Planning Commission Paperless Packet

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2024 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. IN-PERSON and VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE The Planning Commission Meeting for July 15, 2024, will be 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 video 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 July 15, 2024 Join by Phone: 1-650-479-3208 Access code: 253 426 33567 (Password: 3683772) Join Online: https://bit.ly/PCMeeting7152024 Webinar Number: 2534 263 3567 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 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Adoption of Minutes of June 17, 2024 1

PLANNING COMMISSION - July 15, 2024 PAGE 2 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Meeting Reminder: The next Planning Commission regular meeting date is August 19, 2024 at 7 PM. Update on City Council Actions Department of Planning & Inspections Updates OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING MEETING PROCEDURES FOR APPLICATIONS NEW APPLICATIONS 2. S-24-10 Stoltzfus LLC Warehouse at 1285 College Park Drive – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan for a 5,120 SF Warehouse adjacent to an existing 10,000 SF Warehouse and other site improvements. The property is 1.507+/- acres and zoned M (Manufacturing Zone). The property is located north of College Road in the College Business Park on the north side of College Park Drive adjacent to the railroad tracks. The owner of record is Stoltzfus, LLC. The property address is 1285 College Park Drive. Tax Parcel: ED-05- 067.00-02-12.02-000. Waiver Requests: Reduction of the Parking Requirement, Elimination of Upright Curbing, Opaque Barrier – Elimination of Fence Component, and Partial Elimination of Sidewalk. For Consideration: Performance Standards Review Application. NEW BUSINESS 3. Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission (Nomination and Election of Officers and Appointments to Subcommittees) ADJOURN Posted Agenda: July 3, 2024 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 2

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 17, 2024 at 7:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx. The Meeting Session was conducted with Vice Chair Mrs. Denney presiding. Members present were Mr. Cooper, Mr. Roach (virtual), Mr. Witham, Mr. Reaves and Mrs. Welsh. Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones and Mrs. Maucher were absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual), and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Witham moved to approve the Agenda as submitted, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 6-0 with Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones and Mrs. Maucher absent. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2024 Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2024, seconded by Mr. Witham and the motion was carried 6-0 with Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones and Mrs. Maucher absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 15, 2024 at 7:00PM in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mrs. Melson-Williams provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on June 10 & 11, 2024. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that our offices have been involved in it seems like a special event every weekend and this upcoming weekend is Positively Dover; the African American Festival. Staff is involved with the Special Event permitting for that. She does also want to bring to everyone’s attention that DNREC, their Division of Parks and Recreation is preparing to update the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan known as SCORP. It relates to the State’s recreation inventory and identifies needs for infrastructure and programs and public planning related to recreational opportunities. They have scheduled a series of five community information sessions across the State. The one that may be of most interest here that’s to be held in Kent County is scheduled for June 25, 2024 at 5:30PM at the Kent County Public Library. If you need more information on that, certainly visit DNREC’s website at www.DNREC.delaware.gov/parks/planning/scorpupdate and you can find more information. 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 1 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None NEW APPLICATIONS C-24-01 Tower-Based Wireless Communications Facility at 640 Lafferty Lane (Rise Up Towers, LLC) - Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Site Plan application to permit construction of a tower-based wireless communications facility (WCF) and associated equipment compound in the northeastern area of the mini-storage facility property. The proposed wireless support structure is a monopole of 124 feet with a lightning rod for a total height of 129 feet. The 18.68-acre subject property is located on the north side of Lafferty Lane, east of South Bay Road. The property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The owner of record (parcel) is Secure Storage, LLC and the applicant (WCF developer/owner) is Rise Up Towers, LLC. Property Address: 640 Lafferty Lane. Tax Parcel: ED05-077.00-01-25.00-000. Council District 2. Representatives: Mr. Mike Malloy, attorney for Rise Up Towers; Mr. Brett Magaran, project engineer; Mr. Andrew Peterson, radio frequency engineer specialist, Mr. Scott Galloway, general contractor; and Mr. Joe Petrosky, representative of the owner Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is the Tower-Based Wireless Communications Facility proposed at 640 Lafferty Lane. The property owner is actually Secure Storage, LLC but Rise Up Towers, LLC is the applicant/developer in this case. The address 640 Lafferty Lane is a property that is over 6.86 acres in size. It is probably most readily recognized as a mini-storage facility at that site. The property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and this proposal is for construction of a Tower Based Wireless Communications Facility; a monopole specifically. She does want to note for our Planning Commission members that they did receive an updated plan set which addresses a number of the Development Advisory Committee comments that were outlined. We have provided that on the Commissioner’s desks this evening. Additionally, they did submit for Staff review, the waiver for the Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing. That is something that the City Planner can review and approve. This is a Conditional Use Site Plan application. The proposed monopole is to be a total of 129 feet in height. That is basically a tower monopole that is 124 feet and then there is a 5-foot lightning rod at the top of it. In the height diagram image on the screen, you can see that there would be opportunity for multiple antenna sectors with this construction. It is to be located within a fenced compound area. The area that is fenced is about 50 feet by 50 feet in size. It is enclosed by a chain link fence that meets the minimum height requirements and it is surrounded by a grouping of evergreen trees. The IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) obviously allows the mini-storage facility as an allowable use and any Tower Based Wireless Communications Facility is a Conditional Use Application when found in non-residential zones. The provisions of the Conditional Use are outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and more specifically for Wireless Communications Facilities, there is a section of the Code in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 23 that outlines how Wireless Communications Facilities are reviewed and their requirements. This is considered a new facility. It is limited to a maximum height of 150 feet for such types, and they are certainly under that. There is also a setback distance from property lines that is required to be 110% of the structure’s height. It has to be more than 129 feet from any adjacent property lines. They have placed it in such a fashion that it meets those requirements. There are some additional kind of 2 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. conditions related to tower facilities that are outlined and that also includes providing the opportunity for what they would call “co-location.” They have to have a minimum of three other service provider locations on the support structure and they do with this Application. They have the security fence around the compound and the screening of the evergreen plantings. This is an unmanned facility. There is no particular building and as such, we recognize that there really isn’t a parking need for the tower itself. There are certainly some parking options at the mini- storage facility as well as the opportunity for access to this tower compound area. Likewise, Staff has recognized that when it comes to Dumpsters, normally a non-residential use requires two but since this is an unmanned facility, it would likely be the carry-in/carry-out method. They recognize that as an alternative solution. They did file as noted, that request for curbing elimination. Parking areas and drive aisles are intended to have upright curbing. She thinks that Staff can readily approve that (waiver) for this location given the scenario with the limited access to the tower compound. The Plan does note those tree plantings. There are other existing tree plantings as part of the Secure Storage Mini-Storage Facility. There is also an unmarked cemetery that is on part of the mini-storage facility but not where the tower is proposed. Because this property in the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone), there is typically a Performance Standards Review process. Planning Staff has found that in making their submission for the tower, that they have likely satisfied any kind of discussion about “objectionable elements” related to its use on the property. This is a Conditional Use Application. Staff has found that the proposal is generally in compliance with the Wireless Communications Facility regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. It is a location that has a number of industrial type uses in its proximity and from the views here, there is some vegetation that is going to further screen it from nearby roadways. With their submission, she will also note that they did include the full text of the Wireless Communications Facility Ordinance. She thinks that this is the first time that the Planning Commission has seen that. In their submission, they provided kind of a background document about their project and then there is also from the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), a determination of “No Hazard to Air Navigation” that was submitted as well. Most people recognize that this is in the southeastern portion of the City which is in proximity to the Dover Air Force Base. The Planning Commission tonight will be looking at that Conditional Use Site Plan. Mr. Malloy stated that he has a full team ready to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have about the application. Rise Up Towers really began ten (10) years ago. His business partner started a tower company where he built primarily for leases on municipal land and public land. He always looked for out-of-the way spaces. He did it in 2009 because he recognized that the iPhone was coming out and so that created this boom for towers. About 2.5 years ago, he recognized after COVID that we are constantly on our phones and we are constantly using more and more capacity. Rise Up Towers specializes in two things: placing towers on municipal land and also working hand-in-hand with T-Mobile for their most problem locations. In this case, they have a utility pole where the lease is expiring. T-Mobile, he will have you know, is becoming the third largest wireless provider of internet service in the country. They are entirely tower based. So, when a tower becomes threatened or an antenna location becomes threatened, they go into full relocation mode. They call us; they came in and found what they think is a great location, industrially zoned, dimensionally sound, and in compliance with your Ordinances. They think it will not have an adverse impact on any future development of the area. They think it’s compatible with the area. They have given consideration to stealthing, and they 3 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. think that the traditional kind of stealth would look a little ridiculous. They have a saying, “you can’t tell us where the nearest cell tower is, but you can always tell us where the nearest tree cell tower is.” This one would stand out like a sore thumb in the middle of nowhere. Given the proximity of the airport, it is going to require lights at the top; so, it’s not something that you want to cloak or hide necessarily. They think that it’s vital to provide the coverage and to allow T-Mobile to maintain the coverage in the area. They think that this is the lowest possible tower that they could get. They recognize that the Ordinance would have let them to go higher. They have found what they think is a “sweet spot” that will allow them to put not only four antennas if they are so fortunate that they come abroad and want to lease space, but also what they didn’t point out is that Rise Up Towers also puts any municipal antennas on for free and rent free. Mr. Scott Galloway, the general contractor says to drop them off, tell us where to put them, and they will put them up. They have fifteen (15) towers under development right now. They have one that is built in Langhorn, PA and it has four municipal antennas on it. They have leases for $1.00. They expect some sort of emergency management or some sort of interest maybe from other utility providers. They clearly agree with all of the comments on the Advisory Committee’s memo. They actually turned around that Revised Plan given our rescheduling to this meeting. Mr. Witham stated that the articles of our Ordinance require you to demonstrate that the proposed structure cannot be accommodated on existing approved buildings. Is this going to be a freestanding antenna? Responding to M. Witham, Mr. Malloy stated yes. Mr. Witham asked if there were any updates on why it can’t be attached to a building. Responding to Mr. Witham, Mr. Malloy stated that this is why he has experts and Mr. Andy Peterson may be standing up right now to take a walk down; he will answer that question. The long and short of it is, we are near the airport and there are no really tall buildings. It’s tough to accommodate that antenna anywhere. Mr. Peterson stated that the short answer is that where T-Mobile is currently installed with their antennas on a utility structure is about three quarters of a mile southwest of this location. They have to remove their antennas from that structure, so they are looking for a new facility to support their antennas. The overwhelming preference from the carriers is to utilize existing tall buildings or existing towers. That way they don’t have to tap a Rise Up or another tower developer and go through the ordeal of building a new structure. In this case though, there is nothing in the area that even approaches the height that is required here. As was testified, we are going to have the antennas at 124 feet. The closest structures in height to that are the utility towers at about 80-90 feet or so and T-Mobile has to come off of there. In order to adequately replace the coverage that is being lost, they need to have the antennas elevated to that height of 124 feet. That is going to replace the coverage that is being anticipated to be lost here and actually improve things a little bit to the north of the exchange there the highways. Mr. Reaves stated that regards to the Kent Conservation District and where it speaks to the stormwater plans, it says on the map plan it doesn’t have the site for the third pond. Are you going to show that on the map? Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Peterson stated that they certainly can. The site itself is entirely gravel. The County (KCD) has asked them to submit some sort of stormwater calculation along with their next submission or before Building Permit. So, they will include some kind of calculation because he understands that the City also 4 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. recognizes gravel as impervious surface. They are adding very little stormwater, but they did see that comment and they will make sure they go back and add whatever basin structure they need to add there and plus submit whatever minimal stormwater calculations they will have to provide. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Kent Conservation District is the delegated stormwater management agency and they have, as noted in their comment, an active approved plan for stormwater management for what was a phase development of the mini-storage facility. She thinks that the closest pond is Pond #3 that may not have been implemented as of yet. In order for them, should this be successful tonight, to move onto the next step as part of any final plan approval, the Kent Conservation District will have to sign off on their submission. It sounds like they are willing to focus in on this one particular tower construction and look at the stormwater impact to make sure the plans plan for that accordingly. Mrs. Welsh stated that they mentioned the airport, but she is assuming that they mean the Air Force Base. Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Malloy stated yes. Mrs. Welsh stated that she didn’t see anything in here about coordination with the Air Base. She is assuming that all of that has been taken care of. Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Malloy stated that before they even approached the City and before they started to obviously invest resources and time and money into this site, they wanted to make sure that everything was clear with the Air Base. They have submitted with the application to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and for clearance with the Base. That is where they got the feedback that the tower will have to have a light on top of it. Mrs. Denney opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Witham asked if they have to take action on the partial elimination of upright curbing or does Staff take care of that? Responding to Mr. Witham, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Waiver Request for the partial elimination of upright curbing is a waiver that the Zoning Ordinance allows the City Planner to take action on. They typically list it in your application report just so you are aware of it, but it is something that Staff will deal with. At this point, she is thinking that they are going to be recommending for that approval to eliminate that requirement. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve C-24-01 Tower-Based Wireless Communications Facility at 640 Lafferty Lane (Rise Up Towers, LLC), seconded by Mr. Witham and the motion was carried by 6-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones and Mrs. Maucher absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; it is a well thoughtout design and it looks like everything has been covered that needs to be addressed. It looks like a good plan that will benefit the community. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mr. Witham voting yes; for the reasons stated on the record and for the information that is submitted in the application. Mr. Reaves voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Denney voting yes; she definitely think that it’s needed and it will be a benefit to our community. S-24-09 Procter & Gamble Warehouse Expansions & Parking Improvements - Public Hearing 5 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. and Review of a Site Development Plan Application to permit a phased construction of a 110,000 SF addition to JE Warehouse, a 20,000 SF addition to Warehouse 3, an expansion of employee/visitor parking lot, an expansion and reconfiguration of contractor parking lot, and expansion of truck drop Lots A & B with associated site improvements. The property of 84.10 acres ± is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and is subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone): Tier 3 – Excellent Recharge Area. The property is located on the south side of W. North Street/Hazlettville Road at the southeast corner of Electric Avenue and Mifflin Road intersection with W. North Street. The owner of record is The Dover Wipes Company and equitable owner Procter & Gamble. Property Address: 1340 W. North Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.00-01-07.00-000. Council District 2. Waiver Requests: Elimination of Upright Curbing, Partial Elimination of Sidewalks, and Consideration of Performance Standards Review Application. Representatives: Mr. Bob Palmer, Beacon Engineering; Mr. Joe Taylor, Procter & Gamble, Mr. Justin Hebert, Procter & Gamble Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Site Development Master Plan because they are showing us a series of phases for this project at Procter & Gamble located at 1340 West North Street. The property is just over 84 acres of land. It is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and there is a portion of it that is subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone): Tier 3 – Excellent Recharge Area. On the image on the screen, it’s the kind of shaded light gray that swoops in from the left towards the bottom of the image. Since we are talking about that, with the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) there is a maximum lot coverage for that portion of the site. It is limited to 30%; however, impervious cover can be increased to 60% if they are doing a infiltration method for stormwater management and in this project, it is targeting that in that area. The project is several phases and they are outlined here. The blue color shown on the screen is two areas of improvement. First in the far upper left corner, there is the contractor parking lot. In this case, it would be reconfigured and also have a connection to Electric Avenue. These are contractors that work on the property; it’s not just for construction but they are in the plant on a daily basis. The second phase is Phase II as shown in green and this is the two warehouse expansions. There is a larger one on the west side of the building (kind of “L” shaped in size); and then a small warehouse, there on the southeast corner of the building. Those are the building aspects of the project. Phase III which is shown in red is improvements to what is called the “Truck Drop Lot A area” and this is where truck and trailer parking spaces are currently but there will be some improvements to that parking area. Phase IV, shown in yellow adjacent to North Street, is improvements to the Employee and Visitor Parking Lot area that has over 262 vehicle parking spaces. This project is multiphases. It met the qualifications to have to go through the Preliminary Land Use Services review process. Those comments from the PLUS Review were made part of the Planning Commission meeting packet and also the applicant’s response to those comments as well. Over time, there have been several applications for this site as its expanded since its initial construction, but this is the first one in probably just over ten years for the site. It is an industrial area of the City and it has neighbors of Kraft Heinz and some utility infrastructure and to its west and south is the Shutte Park which is a City owned park which is accessed from Electric Avenue. The IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) of this property does allow for a manufacturing facility and the associated warehouse shipment and distribution type logistics supports for that facility. With a Site 6 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. Development Master Plan, it allows basically one trip to the Planning Commission where they present in concept the phases for the project and then each phase would not have to come back to the Planning Commission if there are no significant changes. It would go through an Administrative Site Plan review process. It allows them to put the big picture out there for the Planning Commission and then have the technical review process move through an administrative process. The next slide shows some existing conditions. We do see parking in all three of the areas where parking will ultimately play out. One thing of note here is that there is a swale drainage ditch that crosses through the property. As part of the Master Plan, that ditch network will be partially piped to allow for the accommodation for the proximity to the new warehouse addition on this project. Parking for this site has been a little tricky to say the least. There was previously a Variance Application back in 2013 that established at that time, a set number for the parking requirements for that property. Parking in the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) is either based on a rate based on a floor area calculation or a number of employees on the largest shift. The applicant provided a narrative letter that Staff has analyzed. That Variance from a number of years ago with the massing of the building basically how it is today, set the parking requirement at 306 parking spaces; so, we clearly have that. If you looked at that Variance closely, it translates at a rate based on almost double (rate of 1 space per 1,600 SF) what the Code would require. They are recognizing that and also finding that from a parking perspective while there are two lots that are really targeted for the vehicle parking spaces of the normal passenger vehicle, parking in the truck and trailer areas could accommodate a lot more vehicle parking spaces if it had to be converted for passenger parking should staffing increase there. Staff is satisfied that they meet their parking requirements for this property. Likewise for loading spaces, there are truck docks pretty much around the building on almost all sides so that clearly would be sufficient based on the call to Planning Staff to determine that sufficiency when buildings are in excess of 150,000 SF in size. The maximum that the Code can require is three and they are certainly well beyond that. They are providing bicycle parking and the site includes improvements to what will be the main access point to West North Street. There is lighting throughout these parking lot areas. Their Dumpsters are a process as part of the manufacturing facility itself. They are requesting partial elimination of curbing in select areas. Planning Staff has granted approval of that finding that they intend to use some of that elimination of curbing for stormwater management practices adjacent to some of the parking areas. They may include the parking bumper at the head of its parking spaces that do need that. The other Waiver Request for the Planning Commission to consider is the partial elimination of sidewalks. Along North Street, there is a multi-use path that is there. As part of this project they will construct sidewalk along a portion of Electric Avenue but are seeking relief for kind of the balance of Electric Avenue. They intend to construct about 450 feet of sidewalk which carries it to the entrance of the contractor parking area, but for the balance of that where it would run along the east side of Electric Avenue past the truck areas and around the curve, they are asking for relief from that. Staff is recommending approval of that to the Planning Commission, but it is the Planning Commission’s decision regarding that sidewalk. The project site also includes some wetland areas and they have included the appropriate buffering from that. There is a portion of the eastern part of the site that is subject to the Special Flood Hazard Area, the 100-Year Flood Plain. Their project development is not near that. The 7 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. final thing with an IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) property is the Performance Standards Review Application. They have submitted a narrative focused on how the project would not have any of the “objectionable elements” that are outlined in our Code. This Plan does include landscaping as part of it. There is some woodland area that will be eliminated as part of the phase for expansion of one of the truck drop lots, but they are under the maximum clearing that is allowed related to woodland areas. For the Planning Commission, remember that this is a Site Development Master Plan. They have the Waiver for the partial elimination of sidewalks to consider and also whether they have satisfactorily made their case as part of the Performance Standards Review Application. Mr. Palmer stated that as Mrs. Melson-Williams was giving the presentation, he checked off items that he wanted to cover; so, he won’t be duplicative. There are a few things that he wants to go over, in particular, the dumpsters and recycling. The area where the “L” shaped building is actually called the JE Warehouse. The point of this project is not only expansion of the growing need for Procter & Gamble’s products, but it’s also a facility efficiency project. What he means by that is that there is a shortage of warehousing space for both raw materials and finished product. And there is also a shortage of trailer space on the project as you can see by the number of parking spaces that they are adding for the drop lots. What happens today is, the trucks bring in raw materials and they are checked in at the guard house. Those trucks are either dispatched to a drop lot space where a yard jockey will then bring them to the plant to off load the product, or those trucks will be turned around and sent back out to offsite warehousing within the community or an offsite drop lot that is up north of town. When that raw material is needed at the plant, then a truck is dispatched to gather that material and then it is checked back in at the guard shack and distributed about the property. Unfortunately, the same thing happens with the finished product. So, through this project it is as much an expansion as it is creating efficiency for the operation at this facility which will have a benefit to reducing truck traffic by 26-30% when the project is completed. Getting back to the Dumpster area, in the alcove which is at the bottom just left of center, that is the proposed JE Warehouse expansion. In that kind of right end of the “L”, that’s where two roll-offs are located for trash that’s created at the facility as well as a recycling space. Those Dumpsters in that covered roll-off area will be relocated to the south side of the building and we have an area earmarked in the southwest corner. There is discussion about moving it to the south central area in one of the existing loading bays kind of in the top center to the right of that lower bump out, basically in between where the Warehouse 3 expansion is shown in the southeast corner. It would be just west of that. They are providing their Dumpsters and making sure that they are covered and screened from view. He would like to talk about the sidewalk waiver and the shared use path across the front of the property. In discussing with Staff and kind of pondering the nature of the request, with existing pathways through Schutte Park and the main pedestrian draw of Schutte Park for the ball fields and other activities that go on at the park, it doesn’t feel like a wise use of sidewalk on the eastern side along the wooded area. What he means by that is, not only does the sidewalk provide access to the park, but it would also provide access to the facility that it runs along. The existing facility is restricted. There is a fence that runs around the entire perimeter of the property so there would be no access or opportunity for pedestrians accessing the facility from a sidewalk that ran any further south than the proposed entrance to the contractor lot. That is really the main basis for the Waiver Request. They did speak with Staff about some opportunities to 8 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. provide alternative means of compliance and they intend to work through that process and whether it’s made whole in that it’s a true one for one transition or alternative or whether it’s some higher percentage. They do have intention of complying but in an alternate way. For wetland and buffering, Mrs. Melson-Williams spoke about the wetlands that are shown on the Plan. They did have a delineation conducted. The Army Corps of Engineers and Subaqueous Land Section from DNREC were both present and have signed off on the wetland delineation as it’s been depicted on the Plan. With the acreage of undeveloped area that they have at the south side of the facility, they are intending to avoid any disturbance to any of the Code prescribed wetland buffers. With regard to the Performance Standards, he won’t belabor the Report that they prepared, but he does want to touch on the comment with regard to DelDOT. They have since met with DelDOT and held our presubmittal meeting to discuss the continued use of the existing entrance. They are in the process of working with DelDOT to seek a design deviation from the left turn lane warrant. There’s a left turn lane that’s warranted, a right turn lane that’s warranted, and the existing right turn lane at the facility exceeds the minimum requirement. There is a third lane for truck queuing and staging that is proposed at the guard shack to also help with maintaining trucks onsite as they are going through the check in process. The other item of note that he thinks is important from a multi-modal perspective is that DelDOT is requiring that the existing bus stop that’s in front of Procter & Gamble be improved for ADA accessibility. So, that bus pad will be improved to meet current requirements and it will be relocated slightly east of its current location; they are coordinating with DelDOT with all of that. With regard to the DAC comments, they see no issues with any of the comments or recommendations and it’s their intent to comply with those comments. There was a note about electric and providing consideration for electric vehicles charging. He will let Mr. Hebert or Mr. Taylor speak to this, but essentially, Procter & Gamble’s corporate policy hasn’t been updated to allow that provision to exist on the property. They are looking at renewable energy sources. They have several acres of rooftop. They are considering solar panels but that’s very early in the process. They haven’t made any final decisions yet but they are looking very seriously at it. Mrs. Melson-Williams referenced that they have a number of locations where they have bicycle parking. They have two access points for pedestrian mobility, along with the existing shared use path that runs along West North Street. He spoke to the bus stop that would serve not only the employees at Procter & Gamble, but the visitors and travelers in the area. So, they have also taken a look at the multi- modal element. Mr. Reaves asked what impact, if any, would that have on the individuals who travel down that road to the Little League fields? Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Palmer stated that he is not sure that he understands the question. Mr. Reaves asked if any of the construction or any of the improvements hinder people from traveling down Electric Avenue to the baseball fields? Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Palmer stated that there is no intent to disrupt the existing traffic pattern. They do have, as you can see on the screen, the proposed entrance to the reconstructed contractor parking lot. They are working with Mr. Lyon and his team to make sure that it all meets City Code. There may be lane closures during the day but during the nights and weekends, there would be no construction. Their construction entrance would be used during the construction and development of the drop lots and also bringing raw materials in for constructing the two warehouses. From a traffic perspective, they will see an uptick in traffic on Electric Avenue during construction but it would 9 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. be during normal working hours, not evenings and weekends and times when the ball fields would be in play. Mr. Reaves stated that during the normal operation once you get everything constructed, Schutte Park is often used for a lot of high schools and middle schools for cross country and a lot of people run inside that park. Will that have any impact environmentally on anyone that is participating in sports in that area? Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Palmer stated no. Mr. Witham stated that given the expansion of the warehouse facilities, he would expect that you may anticipate an increased number of trucks going in and out of the property. Have you considered if that is going to have any adverse effect that you are aware of with respect to the roadways? Responding to Mr. Witham, Mr. Palmer stated that this project, despite adding nearly 130,000 SF of warehouse space, will actually reduce the truck traffic that accesses this facility because they are eliminating the duplicative handling of both raw materials and finished product. Raw materials will come into the site once and then they will leave as baby wipes. They are actually proposing that this project will reduce the 10-year projected truck traffic by 20% over today’s truck traffic. Mrs. Denney stated that she is trying to understand the sidewalk issue. So, if you are inside the fence and you have employees parking and as they are walking from their parking lot into their job, walk her through how they get there. Are they crossing parking lots? These days you will see employees go out and take a break at lunch and just take a walk. Will there be some sidewalk or some area available, whether it’s just a walking path? Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Malloy stated yes, there are two sources. With the contractor parking lot, there is of course the sidewalk that is proposed along Electric Avenue that connects in with the West North Street and Hazlettville Road pedestrian network. That sidewalk comes into the site and then crosses the entrance and runs south on the south side of the parking lot between the contractor lot and the fenced drop lot. There is also a sidewalk that runs in a north/south direction along the east side of the contractor lot that is proposed. Those two sidewalks come together in the southeast corner and then run through a secure area for the workers. There is a crosswalk at the stop movement at the guard shack and then they would continue along with employees. Skipping over to the employees, there is an existing sidewalk that runs along the south side of that employee parking lot. At this point, contractors and employees use the same path. That path continues in an easterly direction, crosses the fire lane, and then there are existing sidewalks that bring the contractors and employees to the main facility entrance. There are a number of outdoor spaces for employees for breaks. There’s a number of personnel doors about the facility and there are in some locations, just a picnic table and other cases it might be covered with some sort of an awning. He is not sure if those are sanctioned or if they just kind of show up with employees. There is also a service road that runs around the entire perimeter and while it doesn’t qualify as a fire lane in all locations, it’s marked as such. There is a line that runs along the entire perimeter of the property along this road and he is told that it’s a “health path” should workers desire on their break to walk. There are secure and safe places on the facility to do that. Mrs. Denney opened the public hearing. Mr. Zack Prebula – Kent Economic Partnership at 555 Bay Road Dover, DE 19901 10 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. Mr. Prebula stated that they are the economic development organization for Kent County and they are in support of this project. Part of his role as a business developer is to focus on business retention and expansion with local companies and this is a great example of a major employer in the area looking to do just that and expand. In 2021, they had the Rockport 2.0 Study completed and this study identified that warehousing and manufacturing as our local target companies for Kent County and Dover. This expansion is looking to touch on both of those target industries. With that being said, they ask that the Commission please support this project. Mrs. Denney closed the public hearing. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve S-24-09 Procter & Gamble Warehouse Expansions & Parking Improvements inclusive of the DAC comments and the Waiver Requests for the elimination of upright curbing, for the partial elimination of sidewalks, and consideration of the Performance Standards Review Application, seconded by Mr. Witham and the motion was carried 6-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones and Mrs. Maucher absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; the presenters gave a very good description of what they plan to do. It seems like it is very necessary and that their solutions are quite equitable for the improvement of the site and the expansion of business in the Dover area. Mr. Cooper voting yes; based on the motion. Mr. Roach voting yes; based on reasons stated. Mr. Witham voting yes; the Site Development Master Plan appears to him, to be a well-developed and thought-out plan. Mrs. Reaves voting yes; for the reasons stated previously. Mrs. Denney voting yes; she thinks it’s well thought-out and it’s a really good plan. It’s going to bring employment to our area. She did initially have some questions about the sidewalk but now that it’s been explained, she thinks it’s perfect. NEW BUSINESS HI-24-02 Building at 148 S. Bradford Street: Demolition – Appeal to the Planning Commission of the Historic District Commission Action to deny the Architectural Review Certification for the Demolition of the existing 1 ½ story, stucco clad building. The parcel consists of 0.13 +/- acres of land. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to H (Historic District Zone). The property is located on the west side of S. Bradford Street and slightly north of Minor Street Alley. The owner of record is Russell and Dee Ann Widder. The applicant is the Downtown Dover Partnership. Property Address: 148 S. Bradford Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05- 077.09-02-25.00-000. Council District 4. HI-24-03 Building at 150 S. Bradford Street: Demolition – Appeal to the Planning Commission of the Historic District Commission Action to deny the Architectural Review Certification for the Demolition of the existing 2 ½ story, frame building. The parcel consists of 0.17 +/- acres of land. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to H (Historic District Zone). The property is located on the west side of S. Bradford Street at the corner with Minor Street Alley. The owner of record is CEI Properties, LLC. The applicant is the Downtown Dover Partnership. Property Address: 150 S. Bradford Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-02-27.00-000. Council District 4. Representative: Ms. Diane Laird, Executive Director for Downtown Dover Partnership; Mr. Ken Anderson, Downtown Dover Partnership; Mr. Jed Hatfield, Colonial Parking; Mr. Michael 11 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. Caine, Bernardon; Mr. J.D. Bartlett, EDiS Company; Mr. John Childress, Mosaic Development Partners Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Application HI-24-02 Building at 148 S. Bradford Street has a proposal for demolition. This is an Appeal from the action taken by the Historic District Commission. In the Zoning Ordinance, the requirement for a property such as this in the Historic District then, demolition requires an approval through a process called Architectural Review Certification. This was an Application that was to the Historic District Commission. That application, in front of the Historic District Commission was subject to a public hearing. That Historic District Commission consideration happened back on May 16, 2024 and their vote was a vote of 2-1 to deny the Architectural Review Certification for Demolition. The City’s Zoning Ordinance in Article 10, Section 3 includes a process whereby the action taken by the Historic District Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the Architectural Review Certification for Demolition should be issued. The information on this Application consists of basically the Report that went initially to the Historic District Commission along with the applicant’s request to demolish the building. The information that Staff provided as part of the Staff Review Report notes that basically this is a property that has an existing 1 ½ story building on it. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and is within the H (Historic District Zone). On the screen, you see a couple of historical maps who always give kind of a sense of how the building may have come to be. On the screen is the 1868 Beers Map where the location is circled, but it’s likely not the same building that the map initially depicts. In the Sanborn Map that’s next and in the Bird’s Eye View Map, we start to see additional buildings in the area. This building at 148 S. Bradford Street still really doesn’t look like what is there currently. It doesn’t truly appear until you see the 1929 Sanborn Map on which it is depicted. From an architectural perspective, it does look like it’s an early 1920’s construction. The property was noted in the National Register of Historic Places Inventory as a 20th Century construction. You can see that it’s kind of a craftsman style building now stucco sheathed. It has that kind of projecting dormer window on the front and there is a more recent addition to the rear. It was listed as part of a Historic District in the National Register of Historic Places known as the Victorian Dover Historic District. With the location, the project is within the City’s Historic District and as such, there is a process for review of activities within the Historic District. In this case, their project proposal is for demolition and that’s what the applicant initially outlined to the Historic District Commission. The Historic District Commission and now the Planning Commission is charged with review of the Design Standards and Guidelines of the City of Dover Historic District Zone. That document includes a discussion in Chapter 4 that deals with demolition. It basically puts forth a series of specific criteria that you are to consider when evaluating a property for demolition. If you are looking at the Report, it’s on Page 4 where there are Numbers 1-5 as Items that are identified. Staff initially gave comments and recommendations in regards to the request noting the situation with the potential for demolition and also identifying other options perhaps related to this building or its documentation should its demolition be approved. Back on May 16, 2024, the Historic District Commission conducted a Public Hearing. Their Draft Meeting Minutes were forwarded to the Planning Commission today; and there is also a copy of them on your desks this evening. That was a pretty busy meeting, so it took them a bit to get through the Minutes. The Historic District Commission action was a motion to deny demolition of the building. Tonight, the Appeal to the Planning Commission of that Architectural Review Certification is before you. That Historic District 12 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. Commission action can be appealed to the Planning Commission. The Commission has to review it with the same standards. The process and she knows this is probably going to be a little difficult for most of the people in the room to hear, it does not require a Public Hearing in front of the Planning Commission. The Code does not outline that requirement as Planning Staff has read and interpreted the Code. The only time that an Architectural Review Certification is very specifically called out for a hearing before the Planning Commission is when the Planning Commission is considering another application type. For example, if there was a Site Development Plan, you would be also considering the Architectural Review Certification along with that Site Development Plan. In this case they are just looking at just demolition. It is an Appeal regarding the Building at 148 S. Bradford Street. The applicant is given the opportunity to present their Appeal request to the Commission. She believes that they have a number of individuals that will share on their project. There is a presentation that they have and there is also a copy of that on the Commissioner’s desks this evening because sometimes seeing screens at a distance may be a little bit difficult. Ms. Laird stated that as you know, their team is here tonight to Appeal to the Planning Commission with regard to the 2-1 decision of the Historic District Commission to deny the request for demolition of two properties within the Victorian Dover Historic District. This presentation will actually be simultaneous for two properties: this one and the next one on the Agenda. (Note: The next one is HI-24-03 Building at 150 S Bradford Street: Demolition.) These parcels are required to enable the build of a Mobility Center in the heart of the business district and this follows the priority recommendation of the Capital City 2030: Transforming Downtown Dover Master Plan. Just to clarify, they are here to discuss the location, the massing, and proposed configuration of the Center, not the actual design which will be discussed at a later time. It would not be a stretch to say that this Mobility Center is the cornerstone on which many components of the much larger, more comprehensive plan rests. A plan that will bring about the growth and development required to make Delaware’s Capital City a truly transformed center of sustainable commerce and vibrant residential activity. She wants to take a moment to introduce members of their team that are here this evening: Mr. Todd Stonesifer, DDP Board President; Mr. Ken Anderson, DDP Property Development Director, Mr. Jed Hatfield, President of Colonial Parking, Inc.; Mr. Michael Caine, Senior Designer for Bernardon; Mr. J.D. Bartlett, Operations Manager for EdiS; and Mr. John Childress, Business Development Director from Mosaic Development Partners. You will hear briefly from members of this group tonight. Our team has taken your concerns and suggestions provided as a result of both the Historic District Commission hearing and a subsequent Open House with regard to the design and considerations for this mobility center. They believe that you will find a broad and thoughtful and responsive consideration was given with regard to the input that they have received. They are continuing to seek the best solution for the Mobility Center for the Downtown Dover. While this is just one priority project in the Master Plan, we cannot over emphasize the importance of this specific project as a catalyst to bring about increased public and private investment in mixed use redevelopment and to address parking needs that together, will provide the foundation to reach target numbers of new residents and to fill storefronts that are now well over 50% vacant, including recruitment of restaurants that are so necessary to vibrant cities and require substantial parking resources. Discussion of the need for a parking structure and transportation amenities goes back to at least 2006 when the Hyett Palama consultants recommended three cameo projects; one of which was a parking garage. In 2018, a parking study concluded that while 13 15

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. parking was sufficient at the time, it would be necessary to reassess capacity and that time is now with the targeted infusion of 2,000 new residents over the next 6-8 years and the increase commercial activities to ensure that our storefronts are filled to capacity. In 2019, the Dover Comprehensive Plan recommended balancing preservation, development activity and planning initiatives to strengthen Loockerman Street and adjacent areas. Now, the Capital City 2030 Master Plan calls for increased density, more residents, varied modes of transportation including cars, bikes, micro-transit and buses, and a coordinated architectural approach that honors the history while introducing new designs that will complement the historic landscape. The 2030 Master Plan engaged and continues to invite considerable input from residents, property and business owners, leaders, subject matter experts, and elected officials by way of charettes, group discussions, one-on-ones, Zoom and in-person meetings, and surveys. At this point, at least 900 people have been engaged and formally weighed in at some point. We focus on a new vibrant future. This future targets some compelling results. Over 900 new residential units and as she mentioned, about 2,000 new residents, a river walk, an art walk, a new ampha-theater for music, a grocery store, improved and fully occupied commercial spaces in the district and nearly 800 parking spaces to support this development. The Mobility Hub at the heart of Downtown, is the catalyst for the majority of other re-development recommended in the Plan. The value of the mobility hub has brought in significant plans under consideration through the Dover/Kent MPO include removing some parking on Loockerman Street to invite more place making and pedestrian oriented activities and restaurants with outdoor dining. The Mobility Hub will be able to absorb that parking while promoting Downtown safety and convenience. Onsite professional staffing , consistent monitoring with cameras, better lighting, and more eyes on the street will create a safer area reducing illegal activity and increasing viability of small businesses which will reduce commercial vacancy. This will all enhance residential opportunity along Loockerman Street and in Downtown to focus on people and business. Mr. Hatfield stated that they have been working on parking with Downtown Dover Partnership for over fifteen years. They have had a lot of time studying this and being involved in the thoughts and planning and have been involved through the Master Plan and now what they are looking at for the implementation of the Mobility Center. As Ms. Laird said, the pivotal role that a Mobility Center plays in attracting retention for businesses Downtown is the lack of parking. It has been referred to as a deterrent over the years and providing a centrally located parking facility that will be support for the small businesses and restaurants Downtown and create one hub for mobility throughout Downtown to help reverse the vacancy in upwards of 50% that’s been seen in the current condition. They see this as also a key element to support residential expansion and create a safe and convenient parking area for residents in some of the proposed new residential development Downtown. It also will be owned by the Downtown Dover Partnership to be a source of revenue generation to re-invest into the City. Part of the Master Plan was talking about a parking benefits district so any of the revenue generated from the Mobility Center will come back to the Partnership and be able to be deployed in streetscape improvements and things to improve the Downtown overall. They also looked at through the Master Plan, and where to locate a Mobility Center with an eye towards trying to be in the center of town. They looked at really the star at the center of main and main in Dover with Governors Avenue and Loockerman Street as really the key to Downtown. During the course of the process, the City also looked at what the C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) looked like to be able to support this type of growth and the concept outlined in the Master Plan. So, part of the changes that he’s 14 16

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. sure this Committee played a role in and with the Planning Department of the City for the C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) was eliminating parking mandates that previously existed for individual projects. It’s a trend that’s happening nationally and creates an opportunity for having centralized shared parking rather than each project having parking, often timed oversized for its need. A Mobility Center is a little bit different than a parking garage. It is designed to meet a variety of needs. It’s designed to bring together all of the different mobility options: bicycle parking, potentially bike sharing, scooter parking, access for car share and electric vehicle charging. Those types of things are within the Mobility Center. It’s thought to be kind of a destination from which people can then, within a half a block, be on Loockerman Street or right across the street from the proposed multi-use facility at 120 S. Governors Avenue. It would be a shared facility. Rather than specific to one project, it would be available for people coming to work during the day, for people who live in town at night, for visitors 24 hours a day, and be more efficient and get more utilization than a private single purpose building parking facility may. In the original Master Plan, we contemplated a site that is illustrated on this slide for how they would situate the Mobility Center element on the property. At that time, it was looking at the Bradford Street Parking Lot which is largely owned by the Downtown Dover Partnership and the City of Dover and for its central location and ownership. It seemed like a logical place to be. There was one key property that was not within that ownership structure and they were not able to reach a conclusion to acquire that to make this footprint work. So it drove them to look at what the other options were in locating it. After a lot of research and looking at design, it’s what led them to 148 and 150 S. Bradford Street as alternatives to be able to allow the Mobility Center to move forward and fit it to the property. Thanks to the comments of the Historic District Commission, it forced them to go back and really look at what they were contemplating with the project and what were they trying to accomplish. Their initial thought was that the buildings were within the footprint and they needed to remove them to build. At the encouragement of the Historic District Commission, they stepped back and they really went through a fairly extensive process of looking at what are the options. One that they looked at in earnest, and some of the team will talk about a little bit more soon, is relocation. Would it be feasible to preserve these buildings by relocating them somewhere else to get them off of the site? The other option where they started is replacement of those with the Mobility Center; and then the third was co- habitation of how could we preserve those buildings and work with the site with a smaller site around those buildings. That led them to two potential schemes as they started analyzing what could they do with the site. Scheme A on the left was the original plan that occupies from Governors Avenue to South Bradford Street and occupies the entire site including the footprints of 148 & 150 S. Bradford Street. It’s a five level parking structure that nets a little over 400 parking spaces which is the goal of the Mobility Center. Scheme B was the co-habitation. How could they design the garage to be able to fit and preserve those buildings? Part of it, they still need some of the land from those properties in order to have the ramping work. The garage encroaches on the back yards but they are able to make it fit. But in order to meet the goal of 400 spaces, it got taller. So less parking per floor, more floors to be able to accommodate the goal. It too, is a little over 400 parking spaces on seven floors rather than five. The rendering on the screen helps kind of put it in context of what that looks like. The same design with Scheme A on the left with five floors and Scheme B on the right with seven floors. He will now turn it over to Mr. Michael Caine who is the project architect working on the project for us who has done a great deal of research and design to figure out what the alternatives are. 15 17

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. Mr. Caine stated that that his company has offices in Philadelphia, Wilmington, and West Chester. They have been a large component in compiling the original Capital City 2030 Master Plan including the recommendations for the original scheme. Moving forward, one thing to mention is that for both of these schemes, they are striving to acknowledge not only the architectural fabric of Downtown including the zone of historic cornice lines and historic rooflines, but finding ways to architecturally integrate into the story and compliment those historic structures. Public comments during this June 3, 2024 (Open House) meeting, the majority of them have been in favor of replacing the two structures. They want to ensure the Commission that they intend to address and have investigated all design options as previously addressed by Mr. Hatfield. One thing to note zooming out aerially is that the structure will be located within a five minute walk to the majority of the Central Business District on Loockerman Street, providing an easy way to commute to businesses as well as their further recommendations down the line as part of this Master Plan. He would also like to note the two blue lines are the additional parking garages that are being constructed: one at Legislative Hall and another at Family Court. Those will primarily address the activities pertaining to those activities and this structure will really pertain to the Central Business District for the public. They would also like to acknowledge that this project does sit within the Victorian District of Dover as well as the Historic District of the City itself. They plan to fully investigate architectural implementations to fold their structure into this typology. Zooming out a little bit further and looking at the parcels, he won’t belabor this point; he believes Mr. Hatfield and Mrs. Melson-Williams have really outlined thoroughly their intent for these parcels and he will not waste time. Looking at the existing conditions of the site, the two structures in question, 148 and 150 S. Bradford Street are surrounded on three sides by surface parking lots. This will really consolidate and reduce the amount of footprint required for parking. Going into the Historic Places Nomination for the National Register, the index (inventory listing) of these two buildings have been acknowledged. One thing that they would like to note is the block description of the inventory that states within the Nomination 1979 that within the 20th century the residential character of this block has been altered and the buildings were removed and replaced with parking lots in both the center and northern sections of this block. The two structures within the description have only been grouped as an index and not particularly named as contributing structures. That is 118 (S. Bradford Street), which is for the block, the most interesting. It is the chapel north of this site. Going in further, the Historic (National Register) nomination and the character that this nomination was describing may not be fully seen today. Through previous zoning conditions a large portion of the Victorian District’s footprint has been eroded to facilitate the creation of dedicated surface parking. With the recently passed C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) Rezoning Ordinance, a conveniently located structure will allow Dover to consolidate parking and rebuild the density lost to surface parking creating a vibrant and cohesive Downtown core. With that consolidated parking, they can begin to imagine the future of Downtown Dover as they reclaim these empty spaces to enhance Dover’s fabric. They would also like to acknowledge the Design Standards and Guidelines set forth for us through the City of Dover Historic Zone and they would also just like to outline that for these development related applications. The City should review these plans for the new structure and help weigh the virtues of the new versus what exists. The relocation of these two buildings in the eyes of the Historic Zone Design Standards is to be viewed as the same effect as demolition as moving these structures will eliminate the fabric and story that these structures tell to the District in how they are exhibiting or displaying within the blocks that they will be relocated to. 16 18

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. Mr. Bartlett stated that as part of the Historic District Commission’s review comments and also comments received from the public at the Open House mentioned on June 3, 2024, they heard a lot of feedback about reconsidering relocation of these structures. As part of their analysis and sort of listening to the concerns of the public and vetting those, he participated in an existing conditions analysis as well as a study on relocation of structures. Starting with the relocation study, in talking with regional experts in the structure moving industry, typically relocations of such are one to two blocks in nature and never further than five blocks. He wants to outline why there is that limitation. The need for relocation is typically in a Downtown setting and you end up with vertical circulation issues related to the routing. As an example, these buildings are 1.5 stories plus and when they are lifted to haul, they would be upwards of thirty feet of aerial clearance. When you think about any direction from this part of the City, there is a lot of trouble that would go into that. There would be detours required for traffic and really the ability to facilitate moving the buildings. He thinks that along with that, we all know the tree canopies in the City of Dover and the aerial utility lines, they really add to the streetscape here. Those would all have to be interpreted. In fact, to relocate these structures they would really have to look at cutting the tree lines back, nearly to the full street width in some cases in order to relocate these buildings. In addition, they also analyzed the existing conditions of the building. He wants to provide a little oversight that isn’t clear just by looking at the aesthetics of the exterior. Starting with 148 S. Bradford Street, the existing exterior has stucco which contains asbestos and will need to be completely remediated prior to relocating the structure. He thinks the thing that is difficult to hear is that not only will the whole exterior have to be shed off of the building, in order to do this you would have to remove all of the window trim, the eaves, and the soffits that are all coated with stucco. Those would all of to be removed in order to completely remediate the asbestos. Again, this would all have to be done prior to disturbing this material. On the interior of the building, they have 7,000 SF of asbestos also found in the joint compound of the drywall. Nearly all of the drywall of the building is impacted and again, this would have to be addressed before they could consider disturbing the building. Lastly, in terms of environmental considerations for 148 S. Bradford Street, there is an underground fuel oil tank that is 10,000 gallons adjacent to the foundation. It is noted and a study was completed by the Downtown Dover Partnership that this tank has likely leeched into the soil and that’s anticipated. That would also have to be addressed. He thinks that the difficultly is without removal of the structure, it would be a question mark as to whether or not they were able to achieve removing all of that soil that needs to be remediated. Moving onto structural considerations on 148 S. Bradford Street, the original structure, again that’s a 46x30. Any of the subsequent additions that were done on the structure are not structurally connected meaning the building could not be relocated as one structure. It would have to be relocated in individual pieces. With that, he thinks it’s worth noting that the existing exterior wall construction is single width masonry. So, when they talk about preparing to relocate what will be a fragile structure, they will definitely have to invest in shoring and reinforcement. When you think of ship crating that is sort of what would come to mind and would have to be done to prepare this building for relocation. Next, the service entrances for all of the utilities and the bulk of the building systems originate in the basements of these buildings. So in order to lift the structure, those systems would all have to be removed and replaced at its new location. Lastly, related to the context of the original construction, the current windows have been replaced with vinyl windows and they are currently trimmed in aluminum. You can see in the existing photo that it appears that those were wood windows with wood trim 17 19

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. originally. Shifting gears to 150 S. Bradford Street, that structure does not have the same environmental concerns. They did; however, look at the structural considerations. That original structure was a 41x18 and again, the same situation where any of the additions that were done, although they are physically connected, they are not structurally connected so you couldn’t relocate the building in one piece. To complicate that, with the porch foundation and floor framing that you kind of see in the 1979 photo on the screen, that porch is independently supported. Again, the roof ties into the sidewalls, but from a foundation standpoint they are independent from each other. To complicate that, there is a projection on the second floor that extends over the porch foundation that is solely supported by the structure that is the porch. One other point of note, the existing chimney interior to the building is in severe disrepair and would have to be removed in order to relocate the building. It’s in such a condition that the owner has a setup for cleaning the bricks that fall out of it on a regular basis. The service entrances, again, on this structure originate in the basement and also would have to be removed and reinstalled at its new location as well. To point out what is similar in comparing the 1979 view to today, you will note that the original construction was slate roof and this is now an asphalt shingled roof. The exterior siding previously was a lap siding and it’s now a cedar shake siding. You will see in the 1979 view, there was a screened porch and now it’s no longer. You can’t really see it in the picture provided but he thinks there are other contexts on other sheets. This kind of gives you a better idea of what the current condition is if you are not familiar. Mr. Hatfield stated that having gone through the exercise that they just enumerated of looking at the three options that they identified: a relocation, of removal. and of cohabitation, where they have landed in their conclusion of the best option to be able to create this vital element to the Downtown Dover Master Plan was with removal of the buildings. They think relocation is not practical for all of the reasons that Mr. Bartlett enumerated. So, its looking at how do we create the best Mobility Center for the future of Downtown Dover and be able to provide that critical element for the future master planning. Keeping it five stories rather than seven was part of the consideration. In the design of the full block, because of the ramping requirements, they are also able to gain a little more ground level retail in the Governors Avenue side which they are contemplating maybe a bicycle shop for that form of mobility or other amenities for the Downtown. It created an improved visibility. The Mobility Center will be visible from both Bradford Street and Governors Avenue rather than hidden behind the two existing buildings. As the earlier slide illustrated it’s the five-minute radius to everything within the Downtown, it creates a pedestrian friendly path. It would have the opportunity to improve Minor Street as a pedestrian connector as well as its connection and to both to the planned multi use facility at 120 S. Governors Avenue and the half a block to all of the businesses along Loockerman Street. For all of those reasons, they have concluded that the best design for the Mobility Center would be the removal of the buildings at 148 and 150 S. Bradford Street and designing the whole block. Mr. Stonesifer stated that he is the President of the Downtown Dover Partnership and he lives and works Downtown and he owns buildings Downtown. He is so proud of how far we’ve come in the Master Plan for of the future of the City of Dover. He is super excited about where we are going. He remembers his own history of walking Downtown on Governors Avenue and Loockerman Street and it was the center of commerce. Everything was open. Sears was there. Athletic Attic was there. They did all of their shopping there. Today, we are where we are. This is the history of Dover. We want to preserve the history. The definition of insanity is doing the 18 20

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. same thing and expecting a different result. They have come so far. They have federal grants that the private sector can’t obtain to clean up environmental conditions. They have State funding; the Governor’s Team has supported the success of this Plan through the offering of $25 million. $15 million of that money comes with strings and those strings say that the money has to be spent by December 31, 2026. You guys (the Commission) has a decision that will absolutely make or break the success of this Master Plan. Anything other than yes, you are allowed to take those buildings and replace them for the betterment of the City of Dover, sets them back to a point where they cannot meet that requirement. The entire thing hinges on tonight. Please be careful, please be considerate, and please make a wise decision. With that, they ask that the Commission please consider demolition and the replacement of these two buildings so that they can prune this bush and they can save the history of the rest of the Downtown of the City of Dover. They promise that they will do everything in their power to make as many people happy as possible, but they understand that they can’t make everybody happy all of the time. Mrs. Denney stated that this point there is no public hearing because this is an Appeal on a decision that was made by the Historic District Commission to deny this. There is no public hearing and no public comment. At this point, the Commissioners certainly have an opportunity to discuss this and then vote on it. Mr. Witham asked that since this is an Appeal, is the appeal “day novo” or on the record. Responding to Mr. Witham, Mrs. Denney stated that it’s really on the record. They were provided with the minutes at the eleventh hour, which could help them understand their thinking process, but it’s just an Appeal on what they found. Do we agree with it or do we not? Mr. Witham stated that given that it’s an Appeal on the record, he would move if it’s appropriate, that we add to the record the Draft Minutes of the decision of the City of Dover Historic District Commission. Since this is only a Draft, his motion would apply to a Final Minutes of the Meeting since the Appeal has to be based upon that decision by the Historic District Commission. Second of all, he would add to that that they should also admit into the official record the applicant’s presentation today which is reflected on the slides and we all have hand copies of the record along with those portions of the Code that tells us what’s involved with the demolition from the City standpoint. He thinks Mrs. Melson-Williams knows what he’s talking about; the actual standards that they have to go by. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that for the Design Standards and Guidelines document, they were included as part of the transmittal for tonight’s meeting. They are listed in the attachments and as were the Draft Minutes excerpt. When they issued their Staff Report, they were pending completion and they got through the two applications that they needed to for tonight’s meeting. But there is a motion by Mr. Witham to clearly add some things to the record, you will need a second and an action on that and then we can proceed. Mr. Witham moved to add the Minutes from the Historic District Commission and comments from this evening to the record prior to our decision making, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 6-0 by voice vote with Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones and Mrs. Maucher absent. Mr. Witham asked if the opponents have a right to respond or not. Responding to Mr. Witham, 19 21

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she noted at the beginning that the Zoning Ordinance and Article 10 Section 3 is where it talks about this process called Architectural Review Certification. It lays out certain types of activities that can be reviewed by Staff, others that require Historic District Commission action, and even a third level if it’s a project that is going through a Site Plan review process and then it’s the Historic District Commission and a Planning Commission action. When it is an Application to the Historic District Commission, they conduct a public hearing and take action on what is called Architectural Review Certification which is basically the authorization of the project finding that it meets the City’s Guidelines and Standards for the Historic District Zone which is a somewhat subjective document. That Zoning Ordinance allows the Historic District Commission action on an Architectural Review Certification to be appealed to the Planning Commission. So, that is what we have this evening; an Appeal of the decision that was made by the Historic District Commission. What the Planning Commission is really charged with is for their Architectural Review Certification Request for Demolition whether you agree with the Historic District Commission or you think otherwise and would grant that Architectural Review Certification. The Code charges you to look at the provisions for an Architectural Review Certificate in that the Code, Article 10 Section 3.25 Architectural Review Standards, Item A states, “an architectural review certificate may be issued if it’s found that the architectural style, general design, height, bulk and setbacks, arrangement, location and materials and structures affecting the exterior appearance are generally in harmony with neighboring structures and complimentary to the traditional architectural standards of the Historic District as set forth in the Historic District Guidelines and Standards adopted by the Planning Commission and as set forth by the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.” That statement really focuses on if they were building new or doing something with materials on a structure. It doesn’t really necessarily focus on demolition; however, the “Design Guidelines and Standards” that are referenced in that Code are the Design Standards and Guidelines for the Historic District Zone document which does have a discussion about demolition. That discussion gives a series of criteria upon which to evaluate demolition and its certification for it to be allowed to happen. You can certainly look at those criteria and make your determination of whether their proposal meets those criteria or could meet those criteria with additional conditions perhaps in looking at a way to focus on that Architectural Review Certification process. In short, you have a decision that the Historic District Commission came to. The Planning Commission is charged at looking at the same thing basically. That’s why Staff gave you all of the same documentation that was presented to the Historic District Commission and their meeting minutes. The Planning Commission then goes through kind of the same process to look at Architectural Review Certification. Staff has looked on the question of whether the opposing side gets to speak. In looking at the Code, it does not specifically say that an Appeal to the Planning Commission requires a public hearing. The references in that section talk specifically about hearings before the Historic District Commission. The only reference to a public hearing before the Planning Commission in that referenced section, in Article 10 Section 3.26C Item 6 is that “if the Planning Commission is reviewing another type of application process wise; Conditional Use, Site Plan, or whatever the case may be, then the notice of public hearing on those types of applications must also reference that an Architectural Review Certification is under consideration.” In that situation, the scenario would be a new building that required it to go to the Historic District Commission, the Historic District Commission makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission, and as part of your review as a Site Plan, you have a public hearing and it also includes that action on Architectural Review Certification. She knows that it is a little 20 22

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. confusing, but it is Staff’s interpretation that an Appeal does not require a public hearing at the Planning Commission level. Mrs. Denney stated that what they do have the opportunity to do, is ask questions and speak among ourselves. Mrs. Welsh stated that she is just curious as far as reviewing the Scheme A and Scheme B proposals in the packet. At this point, she is hearing that demolition is the only option. She is curious as to the purpose of the two schemes. Was that an exercise in economics or feasibility or is that something that they can contemplate at this point? Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mrs. Denney stated that they are here not to say whether or not they like a certain plan. They are here for is the Historic District Commission voted that this should not happen and there is an Appeal as to whether or not they take that side. It’s not about what will replace it because they all know that it’s not another historic building. Mrs. Welsh stated that she understands that. It’s not so much that she’s saying that they would choose one over the other or that we are looking at that, she is just not sure why it was brought to their attention. Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mrs. Denney stated that she was listening and letting them go on and thinking that she’s not exactly sure because they are not deciding on what they do next. She feels privileged to be on a Board for the City of Dover. She has said this from time to time in public hearings and things, we live in the Capital City of the State that started the Nation. It is filled with history; it’s part of history. Whether this building was built in 1638 or it was built in the 1900’s, when you follow it through that legacy, it’s not all about the buildings in the 1600’s. We are packed with tourism; people come because of our history. What it demonstrates to the people is that you can follow through the architecture. She has often said to her kids that her grandkids will all look up and say that’s Victorian because she always says if you go to New York City, look up. That’s where the real story is. You can follow our history through the architecture. In reading the Minutes, that’s somewhat what the Historic District Commission was saying when they said no. Again, we are just here to hear the Appeal, but they did allow the applicants to tell them why. They kind of gave them a little plan but in this Design Plan, which by the way they wouldn’t be held to anyway. She doesn’t see any historic Victorian building like we would see if we went to New York City or someplace like that. The other thing is that absolutely right, is the testimony tonight is theirs. Its adjacent to an empty lot that doesn’t have Victorian buildings because somebody let them take them down. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Staff would note that they think why we heard a little bit about potential schemes is that it was part of their evaluation and looking at the criteria because the criteria for demolition does give some suggestion as to looking at what is next. In this case, she thinks they gave us a glimpse of what is next. You are certainly correct, anything that they presented tonight they could not hold them to because “what’s next” is not what’s under consideration with the Architectural Review Certification step that we are at. The Architectural Review step that we are at is regarding demolition and there are certainly options related to demolition. She thinks that the Commission has heard a little bit about that. Staff did, in their Report to the Historic District Commission that you have a copy of, note some other scenarios for “what ifs”. She thinks they addressed the “what if” options of relocation or the cohabitation. But with these buildings, there is definitely what was the initial core of the building and then it 21 23

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. has rear additions that happened over time for 148 and 150 S Bradford Street. But right now, we are dealing with 148 S Bradford Street. Mrs. Denney stated that as do many historical buildings because a lot of them here, especially some of the really early ones began with a kitchen and then grew. Mr. Cooper stated that when we are reviewing this application, he understands that we are just an Appeal on the original ruling. But as the Planning Commission, shouldn’t we be looking at what could be coming and what would be coming as a result of the Appeal? Or is he just looking at the same exact thing that the Historic District Commission looked at? Responding to Mr. Cooper, Mrs. Denney stated that she believes that they are not looking at what comes next because there is nothing written in stone. This is not like the Ten Commandments written in stone; it’s what she would always call “the book of suggestions.” What could, should, or might happen but doesn’t have to happen. The only thing that they are deciding when they make this vote tonight is not about the future other than will those two buildings remain. They are buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. Again, no they are not 1600’s or 1700’s buildings but not everybody just looks at the architecture of the building. A lot of people follow history through how they developed. Originally, if you want to think about it, there were thirteen brick houses here in this area, in what we consider Kent County. Then slowly, they built different style houses so that the people who were serving or working for or bringing goods to the people that had the money to build the original houses. That is kind of how it developed. It’s not like modern day development where people want to live near this so they build a beautiful new modern home development out west or east or something. It’s how people lived back there; they all kind of lived together. Again, there is no guarantee and all that they are voting on here is to say if they agree with the Historic District Commission. They made a decision and do we agree with them? Are we going to uphold them? They have had an opportunity to tell us. Are we going to let them (the applicant) do what they want? Mr. Witham stated that as he understands it, what was before the Historic District Commission was an application and a public hearing was conducted in review of an action on the Architectural Review Certification for a Demolition of two existing structures in the Downtown Dover Historic District. The vote on both applications was 2-1. So the Appeal is an appeal of that decision. Before us today is whether we agree with the Appeal or are we going to reverse the Appeal. What we do by that action is we are saying that they are going to give an Architectural Review Certification for the Demolition of the two buildings. He reviewed what the Historic District Commission is designed to do and primarily they are concerned with the preservation of historic buildings; a laudable thing to do and we all support that he believes. They are going to have a strong presumption that those buildings should be preserved. In the notes, he sees that they say when you move historical buildings out of or into or within the Historic District, it should be discouraged. The moving of historic buildings within the Historic District has the same effect as demolition. He doesn’t think that they really cared about whether or not they were going to move them and what the cost would be; they were concerned about the preservation of these two buildings. He doesn’t consider that as a major impediment for our decision. Responding to Mr. Witham, Mrs. Denney nor does she. Mr. Witham stated that their marching orders from the Code is that they are more than just 22 24

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. interested in preserving buildings. They are here to make sure that whatever is being built in Dover is designed correctly, is placed correctly, and does not have an adverse impact on surrounding property owners. It will improve the City of Dover. Our interest is broader than the Historic District Commission. He is saying that as his thought process. It seems to him that if the City of Dover has approved this long term Plan called the 2030 Master Plan of Downtown Dover which has been approved by the public, that if it’s our position to reverse this, then they would are supporting that Plan. Mr. Witham moved to reverse the order of the Historic District Commission and authorize the Architectural Review Certification for the Demolition of the existing buildings and his proposal would apply to both properties. Mr. Reaves stated that he thinks that they are still in discussion and he would like to further the discussion before there is a motion. He thought that in the process, the Vice Chair would say that she was moving the floor to a motion rather than someone just making it from the beginning with no discussion. He doesn’t think that’s the process; so, he thinks that they should continue with discussion. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Denney stated that in order to discuss it, there has to be a second to a motion. That brings it forward so that we can have discussion on it. Mr. Witham withdrew his motion since there was a need for more discussion. Mr. Reaves stated that as they were on the path of having a discussion to talk about what’s going to transpire with regard to the Architectural Review Certification for Demolition, the thought of what’s going down into the Dover District should be irrelevant to our decision of deciding on the demolition. It should not be based on what’s going to be built. It should be based on the decision of the historic buildings and what is required for demolition. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Denney stated that she agrees that they should not be entertaining what comes next because they are addressing an Appeal from the Historic District Commission because they voted not to allow these historic buildings to be demolished. You are absolutely right in what you are saying and suggesting. Mr. Reaves stated that what he would like to contribute to the discussion and Mrs. Melson- Williams can give more clarity to this, but it’s the supplemental document which calls for demolition and the characteristics of the demolition. He is not sure of the name of this document; however, he has not received enough information from the presentation to understand that these buildings meet the criteria for Demolition according to what is reviewed by the Historic District Commission. He just does not see that at this point in time. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Denney stated that she agrees with him. She also read, although it’s a Draft and they came at the eleventh hour, but in what they received from the Historic District Commission in their Minutes, it gives you a greater understanding of why they voted no. Mrs. Welsh stated that on Page 4 of the package under Demolition and it says “the proposal for demolition of the building must be reviewed for conformity with the design criteria guidelines found in Chapter 4” and it lists the names of the Chapter. Skipping down it says “these guidelines are summarized below and an excerpt of Chapter 4 is attached.” Then it has five guidelines. The first one is “determine the financial implications of maintaining a property versus 23 25

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. demolition.” Then “regardless of economic issues, the relative significance of the individual building slated for demolition shall be evaluated.” Number 3 says “in development related applications, the City should review the schematic plans for the new structures to weigh the virtues of the new structure versus what exists.” She is not sure that that doesn’t tell them to evaluate more than just demolition. Can Mrs. Melson-Williams clarify that? Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there is not always a “what’s next” if that makes any sense. Number 3 of that demolition criteria talks about “in development related applications, the City should review the schematic plans for new structures to weigh the virtues of the new structure versus what exists.” So, if this was a combination application where the Request for Demolition was also accompanied by the new building. They have seen that with some applications in the past but that is not the case with this one. They chose to do a step at a time. The Request for Demolition was the first step here and that is all that they brought forward. Certainly in their presentation, they gave some suggestion that this is related to a project for the Mobility Center to come, but the Commission is not doing Architectural Review Certification on the project for the Mobility Center. How it would be constructed, what does it look like, and all of that; that is not what is before the Commission. Mrs. Welsh stated that clarifies that paragraph for her. Mr. Cooper stated that he understands everything that we have said and he has read the five bullets. It’s hard to ignore the gigantic elephant in the room when looking at this discussion. We have what he believes is a perceived parking issue in Downtown Dover at our current state of 50% businesses occupied. He doesn’t visit the Downtown as much as he should and he doesn’t support the businesses as much as he should but he has never had trouble finding a parking space. With that being said, when we get to a point where we are 100% occupied and we get to a point where we have apartments over retail and so on and so forth, the elephant that’s in the room is going to be needed. We can’t get there from here. He hates to see an old building go as much as anybody else. He lives in an old historic house, but he also understands that we can’t get to where we want to get to as a city with our Comprehensive Plan, with DDP’s plan, and with all of the Plans that are involved without moving in this general direction. So, he is having a hard time separating the two. Mrs. Denney stated that frankly she can think of other areas like what she always calls the old Acme Building, on Governors Avenue which is a huge lot much bigger and could certainly accommodate a parking garage. Although she honestly doesn’t believe that parking garages belong in historic venues unless they look historic, but that’s just her personal opinion. There are other places that could accommodate them, especially with the new Family Court Building which is not a vision; it’s a reality that is being done now. That would be a perfect area and actually, to me, she has never had a problem parking but we are going to have new development with this Downtown revitalization. But nowhere when they were charged with this were they told that they were going to that. They were going to do something but to take away some of the historic stuff either to her, there are other places for a parking garage. Obviously, the parking garage is going to include apartments somewhere in the vicinity but there is room for both there on that lot as well. Mr. Cooper stated that he thinks the lot on Governors Avenue with the old Acme is under 24 26

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. different ownership and he has heard rumblings that there are other plans for that so this couldn’t go there. Responding to Mr. Cooper, Mrs. Denney stated that we are really not voting on what’s going there in the future. We are voting on whether we are going to support our Historic District Commission in what they said. Either we are or we’re not going to support the Historic District Commission’s decision. Mr. Witham stated that not to offend anyone, in his view, this train has left the station for these two houses. For these two houses, he has heard nothing on the record that some famous person lived in these houses or that they may be a representative of good architectural structures in Dover. One is Victorian and the other is a different type of really quite interesting structures; however, there are other structures just like these throughout Dover. The problem with these two houses is that they are unoccupied, they are deteriorating, and the owners want to sell and the Downtown Dover Partnership wants to buy them. So what is going to happen? Are we going to make Downtown Dover Partnership maintain those properties? At what cost? We don’t have the power to do that by this Commission, but is that what the citizens of Dover expect them to do? If so, that’s not going to happen. They will come with a different plan. The plan may fail given what we have heard tonight. We may be facing another 10-20 years of Dover going through the same process that we have gone through the last 20 years of not getting anything done. Mr. Reaves stated that he didn’t’ necessarily hear all of the additional information about the owners of the property wanting to sell, but he might have missed that information. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Denney stated that she thinks she missed that information as well. Mr. Reaves stated that it just seems like it’s information that is added to this conversation; however, because the Historic District Commission voting like they did, he believes that they put a lot of thought and effort and understanding into what they were making a decision on. He thinks that for them to just overturn it that could be a mistake. However, when you look at the scheme proposals with regards to the second scheme of parking, it then allows for the additional parking and it allows for the preservation of the buildings. In his opinion, he thinks that voting just to overturn a Board’s decision as we are a Board/Commission also; he thinks that has to be well thought-out before we just arbitrarily do that. Mrs. Denney stated that would be her sentiments. Again, they had a hearing and we have a Draft of the Minutes. She doesn’t think that they just arbitrarily made a decision either. Unfortunately, because of the rules and procedures for this meeting, a representative from that group can’t stand up and tell their side because essentially they are appealing what was done and what’s in the minutes. She does not disagree with Mr. Reaves. Mr. Reaves stated that unless there is more Commission discussion on the floor or we are going to continue discussion, he would like to make a motion when that time comes. Mr. Witham stated that he draws at inference at the fact that the Downtown Development Corporation has gotten commitments from the owners of these properties to buy them. Why else would they present this Plan if they did not believe that they could control these properties? He disagrees, respectfully to Mr. Reaves’ position. He thinks that you can draw that inference from the discussions. Responding to Mr. Witham, Mrs. Denney stated, again, we are not here because 25 27

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. they could say yes, tear the buildings down, and there is nothing written in stone saying what they are going to do next. That really can’t be part of what we are here for. We are here and our lens is focused on after the Historic District Commission’s hearing and their recommendation and their vote. Do we agree with our Historic District Commission or do we go against them; and it’s with regard to the structures of these two buildings. Mr. Reaves stated that on Page 4-11 of the Supplement, it says the following criteria should be evaluated and considered for applications for demolition of historic buildings within Dover Historic District: “to determine the financial implications of maintaining property versus demolishing it. The City may ask an applicant to submit documentation pertaining to differential costs, structural soundness, or suitability.” He has not heard in the presentation, anything about the differential cost or the structural soundness. They spoke to the estimated market value of the property but he didn’t hear anything with regards to that. He believes that if the Downtown Dover District was offering some compensation for these properties, he believes that it may have come out in their presentation but he did not hear anything with regards to that. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Denney stated that she can’t recall anything in the Draft Minutes. Again, they had hearings and the same group of people had an opportunity to speak; and they (the Historic District Commission) made the decision. That is all that we are here to discuss; not whether they should do what they proclaim they propose to maybe do. What is before is before us is do we agree with the decision of the Historic District Commission or not. She managed a town once and she chairs a Board for Kent County. The people who speak at those particular meetings come and are sworn in by an attorney. That doesn’t happen here; it’s far more casual. Nobody is signing agreements or swearing to anything that will happen. She gets what Mr. Witham is saying about do we want to discourage the Downtown revitalization; and certainly that’s not the point, but she has seen buildings with brand new stuff built around the preservation of old historic buildings just to keep the flavor of what’s going on. Mr. Witham stated that he has a technical question and it may be just because he doesn’t know what City of Dover approved. Has the City of Dover approved this 2030 Downtown Development Plan? Responding to Mr. Witham, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Transforming Downtown Dover: Capital City 2030 Plan was a plan that was commissioned by the Downtown Dover Partnership. They had a number of partners that participated in its development. Certainly the City heard presentations on it but it is not a formal application or plan that required action by the City Council or even this body as kind of a regulatory process. It’s certainly in the City’s Comprehensive Plan which is formally adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council and certified by the Governor. It has a number of things that focus on Downtown and its redevelopment and about development citywide, but the Transforming Downtown Dover Plan is not adopted in the same fashion. Mr. Reaves moved to deny the Architectural Review Certification of demolition of 148 and 150 S. Bradford Street in support of the Historic District Commission’s decision that was previously made. Mr. Witham stated that he believes that the more appropriate motion would be to affirm the decision of the Architectural Review Certification under the Historic District Commission’s decision. 26 28

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. Mr. Reaves moved to affirm the Historic District Commission’s decision to deny the Architectural Review Certification for Demolition of 148 and 150 S Bradford Street, seconded by Mrs. Denney and the motion failed 2-4 by roll call vote with Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones and Mrs. Maucher absent. Mr. Reaves voting yes; to affirm the denial of the Architectural Review Certification for demolition based upon the reasons for the opportunity for the development of the parking in support of the future goals of the Downtown District and also preservation of the historical buildings that we have in Dover. Mrs. Welsh voting no. Mr. Cooper voting no. Mr. Roach voting no; he would like to demolish the buildings and he feels as though the parking is needed and preserving the Historic District is not lost entirely by two buildings. He feels as though the parking is definitely needed. He knows that other people say that they haven’t had parking issues, but he has had them a lot because he frequents that area often. Mr. Witham voting no; he votes to reverse the decision of the Historic District Commission on the presentation that they made before their Commission. The reason why is because the City of Dover is waiting for redevelopment. Many people have had the opportunity already. It’s confirmed already in the record not by the City of Dover as an official plan but most people wanted to support this redevelopment. If we don’t allow these two houses to be demolished, then we are going to hold up the process; and in terms we may lose $25 million unless the applicant can move promptly to come up with a better plan, but the time bomb is ticking on the situation. Mrs. Denney voting yes; she believes that this wasn’t just a quick decision that was made by the Historic District Commission. She thinks a lot of thought went into it. She thinks that they can still have a parking lot if they need a parking lot. What they probably can’t have is a parking lot and a bunch of apartment buildings and a paid parking lot. She goes Downtown now and parks for free and she enjoys that ability. Once there is a business there for paid parking, she’s not sure that’s going to help businesses Downtown. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in light of the motion failing, she thinks it would be appropriate to entertain an alternative motion so that it is clear on the action taken. Mrs. Denney stated that Mrs. Melson-Williams is suggesting that we have another motion and that it be an opposite motion. She is hoping that people will change their mind when they vote. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated not necessarily. Mr. Reaves asked if it is possible in this appeal process to remand this to the Historic District Commission. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she thinks that technically that may be an option, but the (Planning) Commission would have to give very clear direction as to something that they (Historic District Commission) did not consider in making their first action taken. She is not sure that it would yield any different result at this point. Mr. Reaves stated that he believes that this Commission was not supplied with enough information to either validate or refute the decision by the Historic District Commission. He would feel like we are missing something because we don’t have the full picture in order to make the proper decision. Also receiving the updated proposal by the Downtown Dover District (Partnership) at the last minute in this forum doesn’t give an opportunity to all participants to understand the gravity of the options that are available to preserve two buildings and also provide for parking. 27 29

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. Mr. Witham stated that he doesn’t see anything in the Code that gives us the power to act as a court. We are not a court. We are an administrative body and he agrees with Mr. Reaves that they could have gotten more information. He doesn’t think the Historic District Commission went through the process properly to weigh all of the factors. They just simply heard testimony and quickly made a decision. They didn’t support the votes; so, we don’t have a whole lot to go on. Mrs. Denney asked if they could table it. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Witham stated that you will have to reconsider the vote and be prepared to entertain a motion to table the vote for more information, but we have already voted so we would have to reverse that. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Staff is getting a little uncomfortable if you are looking to do some of what you mentioned, then we would actually need legal counsel to weigh in on it. You have acted on a motion. She is not sure if that pertained to one or both of the applications. It wasn’t clear but she would imagine that it meant both of them. These questions of remanding or deferring action are treading in a territory that is going to be beyond Staff’s ability to answer questions and we would need legal counsel. Mr. Roach stated that he wants to echo what was stated earlier that we are not here to look at what’s going on in the future. Our job here today is to make a decision. He feels as though tabling it would kind of be irresponsible with the task that they are given this evening because to say that we are going to table it, why would we table it if the original vote wasn’t approved? Mrs. Denney said multiple times that we are here to focus on what we are going to do with the information presented to us, not what is going to happen in the future. Now that it didn’t go in that direction, he doesn’t think it’s fair to table it. Responding to Mr. Roach, Mrs. Denney stated that some of what he said was broken. What she is trying to discern is if you making make a motion to table it or are you saying that we should not table it? Mr. Roach stated that he is saying that they should not table it because as stated by the Chair this evening, we are here to make a decision based upon the information that we have. He doesn’t know why we would table it now since the vote didn’t go in the direction of the Historic District (Commission). We were okay making that vote without the information to support the Historic District so why would we want to table it. Mrs. Denney stated that essentially Mr. Roach thinks that we should not be tabling the motion. Mr. Reaves asked if Mr. Roach could see the screenshot that is on the screen now. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Roach stated yes. Mr. Reaves stated that in regards to that and you said that your interest in your vote was for the parking, but the Scheme B provides for parking and it also provides for the preservation of the buildings. He just wants to understand what Mr. Roach’s position is as far as the demolition. Is it just the parking or is it just the demolition of the buildings? Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Roach stated that he is going based off exactly what they are saying. Mrs. Denney stated that our job tonight is not to pay attention to what is going to happen in the future. It is just whether we 28 30

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. are going to overturn or uphold the decision by the Historic District Commission. Why was it okay for us to vote on it to support the Historic District Commission but then when we voted no, now all of a sudden we talk about tabling it to get more information? To him, it seems irresponsible that we can put it in a scope to just focus on whether we are supporting or not supporting the Historic District until we are not supporting the Historic District. It just doesn’t feel right to him. Mrs. Denney stated again what it comes down to is do we or do we not support the Historic District Commission’s decision. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there is not a motion. Staff suggested a clarifying motion be made because the motion was to affirm the decision of the Historic District Commission and that motion failed 2-4. Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mrs. Denney stated that essentially she is asking that the Commission reword it so that we affirm of vote of denying the Historic District Commission’s ruling so that it’s clearer. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she thinks its how Mr. Witham worded it earlier to reverse their decision and grant the Architectural Review Certification for Demolition. Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mr. Witham stated that he withdrew that motion and the motion that we approved was to affirm that decision of Historic District Commission; therefore, the appeal is going to fail. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the motion that was made was to affirm the decision to deny the Architectural Review Certification. The vote on that motion was 2 yes votes and 4 no. Mr. Witham stated that the Historic District Commission voted to deny the application to demolish the two buildings by a 2-1 decision on both houses. Responding to Mr. Witham, Mrs. Denney stated that is correct. Mr. Witham stated that what is before us is whether an Appeal of that decision. If we grant the Appeal, then they will reverse the decision of the Historic District Commission. Responding to Mr. Witham, Mrs. Denney stated yes. Mr. Witham stated that he doesn’t understand Mr. Reaves’ motion. He made the motion. Mr. Reaves stated that he made the motion to affirm the denial. The clarification would most likely be to 148 and 150 S Bradford Street. But the motion would still stand as affirming the Historic District Commission’s denial of the Architectural Certification of Demolition. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Witham stated that means the Appeal failed. Mr. Roach moved to reverse the Historic District Commissions’ decision in regards to 148 and 150 S. Bradford Street. Mrs. Denney stated that just for clarification, Mr. Roach made a motion to reverse the decision of the Historic District Commission. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Roach stated yes, for both properties. 29 31

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2024 Item 1. Mr. Witham asked if everyone understands the motion. Responding to Mr. Witham, Mrs. Denney stated that she does. Her understanding is that it is to reverse the decision of the Historic District Commission which would mean that they will be permitted to tear the buildings down. Mr. Roach moved to reverse the Historic District Commissions’ decision in regards to 148 and 150 S Bradford Street, seconded by Mr. Witham and the motion was carried 4-2 with Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones and Mrs. Maucher absent. Mr. Roach voting yes; because he feels as though the upgrade as far as parking is more of a need in the Downtown Development project to keep the City moving in the right direction. Mr. Witham voting yes; because he believes the reversal of the Historic District Commission is necessary to further the improvement of the City of Dover with the understanding that this is the first step. We are not just starting a parking lot; we are bringing other businesses and apartments into the area and we need to have a fair and equitable manner. Mr. Reaves voting no; because the Historical District had 2 votes to 1 with one person being absent and another person recusing themselves. The outcome could have been more favorable to prevent demolition of the buildings. He also feels that the parking objectives will still be met with the buildings not be demolished. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she really is torn about it because she really in her heart is in favor of historical preservation but she has thought about it and she’s seen Dover change over the years. She doesn’t see right now in the last few years, a lot of growth or activity that are building up our Downtown or other areas of the City. She understands the whole problem with vagrancy and things like that. She thinks that at some point, they need to do something to start in another direction as far as addressing issues like that. She thinks that just trying to take steps for revitalizing the City and it’s her thought that even though there are two houses now that would be missing from the footprint of the City, that revitalizing the City in the term and the future would preserve the majority of the other areas of the City rather than have the City end up declining and we lose everything that is of historical significance of the City. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for the reasons stated previously by himself, Commissioner Witham and Commissioner Welsh. Mrs. Denney voting no; she doesn’t think that they have to destroy those buildings in order to improve that lot. She thinks that if somebody wants to go to the back of the lot and put up a giant money making condominium building or apartment building with parking underneath of it; great, but she absolutely doesn’t think that a parking garage goes there. Meeting adjourned at 10:21 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 30 32

Item 2. City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF July 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 15, 2024 Plan Title: Stoltzfus Warehouse at 1285 College Park Drive S-24-10 Plan Type: Site Development Plan Property Owner: Stoltzfus, LLC Location: North of College Road in the College Business Park on the north side of College Park Drive adjacent to the railroad tracks Address: 1285 College Park Drive Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.00-02-12.02-000 Site Area: 1.507 acres+/- Zoning: M (Manufacturing Zone) Present Use: Warehouse Proposed Use: Second Warehouse Building Sanitary Sewer: City of Dover Water Supply: City of Dover Waivers Requested: Elimination of Upright Curbing (Approved by City Planner) Reduction of the Parking Requirement Partial Elimination of Sidewalk Opaque Barrier – Elimination of Fence Component For Consideration: Performance Standards Review Application P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 33

City of Item 2. Dover CITY OF DOVER Planning Office DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: July 3, 2024 APPLICATION: Stoltzfus Warehouse at 1285 College Park Drive FILE #: S-24-10 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning Office CONTACT PERSON: Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP PHONE #: 302.736.7196 I. PLAN SUMMARY This is a Site Development Plan for a 5,120 SF Warehouse adjacent to an existing 10,000 SF Warehouse and other site improvements for a project known as the Stoltzfus Warehouse. The property is 1.507+/- acres and zoned M (Manufacturing Zone). The property is located north of College Road in the College Business Park on the north side of College Park Drive adjacent to the railroad tracks. The owner of record is Stoltzfus, LLC. The property address is 1285 College Park Drive. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.00-02-12.02-000. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Site Development Plan proposes a construction of a second Warehouse Building on the property. There is an existing Warehouse Building of 10,000 SF with a loading dock. The new Warehouse Building of 5,120 SF will have its own loading dock space area separate from the first warehouse and there will be improvements to the Dumpsters serving both buildings to add an enclosure. There will be minor improvements to the existing parking lot on site for an accessible parking space and bicycle parking. Signage on the site identifies the current tenant as Sid Harvey’s Whole Distributors. The property already includes a stormwater management facility in the rear area of the property that appears to account for the proposed addition of a second building. The northern property line has a series of trees within a woodland/vegetative area. The site will be subject to a Performance Standards Review Application to ensure the proposed use complies with Zoning Regulations. See Section VIII of this Report. Previous Application This project was originally developed with the first warehouse building under Site Plan Application S-97-16 College Business Park – Proposed Warehouse Building for Sears & Roebuck. This was reviewed by the Planning Commission in August 1997 and Permits for its construction issued in 1998. Surrounding Properties The subject property on College Park Drive (a private drive) is at the rear of the College Business Park where other lands are also zoned M (Manufacturing Zone). The adjacent properties also include other warehouse type buildings. To the south across College Park Drive is 34

Item 2. S-24-10 Stoltzfus Warehouse at College Park Drive DAC Report of July 3, 2024 Page 3 of 10 another property where a multi-tenant flex warehouse space was proposed for construction with Conditional Use Site Plan C-21-03 on a property that also includes a Wireless Communications Facility (monopole). The properties at the front of the College Business Park closer to College Road consist of office buildings. III. ZONING REVIEW M (Manufacturing Zone) Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 19 lists the permitted uses, conditional uses, and other provisions of the M (Manufacturing Zone). In Article 3 Section 19.13, it notes for the M zone that the use of wholesale storage, warehousing, transshipment and distribution, and logistics support is a permitted use. The bulk standards for the M zone are listed in Article 4 Section 4.16. IV. PARKING SUMMARY Waiver Request for Reduction of Parking Requirement The parking requirement in the M zoning district is one space per 800 S.F. floor area or one space per employee of the largest shift. Based on the total floor areas of both buildings at 15,120 SF, the required parking is 19 spaces. It is noted that there are five employees at the facility. The plan shows an existing parking lot of 12 spaces as parking spaces for (passenger) vehicles. This project will relocate the handicapped parking space to the east side of the parking lot in closer proximity to the buildings’ entries finishing with a total of eleven (11) parking spaces. The loading dock areas are separate from this parking lot. The Applicant is seeking a waiver to reduce the parking from 19 spaces to 11 spaces as a reduction of 8 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. Loading Spaces The requirement for loading spaces in the M zone is based on building square footage of the specific uses. For wholesale and storage uses, one loading spaces is needed per 5,000 SF to 10,000 SF of floor area which results in one loading space required for each building. This plan shows a loading dock serving each building to satisfy this requirement. The new Warehouse building has a loading space area of 40.72 feet in length and 19 feet wide with the existing loading space also 40 feet in length. These loading docks/spaces have direct access off College Park Drive at the cul-de-sac terminus. Bicycle Parking The site is required to provide bicycle parking. The bicycle parking calculation is one for every twenty parking spaces. A bike rack location is shown near the entry door to the existing Warehouse Building on the plan meeting the minimum of one bicycle parking space for this site. V. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE The proposed Warehouse Building will be similar in architectural appearance to the existing building. The new Warehouse Building proposes metal wall panels to clad the building with the lower wall wainscot area painted a contrasting color. The elevation adjacent to the existing warehouse will be constructed as a CMU (concrete masonry unit) firewall. The building’s front elevation includes an entry door and window and a large roll-up garage door in the center served by the loading dock. The facility complies with the maximum height limitation of 60 feet for the 35

Item 2. S-24-10 Stoltzfus Warehouse at College Park Drive DAC Report of July 3, 2024 Page 4 of 10 M zoning district as the height to the eave is only 18 feet then there is a low-sloping roof. The building placement is within the buildable area established by the front yard setback of 40 feet, side yard setback of 20 feet, and a rear yard of 50 feet when adjacent to residential zone). VI. SITE CONSIDERATIONS Access The site has multiple access points to College Park Drive in that the access points are to the existing parking lot, to the existing loading dock, and to the new loading dock area. Lighting The lighting on the site is shown as wall units attached to the building. Dumpster For non-residential uses, a minimum of two Dumpsters are required for the site. The plan indicates that the existing Dumpster pad near the new Warehouse Building loading dock will be improved to include an enclosure and gated front. Sidewalk Waiver Request - Partial Elimination of Sidewalk Sidewalk is required along all street frontages and within the site in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §18. A sidewalk exists along a portion of the property extending from the west to the first (existing) loading dock/space. They have submitted a Waiver Request to eliminate the remaining required sidewalk for the eastern portion of the site; see Letter of June 7, 2024. The Planning Commission should act on this waiver request as part of their review of the Site Development Plan; see the following Zoning Ordinance citation on waivers of pathways. Sidewalks are a type of pathway. Article 15 §18.5 Waiver of pathway locations requirements. The property owner or developer may request a waiver from the planning commission or city planner, according to the type of plan review required by article 10 of this ordinance, under the following circumstances in order to reduce or eliminate the requirements for pathway installation: a) When the property is isolated from the existing pathway network, with no existing pathways within the immediate vicinity of the property. b) When the proposed use would not generate or attract additional pedestrian, bicycle, or other non-motorized trips. c) When physical characteristics of the property are such that pathway installation is impractical or impossible. In addition, on the site, sidewalks are shown connecting from the street frontage sidewalks into the site to the existing Warehouse building entrance and along the edge of the loading space area of the new Warehouse Building to reach its entry door. Curbing Waiver Request: Partial Elimination of Curbing The Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 §3.6(b) requires upright curbing for all parking areas and access drives. The existing parking lot does not have upright curbing and is related to the existing stormwater management facility that utilizes sheet flow through grass areas. A written Waiver Request for the elimination of upright curbing in these areas was submitted to the Planning Office for consideration by the City Planner citing the reasons for the request related to drainage related to 36

Item 2. S-24-10 Stoltzfus Warehouse at College Park Drive DAC Report of July 3, 2024 Page 5 of 10 stormwater management. VII. TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN The Landscape Plan shows a concept for woodland area preservation with existing tree preservation along the northern property line and several select trees located at the front of the buildings. Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 16 lays out the requirements for tree planting and preservation. A new project is required to provide tree planting at a rate of one (1) tree per 3,000 SF of “Development Area.” The Zoning Ordinance Article 5, Section 16 defines “Woodland” as follows: Woodland. An area of contiguous wooded vegetation (7,500 square feet or greater), where trees exist at a density of at least one tree with a caliper dimension of six inches or greater per 375 square feet of land and where the tree branches form a contiguous canopy. According to plans, there are 0.2 acres of existing woods. The maximum amount of woodland that can be cleared is 50% with anything over that amount requiring mitigation. This project does not propose clearing of any woodland areas. Based on a development area of 1.507 acres, the minimum required number of trees is twenty-two (22). The existing trees consist of 16 trees in the woodland area and six (6) trees in other areas of the property. Opaque Barrier Waiver Request: Elimination of Opaque Barrier (Fence) Component Screening is required wherever a non-residential use abuts a residential use. This screening must consist of an opaque barrier (a fence, wall, or berm) at least six feet in height, accompanied by landscaping (Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §7.2). This Opaque Barrier requirement applies to the northern property line adjacent to a residential property that was annexed into the City: and it’s proposed for development under Site Plan S-21-11 McKee Road Apartments. This adjoining parcel is zoned RG-2 (General Residence Zone); however, the adjoining area is wooded and contains wetland areas, so this subject parcel is not in close proximity to the actual development of residential areas. The plan as submitted by the applicant does not indicate the placement of an opaque barrier component (fence, wall or berm). They are areas of existing woodland and individual trees that may be utilized to comply with the landscaping component of the barrier. A written Waiver Request was submitted for the Planning Commission to consider elimination of the Opaque Barrier Requirement (Fence) noting that such installation of the Opaque Barrier would require removal of existing trees that are to serve as the landscape buffer. VIII. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS REVIEW Uses in the M (Manufacturing Zone) are subject to the performance standards summarized in Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §8.1 and as more specifically outlined in Article 5 §8.5. Article 5 §8.1 Dangerous and objectionable elements. No land or building in any zone shall be used or occupied in any manner so as to cause any one or more of the following conditions to exist and to be dangerous, injurious, noxious or offensive beyond the boundaries of such premises in such a manner or in such amount as to adversely affect the reasonable use of the surrounding area or adjoining premises: Fire, explosive or other hazard; noise, or vibration; smoke, dust, odor or other form of air pollution; heat, cold, dampness or electromagnetic disturbance; glare, liquid or solid refuse or waste; traffic congestion causing roadways or intersections in the surrounding highway network to fall below acceptable levels of comfort and convenience; or other substance, condition or element (referred to hereinafter as "dangerous or objectionable elements"), provided that any use permitted or not expressly prohibited by this ordinance may be undertaken and 37

Item 2. S-24-10 Stoltzfus Warehouse at College Park Drive DAC Report of July 3, 2024 Page 6 of 10 maintained if it conforms to the regulations of this section limiting dangerous and objectionable elements at the point of the determination of their existence. The project’s compliance with a series of performance standards for the “dangerous and objectionable elements” are to be considered by the Planning Commission. The “dangerous and objectionable elements” are as follows: • Fire and explosion hazards (activities with and storage of) • Radioactivity or electromagnetic disturbance • Noise (sound pressure level) • Vibration • Smoke • Odors (Odorous gases or odorous matter) • Fly ash, dust, fumes, vapors, gases, and other forms of air pollution • Glare (from lighting or high temperature processes) • Liquid or solid wastes • Traffic congestion (Level of Service E) The project cannot cause the above conditions to exist so that they adversely affect the surrounding areas or adjoining properties. The specific limits of each performance standard are described in the Zoning Ordinance. Where the performance standards conflict with regulations established by other state or local agencies such as the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), the more restrictive regulations apply. As part of this procedure, a Performance Standard Review Application is required to accompany this Plan submission for review and approval. The Applicant has submitted a Performance Standard Review Application Report (Letter dated June 6, 2024) indicating how the proposed development would restrict the emission of dangerous and objectionable elements detailed in Article 5, Section 8.5. IX. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: The subject proposal has been reviewed for code compliance, plan conformity, and completeness in accordance with the agency’s authority and area of expertise. The following items have been identified as elements which need to be addressed by the applicant: 1) Review and Approval of the Performance Standards Review Application is required for the property development in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §8. The applicant has submitted a Performance Standard Review Application Letter indicating how the proposed development would restrict the emission of dangerous and objectionable elements detailed in Zoning Ordinance, Article 5, Section 8.5. 2) Upright curbing must be provided around all parking areas and circulation drives in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. A waiver may be granted by the City Planner, if necessary, for stormwater management. 3) The property is subject to the requirements of the Opaque Barrier as this non-residential use is adjacent to a residential use on the north. The opaque barrier (fence, wall, or berm) component can be considered for elimination with a Waiver Request. The landscaping 38

Item 2. S-24-10 Stoltzfus Warehouse at College Park Drive DAC Report of July 3, 2024 Page 7 of 10 component of the barrier must be satisfied. A Waiver Request was submitted to the Planning Office for consideration to eliminate the Opaque Barrier (Fence). 4) Sidewalks must be provided along the full frontage of College Park Drive unless the Waiver Request is approved for the partial elimination of the sidewalk. The Planning Commission will consider the Waiver Request for the partial elimination of sidewalks on the eastern portion of the site. 5) Parking for the subject site and new Warehouse Building must comply with the parking requirements based on floor area or employee count (whichever is greater). The Applicant has submitted a Waiver Request to reduce the requirement by 8 parking spaces. 6) Sheet RP-1, Record Plan Cover Sheet: a) Add address of property on College Park Drive in title block. b) Zoning Location Map: The nearby property at 1241 College Park Drive was recently rezoned from CPO to IO. Update on Map. 7) Sheet RP-2, Record Plan: a) Clarify depiction of the sidewalk intersection with the existing parking lot access and the utilities in that area. There may need to be a detail of this area. Add detectable domes, etc. b) Note that existing parking lot does not include curbing. Clarify if new loading dock area includes curbing. c) The Dumpster enclosure for private facilities is required to be 7 feet in height. d) Add notes on any waivers granted as part of the review process. e) Update zoning of adjacent property (Lands of McKee Cap, LLC) to RG-2 (General Residence Zone). f) Site Data Column: i) Item 12: Correct to be “Waiver” Required; it is not a Variance. ii) Item 12: There are 11 vehicle spaces provided. 8) Various Plan Sheets: a) Ensure accessible ramps/markings are provided from handicapped space onto sidewalk system and also at points of intersection of sidewalk with parking lot. b) Staff suggests marking the pedestrian access path in the new loading dock/space area for clear path to the building entrance. c) Add striping to define existing parking lot entrance at the end of the row of parking so that parking is not located at sidewalk terminus point. 9) Sheet LP-1 - Landscape Plan: a) Identify if any new tree plantings are proposed. b) Opaque Barrier information must be provided on the landscape component. You may note that the existing vegetation is intended to be preserved if it meets the requirements. c) Provide certification statement for Landscape Plan; if new plantings are proposed then the appropriate design professional must certify this plan sheet. 10) Construction details for items such as Dumpster enclosure, curbing, parking bumpers, traffic control signage, stormwater, and utility details, etc. will need to be added to the Site Plan. 39

Item 2. S-24-10 Stoltzfus Warehouse at College Park Drive DAC Report of July 3, 2024 Page 8 of 10 11) Evaluate any existing pavement conditions to remain. Improvements may be necessary to paving, parking bumpers, and curbing and pavement markings. 12) A Record Plan sheet may be required to be recorded to show items such as right-of-way dedications, any easements, and other items affecting the property lines or if required by another agency’s approval process. 13) The Site Plan must reflect any changes recommended by the Planning Commission. Add notes for any waivers or conditions acted upon by the Planning Commission. 14) The proposed sign locations shown on this plan sheet are for informational purposes only and approval of this plan does not grant approval to this signage. All signage must comply with Sign Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and is subject to a separate Sign Permit Application. Signs are subject to a separate review and approval process in the City of Dover. 15) Any Sediment & Stormwater Management Plans granted approval by the Kent Conservation District must reflect the Site Plan layout and design conditionally approved by the Planning Commission and be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and technical review requirements of other agencies. 16) Additional review comments may be provided in the future as more detailed plans are developed. X. 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) Recommendation on Waiver Requests: a. Waiver Request for Elimination of Upright Curbing: Planning Staff grants approval of the Waiver Request for the elimination of upright curbing for existing the parking lot area due to previously established stormwater management methods at the site. The plan needs to clarify the curbing or lack of curbing near the new loading dock/space area. b. Waiver Request – Partial Elimination of Sidewalk: Planning Staff recommends approval of the Waiver Request to eliminate the requirement for the construction of sidewalks for the eastern portion of the site along the cul-de-sac of College Park Drive. This is based on the findings of the physical characteristics of this frontage area and that it is segment unlikely to be traveled by pedestrians for access purposes. 40

Item 2. S-24-10 Stoltzfus Warehouse at College Park Drive DAC Report of July 3, 2024 Page 9 of 10 c. Waiver Request – Reduction in the Parking Requirement: Planning Staff recommends approval of the Waiver Request to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 19 to 11 spaces finding that due to the nature of the use as warehouse space with a limited number of employees that the existing parking lot can readily serve the facility. Also, most of the likely customer/visitor traffic to the warehouses would be using the loading spaces at the two loading dock areas. d. Waiver Request for Elimination of Opaque Barrier Component: Planning Staff recommends approval of the Waiver Request to eliminate the Opaque Barrier Component of the fence, wall, or berm between this non-residential use and the adjacent residential property to the north. Given the existing wooded areas along the northern property line, it would require removal of trees to implement the fence barrier which is not favorable. The landscaping component of the barrier can be satisfied by this existing woodland area while also serving as an opaque barrier due to the density of the trees and vegetation. 2) Consideration of Performance Standards Review Application: Planning Staff has reviewed the Performance Standards Review Letter submitted and finds that it sufficiently demonstrates the intent to comply with the restrictions as provided in Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 8.1 and 8.2 and that the use of the buildings as a small warehouse are not likely to cause these objectionable elements. Other agencies may recommend additional considerations to meet code objectives in accordance with their areas of expertise. Action on all considerations identified in this section is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. XI. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) The Planning Commission should act upon the request for waivers as part of any motion regarding this project application, or as a separate motion as necessary. Note: All waivers are at the discretion of the Planning Commission. The Commission may approve or deny waiver requests. 2) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Site Development Plan occur in the finalization of the Plan contact the Planning Office. Examples include reorientation of the complex/building, relocation of site components like stormwater management areas, and increases in floor area count. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies and commissions making recommendations in regard to the plan. 3) Following Planning Commission approval of the Site Development Plan, the Plan must be revised to document all conditions of approval from the Development Advisory Committee or as otherwise noted. This process involves submission of Check Prints in order to achieve Final Plan approval. 4) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements. 41

Item 2. S-24-10 Stoltzfus Warehouse at College Park Drive DAC Report of July 3, 2024 Page 10 of 10 5) Outside storage is not authorized for this property. Available Streetview images showed a storage unit and items piled near Dumpster. The storage unit should be removed (or properly permitted for temporary placement) and recycling items (pallets, etc.) must be properly disposed of. 6) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any ground disturbing activities on the site the appropriate site inspections, Pre-Construction meeting and permits/licenses are required. 7) Construction may have an effect on the nearby properties and College Park Drive. Any work requiring the closing or rerouting of visitors to other properties served by this road should be coordinated as to offer the least amount of inconvenience. 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 Sign Permit, nor does it convey permission to place any sign on the premises. Any proposed site or building identification sign shall require a Sign Permit from the City of Dover prior to placement of any such sign. It is recommended that the applicant discuss the sign regulation requirements with the Planning Staff prior to applying for a Sign Permit. 10) The applicant shall be aware that Site Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit and associated construction activity permits. A separate application process is required for issuance of a Building Permit from the City of Dover. 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. 42

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JUNE 26, 2024 APPLICATION: Stoltzfus Warehouse at 1285 College Park Drive FILE #: S-24-10 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 EMAIL #: 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. STREETS 1. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the approved entrance plan or a letter of no contention, signed by DelDOT is submitted to our office. 2. Please add the following notes to the plans: a. Standard City of Dover sidewalk, as per chapter 98, article IV of the Dover Code of Ordinances, shall be required to be installed along the entire public street frontage of a property. Where frontage sidewalk exists but does not meet the standards of chapter 98, article IV, the sidewalk shall be re-laid to meet the standards. Sidewalk shall include barrier-free access ramping at points of intersection with street crossings and at other locations so as to afford reasonable barrier-free pedestrian movement and site access. b. In accordance to Appendix A, Article VI, Section B.3, all sidewalks shall ascend from the curbstone to the building line at the ratio of one-quarter of an inch to the foot. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any pavement previously laid by order of the city council, until it is taken up and relaid. 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: 43

Item 2. Stoltzfus Warehouse at 1285 College Park Drive File #: S-24-10 June 26, 2024 Page 2 of 4 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 DR 18 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 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. Water services shall be either type K copper or SDR-9. 8. On October 24, 2022, City of Dover Council approved the new Cross Connection Control Program. This program requires certain backflow prevention assemblies on water service connections to the city’s distribution system. Please provide information on the use of the proposed building. 9. Please confirm if the new building will require its own 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 44

Item 2. Stoltzfus Warehouse at 1285 College Park Drive File #: S-24-10 June 26, 2024 Page 3 of 4 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. The minimum size of all sanitary sewer laterals shall be six-inch (6”). 6. 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. 7. All wastewater infrastructure on the property will be owned and maintained by the property owner. 8. Please confirm if the new building will require its own wastewater lateral. 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 may be required 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 45

Item 2. Stoltzfus Warehouse at 1285 College Park Drive File #: S-24-10 June 26, 2024 Page 4 of 4 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. Wastewater impact fees will be required to be paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy for this project. 4. Depending on the effluent flow, the downstream pump station must be evaluated by the developer / engineer to verify it can handle the additional effluent flow. GENERAL 1. The applicant is advised that depending upon the size of the existing water service and sanitary sewer lateral to be abandoned, flowable fill may be required. 2. Construction plans will not be reviewed by our office unless all previous comments have been clearly addressed within the plan set and accordingly identified within an itemized response letter and with the Water/Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist, which can be obtained from the following website: https://imageserv9.team- logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf, page 88. SANITATION / STORMWATER / STREETS 1. None. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE . 46

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JUN 26, 2024 APPLICATION: Stoltzfus Warehouse at 1285 College Park Drive FILE #: S-24-10 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric Department CONTACT PERSON: Shawn Burgett, Engineering Services & System Ops 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. 47

Item 2. Stoltzfus Warehouse at 1285 College Park Drive File #: S-24-10 Jun 26, 2024 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 as soon as possible for 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 . 48

C F S-24-10 I IItem 2. T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 06/26/24 D S O H V A E L APPLICATION: Stoltzfus Warehouse at 1285 College Park Dr R FILE #: S-24-10 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 josika@dover.de.us THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposed occupancy classification is storage/warehouse. 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 50% 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 N/A of the proposed building. 49

Item 2. Fire lanes are required to be 24 feet wide and run along the front of the building as determined by the primary entrance(s). In cases where there is more than one primary entrance(s), each shall be served by a fire lane even if this exceeds the percentage as required. The closest edge of fire lanes shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet to the exterior wall and the closest edge of fire lanes shall not be located further than 50 feet from the exterior wall if one or two stories in height; 40 feet if three or four stories in height, or 30 feet if over four stories in height. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5) 6. Where parking is located between the building and the fire lane, parking shall not be located closer than 15 feet to the exterior wall. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.4.1) Where parking is located between the building and the perimeter access area, parking shall not be located closer than 10 feet to the exterior wall for one-story buildings and 15 feet to the exterior wall for building of two or more stories. 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 3.5.2 7. All Fire Lanes shall be marked as follows: both the inner and outer edges of the fire lane shall be marked, where curbs are present, the top and face of the curb shall be painted yellow, where no curbs are present, a four inch (4”) solid yellow demarcation line shall mark the edge(s) of the fire lane. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 7) 8. The specific color yellow shall be the uniformly accepted yellow as utilized by State of Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT). Only vivid and durable paint shall be used and shall be suitable for street surfaces 9. Fire lane signs shall be located as follows: see Figure 5-16 – Approved Sign For Marking Fire Lanes, fire lane signs shall be spaced at 150 foot intervals maximum, all fire lane signs shall be located no less than six feet (6’) and no higher than eight feet (8’) above the pavement, signs shall be placed at each end of the fire lane, and signs shall face all oncoming traffic. Where parking is not restricted roadway markings shall utilize the words "FIRE" and "LANE" in lieu of fire lane signs and shall conform to the specifications of 7.6. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 7) 10. Where overhangs, canopies, balconies, or any other building or site features must project over any fire lane, an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13’-6” above the fire lane shall be provided and the portion of the building perimeter which contains overhangs, canopies, balconies, or any other building features shall not apply towards the fire lane accessibility requirements of Section 4.0, Table 5-1 in this chapter. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.8) 11. All access roadways shall be paved and be a minimum of 20 feet clear width for two-way traffic and 14 feet clear width for one-way traffic. The paved width of access roadway shall be measured from edge of parking spaces, or face of curb for vertical curb and back of curb for mountable curb, or edge of pavement if there is no curbing.(2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 5.2) 50

Item 2. 12. Multiple Access Roads shall be provided when a fire department access road (fire lane) is determined by the Fire Marshal to be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access such as placement of fire hose from fire equipment. 13. 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. 14. Speed Reduction Devices must be approved, please see City of Dover Ordinance Chapter 98-10 in reference to this process. 15. Gated Areas: Fire Department access shall be provided to the property through the use of a system or device approved by the Fire Marshal. The system or device required shall be located in an area accessible to the fire department and approved by the Fire Marshal. All gates shall be either automatic or manual. An automated system shall consist of one manual and one automated means to open the gate. The owner or their representative shall meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submission to agree on the system. A letter of agreement shall be created and signed by both parties. The letter shall include a detailed description of both the manual and automated means. A manual gate shall consist of one manual means to open the gate. The owner or their representative shall meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submission to agree on the means to open. A letter of agreement shall be created and signed by both parties. The letter shall include a detailed description of the manual means to open. To be considered accessible for fire department apparatus the actual clear openings shall be not less than 14 feet, the paved surface through the gate shall be not less than 12 feet, and the gate shall be setback from the perpendicular street by at least 50 feet. Please contact this office to discuss options available to comply with this requirement. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 5, 2.6) 16. NFPA 72 compliant Fire Alarm System TBD (see NFPA 101, 42.3.4). 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. 51

Item 2. (City Code of Ordinances 46-171) 17. If there is any type of rack storage, the following will be required: 1) a diagram showing the layout and type of rack system 2) a list and quantity of items being stored 3) a letter from an authorized/licensed fire suppression contractor stating that in rack sprinklers are or are not needed. If in rack sprinklers are not needed, a letter may be requested from an authorized/licensed fire suppression contractor to ensure that the sprinkler system is adequate for the storage presented. 18. 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) 19. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, color, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals. Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, 52

Item 2. 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) 20. TBD 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) Knox Box to be mounted 6 feet above ground level 21. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan. 22. Full building and fire plan review is required. 23. 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”. 53

Item 2. 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. 24. Construction or renovations cannot be started until building plans are approved. 25. 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. 26. Building cannot be occupied by the public until a Certificate of Occupancy is obtained. 27. The following is City Ordinance, Appendix B-Zoning, Article 8 Enforcement and Penalties: Section 1. - Building permits. No building or structure in any district shall be erected or structurally altered without a building permit duly issued upon application to the building inspector. No building permit shall be issued unless the proposed construction or use is in full conformity with all the provisions of this ordinance. Any building permit issued in violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall be null and void and of no effect, without the necessity for any proceedings for revocations or nullification thereof, and any work undertaken or use established pursuant to any such permit shall be unlawful (see section 4 for penalties). 1.1 No building permit shall be issued for the construction or alteration of any building upon a lot without frontage upon, or legal permanent access to, a public street improved to the satisfaction of the planning commission, or without access to a public sewer. 1.2 No building permit shall be issued for any building where the site development plan of such building is subject to approval by the planning commission, except upon approval of such plans approved by the said commission. 1.21 No building permit shall be issued for any building in a subdivision unless the subdivision plot has been approved by the planning commission. 1.3 No building permit shall be issued for a building to be used for any conditional use in any zone where such use is allowed only with approval of the planning commission, unless and until such approval has been duly granted by the said commission. (Ord. of 7-12-1993, § 3) ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. Please confirm that the 3’ between the two buildings is in compliance with the building and fire code. 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. 54

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Stoltzfus Warehouse at College Park Dr. FILE#: S-24-10 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Brian Williams 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 applicant is required to schedule a pre-submittal meeting with DelDOT 55

Item 2. KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1679 SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY • DOVER, DELAWARE 19901• (302) 608-5370 • WWW.KENTCD.ORG CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY July 2024 APPLICATION: Stoltzfus Warehouse at 1285 College Park Drive FILE #: S-24-10 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: Jared Adkins PHONE: (302) 608 – 5370 EMAIL: stormwater@kentcd.org THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: 2019 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. As the disturbance for this site exceeds 5,000 square feet but is less than 1 acre, a standard erosion and sediment control plan must be reviewed and approved by the District prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grubbing, filling, grading, etc.) taking place. 2. Please provide Kent Conservation District with the following: a. A completed and signed Standard Plan Application for Non-Residential Construction. b. Standard plan application fee. c. Two (2) hard copies of the plan set that is signed/sealed by the design engineer and has the Sediment & Stormwater Owners Certification signed by the owner. d. One (1) electronic PDF of the construction plan set that contains the erosion and sediment control plan that is signed/sealed by the design engineer and has the Sediment & Stormwater Owners Certification signed by the owner. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. This parcel is served by an existing stormwater facility in the rear western corner. This facility was sized for future expansion when originally constructed. Although the facility is in good shape, the outlet end of the outfall pipe is obstructed and needs to be cleared. 2. Standard Plan Application, fee schedule, and plan review checklists may be downloaded from the Kent Conservation District website www.kentcd.org/services/sediment-stormwater/design-permitting. 3. A letter of no objection to construction will be provided upon approval of the Standard Plan Application for Non-Residential Construction. 56

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER Dover/Kent DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Metropolitan APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY Planning D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 7/3/2024 Organization S-24-10 Stoltzfus Warehouse at 1285 College Park Drive FILE # S-24-10 REVIEWING AGENCY: Dover/Kent County MPO CONTACT PERSON: Malcolm Jacob PHONE #: (302) 387-6030 Issues of concern to the MPO are effective transit, reducing the amount of vehicle emissions by shortening or eliminating trips, and facilities for alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian access. The MPO considers the bicycle facilities required by the City of Dover to be the standard for all applications, not to be waived. City of Dover Planning Commission Site Development Plan Review S-24-10 Stoltzfus Warehouse at 1285 College Park Drive The MPO has no objections to the current site plan. The applicant requested several waivers regarding upright curbing, sidewalks, and additional parking. Given that College Park Drive is a privately maintained, low-traffic road, and that the existing warehouse already contains sidewalks, these waivers are expected to have little impact on the property’s overall safety and accessibility. 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. 57

Item 2. June 7, 2024 City of Dover Planning Department P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903-0475 Attn: Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP RE: Stoltzfus Warehouse Preliminary Site Plan – Curb Waiver Tax Map No: 2-05-06700-02-1202-00001 1285 College Park Dr, Dover, DE Dear Ms. Melson-Williams: On behalf of our client, Stoltzfus, LLC., we request a waiver from the requirement to curb the parking lot under Appendix B, Article VI Section 3.6B of the City code. The site plan is for a second warehouse building on the property. The property's original stormwater design and stormwater management feature accounted for the imperviousness proposed under this site plan. The original stormwater design did not include a curb. Stormwater runoff treatment is handled via sheet flow through grassed areas. We request this curb waiver to limit the concentration of stormwater runoff. This will help with the long- term function of the stormwater feature on the site. Many nearby businesses in the College Business Park also do not have curbed parking lots. Please call me with any questions or concerns at (302) 841-7901. Dave Heatwole, PE | Principal Z:\PROJECTS\Stoltzfus, John\24-436 - College Park Dr Warehouse\Record Documents\City of Dover\240607 - Preliminary Site Plan\Fillable\7 - Curb Waiver Request.docx 58

Item 2. June 7, 2024 City of Dover Planning Department P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903-0475 Attn: Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP RE: Stoltzfus Warehouse Preliminary Site Plan – Parking Waiver Tax Map No: 2-05-06700-02-1202-00001 1285 College Park Dr, Dover, DE Dear Ms. Melson-Williams: On behalf of our client, Stoltzfus, LLC., we request a waiver from the parking required under Appendix B, Article IV Section 4.16 of the City code from one space for every 800 sf of building to one space for every 1,375 sf of building. The City Code requires 19 parking spaces. The existing warehouse has 12 spaces. We propose converting one of the spaces into a van-accessible ADA parking space, leaving 11 spaces. The 11 parking spaces are more than adequate for the warehouse use. Five employees work at the site; no additional employees are needed for the proposed warehouse space. This warehouse is not open to the public. The reduction in required parking spaces will reduce impervious areas and have the environmental benefits of additional groundwater recharge and less stormwater runoff. Please call me with any questions or concerns at (302) 841-7901. Dave Heatwole, PE | Principal Z:\PROJECTS\Stoltzfus, John\24-436 - College Park Dr Warehouse\Record Documents\City of Dover\240607 - Preliminary Site Plan\Fillable\7 - Parking Space Waiver Request.docx 59

Item 2. June 7, 2024 City of Dover Planning Department P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903-0475 Attn: Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP RE: Stoltzfus Warehouse Preliminary Site Plan – Pedestrian Access Waiver Request Tax Map No: 2-05-06700-02-1202-00001 1285 College Park Dr, Dover, DE Dear Ms. Melson-Williams: On behalf of our client, Stoltzfus, LLC., we request a waiver from the requirement to provide a sidewalk along the cul-de-sac at the end of College Park Drive. College Park Drive is a private street and not subject to through traffic. Pedestrian traffic can cross the street to the sidewalk on Parcel D, which is directly adjacent to where the sidewalk ends on our site. Under the principle of least resistance, pedestrian traffic between the two properties will cross the street instead of walking on the sidewalk around the cul-de-sac. Please call me with any questions or concerns at (302) 841-7901. Dave Heatwole, PE | Principal Z:\PROJECTS\Stoltzfus, John\24-436 - College Park Dr Warehouse\Record Documents\City of Dover\240607 - Preliminary Site Plan\Fillable\7 - Pedestrian Access Waiver Request.docx 60

Item 2. July 8, 2024 City of Dover Planning Department P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903-0475 Attn: Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP RE: Stoltzfus Warehouse Preliminary Site Plan – Opaque Barrier Tax Map No: 2-05-06700-02-1202-00001 1285 College Park Dr, Dover, DE Dear Ms. Melson-Williams: On behalf of our client, Stoltzfus, LLC., we request a waiver from the requirement to install the opaque barrier under Appendix B, Article V Section 7.21 of the City code along the adjacent residentially zoned property north of the site. We propose utilizing the existing woods along this property line to satisfy the landscaping requirement under Appendix B, Article V Section 7.22. In order to install an opaque barrier, it would be necessary to remove existing mature trees along the property line, thus removing some of the buffer between the commercial and residential uses. The adjacent residential parcel is substantially wooded, and there are no residences on the property. The commercial businesses at 1281 and 1283 College Park Drive also abut the residential parcel in question, so the omission of the opaque buffer will not alter the character of the existing community. Please call me with any questions or concerns at (302) 841-7901. Dave Heatwole, PE | Principal Z:\PROJECTS\Stoltzfus, John\24-436 - College Park Dr Warehouse\Record Documents\City of Dover\240607 - Preliminary Site Plan\Fillable\7 - Opaque Barrier Waiver Request.docx 61

Item 2. June 6, 2024 City of Dover Department of Planning and Inspections P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903-0475 Attn: Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP RE: Performance Standard Review Application Stoltzfus Warehouse Tax Map No: 2-05-06700-02-1202-00001 1285 College Park Dr, Dover, DE Dear Ms. Melson-Williams: On behalf of our client, Stoltzfus, LLC; we submit this Performance Standard Review as a supplement to the Application for Site Development Plan Approval for the Stoltzfus Warehouse project on Parcel I of the College Business Park. The project involves the construction of a 5,120 SF warehouse with associated access. Section 8.51 – Fire and Explosion Hazards: The proposed warehouse will not contain any fire or explosion hazards. The building will be fitted with fire extinguishers and marked in accordance with the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations. Section 8.52 – Radioactivity or Electromagnetic Disturbance: Not applicable, the proposed warehouse will not contain or produce radioactive material or electromagnetic disturbances. Section 8.53 – Noise: Not applicable, the proposed warehouse will not generate any noise beyond what is consistent with a warehousing or distribution use. Section 8.54 – Vibration: Not applicable, the proposed warehouse will not generate any discernable vibrations. It handles and sells parts. Section 8.55 – Smoke: Not applicable, the proposed warehouse is not intended for manufacturing and will not generate smoke resulting from manufacturing processes. Section 8.56 – Odors: Not applicable, the proposed warehouse will not generate odorous gases or other offensive smells. Section 8.57 – Fly Ash, Dust, Fumes, Gases, and other forms of Air Pollution: Not applicable - Manufacturing is not proposed in the warehouse. Consequently, the project will not generate any of the aforementioned forms of air pollution. 62

Item 2. Page 2 of 2 Section 8.58 – Glare: All lighting will be downward screened to eliminate glare on adjacent properties, and it will be in accordance with the City of Dover lighting requirements. Section 8.59 – Liquid or Solid Wastes: The warehouse will not generate manufacturing or industrial waste that will need to be hauled off-site or discharged into the City’s wastewater system. The existing warehouse has a standard sewer connection. A separate sewer connection is not proposed because the new warehouse will not have an office. The two buildings will function as a single unit with one tenant. Section 8.60 – Traffic Congestion: Not applicable. The proposed warehouse parcel is part of an existing approved business park subdivision. The proposed warehouse space is using only a small portion of the College Business Park, and it is expected to generate a relatively insignificant amount of traffic. The private subdivision street connects to College Road which is a DelDOT maintained roadway. However, the entrance was designed for full buildout of the subdivision. We understand that the total site trips for the subdivision have not been reached. Therefore, we do not anticipate any additional improvements to the entrance of College Road. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns at (302) 841-7901. Dave Heatwole, PE | Principal Z:\PROJECTS\Stoltzfus, John\24-436 - College Park Dr Warehouse\Record Documents\City of Dover\240607 - Preliminary Site Plan\Fillable\8 - Stoltzfus Warehouse - Performance Standards 3.2.23.docx 63

Item 2. D HR FLOODPLAIN (TYP.) OUG B OR SCA R STOLTZFUS WAREHOUSE CITY OF DOVER MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY BLUELINE STREAM (TYP.) PROP. SITE PROP. SITE WETLANDS (TYP.) PO BOX 2 | 39 COMMERCE ST, HARRINGTON, DE 19952 Phone: (302) 841-7901 PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS CO LL EG E PA RK DR OLL EG E R D OLL C C EG CKE E M K E R D PA R R. D RD RECORD PLAN COVER SHEET E G LL E CO WETLANDS & FLOOD MAP LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1" = 1000' SCALE: 1" = 500' PANEL # 10001C0166H DATE: 5/5/2003 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED HkB PROPERTY LINE / RIGHT OF WAY ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE LO SacB BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE SITE EASEMENT + + + + + + + + CENTER LINE OF ROAD EAST DOVER HUNDRED, CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE PROP. SITE EDGE OF PAVING HbB SacC CURB FgcA PROPOSED WAREHOUSE DRIVEWAY CONTOURS SacB SWALE > > > > > > STOLTZFUS WAREHOUSE LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION LOC LOC LOC LOC WETLANDS LINE AND FLAG EXISTING NW NW NW WAREHOUSE (2017 DNREC) FLOODPLAIN HkB TAX PARCEL NO. 2-05-067.00-02-12.02 SOILS/DESIGNATION HbB SOIL BORING FacA WOODS FENCE X X X X X X X X SOILS MAP DR SCALE: 1" = 500' SIDEWALK RK SYMBOL NAME SOIL GROUP PA FacA FALLSINGTON SANDY LOAMS, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES, MID-ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN C/D SHARED USE PATH E EG FgcA FALLSINGTON LOAMS, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES, MID-ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN C/D LL HbB HAMBROOK SANDY LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES B BUILDING CO HkB HAMBROOK-URBAN LAND COMPLEX, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES B LO LONGMARSH AND INDIANTOWN SOILS, FREQUENTLY FLOODED B/D SacB SASSAFRASS SANDY LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES, MID-ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN B UTILITY POLE/GUY WIRE SacC SASSAFRASS SANDY LOAM, 5 TO 10 PERCENT SLOPES, MID-ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN B 0 60' 120' SITE OVERVIEW COLLEGE PARK DRIVE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC OHE OHE OHE CABLE TV, PEDESTAL OR HAND HOLE TRAFFIC SIGN SCALE: 1" = 60' SINGLE & TWIN HEAD SITE LIGHT RD IO (OPEN SPACE, ELECTRICAL HAND HOLE ROU CONSERVATION, GH RECREATION) Z:\PROJECTS\Stoltzfus, John\24-436 - College Park Dr Warehouse\Design\Plot\24-436 - Record Plan Cover Sheet.dwg PLOTTED:6/7/2024 7:05 AM , BY:Dave Heatwole PLOTSTYLE:_SiteWorks-ENG.ctb AND TRANSFORMER RBO FIBER OPTIC HAND HOLE SCA IO FH FH CITY OF DOVER (INSTITUTIONAL) WATER MAIN, FIRE HYDRANT, MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY V VALVE, SERVICE ASSEMBLY, AND W W W W W W W W METER PIT RG-2 SEWER MAIN, MAHNOLE, & CLEANOUT S S MH C.O. S S MH C.O. INDEX OF DRAWINGS SC AR B (RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENISTY) RG-5 (RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENISTY) O UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC E E E E Sheet Number Sheet Title OR PROP. SITE H M (MANUFACTURING) UNDERGROUND GAS GAS GAS GAS RP-1 UG R-20 RECORD PLAN COVER SHEET (RESIDENTIAL RD LOW ISSUE / REVISION BLOCK UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC FO FO FO RP-2 RECORD PLAN DENISTY) CPO (OFFICE) 6/7/24 - CITY OF DOVER TELEPHONE LINE T T T T EX-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN STORM WATER PIPE, MH, AND CB FP-1 FIRE PROTECTION PLAN C RG-2 O (RESIDENTIAL LP-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN EG MEDIUM DENISTY) LL E D RAILROAD ROS (OPEN IO R R SPACE, PA EG E (INSTITUTIONAL) K CONERVATION, D LL R C RECREATION) O M C KE RG-5 E R D (RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENISTY) GENERAL NOTES: PROJECT TEAM R-8 (RESIDENTIAL C-2A (OFFICE) MEDIUM DENISTY) C-2A (COMMERCIAL - HIGH INTENSITY) M (PUBLIC & PRIVATE UTILITES) R-10 1. ALL KNOWN EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE PLAN; HOWEVER, THIS SURVEY DOES NOT VERIFY TO THE LOCATION OWNER/DEVELOPER (RESIDENTIAL IO IPM (INDUSTIAL) AND/OR EXISTENCE OF EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS OF WAY CROSSING SUBJECT PROPERTY. STOLTZFUS, LLC LOW DENISTY) (INSTITUTIONAL) JOHN STOLTZFUS 2. THE ITEMS DEPICTED ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE AND OUTLINE PURPOSES ONLY. THE GENERAL 1406 B FORREST AVE CALL Miss Utility of Delmarva LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF ITEMS DEPICTED ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN MAY BE SUPERCEDED BY APPROVED / REVISED CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, BUILDING PERMIT DRAWINGS AND OTHER MODIFICATIONS THERETO DOVER, DE 19904 (302) 672-0984 BEFORE YOU DIG ZONING MAP APPROVED BY THE AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION AT THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE DEVELOPER INCLUDING EMAIL: emma@stoltzfusm.com SCALE: 1" = 1000' THE DEVELOPER'S SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. SITE PLANER, ENGINEER, AND SURVEYOR 800-282-8555 or 811 3. ALL LIGHTING SHALL BE DOWNWARD SCREENED TO MINIMIZE GLARE ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. SITEWORKS ENGINEERING 39 COMMERCE STREET 4. A SEPARATE SIGN PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL SIGNS. HARRINGTON, DE 19952 (302) 841-7901 5. KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF PERIODIC EMAIL: dave.heatwole@siteworkseng.com ENGINEERS CERTIFICATION OWNER'S CERTIFICATION SITE REVIEWS. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT I AM A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND SHOWN KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT DELAWARE, THAT THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION, ON THIS PLAN, THAT THE PLAN WAS MADE AT MY DIRECTION, THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME TO BE 6. KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, MODIFY, OR DELETE ANY EROSION OR SEDIMENT 1679 S DUPONT HWY AND TO MY BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF REPRESENTS GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES AS MY ACT, AND DESIRE THE PLAN TO BE DEVELOPED AS SHOWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CONTROL MEASURE, AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY. DOVER, DE 19901 REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. LAWS AND REGULATIONS. (302) 608-5370 7. THE OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ALL STORMWATER FACILITIES. EMAIL: jared.adkins@delaware.gov SCALE PROJECT # DRAWN BY AS NOTED 24-436 DMH 8. KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND/OR DNREC SEDIMENT AND STORMWATER PROGRAM MAY SEEK ENFORCEMENT CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF WATER / WASTEWATER ACTION AGAINST ANY OWNER DEEMED NEGLIGENT IN FULFILLING THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 15 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA DRAWING NUMBER REQUIREMENTS OF THE DELAWARE SEDIMENT AND STORMWATER REGULATIONS DOVER, DE 19901 (302) 736-7025 EMAIL: jlyon@dover.de.us RP-1 ____________________________________________________________________________________ JOHN STOLTZFUS DATE ___________________________________________________________________________________ STOLTZFUS, LLC DAVID M. HEATWOLE, P.E. (DE LICENSE NO. #17760) DATE 1406 B FORREST AVE 39 COMMERCE STREET DOVER, DE 19904 HARRINGTON, DE 19952 (302) 672-0984 64 THIS DRAWING INCLUDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES ARE PROPRIETARY TO SITEWORKS ENGINEERING LLC. AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. © CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2024 SITEWORKS ENGINEERING, LLC.

Item 2. LANDS N/F DEL. R.R. REAL ESTATE AGENT 43 TAX MAP : 2-05-57.00-02-08.00-00001 RAILROAD 42 SITE DATA: PO BOX 2 | 39 COMMERCE ST, HARRINGTON, DE 19952 Phone: (302) 841-7901 CURVE TABLE 1. TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 2-05-06700-02-1202-00001 CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CORD DIST. CORD BEARING SOURCE OF TITLE: DEED BOOK 10173 / 120 43 OTHER REFERENCES: PLOT BOOK 153 / 75, PLOT BOOK 104 / 55 C1 115.92' 50.00' 132°50'22" 91.65' S60° 52' 12"W 2. PROPERTY OWNER/DEVELOPER & ADDRESS: STOLTZFUS, LLC C2 18.69' 25.00' 042°50'23" 18.26' S15° 52' 07"W 1406 B FORREST AVE DOVER, DE 19904 44 3. TOTAL LOTS / PARCELS 1 EXISTING, NO ADDITIONAL PARCELS PROPOSED 45 4. SITE AREA AND ACREAGE: 65,661 SF, 1.507 AC 5. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1285 COLLEGE PARK DR DOVER, DE 19904 PARCEL: 2-05-067.00-02-12.02-00001 44 6. HUNDRED/MUNICIPALITY: EAST DOVER HUNDRED / CITY OF DOVER NORTH N/F STOLTZFUS, LLC LANDS N/F PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD LLC & PATEL 7. THE CITY OF DOVER RESPONSIBLE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. COLLEGE PROPERTIES LLC CURRENT ZONING: TAX MAP : 2-05-076.08-01-45.00-00001 ZONING: RG-5 (CITY OF DOVER) 8. EXISTING ZONING: M - MANUFACTURING MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) DEED: 6009 / 140 AREA: 65,661 SF, 1.507 AC NAD 83 (STATE PLANE) 9. PRESENT USE: WAREHOUSING RECORD PLAN 10. PROPOSED USE: WAREHOUSING 11. AREA REGULATIONS: M PROPOSED 4'x4' B. R. LANDS N/F DEL. R.R. REAL ESTATE AGENT MIN. LOT AREA 0.5 AC 1.507AC CONCRETE ' TAX MAP : 2-05-076.08-01-45.00-00001 20 LOT WIDTH (FT) 100 FT 300 FT PAD L. RAILROAD LOT DEPTH (FT) 150 FT 220 FT FRONT YARD (FT) 40 FT 40 FT 42 1 00 IAL 46 43.68 43.82 S SIDE YARD (FT) 20 FT 20 FT C 0 45 2 44 L -0 NT °56 , L .00 DE 344 REAR YARD (FT) 20 FT 20 FT P A 7 I '02 C -5 ES 47" E 44 SW SIDE OR REAR YARD E E -02 R 1 44 AL 48 ADJ. RESIDENTIAL 50 FT 50 FT K 8 Y 31 C .0 IL / E EAST DOVER HUNDRED, CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE M 067 AM 56 79 B @ 26 2 R FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.5 0.2 /F - F 4 .2 8' AC LD 0. EX 43 N 05 E 11 CE G 5% .64 S 2- L D R ' 6. SS AIL 12. REQUIRED PARKING / LOADING: ' D : ING D: 45 78 43.50 44.05 N P E D 1 / 800 SF OF FLOOR AREA EXISTING 10,000 SF / 800 = 13 SPACES, PROPOSED 15,120 SF / 800 = 19 SPACES LA MA : S DE 33 G OA X N 80 1 / EMPLOYEE (LARGEST SHIFT IF GREATER THAN PARKING REQUIREMENT ABOVE) I E TA ON 9" % 45 ' NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES: 5 EXISTING EMPLOYEES, NONE PROPOSED. 0.5 45 46 64 Z °1 ' 7'0 @ 44 E 48 37 AL REQUIRED PARKING SPACES 19 SPACES ' 00 N SW 3. 45 5' EXISTING SPACES 12 SPACES PROPOSED 21.3 PROPOSED SPACES 11 SPACES (VARIANCE REQUIRED) 43.25 IN E 44 5,120 S.F. 44.28 IPL WAREHOUSE PROPOSED LOADING: 2 SPACES STOLTZFUS WAREHOUSE R 45 E XD F.F. ± 45.30 45 BICYCLE PARKING: 1 SPACE REQUIRED FOR EVERY 20 VEHICLE PARKING SPACES. 40 13 VEHICLE SPACES PROVIDED, 1 BICYCLE SPACE REQUIRED. 1 PROVIDED EX WALL MOUNT 00' 47 DUMPSTER LIGHT, TYP GA ' 16. 45 43 80 ENCLOSURE 43.00 ' DO RAG X WITH 6' VINYL B OR E 13. MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED: 60.0-FEET AC LD X 46 FENCE TAX PARCEL NO. 2-05-067.00-02-12.02 0' L. 80 CE G 64 PROPOSED HEIGHT: 21-FEET TO ROOF PEAK, 18-FEET TO EAVE R. 5 ' SS X S 64°51'57" E 41 B. 45 19 .0 45 14. LOT COVERAGE CHART (85% ALLOWABLE) 0' 0.39' 42 5' EXISTING PROPOSED PE 45 0.403 AC (26.7%) 0.552 AC (36.6%) D. ' 40 AC 5' 00 CE 15. EASEMENTS ALL KNOWN EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 39 12 3. .7 S 37°17'09" W 8.45' 2' SS 43 C K C1 16. WATER, SEWER, & ELECTRIC SUPPLIER: CITY OF DOVER EX 10,000 S.F. U -2 WAREHOUSE TR CK ING S EX DO AD CE 17. GAS SERVICE PROVIDER: CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES, INC. F.F. ± 45.30' LO SPA 44 4040 18. SANITATION: PRIVATE HAULER EX DRY 42 44 DETENTION 44 19. FEMA FLOOD MAP: THE SITE IS NOT IMPACTED BY THE 100-YEAR FLOOD EVENT PER FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 40 41 BASIN 43 K 12 5' AL NUMBER 10001C0166H DATED MAY 5, 2003). 41 W G D CE EX EDGE OF 43 E 42 42 SI D BL AN EX HVAC 42 20. 2020 STATE INVESTMENT AREA: LEVEL 1 EX EX NTR PAVEMENT E AG E AR R 21. LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE STATE PLANE COORDINATES: 41 41 G OO EX D ' 40 LATITUDE: N 39° 18' 16" 40 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE L. R. LONGITUDE: W 75° 55' 33" B. C2 45 80 ' K 44 22. WETLAND & WATERS OF THE U.S.: 0.0 ACRES PER THE DNREC ONLINE ENVIRONMENTAL NAVIGATOR AL 3'x6' CONCRETE 41 EW 43 ID PAD FOR BICYCLE 46 23. PROPOSED DISCHARGE LOCATION: ON-SITE DRY DETENTION BASIN 44 C.O. X S PARKING INV. 40.71' 40 E 24. PROXIMITY TO T.I.D.: ±0.8 MILES TO THE CHESWOLD AREA TID (UNDER DEVELOPMENT) EX TREE, TYP. 43 45 42 42 8" EX HVAC W W 8'' 25. LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE: 0.5 ACRES PLOTSTYLE:_SiteWorks-ENG.ctb PV C 43 SE W 8'' W LANDS N/F COLLEGE PARK MANAGEMENT, LLC ER 26. SURVEY DATUM NAD 83 / NAVD 88 TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.01-00001 INV. EX ELECTRIC SE R AL K 42 ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) 41.31' METER VI C EW SS 27. WATERSHED: ST JONES RIVER DEED: D 495 / 81 E E N SI D AL 8'' 52 °4 EX WATER W EX SW ER 2'5 EX (P COL METER 1" B. AT 14 43 8'' 42 R. SE W W L. 10 EX 6. RI L R W 22 20 EX CE 84 VI VA EG ' SPACES TO 8'' 0. ' "W INV. 40.27' 00 BUSINESS ' REMAIN 'T09 41 LANDS N/F STOLTZFUS, LLC SIGN ' °1 TE E TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.06-00001 ROUND TOP .1 L P 7 25 60 Y M8''ASSR 37 ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) ISSUE / REVISION BLOCK STRIP AND SIGN VAN E DEED: 10173 / 12, Z:\PROJECTS\Stoltzfus, John\24-436 - College Park Dr Warehouse\Design\Plot\24-436 - Record Plan.dwg PLOTTED:6/7/2024 11:20 AM , BY:Dave Heatwole S 8'' AL ACCESSIBLE ADA PARKING 'R A KD 42 SW W 1" GALVANIZED EXTERIOR 6/7/24 - CITY OF DOVER SPACE PER DETAIL. (9'x18' CP .O IN R EX COARSE THREAD EYE BOLT .W TA IV EX BUILDING SPACE) 12 "R . IN E 41 T INV. ' 8'' EX TELEPHONE 40.46' 42. 6 W ED 43 44 PEDESTAL " SS ) INV. 40.34' 8'' W 18 MP T 43 EX TRANSFORMER, C 8'' TYP. 45 P.O.B. INV. 40.27' 15 "R 4"x4" DIA. GALVINIZED STEEL 41 T CP W PIPE 7' LONG, FILL WITH 3'-0" 2'-6" INV. 8'' 40.33' EX CATCH CONCRETE AND PAINT X BASIN 8'' O SAFETY YELLOW EX PARKING O AD N B LK W T O 42 1" TAPER A ± E R IZO EW SS T G F E E I R D T EN 8'' 50 LL V X S LE E 6'-0" T FINAL GRADE 4 1 O E A E M AL EX TRANSFORMER C SW AV T SW OR PAD, SEE PLAN VIEW X P EN EX 43 A B C D E 8'' E 42 O F EM W AV T E P 7" 4" G F ED O E EX FIRE NOTES / LEGEND: 8'' G 43 T SS W ED HYDRANT W CONCRETE ENCASEMENT 8'' A. F'C=4,000 PSI CONCRETE PROVIDED WITH 7% AIR-ENTRAINMENT 8'' 18" DIA. X 3'-6" DEEP 43 AL K T B. GRADED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (TYPE B CRUSHER RUN) EW D SI C. COMPACTED SUBGRADE. SUBGRADE SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 95% OF 0'-6" EX T P MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY. C W LANDS N/F DARTSWIFT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT "R 8'' TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.03-00001 18 D. GEOTEXTILE WOVEN FABRIC (CLASS 1) 8'' W ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) DEED: D 237 / 298, PLOT: 104 / 55 T S 44 E. 1 LAYER OF 6X6 - W 2.9 X 2.9 W.W.F., 2" CLEAR EX PARKING 44 F. CONTROL JOINTS, ISOLATION JOINTS, LOAD TRANSFER DEVICES, AND 18" SCALE PROJECT # DRAWN BY T REINFORCEMENT AS REQUIRED. S 44 1" = 30' 24-436 DMH W P 8'' DRAWING NUMBER RC T S 18 " EX BUILDING CONCRETE PAD DETAIL LANDS N/F STOLTZFUS LLC TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.00-00001 M EN T ZONING: COMMERCIAL/PROP OFFICE (CITY OF BICYCLE PARKING POST VE EN RP-2 LANDS N/F COLLEGE PARK MANAGEMENT, LLC NOT TO SCALE DOVER) M PA S VE TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.01-00001 8'' DEED: D10173 / 120 , PLOT: 104 / 55 F ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) NOT TO SCALE EX BUILDING O PA W 0 30' 60' E F DEED: D 495 / 81, PLOT: 104 / 55 G O W ED G E 8'' S ED 65 THIS DRAWING INCLUDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES ARE PROPRIETARY TO SITEWORKS ENGINEERING LLC. AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. © CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2024 SITEWORKS ENGINEERING, LLC.

Item 2. LA ND TA S N/ XM FD AP EL 43 : 2 . R.R - RA 05-5 . RE 42 ILR 7.0 AL PO BOX 2 | 39 COMMERCE ST, HARRINGTON, DE 19952 Phone: (302) 841-7901 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN OA 0-0 ES D 2-0 TA 8.0 TE 0-0 AG 00 EN 01 T 43 NORTH 44 45 NAD 83 (STATE PLANE) 44 LANDS N/F PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD LLC & PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES LLC TAX MAP : 2-05-076.08-01-45.00-00001 ZONING: RG-5 (CITY OF DOVER) DEED: 6009 / 140 LANDS N/F DEL. R.R. REAL ESTATE AGENT TAX MAP : 2-05-076.08-01-45.00-00001 RAILROAD 42 1 00 IAL 46 2-05-067.00-02-12.02-00001 PARCEL: C 0 L -0 NT 45 44 , L .00 DE N/F STOLTZFUS, LLC 46 P A 7 I C 2-5 ES 47 E -0 R 1 CURRENT ZONING: 48 KE 8 Y 1 C 7.0 MIL / 3 MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) EAST DOVER HUNDRED, CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE M 6 A 56 EX /F -0 F 4 43 N -05 LE 11 AREA: 65,661 SF, 1.507 AC B. R IL S 2 D RA D : G : .L. A N P SIN ED 45 AD A L M : DE 20' RO X ING TA ON Z 46 44 48 45 E IN PL RI STOLTZFUS WAREHOUSE XD 45 E 40 EX WALL MOUNT 47 LIGHT, TYP 43 46 TAX PARCEL NO. 2-05-067.00-02-12.02 0' R. 80 DUMPSTER TO L. ' BE RELOCATED 5 ' 45 40 45 41 B. .L . 42 R B. EX CONTRETE PADS 45 5' 39 12 43 C K EX 10,000 S.F. U -2 WAREHOUSE TR CK ING S F.F. ± 45.30' EX DO AD CE LO SPA 44 40 40 EX DRY 42 44 DETENTION 5' 44 40 41 BASIN 43 K 12 AL 41 EW G D CE EX EDGE OF 42 42 42 S ID BL AN EX HVAC 43 EX EX NTR PAVEMENT E AG E AR R 41 41 G OO EX D 40 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE 80 40 45 ' ' K L. 44 AL R. 41 EW B. 43 ID 46 44 C.O. X S INV. 40.71' 40 E EX TREE, TYP. 43 45 42 42 8" EX HVAC W W 8'' Z:\PROJECTS\Stoltzfus, John\24-436 - College Park Dr Warehouse\Design\Plot\24-436 - Existing Conditions Plan.dwg PLOTTED:6/7/2024 6:41 AM , BY:Dave Heatwole PLOTSTYLE:_SiteWorks-ENG.ctb PV C 43 SE W 8'' W LANDS N/F COLLEGE PARK MANAGEMENT, LLC ER TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.01-00001 INV. EX ELECTRIC SE VI AL K 42 ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) 41.31' METER R EW C SS DEED: D 495 / 81 E E 2 EX W SI D AL 8'' EX WATER SPACES ER EX SW AT B. 10 EX METER R EX 43 8'' SPACES 42 R. SE W L. EX VI (P COL C W 20 BUSINESS E 8'' ' SIGN INV. 40.27' RI L 8 T 41 VA EG '' SS LANDS N/F STOLTZFUS, LLC TE E TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.06-00001 L P ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) ISSUE / REVISION BLOCK 60 Y M AR E DEED: 10173 / 12, 8'' 'R A KD 42 AL W 6/7/24 - CITY OF DOVER CP 8'' .O IN R SW 12 W .W TA IV EX EX BUILDING "R . IN E ED 41 T INV. ) EX TELEPHONE 40.46' 43 44 PEDESTAL INV. 40.34' 8'' " SS W 18 MP T 43 EX TRANSFORMER, C 8'' TYP. 45 INV. 40.27' 15 " RC 41T P W INV. 8'' 40.33' EX CATCH X BASIN 8'' BO K W EX PARKING N AL O IZ W SS 42 ER IDE T EN 8'' V S LE E T E X A E M AL EX TRANSFORMER SW AV T SW X P EN EX 43 8'' E 42 O F V EM T W G E PA F ED O E EX FIRE 8'' G 43 T SS W ED HYDRANT W 8'' 8'' 43 AL K T EW D SI EX T P C W LANDS N/F DARTSWIFT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT R 8" 8'' 1 W TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.03-00001 8'' ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) DEED: D 237 / 298, PLOT: 104 / 55 T S 44 EX PARKING 44 T SCALE PROJECT # DRAWN BY S 44 1" = 30' 24-436 DMH W CP 8'' DRAWING NUMBER "R S 18 EX BUILDING LANDS N/F STOLTZFUS LLC T TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.00-00001 EN T ZONING: COMMERCIAL/PROP OFFICE (CITY OF EM EN EX-1 V LANDS N/F COLLEGE PARK MANAGEMENT, LLC DOVER) PA EM 0 TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.01-00001 30' 60' DEED: D10173 / 120 , PLOT: 104 / 55 S 8'' EX BUILDING O F PAV ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) W E F DEED: D 495 / 81, PLOT: 104 / 55 G O W ED G E 8'' S ED 66 THIS DRAWING INCLUDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES ARE PROPRIETARY TO SITEWORKS ENGINEERING LLC. AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. © CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2024 SITEWORKS ENGINEERING, LLC.

Item 2. LANDS N/F DEL. R.R. REAL ESTATE AGENT TAX MAP : 2-05-57.00-02-08.00-00001 RAILROAD PO BOX 2 | 39 COMMERCE ST, HARRINGTON, DE 19952 Phone: (302) 841-7901 NORTH LANDS N/F PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD LLC & PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES LLC TAX MAP : 2-05-076.08-01-45.00-00001 ZONING: RG-5 (CITY OF DOVER) DEED: 6009 / 140 FIRE PROTECTION PLAN NAD 83 (STATE PLANE) PARCEL: 2-05-067.00-02-12.02-00001 N/F STOLTZFUS, LLC LANDS N/F DEL. R.R. REAL ESTATE AGENT TAX MAP : 2-05-076.08-01-45.00-00001 CURRENT ZONING: RAILROAD MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) 1 00 AL AREA: 65,661 SF, 1.507 AC L C 00 TI - N , L .00 DE AP -57 SI C E E -02 R 1 KE .08 ILY / 31 C M 67 AM 56 79 .2 B AC LD EX /F 5-0 F 14 8' CE G N 0 E 1 RA S 2- L D SS D D : ING D: N P E OA LA MA : S DE ILR A X ING 80 T ON 64 ' ' Z EAST DOVER HUNDRED, CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE ' ' 3.00 .35 21 PROPOSED 5,120 E IN S.F. WAREHOUSE IPL DR BUILDING TYPE V-B EX EX WALL MOUNT 0 0' DUMPSTER LIGHT, TYP GA ' 16. 80 ENCLOSURE ' DO RAG X WITH 6' VINYL B OR E AC LD X STOLTZFUS WAREHOUSE CE G 64 FENCE 80 SS X ' 0' .0 19 5' PE D. TAX PARCEL NO. 2-05-067.00-02-12.02 ' 40 AC 5' 00 C 12 .7 ES 3. 2' S C K U -2 EX 10,000 S.F. TR CK ING S WAREHOUSE EX DO AD CE LO SPA 5' K 12 AL EW G D CE EX EDGE OF SI D BL AN EX HVAC EX EX NTR PAVEMENT E AG E AR R G OO EX D 80 ' AL K SITE DATA EW ID 1. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1285 COLLEGE PARK DR, DOVER, DE 19904 C.O. X S E COLLEGE PARK DRIVE 2. TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 2-05-06700-02-1202-00001 EX TREE, TYP. EX HVAC W 8'' ER 8'' 3. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS: STOLTZFUS LLC, AT W W W 1406 B FORREST AVE LANDS N/F COLLEGE PARK MANAGEMENT, LLC 8" DOVER, DE 19904 TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.01-00001 EX ELECTRIC K ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) METER AL IN G DEED: D 495 / 81 EW IS 4. SITE ENGINEER / APPLICANT: SITEWORKS ENGINEERING PLOTSTYLE:_SiteWorks-ENG.ctb D T SI EX PO BOX 2 EX WATER METER AT ER EX 39 COMMERCE STREET W 8'' HARRINGTON, DE 19952 W (P COL R SE W VI C 8'' 5. PROPOSED USE: WAREHOUSE (ZONE: M) E RI L EX BUSINESS VA EG LANDS N/F STOLTZFUS, LLC TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.06-00001 6. WATER SUPPLIER: CITY OF DOVER SIGN TE E ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) L P 60 Y M AR DEED: 10173 / 12, 8'' 7. MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: ±21.0 FT TO PEAK, ± 18' TO EAVE W 'R A KD .O IN R 8. PROPOSED BUILDING CONSTRUCTION: TYPE V-B UNPROTECTED NON-COMBUSTIBLE EX BUILDING .W TA IV IN E Z:\PROJECTS\Stoltzfus, John\24-436 - College Park Dr Warehouse\Design\Plot\24-436 - Fire Protection Plan.dwg PLOTTED:6/7/2024 11:27 AM , BY:Dave Heatwole 8'' . W ED ISSUE / REVISION BLOCK ) 8'' W 6/7/24 - CITY OF DOVER EX TRANSFORMER, TYP. W K 8'' 8'' W NOTES EX PARKING AL EW T 1. ALL FIRE LANES, FIRE HYDRANTS, AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BE D SI EN E MARKED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE FIRE PREVENTION REGULATIONS. EX M AL EX TRANSFORMER VE T SW PA EN 2. THIS STRUCTURE WILL NOT BE PROTECTED WITH AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS IN 8'' F M EX ACCORDANCE WITH THE DELAWARE STATE FIRE PREVENTION REGULATIONS AND W O AVE E P NFPA 13. G F ED O EX. FIRE E 8'' G HYDRANT W ED W 8'' K AL EW D SI EX P C W LANDS N/F DARTSWIFT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT " R 8'' TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.03-00001 18 8'' W ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) DEED: D 237 / 298, PLOT: 104 / 55 EX PARKING W P 8'' " RC 0 30' 60' 18 EX BUILDING LANDS N/F STOLTZFUS LLC T TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.00-00001 EN T ZONING: COMMERCIAL/PROP OFFICE (CITY OF SCALE PROJECT # DRAWN BY V EM EN LANDS N/F COLLEGE PARK MANAGEMENT, LLC DOVER) PA V EM TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.01-00001 8'' DEED: D10173 / 120 , PLOT: 104 / 55 1" = 30' 24-436 DMH F ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) EX BUILDING O PA W DRAWING NUMBER E F DEED: D 495 / 81, PLOT: 104 / 55 G O W ED G E 8'' ED FP-1 67 THIS DRAWING INCLUDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES ARE PROPRIETARY TO SITEWORKS ENGINEERING LLC. AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. © CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2024 SITEWORKS ENGINEERING, LLC.

Item 2. SITE DATA: 1. PROPERTY OWNER & ADDRESS: STOLTZFUS, LLC 1406 B FORREST AVE LANDS N/F DEL. R.R. REAL ESTATE AGENT 43 DOVER, DE 19904 TAX MAP : 2-05-57.00-02-08.00-00001 RAILROAD 2. DEVELOPER: STOLTZFUS, LLC 42 1406 B FORREST AVE DOVER, DE 19904 PO BOX 2 | 39 COMMERCE ST, HARRINGTON, DE 19952 Phone: (302) 841-7901 (302) 672-0984 3. DESIGN PROFESSIONAL CONTACT INFO: DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC. 1 PARK AVENUE 43 MILFORD, DE 19963 (410) 543-9091 4. PARCEL AND ACREAGE: PARCEL 2-05-06700-02-1202-00001: 1.507 ACRES 5. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1285 COLLEGE PARK DR, DOVER, DE 19904 44 6. EXISTING ZONING: M - MANUFACTURING 45 7. PRESENT USE: WAREHOUSING 8. NO EXISTING WETLANDS PER THE DNREC ONLINE ENVIRONMENTAL NAVIGATOR 9. EXISTING WOODLANDS ON THE SITE = 0.2 AC. 44 10. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS NORTH LANDS N/F PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD LLC & PATEL TREE DENSITY: COLLEGE PROPERTIES LLC REQUIRED: 22 = 65,661 SF / 3,000 SF TAX MAP : 2-05-076.08-01-45.00-00001 1 TREE PER 3,000 SF OF DEVELOPMENT AREA PARCEL: 2-05-067.00-02-12.02-00001 ZONING: RG-5 (CITY OF DOVER) EXISTING: 22 TREES LANDSCAPE PLAN DEED: 6009 / 140 N/F STOLTZFUS, LLC NAD 83 (STATE PLANE) NOTE: ALL TREES SHALL HAVE A ONE-YEAR REPLACEMENT GUARANTEE. CURRENT ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) AREA: 65,661 SF, 1.507 AC LANDS N/F DEL. R.R. REAL ESTATE AGENT TAX MAP : 2-05-076.08-01-45.00-00001 RAILROAD 42 L 1 00 AL C 00 TI - N 46 45 44 LANDSCAPING NOTES , L .00 DE 46 AP -57 SI 47 1. QUALITY AND SIZE OF PLANTS, SPREAD OF ROOTS, AND SIZE OF BALLS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE C E CURRENT STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN "AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR E -02 R 1 48 KE .08 ILY / 31 NURSERY STOCK". C 79 M 67 AM 56 B R EAST DOVER HUNDRED, CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE /F 5-0 F 14 .2 8' AC LD EX 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO GUARANTEE ALL PLANT MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR 43 N 0 E 1 CE G S 2- L D EXISTING SS RO AFTER INSTALLATION IS COMPLETE AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PHASE I SITE WORK HAS BEEN GIVEN. AT THE D : ING D: 45 WOODLAND AIL END OF ONE YEAR ALL PLANT MATERIAL WHICH IS DEAD OR DYING SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE N P E LA MA : S DE AREA = 0.2 AC AD CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE AS ORIGINALLY SPECIFIED. A X ING 80 T ON 64 ' ' 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO UTILITIES AND MAY MAKE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS Z 46 IN SPACING AND/OR LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIALS. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY "AS BUILT" LOCATION OF ALL 44 ' 00 48 UTILITIES. 3. 45 ' .35 4. NO SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE OWNER AND THE CITY OF DOVER'S PROPOSED 21 PLANNING OFFICE. IN E 5,120 S.F. IPL WAREHOUSE 5. ALL AREAS NOT STABILIZED IN PAVING OR PLANT MATERIALS SHOULD BE SEEDED AND MULCHED. (SEE EXISTING TREES DR 45 STOLTZFUS WAREHOUSE MEETING WITH CITY'S EX F.F. ± 45.30 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN.) 40 TREE DEFINITION, TYP. 6. EVERGREEN TREES SHALL HAVE A FULL, WELL-BRANCHED, CONICAL FORM TYPICAL OF THE SPECIES. EX WALL MOUNT 00' 47 DUMPSTER LIGHT, TYP GA ' 16. 43 80 ENCLOSURE 7. ALL DECIDUOUS SHADE TREES SHALL BRANCH A MINIMUM OF 12'-0" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL. TREES SHALL BE ' DO RAG X WITH 6' VINYL PLANTED AND STAKED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAKING DETAIL SHOWN. B OR E AC LD X CE G 64 46 FENCE TAX PARCEL NO. 2-05-067.00-02-12.02 80 8. THE FULL EXTENT OF ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL RECEIVE 4" OF TOPSOIL AND 3" 0F BARK MULCH PER ' SS X SPECIFICATIONS. 41 45 19 0' 45 .0 42 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY ALL PLANT MATERIALS IN QUANTITIES SUFFICIENT TO COMPLETE THE PLANTINGS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING AND AS SPECIFIED. 5' PE 45 D. 10. ALL PLANTS SHALL BEAR THE SAME RELATIONSHIP TO FINISHED GRADE AS THE PLANT'S ORIGINAL GRADE ' 40 AC BEFORE DIGGING. 5' 00 C 39 12 3. .7 ES 2' S 43 11. THE CONTRACTOR IS EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN PLANTINGS, INCLUDING WATERING ALL PLANTS ANY TIME FROM K APRIL TO DECEMBER WHEN NATURAL RAINFALL IS LESS THAN ONE INCH PER WEEK. EX 10,000 S.F. C U -2 WAREHOUSE TR CK ING S EX DO AD CE F.F. ± 45.30' LO SPA 44 40 40 EX DRY 42 44 DETENTION 44 40 41 BASIN 43 K 12 5' AL 41 W G D CE EX EDGE OF 43 E 42 42 SI D BL AN EX HVAC 42 EX EX NTR PAVEMENT E AG E AR R 41 41 G OO EX D 40 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE 80 45 ' K 44 AL 41 EW 43 ID 46 C.O. X S INV. 40.71' 40 E EX TREE, TYP. 43 45 42 42 8" EX HVAC W PV 43 PLOTSTYLE:_SiteWorks-ENG.ctb C LANDS N/F COLLEGE PARK MANAGEMENT, LLC TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.01-00001 INV. EX ELECTRIC AL K 42 ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) 41.31' METER DEED: D 495 / 81 EW E SI D AL EX SW EX 43 42 (P COL RI L INV. 40.27' EX T 41 VA EG LANDS N/F STOLTZFUS, LLC BUSINESS TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.06-00001 SIGN TE E ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) L P ISSUE / REVISION BLOCK 60 Y M AR E DEED: 10173 / 12, 42 AL Z:\PROJECTS\Stoltzfus, John\24-436 - College Park Dr Warehouse\Design\Plot\24-436 - Landscape Plan.dwg PLOTTED:6/7/2024 12:31 PM , BY:Dave Heatwole P 'R A KD SW 6/7/24 - CITY OF DOVER RC .O IN R EX EX BUILDING 12 " .W TA IV 41 IN E T INV. . EX TELEPHONE 40.46' ED 43 44 PEDESTAL " ) INV. 40.34' 18 MP T 43 EX TRANSFORMER, C TYP. 45 INV. 40.27' 15 "R 41T CP INV. 40.33' EX CATCH X BASIN BO K EX PARKING N AL O IZ EW 42 R D T VE SI T E EN E EX AL M AL EX TRANSFORMER W E T V SW 43 S PA EN EX 2 F EM EX T 4 O V G E PA F ED O E G 43 T ED 43 AL K T EW D SI EX T P C LANDS N/F DARTSWIFT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT " R TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.03-00001 18 ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) 0 30' 60' DEED: D 237 / 298, PLOT: 104 / 55 T 44 EX PARKING 44 T 44 SCALE PROJECT # DRAWN BY 1" = 30' 24-436 DMH P " RC DRAWING NUMBER 18 EX BUILDING LANDS N/F STOLTZFUS LLC T TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.00-00001 EN T ZONING: COMMERCIAL/PROP OFFICE (CITY OF M VE EN LANDS N/F COLLEGE PARK MANAGEMENT, LLC DOVER) EX BUILDING ED G E O F PA ED G E O F PAV EM TAX MAP : 2-05-067.00-02-12.01-00001 ZONING: MANUFACTURING (CITY OF DOVER) DEED: D 495 / 81, PLOT: 104 / 55 DEED: D10173 / 120 , PLOT: 104 / 55 LP-1 68 THIS DRAWING INCLUDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES ARE PROPRIETARY TO SITEWORKS ENGINEERING LLC. AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. © CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2024 SITEWORKS ENGINEERING, LLC.

Item 2. REVISIONS BY 1 2 3 4 3'-0" 64'-0" 8" 63'-4" 1'-0" 1'-0" 20'-0" 21'-4" 20'-0" A B C D E PRELIMINARY REINF. CONC. PAD 8" CMU FIREWALL BEYOND NOT FOR 2'-0" 3070 CONSTRUCTION E MT'L WALL PANEL 4'-0" WAINSCOT 19'-7" 18'-0" D METAL WALL PANEL WAINSCOT PAINTED IN CONTRASTING COLOR 8" CMU FIREWALL 19'-8" WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING BUILDING 80'-0" C NEW WAREHOUSE 1 2 3 4 19'-8" NEW 5120 S.F. POLE FRAMED BUILDING FOR 2'-0" SID HARVEY BUILDING B MT'L ROOF PANEL MT'L WALL PANEL 8" CMU EXISTING FIREWALL 19'-7" BUILDING MT'L WALL PANEL 4'-0" WAINSCOT 18'-0" 1285 COLLEGE PARK DR. 14'-0" X 14'-0" O.H. DOOR A 2'-0" 3070 DH3050 METAL WALL PANEL WAINSCOT REINF. CONC. APRON PAINTED IN CONTRASTING COLOR DOVER, DE 19904 FLOOR PLAN SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1/8" = 1'-0" PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLAN AND SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS DRAWN R.K.L., WHL CHECKED W.B. DATE 6 JUNE 2024 SCALE NOTED JOB NO. C1629-0623 SHEET A1 OF SHEETS 69

Item 3. By-Laws of the Planning Commission of the City of Dover Objectives Section 1 The objectives and purposes of the Planning Commission of the City of Dover, Delaware, are those set forth in Chapter 7, Title 22 of the Delaware Code annotated, and amendments, supplements, thereto, and those powers and duties delegated to the Planning Commission by the City Council of the City of Dover pursuant to state statute. Powers, Duties and Procedures Section 2 The duties, powers and procedures of the Planning Commission be as set forth in the following documents: (a) The resolution of the City Council establishing such Planning Commission; (b) The Building Zone Ordinance as to matters relating to amendments to site plan approval; (c) The Subdivision Regulations as to the review and approval of subdivision plats; (d) As to the regulations set forth herein for all other matters for which the Commission has the responsibility. Officers Section 3.1 The officers of the Planning Commission shall consist of a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Section 3.2 The Chairman shall preside at the meetings and hearings of the Planning Commission and shall have the duties usually conferred upon a presiding officer. He shall continue to exercise the prerogatives of an individual member of the Commission while performing the duties of presiding officer. Section 3.3 The Vice Chairman shall be the presiding officer in the absence of the Chairman. Recording and Corresponding Secretary Section 4 The Commission shall appoint a Secretary who shall not be a member of the Commission or an officer, and shall have the following duties and responsibilities: (a) Prepare agenda for all meetings with the Chairman and provide notice of meetings to Commission members. (b) Keep minutes of all meetings, and record of the Commission. (c) Act as agent for the Commission in receiving submissions, applications, correspondence, etc. (d) Act as agent for the Commission in arranging for notice of public hearings and notifying interested parties of Commission actions as authorized by the Commission. Official Records 70

Item 3. Section 5 The City Clerk shall be the official custodian of the records of the Commission and shall make them available to the public as provided by law. He may designate the office of the Secretary of the Commission or the Planning Office as the place where such records shall be kept. Elections of Officers Section 6.1 The officers shall be elected by the Commission at the annual organization meeting which shall be the regular scheduled meeting in July of each year. Election of officers shall be held by secret ballot. Section 6.2 A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire membership of the Planning Commission shall be declared elected and shall serve for one year or until his or her successor shall take office. Section 6.3 Vacancies in offices shall be filled by the Commission at any scheduled or special meeting. Section 6.4 The Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be limited to four consecutive one-year terms. A former Chairman or Vice Chairman who has held four consecutive terms in such position may be elected to that position after vacating the position for a period of one year. Meetings Section 7.1 The Commission shall hold one public meeting during each calendar month. Section 7.2 The monthly meeting date for the coming year shall be established by a majority of the Commission at its organization meeting of the year. The date of the public meeting can be changed during the year by a majority of the Commission Section 7.3 The Commission will receive all applications concerning matters within its jurisdiction only at its public meetings. All times to be submitted for consideration at any public meeting shall be submitted in complete and final form for Commission consideration not less than thirty days prior to said meeting. No items submitted subsequent to this time shall be placed upon the Agenda except by a majority vote of the Commission members present at such meeting. The official date of receipt of any matter presented to the Commission shall be the date of the first public meeting at which such matter is received for consideration. Any maximum time periods established by the Zoning Ordinance or other local laws limiting the time for consideration of any matter by the Planning Commission shall commence on such date of the receipt. Section 7.4 A majority of the membership of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. The Commission may act on any matter by a majority vote of such quorum. Section 7.5 All formal votes to record the decision of the Commission on any matter referred to it shall be taken only by a quorum at a public meeting. By a majority vote of those members present the Commission may convene in executive session. However, all formal votes to record the Commission’s decision shall only be taken during periods in which such meetings are open to the public. 71

Item 3. Section 7.6 Special meeting may be called by the Chairman or by a majority of the Commission, providing that not less than 24 hours notice by writing or telephone is given to each member of the Commission. Such meetings shall be executive sessions at which no formal votes shall be taken. Section 7.7 All public and special meetings shall be held in City Hall or other public facility with proper public notification. Agenda Section 8 The Secretary shall prepare the proposed Agenda for each public meeting, with the Chairman not less than ten days prior to the date of such meeting, and shall transmit a copy of the Agenda to each Commission member on such date of preparation. No items will appear on such proposed Agenda except those for which applications or written requests have been received not less than thirty days prior to the date of the public monthly meeting as set forth in Section 7 above. The Commission may amend the proposed Agenda by a majority vote of those members present. Section 9.1 The order of business at public meetings shall be as follows: (a) Roll Call. (b) Adoption of Minutes of previous meetings. (c) Approval of Agenda (d) Communications (e) Report of Officers and Committees (f) Old Business (g) New Business (h) Referrals, Administrative Reviews, Petitions, Applications and Other Matters presented by the public. Section 9.2 The order of business at special meetings shall be as determined by the Commission. Section 9.3 At all meetings and hearings attended by the public, the Chairman shall make a brief statement indicating the nature of each item on the Agenda, except that in the case of petitions, applications and other matters presented by the public, such statement shall be made by the person introducing the matter. Section 9.4 Minutes of all public and special meetings of the Commission shall form part of the records of the Commission and shall be available to the public when duly adopted by the Commission. Committees Section 10.1 There may be a Subdivision Committee appointed by the Chairman with the approval of the Commission at the annual organization meeting. It shall consist of three members who shall serve until the next annual meeting. The Chairman may make appointments to bring the committee to full strength in the event of temporary absence of committee members. Section 10.2 Other Committees may be appointed by the Chairman from time to time with the approval of the Commission. 72

Item 3. Public Hearings Section 11.1 The Commission shall hold public hearings as required by statute and applicable ordinances of the City. In addition to those required by law, the Commission may at its discretion hold public hearing when it considers that such hearings will be in the public interest. Amendments Section 12 These By-Laws may be amended at any time by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Commission. Adopted September 15, 1959 Amended November 17, 1975 Amended March 16, 1981 Amended March 19, 1981 Amended June 17, 1991 Amended January 25, 1995 Amended April 26, 1995 Amended August 16, 2010 Amended August 20, 2018 73

Item 3. Appointment of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning Commission As part of the Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission, one of the responsibilities of the Planning Commission is to appoint the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee. The following excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance is provided. Appendix B: Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 2. Site development plan approval. 2.28 Consideration shall be given to the physical orientation and architectural characteristics of proposed buildings, the relationship of proposed buildings to existing buildings and to other proposed buildings, and their contributions to the overall image of the immediate vicinity by considering the building and architectural design guidelines as set forth in article 5, section 19. Design characteristics of proposed buildings and building additions shall not detract or devalue existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. (A) If the planning commission determines that the proposed physical orientation and architectural characteristics of the proposed buildings do not meet the intent and objectives of this section, then the planning commission shall refer the proposal to the architectural review oversight subcommittee for review and comment. (B) The subcommittee shall meet and review the proposal with the applicant, and return its comments to the planning commission by the next regularly scheduled meeting. (C) The architectural review oversight subcommittee shall be appointed by the commission at its annual meeting, and membership shall consist of two planning commission members, and two design professionals with experience in construction, and the mayor or the mayor's designee. Two alternate design professionals with experience in construction shall also be appointed. At the July 17, 2023 Meeting of the Planning Commission, the following individuals were appointed to the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of Planning Commission. o Kathleen Welsh, Planning Commission member o Kenneth Roach, Planning Commission member o Mayor or Mayor’s designee The Planning Commission at their July 17, 2023 Meeting also considered the appointment two of Design Professional members to the Subcommittee pending confirmation of their availability. Planning Staff reported back to the Planning Commission confirming their availability. At the September 9, 2023 Meeting, the Planning Commission confirmed the following Design Professionals to serve on the Subcommittee. No other Design Professionals as Alternates were offered. o Dr. R.J. Chandler, Faculty member of Architecture program at DelTech Community College, Design Professional o Ms. Sarah Keifer, Director of Planning Services for Kent County, Design Professional The Planning Commission as part of their Annual Meeting must act to appoint the membership of the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee. Selection for Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee of the Planning Commission Summary for 7-2024 74