL ER WLF2 BEDDING SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ROCK TRENCHES AND WET AREAS. " SEW CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE SUCH ADDITIONAL -64 EX. 8 BEDDING AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO PROPERLY CONSTRUCT THE WORK F WL LINE 9. COMPACTION OF THE BACKFILL OF ALL TRENCHES SHALL BE COMPACTED TO AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY 2-4 H AN. M THE DENSITY OF 95% OF THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (ASTM D698). 4 EX. S 33.91 BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE FREE FROM ROOTS, STUMPS, OR OTHER RIM: 24.16 FOREIGN DEBRIS AND SHALL BE PLACED IN LIFTS NOT TO EXCEED 8 INCHES IN 3 COMPACTED FILL THICKNESS. CORRECTION OF ANY TRENCH SETTLEMENT 2-6 INV.: F WITHIN A YEAR FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF 2 WL 3 W THE CONTRACTOR. 1- LF LF 2- 10. W IS THE CONTRACTOR WILL INSURE THAT POSITIVE AND ADEQUATE DRAINAGE 45 WATER MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS. THIS MAY INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, REPLACEMENT OR RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING WLF2-46 DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK RIM = 33.91 FRESH DS AREA DRAINAGE STRUCTURES THAT HAVE BEEN DAMAGED OR REMOVED OR INV IN = 29.28 REGRADING AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEER, EXCEPT FOR THOSE DRAINAGE WLF 2-62 N TING WETLA ACRES EXIS PIPE ITEMS SHOWN AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS AND HAVING SPECIFIC PAY ITEMS IN THE WLF2-47 DETAILED ESTIMATE. NO SEPARATE PAYMENT WILL BE MADE FOR ANY COSTS 1.53± R INCURRED TO COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT. 33 21 E WAT - LF1 WLF3-66 WLF3-65 11. CONTRACTOR MUST APPLY FOR ALL UTILITY W CONNECTION APPLICATIONS. 67 23 12. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UTILITY CONNECTION FEES. WLF3- PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, WLF2-6 13. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE4 CONTRACTOR TO DETERMINE THE LOCATION -3 UTILITIES AND TO TAKE WHATEVER STEPS OF ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND F1 WL FOR THEIR PROTECTION. THE ENGINEER HAS WLF3-78 1 NECESSARY TO PROVIDE DILIGENTLY ATTEMPTED TO LOCATE AND INDICATE ALL EXISTING FACILITIES ON 2 THESE PLANS; 35 HOWEVER, THIS INFORMATION -6 1- CONVENIENCE ONLY. THE 3 IS8 SHOWN FOR THE WLF RIM = 36.93' CONTRACTOR'S F F ENGINEER ASSUMES NO L L -48 ETLAND INV IN =30.02' W W SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN. F2-54 WLF2-60 RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE UTILITY COMPANIES FOR EXACT WL INV OUT = 29.92' SETBAC LOCATION OF THEIR UTILITIES PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION. IT SHALL WL -36 9 COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS 6 F1 BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THELF3- CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR AND REPLACE -5 K W L ANY AND ALL DAMAGE MADE TO UTILITIES BY THE CONTRACTOR. W W F2 WLF W 77 2 3 3- LF 2-55 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE LOCATION AND INSTALLATION OF ALL LF -5 9 49 50.00' W UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES TO MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO RAILROAD AVENUE & GROVE STREET WL WL 2- CURBING, PAVING, AND COMPACTED SUBGRADE. WLF3-76 F2- F2- WLF 58 ER 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE 15. UTILITY COORDINATION SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT SCHEDULE AND IT WAT P.) WLF2-57 35.00 IS THE EXPLICIT RESPONSIBILITY 0 OF THE CONTRACTOR TO ASSURE THAT THE 52 Ex. R/w G -7 WLF2-56 UTILITY PLAN I N PROJECT SCHEDULE 3 INCLUDES THE NECESSARY RELOCATION.THE CONTRACTOR WILLFNOT BE PAID ADDITIONALLY FOR THIS COORDINATION. THE WLF2-5 T Y EXIS LVES (T W 1 CONTRACTOR SHOULD SEEK ASSISTANCE FROM ALL UTILITY COMPANIES TO 0 VA LOCATE AND PROTECT THEIR FACILITIES. 75 F2-5 WL WATER 16. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE ONLY AS MUCH TRENCH WHICH PIPE CAN BE F3- FRESH DS AREA INSTALLED AND TRENCH BACKFILLED BY THE END OF EACH WORK DAY. WL 8 WLF3-71 N 17. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITY TRENCHES SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH SAFE WETLA ACRES NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 17 LANE CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE FIRE CLEAN FILL. LLC 0.54± 18. ALL EXISTING CASTING AND INLET TOPS OR GRATES MUST BE ADJUSTED TO THE 4 CK TBA F3- PROPOSED GRADE, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. LAN 7 DS WL E ET 23 W 0' W 8 50. 3- 0 LANE LF FIRE LANE FIRE 72 ) -73 5' Wide F3 WL 3 77.60' t ( ee r ond St BUILDING #2 LANE TING 14 210 UNIT - 6 FLR. APARTMENT BLDG. 1 FLR PARKING - 99 SPACES EXIS TYP.) S( 11 TREE Raym BUILDING #1 11 RIM = 38.00 BY FIRE 22 INV IN = 31.41 INV OUT = 31.31 PROJECT STATUS: ---- LANE FIRE WATER VALVE TYP. 175 UNIT - 6 FLR. APARTMENT BLDG. FIRE HYDRANT TYP. FIRE HYDRANT LANE TYP. 9 Grove Street 35.00 6 NG N PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb F (35' Wide) 1 FLR PARKING - 80 SPACES IP NI O 36 16 V T LANE 10 LE S FIRE E A E P FIRE REVISIONS W O IPE, T 25.00' RK : IRON5P8.27 M A H 9 BENC THING=429 99.47 LANE NOR TING=6182 9 16 u:\Accounts\PLAWX\plawx19001 - dsu student housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\CS1701.dwgPLOTTED:1/23/2023 12:56 , PMBY:Andrew Shields FIRE EAS DEPARTMENT 32 CONNECTION INV = 37.90 FIRE NO. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION 18 18 16 DATE 71' 59. 5 ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES Y 0' S ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE 25.0 PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED 18 32 TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON 8 TING THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER INV PIPE #2 PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION EXIS RETE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE = 39.24' OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS C CON PAD 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL WATER VALVE TYP. EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER 19 SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND 25.00' FY 7 CAR GARAGE EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. 10 7 CAR GARAGE 3 7 CAR GARAGE 4 7 CAR GARAGE 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT RIM = 39.55 INV IN = 32.73 INV OUT = 32.63 PROJECT PLAWX19001 25.00' FY 60' PROPOSED R.O.W. DATE 2023-01-23 DRAWING SCALE 1"= 40' 35' EX. R.O.W. EX. 35.00 35.00 DRAWN BY ALS RAILROAD (UNOPEN ROADWAY) RIM = 43.90 RIM = 44.00 Ex. R/W APPROVED BY GBR PIPE #1 INV IN = 36.48 RIM = 42.39 INV IN = 37.31 PIPE #2 INV IN =38.75 INV IN = 34.75 PIPE #1 INV OUT = 37.21 INV OUT = 36.38 INV OUT =34.65 RIM = 39.82 INV IN = 33.03 INV OUT = 32.93 CS1701 400.00' DEAD END STREET LENGTH SHEET 6 OF 10 95

WLF1-30 Item 3. PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. MATCHLINE SEE SHEET CS2002 SEE SHEET CS2001 Christiana Executive Campus A 1 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 P4W 0 -4 :2 F2 Newark, DE 19713-4310 MH L WL W F2-4 2 0 1 -4 T 302.655.4451 F 302.654.2895 F1- 2 3 LF WL W H RT WLF NO P4WA MH: 20 2-43 ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR WLF2 -64 P5 -44 MH W F2 :2 0 WL AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY -6 3 F2 2 WL 1 -3 P4 W LF LF MH WA 2- W :2 45 0 WLF2-46 DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK 2 WLF 2-6 WLF2-47 3 1-3 WLF3-65 LF WLF3-66 W WLF3- 4 67 1 PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, 1-3 WLF2-6 F WL WLF3-78 P4 MH WA -3 5 6 8 :2 0 WLF 1 3- W LF W LF -54 2-48 WLF2-60 WLF2 6 WL F1-3 3-69 F2 COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS WL LF W -53 W WLF W 77 2- 3- LF 2-55 LF 59 49 WL F2- RAILROAD AVENUE & GROVE STREET WLF WLF3-76 F2-58 WL LANDSCAPE PLAN WLF2-57 2-52 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE 70 P4W WLF2-56 3- A P4 MH 1 LF : 20 M WA WLF2-5 H: W 20 0 75 F 2-5 WL WL F3- WLF3-71 P W 4 P4W P W 4 P4W A A A A MH MH MH MH : 20 : 20 : 20 : 20 NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE LLC F3- 74 WL WA P4 20 W : 3- MH LF P4W 72 P5W MH A ' Wide) : 20 -73 MH : 20 LF3 W A P4W 0 :2 MH eet (35 ond Str BUILDING #2 P4WA 210 UNIT - 6 FLR. APARTMENT BLDG. 0 MH: 2 1 FLR PARKING - 99 SPACES P4WA P4W Raym P4W A MH: 20 A MH BUILDING #1 MH : 20 : 20 BY PROJECT STATUS: ---- P4WA 175 UNIT - 6 FLR. APARTMENT BLDG. P4W P4W MH: 20 A A MH MH : 20 : 20 P5W P5W P5W P5W P5W MH MH MH MH : 20 : 20 : 20 : 20 MH : 20 Grove Street (35' Wide) 1 FLR PARKING - 80 SPACES P4W PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb A MH : 20 P4WA REVISIONS P4W MH: 20 A MH : 20 P4WA P5W P5W P5W MH: 20 MH MH MH : 20 : 20 : 20 u:\Accounts\PLAWX\plawx19001 - dsu student housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\CS2001.dwgPLOTTED:1/23/2023 12:56 , PMBY:Andrew Shields P4W NO. A MH P5W P5W : 20 P5W P5W MH MH P4WA : 20 : 20 MH MH P4W : 20 : 20 MH: 20 P4W A A DATE MH MH : 20 : 20 P4WA P5W P5W MH: 20 P4W A MH MH MH : 20 : 20 : 20 ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE WA 1,470 SQ. FT SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS 1,470 SQ. FT P4 : 20 SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL MH EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI P4WA ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE MH: 20 EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT P4W P4W P4W P4W A A A A MH MH MH MH : 20 : 20 : 20 : 20 PROJECT PLAWX19001 P4W P4W A A MH MH DATE 2023-01-23 : 20 : 20 DRAWING SCALE 1"= 40' RAILROAD DRAWN BY ALS (UNOPEN ROADWAY) APPROVED BY GBR 0 40' 80' CS2001 SHEET 7 OF 10 96

Item 3. PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. PLANT SCHEDULE Christiana Executive Campus GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES: CANOPY TREE CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT TREE DENSITY WORKSHEET 1. ALL NEW TREES SHALL HAVE A ONE YEAR REPLACEMENT GUARANTEE. 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 2. ONLY PRUNE OR REMOVE EXISTING TREES WHERE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS. AB 15 ACER RUBRUM 'BOWHALL' BOWHALL RED MAPLE 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER TOTAL LOT AREA: 30.50 AC. 3. NO PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN TEN FEET (10') TO UTILITIES. BN 16 BETULA NIGRA RIVER BIRCH 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER Newark, DE 19713-4310 TOTAL AREA OF WOODLANDS ON SITE: 23.14 AC. GB 14 GINKGO BILOBA 'AUTUMN GOLD' TM AUTUMN GOLD MAIDENHAIR TREE 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER TOTAL AREA OF WOODLANDS TO BE T 302.655.4451 F 302.654.2895 19.65 AC. (84.9%) PRESERVED (MUST BE >= 50%): GI 22 GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS THORNLESS HONEY LOCUST 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER NON-WOODLAND AREA (SITE AREA MINUS AREA OF NS 20 NYSSA SYLVATICA 'DAVID ODOM' TM AFTERBURNER TUPELO 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER PRESERVED WOODLAND): 10.85 AC. (472,626 SF) ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR QB 12 QUERCUS BICOLOR SWAMP WHITE OAK 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER NEW TREE PLANTINGS REQUIRED (1 TREE PER 3,000 158 SQUARE FEET OF NON-WOODLAND AREA ON SITE): TD 15 TAXODIUM DISTICHUM BALD CYPRESS 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER TREE PLANTINGS PROPOSED: 268 TG 30 TILIA CORDATA 'GREENSPIRE' GREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF LINDEN 2" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT SINGLE LEADER EVERGREEN TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY IO 33 ILEX OPACA AMERICAN HOLLY 6` HT. B&B FULL FORM TO GROUND PG 15 PICEA GLAUCA WHITE SPRUCE 6` HT. B&B FULL FORM TO GROUND TP 25 THUJA PLICATA WESTERN RED CEDAR 6` HT. B&B FULL FORM TO GROUND DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK FLOWERING TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT AM 21 AMELANCHIER CANADENSIS CANADIAN SERVICEBERRY MULTI-TRUNK6` HT. B&B H RT NO CC 12 CERCIS CANADENSIS EASTERN REDBUD MULTI-TRUNK 6` HT. B&B PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, MV 18 MAGNOLIA VIRGINIANA SWEETBAY MAGNOLIA 6` HT. B&B SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT HEIGHT REMARKS AA 37 ARONIA ARBUTIFOLIA 'BRILLIANTISSIMA'BRILLIANT RED CHOKEBERRY #5 CONT. 24" - 30" MIN. 5 STEMS CA 42 CLETHRA ALNIFOLIA SUMMERSWEET #5 CONT. 24" - 30" MIN. 5 STEMS COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS IW 46 ILEX VERTICILLATA WINTERBERRY #5 CONT. 24" - 30" MIN. 5 STEMS RAILROAD AVENUE & GROVE STREET RG 123 RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO-LOW' GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC #3 CONT. 18" - 24" MIN. 5 STEMS LANDSCAPE PLAN 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE VD 48 VIBURNUM DENTATUM 'ARROWWOOD' ARROWWOOD VIBURNUM #5 CONT. 24" - 30" MIN. 5 STEMS WLF1-14 1-1 5 WLF 1-13 NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE WLF LLC WLF 1-12 - 16 1 F1 1- L W LF LF W W 1- F1- 11 2 WL 3 1- LF W WL -1 F1 0 F1- 4 WLF1- 17 WL BY PROJECT STATUS: ---- LF 1-18 W 1- 9 WL WLF WLF -5 9 4-80 F1 -7 -82 WLF4 4 WLF4 WLF4 PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb LF -81 W WLF1 -83 REVISIONS -25 F1 -96 WLF4-84 LF1 -26 WL F4 W WLF1-21 W -19 LF WL WLF4-89 LF 1 4-9 -6 LF WL 5 WLF1-20 7 W -2 W 4- 8 F1- 7 1 1- LF 6 LF 4-8 8 W WLF4-85 W 4-90 LF 87 u:\Accounts\PLAWX\plawx19001 - dsu student housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\CS2002.dwgPLOTTED:1/23/2023 12:56 , PMBY:Andrew Shields WLF - WLF W L F4 WLF 8 4-94 W 1-24 NO. 8 4- 1-2 WLF WLF1-22 WL 1 F DATE 4-9 93 WL W F W LF 4- ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES 1- LF ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE 23 92 PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS 1-29 SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER WLF SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. PROJECT PLAWX19001 DATE 2023-01-23 WLF1-30 DRAWING SCALE 1"= 40' MATCHLINE SEE SHEET CS2002 DRAWN BY ALS SEE SHEET CS2001 APPROVED BY GBR 0 40' 80' CS2002 SHEET 8 OF 10 97

. MH S T RM NLET RM. I E X . 7 31.2 T RIM: IN: 27.64 59 S Item 3. . EX 30.87 C PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. INV OUT: 27. 58 . " PVC 8" P V 9 INV. OUT: 27. RIM: OUT: 27.6 T . . INLE V EX. 1 8 INV. IN Luminaire Schedule T RM EX. 1 EX. S31.00 Christiana Executive Campus Fixture Type Qty Fixture Description Mounting Height Manufacturer Catalog Number LLF Total Watts Delivered Lumens Photometric File Name 7 RIM: OUT: 27.2 P4WA 35 AREA LIGHT, TYPE 4 WIDE WITH INTERNAL PACKLIGHT CONTROL 20 Feet Hubbell Lighting Inc VP-S-60L-136-3K7-4W-BC 0.900 133.506 8498 VP-S-60L-136-3K7-4W-BC.ies . INV P5W 17 AREA LIGHT, TYPE 5 WIDE 20 Feet Hubbell Lighting Inc, dba Beacon Product VP-S-60L-136-3K7-5W 0.900 134.793 13495 VP-S-60L-136-3K7-5W.ies 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 LIGHTING NOTES: A Newark, DE 19713-4310 P4W 0 1. ALL NEW SITE LIGHTING SHALL OPERATE DAILY ON A DUSK TO DAWN BASIS. LIGHTS WILL BE CONTROLLED BY PHOTOCELL AND/OR ASTRONOMIC TIME CLOCK AND POWERED FROM THE NEW BUILDING :2 MH ELECTRIC SERVICES. N ORT H T 302.655.4451 F 302.654.2895 19 H AN. M P4WA EX. S : 31.44 MH: 20 RIM 24.19 INV.: ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR ER " SEW EX. 8 P5 MH W AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY LINE :2 0 H AN. M EX. S 33.91 RIM: 24.16 INV.: P4 MH WA :2 0 DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK TING EXIS PIPE 21 E R WAT 23 PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, P4 MH WA :2 0 COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION AND MOUNTING DETAIL RAILROAD AVENUE & GROVE STREET 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE TER LIGHTING PLAN 35.00 G WA YP.) P4W Ex. R/w N A I P4 T MH EXIS LVES (T W : 20 M H: A 20 VA 8 P W 4 P4W P W 4 Luminaire Legend NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 A A A P4W CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE MH MH MH A 17 : 20 MH LANE : 20 : 20 FIRE : 20 LLC 23 WA 0.5 Foot-Candle 8 P4 20 : MH LANE 1 Foot-Candle FIRE LANE FIRE P4W P5W A MH de) : 20 MH (35' Wi : 20 A P4W P4W 0 A :2 MH MH : 20 eet nd Str BUILDING #2 TING P4WA 14 LANE 210 UNIT - 6 FLR. APARTMENT BLDG. EXIS TYP.) MH: 20 o 1 FLR PARKING - 99 SPACES ym S( a 11 P4WA TREE R P4W P4W A MH: 20 A MH BUILDING #1 MH : 20 : 20 11 GBR BRD BY FIRE 22 PROJECT STATUS: ---- LANE FIRE P4WA 175 UNIT - 6 FLR. APARTMENT BLDG. P4W P4W MH: 20 A A MH MH : 20 : 20 LANE P5W P5W P5W P5W P5W MH MH MH : 20 9 : 20 : 20 MH MH Grove Street PER TOWN ENGINEER COMMENTS : 20 PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb : 20 35.00 6 G REVISED PER TOWN COMMENTS IP IN (35' Wide) 1 FLR PARKING - 80 SPACES P4W W F N A 36 16 A LANE 10 MH TO EST EV REVISIONS FIRE LE : 20 FIRE P4WA P O N P4W MH: 20 A MH : 20 LANE P5W P4WA P5W P5W MH: 20 MH MH MH : 20 9 u:\Accounts\PLAWX\plawx19001 - dsu student housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\CS2201.dwgPLOTTED:1/23/2023 12:56 , PMBY:Andrew Shields : 20 : 20 16 32 FIRE 2 1 NO. P4W A MH P5W P5W : 20 P5W P5W MH P4WA 7/27/21 MH MH MH 9/3/21 DATE : 20 : 20 : 20 : 20 P4W P4W MH: 20 A A MH MH : 20 : 20 18 18 16 P4WA P5W P5W MH: 20 P4W ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES A MH MH MH : 20 : 20 5 ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE : 20 PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON 18 32 THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER 8 PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION TING OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE EXIS RETE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL C WA CON PAD 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER P4 : 20 SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI 19 MH ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. P4WA 7 CAR GARAGE 10 7 CAR GARAGE 3 7 CAR GARAGE 7 CAR GARAGE 1,470 SQ. FT 4 P4W MH: 20 1,470 SQ. FT P4W 1,470 SQ. FT 1,470 SQ. FT MH A MH A P4W MH A P4W MH A PROJECT PLAWX19001 : 20 : 20 : 20 : 20 P4W P4W DATE 2023-01-23 A A MH MH : 20 : 20 DRAWING SCALE 1"= 60' DRAWN BY ALS EX. 35.00 RAILROAD 35.00 (UNOPEN ROADWAY) APPROVED BY GBR Ex. R/W 0 40' 80' CS2201 SHEET 9 OF 10 98

Item 3. MULTI-SPORT COURT PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. (TENNIS, PICKLEBALL, BASKETBALL, ETC.) Christiana Executive Campus 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 VOLLEYBALL COURT TH Newark, DE 19713-4310 OR T 302.655.4451 F 302.654.2895 N ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR MULTI-SPORT 7 CAR 67,771 SF (1.55 ACRES) COURT GARAG ACTIVE RECREATION AREA E (TENNIS, 1,470 LANE ALL, PICKLEBVOLLEYBALL SQ. FT BASKETBALL, COURT FIRE ETC.) AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY 67,771 SF (1.55 ACRES) ACTIVE RECREATION AREA FIRE LANE LANE 7 CAR GARAG FIRE E 1,470 BUI 175 UN SQ. FT IT - 6 F LDING #1 1 FLR P LR. APART LANE COVERED COVERED PICNIC PAVILION ARKING MENT DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK - 80 SP BLD PICNIC WITH PICNIC TABLES EX. 35.0 0 ACES GF.IRE PAVILION FIRE LANE WITH PICNIC LANE TABLES FIRE 7 CAR GARAG E 1,470 SQ. FIRE LANE PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC & PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, CENTE FT 6 FOOT WIDE PAVED TRAIL LANE RL AY) FITNESS INE O 7 CAR STATIONS TYP. R GARAG (UNOPAILROAD E FIRE - LOCATED TO F BUILDIN 1,470 R AVOID IMPACT A 210 UN EN RO SQ. FT IL TO EX. TREES ROAD ADW G #2 COLLEGE ROAD APARTMENTS LANE TRA IT - 6 ACTIVE RECREATION PLAN 1 FLR P FLR. APART FIRE RAILROAD AVENUE & GROVE STREET CKS ARKIN MENT 1640 POWDERHORN DRIVE 9 SPAC BLDG. LANE G 6 FOOT WIDE PAVED TRAIL - 7 CAR 9 GARAG FIRE E 1,470 S ES Q. FT 7 CAR NEWTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE GARAG E LLC 1,470 SQ. FT FITNESS STATIONS TYP. - LOCATED TO AVOID IMPACT TO EX. TREES Grove S 35.00 Ex. R/W (35' Wi treet 35.00 de) 35.00 Ex. R/w Raymond Street (35' Wide) 0 100' 200' 0 40' 80' OVERALL SITE RECREATION PLAN ACTIVE RECREATION AREA ENLARGEMENT SCALE: 1" = 100' SCALE: 1" = 40' PROPERTY SUMMARY BY TAX PARCEL NUMBERS: 2-05-06700-02-5600-00001 - 26.13 Acres PROJECT STATUS: ---- 2-05-06700-02-5500-00001 - 1.42 Acres 2-05-06700-02-5400-00001 - 1.72 Acres 2-05-06700-02-5300-00001 - 1.81 Acres OWNERS: PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES, LLC PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD, LLC LOT SIZE GROSS (CONSOLIDATED): 31.08 ACRES (1,353,974 SQ. FT.) PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb LOT SIZE NET (CONSOLIDATED): 30.50 ACRES (1,328,578 SQ. FT.) ZONING: RG-5 REVISIONS PROPOSED USE: MID-RISE APARTMENTS ACTIVE RECREATION AREA CALCULATION: AREA REQUIREMENTS PER CITY OF DOVER CODE, ARTICLE V, SECTION 10.16: u:\Accounts\PLAWX\plawx19001 - dsu student housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\CS1002.dwgPLOTTED:1/23/2023 12:56 , PMBY:Andrew Shields · 275 SQ. FT. PER DWELLING UNIT OR 21 ACRE MIN. (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) 385 DWELLING UNITS * 275 SQ. FT. = 105,875 SQ. FT. (2.43 ACRES) · IN NO CASE SHALL THE COMMISSION REQUIRE MORE THAN 10% OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BE PROPOSED AS ACTIVE RECREATION. NO. DEVELOPMENT AREA = NET LOT AREA (30.50 ACRES) MINUS WETLAND AREAS (14.32 ACRES) = 16.18 ACRES MULTI-SPORT COURT (BASKETBALL, TENNIS, PICKLEBALL) OUTDOOR FITNESS STATIONS PICNIC PAVILLION 10% OF DEVELOPABLE PORTION OF SITE = 1.61 ACRES (MIN. REQUIRED ACTIVE RECREATION AREA) DATE PROPOSED ACTIVE RECREATION AREA: ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES · INTERIOR BUILDING = 5,000 SF - RECREATION / FITNESS ROOMS (500 SF / FLOOR OR 2,500 SF PER BLDG.) ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON · EXTERIOR = 67,771 SF - PAVED WALKING TRAIL, SPORTS COURTS, PICNIC AREAS, FITNESS ACTIVITY STATIONS THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE · TOTAL ACTIVE RECREATION AREA = 72,771 SQ. FT. (1.67 ACRES) SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. PROJECT PLAWX19001 DATE 2023-01-23 DRAWING SCALE 1"= 40' DRAWN BY ALS APPROVED BY GBR SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT COVERED BICYCLE RACK ADA COMPLIANT PICNIC TABLE CS1002 SHEET 10 OF 10 99

Item 3. Fisher Architecture, LLC 542 Riverside Drive Salisbury, MD 21801 (410) 742‐0238 70' - 10 1/8" SEAL: O FO 23' - 3 5/8" 24' - 0" 23' - 6 1/2" CO NL R N Y RE ST N VI RU OT EW CT FO IO R N PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED OR APPROVED BY ME, AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. LICENSE NO.: S5-0007610 EXPIRATION NO.: 01.31.2022 62' - 1 3/8" THE DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC, ARE SOLELY FOR 68' - 4 1/2" THE PURPOSES OF THE SPECIFIED 73' - 8 7/8" PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR AUTHORIZED FOR USE ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC MAKES NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THEIR SUITABILITY FOR ANY OTHER USE. ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC ARE INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE, AND SHALL REMAIN, THE PROPERTY OF FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC. CONSULTANTS: 11' - 7 1/2" elev. equip. elev. 182' - 3 1/4" 77' - 0 1/4" APARTMENTS 253' - 1 3/8" RAYMOND STREET 136' - 2 1/8" 136' - 2 1/8" DOVER, DELAWARE balcony overhang above 36' - 10 1/2" 209' - 9 5/8" 53' - 8 1/2" 82' - 7 3/8" 73' - 5 3/4" 2' - 6 3/4" 51' - 1 3/4" 82' - 7 3/8" 11' - 7 7/8" 61' - 9 7/8" lobby elev. mail equip. 23' - 9 5/8" elev. elev. SHEET INFO: elev. equip. First Floor Plan 11' - 6 3/4" 70' - 10 1/8" - Building 1 24' - 0" electrical 12' - 0" 43' - 2 3/8" 12' - 0" 23' - 0 1/2" water 7' - 7 5/8" fire pump utility telecom maintenance 20' - 7 5/8" 2' - 8" 28' - 0" 9' - 8" 16' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 7' - 11 3/8" 82' - 6 7/8" 79' - 8" 23' - 3 5/8" 28' - 0" 63' - 7 3/8" 82' - 6 7/8" 79' - 8" 277' - 1 7/8" REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION DATE: 2022.01.04 PROJECT NO. 2022052 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" PROJ MGR: LEW DRAWN BY: Author first floor 1 SHEET NUMBER: 1/16" = 1'-0" A1-101 100

Item 3. 70' - 10 1/4" 29' - 4 1/8" 12' - 2 1/8" 29' - 4" 6' - 3 5/8" 20' - 2 7/8" 3' - 8 3/8" 3' - 8 3/8" 20' - 2 7/8" 6' - 3 5/8" 2' - 9 5/8" 4' - 9 1/2" 2' - 9 5/8" Fisher Architecture, LLC 6' - 3 5/8" 6' - 3 5/8" 542 Riverside Drive Salisbury, MD 21801 (410) 742‐0238 SEAL: two bdrm two bdrm 19' - 0" 3.1 3.1 19' - 0" O FO CO NL R 47' - 11 5/8" N Y RE . . ST N VI RU OT EW 11' - 2 1/8" 11' - 2 1/8" CT FO . . IO R N 8' - 4 7/8" one bdrm one bdrm 8' - 4 7/8" PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE 2.2 2.2 PREPARED OR APPROVED BY ME, AND THAT I AM 3' - 1" 3' - 1" A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. 3' - 8 1/8" 3' - 4 1/8" LICENSE NO.: S5-0007610 7' - 4 1/4" EXPIRATION NO.: 01.31.2022 3' - 8 1/8" 7' - 8 1/2" 4' - 6" THE DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER 9' - 3 5/8" ARCHITECTURE, LLC, ARE SOLELY FOR 3' - 7 1/2" THE PURPOSES OF THE SPECIFIED 4' - 9 5/8" PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR 2' - 9 5/8" AUTHORIZED FOR USE ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC MAKES NO REPRESENTATION AS TO one bdrm THEIR SUITABILITY FOR ANY OTHER USE. 8' - 9 1/2" 8' - 9 1/2" 8' - 4 7/8" ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER 2.1 ARCHITECTURE, LLC ARE INSTRUMENTS 145' - 4 1/4" OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE, AND SHALL REMAIN, THE PROPERTY 5' - 9 5/8" . OF FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC. 12' - 3 1/4" . 11' - 5 1/2" 6' - 5 5/8" CONSULTANTS: studio . 1.1 4' - 1 1/2" 8' - 4 7/8" 182' - 0 1/8" one bdrm 16' - 11 1/2" 8' - 8 1/2" 2.1 2' - 9 5/8" 3' - 7 1/2" 4' - 1 1/2" studio 7' - 8 1/2" 6' - 5 5/8" 1.1 . 3' - 7 1/2" 2' - 9 5/8" 24' - 4 3/4" 11' - 5 5/8" 1 A-401 one bdrm 8' - 4 7/8" 2.1 3 A-401 . 6' - 5 5/8" 249' - 1 3/8" studio . 1.1 11' - 5 1/2" 4' - 1 1/2" 16' - 11 1/2" . 8' - 8 1/2" 8' - 4 7/8" one bdrm 4' - 1 1/2" 2' - 9 5/8" studio 2.1 6' - 5 5/8" 3' - 7 1/2" 1.1 APARTMENTS . 8' - 1" RAYMOND STREET 24' - 4 3/4" 11' - 5 5/8" . 2 studio A-401 12' - 2 5/8" 36' - 7 7/8" . 6' - 5 5/8" studio 1.2 210' - 0 3/4" 22' - 0" 14' - 11 1/2" 17' - 0 1/8" 12' - 1 1/2" 16' - 11 1/2" 24' - 4 3/4" 8' - 4 7/8" 22' - 7 3/8" 7' - 0" 9' - 3 5/8" 7' - 3 7/8" 47' - 11 5/8" 1.1 DOVER, DELAWARE 4' - 1 1/2" 8' - 4 7/8" 3' - 7 1/2" 3' - 7 1/2" 8' - 4 7/8" 5' - 11 7/8" 6' - 1 5/8" 8' - 8 1/2" 6' - 1 5/8" 12' - 1 1/2" 6' - 1 5/8" 4' - 2 3/8" 11' - 0 1/8" 5' - 9 5/8" 7' - 0" 9' - 3 5/8" 3' - 7 1/2" 9' - 0" 11' - 4 3/8" 18' - 6" 6' - 3 5/8" 10' - 9 1/2" 2' - 9 5/8" 7' - 8 1/2" 2' - 9 5/8" 5' - 9 5/8" 4' - 1 1/2" 4' - 1 1/2" 4' - 2 3/8" 5' - 9 5/8" 3' - 8 3/8" 2' - 9 5/8" 12' - 8 3/4" 5 16' - 11 1/2" 8' - 8 1/2" A-401 yoga/game 520 sf/flr 4' - 1 1/2" 6' - 3 5/8" studio 6' - 5 5/8" 1.1 . 29' - 3 3/4" 24' - 4 3/4" 11' - 5 5/8" 20' - 2 1/2" one bdrm one bdrm one bdrm two bdrm . studio studio studio one bdrm 2.1 2.1 2.3 3.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.2 . elev. 6' - 5 5/8" studio lobby . 3' - 8 5/8" 3' - 8 5/8" 1.1 4' - 1 1/2" 8' - 4 7/8" . . . mech . . . 4' - 3 3/8" 12' - 2 3/4" 70' - 10 1/4" 5' - 9 5/8" 2' - 9 5/8" 4' - 9 1/2" 2' - 9 5/8" . . . . . . . . SHEET INFO: . . studio studio studio studio two bdrm 30' - 11 5/8" 19' - 4 3/8" one bdrm one bdrm one bdrm 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 one bdrm one bdrm two bdrm 1 3.2 20' - 2 1/2" 2.1 2.2 3.1 29' - 3 3/4" 2.1 2.1 2.1 A-402 . Second Floor Plan - Building 1 5' - 9 5/8" 6' - 3 5/8" 2 A-402 4 A-401 2' - 2" 3' - 9" 2' - 9 5/8" 2' - 9 5/8" 5' - 2 1/2" 4' - 1 1/2" 4' - 1 1/2" 4' - 1 1/2" 4' - 1 1/2" 5' - 2 1/2" 3' - 7 1/2" 2' - 9 5/8" 6' - 9 5/8" 15' - 10 5/8" 4' - 6" 8' - 0" 3' - 9 5/8" 2' - 9 5/8" 9' - 0" 10' - 3 1/4" 9' - 0" 3' - 7 1/2" 7' - 8 1/2" 3' - 7 1/2" 9' - 0" 4' - 3 3/8" 6' - 1 5/8" 12' - 1 1/2" 6' - 1 5/8" 8' - 8 1/2" 6' - 1 5/8" 12' - 1 1/2" 6' - 1 5/8" 4' - 3 3/8" 9' - 0" 2' - 9 5/8" 7' - 8 1/2" 3' - 7 1/2" 9' - 0" 11' - 4 3/8" 18' - 6" 6' - 3 5/8" 22' - 8 1/4" 14' - 8" 7' - 6 5/8" 65' - 10 1/8" 82' - 6 3/4" 79' - 11 1/4" 273' - 3" Second Floor (all residential floors similar) 1 1/16" = 1'-0" unit summary - Building 1 REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION DATE: 2022.01.04 area First Second third fourth fifth sixth Total PROJECT NO. 2022052 SCALE: As indicated studio - units 1.1, 1.2 520-540 s.f. 0 15 15 15 15 15 75 (42.5%) LEW PROJ MGR: DRAWN BY: LEW 1 Bedroom - units 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 715-740 s.f. 0 15 15 15 15 15 75 (42.5%) SHEET NUMBER: 2 bedroom - units 3.1, 3.2 1,015-1,040 s.f. 0 5 5 5 5 5 25 (15%) Total 0 35 35 35 35 35 175 A1-102 101

Item 3. area a Fisher Architecture, LLC 542 Riverside Drive Salisbury, MD 21801 (410) 742‐0238 SEAL: O FO CO NL R N Y RE 20' - 8 3/4" ST N VI RU OT EW CT FO IO R N 11' - 7 1/2" PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED OR APPROVED BY ME, AND THAT I AM area b A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. 6' - 8 3/8" LICENSE NO.: S5-0007610 EXPIRATION NO.: 01.31.2022 THE DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC, ARE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SPECIFIED PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR AUTHORIZED FOR USE ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC MAKES NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THEIR SUITABILITY FOR ANY OTHER USE. ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC ARE INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE, AND SHALL REMAIN, THE PROPERTY OF FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC. key plan CONSULTANTS: 256' - 5 3/4" 107' - 10 1/2" 165' - 4 1/8" 64' - 2 7/8" 26' - 10 3/4" 226' - 3 1/8" 220' - 8 3/8" 23' - 3 5/8" 23' - 3 5/8" APARTMENTS RAYMOND STREET 71' - 1 1/4" 24' - 0" 24' - 0" 11' - 7 1/2" 12' - 10" DOVER, DELAWARE 23' - 9 5/8" 10' - 11 5/8" 158' - 9 7/8" 62' - 1 7/8" 23' - 8 5/8" 86' - 11 3/8" 32' - 3 1/2" 35' - 10 3/8" 7' - 9" 2' - 6 3/4" 142' - 11 3/8" 10' - 3 3/4" 189' - 1 1/2" SHEET INFO: 111' - 6 1/4" 23' - 9 5/8" 24' - 0" 23' - 3 5/8" First Floor Plan 71' - 1 1/4" - Building 2 First Floor - Building 2 - Area A First Floor - Building 2 - Area B 2 3 1/16" = 1'-0" 1/16" = 1'-0" REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION DATE: 2022.01.04 PROJECT NO. 2022052 SCALE: As indicated PROJ MGR: LEW DRAWN BY: Author SHEET NUMBER: A2-101.1 102

Item 3. area a Fisher Architecture, LLC 542 Riverside Drive Salisbury, MD 21801 (410) 742‐0238 SEAL: O FO CO NL R N Y RE ST N VI RU OT EW CT FO IO R N area b PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION: 4' - 0 3/8" I CERTIFY THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED OR APPROVED BY ME, AND THAT I AM 7' - 7 7/8" A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. 3' - 7 1/2" LICENSE NO.: S5-0007610 2' - 9 5/8" 6' - 3 5/8" 5' - 11 5/8" 4' - 2" 4' - 2" EXPIRATION NO.: 01.31.2022 8' - 3 7/8" 8' - 4 7/8" THE DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC, ARE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SPECIFIED PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR 12' - 3 1/4" AUTHORIZED FOR USE ON ANY OTHER . . PROJECT. FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC MAKES NO REPRESENTATION AS TO 33' - 10 1/2" 11' - 5 1/2" THEIR SUITABILITY FOR ANY OTHER USE. ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC ARE INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE IN RESPECT 8' - 11 5/8" 8' - 11 5/8" . OF THE PROJECT. THESE DOCUMENTS key plan ARE, AND SHALL REMAIN, THE PROPERTY OF FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC. 8' - 4 7/8" 4' - 8" CONSULTANTS: 2' - 9 5/8" 9' - 4" 7' - 8 1/2" 3' - 7 1/2" 4' - 8" 5' - 10 3/8" 14' - 11 1/2" . 12' - 0 1/2" 3' - 7 1/2" 252' - 6 7/8" 6' - 2" 47' - 11 5/8" 14' - 11 5/8" 33' - 10 1/4" 14' - 11 5/8" 33' - 10 1/2" 19' - 8 1/8" 16' - 11 1/2" 24' - 4 3/4" 23' - 2 5/8" 22' - 8 1/4" 2' - 9 5/8" 8' - 4 7/8" 6' - 3 5/8" 19' - 0" 11' - 5 1/2" 8' - 4 7/8" 6' - 5 1/8" 7' - 10 1/8" 3' - 2' 6"- 9 5/8" 9' - 0" 10' - 9" 8' - 6" 2' - 9 5/8" 7' - 10 1/8" 3' - 6" 8' - 4 7/8" 11' - 4 5/8" 8' - 5 3/4" 3' - 7 1/2" 9' - 11" 6' - 1 5/8" 8' - 8 1/2" 10' - 3 1/8" 12' - 1 1/2" 10' - 3 1/8" 6' - 8 1/4" 6' - 6" 16' - 4 5/8" 6' - 3 5/8" 16' - 11 1/2" 16' - 11 1/2" 3' - 7 5/8" 2' - 9 5/8" 2' - 9 5/8" 4' - 1 1/2" 5' - 10 7/8" . 6' - 0 5/8" 33' - 10 1/2" 11' - 11 1/2" 5' - 11 5/8" 6' - 3 5/8" . . 7' - 4 7/8" 29' - 3 3/4" 19' - 11 1/2" 12' - 3 1/2" 24' - 4 5/8" . 3' - 3 5/8" 18' - 10 3/8" 30' - 11 5/8" two bdrm one bdrm one bdrm one bdrm one bdrm one bdrm studio studio studio 3.1 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 two bdrm 3' - 8" . 6' - 1 5/8" 3.2 14' - 11 1/2" 7' - 7 5/8" . . 3' - 3 5/8" 4' - 1 1/4" 3' - 10 5/8" 5' - 9 5/8" . . . . . . . 3' - 8" 70' - 10 1/4" 12' - 2 3/4" APARTMENTS 4' - 5 1/2" 2' - 9 5/8" 4' - 2 3/8" 10' - 0 3/8" 20' - 5 3/8" 8' - 4 7/8" 3' - 10 5/8" mech 4' - 2 3/8" RAYMOND STREET 8' - 4 7/8" . . . 226' - 6 3/8" . . 3' - 3 5/8" 6' - 3 7/8" 220' - 4 1/2" studio 6' - 1 5/8" . elev. 1.1 . . . lobby 33' - 10 1/2" 11' - 5 1/2" 7' - 10 1/4" one bdrm one bdrm one bdrm studio studio 19' - 2 1/2" two bdrm one bdrm 24' - 4 3/4" 1.1 1.1 12' - 1 1/2" DOVER, DELAWARE 29' - 3 3/4" 2.1 2.1 2.1 3.1 2.2 . . 8' - 4 7/8" 13' - 10 1/8" 28' - 0" . studio 6' - 1 5/8" 6' - 9 5/8" 2' - 9 5/8" 4' - 9 1/2" yoga/game 1.1 4' - 1 1/2" 520 sf/flr 3' - 7 1/2" 6' - 3 5/8" 2' - 9 5/8" 7' - 8 1/8" 2' - 9 5/8" 2' - 9 5/8" 3' - 8" 8' - 4 5/8" 2' - 9 5/8" 6' - 1 5/8" 4' - 1 1/2" 5' - 10 7/8" 8' - 7 1/8" 16' - 11 1/2" 14' - 11 1/2" 7' - 8 1/2" 6' - 3 5/8" 19' - 0" 11' - 5 1/2" 8' - 4 7/8" 3' - 8" 3' - 7 5/8" 8' - 10 3/4" 10' - 11 1/2" 8' - 4 3/4" 3' - 8" 4' - 7 7/8" 3' - 8 3/4" 8' - 3 1/2" 5' - 9 5/8" 5' - 11 7/8" 4' - 1 1/2" 8' - 8 1/2" 6' - 2 1/8" 47' - 11 5/8" 14' - 11 5/8" 33' - 10 1/4" 7' - 4" 9' - 3 5/8" 7' - 5 5/8" 16' - 10 3/4" 12' - 1 1/2" 16' - 11 1/2" 12' - 0 7/8" 10' - 5 1/4" 155' - 1 1/8" 3' - 7 1/2" 4' - 2 7/8" 16' - 7 1/4" 15' - 0 1/4" 15' - 0 1/4" 189' - 4 5/8" studio 2' - 9 5/8" 6' - 1 5/8" 1.1 8' - 4 7/8" 40' - 6 3/8" . 17' - 0 1/8" 11' - 8 5/8" 4' - 1 5/8" studio 9' - 3 5/8" 12' - 1 1/2" 24' - 4 3/4" 1.2 5' - 9 5/8" . . 5' - 2" 3' - 8 3/8" 3' - 8 3/8" 7' - 4 7/8" 7' - 4 1/4" 8' - 7" . 6' - 1 5/8" 3' - 8 3/8" 3' - 7 7/8" studio 86' - 6 1/8" 2' - 9 5/8" 2' - 9 5/8" 1.1 3' - 7 1/2" SHEET INFO: 4' - 1 1/2" 2' - 9 5/8" 8' - 2 7/8" 7' - 10 7/8" 16' - 11 1/2" one bdrm 8' - 8 1/2" 8' - 4 7/8" 2.1 4' - 1 1/2" 11' - 7 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" . . . Second Floor 33' - 10 1/2" studio 11' - 5 1/2" 6' - 1 5/8" Plan - Building 2 1.1 47' - 11 5/8" 47' - 11 5/8" . . . . 8' - 4 7/8" 12' - 1 1/2" 24' - 4 3/4" 19' - 0" 18' - 6" one bdrm 2' - 9 5/8" 2.1 . 6' - 1 5/8" studio 3' - 7 7/8" 7' - 3 3/4" 1.1 3' - 7 7/8" 6' - 3 5/8" 6' - 3 5/8" 4' - 1 1/2" 8' - 7 1/2" 4' - 6" 3' - 10 3/8" 3' - 10 3/8" 6' - 3 5/8" 19' - 8 3/4" 3' - 3 5/8" 4' - 5 1/2" 3' - 3 5/8" 19' - 8 7/8" 6' - 3 5/8" 29' - 4" 12' - 2 1/8" 29' - 4 1/8" 70' - 10 1/4" Second Floor - Building 2 - Area A Second Floor - Building 2 - Area B 2 3 1/16" = 1'-0" 1/16" = 1'-0" unit summary - Building 2 REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION DATE: 2022.01.04 area First Second third fourth fifth sixth Total PROJECT NO. 2022052 SCALE: As indicated studio - units 1.1, 1.2 520-540 s.f. 0 16 16 16 16 16 80 (38%) PROJ MGR: LEW DRAWN BY: Author 1 Bedroom - units 2.1, 2.2 715-740 s.f. 0 20 20 20 20 20 100 (48%) SHEET NUMBER: 2 bedroom - units 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 1,015-1,070 s.f. 0 6 6 6 6 6 30 (14%) Total 0 42 42 42 42 42 210 A2-102 103

Item 3. PRovide continuous ridge vent at all ridges over 4'-0" in length, typ. (refer to A-100's for notes) vertical board & Batten siding; color to be selected by owner 8" vinyl fascia board, typ. 12 12 6 12 6 12 12 6 12 6 30-year architectural Fisher Architecture, LLC asphalt shingle roof 542 Riverside Drive 6 6 Salisbury, MD 21801 (410) 742-0238 6" gutter, typ. Building Height Building Height Roof Bearing Roof Bearing SEAL: 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" typical pre-finished downspout with splash block O FO CO NL R Provide 4" vinyl corner N Y RE trim at all exterior ST N VI RU OT EW 9' - 0" 9' - 0" corners, typ. horizontal siding; color to be selected by owner CT FO IO R door as scheduled; ref. to A-601 N Provide stone sill cap PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION: Adhered stone veneer; I CERTIFY THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED OR APPROVED BY ME, AND THAT I AM style to be selected First Floor First Floor A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. by owner 0" 0" LICENSE NO.: S5-0007610 EXPIRATION NO.: 01.31.2022 Garage 1 - Front Elevation Garage 1 - Left Elevation THE DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER 3 4 ARCHITECTURE, LLC, ARE SOLELY FOR 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" THE PURPOSES OF THE SPECIFIED PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR AUTHORIZED FOR USE ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC 75' - 9 1/2" MAKES NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THEIR SUITABILITY FOR ANY OTHER USE. ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER 1' - 0" ARCHITECTURE, LLC ARE INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. THESE DOCUMENTS o.h. ARE, AND SHALL REMAIN, THE PROPERTY OF FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC. 1' - 0" o.h. CONSULTANTS: PROVIDE 3'-7" OF FIRE RATED EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING ON EITHER SIDE OF UNIT SEPARATION WALL (MIN CLASS C ROOF COVERING) OPENING OR PENETRATIONS THROUGH THE ROOF ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE 3'-7" MINIMUM, INCLUDING RIDGE VENTS (TYPICAL) Slope: 6:12 Slope: 6:12 architectural outline of walls below asphalt shingles Provide ice & water shield 36" up all eaves Slope: 6:12 22' - 0" 3' - 7" 3' - 7" Slope: 6:12 Slope: 6:12 Slope: 6:12 6" aluminum gutter, typ. TYPICAL GARAGE Provide continuous ridge vent at all ridges more than 4'-0" RAYMOND STREET Slope: 6:12 Slope: 6:12 in length, typ. 1' - 0" o.h. DOVER, DELAWARE 1' - 0" typical pre-finished downspout o.h. Garage 1 Roof Plan 2 1/4" = 1'-0" SHEET INFO: 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" Garage 1 Plans 20' - 0" Bay 1 Bay 2 Bay 3 Bay 4 Bay 5 Bay 6 Bay 7 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 5' - 4 1/2" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 5' - 5" REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION DATE: 2023.01.04 73' - 9 1/2" 2022052 PROJECT NO. SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PROJ MGR: LEW DRAWN BY: C. Park SHEET NUMBER: Garage 1 Floor Plan 1 1/4" = 1'-0" AG-101 104

Item 3. elevation material legend roof bearing 62' - 0" vertical densglas siding 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" color: white sixth floor 52' - 0" horizontal densglas siding color: tan fifth floor Fisher Architecture, LLC 42' - 0" 542 Riverside Drive Salisbury, MD 21801 stacked stone (410) 742-0238 fourth floor color: gray 32' - 0" SEAL: asphalt shingle roof Third Floor color: gray O FO 10' - 10" 22' - 0" CO NL R N Y RE ST N VI RU OT EW metal standing seam roof Second Floor 12' - 0" CT FO color: black IO R 12' - 0" N first floor vinyl trim PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION: 0" color: white I CERTIFY THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED OR APPROVED BY ME, AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS South Elevation - Building 1 OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. 3 LICENSE NO.: S5-0007610 1/16" = 1'-0" EXPIRATION NO.: 01.31.2022 THE DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC, ARE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SPECIFIED PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR AUTHORIZED FOR USE ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC MAKES NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THEIR SUITABILITY FOR ANY OTHER USE. ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC ARE INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE, AND SHALL REMAIN, THE PROPERTY roof bearing OF FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC. 62' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" CONSULTANTS: sixth floor 52' - 0" fifth floor 42' - 0" fourth floor 32' - 0" Third Floor 22' - 0" Second Floor 12' - 0" 12' - 0" first floor 0" North Elevation - Building 1 1 1/16" = 1'-0" APARTMENTS RAYMOND STREET roof bearing DOVER, DELAWARE 62' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" sixth floor 52' - 0" fifth floor 42' - 0" fourth floor 32' - 0" Third Floor 22' - 0" Second Floor 12' - 0" 12' - 0" SHEET INFO: first floor 0" East Elevation - Building 1 2 1/16" = 1'-0" Elevations - Building 1 roof bearing 62' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" sixth floor 52' - 0" fifth floor 42' - 0" fourth floor 32' - 0" Third Floor 22' - 0" Second Floor REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION 12' - 0" DATE: 2022.01.04 PROJECT NO. 2022052 12' - 0" SCALE: As indicated PROJ MGR: LEW DRAWN BY: Author first floor SHEET NUMBER: 0" 4 West Elevation - Building 1 A1-201 1/16" = 1'-0" 105

Item 3. elevation material legend roof bearing vertical densglas siding 62' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" color: white sixth floor 52' - 0" horizontal densglas siding color: tan Fisher Architecture, LLC fifth floor 542 Riverside Drive 42' - 0" Salisbury, MD 21801 stacked stone (410) 742-0238 fourth floor color: gray SEAL: 32' - 0" asphalt shingle roof color: gray O FO Third Floor CO NL R 22' - 0" N Y RE ST N VI RU OT EW metal standing seam roof Second Floor CT FO 12' - 0" color: black IO R 12' - 0" N first floor vinyl trim PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE 0" color: white PREPARED OR APPROVED BY ME, AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS North Elevation - Building 2 OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. 1 LICENSE NO.: S5-0007610 1/16" = 1'-0" EXPIRATION NO.: 01.31.2022 THE DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC, ARE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SPECIFIED PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR AUTHORIZED FOR USE ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC MAKES NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THEIR SUITABILITY FOR ANY OTHER USE. ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC ARE INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. THESE DOCUMENTS roof bearing ARE, AND SHALL REMAIN, THE PROPERTY 62' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" OF FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC. CONSULTANTS: sixth floor 52' - 0" fifth floor 42' - 0" fourth floor 32' - 0" Third Floor 22' - 0" Second Floor 12' - 0" 12' - 0" first floor 0" South Elevation - Building 2 2 1/16" = 1'-0" APARTMENTS RAYMOND STREET DOVER, DELAWARE roof bearing 62' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" sixth floor 52' - 0" fifth floor 42' - 0" fourth floor 32' - 0" Third Floor 22' - 0" Second Floor 12' - 0" SHEET INFO: 12' - 0" first floor 0" West Elevation - Building 2 Elevations - 3 Building 2 1/16" = 1'-0" roof bearing 62' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" sixth floor 52' - 0" fifth floor 42' - 0" fourth floor 32' - 0" Third Floor 22' - 0" REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION DATE: 2022.01.04 PROJECT NO. 2022052 Second Floor SCALE: As indicated 12' - 0" PROJ MGR: LEW 12' - 0" DRAWN BY: Author SHEET NUMBER: first floor 4 East Elevation - Building 2 0" A2-201 1/16" = 1'-0" 106

Item 3. Fisher Architecture, LLC 542 Riverside Drive Salisbury, MD 21801 (410) 742-0238 SEAL: O FO CO NL R N Y RE ST N VI RU OT EW CT FO IO R N PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED OR APPROVED BY ME, AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. LICENSE NO.: S5-0007610 EXPIRATION NO.: 01.31.2022 THE DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC, ARE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SPECIFIED PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR AUTHORIZED FOR USE ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC MAKES NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THEIR SUITABILITY FOR ANY OTHER USE. ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC ARE INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE, AND SHALL REMAIN, THE PROPERTY OF FISHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC. CONSULTANTS: APARTMENTS RAYMOND STREET DOVER, DELAWARE SHEET INFO: Renderings REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION DATE: 2022.01.04 PROJECT NO. 2022052 SCALE: PROJ MGR: LEW DRAWN BY: Author SHEET NUMBER: A-801 107

Item 3. S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street Public Comments Received (as of 2:00pm 3/20/2023) Set 1 Item 1: Email of 3/20/2023 forwarded by Andria Bennett, City Clerk on behalf of Dr. Wilma Mishoe with attachments • Item 1A: Petition against S-23-06 regarding 1. Waiver Requests: Reduction of Parking Requirement; 2. Traffic Safety Problem with 24 ft. Pavement; and 3. Safety Analysis or Traffic Impact Study • Item 1B: Letter of November 4, 2022 from Shannon Owens, Esq. on behalf of client Wilma Mishoe regarding Raymond Street a/k/a Jason Street • Item 1C: Letter of November 29, 2022 from Mayor Robin R. Christiansen veto of City Council Actions on Subdivision Waivers Item 2: Email of 3/20/2023 from Councilman David Anderson on Parking Waiver noting constituent concerns on traffic and parking 108

Item 3. 109

Item 1 Item 3. From: Gray, Mary Ellen To: Melson-Williams, Dawn; Swierczek, Julian D.; Mullaney, Kristen N; Oehmke, Katherine M. Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Testimony Submission Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:03:50 PM Attachments: image001.png S-23-06 Petition - College Road Apartments.pdf LT City of Dover - Raymond aka Jason Street.pdf Veto Letter from Mayor Christiansen 11.29.2022.pdf Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: Bennett, Andria <abennett@dover.de.us> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 12:25:27 PM To: Bobby Jones - Planning Commission <bcj1021@yahoo.com>; 'englady602@gmail.com' <englady602@gmail.com>; 'hollie323@aol.com' <hollie323@aol.com>; 'dover.hartman@gmail.com' <dover.hartman@gmail.com>; Maucher, Andrea <mauch@yahoo.com>; 'jed1492@aol.com' <jed1492@aol.com>; 'ccooper021@gmail.com' <ccooper021@gmail.com>; 'jhb947@outlook.com' <jhb947@outlook.com>; 'kennethroach1986@yahoo.com' <kennethroach1986@yahoo.com>; Gray, Mary Ellen <mgray@dover.de.us> Cc: WILMA MISHOE <wmishoe1@comcast.net> Subject: Planning Commission Testimony Submission Good Morning Director Gray and Planning Commission Members, Dr. Wilma Mishoe requested the attached document be read into the record for tonight’s Planning Commission Public Hearing. Thank you in advance. Respectfully, Andria Bennett City Clerk- City of Dover P: (302) 736-7009 F: (302) 736-5068 abennett@dover.de.us 110

ItemItem 1A3. WE THE PETITIONERS OPPOSE FILE #: S-23-06 fA1~(Q;~~Wrr=: SITE PLAN AND REQUEST A [£[0) MAR 202023 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TO ASSESS CURRENT SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE WELL-BEING OF OUR COMMUNITY Dear Planning Commission: 3-17-23 We the Residents impacted by the proposed Plan Type: Site Development Plan and Associated Plan: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements, S-22-04 are "AGAINST" this Proposal for several safety and parking concern reasons. 1. The current Waiver Requests: Reduction of Parking Requirement if approved would coerce the applicant's residents and or their visitors to find parking in our community; thus, encroaching upon our right to enjoy our community's parking amenities. 2. The proposed re-alignment of Raymond Street via right-away would not only devalue the scenery of our community, but additionally generate a traffic safety problem with only 24' feet of pavement designed for a moderate low density road system and fire lanes. Example: The average residential width of a two-way road system with asphalt pavement is 40' feet with sidewalks 4' feet on both sides for a total of 48' feet road system. The average width of a small vehicle is around 5.8 feet, and the overall width of a truck with mirrors is 8' feet, for a total of 13 14 feet of vehicle space needed. OrTI • ., • .ana.c. ••Jd.lrcrtf' te;a ••~l The average width of a car is 5.8 feet. _-- ~~E'-.. - i - - ~'-; ..,) 1 111

Item 3. WE THE PETITIONERS OPPOSE FILE #: S-23-06 SITE PLAN AND REQUEST A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TO ASSESS CURRENT SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE WELL-BEING OF OUR COMMUNITY If the proposed right-away road system being paved at 24' feet (18' feet less than our current residential pavement) is approved, then each lane exiting and entering would only allow 12' feet for each lane. In other words, if an individual visiting or residing at the proposed site project (College Apartments) were to park on one side of Raymond Street, then that would decrease the traveling space by at least 5' feet, equaling 19' feet of traveling space for a two-way road system, which traffic infrastructure will not support the high-density traffic with low-density infrastructure improvement (associated) plan. 3. No Safety Analysis or Traffic Impact Study has been conducted to assess the pedestrian, bike, and human risk factors this application presents if approved by the planning committee to Westminster Senior Housing Community, North Dover Elementary School Parents/Teacher/Students, The Delaware State University Students, People's Place Shelter, and Residents of the College Road Community. In our view, this application for constructing two 6-story mid-rise apartment buildings with a total of 385 units consisting of studio, I-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units known as College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street is a "High-Density Development." The proposed High-Density Development Site Plan Type and Intensity in the vicinity of Raymond Street, Railroad Avenue, and Grove Street, but not limited to Salisbury Road, College Road, and Mishoe Street, could generate 400 vehicles per day or more on an average weekday. Therefore, we, the petitioners, request a Safety Analysis to review several factors, including a review of the adequacy of sight distance and accident data, before consideration of approval of College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street, S-23-06 and Associated Plan: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements, S-22-04. 2 112

Item 3. WE THE PETITIONERS OPPOSE FILE #: S-23-06 SITE PLAN AND REQUEST A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TO ASSESS CURRENT SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE WELL-BEING OF OUR COMMUNITY Our request is aligned with the warrants for DelDOT Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) based on the notion that the proposed 385 units well surpasses the (304 apartment units) warrant benchmarks and quantity of units allotted for apartments TIS Not Warranted according to table section 2.3. {Please review Item 2-Apartment Units} Table SECTION 2.3. FOR OTHER WARRANTS THAT MAY APPLY f,le o ~ "/ ro '" ImM; J,:t. D'I<I Dt.w TIT •• B 1 Dfti9l'l t'l••wRon_ J1... ~ "iI2 ". ~f~r~u ·1 A- x' .6\. '"'Mings A" A,· P • .a. ~ jI~ v_ ~p :::.:= .. ~.!]!] Picture '";I~I != ~ Form.t ¢o. ~_11 No Spacinll He Jdme 1 PFnd • "",,'~.k. IOCo"''TIml~ P IIfFrt'lIIlg~ l::lor - 1_ 0 X &J ••.• s •••••• ..n, • regulations.delaware.gov/register/november2009/proposed/l l%200C'X.20RegY.J206261Jb20 11-01·09 htm G ril t£ [_/ ® SERVICES - INFORMATION - ABOUT CONTACT 8/]08 TIS Not Warranted £!jgible To Pay' Area-Wide ~Fee (Fewer rhslr1 400 y~ YP-b) (Fewer than 2.000 vp-d and 200 yRbI. ~g~ Detached Houses TownhoLlses or Condominiums Mobile Homes ~ge·Restricted Sing~ Detached Hoyses General Office Building Medical/Dental Office Building The proposed "Site Street Plan (SSP)" for the development of Raymond Street extending west as a 24 ft. paved width roadway to intersect with Railroad Avenue as entrance type is more aligned with a Subdivision Type I Street (Two-way), which infrastructure is not adequate for emergency apparatus (Firetruck, EMS, Etc.) to endure a high density of traffic in a senior and veteran-based community, which was addressed in Mayor Robin R. Christiansen's Veto of City Council Action. 3 113

Item 3. WE THE PETITIONERS OPPOSE FILE #: S-23-06 SITE PLAN AND REQUEST A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TO ASSESS CURRENT SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE WELL-BEING OF OUR COMMUNITY IOot'Wdiwk. () - Q x I 0 Co"l'W'rents I ~ editing '" I pr.nd • hll··W .:. IId,b...a •••-.bdI"'onl)'OClI.~ + x "ZO~kl\ap51 S)i.i!09j K X " co. :trtif,ll;-I~ta:;eL~ltoml""llr;tcu.r;:OJlthll;'~·! '" « = [:J f:l ~ ~ U I§r @ is> 16 feet ·ision Type [.1[. and m Struts (One·~'CJY) Subdi .•• @) ) 8 reel (without curb and gutter) + Subdivision Type I Sireel iTwo--wa,:l» 24 feet Subdivigion Type n and 1fTStreets (Two--way) 32 feet Industrial S~et (Two--way) 32 feet Commercial Access (One·y.·ay) 18 feet Commercia] Access (Two·way) 24 - 32 feet • 0.,•••• " ••• 0 e • _ •• Petitioners Recommendation to the Planning Commission: 1. The Planning Commission directs the Applicant (Patel College Properties, LLC and Patel Excess College Road, LLC.) to conduct a Traffic Impact Study to discuss the current and future traffic conditions on College Rd. and Salisbury Street without the addition of traffic generated by the proposed project future without project (FWOP). 2. The Planning Commission "OMIT" the Associated Plan: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements, S-22-04 from the Site Development Plan Title: College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street, S-23-06 3. The Planning Commission "NOT APPROVE" the Site Plan Title: College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street, S-23-06 4 114

Item 3. WE THE PETITIONERS OPPOSE FILE #: S-23-06 SITE PLAN AND REQUEST A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TO ASSESS CURRENT SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE WELL-BEING OF OUR COMMUNITY 5 115

116 Item 3. 1', G (Q ~ ~ ",,", ,j ~ [1JlJ] "-l ....l U ~ '" ?:> "-l= >- f- :::r- ~ u ") e 'U'c = lli!:B g = ~ U ~ 1= ( ~o- 0::: 0 ~ ~ a I..."'cr" ~- [1JlJ] « ~ "'0"' ~ '- ~ \j "p I:) a 3 ~ j ,0 tQb u IE 0 ~ 0"-L r; ~ W --0 0 ~ ~ , M ~ 0 \'7 J :?~ Q U">~ Qo \,_CS .$ '::> _s +- -). M U) ~ {. tv'- .3 ~! S ~ 1__) ~ '" ..•.• c1 e f .....j II ..•...• \J [ ($ ~ ./j - \~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ \.. l ,u, oJ ~ cu :::~ 1 2 ~ ,.~ 4- <: ~~ ~ 3- cv CJ t;::; 0 c::L - .. - \ .•. .. K (;:, ~ ~ $\n.•.•.•.•... -....... - \ •.. •.. \) ~ <) ~ ~ ~ ~ '-.... ..•..•.... ~ "< " "-

Item 3. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE .•. If, J~clle{-~-. ~ ~ f red er IOU Cct-VI-1/};t q I L\V\vu~~ V(\-\..I, ~/, ~-"""':"""'-=--""::"""::'___:__---I---~-~~~--+-~---+-V--------1 tid' :(~, . ro rvllshoe ~S' ~ I CL [loaN Q___ JOt/- C R I I 320 to'-1~O(?·~+ zos [)&. No fll ue {)o9qS. -:c:uue, 05 \q9 () c2? ,/J ~I +i CV)G I 3~OK"'4 ""'''Nd DE. Art- 303 19 q () <-j 20. c! N I )ho(_ ~91 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-I ~. ~~~~-----.J...L-..JL...>......l~....J..V..L..l'''I-------+'''-~-'-----------\'----+-:r---- 117

Item 3. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE ~/I : d~' .) 3· 31. b\,IU-~~~~--+--!--~":""_____~=--------#-fL------=----j ~~ ~ 35· K ()'VUJ}- CbJ e_ 3~. W\,fJ\JYl 'M~ (»J-e_ 3- 7. f----=--------'-----"------+--I-----+-+-"'--'---=,.--__,,___=-....:.......="----------+--+W--_ ~0)-e_ ()\) (__ 105 3t. 1) !JfIb ST ;p_.iJ t---=----=-----------+-------"-----------+- __ :JJ. ~~~~~~~~~~------!-----::~....r..__-------+.=:::J____l_.....L______j it}, ~~!0..:::..1___~~~~~~~=--.-!-~--:::::;-L------+~~ 11 I---r--------'----'--~~'-~~_f_l___''''___'___+_---=--------=~------:------''''------~~=___________j ,j).~ fJ, / ~~~~~-+--------I------------+---'------------I fl· W. ill ~_l__!__L__l__C+--~~---I----:>l--=~~~"-----"--..t........:...~O'-:'----------.I'~~ 1'-1 ~~~~'-"----+=---'-=-~~~~=.:.___---+----=:=-,.-.----I d ~~l~~~~~2~q~D~~~~----~~~ ;;;:;" °i~f 118

Item 3. Item 1B 119

Item 3. Item 1C 120

Item 2 Item 3. From: Anderson, David To: CompPlan Subject: College Apartments item 7 Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:04:59 PM Dear Sirs/Madams: I am writing to express my concerns about the parking waiver. I had received phone calls regarding this matter, but because it doesn't come before us this is the only opportunity for me to express the concerns of my constituents. I would not express an opinion if I would see the project for a vote, but not having such an opportunity, my only option is the same as any citizen, and my opinion has the same weight. Nonetheless, I wanted to see with fresh eyes the dynamic before I commented so I drove then walked on the streets affected. Three different residents expressed concerns to me. Two of whom I had never spoken to on this issue. The opinions on the project vary, but based upon people who called, attended one of our regular townhall meetings and the people who spoke to me while I was walking around there is unanimity on traffic and parking concerns. No one believes that less parking is good. Some believe that the inevitable overflow on some weekends could endanger handicapped residents. One can imagine the parking situation with just a few student parties out of the 700 to 900 residents with fewer than 700 parking spaces. It would be a nightmare for emergency vehicles to pull up in a medical situation. The concern in the eyes of one particular gentleman who's seriously ill was impactful enough that I felt compelled to share his perspective because he won't be able to do so. Thank you considering the reason why the parking requirements are so important for residential projects especially when the projects do not have on street parking as a back up. The Honorable David L. Anderson 4th District Councilman, Dover, DE Phone: (302)339-1047 Council Office: (302)736-7006 Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android 121

Item 3. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 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, Mrs. Malone (virtual), Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), and Mrs. Maucher. Mrs. Denney was absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Mary Ellen Gray, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual) and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Ms. Melissa Porter, Mr. Dave Kuklish, Mr. Greg Rishel, Mr. Dominic Balascio, Ms. Christina Kelleher, Mr. Kyle Burchard, and Mr. Lacey Holly. Speaking from the public were Mr. Andre Boggerty, Mr. Travis Sudler, Mr. Sean Lynn, Mr. Bill Hare, Mr. James Paige, Reverend Raymond Fisher, Dr. Wilma Mishoe, Ms. Sandra Ryder, Rev. Rita Paige, Mr. Sammy Barrineau, Ms. Michelle Hughes, Mr. Lewis Jackson, Ms. Pilar Sudler, Mr. David Anderson, Mayor Robin Christiansen, Ms. Lisa Dawn Bentley, Mr. Roy Sudler, Jr., Ms. Kaylynn Daniels, Ms. Jean Taylor, Mr. Steven LeBoon, and Mrs. Cassandra LeBoon. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Dr. Jones moved to approve the Agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mrs. Denney, Mrs. Welsh and Mrs. Malone absent. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2023 Dr. Jones moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2023, seconded by Mr. Cooper and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mrs. Denney, Mrs. Welsh and Mrs. Malone absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Gray provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on February 27 & 28, 2023 and March 13 & 14, 2023. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:00PM in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Dover Air Force Base Compatible Use Study as of today was issued as Draft Plan. They will be forwarding more information about the ability to take a look at that Draft Plan. She believes that it is probably going to be posted on project site which is on DelDOT’s website under their projects and studies since they are a part of the project team. That item came in late this afternoon. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated for those Commissioners interested in Downtown Dover, there is a presentation on the Capitol City 2030 Transforming Downtown Dover which is the Strategic Master Plan for Downtown. They will be holding a public session on Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6PM to be held at the Kent County Levy Court Building which is at 555 Bay Road. If you need more information, check out the website www.downtowndover.com or reach out to the 1 122

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. Planning Office and they will make sure you get the right information about that meeting. The document is also on their website as well. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the In- Person Meeting and Virtual Meeting using the WebEx system. Mr. Roach moved to move Item #7 up in the Agenda since he thinks a lot of people are here for that application, seconded by Dr. Jones. Mrs. Maucher asked if she could amend the motion that they complete Old Business first and then move Item #7 up on the Agenda. Motion was amended to hear Old Business first and then move that Item #7 application (S-23- 06) to the first application under New Applications. Motion carried 6-0 by voice vote with Mrs. Welsh, Mrs. Malone and Mrs. Denney absent. OLD BUSINESS Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: C-21-02 JJ’s Learning Experience 2 Child Day Care Center at 756 South Little Creek Road - Request for one year extension of Planning Commission Approval granted on April 19, 2021 for Conditional Use Application to permit renovation of a 10,111 SF space in an existing one-story 33,143 SF building into a Child Day Care Center to serve 170 children. The property consists of a 2.39 acre+/- parcel and is located on the south side of South Little Creek Road opposite Babb Drive. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The owner of record is Empire Medical, LLC and the applicant is JJ’s Learning Experience 2. Location Address: 756 South Little Creek Road Suite 1. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.00-01-03.00-000. Council District 2. Representative: None Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Request for a one year extension. This was a Conditional Use Site Plan Application. It originally began consideration with the Planning Commission back in March 2021. At that meeting, they conducted a public hearing and then deferred action until their next meeting, seeking some additional information on the project. At their April 2021 meeting, the application was conditionally approved. Since that time, they have actually retained a different engineering firm to work with them because of the extensive DelDOT interaction that was needed for the project site because of the change of use on the property. Entrances on the property had to be looked at more carefully. The Planning Commission did see it in October 2021 for a general revision to the Plan that setup a one way circulation around the plan. The display shows the latest plan version that they received late last week. They have been going through DelDOT submissions in order to design the appropriate entrance improvements to this site. At this point, they are seeking a one-year request of extension to allow them to continue to finalize their Plan in order to achieve Final Conditional Use Site Plan approval and move fully forward with their project. 2 123

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. Mr. Hartman moved to approve C-21-02 JJ’s Learning Experience 2 Child Day Care Center at 756 South Little Creek Road for a one year extension based on the progress that they are experiencing and the troubles they have had, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was carried 6-0 with Mrs. Welsh, Mrs. Malone and Mrs. Denney absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on his previous statement. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes, the applicant is moving forward. Mr. Cooper voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; as it seems the DelDOT approvals are the last leg for them to be able to start work. Mrs. Welsh arrived (virtually) at the meeting. C-21-03 Warehouse Building at College Business Park Lot D – Request for one-year extension of Planning Commission Approval granted March 15, 2021 for Conditional Use Site Development Plan to permit construction of a 9,520 SF one story Commercial Warehouse Building with associated site improvements on a 0.9907 acre +/- parcel. The property is zoned M (Manufacturing Zone). The property is located north of College Road, at the end of College Park Drive, abutting the southwest side of the railroad right-of-way. The owner of record is Stoltzfus LLC (HSM Exchange LLC). Property Address: 1255-1257 College Park Drive. Tax Parcel: ED- 05-067.00-02-12.06-000. Council District 4. Representative: Ms. Melissa Porter, Stoltzfus LLC Mr. Swierczek stated that this is a Conditional Use Site Development Plan to permit construction of a 9,520 SF one story Commercial Warehouse Building. This is an application that originally came before the Planning Commission at their March 2021 meeting where it received conditional approval. They have received a letter requesting a one year extension of approval from the property owners citing that they have switched engineering firms. While they do not have a specific tenant lined up, they do plan to construct the building based on the plans as approved thus requiring the extension of approval. Ms. Porter stated that the plans are in motion; they are just waiting for approval. Mr. Baldwin moved to approve C-21-03 Warehouse Building at College Business Park Lot D for a one-year extension, seconded by Mr. Cooper and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Malone and Mrs. Maucher absent. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Mr. Cooper voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the progress of the applicant. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on the applicant’s progress for approvals. Pending Development Application: S-23-05 Tidal Wave Auto Spa at 245 N. Dupont Highway - Continued Review of a Site Development Plan and Lot Consolidation Plan for two (2) parcels totaling 2.15 +/- acres at 245 North DuPont Highway. The Plan is to permit construction of a 3,690 SF Car Wash facility, 24 vacuum spaces, and associated site improvements. The properties are zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The parcels consist of a total of 2.15 +/- acres and is located on the 3 124

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. northeastern corner of N. Dupont Highway and White Oak Road. The owner of record is TWAS Properties LLC. Property Addresses: 245 and 243 N. Dupont Highway. Tax Parcel IDs: ED-05- 068.18-01-13.00-000 and ED-05-068.18-01-12.00-000. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and began review of this application at their February 21, 2023 and deferred action seeking additional information. Representative: Mr. Dave Kuklish, Bohler Engineering Dr. Jones moved to continue review on Application S-23-5 Tidal Wave Auto Spa at 245 N. DuPont Highway, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and motion carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Malone and Mrs. Denney absent. Mr. Swierczek stated that as noted, this was a Site Development Plan Application that came before the Planning Commission at last month’s meeting. This is also associated with a Lot Consolidation Plan so it is two existing parcels. It is a little under 3,700 SF one-story Car Wash facility and other on-site improvements including 24 vacuum spaces. During the discussions at last month’s meeting, there had been some question as to the capacity of the City’s current water and wastewater facilities to handle the implementation of this new use on the site. Members of the Planning Commission should have received updated material, one of them being an email communication between the engineer for the project and the City Engineer Mr. Jason Lyon noting that he was satisfied with their projections and the City would be able to handle their water and wastewater needs. Mr. Kuklish stated that he had nothing to add. Mrs. Maucher stated that the public hearing on this application was conducting during the meeting of February 21, 2023; therefore, there is no public hearing tonight. Mrs. Malone arrived (virtually) at the meeting. Dr. Jones moved to approve S-23-05 Tidal Wave Auto Spa at 245 N. DuPont Highway with the Site Development Plan and Lot Consolidation Plan, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Hartman abstaining and Mrs. Denney absent. Dr. Jones voting yes; the concern that she had was addressed in the correspondence that they have received. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; in conjunction with Dr. Jones’ comments that the concern was the capacity of the overflow and that has been addressed; so, it sounds like everything has been taken into account and the applicant is well aware of what they need to do. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for all of the same reasons. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Hartman voting; present. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the Report that they received from Wastewater Management. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on the Staff recommendations, DAC comments and the confirmation for the wastewater capacity. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons previously stated. NEW APPLICATIONS S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street – Public Hearing and 4 125

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. Review of Site Development Plan for construction of two 6-story mid-rise apartment buildings with a total of 385 units consisting of studio, 1 bedroom, and 2 bedroom units. The ground level of each apartment building is parking and the other site improvements include six 7-car garage buildings, parking lots, landscaping, and recreation areas. The Project also includes street construction/improvements to Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. A Lot Consolidation Plan will combine the four parcels located east of Railroad Avenue for a total of 31.08 acres of land. These properties are zoned RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments). The subject area is located north of, but not adjacent to College Road, and east of the Railroad corridor in the vicinity of Raymond Street, Railroad Avenue, and Grove Street. Property Owners: Patel College Properties, LLC and Patel Excess College Road, LLC. Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.00- 02-53.00-000, ED-05-067.00-02-54.00-000, ED-05-067.00-02-55.00-000, and ED-05-067.00- 02-56.00-000. Council District 4. Waiver Requests: Reduction of Parking Requirement. Consideration of Active Recreation Area Plan. Representatives: Mr. Greg Rishel, Pennoni Associates; Mr. Dominic Balascio, representing ownership entity Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Site Development Plan Application. This is a project for mid-rise apartment buildings with a total of 385 units. The property is just over 31 acres of land to start with that is zoned RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments). They are seeking one Waiver Request and that is in regards to a Reduction of the Parking Requirement. This evening the display shows a location map aerial of the area. It is located to the north of College Road and adjacent to the railroad corridor. On the site, you can see that it’s four parcels of land that are currently open land, wooded, and have wetland areas. The surrounding uses to the north are the Fork Branch Nature Preserve. To the east across the Fork Branch (creek) is the main campus of Delaware State University. To the south is a residential neighborhood that has a variety of zoning classifications including the RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments) and other One Family Residence Zones where there are single family detached houses and manufactured home units. To the west across the railroad tracks is the College Business Park which is an industrial/business park with a number of office and other warehouse type buildings. The project tonight proposes construction of the continuation of Raymond Street to the west and then Railroad Avenue to be constructed along the railroad tracks to terminate in a cul-de-sac. These roads are to be constructed to City street standards. Previously, there was an attempt at some Subdivision Waivers associated with the road network. Those waivers were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and by City Council, but ultimately the action taken by Council was vetoed by the Mayor. The subsequent request to override that veto was unsuccessful so the Subdivision Waivers were not approved. What that means is the streets must be constructed to the City of Dover street standards. That places a limitation on the length of the cul-de-sac street and requires sidewalk on both sides of those street frontages where the property owner has adjacency. Focusing on the development of the private lands this evening, the proposal includes two buildings that would be six stories in height. The first floor of each building is given to a parking level and then floors two through five are a series of apartment units. The apartment units are a mix of studio, one bedroom and two-bedroom units. This project did go through the Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) review process with the State. The applicant has provided their response comments to those PLUS comments, and they were made part of the application package for tonight’s meeting. There have been a number of applications 5 126

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. in this area that are referenced in our Report. Initially, the tracts of land were annexed into the City in 2006 and there have been various attempts at other development and actually a Rezoning that occurred in 2011 to bring these properties to the RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid- Rise Apartments). That RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments) has a series of bulk standards and for mid-rise apartments, they are required to have a certain lot area per dwelling unit which the project does meet. There are setbacks that are established. There is a requirement that 20% of the total lot area be dedicated to open area and not encumbered by building or parking facilities; and they have met that requirement. The RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments) also includes parking requirements. The parking requirement overall based on the Zoning Ordinance would be a minimum of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit plus an additional 0.25 spaces for visitor parking. That is a total requirement of 2.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit. With this project, given the number of units that would be a requirement for 867 parking spaces. They have identified on their plan a total of 683 parking spaces and are seeking a Waiver to Reduce the Parking Requirement for the project site. They have provided a letter outlining the details of their request citing the types of units and some comparisons in other jurisdictions to what parking rates do consist of and she imagines that the applicant will expand on that in their comments. The project includes a number of the typical site improvements that are required in our Zoning Ordinance including bicycle parking, upright curbing for all of the parking areas and road networks. The main access to the site is off of the cul-de-sac at the end of Railroad Avenue with a second entrance also from Raymond Street on their property which brings you into the parking lot area. The buildings are surrounded by fire lanes which meet the rear emergency access provisions for the site. There are a series of sidewalks that circulate through the parking lot areas and to the buildings and then ultimately link to the recreation areas for the project (that is what is depicted on the screen now). The green shaded areas are the various components of the Active Recreation for this project site. That Active Recreation Area was reviewed by the City’s Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee last week and they recommended approval following the Staff recommendations and the clarifications that the applicant made in their presentation of the Active Recreation Area Plan. They are required to provide 1.61 acres of Active Recreation Area. They are providing 1.67 acres and it consists of a number of outside amenities including a multi- sport court, a sand volleyball court, a picnic pavilion with tables, a paved walking trail which is along the eastern edge of the parking lot area that then brings you to the wooded walking trail. Along that wooded trail is a series of outdoor fitness stations for use. Additionally, in each of the buildings on each floor, there is a yoga and fitness type game room that is provided on each floor. So, they have a number of recreation amenities to satisfy various recreational needs of their residents at that facility. By reference, she would include the review of the Active Recreation Area Plan in the comments this evening. The site does include areas that are in the Flood Hazard Area. The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not allow for development in that area. That is predominantly found in the far eastern reaches of this project site and no development is proposed in those areas. Additionally, there are areas of wetlands and likewise, no development is proposed in those areas. There is a riparian buffer of 50 feet that will be established from those wetland bodies that are on the site either by retaining the existing woodland areas in those areas and also augmenting them with additional plantings. The project includes a tree planting plan. It is required to have 158 trees. The site as shown right 6 127

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. now is showing 268 trees. They are preserving almost 85% of the existing woodlands on the project site as part of their plan development. With this application, she would reference the DAC Report. It does include comments from the various agencies. Planning Staff has reviewed the plan and identified some items for correction or clarification. They are also recommending approval of the parking reduction for the site and also noting some suggestions for site improvements related to locations of the some of the handicapped parking and bicycle parking. Some of the areas that are adjacent to the parking on the north are to include the recommended fencing along those areas for the Fork Branch Nature Preserve (as recommended by DNREC Staff). There are recommendations that we suggest for the use of native tree species given the proximity to existing woodland that is there. They are also encouraging the project to contemplate the installation of electric vehicle charging stations to plan for future use of amenities. The other agencies providing comments include the Department of Water/Wastewater for the site as it would need to connect to City water and sewer, the City Electric Department, and the City’s Office of the Fire Marshal has reviewed the Site Plan and also will ultimately review any building and construction plans as well for fire protection measures. DelDOT has provided comments which include that the application will need to move through their Development Coordination Review process and that DelDOT will be looking at in particular the intersection of College Road and Mishoe Street which the initial connection to the State road network for this project. The project also will be reviewed for sediment and stormwater management planning as really a joint effort between the Kent Conservation District and DNREC because this site is a Brownfield site so there are some additional requirements to manage through the remediation of the Brownfield areas located on the property. So, Planning Commissioners are looking at a Site Development Plan with one Waiver Request that being for the Reduction of the Parking Requirement. Mr. Rishel stated that he is here this evening with a colleague from Pennoni Associates, the applicant, and also the project architect who can elaborate especially if there is any particular items or questions about the building architecture. As Mrs. Melson-Williams highlighted, this is a by-right use in the RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments), a permitted use by-right. Given the size of the property and the allowable density, this project is only proposing about 26% of the allowable density of the site. There are floodplains and wetlands on the site and there is no disturbance proposed or development proposed in either one of those areas. As Mrs. Melson-Williams highlighted, they received a recommendation from the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee last week. The parking waiver is being respectfully requested; there is a letter in your packets that outlines the analysis behind that. The reduction that they are looking for and the justification for that is based on where Dover’s Code bases parking requirements on number of units. They are focusing on providing parking based on number of beds. That was how they looked at their analysis in comparing it to other local municipalities in the area. With these buildings, 86% of the units in these two buildings will be studio or one-bedroom apartments; so, a majority will only be studio or one-bedroom apartments. Planning Staff does recommend approval of the Waiver. While the City of Dover’s Ordinance requires 2.25 spaces per unit, they are proposing 1.8 spaces average per unit. They are still providing for some overflow in visitor spacing in that analysis. He will further note that they have looked at an alternative Site Plan and they could pull it up if need be, whereby they can be fully compliant with the Dover parking requirement at 2.25 spaces per unit with the addition of a 7 128

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. structured parking garage onsite. That would go near Building kind of in the front of the site. Not only would they be able to meet the parking requirement, they could exceed it with a six-story structure and still comply with all other zoning regulations. It would actually be able to add up to an additional thirty units of density with that. The applicant does not want to utilize that option. They are happy with the number of units being proposed with the plan that’s before you but they have prepared a plan and analyzed that it could be done without the waiver and with the parking structure. They have read through the Planning Department’s Report and their comments and recommendations, and they have no objections to any of those. Traffic was brought up last week at the Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee as being somewhat of a concern on this particular site. As they went through the PLUS Process with the State and presented it to the various agencies including DelDOT, the number of trips falls under the threshold of where an Area Wide Study fee would apply. DelDOT has indicated that they would except that in lieu of a TIS (Traffic Impact Study) for this project. Mr. Hartman asked what the 26% allowable density is based on. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Rishel stated that the gross site area of 30.5 acres. Mr. Hartman asked if that is based on unusable acreage as well. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Rishel stated that it was based on the total. Maximum density per Dover Code is 900 SF per dwelling unit. So, it you take the gross site area and break it down, the site maximum density could be allowed to be as high as 1,400 dwelling units. It is actually a little over 1,400 dwelling units but obviously a majority of the site is in the floodplain and wetlands, so it gets a little difficult to physically achieve that especially with parking. That is why the Plan before you is only 385 units with the parking that they have. Mr. Hartman asked if he could have Planning Staff address the density. Is it correct that the site could accept 1,400 units? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments) has a minimum requirement for lot area of 900 SF per dwelling unit. So yes, if you took the total area of the site and did that math problem they could be eligible for over 1,400 dwelling units on the site. That could be further limited by the number of stories and the ability to fit those units and the required parking associated elements and other elements with that. With the simple math is yes, it could be as high as that density. That is the density controller other than the fact that the RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments) requires that 25% of the property remain as open space not encumbered by building or parking. Mr. Hartman stated that there was a comment by one of the neighbors about the access. The danger in a 24-foot road with parking on the side that would present a safety hazard to responders and a hazard to people in the area. How do you answer that? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Rishel stated that the City’s minimum width for a two-way street is 24-feet wide. That is also the same width that is required by the City’s Fire Marshal for fire lane emergency access. If parking is to be proposed on either side, you have to increase the width of the cartway. Mrs. Melson-Williams can keep him straight here, but any street that would be 24-foot wide would not have parking allowed on either side. On this particular plan that you have in front of you, Raymond Street which is being extended would be extended as 24-feet wide which would not allow it and would be signed as such to not permit parking on either side. Railroad Avenue is 8 129

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. showing parking on one side of the street as sixteen spaces of parallel parking. They are not included in their requirements for the parking onsite. That cartway is wider. It is 24-foot plus the additional width for the parking space itself and that’s in line with the City’s subdivision development requirements. If you have parking on one side, he believes that it is to be increased by a width of four feet so that would be a 28-foot wide cartway and if you have parking on both sides, it’s to be ten feet wider or 34-foot wide. They are actually proposing wider than 28-feet; they are proposing a 32-foot wide cartway on Railroad Avenue. You would still have an unimpeded full 24-foot wide access for emergency vehicles with parking only allowed on one side and the other side would be signed not to be parked upon. Mr. Hartman asked if we have an area with 24-foot-wide access that contains 1,400 units. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there are a number of streets in the City of Dover that may only be 24-feet wide. In looking for an example with that kind of unit count it is not likely found here in Dover. Most of our apartment complexes do not have that number of units within them but their access drives are typically 24-feet wide because of the fire lane coverage. She is not sure if Mrs. Gray, the Planning Director has any other thoughts on that response. Mrs. Gray stated that she would defer to Mr. Lyon to see if he had any thoughts as she does not. Mr. Hartman stated that it just seems to him that that’s a fairly restricted area to have a maximum of 1,400 units. He understands that it’s not what they are proposing, but if our Ordinance allows for 1,400 units in an area like this, that should be a concern for the City of Dover. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Lyon stated that he is not aware of anywhere in the City that has that sort of density; however, there is an apartment complex behind Blue Hen Corporate Center with a 24- foot wide road throughout the apartment complex. He will also mention that Garrison Oak Technical Park is a 24-foot wide with no parking allowed on it. There are roads in the city that have this kind of dimensions. Mr. Hartman stated that he couldn’t understand anything that was said but he will ask a follow- up question for Planning Staff. Is this apartment a first of its kind here in Dover? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that we have very few properties that are zoned RG- 5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments) in the City. This is the first new development of an RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments) property that she can think of. There are certainly other apartment complexes that are out there existing that have well over 300 units in total. She believes that Mr. Lyon was referencing the Blue Hen Apartments project which is behind the Bleu Hen Corporate Center between there and Schoolview. She believes that unit count is as high as that but the sheer number of units is somewhat unusual for the City of Dover. But it is also what is contemplated in an RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments) zoning. Mr. Rishel stated that DSU has student housing. He knows that it is not similar. Student housing is a little different from apartments but they have a similar density on campus and they have 24- foot wide drive aisles and access cartways. Forgive him for not remembering the name of the development but it is a 55 and older age restricted community with 5-story buildings and it looks fairly recently constructed. He believes that it’s called The Grande. They are a similar 9 130

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. development and also have 24-foot wide access ways. Just to reiterate, there were Waivers that were previously requested for streets Raymond and Railroad with regards to design. They are not seeking those any longer. The design fully complies for the City street and design requirements with regards to cul-de-sac length, right-of-way width, and sidewalk on both sides. Dr. Jones stated that her question concerns the Active Recreation Area Plan. Do you anticipate that your residents will be all adults or a large percentage of adults and if so, why? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Rishel stated that he may ask the applicant to step in to answer this because he knows that they did a market study. It is going to be not restricted. The target is going to be probably younger adults considering the proximity to DSU and there may be some students that may want to live off campus. Almost 90% are single bedroom or studio apartments. They are thinking that they will be younger adults in their 20s or 30s and potentially older. Dr. Jones stated that she looked at the Active Recreation Plan and she didn’t really see anything that would speak to perhaps having family gatherings. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Rishel stated that they do have a pavilion. Dr. Jones stated that she means activity wise. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Rishel stated like play equipment? Dr. Jones stated yes, play equipment. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Rishel stated that again, the target audience is a little older. Mrs. Welsh stated that she is having a hard time hearing everything, but she had a question on the issue of a dorm situation. She just heard the discussion about mostly adult residents. Is it going to be mostly adults or is it anticipated that it will be more of a dormitory situation for the apartments? Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Rishel stated that it’s definitely not going to be dorms. It is not intended to be used that way at all. There is just an understanding given the proximity of DSU and the need for off-campus housing, that there might be a higher population than another apartment complex in another area that wasn’t close to a university. That there would be some market there for those types of residents. Mr. Balascio stated that the units have been purposely designed so that they cannot result in dorm-like style living. They are simply not setup for that. They don’t have the shared bedroom, the shared common space within the unit or anything of that sort. They purposely did that. They looked at what dorm apartments look like and purposely made sure that they were not designed in that manner so that it could not result in that. It is something that they do not want because their market study tells them that they are going to get a lot of first responders, military and police, and even some nurses. A smaller percentage would be older adults going back to college. These people could be in their 30s that have decided to go back to college. The architect is present tonight in case you have any questions for her. She is very familiar with the floor plans and anything else about the architectural components of the site. Mrs. Welsh and Mrs. Malone stated that they could not hear what was just said. Responding to them, Mr. Balascio stated that the units have been purposely designed so that they will not be dorm style living. They have no shared bedroom space and they have no shared common space 10 131

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. within the units themselves. They are simply not big enough and they are targeted for a single occupant in the one bedroom and studio units. The market study has said that they would get first responders, military, police, and college students that would be looking at the units. Again, they do not want dorms and they purposely did not take the approach to having dorms for this site. Mrs. Welsh stated that she heard the intention was “no dorms” and that was her concern. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing. Mr. Andre Boggerty – 229 Pebble Valley Drive Dover, DE 19904 (City Council Member At Large) Mr. Boggerty stated that he wasn’t going to speak but he is a little bothered by what he just heard. He gave the engineer and proposed developer audience, and went to the site to look at it himself with another Council member who he won’t name because they are not here to confirm or deny what they heard. What frustrates him is what he just heard. At the last Council meeting, they granted a Waiver for parking but that was based on what we were told. He just heard, unless he overlooked it, that you can meet the standard with a parking garage. That frustrates him that you would want to take a shortcut to jeopardize the safety of our city and the safety of potential students or targeted individuals who are there. Our mission in part is that they are to ensure the safety of our city. He doesn’t want any developer or anyone coming in who will come to our city and build something and not meet the standard when it’s possible. You just told him that you are not willing to meet the standard by building a parking garage. If you didn’t tell him that, the other question then is he is left to his own thought. He just heard that there is potential for growth. So, who is to say that now that you have potential for growth, sometime later after you build it and it’s going to be filled? We have a shortage of housing. So, we need housing, but we need safe housing. So, what are you going to do now that you are not already planning your phase 2 and occupying more area because you’re not telling us everything? He is concerned that you are not being forthright and had he known that the parking issue could have been resolved he would have voted for that. He wouldn’t have moved forward with allowing some waiver for that. So for that, he is going to ask the Planning Commission to really look at the heart of the issue. Have we been told the truth, is this safe and can we trust the developers that are before us? We need housing. Delaware State Housing (University) is growing and it’s part of our hub, but he wants people who are really going to be honest and partner with the City and not just build something really fast to fleece our City and our community. Mr. Travis Sudler – State College Road Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Sudler stated that his question and concern is how are we talking about this building when we have no access to it. We are talking about building on property that you can’t get to. We are still debating on how we are going to get to this land. You are up here listening to the actual construction of the property and that’s telling him, like what he heard tonight, that this street has been approved to run through his community. By holding this tonight, you are telling me already that you are going to go ahead and approve the street through his community without fighting for other alternative ways when he made the request to City Council and to people personally. You know my family and he doesn’t know why we are playing this game. Mr. Sean Lynn – State Representative 11 132

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. Mr. Lynn stated that he was here tonight in opposition to the project. As he communicated to the attorney for the developer, Mr. Dominic Balascio months ago, he has received an outpouring of opposition to this project from the entirety of the community in and around College Road. A community in which with many of you, he serves. The reality is this, that while he thinks Mr. Travis Sudler made an excellent point earlier that while this community does need affordable housing, we need affordable housing in areas in which it’s safe and prudent to develop that housing. There simply is no project like this within the city limits of the City of Dover. The closely similar project would be the Blue Hen Mall Apartments; however, he thinks that the major distinction between that project and this is that that project is serviced by Bay Road; a multi-lane highway. The only other projects that he can think of is Leander Lakes out by Dover High School, which again as the Planning Office will tell you, we have done significant work over the years to make Route 8 and flowing into North Street, the main new thoroughfare into Downtown Dover. That is where development should be because Route 8 can handle the capacity. He has been blessed over the years to represent in his other hat, a variety of apartment owners and probably the largest apartment owner in the City of Dover. The only project that we have even remotely like this in our inventory would be Silver Mill Apartments. The road Hiawatha Lane which is the road that services Silver Mill Apartments is not the same size as the roadway projected by this unit and certainly doesn’t have the amount or capacity that this unit would suggest. The reality of it is that this is not an appropriate location for a project of this size. College Road and Saulsbury Road can’t handle the capacity. If anyone in this room has been on Saulsbury Road trying to get home during rush hour or trying to get to work in the morning, you know that it is next to impossible to go anywhere quickly on Saulsbury Road. We are talking about adding 600-800 more vehicles onto the already congested arterial roads in and around this area which would include College Road and Saulsbury Road. We already have major safety issues along College Road. The City, the members of City Council, and the Mayor, we worked together to install a pedestrian crosswalk unit on College Road to allow Delaware State University students to cross the road safely. They installed that unit because there were issues with traffic and traffic flow in and around College Road. It presented a legitimate safety concern with students from Delaware State attempting to cross College Road to get to their residence. Now we are talking about adding 600-800 more vehicles to an area that is already unsafe and is already being serviced by a H.A.W.K. unit. For all of these reasons, he would ask that the Commission deny this application. It is simply the wrong place at the wrong time and again; it is not as if they have not communicated this to the developer. Dozens and dozens of constituents have called his office opposing this project. When he first got word of it, he is lucky that he and Mr. Balascio have worked together at Hudson, Jones and Jaywork probably 20 years ago where he was an attorney representing some developers in and around the State of Delaware. He communicated to him that he oppose this and this isn’t good for his community and please place it elsewhere. Regrettably they haven’t listened and they are trying to force through with this. It is not wanted; it is unsafe and he would ask this Commission to deny the application. Mr. Bill Hare – 965 Westview Terrace Dover, DE 19904 (City Council Member – Second District) Mr. Hare stated that he heard some things tonight that made him wonder but first he will address the parking issue. He guesses when the firefighters, the police and the nurses come to rent one of these places, they are going to have to be an abstinence person. They don’t have a partner that can sleep in a bed with them that has two cars. He doesn’t know how that means that we don’t 12 133

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. need the parking that we have required. Most firefighters, police and nurses that he knows have a significant other that lives with them. He can’t see waiving the parking at all especially when they said that they could meet the requirements. Following up on what Mr. Sudler said, he was out there looking at this property. He doesn’t know that there has been a confirmation on how they are going to get back there. He looked at the red things that they stick in the ground and someone was going to live in the mobile home there. If this project gets approved, then this main road is going to be ten feet outside of his front door. He doesn’t see how that is considered right- of-way. They are going to take down 15-20 trees in front of this mobile home and then put a road right through there so when somebody comes out their front door, they are going to have to make sure they are looking for cars so that they don’t get hit. When he first heard of this project, it was like 200 units and then he read that it was around 300 units and now it’s 385. He was told that project change so does that mean that if it does get approved that maybe they can just do 600 or 700 units because “projects change”. He just doesn’t see how they can waive the parking and proceed ahead to approve this when he doesn’t even know if access is approved yet. Mr. James Paige – 355 Rita-Wilma Road Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Paige stated that his questions go to the Committee. Why would you even take the time to do what you are doing now when they don’t even meet the requirements by the City of Dover? They want all these waivers. They would do this and that and shorten their parking. If you know you’re not straight when you come, don’t come. Don’t be asking for favors. The prime example in the City of Dover right now is that you can’t even park your own car on the grass. If you know that, why are you going to try to bring a car in to park on the grass? You can’t be excused for it so why stoop or change your policies just to please someone else or for the revenues. They are asking for too much and he doesn’t trust them. Is the main entrance College Road and Mishoe Street? Picture this, you put a stop light right there with the traffic that we have on that road, no one on College Road would get through and no one on the other side on Mishoe Street would be able to get out. Have you ever been in the traffic when the train stops with traffic backed up both ways? You would be there all day. The next thing is college students. This thing is being built for basically 30 year old first alert people. What will someone with a child that wants to continue their education over 30 do? If they do have a child, what is the child supposed to do when there is no school? He saw no facilities for the kids to play on. So there are a lot of things that we need to think about. Not we, because we already know that we don’t want it. You all need to think about it before accepting it. He thinks that he is a pretty intelligent guy but for his own sake, there was a question asked earlier on the voting. He has never heard someone answer yes or no by saying “present”. What does that mean? Responding to Mr. Paige, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in Mr. Hartman’s earlier vote, he was choosing not to vote “yes” and not to vote “no”. He basically voted that “yes he was present” but he was really abstaining from voting on that application. Reverend Raymond Fisher – 315 Raymond Street Dover, DE 19904 Rev. Fisher stated that his concern is that you get a toe and you want a foot. When he says that he means that they will say anything right now to get what they want. Once they get that, they will want something else. For we who have been there for so long, he has been there for 60 years, it is not fair for somebody to come in and get what they want and forget about the people who have spent so many years in a particular area. Secondly, he is concerned about children. He loves children and it would bring so much traffic back there that it would not be safe for not only 13 134

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. children but for adults. Right now there are some handicapped people living back there. Even now during DSU Homecoming, people park on Raymond Street and Mishoe Street; and they are mostly young people. He doesn’t drink but they say when you get that fire water in you, you are not fully conscious of what you are doing. He would give his life for saving a little child who happened to be playing or crossing the street and someone drives through there intoxicated and kills the child. He is strictly against that. There are other properties around so, why there? Is it because it’s a black community? He is going to say it like he feels it. They can’t help that they are black. They can’t help that they own the property that back then was very cheap. His grandfather worked for DSU washing dishes for 35 years. When he bought that land, it was dirt cheap because no white person wanted to live back there. So, why now that somebody wants to make a fortune? He gets letters all of the time to sell his property. No, he isn’t selling unless you are going to give him what he wants and he doesn’t think you can afford that. He is concerned about safety and senior people who some live in Mishoe Towers. Those people have lives and they may not mean much to the developer but they mean a whole lot to him. He is a preacher and he is concerned about people’s lives. He asks the Commission to reconsider. You can say that it is a racial problem all that you want to. He doesn’t care what you say. Why go into a community that has been there for years? On the other end of College Road, there is a lot of ground there and they have for sale signs there. He disagrees with the whole thing. It’s just like cancer; if you lose a toe you might lose another one next to it. If we give into this and they get what they want, who says they are not going to take everything? Dr. Wilma Mishoe – 353 Rita-Wilma Road Dover, DE 19904 Dr. Mishoe stated that she has been in front of City Council a couple of times and she has talked to others a couple of times. She is not going to take the time to go through all of the history and her opposition before. She agrees with everything that has been said thus far and she is absolutely against the project. Her reason for it, and it has nothing to do with them developing their land and building their beautiful apartments and housing. She is strictly concerned about safety and security and the access that they chose to use to get to their property. Access meaning coming down Mishoe Street which is a very short and then turning onto Raymond Street, which you have already heard is not really that wide and accommodative of what they want to do. But even more so, she has an issue with ownership because she has in her hands her survey property maps and she has her deeds and tax bills that she has been paying. Part of what they are calling Raymond Street is owned by her and is located in the County. She understands that some things have taken place recently that she is contesting in terms of annexing land that she owns into the City and she didn’t request that that land be annexed into the City. It was deemed by someone as abandoned land when she can prove otherwise. The land was never abandoned. They have for over 50 years now, maintained that land and she has expenditures to prove that is the case. A part of Raymond Street that they are asking to consolidate or make improvements on is what she is saying that she owns and she is against it. She does not want them to do anything with her land. As it has been said, they really so far have not proposed a way to access their land other than coming through land that she owns. She is asking and requesting that they find another way to access their property and build the housing that they choose to build. Standing with her are her two sons who are to inherit that land as she has inherited from her father. Travis Sudler who has already spoken and Roy Sudler who is her older son who will speak at this time. Mr. Roy Sudler Jr. – 5 Mishoe Street Dover, DE 19904 (City Council Member – Fourth 14 135

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. District) Mr. Sudler stated that as someone who has served this community for over 18 years in different capacities on different Commissions, he thinks that we need to continue to put the safety of our constituents first. Although we do need to grow and have development, we need to make sure that our traffic and roadway network system infrastructure can handle the capacity and density in which we are seeking to occupy. He just asks that we continue to do a great job keeping our constituents first and putting safety first before the mighty dollar. Dr. Mishoe stated that there are other property owners who are here tonight as well as residents of the apartments that are on that property as well. Senior citizens, those who have physical and even mental disabilities live in that area. This is truly a safety issue in addition to the dispute of property ownership. Ms. Sandra Ryder – 291 College Road Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Ryder stated that she owns property that runs along Conwell Street and empties into Raymond Street. Her concern is that she has children and grandchildren, one of which is disabled. Some are coming in by van and some coming in by bus. This is horrible because everybody is going to come along that road. They already have problems out on State College Road with a kid getting off of the bus because she can’t get off quickly. This is horrible when it comes to her. Drivers harass you and we are already harassed and nothing is really going on. Please somebody consider what they are going through. Reverend Rita Mishoe-Paige – 355 Rita-Wilma Road Dover, DE 19904 Rev. Mishoe-Paige agrees with everything that has been said. Councilman Boggerty and I are on the same page here. She had just written it down. Her training says that when you have a vision, write it down and make it plain. She too believes that the developers have not been honest and straight forward with us. Tonight is the first time that she is hearing that this is going to be for college students, first responders and nurses. She thinks that they are really making up stuff. She is completely in opposition to this project. The overflow of parking needs are probably going to flow right over onto Mishoe Street which would be their street which is going to have some traffic congestion there. When you are coming through Raymond Street, she walked the area today and saw the property stakes that are where they want to come through. It has already been said that that would be taking away part of the property that people already own. It is a straight street and it looks like you are going to make a straight street crooked which is not good at all. They heard about the Fire Marshal saying that he will review; so, we don’t know yet if there is enough room for your fire trucks to come through. He is going to review so that has not been approved. We don’t know about the EMS. We don’t know about the police. So, it is definitely a safety issue. All of this, Rev. Fisher brought up the racial piece of it and she said that every single property owner in that area is African American. So it did nothing but take her back to when white Caucasian Americans took away land from the Native Americans. It seems as though that’s what the developers are trying to do here in her opinion. They have already been told more than once that Dr. Mishoe, her sister, owns quite a bit of that land that they want to make improvements to and they are not for that. She is asking the Commission to vote against this entire project and that they are trying to come through land that is not theirs. She really doesn’t know how you can sleep well at night knowing that you have helped give somebody’s land away. 15 136

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. Mr. Sammy Barrineau – 320 Raymond Street Apt 200 Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Barrineau stated that he loves the community. It is quiet and peaceful and he gets the exercise there. He is handicapped as he had a stroke in 2016. Since he has moved there, he does a lot of exercise since there is not a lot of traffic in the area. He is definitely against a lot of traffic being over there now because he doesn’t want to get hit by a car. He is learning how to walk again and use his arms and stuff by exercising in this area. He feels safe here and there is not a bunch of crime. It feels great staying in this area and he wants to stay safe and not have a bunch of stuff going on to bring more traffic there. He wants it to stay like it is because he feels more peaceful and a lot safer there without having a bunch of traffic. He has his kids with him and he wouldn’t want a car to hit him while he is walking with his kids. Bringing more traffic to the area will cause a big problem for him and his kids. He really appreciates if the Commission does not bring more traffic in there. Ms. Michelle Hughes – 320 Raymond Street Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Hughes stated that she also agrees with everything going on. She is totally against the road going through there because it’s dangerous. They live in a good community and she likes it the way it is. Mr. Lewis Jackson – 320 Raymond Street Apt 306 Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Jackson stated that for the last ten years this has been his home and just the thought of them bringing another road through there is heartbreaking. They have kids that are handicapped that live there. What are they going to do? He hears about firemen and nurse’s aides but what about the elderly? He is 70 years old and if they bring a road through there, what is he going to do? He hopes that the Commission doesn’t approve it because it going to do a lot of people harm than good. Ms. Pilar Sudler – 17 Tallowick Lane Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Sudler stated that she is a very great advocator about economic development and growth. She moved here from Seattle, Washington 17 years ago and she knows what a big city looks like and she misses that a lot. It cannot be done when you are approving multi-family developments that she has seen from 17 years of living in the city with no roads. The commuters that come from Route 8, they only have Loockerman Street which is a two-lane street, Forrest Avenue which is also a two-lane street and College Road which is a two-lane street. If we continue approving developments of this size, they have to be done with transparency and with great planning. You have to take into consideration the residents who already live in Dover that have to use those very congested streets. Right now, from what she hears here tonight, this project is lacking all three components. There is no transparency, it’s very poor planning, and we are taking into consideration the already stakeholders that already live in the City of Dover. Mr. David Anderson – 217 Cecil Street Dover, DE 19904 (City Council Member – Fourth District) Mr. Anderson stated that he wanted to thank the Commissioners for their service and he has the utmost respect for their expertise. He knows that they will come to the right decision on those issues and he is not going to in any way second guess that. You already have his written comments about the parking waivers so he is not going to rehash that. The one concern that he 16 137

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. has, has nothing to do with zoning but he wanted to ask the Commission to consider tabling this issue for legal review because there is a dispute in some areas of ownership of the property which is currently working its way through the legal system. He just thinks that it would be very wise to have our Solicitor review to see if he believes that it may have merit if it goes to court or not. If it does have merit, then it should wait for that process to continue. If he doesn’t believe that it does, then that opinion will allow the Commission to make their decision either way. He just thinks that until the ownership of certain parcels and the right of ways that would be taken to build the roads, until that it taken care of, he doesn’t believe that it is a prudent idea of one who deals with the City’s finances. Us okaying that wouldn’t be prudent at this time. Mr. Robin Christiansen – 714 Carol Street Dover, DE 19901 (Mayor of City of Dover) Mr. Christiansen stated that he still has great concerns about the traffic and safety of the development being put behind Raymond Street, but he has a bigger issue concerning this project. One of the major reasons that back in colonial times that we fought the British was for property rights. He agrees with Councilman Anderson. He thinks that this should be put up for review to ascertain who owns the property before we map out streets and other amenities. Because all that you have in this lifetime is your God, your family, your good name and if you are fortune enough to have any property, that property. He is not here to try to influence in any way whatsoever. He still has the safety concerns which now are exacerbated by who owns the property and until that is settled, he would ask the Planning Commission to table any further movements on this property. Ms. Lisa Dawn Bentley – Loockerman Street Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Bentley stated that she lived on her own for 3 years. People kept bringing in trash. She would take the trash out and they would bring it in. There is a garage nearby and a little light would come on when she walks near it. People brought her trash back in while she was asleep. She doesn’t know who. (Couldn’t hear the rest of her statements) Mr. Roy Sudler Jr.– 5 Mishoe Street Dover, DE 19904 (City Council Member – Fourth District) Mr. Sudler stated that he also wanted to point out that they have a petition from their community with 46 signatures. He didn’t hear anything about a petition of opposition. We also have individuals for the public hearing that are online that we need to hear from. He would like to ask that during this time of the public hearing, is it for the public or is it also for the applicant to come back and speak? Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Maucher stated that after public comment they will go back to the applicant. Mr. Sudler asked if the public could come back to speak after the applicant? Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that typically they do allow the applicant to return to the podium in order to address any questions that were raised during public testimony or for additional questions that the Planning Commission may have a result of what they heard during public testimony. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she wanted to enter into the record the written comments that they received. These were received today and they were distributed by email and also a hard copy to the Planning Commission members. This is the public comment for S-23-06 College 17 138

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street. These comments were received as of 2PM this afternoon. Item #1 is an email of March 20, 2023, forwarded by Mrs. Andria Bennett, the City Clerk, on behalf of Dr. Wilma Mishoe and it had several attachments. By reference she is going to read the name title wise. Item #1A was a petition against S-23-06 and it outlined three items in particular: the waiver request for the reduction of parking requirements, the traffic safety problem with a 24-foot-wide pavement, and a safety analysis or a traffic impact study. That petition, after outlining some statements, does include a series of signatures. The list consists of 46 individuals, some of which have spoken this evening. Just for reference purposes there are a variety of addresses on Rita-Wilma Road, College Road, a number of residents from the Mishoe Cove Apartments that outlined their unit number and other addresses on Raymond Street and some other locations like the Whatcoat Shelter and addresses on College Road. Item Attachment #1B to that submission is a letter of November 4, 2022 from Ms. Shannon Owens Esquire on behalf of her client Wilma Mishoe regarding Raymond Street also known as Jason Street. That references the question of ownership. Item #1C is a letter of November 29, 2022 from Mayor Robin R. Christiansen which outlines his veto of the City Council actions regarding the Subdivision Waiver and as reported previously, that veto was not overridden. The second item in this set is Item 2, an email of March 20, 2023 from Councilman David Anderson on the parking waiver noting constituent concerns on traffic and parking that had reached out to him. That set of public comments is entered into the record and at this point we will go to participants that have joined online. Ms. Kaylynn Daniels – Resident Advisor at Mishoe Towers – 320 Raymond Street Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Daniels stated that she has 17 residents who would like to speak but she believes that she is the consensus and would like to do so. They are against the plan in looking at the traffic proposals to extend our cul-de-sac for access to the back 30 acres for development. College Road at this time, is already overrun with traffic. They have traffic from DSU students, both car and foot traffic. There is a big concern with the Door Dashers blocking the western gate. There is a bottleneck already where the student crossing is. We have an overflow of traffic from Whatcoat Shelter and Social Services and not to mention all of the traffic that comes into the College Business Park. A big concern is also North Dover Elementary School with drop-off and pick-up that is actually on College Road. The buses are on College Road and the parents are on College Road twice a day. They also have an overflow of traffic from Presbyterian Senior Living, which locals refer to it as Westminster Living. The expansion of this road will just simply be an added over flux of traffic. She doesn’t think that they are taking into consideration the foot traffic of the students trying to get to campus. It will just be a total disruption to our tranquil neighborhood back here. They have to take into consideration the construction vehicles. The street will be widened so that emergency vehicles can go through and there will be much more personal traffic. We are talking about 385 units with an access of over 680 parking spaces. They are just a small community comprised mostly of elderly and disabled people. This will totally change and disrupt our life. They are all for housing. They are against this expansion of our cul-de-sac. They vote no. She is the residential advisor for Mishoe Cove and she is also an outreach worker for Brandywine Counseling. So, she kind of always has her ear to the street has to what they need and what they would like. Again, she has fifteen residents and a few students from the Courtyard Apartments who are also concerned about the expansion here. Many developments are practically located directly across from Mishoe Street so that would be a big concern for them. 18 139

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. She actually has three representatives from some of the three apartment buildings over there who are quite concerned about this proposed expansion, and they also vote no. They are against this associated plan. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman stated that after reviewing this without the benefit of the public comments, his main concern was property rights. He believes that it would be enough to hold up this application by tabling it or delaying it. Looking further about the concerns with safety, especially with all of the neighbors, he doesn’t believe that we should take an opinion from DelDOT that a study is not necessary. He doesn’t believe that we should reduce the parking. Everybody has that valid opinion that it is going to create a problem. To quote one of the speakers, “they chose the shortcut”. Also, people were concerned about it not being a safe location for this. Every member here wants good and safe housing. The main concern is safety and everybody that has spoken doesn’t believe that it is going to be a safe place because of the traffic and the access. Unless he has some argument from his fellow Commissioners, he intends to propose that they deny this application outright rather than table it. Mr. Balsacio stated that there are a few comments that were made that he would like to politely comment on. Especially what Mr. Hartman just said because there is a little bit of confusion going on. The Planning Commission is in a tough spot tonight and he realizes that. With the comments that he is about to make, he politely says and also Mrs. Gray and Mrs. Melson- Williams can confirm what he is saying. As he goes through each point, they can be confirmed. First, their use that they are applying for is a use by-right under the Code. This is not a Conditional Use. This provided for in your Comprehensive Plan, it’s provided for in the Zoning Code, and it’s provided for in the Subdivision Code. They meet all of the requirements except for one requirement which is the Parking Waiver. They did not take a short cut on this. It came back to them with comments that they received from the Planning Department that they were going to result with way too much parking. They said okay no problem, we will decrease our density and not do as much and seek the Parking Waiver. With that being said, they can provide the additional parking and they can remove the Waiver which means that they have a plan that meets all of your code requirements. This is not a plan that can be denied. You guys have already said by adopting your Comprehensive Plan and your Zoning Code that they can do this. They are rightfully coming in saying that they comply with all of your requirements and they are seeking approval for that. The next point, which can also be confirmed by Mrs. Gray and Mrs. Melson- Williams, is that the Parking Waiver has not been in front of any other body. This first came up when they did the application. He thinks that Councilman Boggerty who commented on that was confused because it was not previously in front of any other body. This was brought up as part of our submission to the Planning Commission and the engineer with him tonight can also confirm that. The third point, he hears repeatedly about their density increasing. They can’t increase our density unless they come back to you. Once this plan is approved, it is approved for what’s on that plan. So if they came back down the road, they would have to come back before the Commission and show that they meet all of the requirements for whatever increased density that they are going to be putting in. They have no intentions at this point in time in doing that. Again, to do so they would have to come back before the Commission and all of the Committees that they have already appeared to in order to get that approval. They could not just put an additional 19 140

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. Building Permit in for additional units. They would have to come back and have the additional approval. Next, the access to the property has been brought up and Mrs. Melson-Williams and Mrs. Gray are very familiar with this. They were asked to go in front of Mayor and City Council and Mr. Rodriguez to have all of the right of way identified and re-annexed into the City which was approved by Mayor and Council which Mr. Rodriguez looked at. They provided all of the documentation for it and it was approved. Those roads go back to a Subdivision Plan which goes back to an 1890’s Plan. Those roads have always been there. They went through and worked very closely with Mrs. Gray, Mrs. Melson-Williams, and Mr. Rodriguez. They even met onsite with people and met with Dr. Mishoe and one of her sons with Mr. Rodriguez where they went over all of this. The documentation that she provided says that she is adjacent to a street. Mr. Rodriguez looked at this because it was forwarded to him. Again, Mrs. Melson-Williams and Mrs. Gray were a part of this. They have had since October or November to provide any information. They have reached out to their lawyer and nothing has been heard. Mr. Rodriguez hadn’t heard anything. The engineers that he has with him tonight, put out thousands of dollars at the request of the City to show that “your right-of-way” is “your right-of-way. They can’t be denied access to the right of way at this point because it is a public right-of-way and it has already been approved by utilization of our land. That is in part why they own it and are developing it pursuant to the Code. Dr. Jones has brought up the point in regards to playground equipment for the kids. Again, when they went through and worked with the appropriate Committee, the general consensus was to exclude playground equipment. He has no problem putting in a small playground area for kids based upon what they think it will be utilized for. That is something that they can work with the Planning Department to identify the best piece of equipment to put in that area. They have enough room to do it; so, they are fine with that. He thinks that ultimately what is going to happen is that it is just going to sit there and not be utilized. Due to the configuration of the property, they came up with more of the walking paths and put in blacktop that was going to be for the courts and all of that kind of stuff. If that is something that you want, they are more than glad to do it. That is the only thing that he has heard on the Recreation Plan even though it was approved by the Committee. With regards to the traffic study, they have already gone through this with the Planning Department. They have spoken to DelDOT and gave them all of the calculations. They have met that requirement under the Code. There is nothing in the Code, because they asked, that is independent of that requirement that they have to fill; so, they have fulfilled that. What he is saying respectfully as an applicant is, they have started on this application well over a year ago. They were asked to go through an Annexation process to clear up the right-of-way for the City. They did that at their expense and spent thousands of dollars to do that and they appeared in front of everybody. They even worked with Mr. Rodriguez. Every time they have been asked to do something, Mrs. Gray and Mrs. Melson-Williams can confirm, they have done it. They have augmented it. They have moved the buildings around and they done everything. All of the Planning comments they have looked at, they have said okay to. They have gone through the PLUS procedure. They even backed off because the consensus was not to do the dorm style. They substantially decreased the density from what was permitted under the Code. He would respectfully say to the Commission that he understands the position that you are in. Mr. Rodriguez knew this application was tonight and he has previously heard and has all of the 20 141

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. information on that ownership question. If that wants to be addressed after this hearing tonight, it has nothing to do with their approval. Dr. Mishoe or whoever is allowed to present whatever they want as they go through wrapping up their Site Plan with Mrs. Gray and Mrs. Melson-Williams. They have pulled it all. The engineers have looked at it, their title company has looked at it, and Mr. Rodriguez has looked at it. It unequivocally goes back to the 1890’s to a Site Plan and all of the roads are there. They have gone above and beyond to give the Commission a Code compliant Plan that meets everything including all of the Fire Marshal codes and everything before you tonight. What more as applicants can they do? Their property rights are being taken away from them. He respectfully submits to the Commission that they are not permitted to deny their plan because it is a use by-right. He knows that that is hard to hear because you want to take that measure based upon the comments tonight but you have to look at it from their way. They purchased a piece of property knowing that it was a use by-right and all that they had to do was meet the Code requirements. They have gone through that process and have met every requirement that has been asked of them. How at this point can they be denied a legally compliant plan? He has his engineers with him if there are any of the points that the Commissioners are stuck on. He had both of them come tonight because they are both familiar with various parts of the project. He also has the architect here. Please take advantage of that because they have gone above and beyond and have been a good applicant. When someone tonight is questioning their integrity, everything that they have given to the Planning Department and to Mr. Rodriguez has been in writing and it has not changed. He thinks that there is confusion because when we get in front of various committees and bodies, things are said that don’t necessarily tie in. Like when they were in front of the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee last week, everybody kept on speaking about parking which had nothing to do with that Committee. They were told not to speak to it and to stick to the Parks and Recreation points; and that’s what they did. If there are any questions, please ask. They have been very open and honest. Again, Mrs. Melson-Williams and Mrs. Gray know that because they have been copied on numerous emails. Mrs. Gray was also attended the meeting with Dr. Mishoe and Mr. Rodriguez over ownership, and it was absolutely resolved that day. Mrs. Maucher stated that it is a lawyer’s opinion. You can ask five lawyers and get five different opinions so she is not sure that that’s significant. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Balascio stated that this was definitely decided. Mr. Rodriguez looked at this and all of this documentation was given to him, Mrs. Melson-Williams, and Mrs. Gray. They had both engineers go through with surveyors. They got another third attorney involved who looked at it with Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez asked for some clarifying documents and they got them from the title company and provided them. In Delaware, lawyers take and make all of the decisions on the title. They are what they call the “title agents” in Delaware. They make legal opinions every day. When you purchase your home, it’s him as your settlement attorney who does it. When you develop a piece of property, it is him as your settlement attorney who issues titles. In Delaware, the attorneys are the one who decide that. They provided a lot of documentation. They spent a lot of time on that and they traced it back to its original roots. The Planning Department has the plans where they went back to the original plan from the 1890’s and traced it all the way forward. It was always shown on your GIS mapping that way. It was shown in the County records and the State records that way. The County and the State both consented to the Annexations and then the City Council with Mr. Rodriguez, approved it and they moved forward. It’s really not a step that normally they as an applicant has to do but they did it. They went through that process and got it done. 21 142

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. Again, everybody has had ample time all throughout that process to question the ownership, to appear before Mayor and Council, or to submit something to Mr. Rodriguez. Even after that, they met with people and they still had ample time. No one has provided any documentation. All these documents are recorded and they are public records; anyone can provide them. They have combed through them. The right-of-ways are where the right-of-ways are shown on their plans which are consistent with your Annexations that were approved by Mayor and Council which are consistent with State and County records. Mrs. Malone stated that she searched some of this property because what really bothered her was the ownership question. What she found was that the property was sold on September 26, 2011 from GEM Investors and then it sold again on November 11, 2011. Then the owner was College Road Management Inc. and then Kent Storage Facilities. Is that affiliated with the Patel College Property? Responding to Mrs. Malone, Mr. Balascio stated that those would be the prior owners in the chain in title. They are not the current owners; they were the prior owners to us. Mrs. Malone stated that is what she is asking. Did Patel College Property buy it from them? Responding to Mrs. Malone, Mr. Balascio stated yes, they are the prior owners in the chain of title but the chain of title isn’t what’s being questioned; it’s the right-of-ways. No party owns the right-of-ways. The City of Dover holds the public right-of-way for the benefit of the public; so, they are not in anybody’s deeds. It’s the same thing when you do a Subdivision Plan or any other plan. When you dedicate it to the “public”, it’s a public roadway. Since the 1890’s, those right- of-ways have been dedicated, shown on a Subdivision Plan, and have been part of City records. They have provided all of the documentation to Mr. Rodriguez and he confirmed it. Mrs. Malone stated that she wasn’t talking about the right-of-way. She was talking about property that Dr. Mishoe said she owned. Responding to Mrs. Malone, Mr. Balascio stated that is what they met with Dr. Mishoe, Mr. Rodriguez and Mrs. Gray about. The part that she is claiming ownership to is part of the right-of-way. They also looked at every adjacent property owner along that way and it ends at the roadway. Mr. Rodriguez was provided this information, Mrs. Gray was at the meeting and their title to their property stops at the right-of-way like it does for all owners of properties. It mentions the road because it says “up to” or “across” or “by that road”, but it is not the actual road bed at all. Mr. Rodriguez looked at that and there was even a deed that Dr. Mishoe brought up during the meeting. They immediately got that deed, showed it to Mr. Rodriguez, and he agreed that it mentions her property running by the right-of-way but does not cross over or own the right-of-way. Mrs. Malone stated that you were saying that her property backs up to this property. Responding to Mrs. Malone, Mr. Balascio stated no, her property or any of the adjacent owners is not part of the public right-of-way. The public right-of-way is held by the City of Dover. They went through and looked at this. All parcels are not in question. What they are questioning is if the City owns the public right-of-way which it does. That is why that argument cannot be used to deny our application because nobody has made a challenge that they own their four parcels. He would hope that Mrs. Gray or Mrs. Melson-Williams could speak to this. It was completely vetted and spoke about with Mr. Rodriguez and looked at. They suffered a huge delay and tens of thousands of dollars to address that one issue. 22 143

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. Mr. Hartman stated that if this access is so important, why don’t they as the Planning Commission have a letter from Mr. Rodriguez rather than hearing it hearsay from the applicant? Why wasn’t that given to the Commission in the packet? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Gray stated that the legal issue is not a Planning Commission or a Planning Department issue. When talking with Mr. Rodriguez, the process was followed regarding the Annexation of the roadway delineating the right-of-way in the road. That issue was determined to be a civil issue. Mr. Hartman stated yet in Article 10, Section 2-22 one of the things that this Commission is supposed to look at is “the provision of adequate access to all proposed structures, equipment, or material on the site for fire, ambulance, police, and other emergency services.” This affects access to this property. Why is this not a Planning Commission issue? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Gray stated with the issue in her perspective, the question was asked and answered. The road was annexed into the city and the right-of-way was delineated; the right of way was defined. Mr. Hartman asked if the City is prepared to go to court over that? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Gray stated that she is not the City Solicitor; so, she cannot answer that question. Mr. Hartman asked if it would be too much to ask for an answer from Mr. Rodriguez on this matter? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Gray stated that she can’t answer for Mr. Rodriguez. She had asked him to be here tonight should any of these issues be brought up, but he was unable to be here tonight. She will certainly be happy to ask that question of him should that be the pleasure of the Planning Commission. Mr. Hartman stated that that should be at the very least in his opinion, unless there are opposing opinions of Commissioners then that would indicate that they should table this measure until we actually have something to address what they are supposed to do. If it’s in opposition to what the City Solicitor says, he would just like to have clarity on that. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Balascio stated that their Plan is a Code compliant plan. They were told that in order to submit this Plan, and Mrs. Gray can verify this, that they had to go through Mayor and Council to get that right-of-way annexed and approved into the City which the City did that. It is officially recorded and done. You (the City) as taken ownership over that public right-of-way but you have already had it since the 1890’s as each property came in. Mrs. Melson-Williams and Mr. Gray helped them go through this. Those were all identified through the State of Delaware, the County, the City of Dover, the Planning Department, and Mr. Rodriguez; and, this was all approved. For them to come here for this step tonight, they were asked to take and clean that up because it was unclear when certain people came in whether when they came in if they also identified the adjacent roadbed to their property which they are supposed to do. It was a house cleaning amendment because the roadway was in part left behind in either the State or County. It was a road regardless; it was whether or not the City has jurisdiction over it. What they did is they went back and worked with those agencies, identified the parts that they believed were not annexed in. Then they did a whole housekeeping one where the whole roadbed was annexed in by the City of Dover. That is what Mrs. Gray can confirm. That’s what they did. It was always a road. They didn’t take property from any individual homeowner when they went through that. They worked with the City of Dover, the County, and the State to collectively make sure that all of the roadbed was in the City of Dover by the time that they got done. It was always a roadbed 23 144

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. in the 1890’s plan that they based it off of. They moved forward with all of the other agencies and related deeds. They pulled every surrounding property on that plan. They pulled their deeds and they matched it to the right-of-way. They went back pretty far in title and traced in back to that 1890 plan which is pretty impressive to do. They have in front of the Commission tonight, a code compliant plan. They have met all of the Codes, all of the regulations of the Codes, and all of the fire codes. They have worked with pleasure with the Planning Department and have had all of their comments and revised things and done what they have asked them to do and have it documented. At this point, what more as an applicant is he supposed to do if he has complied with all of the additional hearings that they have been asked to do. They have complied with all of your rules, regulations and Code requirements. How can he be denied tonight? Responding to Mr. Balascio, Mr. Hartman stated that you haven’t complied with all of the Code requirements. You don’t have the adequate off-street parking. Mr. Balascio stated that they were asked by the Planning Department to seek the waiver. They can provide the parking. Their density is going to go up. They said they would take and seek the Parking Waiver and not go up in density, if that is something that the Planning Department wanted to recommend so that the design of the overall site looks better. He is telling you on the record tonight, if you want them to during the process, because there is always amendments that you do to revise the plan between now and getting all of the various agency approvals, they can provide the additional parking. That is not an issue. As he said to Dr. Jones, if she would like to have the children’s playground equipment on there, they will do it. Those are the only two things that he has heard tonight and they can fulfill those things easily. The engineers have said that they are well under the density that they could otherwise provide on this site. They can provide that. They were just following a Planning Department recommendation where they were asked to seek the Parking Waiver. Mr. Hartman asked if the Planning Department asked him to provide examples from New Castle and other areas to support your waiver. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Balascio stated that he would have to have the engineer come down to answer that but he believes that was indeed the case. That they didn’t just willy nilly arrive at a number. They collectively had an ongoing conversation about how to arrive at that number based upon the size of the units and the bed count that was going to be in there. Mr. Hartman stated that he has a one-bedroom apartment behind his house. It’s a very small apartment; but all this weekend, there were four cars parks in the grass from it. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Balascio stated that if you want them to take and meet the parking requirement even though the Planning Department thought a better design of the project was to reduce it and not have a sea of asphalt sitting there. The issue becomes that when you have this many units and you have the additional parking what is happening is that it’s a compounding effect. You keep on ending up with extra and extra and extra units for parking that you don’t need because there are so many units going in. What happens is that you end up with a drastic amount of extra units sitting in there. That’s when the engineers worked with the Planning Department to say this is the better number. So, they don’t end of with a sea of gray out there because this is a beautiful property out there and we are trying to preserve. That is why they didn’t touch any of that back part at all. 24 145

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. Mr. Rishel stated that he can offer a whole lot extra. You have in your packets, the justification letter that outlined how there were coming up with their support for their waiver. They did look at other municipalities. They selected in the letter that was provided, four comparative areas using the City of Newark, Kent County, New Castle County and the City of Seaford and how they break down requirements for apartment uses. The City of Newark is 2 per unit. Kent County says 1.5 spaces per efficiency, 1.75 per one-bedroom and 2 spaces per two-bedroom. New Castle is similar with 1.5 spaces per one-bedroom, 2 spaces per two-bedroom, and then they offer an overflow in New Castle County requirement which is kind of like to account for visitors and such where you provide one space per five units on top of the spaces provided per bedroom. Seaford is two per unit. They did an analysis and an average and showed that Dover has a based requirement of 2.25 per unit. It really just comes down to that they feel that that’s going to be excessive given the high ratio of one-bedroom and studio apartments that are proposed within these buildings. It’s not that they don’t want to provide the parking and can’t provide the parking. It’s really just to reduce what they feel is going to be excess, unused or extra paving. They derived all of this and came up with what’s recommended. It is outlined on the second page which the proposed parking rational breaks down this way: 1.5 spaces per studio and one- bedroom apartments and 2 spaces per two-bedroom apartment plus 1 additional space per every five units to account for some overflow. That is how they derived the 683 spaces for 385 units. That breaks down if you run the math backwards to 1.8 spaces per unit average. Mr. Hartman stated that he understands that; he read the package. You really didn’t have to that detail. He is opposing the Planning Office accepting that as justification for a waiver for this especially in light of all of the complaints that they have heard from the community both tonight and in writing prior to this meeting. Middletown has a requirement for 2 spaces. He thinks Bridgeville has a requirement for 3 spaces. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Balascio stated that has he previously said they are fine with providing the additional parking if that’s what you want them to do. Each time that they have worked with the City of Dover, they have always worked with all of the committees and commissions. When they have provided insight of such to do, if it’s something that they didn’t think of, they take it into consideration and work with them to do it. That is what they did here and they did nothing more than that. They were just working with the Planning Department. Mr. Hartman stated that you keep saying that and he is going to continue to say that there are things that should have been presented to this Commission tonight. There should have been a traffic study. There should have been adequate parking. There should have been a ruling from the City Solicitor on the property rights issue. You are asking the Commission to make a blind judgement. In accordance with Appendix B, Article 10, the objectives of this Commission is “to assure 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”. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Balascio stated that they meet the requirements as the engineer, Mrs. Gray, and Mrs. Melson-Williams say. In the Plan that they provided to you, all of their sidewalks, streets and everything meets all of the Code requirements including the Fire Marshal comments. They were reviewed as part of all of the agencies and committees that review us before we even get here. They even went to PLUS with this and had them review it. Again, they have offered to remove the Parking Waiver even though it was something that was requested of them. They can work to provide the additional parking. he is 25 146

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. more than glad to work with Dr. Jones on what is an appropriate piece of playground equipment for the children. Other than that, that Code section that you just stated means that the roads right- of-ways and sidewalks that they put in must meet your Code. They meet the Code requirements because there is not any comments from the Planning Department or any of the other agencies that reviewed their packets that says they did not comply. The Fire Marshal is one of those agencies that reviewed it. Mr. Hartman stated that they are not the Planning Department; they are the Planning Commission and what they are required to do is listed in Article 10, Section 2.2 states “In considering and acting upon site development plans, the public health, safety and welfare, the comfort and convenience of the public in general and of the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular shall be taken into consideration.” When he tries to take these into consideration, he has no information from the Planning Staff or the applicant. Mr. Balascio asked Mrs. Gray if part of their packet and all of the other reviews that they had when they submitted this was to review the sidewalks and streets that they are providing to get here tonight. They had them reviewed. During their submission process, what they have submitted to date shows that they are able to meet the Code requirements for the streets, right-of- ways and sidewalks. They have a code compliant plan. There is not any comments that say that they are not meeting the section that Mr. Hartman is talking about. That section turns around and points to the actual Code requirements for the sidewalks, streets, and right-of-way; they will meet those requirements. The Plan that they have right now in front of the Commission shows that they will meet that including all Fire Marshal requirements. Dr. Jones stated thanked the applicant for mentioning her concern for the playground. She can sense his passion for his work and for the submission of a code compliant plan. But she does think that there are more issues of concern this evening. She is uncomfortable with several things that she has heard. One, they have talked about safety and the traffic patterns and traffic jams. Those of us who live on the west side of Dover experience those things every day. She is concerned about any legal ramifications, but moreover what she would like to say is that regardless of what came out of the Planning Office and regardless to the code compliant plan that does not negate a property owner’s right to contest. That is her concern and from that perspective, she is very uncomfortable with moving forward. She thinks some things have to be straightened out before we can go forward. Mr. Roach stated that he knows it seems very difficult as far as all of the negative comments. He does want to say thank you for being in compliance with the Planning Commission and working with the consistently. That goes above and beyond so they definitely appreciate that. Seriously, because he is feeling right now like he (Mr. Balascio) is by himself. He does want to say the same thing that Dr. Jones basically said. They know that at times when they are here and in charge of making a decision in regards to any type of application that comes here, they have to do that based on what they have. So it is just like anything, if you imagine yourself being put in that situation and being somebody who is claiming, saying or contesting the fact that they own something, tabling it for a month after you’ve said that you have been working all of this time for them to get more information so therefore she (Dr. Mishoe) has time to work out whatever legalities that she is trying to argue. He feels as though for him, personally and what he thinks 26 147

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. there are all here saying as a Planning Commission, they are not negating his point. You are absolutely right; it is code compliant and it’s an acceptable use. He gets all of that because he doesn’t want apartments there but you purchased the land and you do what you want to do with it and we go from there. But him being on this Commission knowing that he is just going to say, historically what has been happening forever, Native Americans and African Americans are having land snatched. You are trying to tell him that you have confirmation from someone named Mr. Rodriguez and he doesn’t even know who that is. He doesn’t have that information so for him, he feels as though for them as a Commission, it would be unfair as much as it is unfair to you. Because you said that you have spent tens and tens of thousands of dollars but that doesn’t always negate 50, 60 or 70 years of stuff that has been passed down through people from generation to generation. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Balascio stated that he has no problem if they want to table it for that specific reason. Mr. Rodriguez is the City Solicitor. If it is going to be tabled for that reason, he would ask that they are specifically told what it’s tabled on so that they know what they are working on in the interim. What he would like to not have to do is to come back and have to re-go through all of these points. What he heard from Mr. Roach was “the ownership issue” which he is more than fine with working with Mr. Rodriguez on that. They can get it back and compile that data. Number 2 is if there can be a confirmation made in the packet which Mrs. Gray and Mrs. Melson-Williams could tell you that there is no requirement that can be imposed on them to do anything with regards to the traffic impact. They are here tonight and they can confirm that. They already got comments in writing back from DelDOT on this. Mr. Roach stated that he thinks they are kind of beating a dead horse. He is just letting them know that as far as him personally, for having a person who is sitting here saying that that land has been passed down for generation to generation and for him to hear that is unsettling. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Balascio stated that that is completely fine. If you want to table it for that reason and that reason alone because everything else they are willing to do, that’s fine. Because that data has already been compiled and Mr. Rodriguez has it. He believes that Mrs. Gray and Mrs. Melson-Williams were copied on those emails and he can easily tune in and say that because Mayor and Council already annexed that property in. Mr. Roach stated that again, he is just basically speaking from a standpoint of somebody who thinks this way. How many people have been in jail for 20 years to get released later on because somebody made a mistake? How many times have we had situations where people make a decision and just because that one person made that decision or looked at that map or said this? That does not mean anything to him. He is just letting you know because there is a woman sitting here who is trying to pass her land to her family. So for him, saying that Mr. Rodriguez has some documentation that they can look at, cool. But when he has someone sitting here who says that they own the land and it’s been passed down for generation to generation, he feels as though as much as they are going to give him the opportunity to speak here for two hours so that we can talk about it, he feels as though she deserves that time to try to legally fight for what’s hers. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Balascio stated that he is very glad if you want to table it for that reason and that reason alone. They can recompile that data and get it to Mr. Rodriguez again so that he can follow up with the Commission in the appropriate manner. Dr. Jones stated that after all of the discussion this evening, how does the applicant respond to the concerns raised by all of the people how spoke against the project? It doesn’t sound as 27 148

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. though there has been communication. One of the things that we do on this Commission, when they have this kind of a disagreement is to usually ask the applicant how they have worked with the residents? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Balascio stated that they made several meetings where they met out onsite; who was invited to those meetings, he doesn’t know. Also, this went through the whole Annexation process where all of the notices were given. They have also posted out on the property by putting signs up. He would say that he understands their concerns but also what he would hope is as Mr. Roach just pointed out is that they have appeared before the Commission and followed your rules on a piece of property that allows them to develop it. You guys, over the years, have adopted a Comprehensive Plan that repeatedly identified this property being developed in this manner. One of the Councilmen had pointed out to them that there is actually a study on their property. Instead of putting apartments here (and he believes that the City of Dover took part in this study); this property could be developed as a rail access property. They decided not to do that even though they were approached and that’s what the prior owners were going to do. That’s why the study started because that would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of square feet of warehousing, 24 hour operations, lighting and large trucks coming in and out. That is a permissible code use and they said no they don’t want to do that but they want this route of putting something in that they thought was beneficial to the community by keeping it in a residential like setting. They have also reduced the density. He is more than glad to work with the Commission and follow up on any comments that you have. But if it’s going to be tabled tonight, they would respectfully request that it be tabled only with regards to that because they have met all of the other Code requirements. Mr. Cooper stated that that one of the things that Mr. Hartman was getting at was that the Planning Commission looks at not only just the Code requirements, but they look at the human aspect of it as well. He has a great deal of heartburn about the ownership issue which he thinks they are going to squash by next month or however that works out so we are going to set that aside. The parking issue he thinks is completely off the table so he can get rid of that. But what he does struggle with and he is having a very hard time with it, is that he believes very much in your property rights to do with your property in which you want to do and what Code allows you to do. But he also believes very much in their property rights to enjoy their neighborhood and to enjoy their street. They are going to go from having 50 cars a day on a small side street to having several hundred a day. Representative Lynn referenced 600-800 cars which he thinks is a bit of an exaggeration. We are talking about a street that was designed by the City or the County however many decades ago for that amount of traffic. Now we are going to try and use that same street for this significantly larger amount of traffic. He is torn and he is glad that they are going to have a month to think about it and for him to wrestle with it because he has trouble with their property rights versus yours and yours versus theirs. Responding to Mr. Cooper, Mr. Balascio stated that he hears your concern and his answer to that would be that the City protects the residents by the Codes that you have adopted. The Codes that you have adopted in this case, allow them as a use by-right to develop the property in this manner; and, they have met that Code requirement and exceeded it. They went to PLUS and the State of Delaware’s DelDOT was a part of that. They followed up with DelDOT afterwards and they spoke about it and this was the decision. Now, for somebody to go back and say after it’s been documented that you can use these right of ways and these roads in this way for your plan as by-right and then change it, it wouldn’t be fair to them if that’s the decision that has already been made. That is why he respectfully submits to you that if you want to table it tonight, he thinks the tabling needs to be 28 149

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. limited to the question of ownership because as the packet before you shows, they have met all other Code requirements and have removed the Parking Waiver to make that clear on the record. Mr. Cooper stated that that’s part of his frustration with the whole situation is the human aspect that Mr. Hartman brought up. He struggles with all that you have invested in this and all that they have invested in their property and the impact that our decision has on both parties involved. In his mind, he is looking at it as one to one. He is not looking at it as 75 residents to your 385 units. It’s property rights versus property rights in his mind. And then, it’s the human aspect of the Code. It absolutely sucks for a lack of a better way of putting it, for the situation that you are in but it absolutely sucks for the situation that they are in as well because nobody thought in 1890 that this was going to get built up with a 385 unit apartment complex. Responding to Mr. Cooper, Mr. Balascio stated that you just rezoned this property within the last decade for this to go on there. You didn’t but the City of Dover rezoned this property meaning they went through a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Your Comprehensive Plan said that this property should have apartments on it, you approved that Comprehensive Plan. Then you updated your Zoning Code and then you made them come and rezone the property. They are code compliant. The prevailing rule under Delaware Law right now (and he hears the public), but the prevailing rule is that if he comes before you, follows all of your rules, and he has a use by-right that you have adopt you can’t deny him. Mr. Cooper stated that he interprets everything that Mr. Hartman read out of that book as the failsafe. They are the human aspect; the failsafe for this Code book. So again, he values your property rights and mine and theirs. That’s why he is glad that we are going to table this and we are going to have a solid month to wrestle with that because he guarantees that he is not the only one sitting on this floor that’s wrestling with those same property rights issues. He knows that Mr. Roach is and he knows that they are not the only two. He is glad to have this month to wrestle with it and figure it out in their heads because when they come back here, they have to decide that. That’s a very tough spot for them to be in. Responding to Mr. Cooper, Mr. Balascio stated that he would ask that when we do come back, they as the applicant are given the opportunity to speak about those points at that time. And in the interim, through Mrs. Gray and Mrs. Melson-Williams if there is stuff that you need, please ask us for it and they will supply it because they haven’t hidden anything. Anything that has been asked of us to date, they have provided upon their request. Mrs. Malone asked for the names of the two people that were speaking. Responding to Mrs. Malone, Mrs. Maucher stated it was Mr. Cooper and the applicant Mr. Balascio. Mr. Baldwin stated that he realizes that all of his questions that he had written down have been gone over but one thing that he heard it touched on very lightly is that you have people who have owned property for years. No matter what you do or say, this project is going to change their lifestyle and they are going to have to do things differently. He understands that its code compliant but they have to look at the human side of this. How many people are going to have to stop doing some things that they normally do just because of this housing project? He understands that it is your property and you have the right to do it and you are code compliant. But they have to look at the people that have been living there for 15, 20 or 30 years. 29 150

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. Dr. Jones stated that Mr. Rodriguez’s name has been mentioned. He is the City Solicitor representing the City. But the family has an attorney so in her mind, it’s going to be a meeting of the minds and some kind of reconciliation and some decision made as a result of attorneys representing both parties coming together. So, it will not be a simple matter of what Mr. Rodriguez says. She knows Mr. Rodriguez and respects him but at the same time, they cannot discount their attorney. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Balascio stated that they gave all of the information to that attorney and they have not responded since October or November of last year. Dr. Jones stated that she understands and she doesn’t think that they are fighting with him. They are just simply saying that sometimes one plus one equals two. She shouldn’t use analogies because she doesn’t do well with analogies. But they just simply cannot negate what is happening on the other side and that is with the Mishoe family and the other owners who live in that area. Mr. Cooper moved to table S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street while waiting for the right-of-way outcome, seconded by Dr Jones. Mrs. Gray asked for the Commissioners to articulate the length of when it’s going to be tabled for. Responding to Mrs Gray, Mrs. Maucher stated that they are asking until it’s resolved. Mrs. Gray stated that she is not sure whether that is a proper motion. She believes that it needs to be tabled for a period of time until perhaps the next meeting. Responding to Mrs. Gray, Mrs. Maucher stated that she would say then if they have it come back, if the response is not satisfactory that they continue to table. Mrs. Gray stated that she would agree with that, and they could have it reviewed at that time. Mr. Cooper moved to table S-23-06 College Road Apartments at Railroad Avenue/Grove Street while waiting for the right-of-way outcome until next month at which they can assess the property legalities and right-of-ways, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was carried 6-2 by roll call vote with Mrs. Denney absent. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for everything stated for earlier. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mr. Hartman voting no; he still has many many concerns about traffic safety, property rights, and parking. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting no; she has the same concerns as Mr. Hartman outlined. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for all of the reasons stated regarding the concerns that people have over the right-of-way and they need to address those issues. Mrs. Malone voting yes; regarding the right-of-way clarification but she is also concerned that she doesn’t want the applicant to be encouraged to continue with this because they have put a lot of time and money into this project for many years and that is not something that she wants the City of Dover to be known for. They are trying to encourage positive development in the city and she is concerned that this would turn other positive development away. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for the reasons stated. AX-23-02 Lands of Christina L. Kelleher at 273 Acorn Lane - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of an Annexation Request and Rezoning Request for a parcel of land totaling 0.611 acres+/- located at 273 Acorn Lane. The property is currently zoned RS-1 (Residential Single-Family Zone) in Kent County. The proposed Zoning is R-8 (One Family 30 151

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. Residence Zone). The property is located on the west side of Acorn Lane between Revolutionary Boulevard and South Hancock Avenue. The annexation category according to Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas and the land use designation is Residential Medium Density. The property owner is Christina L. Kelleher. Property Address: 273 Acorn Lane. Tax Parcel: ED-00-068.19-01-13.00-000. Proposed Council District 3. Ordinance #2023-02. The First Reading of this Annexation Request was held on February 13, 2023. Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for March 20, 2023 and City Council on April 10, 2023. Representatives: Ms. Christina Kelleher, property owner (attending virtually) Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she would refer the Commission to the DAC Report. As noted, this is a property at 273 Acorn Lane. Our Comprehensive Plan designates it as a Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area with a land use classification of Residential Medium Density. Currently, there is a single family dwelling on the property zoned RS-1 (Residential Single Family Zone) in Kent County and the proposed use would be to continue that single family dwelling. They would like to take the opportunity to hopefully connect to City water and sewer to resolve some of the issues that they have with the property currently. It is already served by City of Dover Electric and the proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). In this case of an Annexation, Planning Commission is making a recommendation to City Council regarding the Annexation and the appropriate zoning classification for the property. Ms. Kelleher stated that she is the owner of 273 Acorn Lane. The property has been in her family for years and she is just looking to be able to connect to City services. She has read all of the information that has been sent to her and at this time, she doesn’t have any comments or questions. Mrs. Maucher asked what the reason was for the zoning change. We do these things and she thinks that they are seeing the effect of sometimes changing and the unintended consequences. There is houses of worship and some of the other things that are allowed in R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) that may not be allowed in RG-1 (General Residence Zone). She is just curious for the reason and if it’s just simply to connect to City services. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the RS-1 (Residential Single Family Zone) that the property is currently is a Kent County zoning classification. Upon Annexation into the City of Dover, a City of Dover zoning classification must be selected. R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) is one of the ones that this property is eligible for and probably the most reasonable of the residential zones that are allowed for this property under our Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Maucher stated that not knowing the possible uses, are there any that is more strictly just to maintain it as a residential use? Again, she thinks that they have kind of seen what can occur with a Rezoning. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the other residential districts that are offered are other One Family Residence Zones. It could potentially be R-10 (One-Family Residence Zone) and you would be looking at the same use list. Actually all of the other residential zones that it could become are either more intense in the types of units that would be allowed there and still continue to refer to a number of conditional use opportunities that would require additional review just like if it was R-8 (One Family Residence 31 152

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. Zone). Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing and then after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman moved to recommend approval to City Council for AX-23-02 Lands of Christina L. Kelleher at 273 Acorn Lane and the Rezoning request because in the Comprehensive Plan it is a Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area and he also bases it on the testimony of Ms. Kelleher who spoke tonight, seconded by Mr. Cooper and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Denney absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on what he stated in the motion. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons stated in the motion. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for reasons stated in the motion. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons stated in the motion. SB-23-01C – Lands of Wyoming, LLC at Jefferson Terrace Extended (Ekaman Subdivision): Conceptual Subdivision Plan - Public Hearing and Review of a Conceptual Subdivision Plan to create six (6) lots from an existing parcel totaling 4.2311 acres to be known as Ekaman Subdivision. The proposed subdivision is to consist of four residential lots, a stormwater management area lot, and a residual lot for residential use. The proposal includes the extension and addition of a cul-de-sac to the existing street right-of-way of Jefferson Terrace. The property is zoned R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) and is located south of but not adjacent to Wyoming Avenue and west of Monroe Terrace. Property Address: unaddressed on Jefferson Terrace extension (also referenced as 3.8904 acres of Wyoming Avenue Rear). Property Owner: Wyoming, LLC. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077-17-06-02.01-000. Council District 2. Subdivision Waiver Requests: Alternative Lot Configuration and Reduced Frontage on a Public Street (Stormwater Management Area Lot); Increased Percentage of Lots on Cul-de-sac; and Elimination of Sidewalk on Monroe Terrace Frontage of Residual Lot. Note: Any renaming of Jefferson Terrace (to Ekaman Way) is subject to a separate review process. Representatives: Mr. Kyle Burchard, Mountain Consulting; Mr. Emmanuel Elize, representative of Wyoming, LLC; Mr. Lacy Holly, attorney representative of Wyoming, LLC. Mr. Swierczek stated that this is a Major Subdivision Application that is slightly different than the more typical Minor Subdivision Application, primarily because there is not a roadway currently present. Part of the Application is to propose the extension of Jefferson Terrace. What the applicant is proposing that is making this a Major Subdivision Application is that it would extend Jefferson Terrace further to the west. There would be six lots in total that would be proposed with the Subdivision. Lots 1-4 have access currently on what would become a new cul- de-sac known as Jefferson Terrace Extension. The fifth lot would be towards the south of the property and would utilize existing frontage on Monroe Terrace and then a sixth lot which is sort of centrally located to the property would not be for development as that would for stormwater management. This Application is a Conceptual Plan for a Major Subdivision Review. The first stage would be a conceptual one and the second would be that they would return for a more formal Preliminary Subdivision Plan. This is not in itself proposing a development, this is for the road and the subdivision of the lots themselves. He will note that present on the property you will see floodplain and wetland areas. The Code stipulates that development in wetland areas and 32 153

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. floodplain areas is not permitted and there are additionally setback requirements for construction of new development from wetland areas and named water bodies as well that will apply to any physical development on these properties. The applicant has submitted with their application Waivers. One is for an alternate lot configuration that reduces frontage on a public street. There are technically five lots that are immediately accessing that end of the cul-de-sac. There is a fifteen-foot-wide strip of the more centrally located Stormwater Management Lot to access from the cul-de-sac. It is really to access the stormwater management area. The second one is an increased percentage of lots on cul-de-sac. Because of the sort of unique form or layout of the existing property, the four parcels that are meant for development to the north would all have to access the cul-de-sac that is proposed as well as that fifth Stormwater Management Lot and then that sixth Residual Parcel would be utilizing that existing frontage on Monroe Terrace. Finally, the applicant has submitted a Waiver Request from the requirement to provide sidewalk along the public right of way frontage of Monroe Terrace. That would be the southernmost part of the existing Monroe Terrace shown at the bottom part of the plan. Planning Staff will note that generally speaking, the infill standards per the Code would apply for development on lots in already developed areas. Such standards would require the implementation of sidewalks and there are several other houses on Monroe Terrace that have provided sidewalks. However, it is not consistent throughout, but Planning Staff would recommend that they do implement the sidewalk on that frontage. Mr. Burchard stated that everything that Mr. Swierczek mentioned is the substance of their application. They received a number of public comments to which they drafted a response letter which is in the packet tonight on concerns about the flood plain, the stream channel, the wetlands and the buffers, and erosion and sediment control. They have taken a shot at describing what the requirements are to address those matters. They are applying all the standards that are required from DNREC in order to make a plan that is adequately addressing those issues. Their counselor just mentioned this evening that there is some concern that he hadn’t heard before about fallen trees that may or may not be obstructing the channel of stream itself. So, they will certainly be addressing these in the Preliminary Subdivision Plan that would come next. Mr. Hartman stated with the channel that is designated to wetlands is that where you are talking about the fallen trees? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Burchard stated that it was just brought up to him this evening. He thinks that the channel itself and maybe some of the other woodland areas were of concern. He didn’t get specifically what he had heard. Mr. Hartman asked who would be responsible for maintaining that channel after the development is built? Would it be the property owners of the development or the City? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Burchard stated that he doesn’t know that there is a maintenance schedule established for a natural stream channel. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they have (online attending virtually) the property owner, Mr. Emmanuel Ehize and also his lawyer representative, Mr. Lacy Holly. She isn’t sure if they would like to make any comments before we get too deep into Planning Commissioner’s questions. Mr. Holly stated that that he thinks it’s important to note that the City’s data sheet suggests that a very similar Conceptual Subdivision was previously conditionally approved. That owner did not 33 154

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. follow through and so the conditional approval expired. He would also like to note that the City’s data sheet suggests that with this subdivision that the four lots are largely compliant with the zoning and bulk standards. Also, to highlight, the data sheet suggests that of the four variances (waivers) sought of the Planning Commission appears to recommend three of those four. They ask that the Planning Commission decide this on the merits of the law and the land use regulations of the City of Dover. The applicant is appreciative and mindful that there is quite a bit of comment, concerns and objections of nearby neighbors. That is why the applicant made careful effort and spent significant money to have their engineer be prepared to address all seven of their concerns and that they believe that after considerations of the objections and concerns that the discussion by Mountain Consulting through Mr. Kyle Burchard, will show that there are no violations of the City of Dover regulations and any other alleged violations are not even appropriate of this particular proposal with the exception of the four variances (waivers) requested. He would suggest that time be yielded back to Mr. Burchard to go over all seven of the objections on the record. He encourages the Planning Commission to approve the Conceptual Plan. Mr. Burchard stated that he would briefly go through the concerns raised by the neighbors. There were seven of them and then there were a pair of exhibits. The first was a concern about an obstruction of stream flow which may be wrapped up in the counselor’s notification in the hearing tonight but there is nothing that is proposed in the Subdivision that would create obstruction to the flow in the existing blue line stream that is on property. Item #2 is about compliance with Delaware Erosion and Sediment Control Standards. There is to be a complete review and approval by Kent Conservation District; so, there will not be any deficiencies in the construction and post construction erosion control systems. Item #3 is very similar to Item #2, illustrating in the front matter of the Erosion Sediment Control Handbook about the economic impacts of sediment washing into streams and getting downstream. Again, there will be full compliance with DNREC under KCD review. Item #4 was about meeting floodplain requirements. Since there is no touching of the flood zone that is mapped on the property, it really doesn’t apply. There are no additional flood plain requirements for the project. Item #5 relates to wetlands and being that they are not proposing any disturbance to any of the wetlands on the property, they are essentially in compliance with all the regulations that are applicable there. The Delaware Land Protection Act (Chapter 75) talks about protecting those resources. In the City Code, there is a requirement to have a stormwater management easement around the flood plain which is proposed; so, they are compliant with that as well. Item #7 is cited in the Kent County Land Subdivision Ordinance about the suitability of land. The layout is not proposing to subdivide buildable land within the floodplain. He is not sure that it’s applicable in the City anyway, but we are not violating that anyway. Exhibit A and part of the nature of the letter was concerns about the previous applications and why they did not go forward. He does not have any background in that former application, and he has not seen it. Exhibit B has several mappings which are reflected in their plans of all the flood plain, the stream channel and the wetlands so they are addressing all of that. At this conceptual stage, they just want to clear the air and make sure that everybody understands that they are not into all of the environmental areas that would cause a concern and that would result in flooding on these neighboring properties. Most of the properties are upstream of this property to begin with. He would just like to put it before the Commission that they had to comply with a lot of other regulations in order to get the overall approvals to be able to move forward into construction. 34 155

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she wanted to enter into the record the public comments that we have received. The first set (Set 1) were public comments that were received as of March 10, 2023 and that was an email and subsequent attachments received from Mr. Steve LeBoon. That is the 7 item letter and that included some signatures of other area residents located along Westview Terrace, Mallard Drive and Crescent Drive which are nearby streets to the west and south of this application. A number of those people have stuck it out online with us tonight. The second set of public comments were additional comments received in the last week and as of 2PM today and they are calling it Set 2. That was distributed by email to the Commission members and also provided on their desks this evening. The first item is Item 2A; an email dated March 11, 2023 from Ms. Jean Taylor. It does reference the previous email that Mr. LeBoon sent and notes her concerns about this proposed subdivision and its affects on neighbors. Item 2B is an email from March 13, 2023 from Mr. Steve LeBoon referencing that email from March 11, 2023 from Ms. Taylor. Item 3 is the March 17, 2023 letter from Mountain Consulting on behalf of the Ekaman Subdivision that gave that itemized response to that public comment Set #1 and that was just reviewed by the project engineer, Mr. Burchard. Ms. Jean Taylor – 1017 Westview Terrace Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Taylor stated that if it ever rains in the next couple of weeks, please take a drive through their neighborhood. She is not sure what’s happened over the years. They have been there for 20 years and increasingly, the water rises in the streets and the sewer don’t seem to be managing things well. She is not sure if it’s the runoff ponds and streams in our areas but it’s bad enough that they seriously have had teenagers water surfing well on their streets during significant storms. She is seeing Lots 1-4 on the diagram shown on the screen, but she heard you say that 6 is the area of wetlands but you mentioned a Lot 5. For the life of her, she can’t find a 5 on the diagram. Responding to Ms. Taylor, Mr. Burchard stated that it is labeled SWM and RESID. Ms. Taylor stated that their concern is just even with any additional development, unless there is something significant that happens with the way that water is channeled away from the properties, any additional impermeable areas. They are just very concerned that they are going to increase the amount of water that they are already feeling and that is rising over the years and affecting their properties. If this is going to happen, then it would have to happen with a lot of assistance to prevent water damage from occurring with some very specific native plantings or some restructuring of waterways and pipes. That is really a huge concern for them on Westview Terrace. Mr. Steve LeBoon –1025 Westview Terrace Dover, DE 19904 Mr. LeBoon stated that this is very serious. With the 7 items that they have illustrated, they protect the neighbors. This would be catastrophic. The water from his back property is a flood plain. The flood plains that have been illustrated according to the previous owner is over 70 years old. They are so outdated, that the flood plain would include all Woodbrook and the surrounding neighborhood. On August 4, 2021, they had a very serious tornado. That is when the previous owner, he would like to set the record straight because he articulated to him that he could not building back there because of the flooding and due to the utilities. He is saying that 35 156

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. the plans expired. It expired because they couldn’t do it. He would like this Committee to take some time to think about it and really look into it and research how these statutes and codes protect the homeowners. Finally, he is asking for a full denial on the legal merits based on what’s been furnished to this Committee. Mrs. Cassandra LeBoon – 1025 Westview Terrace Dover, DE 19904 Mrs. LeBoon stated that when she listens to the responses to all of the concerns from Mr. Holly, all of the responses seem to dismiss everything that they have put forward and they are just supposed to believe that they are going to figure it out and do what’s right. They take care of them on the four streets that will be affected by this subdivision. She knows that it is at a preliminary stage, but they should have come prepared for more than just “we will be in compliance.” It seems nonchalant that they are just sort of brushing them away and saying, “just trust us, we will take care of you.” That is why they put all of the time and effort into looking into the different statutes and looking at the protections that are out there for them. It is evident for the people before them that sometimes developers tell you one thing and then then come back and do a different thing. She is sure that all of her neighbors agree with her and if they need to, they can get more people. Mr. Holly stated that he understands that the neighbors are concerned and very passionate as they should be about their home. But not one of them cited a particular statute or regulation this evening; it may have been in some of their emails. That is why they have in fact addressed all of the objections in the writing that has been submitted and will be part of the record. The proposed Subdivision infrastructure improvements do not propose any work within 100 year FEMA floodplain. The existing floodplain and blueline stream buffers on the property are very dense and won’t be touched. On the economic impact of the floodplain requirements, Mr. Burchard has taken very careful time to respond to each and every one of the seven objections. The neighbors can express their opinions that his profession opinion is incorrect but to say that they haven’t responded to their concerns, he doesn’t believe is accurate. He would ask that the Conceptual Plan be approved and note that of the four variances (waivers) that they need, the Planning Office recommends three of those. They ask that the Conceptual Plan be approved, and he would like Mr. Burchard to be more specific and technical on his particular responses on the neighbor objections. They made quite a bit of effort to get Council that has much more experience in front of this Commission. He is a practicing attorney in land use and real estate in New Castle County. Mr. Burchard has very detailed responses to the neighbors’ concerns and he would ask the Planning Commission consider that this very similar Subdivision Plan that has previously been approved. All of the bulk requirements under the regulations for the four lots that are intended for immediate commercial development and that the owner of Wyoming, LLC. should be able to do what they want to do with the property as long as it complies with Dover regulations, and they contend that it does. Mr. Burchard stated that he was trying to be brief with the Commission because of the written statements to respond to the neighbor’s concerns. All of these measures are in place to protect their property and their rights. They are compliant with all of that and it is a matter of proving it in the design with other review processes in order for that to be enacted. He can’t presuppose the final design before it actually happens. If there are maintenance issues within the subdivision that have affected their drainage system that need to be taken care of. He doesn’t know whose 36 157

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. responsibility that is. It may be the City or the homeowners association if there is one and that might be worth looking into. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartman stated that the earlier question that he asked about maintenance, he was looking at the Code of Ordinances, Section 42-1 Drainage Courses of Private Property. It lists two scenarios: maintenance by the City, where surface water naturally flows over private property forming a surface water drainage course, of which said private property is not subject to an agreement by the property owner. That type of surface water drainage is required to be maintained by the City. There is another one where it’s the property owner’s responsibility to manage their surface water flows into other private properties. On those four lots when the residences will be built, who will be responsible for the drainage if it goes towards the people who are having the problem? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this Subdivision Plan will be subject to a Stormwater Management Plan that would need to meet the Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Management Guidelines. They are limited that they can’t increase what is already coming off of their properties onto properties of others with those regulations. She would let you know that this is a challenged watershed overall. It drains ultimately, a very significant area of the city. But they will be dealing with the impacts on their individual properties. The City would not be the one responsible for managing the stream that is there and likely with the subdivision, there would have to be some type of maintenance organization for any of the open space areas that support those lots. That would be certainly something to come forward in future steps in a Subdivision Application process. Mr. Hartman stated that the Surface Water Management Plan that is required would require that the surface water not be drained towards other personal property. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that is basically how it works. You can probably refer to the engineer that is standing before you because this is an engineering standpoint. We also have Mr. Jason Lyon who is the City Engineer that is hopefully still available if you want to go to him for the questions that he may have knowledge of. But their management of stormwater is a big deal. Mr. Burchard stated that he doesn’t have the full answer as to who is responsible for the maintenance. It seems is if there is a bit of a possible conflict there and it doesn’t seem to quite make sense. He would agree that Mr. Lyon would have a better idea of how the City maintains open waterways that are known blueline streams and if that falls under the City maintenance requirements. If it’s required of the applicant to maintain it and that is the determination that happens, then that’s what will be the determination. Mr. Hartman asked if the plans would include grading that divert stormwater away from the residents that are already having a problem. In response it was stated that for this particular property basically, there is a plateau at the top of the property that then falls away to drain towards the blueline stream that runs through it. Other than a yard as it is today, the yard would have incremental amount of additional runoff that would flow off of it but it’s not much different than the meadow that it is today. The grass areas that would head into the alley that is between the properties flows down to the headwall that begins the origin point of the stream. 37 158

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. This particular property and the developed portion of this property would be controlled to not worsen whatever the existing drainage problems are with those adjacent residents to the west or to the north or to the east should they all need to flow towards the stream. Mr. Hartman stated that he appreciates the applicant’s submittal. His main concerns are with the existing problems with the area. This was in one of the references submitted by the people who are opposed to this. They mention a City Council Meeting on July 12, 2021, where Councilman Taylor showed a series of photographers of some of the problems over there. Most of it looked like it was that pond west of Westview Terrace. One of these photographs shows an area where water is supposed to come out under Westview Terrace and is nothing but woods that impedes the water flow. Councilman Taylor went on to say that the issue was a high priority, and they need to look at the flow of water and how it is changing the landscape. His question is was anything done after that presentation by Councilman Taylor? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Swierczek stated that would be something that would likely be coordinated by the Public Works Office if it’s looking at to sort of mitigate stormwater management or what part the City plays versus private property owners. That would not be something that the Planning Office wouldn’t participate in because that would be something done in the Public Works Office. Mr. Hartman stated that it seems that the Planning Office should be very concerned about this and he believes that the Planning Officer is actually the Floodplain Administrator for the City of Dover. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the City Planner is named as the Floodplain Administrator and they do have Mr. Jason Lyon, the City’s Engineer that can probably speak to some of the questions and issues related to the difficulties experienced on Westview Terrace. Mr. Lyon stated that with regard to the Westview Terrace, he is familiar with the City owning that pond and we are working on trying to clear that out and dipping it out to get a little bit better retention there. His recollection with blueline streams is that it’s to the ownership of the property that it is on. This certainly came up at the Puncheon Run which is just south of this blueline. That issue has come up before where there was some damage of trees that had fallen into the Puncheon Run stream and it was the owner’s responsibility for clearing that out. They went to the State for clarification on that. He does not see any difference with this specific situation as the blueline that is going through this developed property is not the City’s property; it is a property owned by private development. He would echo Mrs. Melson- Williams’ point about the runoff as Kent Conservation District will not allow this development to be approved if there is additional runoff from pre-development to post development. What that means is, when a rain event happens, the amount of rain that came before development into that ditch or the floodplain cannot be increased at post development. Mr. Holly stated that to assume that is it going to increase the runoff is at best premature. He defers greatly to the Commission and to Mr. Lyon, but we can’t presuppose that the development is going to increase the runoff. They understand that they are not going to get approval if it does, but he would ask the Planning Commission not to make a decision based on an assumption ahead of the game that water runoff is going to increase after the improvement. Their engineer doesn’t agree that that’s what will happen, but they understand that they can’t 38 159

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. get approval unless it doesn’t increase the stormwater management runoff after the construction is constructed. Mr. Hartman stated that based on what Mr. Lyon said, that blueline stream would be the applicant’s. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Burchard stated that’s what it sounded like, and he would ask Mr. Lyon as to the permit requirements to have equipment in the blueline stream to remove big logs and things that might be obstructing flow. Mr. Hartman asked how much work you could do in a wetlands area like that? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Burchard stated that that was the point of his question. Mr. Hartman stated that he understands what they are up against, but he knows that there are things that can happen applying to the (Army Corps of) Engineers for access or work. They have seen that at Dover High School where that was done at that pond. His concern remains with the Planning Office because this particular area has been brought up by City Council as problem and a priority area to look at. Out of Article 1, Section 50-4 “basis for establishing special flood hazard areas: The City of Dover may identify and regulate new local flood hazard or ponding areas. These areas should be delineated and adopted on a “Local Flood Hazard Map” using best available topographic data and locally derived information such as flood of record, historic high water marks or approximate study methodologies.” The question to the Planning Office is, has this been done in the area? Has research on a local flood hazard area been done in the area? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there are no locally designated flood hazard areas that have gone through that process. There are provisions in our Code to do so, but there have not been steps to take that with any properties here in the City of Dover. Mr. Hartman stated that one of the requirements of Article 2, Section 50-21 of the Floodplain Administrator is to “review application for permits to determine whether proposed activities will be reasonably safe from flooding and interpret floodplain boundaries and provide flood elevation and flood hazard information.” It just seems to him that if they have had historic problems in this area then that’s something that the Planning Office would have looked at in the past. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Burchard stated that is sounded like Mr. Lyon was addressing a maintenance issue upstream which could certainly affect what these neighbors on Westview Terrace have been experiencing. Mrs. Maucher asked once the stormwater pond was built, who is responsible for the maintenance of that stormwater facility. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Burchard stated that there will be an HOA established that is required to set that up. There will be an agreement put in place so that that is funded and taken care of. Mrs. Maucher asked if the HOA would be for four properties only. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Burchard stated that it is a very small HOA. Mrs. Maucher asked if the developer was intending to pre-fund because there is quite an expense with stormwater management ponds. A big issue in the State is that property owner HOA’s are not equipped to deal with them and do not have the money or expertise to deal with 39 160

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. them. The working out the extent of what the facility may look like with KCD to make sure that it’s appropriate for this position in the floodplain is part of their next steps to workout. He doesn’t have the answer to the funding issue and how that would work. He would say that there is a review with the Planning Commission and certainly that will be something that will need to be addressed. Mr. Cooper stated that by approving this, should that motion get made, they are merely sending this onto the next steps so that they can get that Kent Conservation District information and everything else that goes on. They are just approving this to get more answers and more questions for the next step, correct? Responding to Mr. Cooper, Mr. Burchard stated that is correct. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated the subdivision process is a multi-step process. This is the initial concept where they give you the basic sense of this is what we would like to do for a road and a lot configuration. The second step is called the Preliminary Subdivision Plan and with that step you get greater detail on some of these engineering questions. But ultimately there is various delegated agencies that have technical review responsibilities much more intense than what you are doing here, and the stormwater management must be in compliance with the Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Management Regulations. They will be working closely with the Kent Conservation District on that. This evening you are really dealing with the concept of the subdivision layout. It is an allowable use as noted in the R-10 (One Family Residence Zone). They do have several Wavier Requests. One of them they kind of grouped together with the first one being the Alternative Lot Configuration and Reduction Frontage on a Public Street for that Stormwater Management Area Lot. The number two Waiver Request is related to the Increased Percentage of Lots on the Cul-de-sac. The third Waiver is the request to eliminate the sidewalk requirement along the public right of way frontage of Monroe Terrace (that southern piece that comes back out to front there). There are three Waiver Requests. These are Subdivision Waivers, so the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, and they carry that recommendation forward through a City Council review process of those Subdivision Waivers. Mr. Holly asked that for the record, is he correct that the Planning Staff did recommend all of the waiver requests except for the sidewalk? Responding to Mr. Holly, Mr. Swierczek stated that the Planning Staff has recommended approval of all but the sidewalk waiver request. The Planning Commission will take the recommendations into consideration. Mr. Hartman SB-23-01C Lands of Wyoming, LLC at Jefferson Terrace Extended (Ekaman Subdivision): Conceptual Subdivision Plan that based on the testimony of the applicant tonight and the Planning Staff write up in the DAC Report (be approved) and subsequentially approve the Alternate Lot Configuration and Reduce Frontage on a Public Street for the Stormwater Area Lot, the Increased Percentage of Lots on a Cul-de-sac. And he recommends that they deny the Waiver Request for the Elimination of the Sidewalk on Monroe Terrace Frontage of the Residual Lot, seconded by Mr. Cooper and the motion was carried 7-0 with Mrs. Denney and Dr. Jones absent. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the motion that he stated. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the aforementioned statements. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons stated. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Cooper voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes; for 40 161

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2023 Item 3. reasons stated. NEW BUSINESS Meeting adjourned at 11:32 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 41 162

Item 3. 163

Item 3. 164

Item 3. Qtitp of 710ober MAYOR AND COUNCIL COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2021-26 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCLUSION OF AN AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DOVER. WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover authorizes Council to extend the boundaries of the said City in accordance with Title 22, Chapter 1, Section 101 of the Delaware Code (22 Del.C.§ 101); and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council deem it to be in the best interest of the City of Dover to include an area contiguous to the present City limits, and hereinafter more particularly described, within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council, upon recommendation of the City Planner and Planning Commission, deem it to be in the best interest of the City of Dover to include these right-of-way areas within the limits of the City of Dover to reduce an enclave of the City boundary and to clarify portions ofright-of-way that should have been annexed in the past with adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover provides that if an annexation is petitioned by all owners of all property considered for annexation, no election shall be required. For an annexation petition not requiring an election, such petition shall be processed in accordance with procedures established for amendments to the zoning map, specified in Dover Code, Appendix B - Zoning. All annexation petitions shall be processed concurrently with the rezoning of the property considered for annexation and shall be subject to public hearing before City Council. Public notice shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of the Dover Code relating to amendment of the zoning map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That the following described areas, situated in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of Delaware, along with all adjacent paths, sidewalks, roadways, and rights-of-way in their entirety, shall be annexed to and included within the limits of the City of Dover: Raymond Street (Jason Street) ALL that certain piece, parcel, and tract of land lying and being situate in the East Dover Hundred, Kent County, Delaware and being a portion of the right- of-way for Raymond Street (aka Jason Street), lying between easterly right-of-way of Mishoe Street and the easterly right-of-way of Railroad Avenue as recorded on the plan titled "Plot of Land Belonging to The College Settlement Company", dated 1899 and recorded on Plot Book A, Page 85 , and now being more particularly bounded and described by Pennoni Associates Inc. as follows : P.O. Box 475 ❖ Dover, Delaware ❖ 19903 QI:ommnnitp Qixcellence UtlJronnlJ ~nalitp ~eruice 165

COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2021-26 PAGE2 Item 3. BEGINNING at a point on the southerly right-of-way of Raymond (Jason) Street (35' wide right-of-way) at its intersection with the easterly right-of-way of Railroad A venue (35' wide right-of-way), said point also being at the northwesterly corner of Lot 168 of the aforesaid plan, thence crossing to the northerly right-of-way of Raymond (Jason) Street along the easterly right-of- way of Railroad Avenue and along the westerly terminus of Raymond (Jason) Street; North 34° 41' 03" West, 35.48' to a point on the northerly right-of- way of Raymond (Jason) Street, also being the southwesterly corner for Lot 202, thence along the northerly right-of-way of Raymond (Jason) Street and along Lot 202, crossing the southerly terminus of Grove Street (35' wide right-of-way), and Lots 189-196, inclusive, and an unplatted property; North 45° 55' 24" East, 799.19', more or less to a point, being at the intersection of the extension of the easterly right-of-way line of Mishoe Street (52' wide right-of-way), thence crossing to the aforesaid southerly right-of-way of Raymond (Jason) Street; South 45° 08' 14" East, 35.01' to a point on the southerly right-of-way of Raymond (Jason) Street, thence along the southerly right-of-way of Raymond (Jason) Street and crossing the northerly terminus of Mishoe Street and Lots 177-168, inclusive; South 45° 55' 24" West, 805.62', more or less, to the point and place of beginning, be the contents thereof what they may. Containing within this parcel 28,084 square feet or 0.6447 acres of land, more or less. Railroad Avenue ALL that certain piece, parcel, and tract of land lying and being situate in the East Dover Hundred, Kent County, Delaware and being a portion of the right- of-way for Railroad Avenue, lying between southerly right-of-way of Raymond Street (aka Jason Street) and the northerly boundary of the land recorded on the plan titled "Plot of Land Belonging to The College Settlement Company", dated 1899 and recorded on Plot Book A, Page 85, and now being more particularly bounded and described by Pennoni Associates Inc. as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the easterly right-of-way of Railroad Avenue (35' wide right-of-way) at its intersection with the southerly right-of-way of Raymond (Jason) Street (35' wide right-of-way), said point also being at the northwesterly corner of Lot 168 of the aforesaid plan, thence along an extension of the southerly right-of-way of Raymond (Jason) Street and crossing to the westerly right-of-way of Railroad Avenue; South 45° 55' 24" West, 35.48' to a point on the westerly right-of-way of Railroad Avenue, said point along being on the easterly right-of-way of lands now or formerly of Delaware Railroad, thence along the westerly right-of-way of Railroad Avenue and the easterly right-of-way oflands now or formerly of Delaware Railroad); North 34° 41' 03" West, 1090.24, more or less to a point, thence crossing to the easterly right-of-way of Railroad Avenue; North 55° 19' 01" East, 35.00' to a point on the easterly right-of-way of Railroad Avenue, said point also being the northwesterly comer of Lot 215, thence along the easterly right-of-way of Railroad Avenue and Lot 215-202, inclusive, and crossing the westerly terminus of Raymond (Jason) Street; South 34 ° 41' 03" East, 1084.45', more or less, to the point and place of beginning, be the contents thereof what they may. Containing within this parcel 38,057 square feet or 0.8737 acres of land, more or less. Grove Street ALL that certain piece, parcel, and tract of land lying and being situate in the East Dover Hundred, Kent County, Delaware and being a portion of the right- of-way for Grove Street, lying between northerly right-of-way of Raymond Street (aka Jason Street) and a portion of Grove Street previously abandoned to adjoining lands, Grove Street as recorded on the plan titled "Plot of Land Belonging to The College Settlement Company", dated 1899 and recorded on Plot Book A, Page 85, and now being more particularly bounded and described by Pennoni Associates Inc. as follows: 166

COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2021-26 Item 3. PAGE3 BEGINNING at a point on the westerly right-of-way of Grove Street (35' wide right-of-way) at its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of Raymond (Jason) Street (35' wide right-of-way), said point also being at the southeasterly comer Lot 202,203, and a part of204; North 33° 48' 55" West, 201.00', to a point, thence crossing to the easterly right-of-way of Grove Street; North 45° 55' 24" East, 35.57' to a point on the easterly right-of-way of Grove Street, said point also being the northwesterly corner of Lot 189, thence along the easterly right-of-way of Grove Street and the westerly side of Lot 189; South 33° 48' 55" East, 200.00' to a point on the northerly right- of-way of Raymond (Jason) Street, thence crossing to the westerly right-of- way of Grove Street along the northerly right-of-way of Raymond (Jason) Street and along the southerly terminus of Grove Street; South 45° 55' 24" 35.57'area to the point and place of beginning, be the contents thereof what they may. Containing within this parcel 7,000 square feet or 0.1607 acres ofland, more or less. 2. That the above described property shall be annexed into the City of Dover with a zoning classification as set by City Council and in accordance with the zoning map and environs then in force, effective upon such lands being included within the limits of the City of Dover. 3. That the certified copy of this resolution of annexation, together with a plot of the areas annexed, shall be filed for record with the Recorder of Deeds of Kent County. 4. That the effective date of this resolution shall be the 14th day of December, 2021 at 12:01 a.m. ADOPTED: DECEMBER 13, 2021 S:IRESOLUTIONS-PROCLAMATI ONS-TRIBUTES\2021 \Drafl\RESOLUTION NO 2021-26 - ANNEXATION - RAYMOND RAILROAD AND GROVE\Resolution No 202 I -26 -Annexation - Raymond Railroad and Grove ADOPTED - FOR SIGNATURE wpd . HRISTIANSEN MAYOR Actions History 12/13/2021 - Introduction - City Council 167

Item 3. City of Dover ORDINANCE #2021-23 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING INCLUDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT RAYMOND STREET, RAILROAD AVENUE, AND GROVE STREET WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to add the property described below in the form of Improved and Unimproved Right-of-Way to the City of Dover Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, it is deemed that the land in question is Right-of-Way and therefore does not require a zoning classification be assigned. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1) That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map of the City of Dover have been amended by including Improved and Unimproved Right-of-Way on that property located at Raymond Street (aka Jason Street), Railroad Avenue, and Grove Street (Right-of-Way located northeast of the intersection of College Road and the Lands of Delmarva Railroad) consisting of 1.6791 acres+/-. (In the vicinity of Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.00-02-53.00-000 and ED-05-067.00-02-56.00-000; Planning Reference: AX-21-04; Council District: 4) ADOPTED: DECEMBER 13, 2021 S:\ORDINANCES\2021\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2021-23 - REZONING - RAYMOND STREET, RAILROAD AVENUE, AND GROVE STREET\ORDINANCE 2021-23 - RAYMOND RAILROAD AND GROVE-ADOPTED 12-13-2021.wpd 12/13/2021 - Public Hearing/Final Reading - City Council 10/11/2021 - First Reading - City Council 168

Item 3. From: Bennett, Andria To: Gray, Mary Ellen; Melson-Williams, Dawn; Duca, Sharon; Hugg, Dave; Nicholas Rodriguez - Schmittinger & Rodriguez, P.A. (nrodriguez@schmittrod.com); "Bobby Jones - Planning Commission"; "englady602@gmail.com"; "hollie323@aol.com"; "dover.hartman@gmail.com"; Maucher, Andrea; Joan Denney; "ccooper021@gmail.com"; "jhb947@outlook.com"; "kennethroach1986@yahoo.com" Cc: WILMA MISHOE Subject: College Road Apartments Date: Friday, April 14, 2023 4:52:40 PM Attachments: Gray.letter - Mishoe - College Road Apartments.pdf image002.png Good Afternoon, Per the request of Dr. Wilma Mishoe, please see the attached letter and exhibits from attorney John A. Sergovic, Jr. Esquire. Have a good weekend. Respectfully, Andria Bennett City Clerk City of Dover P: (302) 736-7009 F: (302) 736-5068 abennett@dover.de.us This email has been blind copied to Council and the Mayor. ---------- Original Message ---------- From: John Sergovic <john@sussexattorney.com> To: "wmishoe1@comcast.net" <wmishoe1@comcast.net>, "roysudlerjr@comcast.net" <roysudlerjr@comcast.net> Cc: Tyler Friedman <tyler@sussexattorney.com>, Shannon Owens <shannon@sussexattorney.com> Date: 04/13/2023 5:09 PM Subject: FW: College Road Apartments Dr. Mishoe and Roy, Attached for your records is a copy of the letter we sent on your behalf to the City of Dover Dept. of Planning and Inspections. 169

Item 3. John A. Sergovic, Jr., Esq. 25 Chestnut Street, P.O. Box 751 Georgetown, DE 19947 Office Phones: (302) 855-1260 Office Fax: (302) 855-1270 Office Hours: 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. john@sussexattorney.com www.sussexattorney.com E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e- mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying or storage of this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited. In order to better protect our clients, please be advised that all nonpublic personal information (i.e.; addresses, birthdates, social security numbers, bank account and loan numbers, passport numbers and other financial information communicated with a person’s name) should be transmitted to our firm via encrypted email, facsimile, telephone or hand-delivery. Our firm uses encrypted email in order to exchange such information. Therefore, in the event that we transmit nonpublic personal information to you, it is our policy that the information will be sent through an encrypted email service. If you receive an encrypted email from our firm, you will be prompted to establish a username and password in order to log on to the secure email and access the email message with sensitive information. Additionally, to respond in a secure fashion, you must click “Reply Secure.” Please do not send nonpublic personal information to our office unless it is sent securely. There is no charge for you to use our encrypted email service. In the event that you do not understand this policy or you have trouble accessing information which we send to you, please contact us so that we may assist you. From: John Sergovic Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 5:08 PM To: mgray@dover.de.us Cc: dmelson@dover.de.us; dhugg@dover.de.us; dbarry@pennoni.com; dominic@parkway-law.com Subject: College Road Apartments Good Afternoon Ms. Gray, Please see attached letter and exhibits. Thank you. John A. Sergovic, Jr., Esq. 25 Chestnut Street, P.O. Box 751 Georgetown, DE 19947 Office Phones: (302) 855-1260 Office Fax: (302) 855-1270 Office Hours: 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. 170

Item 3. john@sussexattorney.com www.sussexattorney.com E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e- mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying or storage of this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited. In order to better protect our clients, please be advised that all nonpublic personal information (i.e.; addresses, birthdates, social security numbers, bank account and loan numbers, passport numbers and other financial information communicated with a person’s name) should be transmitted to our firm via encrypted email, facsimile, telephone or hand-delivery. Our firm uses encrypted email in order to exchange such information. Therefore, in the event that we transmit nonpublic personal information to you, it is our policy that the information will be sent through an encrypted email service. If you receive an encrypted email from our firm, you will be prompted to establish a username and password in order to log on to the secure email and access the email message with sensitive information. Additionally, to respond in a secure fashion, you must click “Reply Secure.” Please do not send nonpublic personal information to our office unless it is sent securely. There is no charge for you to use our encrypted email service. In the event that you do not understand this policy or you have trouble accessing information which we send to you, please contact us so that we may assist you. 171

Item 3. 172

Item 3. 173

Item 3. 174

Item 3. 175

Item 3. 176

Item 3. 177

Item 3. 178

Item 3. 179

Item 3. 180

Item 3. 181

Item 3. 182

Item 3. 183

Item 3. 184

Item 3. 185

Item 3. 186

Item 3. 187

Item 3. 188

Item 3. 189

Item 3. 190

Item 3. 191

Item 3. 192

Item 3. 193

Item 3. 194

Item 3. 195

Item 3. 196

Item 3. 197

Item 3. 198

Item 3. 199

Item 3. 200

Item 3. 201

Item 3. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2023 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 17, 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, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), Mrs. Malone (virtual), and Mrs. Maucher. Mr. Baldwin and Dr. Jones were absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Mary Ellen Gray, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual) and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present was the City Solicitor, Mr. Nick Rodriguez. Also present were Mr. Mike Riemann, Mr. Dominic Balascio, Mr. LB Steele, Mr. Jim Eriksen, and Mr. Dave Heatwole. Speaking from the public were Mr. Tyler Friedman, Mr. John Sergovic, Ms. Shirley Donovan and Ms. Michelle Williams. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs. Denney moved to approve the Agenda as submitted, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Baldwin and Dr. Jones absent. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2023 Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2023, seconded by Mrs. Malone and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Baldwin and Dr. Jones absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS The next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 15, 2023, at 7:00PM in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mrs. Gray provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on March 27 & 28, 2023 and April 10 & 11, 2023. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the In- Person Meeting and Virtual Meeting using the WebEx system. OLD BUSINESS Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: S-20-10 Bayhealth Staff Parking Lot Expansion at Scull Property (Revision of March 25, 2021) - Request for One Year Extension of Planning Commission Approval granted on April 19, 2021 for a proposed Site Development Master Plan Application to permit construction of 453 new parking spaces over the course of three phases for the Bayhealth Medical Center Campus. This expands the existing parking from 227 spaces to a total of 680 parking spaces on the Scull Property. Phase 1 proposes 251 new parking spaces; Phase 2 proposes 72 new parking spaces; 1 202

Item 3. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2023 and Phase 3 proposes an additional 91 parking spaces and a connection to S. State Street at the South Street intersection. The Plan shows the demolition of existing buildings in each phase for a total of seven (7) buildings demolished including the Scull Mansion to accommodate the increased volume of parking. The Revision offers a proposal related to the Scull Mansion. The properties measure 11.43 acres +/- and are located on the east side of S. State Street in the block between South Street and Scull Terrace. The properties are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The owners of record are Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. and KGH Development Corp. The parcels are proposed to be consolidated before the project begins. Property Addresses: 605 S. State Street, 625 S. State Street, 100 Scull Terrace, and 150 Scull Terrace. Tax Parcel Numbers: ED-05-077.13-01-49.00- 000 and ED-05-077.13-01-51.00-000. Council District 2. Representatives: Mr. Mike Riemann, Becker Morgan Group Mrs. Melson-Williams stated this is a Request for Extension. This Application S-20-10, the Site Development Master Plan Application associated with a proposal for the Bayhealth Staff Parking Lot Expansion at the Scull Property located in the 600 block of South State Street was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission in April 2021 with a submission of a Revised Plan that was received in March 2021. Initially, the applicant had filed back in the fall of 2020; however, chose to pull back their Application for a time and then resubmitted in March for that April meeting in 2021. The Planning Commission did grant conditional approval of the Master Plan. With that, they have two years to submit what would be a Phase I of their project for Administrative Site Plan Review, get that approved, and commence construction activities. At this point, they are coming up on that two year time frame. The applicant has made that initial Administrative Site Plan submission. They have received comments from the Planning Office as recently as late January of this year and have been working with the other agencies including the Department of Public Works Water/Wastewater, the City’s Fire Marshal’s Office where they have achieved approval, DelDOT and the Kent Conservation District. All of them have been working on review of their Master Plan. As noted in their letter, they are dealing with some property ownership situations where the two properties involved currently are not held in the same legal name; so, they have some process there. But they have been making some process towards getting a Final Plan Approval. With their letter from April 6, 2023, they are making a request for a one-year extension of their Site Development Master Plan approval. Mr. Riemann stated that he thinks Mrs. Melson-Williams hit most of the highlights. He does want to say that they are at the Final Plan stage with the agencies. The Kent Conservation District has requested final signed and sealed drawings as has DelDOT. Those have been filed and they are just waiting for those approvals to come back. Then once they have those, they would file the final request with the City. They are really a matter of a few weeks from having this wrapped up and they ju