Historic District Commission Meeting Packet

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING Thursday, November 20, 2025 at 3:30 PM City Hall Council Chambers, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware AGENDA IN-PERSON and VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE The Historic District Commission Meeting for Thursday, November 20, 2025 will be held as an In-Person Meeting at the 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 the participation information below to join by phone or computer. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION City of Dover Historic District Commission Meeting of November 20, 2025 Join By Phone: Dial 1-650-479-3208 Access Code: 253 405 85211 Password from Phones: 36837432 Join Online: https://bit.ly/HDCMeeting10202025 Webinar Number: 2534 058 5211 Password: DoverHDC If you are new to Webex, get the app now at https://www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. For problems accessing the meeting, please call the Planning Office at (302) 736-7196. WELCOME ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Adoption of Minutes of August 21, 2025 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Summary of Activity 1

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING - November 20, 2025 PAGE 2 2. Summary of Applications 2024 and 2025 3. Summary of Architectural Review Certificates for 2025 Department of Planning & Inspections Updates SPECIAL RECOGNITION 4. Resolution honoring the service of Mary Mason to the Historic District Commission NEW APPLICATIONS Review of Permits Referred to Commission 5. HI-25-04 Referral of Fence Permit #25-1463 at 55 Kings Hwy SW - Review of Architectural Review Certification as Referred by the City Planner to the Historic District Commission for a Fence Permit #25-1463. The project proposes a 6-foot vinyl fence on the side and rear property lines. Property is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The owner of record is RVC Three, LP c/o Colonial Investment. Address: 55 Kings Highway SW. Tax Parcel: ED05-077.05-04-62.00-000. Council District 4. Revised Application 6. HI-25-01 Revised The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation on Revised Architectural Review Certification for redevelopment of the Old Dover Post Office property consisting of 1.267 acres for a mixed-use project known as The Old Post as revised. This application previously came before the Historic District Commission at their February 20, 2025 Meeting. The project involves the demolition of the rear warehouse portion of the existing building and adaptive re-use of the front 4,560 SF portion of the building for commercial retail and business space. In this Revision are proposed increases in apartment unit count from 36 to 42 units and architectural changes consisting of a second floor addition to the front wings of the building and a four-story 43,092 SF building addition proposed for forty-two (42) residential apartment units and with parking and other site improvements. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone), subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone), and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The property is located on the north side of Loockerman Plaza and adjacent to Innovation Way. The owner of record is The Old Post, LLC. Property Address: 55 Loockerman Plaza. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.05-04-53.00-000. Council District 4. NEW BUSINESS 7. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair 8. Meeting & Deadline Schedule for 2026 DRAFT OLD BUSINESS Certified Local Government (CLG) Program 2

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING - November 20, 2025 PAGE 3 9. Information on FFY2024 CLG Grant Application - Update on Submission Information on FFY2025 CLG Grant Application - Submission Deadline Implementation of 2019 Comprehensive Plan PUBLIC COMMENTS OPPORTUNITY ADJOURN Posted: November 13, 2025 THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING 3

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2025 The Meeting of the City of Dover Historic District Commission was held on Thursday, August 21, 2025, at 3:30 PM as an In-Person Meeting in the City Hall Council Chambers (anchor location) and virtually using the audio/videoconferencing system Webex. With Chairman Czerwinski presiding, the other members present were Mrs. Richardson, Ms. Baker, and Ms. Horsey. Mrs. Mason was absent. The Planning Office Staff members present were Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mr. Salzano, and Mrs. Mullaney. Chairman Czerwinski welcomed the newest member to the Historic District Commission Ms. Kathleen Baker. I really appreciate your participation and how we value your input; so, thank you very much. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Horsey moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mrs. Richardson and the vote was unanimously carried 4-0. Mrs. Mason was absent. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 17, 2025 Ms. Richardson moved for approval of the Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2025, with the necessary correction, seconded by Ms. Horsey, and approved 4-0. Mrs. Mason was absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Summary of Applications 2024 and 2025 Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned in your meeting packet was the Summary of Applications. We report on Applications from 2024 and 2025. Going back to 2024, you reviewed a total of nine (9) Applications. We're revisiting one of those today; and for calendar year 2025, there have been three (3) Applications appear before the Commission. Some of them have moved on through their subsequent processes with the Historic District Commission, with some projects actually being completed. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if there were any questions on the Applications Chart. There were none. Summary of Architectural Review Certifications for 2025 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this chart is really a tracking of the permit activity within the Historic District zone of the City. Primarily for the Historic District, you are focused on the outside of the building. There were a couple of building interior Permits that were reviewed and confirmed by Staff that they weren't affecting the exterior. So, through the end of July, we have a total of 23 Permits that have been reviewed in the Historic District for building related things. This tally does not include Plumbing and Mechanical Permits in the district. Most of the projects have focused on roof projects through this calendar year, with 4

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2025 the total of six (6) roof projects. There have been some building exterior projects. The two (2) Demolitions were related to properties on Bradford Street. Of those 23 Permits, Staff has been able to review the majority of them with only three of them involving the Historic District Commission in some form of process. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if there were any questions on permit activity in the Historic District? There were none. Department of Planning & Inspections Updates Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that tomorrow is Chris Salzano’s, who is our Planner II, last day with the City. He's moving on to a position in the private sector. So once again, the Planning Staff will be slightly diminished, but we hope to be posting that position and looking for new applicants shortly for that. So, bear with me. We'll get through it again. It’s so sad to see him go. I think he brought a lot to our office. He definitely hit the ground running and helped us out on some of the GIS world as well. NEW APPLICATION HI-24-09 Revised Dover Mobility Center Garage at 133 S. Governors Avenue– Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation on Architectural Review Certification for construction of a four-story, 329-space multi-purpose parking garage structure to be known as the Dover Mobility Center Garage as revised. This application previously came before the Historic District Commission at their December 19, 2024 Meeting and was for a 400-space parking garage. There have been architectural changes as designed, including the removal of the S. Bradford Street garage entrance. The subject site involves six parcels in the block between S. Governors Avenue and S. Bradford Street north of Minor Street Alley. The properties are zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The owners of record are the Downtown Dover Partnership, City of Dover, Capital City Transformation Alliance Inc, and Main Street – Dover Inc. Property Addresses: 133 S. Governors Avenue, 139 S. Governors Avenue, 145 S. Governors Avenue, 136 S. Bradford Street, 148 S. Bradford Street, and 150 S. Bradford Street, Dover. Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.09-02-10.00-000, ED-05-077.09-02-09.00-000, ED-05-077.09-02-08.00-000, ED-05-077.09-02-24.00-000, ED-05-077.09-02-25.00-00, and ED- 05-077.09-02-27.00-000. Council District 4. Mrs. Melson-Williams gave a brief Staff overview of the Application. She mentioned that it was originally Application HI-24-09 for the Dover Mobility Center. It appeared before you back in December of 2024, and you made a recommendation on its Architectural Review Certification at that time. And then in January of 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed the Site Development Plan for this project site. It is made up of a series of lots that are in the block between South Bradford Street and South Governors Avenue to the north of Loockerman Street. And it kind of spans the width of that block just to the north of the Minor Street Alley. The project is for a parking garage structure, and the reason for it being before you today is that in continuing to refine the design and move towards its construction, there have been some changes to the project itself, necessitating a revisit to both the Historic District Commission and then also to the Planning Commission. Both of which will be subject to a public hearing review process. 2 5

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2025 They are here today with a Revised Plan. It is focused on the four-story multipurpose garage. Specifically, there are some other activities that are found on the first floor of the building. There's been some revisions to that programming of the first floor, including a change in how you access the garage. The garage will now only be accessible from South Governors Avenue. The earlier version of the project also included an entrance from South Bradford Street. The Planning Staff put together the Architectural Review Staff Report. It reflects a lot of the historical information that we previously provided about the project site. And then are some details about this updated narrative and graphics package that they submitted. So, the applicant provided a kind of an updated letter and a series of updates to their architectural graphics package that depicts the building and all of its elevations for reference. Those updates are marked revised, and their original submission is also included in your packet so you could do some comparison, for that. The project site pretty much is encompassed by the building itself. They will also be improving its sidewalks at the frontage on both Bradford Street and South Governors Avenue. And there is a small pocket park area that's on an adjacent tract that will likely also be involved in this project. From a zoning perspective, this series of properties is zoned C-2, which is the Central Commercial Zone. All uses are allowed in that zoning district, and then it is also within the City's Historic District. As such, new construction is required to receive an Architectural Review Certification that's following review of the project’s compliance with the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. Specifically for new construction, there are a series of standards and guidelines for things like style and elevations, massing, and things like that regarding the building itself. Previously as noted, this did come before the Historic District Commission. You recommended the Conditional Approval of it to the Planning Commission based on the presentation that the applicant made back in December. The Planning Commission, as noted, reviewed this project in January and focused on the other site planning related things such as looking at their Parking Strategy. Ultimately as part of the Site Development Plan review approval with the Planning Commission, they granted the Architectural Review Certification for the project. In making some changes to this project, there are some changes to the elevations of the building as they refine their design. The Applicant is probably going to present those in greater detail, but with the changes Planning Staff felt that it was not something that they could just approve and that it needed to come back through the formal review process. As part of the Planning Staff review, we did again provide a series of comments and recommendations. We are recommending Conditional Approval of the design as revised. Noting that for the previously the alternative side yard setbacks, which is a provision related to how this building sits on the site versus its north property line, we continue to recommend approval of that. And then have noted, trying to keep the same format to the comments as previously, what they were and any efforts that the Applicant has made in focusing on those Recommendations for items of clarification or things that have been refined as this process moves forward. So today the Historic District Commission will again be making a Recommendation on the Architectural Review Certification for the project. That Recommendation will move forward to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has this tentatively scheduled for their September meeting. So, if things go well today, they will continue in that path. At this time, I will be happy to have the Applicant come forward and give us the details of their Revision. They're probably better suited to that, and Planning Staff can certainly address any questions that Commissioners may have as we continue deliberations. 3 6

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2025 Representatives: Mr. J.D. Bartlett, EDiS Company; Mr. Michael Caine, CoreStates Group; Architect. Presentation Good afternoon, my name is JD Bartlett with the EDiS company. I just wanted to take a moment to introduce a few members of the team that are here that may be here to answer any questions that you may have. First, Todd Stonesifer, he is the Board Chair for the Downtown Dover Partnership. Second Diane Laird, Executive Director of the Downtown Dover Partnership, Jed Hatfield with Colonial Parking, Monika Mickute with EDiS Company, Michael Henry with Becker Morgan Group, Civil Engineer and Michael Caine with CoreStates Group, Architect. Mr. Bartlett mentioned that he would like to take a moment to thank the City for their time with the review and the comments that were provided. We've taken some time to review those over the last week and appreciate the diligence there. So, I wanted to kind of rewind back in time. So, this was approved as a project several months ago as was explained in December 2024. Early in 2025, the Downtown Dover Partnership was approached by a potential anchor tenant. That was interested in occupying the first four in the Mobility Center. As you may be aware, this ties very closely to the Master Plan's goal of increasing foot traffic and creating opportunities for retail surrounding the City. So, as a result there's a lot of work that went into review of the ground floor design and other aspects of the facility, which you will hear a little bit more about in just a moment. As design evolved, I just want to make a note that the team in the background has been continuing to address Staff comments, agency requirements, etc. So, I just wanted to make a note of that. I would like to turn the floor over to Michael Caine. He presented the Historic District Commission last application submission. He will explain how the project has evolved. Mr. Caine stated that he would like to expand upon what JD mentioned and the opportunities to really address comments. We've also really taken this opportunity to listen to a lot of the public comments we've had over the course of the Master Plan timeline and really address those and make sure that this is the best fit for Downtown Dover. Not only as a City perspective but also the people who live here. So, I think, you know, this was a great time to really digest what's been said about this historically throughout our entire process and see if we can do our best. If you don't mind just moving forward to the couple sheets to the Site Plan, I think this is the best sheet to really describe one of the biggest comments we've had, which is about safety on Bradford Street. With this anchor tenant, we were able to really consolidate the entrances and exits to Governors Avenue, providing additional retail space for Bradford Street to increase pedestrian safety and the walkability and active traffic on Bradford Street itself. If you can go to the next couple of slides when it talks about elevation, the palette has remained the same. I have samples available for you if you would like to view that as part of this discussion. As a selection of bricks, we really went around to the neighboring structures, making sure what we provide is very similar and fits in nicely to the existing historic architecture but also not detract from it. So really, we're looking at size, scale, and variation of color and making sure it is the best fit. Also from a design perspective, we are looking at the spandrel conditions and how we can add historical details to make sure it again it blends in but also doesn't provide a false narrative to the structure itself. So, as you can see on the right, those are really architectural elements we've seen on this block of Governors Avenue and Bradford Street, and very similar to what we are providing as a launching point for this. 4 7

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2025 So, with this, another major comment as we've been walking through this whole process was that this was going to really stand out. Through the redesign (not the redesign), the optimization of this ground floor, we are able to provide a tighter parking structure which would overall reduce amount of stories and helps it blend in a little bit more to the surroundings and be a better neighbor to all the structures. I've also provided on the bottom left the expanded detail of the cornices with the brick to show that it’s not just an applied facade, but it has some relief within the system itself and the details that we're providing to make sure we're getting the great neighbors to the surroundings. We'll go to the renderings. The brick is very similar and even like between the two fronts. We've made sure it has some larger presence on both Bradford Street and Governors Avenue. Dover as we know is a brick City and we want to have the prominence of brick being emphasized and shown on our design. The pedestrian experience is very similar to as we previously provided, really having that here to provide foot traffic and we expanded the entrances to really increase safety but also ease of use within the parking structure itself, and not to bog down Governors Avenue, which is a very vital part of the Downtown District. We need to make sure that brick has better emphasis on the structure but also keep everything that we really enjoyed, and you also resonate well with the design. One thing I would like to emphasize is the number of added storefronts and the organization of another retail tenant on the ground floor on which used to be an entrance to the structure itself. So, that's just adding to the overall intent and goal of the Master Plan. I feel this is a great example of that. There is very minimal impact from a perspective side of here, and the same thing going south from Governors Avenue towards Loockerman Street. If you can land on the rendering, I feel like that would be a great launching point for comments if anyone has any questions for me. Thank you so much. Chairman Czerwinski asked if anyone has any questions about the design? Mrs. Richardson said I am looking at slide number ten on the Revised facing the door from South Bradford Street. It just looks like a big cement building. In the perspective one at the end (the picture on the left) is where it just looks like a big, huge cement block. Mr. Caine replied that part of it is the optimization we've had or not had. We've made sure that the stair towers are very comfortable but also you know similar on both sides, aligned and put design similar to Governors Avenue down to Bradford Street. You do notice that there are spandrel panels that add a little bit of concrete or structure onto that tower itself. That's just through an optimization of revising the stair tower itself. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that on the 3rd and 4th floor of the garage, there is no brick. Mr. Caine replied no, that's aligned with what we've shown previously, but we wanted to really emphasize brick at a pedestrian standpoint. It does from the sight line show a little bit more of itself, but hopefully the coloring of it really drives down your eye and really emphasizes the brick itself. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that she was thinking of the Family Court Garage as brick all the way. Mr. Cane said yeah. Mrs. Richardson mentioned it looks much nicer. Mr. Caine said no, it's a great point. So, what we want to do is visually read as a two-story structure with something 5 8

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2025 behind it rather than the four-story structure. So, if we brought brick all the way up, we would actually read a lot. We did a couple of variations of that, and we did feel that it scaled just really became muddled. We feel like this is the best design form for that. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that she was not pleased. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned if you don't mind me interjecting. The staircase is really what's changing the look to me and it was that you went from a dark frame staircase to a white frame to the staircase. That causes the whole presentation of the structure to convert over to a white structure with a brick base to it. I don't understand because it looked really good on the original drawings to have the dark framing on the staircase. I don't know why they went to white. Mr. Caine mentioned we are actually not providing or proposing a white structure, it’s to just be steel with an anodized steel. So, it becomes a little bit more reflective. We've noticed a few other garages that we've done when we had a black storefront that really became the emphasis. It was more of like a mascara where it wanted to be a mirror analogy, if that makes more sense to you. Ms. Horsey mentioned that she also had a concern. She likes that you have incorporated all the glass cause that will help not make it look like a pile of bricks, so to speak. I do like the lighter colors that you say this is but is it going to be shining through, right? What do you have as a sample of that color? Because I think we're kind of stuck on the lightness of the color. Mr. Caine asked if she was referring to the concrete color? Ms. Horsey replied yes. Mr. Caine (showing color samples) mentioned that what you're seeing here is the upper levels, right, light and bright, and then on the first level of that we have a darker color. This really emphasizes the brick. This is right near the storefront system. These are all the selected samples themselves that would be shown on the building. Ms. Horsey, I think it does. I think when you position the perspective from what you would see from Loockerman Street and as long as it doesn't look like it wants to be noticed too much. I think that's what we're all saying. Mr. Caine mentioned that it was a great point and we really are doing our best to minimize the visual impacts. Hopefully, as soon as I receive the perspective rendering it reads more blue when you see it in the sky than white. That's really why we're selecting the color we have because it has a little bit of flex and then that helps provide a little bit of the coloration that's in it. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned I think that this kind of picture really kind of reflects my concern about the facades look. You're putting a brick front onto it what's essentially a concrete structure. That was my issue with not using a dark framing around the corner because then that incorporates the weight and the dark a lot better than just putting brick right on the front cause there's no brick on the side. I can't see it from the corner. And then it looks just like it's pasted out. And I think that's what that picture probably is more than anywhere else really looks like. It looks like the brick is just literally put on to the face of the concrete instead of being, you know, architecturally or visually part of the structure. That's why I think we're having problems with the staircase because the staircase really stands out and it really combines the upper. Now if you're trying to keep the eye down, that's not right down to the ground level there. Mr. Caine mentioned if the Recommendation is to revert back to the brick and the black stair tower that's definitely within your tower. I think that's a great comment and maybe that's beneficial. 6 9

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2025 Mrs. Richardson asked if it would be possible to clad the staircase in brick? Mr. Caine asked for the first two levels? Mrs. Richardson said no, for the whole thing. Mr. Caine replied no, I think it would read more like a water tower at that point because you have a four-story tower which really drives the eye up or want to keep it really low to the corner. I think it would provide the opposite of what I think they're trying to achieve personally. I think as an option, if we'd like to maybe, and if you're concerned with the corner to your point, possibly we can see if we can lessen the impact. Mr. Bartlett stated that he believes that there's definitely an ability to incorporate the brick face that you see on the front of the building and more incorporate that into the corner. So, it feels like it's starting the corner as part of the same building and maybe not a different element, which is what I think you’re concerned about, right? I think the answer is yes that there could be brick incorporated into the corner to tie it in a little better than what you're seeing right now. Ms. Horsey mentioned if you look at the City Building on the left in this particular picture elevation, the upper level of course the roof and the dormers are a lighter color than the brick. Maybe the very top member of the stair tower remains light or something. I'm just trying to look at it, because I agree that if you bring all brick up all the way, it's going to look like a brick tower. You know, I think we are all saying the same thing. We just want this not to look so prominent or there is a way to blend it in. Mr. Caine mentioned that it's a great comment. We've brought this sample over today to really see how close we are in collaboration to the trim work on there when it goes from the brick to the roof itself. We are pretty close actually. It’s very, very close to in coloration today, so I'm glad you were able to address it; that's a good comment. Ms. Baker asked how about the concrete will weather over time. Will it change its coloration? Mr. Caine replied, “I don’t believe it will change its colors too much” with everything this reviews in a few instances across all the products and it retains its color pretty well. Weather conditions provided, you know, all considered it's actually pretty spot on consistent. We have one project that used this and it's about eight to ten years old and it's pretty close to what it was initially. Ms. Baker said thank you. Ms. Baker mentioned that she could not help but marvel at the explicit phrase that this is a wayfaring beacon. And I was wondering if you could give someone who could elaborate on this as a wayfaring beacon. I think, as such, having the addition of the brick on it is going to make it more like a beacon and that's what we're seeking. Then further if you could expand some on the sense of what it is going to be like. I'm sure you're going to illuminate this. It will be seen and therefore, I don't know if I'm out of place here in this body, but I am asking about some plans for lighting. Mr. Caine replied thank you for picking up the language. I got caught in architectural speech when I helped write the narratives. I think just to address the wayfaring beacon; we're really thinking about that stair tower at night and guiding it. That's how it will be well made and making sure that everything revised is safe. So as part of that there is lighting in there. With the amount of policing we have, it would provide a wayfaring beacon at night. And then in terms of lighting across the building, we're really again emphasizing the portions which would have 7 10

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2025 architecturally some wall sconces in the manner that's too modern for the structure itself. I believe it's another review by Staff. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that for lighting the Zoning Ordinance does require it. One of the elevation renderings shows some of the lighting. There are requirements for lighting of pedestrian areas, so this would be an opportunity for wall-mounted lighting. There's also probably the placement of streetlights and those are more pedestrian focused as well. I’m not sure that they show up exactly in the rendering, but the City has kind of spacing standards for those. Along both Bradford Street and Governors Avenue, there would be streetlights that are either in place now and need to be adjusted or would continue to be in their current location and format. Mr. Caine mentioned in addition to that, the structure itself would be lit interiorly, but not on the other floors exteriorly. We're trying to minimize the location. Ms. Baker said thank you. This will be a delicate balance, and I want to say yes, hugely. Please keep the City informed and I want to thank my colleagues for coming up with the brick and concrete solution and evolution. I think that's a beautiful, beautiful idea. Have you had a chance to see the pole lights on South Bradford Street between Division Street and Reed Street at night? They look kind of Victorianish. Mr. Caine said yes, exactly. Ms. Baker said she lives there and they work. And one of the reasons they work is that the light goes down instead of up and out. When it is up and out it feels like a prison yard, and we certainly don't need that. Mr. Cane said that is a great comment. Mr. Caine mentioned that he needs to provide a Victorianesk lantern and right there. Our intent is to not provide something that is too modern or alien to the district. Anything or everything we determined we will run by the City. Chairman Czerwinski said that he noticed that Staff noted that there was a request to clarify the material choice pattern detailing for the first-floor elevation on the South elevation. Chairman Czerwinski said right now it looks like it's just concrete all the way down. Is that changing or are we incorporating the brick on the south elevation now? I don't know if there's supposed to be access off Minor Street, or is this strict access that is only going to be from Bradford Street or Governors Avenue? Mr. Caine replied that for life safety perspective we do need to provide egress on Minor Street just due to the size of the retail space, but also the amount of employees that we foresee as possible and having this space during the work week. We provided a lot of the material choices on the ground floor as possible for not only the future of tenants we have in mind but also later down the road. So, the punch openings we do or will finish in a way that lends in with the sample panels above, but also in the future if we need to add additional egress points, we can. It really provides a proof future solution for the retail space itself. Chairman Czerwinski asked there's no real architectural design elements on that elevation already. Mr. Caine replied to that point, no, but we're also looking at having this become another area to involve the public. So, similar to what we've done before with the mural on the party 8 11

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2025 wall. This could also be a way for in the future if Downtown Dover decides that Minor Street is pedestrian only then that could be public art. It's a great way of using it or increasing that space for future tenants that are facing Minor Street if that becomes closed up. So really providing flexibility, that's really our end goal as this grows with the Downtown. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that he thinks that the south elevation really shows his point. If you look at the Governors corner, that brick goes right around the corner, but at Bradford Street it stops. Mr. Caine said that's a great point. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that it's just not a balanced design and then I figure as you can see the intention was there for Governors Avenue but not on Bradford Street. So, if we can look at possibly doing the same sort of treatment on that lower tower to wrap that brick around so we have more consistent look to the building. Mr. Caine said that all three corners except for that one has the same conditioning. That's a great comment, thank you. Mrs. Richardson asked, can you explain on the top slide, what those little black items are; are those windows? Mr. Caine replied yes, that's the opening between the panel itself and the other panel before above. So, those are completely open. Mrs. Richardson said the ones on the ground level. Mr. Caine replied the ground level, those are windows. Mrs. Richardson said they are windows? Mr. Caine replied, yes. Mrs. Richardson said, but they don't have brick on the ground level? Mr. Caine replied no, they do not. It is a block system, so if we need to add or we try to size down. If we needed more doors and if those windows need to become a door later down the road, we can easily swap it out. So, we wanted to provide something that's not too precious understanding as this evolves over time, it’s the most flexible option for the retail spaces. Mrs. Richardson asked what would be on the ground level? Mr. Caine asked from a retail perspective? Mrs. Richardson well in this slide from Minor Street. They have all these windows. What is going to be surrounding them? Is it just going to be concrete? Mr. Caine replied correct. It's a CMU block. It is finished in a way that doesn't read as a CMU. Mr. Bartlett stated that he wanted to explain that the intention is that the finish will mimic the finish that they see on the concrete flights above. So, that's the idea. By providing a block based (system) there, it allows that retail to remain flexible so that we are not visually limiting how this building can be used. As the areas around it, all the development is part of the Master Plan. Does that answer your question? Mrs. Richardson said yes. Ms. Horsey asked for clarification that the rendering of it looks grayer than the white block. Mr. Caine said yes. Ms. Horsey asked is that the actual white block thing? Mr. Caine replied he believes the rendering might be a little bit grayer. This is the design intent with the coloration. It 9 12

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2025 might just not be depicted the elevation itself. Ms. Horsey said it actually looks better on the rendering; that's my personal opinion. Ms. Horsey mentioned she thinks it looks nice with the brick versus a huge contrast between the darker brick and the much lighter. I guess you could call it concrete. Chairman Czerwinski asked Ms. Baker if she was talking about on the south elevation? Ms. Baker replied, yeah. Chairman Czerwinski said that's kind of the screen basically by the buildings on Loockerman Street. Chairman Czerwinski said that's a narrow alleyway. Ms. Horsey said yeah, well that's true, but I'm just making the comment. Mr. Caine mentioned that previously as we sort of went through this process and actually showed the darker tone concrete at an Open House. There were comments that it was too dark, so I think making it light and bright then it tends to reflect a little bit more and it picks up the sky with the coloration and the reflection, but that's a great comment. Ms. Horsey said well, I trust you, but I just thought I'd better get it on the record. Mr. Caine said yeah, of course. Ms. Baker mentioned that the alley has a lovely rendition of songbirds. I understand it's been there a number of years. Do you review that as a positive light? Mr. Caine replied, yeah. We love the software to include them as really an example from the Master Plan originally as a great use of public art to invite into the building. If we get like a cardinal or something on Minor Street. I think it's a great use of public art. Ms. Baker said thank you. It could bring nature into a two-dimensional fashion. Or if you have the sculpter on hand, great. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any other comments or is there anybody from the team that wanted to be part of the presentation or anything to say before we move on? The public hearing is open. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there was anyone in the room who would like to speak. There was no one in the room. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there was anyone virtually who would like to speak. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that there are a couple of related entities that are here, and I'll see if they wish to make comments during the public hearing. We have Meagan Whetstone from Mosaic Development Partners, if Meagan wishes to make any comment. Ms. Whetstone mentioned she was good. Thank you, guys. I really appreciate the chance to talk through this with everyone. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned additionally, also from Mosaic Development Partners, we have Leslie Smallwood. Leslie, do you have any comments? No comments. 10 13

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2025 Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned we have Zach Prebula from the Kent Economic Partnership. Zach, do you wish to make a comment? Mr. Zach Prebula, Director of Business Development with the Kent Economic Partnership. We are the Economic Development Organization for Kent County, and we are in support of this project. This project will help us in our business attraction and also our business retention and expansion by providing the ample parking that we need in Downtown to support our businesses and attract them through Downtown. And we ask that you please approve this project. Thank you. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked Bob Bloczynski; Bob, do you wish to make any comment on this project as part of the public hearing? Bob said no comments. Thank you. Bob, are you here with any particular group or are you just listening this afternoon. Can you identify yourself for the record? Bob Bloczynski mentioned that he was with CoreStates Group, the architect of record and my colleague Michael Caine has represented the project well, so I have no comments. Thank you. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned I will give another chance to Leslie. Did you have any statement to make this afternoon? There was none. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that those are the folks that have joined us virtually this afternoon. I believe that would conclude your public hearing unless there's anyone else in the audience here in the room that wishes to speak. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there were no written comments received from any members of the community. The public hearing was closed seeing no one else wishing to speak in the room or virtually. Chairman Czerwinski stated that he did not see any red flags on this design. The biggest thing for him was the wrap around. We have other buildings where they, you know, are wrapped with or plasted on to a bigger structure. The only thing I would see that I think needs to be changed is the Bradford Street staircase lower elevation at the first-floor elevation and the side façade redesign. At least incorporate elements of the brick and dark framing so it looks more consistent. When you're looking at it, you're looking at that to the front of the facade and you have white past it, but they have that wrap around. The big thing I see here. Mrs. Richardson stated that she agreed with that especially the view from Loockerman Street of that side. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that she just wanted to confirm that we're not using mirrored glass, right? It's clear. Mr. Cane replied that it is correct. 11 14

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2025 Ms. Horsey mentioned that she thinks in the design of last year it was all glass, and it made a different impression than the one of the redesign of it with the concrete elements in it. I think with that change that's why we're acting they way we are. Maybe making the lower level more incorporated into the brick is better. Overall I think you have done a pretty good job. Ms. Baker mentioned that this project represents an extraordinary undertaking and is worth all of the time that everyone has put into it. Because it represents and its straddles, the Loockerman context and the residential context and that is not easy. And there's no way you can make a garage not a look like a garage. But I think this comes close to anything I have seen, and I thank you. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any other comments? Ms. Horsey moved for approval of the Recommendation of the Architectural Review Certificate for the Dover Mobility Center Garage HI-24-09 as Revised to include Staff comments and the Commission overall comments about incorporating some of the elements in the stair towers and wrapping of brick in that area that we had stated. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Richardson and unanimously carried 4-0. NEW BUSINESS Review of Permits Referred to Commission Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that there were no Permits to specifically bring to the Commission today. OLD BUSINESS Certified Local Government (CLG) Program Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that she has not heard anything from the State of Historic Preservation Office about grant opportunities for the CLG’s at this point. Implementation of 2019 Comprehensive Plan Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned she had no specific items to bring to you today. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any questions or comments before we adjourn? Mrs. Richardson moved to adjourn the meeting seeing no other items of business, seconded by Chairman Czerwinski and unanimously carried 4-0 of the members present. Mrs. Mason was absent. Meeting adjourned at 4:27 PM Sincerely, Maretta Savage-Purnell/Kristen Mullaney Secretary/Acting Secretary 12 15

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2024 Item 2. Updated thru November 11, 2025 FILE# PLAN NAME LOCATION TYPE ACTION STATUS HI-24-01 Referral of Fence 146 S. State Street Fence Permit Permit #23-1868 referred to HDC by Permit Application received 12/13/2023 Permit #23-1868 City Planner for consultation on and Referred to the HDC for consultation. at 146 S. State Architectural Review Certification; The Fence is subject to Code Enforcement Street 1/28/2024 HDC deferred action on Case #23-3983 for installation without a ArchRevCert seeking additional Permit. It is a vinyl fence that is six foot in information on its materials, location, height. HDC granted ArchRevCert subject to and another nearby fence. 2/15/2024 conditions: Fence #2 must be wood and 4 HDC granted ArchRevCert subject to feet in height. Fence #1 due to location can conditions. remain at vinyl at 6 feet. Permit issued in April 2024. Part of Fence removed. HI-24-02 Building 148 S. Bradford Review for Public Hearing and Review for Request to demolish existing building Demolition at 148 Street Architectural Architectural Review Certification by (currently used as offices). HDC denied S. Bradford Street Certification for HDC on 5/16/2024. Action to deny ArchRevCert for demolition. Applicant filed Demolition ArchRevCert. (ArchRevCert granted by an Appeal to the Planning Commission; PC.) Appeal considered by Planning Commission on 6/17/2024. Planning Commission granted approval of ArchRevCert to allow Demolition of Building. Demolition Permit #24-1835 issued; demolition complete. HI-24-03 Building 150 S. Bradford Review for Public Hearing and Review for Request to demolish existing building Demolition at 150 Street Architectural Architectural Review Certification by (currently used as offices). HDC denied S. Bradford Street Certification for HCD on 5/16/2024. Action to deny ArchRevCert for demolition. Applicant filed Demolition ArchRevCert. (ArchRevCert granted by an Appeal to the Planning Commission, PC.) Appeal considered by Planning Commission on 6/17/2024.Planning Commission granted approval of ArchRevCert to allow Demolition of Building. Demolition Permit #25-408 issued; demolition complete. 16

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2024 Item 2. Updated thru November 11, 2025 FILE# PLAN NAME LOCATION TYPE ACTION STATUS HI-24-04 Legislative Hall 425 East Avenue, Site Plan Review for Public Hearing and Review for Site Development Plan review for new Parking Garage at corner of East Architectural Review Recommendation on Architectural Parking Garage Structure and associated 425 East Avenue Avenue/ E. Water Certification Review Certification by HDC on site improvements. Recommendation on Street and Martin 5/16/2024. Recommended approval of ArchRevCert will be forwarded to Planning Luther King Jr. ArchRevCert for project. Commission for future consideration during Boulevard South Site Plan review process. Application filed with Board of Adjustment for variances related to floodplain requirements; BOA considered on 6/20/2024 and granted approval of two variances (V-24-01). Site Plan Application (S-24-14) filed and granted conditional approval and ArchRevCert by Planning Commission on 9/16/2024. Final Plan approval granted. Awaiting submission of Building Permit for construction. HI-24-05 Building 120 S. Governors Review for Public Hearing and Review for Request to demolish existing commercial Demolition at 120 Avenue Architectural Architectural Review Certification by building (was Acme grocery store then S. Governors Certification for HDC on 6/20/2024. Granted approval recent tenants of auto parts store and a Avenue Demolition of ArchRevCert to allow Demolition of Child Day Care Center). Demolition Permit building. issued and demolition activities underway in Fall 2024. Demolition of building completed. HI-24-06 Delaware 55 The Green Site Plan Review for Public Hearing and Review for Action Review of ArchRevCert for one story Supreme Court Architectural Review on Architectural Review Certification Building Addition. Project is subject to an Building Addition Certification by HDC on 9/19/2024. Granted Administrative Site Plan process; and Renovations approval of ArchRevCert to allow Administrative Site Plan filed and currently building addition. under review. 17

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2024 Item 2. Updated thru November 11, 2025 FILE# PLAN NAME LOCATION TYPE ACTION STATUS HI-24-07 Legislative Hall 411 Legislative Site Plan Review for Public Hearing and Review for Site Development Plan review for Building Building Addition Avenue Architectural Review Recommendation on Architectural Addition and Plaza Area and associated site Certification Review Certification by HDC on improvements. Recommendation on 10/17/2024. Recommended approval ArchRevCert forwarded to Planning of ArchRevCert for project. Commission for future consideration during Site Plan review process. Site Plan Application filed and granted conditional approval with ArchRevCert by Planning Commission on November 18, 2024. It must complete the Final Plan approval process; project is on hold by applicant. HI-24-08 Referral of 21 N American Building Permit Permit #24-1399 referred to HDC by Permit Application received 9/25/2024 and Building Permit Avenue (and City Planner for consultation on Referred to the HDC for consultation. #24-1399 at 21 N. previously 19 N Architectural Review Certification; Project for demolition of rear addition, American Avenue American Avenue) Scheduled for HDC Review on rebuild of rear addition, renovation to first 10/17/2024. Recommended Approval rear addition, remove asbestos siding and of ArchRevCert subject to conditions. reclad with vinyl siding, and porch renovations. HDC per conditions of ArchRevCert allowed demolition of rear addition and reconstruction, recladding with vinyl siding, and minor change to rear window placements. Permit issued subject to conditions. 18

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2024 Item 2. Updated thru November 11, 2025 FILE# PLAN NAME LOCATION TYPE ACTION STATUS HI-24-09 Dover Mobility 133 S Governors Site Plan Review for Public Hearing and Review for Site Development Plan review for Dover and Revised Center (Parking) Avenue, 139 S Architectural Review Recommendation on Architectural Mobility Center (multi-purpose Parking HI-24-09 Garage Governors Avenue, Certification Review Certification by HDC on Garage) and associated site improvements. 145 S Governors 12/19/2024 and recommended Recommendation on ArchRevCert will be Avenue, 136 S ArchRevCert subject to conditions. forwarded to Planning Commission for Bradford St, 148 S. Revised HI-24-09 underwent HDC future consideration during Site Plan review Bradford St, 150 S Review on 8/21/2025 for process. Site Plan Application (S-25-01) Bradford St consideration of architectural design filed and Planning Commission granted revisions and Recommendation made. conditional approval in January 2025. Planning Commission granted approval Design revision to architecture and removal of Revised Site Plan and ArchRev Cert. of S. Bradford garage entrance require additional review of ArchRevCert by HDC and PC which occurred in Fall 2025 with Revised S-25-01. 19

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2025 Item 2. Updated thru November 11, 2025 FILE# PLAN NAME LOCATION TYPE ACTION STATUS HI-25-01 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza Site Plan for Review for Architectural Review Site Plan reviewed by Historic District and Revised 55 Loockerman (Old Dover Post development of Certification of Site Plan; Public Commission for Recommendation. Site Plan HI-25-01 Plaza Office) mixed-use with Hearing and Review by HDC on Application (S-25-07) filed and granted apartments 2/20/2025 and Recommended conditional approval and ArchRevCert by approval of ArchRevCert for project. Planning Commission on 3/17/2025. Design Revised HI-25-01 filed and scheduled revisions to add additional floor and for HDC Review on 11/20/2025 for architecture requires additional review of consideration of architectural design ArchRevCert by HDC and PC. revisions. HI-25-02 Mixed Use 120 S Governors Site Plan for Revised Application filed June 2025. Application initially filed in March 2025 Building at 120 S Avenue development of Review for Architectural Review then placed on hold by the Applicant for Governors mixed use building Certification of Site Plan; Public continued design work. Application Avenue (The Hearing and Review by HDC on updated and Site Plan reviewed by Historic Governor) 7/17/2025. HDC Recommended District Commission for Recommendation approval of ArchRevCert for project. in July 2025. Site Plan Application (S-25-11) filed and scheduled for Planning Commission Review on 9/15/2025. Conditional Approval of Site Plan and ArchRevCert granted by Planning Commission. HI-25-03 Biggs Museum 15 The Green and 21 Review for Review for Architectural Review HDC completed review of Request to Expansion: The Green Architectural Certification. Public Hearing and remove/demolish portions of the rear Selected Certification for Review for Architectural Review additions at the buildings as associated Removals at 15 Select Certification by HCD on 5/15/2025. with future project for the Biggs Museum of and 21 The Green Removal/Demolition Granted Approval subject to American Art expansion. Granted of Rear Additions conditions. Architectural Review Certification; moving into design phase for project that will be subject to future ArchRevCert. HI-25-04 Referral of Fence 55 Kings Hwy SW Fence Permit Permit #25-1463 referred to HDC by Permit Application received 10/8/2025 and Permit #25-1463 City Planner for consultation on Referred to the HDC for consultation. at 55 Kings Hwy Architectural Review Certification; Permit seeks to construct a 6 foot vinyl SW (Merrill Lynch scheduled for review on 11/20/2025. fence. Office) 20

Summary of Permit Applications with Architectural Review Certification Item 3. 2025- Updated Thru 10-31-2025 DATE PERMIT # LOCATION TYPE ACTION ON ARCHITECTURAL NOTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE 1/17/2025 24-1399 21 N American Avenue Building Permit - Interior Staff Approval as per HDC Action on Demolition of rear addition and its rebuild, & Exterior Renovations ArchRevCert HI-24-08. exterior finish renovations to allow vinyl siding, renovations to front porch. Permit was referred to the Historic District Commission for review. 1/13/2025 24-1835 148 S Bradford Street Demolition Permit Staff Approval as per PC Final Action Demolition of existing one-and-half story regarding ArchRevCert (appeal of building for future redevelopment of site. HDC HDC denial of ArchRev Cert) HI-24-02. denied request on 5/16/2024 and Appeal to Planning Commission granted approval 6/17/2024. Demolition complete. 2/5/2025 25-132 45 The Green, Sykes Building Permit - Interior No ArchRevCert Required Interior Renovations to subfloor in the office Building Renovations buildings. 2/18/2025 25-136 107 S State Street Sign Permit Staff Approval Post Panel sign. 2/20/2025 25-148 151 Kings Hwy SW, Roof Permit Staff Approval Roof replacement project with synthetic slate Woodburn material and associated flashing and gutter systems. 3/11/2025 25-209 307 S State St Sign Permit Staff Approval installation of Projecting Sign for office 3/19/2025 25-277 12 Kings Hwy SE, Building at Roof Permit Staff Approval Replacement of EPDM roof system (flat roof) Elizabeth W. Murphy School with the same following repairs. 3/10/2025 25-284 201 W Loockerman St Roof Permit Staff Approval Replacement of flat roof on commercial building. 3/10/2025 25-286 30 S American Ave Roof Permit No Planning Staff Review. Removal and replacement of shingle roof. 4/7/2025 24-1152 26 S State Street, Window Permit Staff Approval Replacement of windows of various sizes & Apartment Building formats on all elevations, repair and repaint of trimwork areas and shutters. 4/2/2025 25-395 214 S State Street Roof Permit Staff Approval Roof Replacement on main block of building with metal roofing system. 21

Summary of Permit Applications with Architectural Review Certification Item 3. 2025- Updated Thru 10-31-2025 DATE PERMIT # LOCATION TYPE ACTION ON ARCHITECTURAL NOTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE 4/15/2025 25-408 150 S. Bradford St Demolition Permit Staff Approval as per PC Final Action Demolition of existing two story building for regarding ArchRevCert (appeal of future redevelopment of site. HDC denied HDC denial of ArchRev Cert) HI-24-03. request on 5/16/2024 and Appeal to Planning Commission granted approval 6/17/2024. Demolition complete. 5/1/2025 24-1510 33 W Loockerman St Sign Permit Staff Approval New Window and Wall Signs for new restaurant tenant 5/29/2025 25-285 500 W Loockerman St Building Permit - Staff Approval Freestanding canopy over a series of parking Accessory Structure (Solar spaces with solar panels and equipment for EV Canopy) changing stations. 5/21/2025 25-515 55 The Green Building Permit - Exterior Staff Approval Replacement of wood columns on rotunda Renovations entry. 5/15/2025 25-599 401 Federal St Building Permit - No Planning Staff Review. Replacement of generator Generator Replacement 5/22/2025 25-693 426 S State St, George & Sign Permit Staff Approval Replacement of signs for new law office Vyas Attorneys tenant. 6/4/2025 25-670 500 W Loockerman St Building Permit - Interior Staff Approval Interior Renovations on third floor for tenant Renovations fit-out. 6/5/2025 25-704 32 W Loockerman St, Siding Permit Staff Approval Replacement of existing siding on side of Loockerman Square building. 6/18/2025 25-738 523 S State St, Christ Church Temporary Sign Permit Staff Approval Temporary Sign Banner installation. 6/13/2025 25-763 145 S State St Building Permit - Exterior Staff Approval Extension of previous Permit to convert & Interior Renovations existing building into 4 apartment units 6/12/2025 25-796 121 S State St, M&T Bank Roof Permit Staff Approval Replacement of flat roof area Dover Financial Center 7/14/2025 25-990 2 Kings Highway, NE Siding Permit Staff Approval Replacement of clapboard style (horizontal) siding on residence with the same. 8/20/2025 25-827 300 S State St, Law Office Building Permit - Window Staff Approval Replacement of select windows 22

Summary of Permit Applications with Architectural Review Certification Item 3. 2025- Updated Thru 10-31-2025 DATE PERMIT # LOCATION TYPE ACTION ON ARCHITECTURAL NOTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE 8/4/2025 25-937 201 W Loockerman St Building Permit - Interior Staff Approval Interior renovation for tenant fit-out. Reissue Renovations of previous permit. 8/8/2025 25-1047 9 W Loockerman St Sign Permit Staff Approval Window signs for new use. 9/2/2025 25-1219 89 Kings Hwy SW, DNREC Fence Permit Staff Approval Chainlink security fence around generator. Location is not visible from the street. 9/24/2025 25-1280 30 Loockerman Plaza, Roof Permit Staff Approval Roof replacement with asphalt shingles. Wesley Education Building 9/25/2025 25-1298 309 S Governors Avenue, Building Permit - Interior Staff Approval Interior Renovations of office spaces. Becker Morgan Group Renovations Offices 10/1/2025 25-1369 21 N American Avenue Roof Permit Staff Approval aligned with HDC Roof replacement with asphalt (solar) shingles. Action on ArchRevCert HI-24-08. Replaces modern metal roof on building main block. 10/21/2-25 25-1373 32 W Loockerman St, Fence Permit Staff Approval Decorative Fence as metal public art Loockerman Square installation on stepped area at building front. 10/6/2025 25-1390 108 W Loockerman St Sign Permit Staff Approval Installation of wall sign and projecting sign for restaurant. 23

Item 4. Resolution Whereas, Mary T. Mason became a member of the City of Dover Historic District Commission in February 2018 and has served with diligence and distinction in this capacity as an advocate for implementation of the Historic District Standards and Guidelines to maintain the historic character of the city’s Historic District; and, Whereas, Mary T. Mason has played a key role in ensuring fundamental fairness and careful forethought in the planning and development of the Capital City through her service on the Historic District Commission; and, Whereas, Mary T. Mason as a resident of the Historic District has shared her knowledge of Dover and The Green and its history in reviewing applications presented to the Historic District Commission; and, Whereas, Mary T. Mason has influenced the pattern and appearance of development in the Historic District in Dover through her contributions to the development of the Historic Preservation chapter of the 2019 Comprehensive Plans; and, Whereas, Mary T. Mason completed her service on the City of Dover Historic District Commission on August 23, 2025. Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the City of Dover Historic District Commission does hereby express its sincere appreciation to Mary T. Mason for her faithful and exemplary service to the Citizens of the City of Dover as a member of the City of Dover Historic District Commission. __________________________ _________________________ Eric Czerwinski Dawn E. Melson-Williams Chair, Historic District Commission Principal Planner November 20, 2025 24

Item 5. City of Dover ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW REPORT Referral by City Planner to Historic District Commission Meeting of November 20, 2025 Permit: Fence Permit #25-1463 Location: 55 Kings Highway SW, Dover Merrill Lynch Office Building located on the east side of Kings Highway SW Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.05-04-62.00-000 File Number: HI-25-04 Present Zoning: C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) H (Historic District Zone) Referral of Permit: The following application Fence Permit #25-1463 for 55 Kings Highway SW is referred by the City Planner to the Historic District Commission for consultation regarding the issuance of the Architectural Review Certificate for a Fence project. Applications for certain types of construction activity within the Historic District Zone (H) are reviewed by the City Planner (or Staff as designated) for Architectural Review Certification as part of the Building Permit application review process. Staff is referring the Permit for review under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3.22(A) and (B). See below. Section 3.22 Architectural review certification by the city planner. (A) An architectural review certificate for specific classes of building permits, including Fences, signs, siding, window and door replacement, roofing, the addition or replacement of decorative features, minor demolition, residential additions, and other construction of a minor nature, may be issued by the city planner, after a review and determination that the proposed construction is in general accordance with the standards set forth in subsection 3.25. (B) The city planner may refer any permit application for demolition or construction in the historic district for consultation with commission. Permit Information: Fence Permit #25-1463 was filed on October 8, 2025 for a Fence project at 55 Kings Highway SW in Dover, Delaware; this is the site of the Merrill Lynch Office Building. The Project outlined in the Permit submission involves placement of a six-foot vinyl Fence on the side (north) property line and along the rear (east) property line. It is proposed to be tan in color in the privacy (solid) fence format. The existing office building is setback 15.3 feet from the front property line. The plan diagram included in the Permit submission shows the fence beginning at the front property corner (near the street frontage sidewalk and forward of the building) and running east along the entrance P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 25

Item 5. HI-25-01 Referral of Fence Permit #25-1463 at 55 Kings Highway SW Staff Report to the Historic District Commission Page 2 of 4 drive that provides access to the rear parking lot. The fence then turns and runs along the rear property line between the row of parking spaces and the tree plantings on the adjoining property. The neighboring property to the north and east is the State’s DNREC Office Building including the Richardson & Robbins Building. The entire fence is proposed at a height of 6 feet. The project site is located within the local Historic District Zone (H) and subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §21 and referenced sections. This building is also located within the boundaries of a National Register Historic District, specifically the Victorian Dover Historic District. Staff Review of Permit for Architectural Review Certification: Project activities are reviewed for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone as stated in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3.25(A). Article 10 Section 3.25 Architectural review standards. (A) An architectural review certificate may be issued if it is 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 complementary to the traditional architectural standards of the historic district as set forth in the historic district design guidelines and standards adopted by the planning commission and as set forth in the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed fence along the side property line is visible from the public street of Kings Highway SW. The proposed location of both segments of the fence are visible from public property. The “public view” is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as “that which can be seen readily from a public street, public building or public property, excluding views from alley rights-of-way.” Portions of the rear fence would be blocked from view from Kings Highway SW by the mass of the building. A review of fences on other properties along this block of Kings Highway shows multiple properties with black metal picket style fences which appear to be 3 to 4 feet in height that are visible from the street. The only exception is the property at 2 Kings Highway NE where a taller fence was authorized by the Historic District Commission with HI-19-04 (metal fence replaced a previous wood picket fence and chain-link fence). In reviewing the proposed project for Architectural Review Certification, Staff referenced various sections of Chapter 3: Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone which presents the Recommended, Not Recommended, and Inappropriate approaches to construction of various elements in the Historic District. This Request should be reviewed for conformity with the design criteria and development guidelines found in the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. Specifically, Chapter 3 page 3-26 includes the discussion of Fences in the Historic District zone where it states that site Fences and walls “should not exceed 4’0” in height and then discusses the Recommended, Not Recommended, and Inappropriate practices associated with Fences and walls as related to materials. Chapter 3 presents the information on the appropriate 26 2

Item 5. HI-25-01 Referral of Fence Permit #25-1463 at 55 Kings Highway SW Staff Report to the Historic District Commission Page 3 of 4 Fence materials for use in the Historic District. Wood picket style Fences and cast iron (metal) fencing are Recommended. Staff also looked at the provisions for Fences in the Zoning Ordinance. For non-residential properties, the Zoning Ordinance limits the height of Fences to four (4) feet within the front yard setback (Article 5 §7.5) and with other provisions for increases in Fence height to 8 feet for side yards, rear yards, and the second front yard on corner lots. The front yard setback in the C-2A zoning district is 15 feet. Thus, the Zoning Ordinance would require that the first 15 feet of the Fence on the side property line be limited to 4 feet in height. Historic District Commission Action The Historic District Commission should consider the Fence project and take action in regard to the Architectural Review Certification for the Fence Permit #25-1463. The Historic District Commission may add conditions for the Fence segments in order to comply with the character of the property within the Historic District. The fence height and the fence materials must be considered. Staff Findings from Review of Fence Permit: Staff findings and recommendations are summarized as follows for the Fence project as presented in Permit #25-1463 and accompanying documents. 1. Fence Locations: The fence segments are proposed on the side (north) property line and the rear (east) property line. No Fence is proposed on the other side (south) property line or along the front property line. It is unclear if the fence is meant to screen the adjacent properties or if the fence is for security reasons. The Fences do not limit access to the rear parking lot area from Kings Highway and adjacent properties. 2. Fence Visibility: The Side Fence segment will be very visible from Kings Highway and will also block the view of the north elevation of the office building. It also will block the view of the drive aisle and partially block the view of the northern portion of the rear parking lot. Only a portion of the north end of the Rear Fence would be visible from Kings Highway when looking down the entrance drive with the remaining Rear Fence is blocked by the building. The fence segments would be visible from the adjoining properties. 3. Fence Height – Proposed at 6 feet: The Design Standards and Guidelines say that generally the height of a Fence should not exceed 4 feet. The 6-foot Fence exceeds the recommended height of the Design Standards and Guidelines. The Fence is also limited to 4 feet in height when located in the front yard setback; for this property that is a distance of 15 feet of the Side Fence. 4. Fence Material: The Fences are proposed to be tan vinyl as a solid privacy panel between a posts system for installation. The use of vinyl products is typically not recommended for use in the Historic District; however, there are examples that have been approved for Fences with conditions for use of wood products, materials with a wood grained appearance (non-shiny), or other composite materials in a neutral color (tan/clay). 27 3

Item 5. HI-25-01 Referral of Fence Permit #25-1463 at 55 Kings Highway SW Staff Report to the Historic District Commission Page 4 of 4 5. Fence Materials: The use of a solid (privacy) fence material will block views of the subject property and its rear parking lot from the adjoining properties and also from passersby on the public street and sidewalk. 6. Current Condition & Location: The property currently does not have fences along the property lines. Some vinyl fence materials appear to have been used immediately at the rear of the building to screen mechanical equipment (next to the building) and for a freestanding equipment or dumpster enclosure at the southeast corner of the parking lot. These items are not visible from Kings Highway SW. Recommendations: • Side Fence - Staff finds that this Fence is visible from Kings Highway and as a solid fence creates a very heavy looking barrier between the office building and the State building/property. On this north side, the properties appear to share a grass lawn area and the installation of a fence seems out of character. The fence would likely block views for those driving on the entrance/exit to the parking lot and also for pedestrians using the street frontage sidewalk and sidewalks on the adjoining property near the rain garden. Staff recommends elimination of the Side Fence segment. Consideration could be given to reduce this Fence to a height of 4 feet for its entire length and to utilize a black metal picket-style fencing. The side fence could begin further back behind the front face of the building and beyond the front yard setback to appear to be part of the back area of the property. • Rear Fence - Staff finds that the Rear Fence location generally has limited visibility from the public way of Kings Highway due to the office building location. The 6-foot height and solid privacy fence style appears to be used to create barrier between rear parking lot and the State property to the east. This will limit visibility to and from the property to the east. Given the location of the Fence, an allowance for it to remain at the height of 6 feet could be granted. Additional consideration about the type/color of the vinyl material for fence construction could be evaluated. Advisory Comments: 1. The applicant shall be aware that issuance of a Fence Permit is required prior to the commencement of construction. The Fence Permit Application will be subject to the conditions of approval established and may be required to be updated, if necessary, to comply with these conditions established through the Architectural Review Certification process. Attachments: • Letter of Referral Notice to Applicant dated November 13, 2025. • Building Permit #25-1463 Application Form and Permit submission documents • Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone, Chapter 3, page 3-26 to 3-27. • Aerial Map of property • Screen shot Google Streetview. 28 4

Item 5. City of Dover November 13, 2025 Gail Pierce Grasso Fence Duck Creek Fence, LLC Via Email: grassofence@yahoo.com 2547 Chance Rd Clayton DE 19938 Rodney Callahan, Colonial Properties Via Email: duckcreekfence@yahoo.com Via Email: cpsi.rodney@gmail.com Re: Referral of Fence Permit #25-1463 to Historic District Commission, HI-25-04 Fence at 55 Kings Highway SW, Dover, DE To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to inform you that Fence Permit Application # 25-1463 has been referred to the City of Dover Historic District Commission for consultation. Fence Permit #25-1463 was filed on October 8, 2025 for a fence project at 55 Kings Highway SW in Dover, Delaware (known as the Merrill Lynch Building). The project outlined in the Permit submission involves 6-foot vinyl fence along side (north) property line and along the rear property line. The location of the subject property within the City of Dover’s Historic District zone requires the review and issuance of an Architectural Review Certificate (ARC) for construction and demolition activities. Fences are eligible for Staff review of the ARC during the Building Permit application process. Project activities are reviewed for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone as stated in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3.25(A). Article 10 Section 3.25 Architectural review standards. (A) An architectural review certificate may be issued if it is 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 complementary to the traditional architectural standards of the historic district as set forth in the historic district design guidelines and standards adopted by the planning commission and as set forth in the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. In reviewing the proposed project for Architectural Review Certification, Staff referenced Chapter 3: Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings of the Design Standards and Guidelines which present the Recommended, Not Recommended, and Inappropriate approaches to activities in the Historic District. The Design Standards and Guidelines limit the height of fences to four feet and specifies appropriate materials for fencing. This project involves the placement of a six-foot fence which exceeds the recommended height in the Historic District. In addition, the fence is to be constructed of a vinyl material. Therefore, I am referring the Fence Permit application to the Historic District Commission for consultation. See Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3.22 (A) and (B) listed below. Article 10 Section 3.22 Architectural review certification by the city planner. (A) An architectural review certificate for specific classes of building permits, including fences, signs, siding, window and door replacement, roofing, the addition or replacement of decorative features, minor demolition, residential additions, and other construction of a minor nature, may be issued by the city planner, after a review and determination that the proposed construction is in general accordance with the standards set forth in subsection 3.25 P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 29

Item 5. Letter Re: Permit #24-1463 Fence at 55 Kings Highway SW, Dover DE November 13, 2025 Page 2 of 2 (B) The city planner may refer any permit application for demolition or construction in the historic district for consultation with commission. The City of Dover Historic District Commission will review this Permit at their next meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 20, 2025 at 3:30pm. Options for participating in the Meeting include attending In-Person at the City Hall Council Chambers in City Hall at 15 Loockerman Plaza and/or attending the Virtual Meeting presentation using Webex, an audio and video conferencing system. A separate meeting invitation to Join the Meeting virtually will be sent by email to the applicants; where you can click “Join Meeting” to attend that afternoon. This Permit Referral has been assigned Application #HI-25-04. You are encouraged to participate in this meeting to discuss the project. Staff will provide the Historic District Commission with the permit application materials and other background information for their review and action. Also attached to this Letter are the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone pertaining to Fencing (pages 3-26 and 3-27). If you have questions or wish to discuss alternative options, please contact the Planning Office at (302)736-7196. Sincerely, Department of Planning and Inspections Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP Principal Planner CC: Fence Permit #25-1463 HI-25-04 30

Item 5. 31

Item 5. 32

Item 5. 33

Item 5. 34

Item 5. 35

Item 5. 36

Planning & Inspections View Map Item 5. 11/14/2025, 9:14:06 AM 1:1,128 0 0.01 0.02 0.04 mi Dover_Boundary 0 0.01 0.03 0.06 km Dover Parcels Microsoft, Vantor 37 City of Dover, Delaware - Planning Department USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service | EarthData/PhotoScience Inc. | State of Delaware Department of Transportation and EarthData | EarthData International of Maryland | Sanborn Mapping Company | Digital Aerial Solutions, LLC | Surdex Corp | State of Delaware, Sanborn Map Company, Inc. |

64 Kings Hwy SW Item 5. North Entrance Drive at 55 Kings Hwy SW, Dover DE Dover, Delaware Google Street View May 2025 See more dates Image capture: May 2025 © 2025 Google 38

Item 6. City of Dover ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT for REVISED PLAN Before Dover Historic District Commission November 20, 2025 Previous Recommendation from the Dover Historic District Commission on February 20, 2025 Application: The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza, HI-25-01 REVISED Previous Owner: City of Dover Current Owner: Old Post, LLC Location: Northwest corner of Loockerman Plaza and Innovation Way in Dover, DE Addresses: 55 Loockerman Plaza Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.05-04-53.00-000 Size: 1.267 acres +/- Present Uses: Vacant Building – Former Dover Post Office Proposed Use: Mixed-Use Commercial and Multi-family Housing (Apartments) and associated parking Present Zoning: C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) H (Historic District Zone) SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) – portion of site For Consideration: Revised Architectural Review Certification This Report for Revised HI-25-01 The Old Post was updated upon submission of a Revised Architectural package and Site Plan. The Planning Staff deemed the revision substantial enough to warrant the Application to go back through the formal Architectural Review Certification process with the Historic District Commission and Planning Commission. Application HI-25-01 was initially considered by the Historic District Commission on February 20, 2025, and then considered by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2025, as Site Plan S-25-07 The Old Post. Note: This Review Report was initially prepared by Staff of the Rossi Group (under a Planning Services contract with the City of Dover). The Report was completed with additional review and editing by the City’s Planning Office. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic District Commission will act to make a recommendation regarding an Architectural Review Certificate for a Revised Site Development Plan Application for the proposed building renovation and expansion for a mixed-use commercial and multi-family (apartment) development P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 39

Item 6. HI-25-01 The Old Post (Revised) at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission November 20, 2025 Meeting Page 2 of 12 in Downtown Dover, to be located at 55 Loockerman Plaza, also known as The Old Post. The development proposal is for the 1.267-acre site. The project involves the demolition of the rear warehouse portion of the existing building and adaptive re-use of the front 4,560 SF portion (revised to 4,479 SF) of the building for commercial retail and business space. In this Revision, increases in apartment unit count from 36 to 42 units and architectural changes consisting of a second-floor addition to the front wings of the building and a four-story 43,092 SF building addition proposed for forty-two (42) residential apartment units and with parking and other site improvements. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and is subject to H (Historic District Zone). The south portion of the site along the frontage of Loockerman Plaza is within the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 3 Excellent Recharge Area. Because the property is within the Downtown Redevelopment Target Area, it is exempt from the requirements of the SWPOZ. The property is located on the north side of Loockerman Plaza and adjacent to Innovation Way. The owner of record is The Old Post, LLC. Property Address: 55 Loockerman Plaza. Tax Parcel: ED-05- 077.05-04-53.00-000. Council District 4. The design revisions for The Old Post are presented and focus changes to the building height and scale; adding an additional story on the front wings; adding an additional story, from three stories to four stories on the rear addition; and increasing the number of apartment units from 36 to 42, as well as refinements to the architectural character and material utilization. These are more fully described in the Applicant’s Revised submission. Surrounding Land Uses The location of the subject property at the corner of Loockerman Plaza and Innovation Way is within the Downtown Development District (and Downtown Redevelopment Target Area). As previously noted, the parcel is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and within the Historic District. Properties immediately adjacent to the subject project location are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The Dover Public Library is adjacent to the site to the west. Properties owned and occupied by the State of Delaware are adjacent to the north (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control - DNREC) and across Loockerman Plaza to the south. The property across Innovation Way to the east is Treadway Towers, which includes offices and a restaurant. The surrounding properties are also within the H (Historic Zone) and the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 3 Excellent Recharge Area. Previous Applications The existing structure was constructed in the 1960s and was in service as the Dover Post Office until the new post office location opened on Bank Lane in 2021. The previous owner of the property was the City of Dover. After the Post Office closed, the City initiated an RFP process to solicit proposals for redevelopment of the site. The current owner, Old Post, LLC was selected through this process. Application Z-24-01, approved by City Council on February 12, 2024, rezoned the property from IO (Institutional and Office Zone) to C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) with it remaining in the H (Historic District Zone) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). 40

Item 6. HI-25-01 The Old Post (Revised) at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission November 20, 2025 Meeting Page 3 of 12 Application HI-25-01 was initially considered by the Historic District Commission on February 20, 2025, and then considered by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2025, as Site Plan S-25-07 The Old Post. A separate copy of the Historic District Commission’s Recommendation Report and the original presentation submission documents is also being provided for reference. II. HISTORIC PROPERTY INFORMATION Review of Historic Maps Prior to 1926, Loockerman Plaza did not extend beyond South State Street. Loockerman Plaza was extended between 1926 and 1936. The building was constructed in the 1960’s. Property Information The subject property is located within H (Historic District Zone) as established by the City of Dover. There are four contexts that contribute to the historic character of Dover, including the Green Historic Context; the Victorian Historic Context; the Loockerman Historic Context; and the Capitol Square Historic Context. This property is located within the Capitol Square Historic Context. The first buildings in the Capitol Square Context were built in the 1930’s and 1940’s as part of the Federal Works Project Administration. The Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone describe this context as “neo-Georgian featuring two-story brick facades with a water table, marble surround at the entrance, keystones over the window heads, dentilled cornices and hip roofs… greater latitude is recommended in determining what is appropriate for new construction and additions within this context… a compatible contemporary building is preferable to a falsely historical one.” The building located at 55 Loockerman Plaza was constructed in the 1960s. The most prominent features are the 5-bay Classical pediment with its turned gable, tympanum, and large columns. Under this projection, the front elevation wall is setback and includes the door entry with pedimented surround. The building has a gable roof with the rear being a flat roof system. It features a brick exterior, columns, dentil cornices, and shuttered windows. The building currently includes second floor offices (approximately 2,160 SF), a basement (approximately 5,865 SF), and the first floor of approximately 21,151 SF. There is an existing on-site parking lot (unmarked) and loading dock. The interior has been completely gutted as a result of recent asbestos abatement. The structure is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and this portion of the Historic District is not part of an Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places. III. PROJECT PROPOSAL PROJECT PROPOSAL as Revised (Architectural Graphics Package and Site Plan dated October 2025) The application proposes the demolition of the rear portion of the existing structure and replacement of that structure with a new addition, while maintaining and rehabilitating the front of the present structure (4,560 SF, revised 4,497 SF) including adding a second story to the front wings of the building. Capital City 2030: Transforming Downtown Dover Master Plan identified the Old Dover Post Office as a Project Site. The Master Plan proposes that a new commercial 41

Item 6. HI-25-01 The Old Post (Revised) at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission November 20, 2025 Meeting Page 4 of 12 building could reactivate the site. This project is also identified as a Key Project within the City’s Downtown Development District (Renewal) application of 2024. The proposed development will repurpose two 2,500-SF retail units and one 2,000-SF unit for a business (office) space in the former Post Office front area. The front wings of the building will be expanded with the addition of second floor space The rear warehouse portion of the building will be demolished and replaced with a new four-story structure comprised of 42 apartment (multi- family) units. The Applicant’s original submission included a Narrative Letter, a Site Plan set, and Architectural Graphics set with building elevations and 3-D views. The Applicant’s Revised submission of October 17, 2025 includes a Revised Architectural Graphics Package and Site Plan Sheet. The elements of the project are as follows with notations on the Revisions: 1. Partial Demolition: The rear flat-roofed warehouse portion of the building is to be demolished as this is where the four-story building addition is proposed. The front gable roofed portion of the existing building is to remain in its same footprint. 2. Existing Building Renovations: New Azek trimwork is proposed to match the existing. It is unclear from the submission if the design includes dentil cornices. New replacement shutters, windows, and front door are noted to match the existing. The Revised Plan involves the demolition of the roof areas and paired chimneys of the one-story wings to add an additional floor to make them two story. The Revised Plan shows a new gable roof in asphalt shingles will be constructed over the original building front wings with two dormers added over each wing. The Revised Plan shows that each wing of the front portion of the building will include paired sets of glass doors with Azek Trim. 3. Building Addition: The Revised proposed four-story addition will be located directly behind the front massing portion of building (main block). The proposed addition will be 43 feet 6 inches tall. The existing building is 33 feet 2 inches tall at the peak of its roof. The addition will feature a brick veneer and brick engaged pilasters with horizontal banding in brick detailing along all sides on floors two, three, and four, and floor one using EFIS in a white brick finish. The Revised roof features a wide cornice at the roofline. The east and west elevations include large glass windows (with door) for the apartments. Glass and black aluminum railings (black steel cable railing) will be used to enclose balconies. The Revised addition eliminates some exterior balconies and adds architectural relief by recessing balconies partially into the building. 4. Parking Lot: A parking lot will be developed along the west side and north side of the building with access from Innovation Way. This new parking lot will not have vehicular access from the large municipal parking lot at the Dover Public Library. The applicant is also working with the City in regards to the adjacent row of parking east of the Library. 42

Item 6. HI-25-01 The Old Post (Revised) at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission November 20, 2025 Meeting Page 5 of 12 The parking lot is fenced with a black aluminum fence and appears to have narrow bands of grass at the perimeter on the west and north. 5. Sidewalks and Site Amenities: The proposal maintains connected sidewalks along Innovation Way and Loockerman Plaza. There are also sidewalks adjacent to the parking lot leading to the building and from the street frontage sidewalks. At some points, steps are necessary to ascend up to the building. A ramp system is noted on the Site Plan for the north building elevation but not depicted in the renderings. A fenced Zen garden is proposed to abut the building addition along Innovation Way, but its details are unclear for this slightly sloped area. 6. Tree Planting and Landscaping: The February 2025 submitted project plan identified five existing trees on the current site; it is not clear whether they will be removed to create space for new concrete patio areas or be kept. The October 2025 renderings appear to include tree plantings and other areas of landscaping. Please identify on the site plan whether the trees will stay or where five replacement trees will be located. See the attached Plan submission and associated graphics and drawings for detailed information on building dimensions, locations, and material choices. IV. ZONING REVIEW The entire project site is located in the H (Historic District Zone) and subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §21 and referenced sections. Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §3.2 outlines the review process for Architectural Review Certification and related building height, bulk, and setback standards. The property is partially within the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 3 Excellent Recharge Area, but it is exempt from the requirements of this zone due to its location within the Downtown Redevelopment Target Area. The subject project area is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone). The C-2 zone allows for “retail stores, apartments and multi-family dwellings provided that now dwelling units shall be permitted on the first floor on the street frontage of Loockerman Street; uses accessory to the residential units such as lobby and amenity spaces are permitted on the first floor; live-work units; parking lots and parking structures” as principal uses. The subject property has frontage on two streets, Loockerman Plaza and Innovation Way. The C-2 zone requires a zero minimum front yard. No side yard is required; however, if one is provided then it shall be a 5-foot side yard minimum. A 20-foot rear yard setback is required above ground floor and 5-foot is required at ground floor. The maximum building height for this district is 10 stories or 125 feet. Code Compliance for C-2 Required Provided Front Setback 0 feet > 35 feet Rear Setback 20 feet above ground floor. At > 100 feet ground floor, 5’required 43

Item 6. HI-25-01 The Old Post (Revised) at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission November 20, 2025 Meeting Page 6 of 12 Side Setback None required, but 5-foot min. Approx. 15 feet if provided Building Height 10 stories (125 feet) 4 stories (43 feet 6 inches) The C-2 zoning district also includes design standards provisions. See the code excerpt below: Article 3 Section 13 13.5 Design standards. The following standards shall apply to the site and building development in the central commercial zone (C-2): 13.51 Façade articulation. Building facades should incorporate design elements to provide a base, middle, and top of the building to reinforce the pedestrian scale at the street level. 13.52 Height. For buildings greater than four stories in height, then the upper floors above the fourth story shall step back six feet for fifty percent of the width of the primary facade. For buildings greater than six stories, then the upper floors above the sixth fl oor shall step back an additional six feet on the primary façade. These step back areas may begin at a lower height than these minimums as part of the building design in order to be compatible with the character of the area. 13.53 Step back areas. The step back areas should be open to the sky and can be open air balcony spaces or other design architectural features that are not enclosed spaces. 13.54 Off-street parking. Off-street parking lots shall not be permitted to be situated between the street line and the primary facade of the principal building. Consideration should be given to locating parking to the side or rear of the building. 13.55 Screening. Any off-street parking lots provided shall be screened from the street line by buildings, landscaping, or other means. Off-street parking lots shall be screened from adjacent residential zones and residential uses. This screening provision does not apply to adjacent alleys. V. Review of DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The subject property is located in the H (Historic District Zone) within the Capitol Square Context. The Capitol Square Context is described on pages 2-8 and 2-9 of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. This Design Standards and Guidelines describe this context as “neo-Georgian featuring two-story brick facades with a water table, marble surround at the entrance, keystones over the window heads, dentilled cornices and hip roofs… greater latitude is recommended in determining what is appropriate for new construction and additions within this context… a compatible contemporary building is preferable to a falsely historical one.” Location within the Dover Historic District Zone requires proposals for demolition, new construction, building additions, and certain renovation or rehabilitation activities to existing buildings to receive an Architectural Review Certificate. As stated in the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone, an Architectural Review Certificate will be granted “if it is found that the architectural style, general design, height, bulk and setbacks, arrangement location and materials affecting the exterior appearance are generally in harmony with neighboring structures and complementary to the traditional architectural standards of the historic district.” In accordance with Article 10 §3.2, the 44

Item 6. HI-25-01 The Old Post (Revised) at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission November 20, 2025 Meeting Page 7 of 12 Historic District Commission will provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the Revised project’s compliance with the architectural review standards. This Revised proposal must be reviewed for conformity with the design criteria guidelines found in Chapter 3: Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings and Chapter 4: New Construction, Additions, Demolition and Relocation. Information on the review considerations is given below. Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings The Design Standards and Guidelines for Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings (Chapter 3: pages 3-1 through 3-27) provide the design criteria and development guidelines. The preservation of the historic character of the District is largely a function of the preservation of the existing historic building fabric. This Chapter discusses the various building elements and should also be referenced with new construction. Any off-street parking lots provided shall be screened from the street line by buildings, landscaping, or other means. The guidelines specify that “parking lots should be screened from the street, their layout should include borders and islands planted with trees and shrubs to break-up expanses of paved areas. Given a parking lot within the Dover Historic District zone, at least 20% of the area within it should be unpaved and planted.” Demolition The proposal for demolition of a portion of the building must be reviewed for conformity with the design criteria guidelines found in Chapter 4: New Construction, Additions, Demolition and Relocation. The Design Standards and Guidelines gives guidance to the Historic District Commission by listing specific criteria to be evaluated when considering applications for the demolition of buildings (or portions of buildings) in the historic district (Chapter 4: pages 4-10 to 4-12). These guidelines are summarized below (see Design Standards and Guidelines for the complete text). 1. Determine the financial implications of maintaining a property versus demolition. 2. Regardless of economic issues the relative significance of the individual buildings slated for demolition should be evaluated. 3. 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. 4. Determine the extent of adequate recordation of a property the applicant would be required to complete if demolition were approved. 5. Lots left vacant by demolition should be treated in a manner that is sympathetic to the historic context. 45

Item 6. HI-25-01 The Old Post (Revised) at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission November 20, 2025 Meeting Page 8 of 12 New Construction The Design Standards and Guidelines for New Construction (Chapter 4: pages 4-1 through 4-8) provide the design criteria and development guidelines. The guidelines specify the following individual considerations for new construction to be considered in the review by the Historic District Commission (and Planning Commission) of the project for Architectural Review Certification: • Style • Scale (building to reflect dominant cornice and roof height of adjacent buildings) • Elevation of the First Floor • Floor-to-Floor heights • Bays, windows, and doors (size, relationship, spacing of) • Absolute Size (compare overall size of new building) • Massing (relationship of solid-to-void) • Orientation (location of primary façade) • Proportions (comparison of height to width of building and elements) • Materials • Forms (shape of building and roof to be complementary) • Siting (location of building on lot and in relation to street) • High density/ large-scale construction The proposed project must also be reviewed for compliance with the standards established by the Zoning Ordinance. The standards include items such as setbacks from property lines, lot coverage, height, etc. This Revised Proposal for the Old Post appears to conform to most of the bulk requirements of the C-2 Zoning District; however, should be verified via Site Plan review. The City of Dover Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Historic District Commission to waive certain bulk standards when issuing its recommendation to the Planning Commission for an Architectural Review Certificate if necessary. It is noted that the Zoning Ordinance also includes other site development requirements such as dumpsters, lighting, tree planting, bicycle parking, rear emergency access, spacing requirements, etc. ACTION on ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CERTIFICATION (for HI-25-01 with February 2025 Review by Historic District Commission and March 17, 2025 Review by Planning Commission): Application HI-25-01 was considered at the February 20, 2025 Meeting of the Historic District Commission. The following members were present at the February Meeting: Chairman Eric Czerwinski, Vice-Chair Mrs. Ellen Richardson, Mrs. Ann Horsey, and Ms. Mary Mason. The application was represented by Mike Glick of Lighthouse Construction along with Lauren Townsend. Public testimony was received during the Public Hearing from Todd Stonesifer as Board President of the Downtown Dover Partnership. During the Meeting, the Historic District Commission heard the applicants’ presentation on The Old Post Project and including their response to the series of Staff Comments and Recommendations. They presented information on the site’s history; the development site and building placement; 46

Item 6. HI-25-01 The Old Post (Revised) at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission November 20, 2025 Meeting Page 9 of 12 building architectural features and materials; and other site items. Questions focused on the building elevation detailing, planned uses in the building, and building height. Action on Architectural Review Certification Recommendation by Historic District Commission: The motion to recommend approval passed 4-0 of the members present for this application at the February 20, 2025 Meeting. The Historic District Commission recommended approval of the Architectural Review Certificate for Application HI-25-01 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza based on the applicant’s presentation and plans with reference to the Staff notes and amendments (Staff Recommendation Report – Section VI) and with information from the applicant’s Response Letter. Action on Architecture Review Certification and Site Plan by the Planning Commission: On March 17, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 9-0 to approve the Site Plan, including the Architectural Review Certification. The motion is as follows: Mr. Lewis moved to approve S-25-07 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza and the associated Architectural Review Certification for the redevelopment of the old Post Office property including the Parking Strategy Statement and the Active Recreation Area Plan, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Lewis voting yes; he thinks it is much needed in the area and it’s an exciting plan. He is looking forward to seeing it come to fruition. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Denney voting yes; but she really does object to the parking. She sees problems but otherwise she thinks it is well done. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; he thinks it is a great use of the building. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Reaves voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she thinks it is a professionally well done package and she thinks it’s in keeping with what we are trying to accomplish in Downtown Dover. Mr. Witham voting yes; he thinks this is an excellent use of this property given the limited use of this space that the property has. He thinks that the parking arrangement is probably the best that they could come up with given the environment that they are faced with. It is a well-designed building and the only drawback that he see is that it does not have a flagpole indicated. He votes yes for the reasons stated in the record by fellow Commissioners as well as the DAC comments and the Planning Commission’s statements. STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff Comments and Recommendations for this application regarding the Architectural Review Certification were originally provided in the Architectural Review Staff Report Issued for the February 20, 2025 Historic District Commission Meeting. The comments and recommendations were updated for this Report following Staff’s review of the Revised Submission dated October 17, 2025. 1) Staff again recommends conditional approval of the Architectural Review Certificate for The Old Post project, finding that the building to be of a compatible design with the nearby buildings and with the intent of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. This includes the demolition of the rear portion of the building, the 47

Item 6. HI-25-01 The Old Post (Revised) at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission November 20, 2025 Meeting Page 10 of 12 renovation of the front section with the addition of a second floor to the front building wings, and the new building addition at the rear (north). The proposed multi-use site enhances the pedestrian scale of the downtown area. The preservation of the general building massing portion (and footprint) fronting Loockerman Plaza maintains the historic context of the area. The brick exterior finishes on the second-floor addition and on the upper three stories and EFIS in a white brick appearance (to resemble bricks) along the first story on the new addition take cues from the architectural styles seen in the Loockerman Street corridor and Capitol Square context. 2) The following conditions are recommended by Staff to improve the project’s compliance with the recommended guidelines of the Design Standards and Guidelines. The following are recommended conditions: a. The selected brick choices should be compatible with the brick on the existing structure. The brick material color, size, and format should be identified. b. At the transition point from the existing first floor to the new second floor in the front building wings should be clarified some type of brick detail would blend the brick transition/break in old brick and new brick. c. Clarify the pattern treatment of the EIFS finishes on the first floor of the rear addition. The rendering as brick with a dark grout line is a very busy pattern. This should be simplified to a flat finish with scored lines to add details of horizontal and vertical bands as it appears on the linework drawings. d. Clarify the wall section at the cornice to clarify if the cornice protects in a different plane than the general wall surface. Cornicework is a very significant feature of the buildings in the area. It is unclear if the proposed building would include dentil cornices. Dentil cornices are recommended, particularly on the south-facing side of the building. e. A paneled door should be used on the exterior doors unless it is a glass door opening. Modern flush doors are not appropriate. f. Repairing windows with in-kind materials is preferable to replacing windows. When irreparable, replacement windows should replicate the historic windows as closely as possible in light pattern, opening size, and function. The main block of the building appears to originally have 12 over 12 light windows. g. While shutters are encouraged, vinyl and aluminum shutters are inappropriate. The material for the replacement shutters was not identified. h. It is inappropriate to remove historic decorative elements. The round six-part window with trimwork in the tympanum should be retained and the building name can be placed under it still in the pediment. i. Consideration of wall or free-standing signage may require additional review. j. Clarify the roof to wall connection from the front building to the rear addition. It appears that some areas may result in valleys trapping water and debris. k. Identify any roof drainage systems i.e. gutters and downspouts and the proposed materials. l. Clarify if brick will be used as the exterior cladding materials for the dormer. Typically, masonry is not used in these features and a siding material and trimwork is more often used. 48

Item 6. HI-25-01 The Old Post (Revised) at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission November 20, 2025 Meeting Page 11 of 12 m. Identify the main entrance door(s) to the apartment building area; is it on Innovation Way or from the parking lot sides? n. Identify the railing materials along the steps in the sidewalk system and for the accessible ramp on the north end of the building. Ensure there is adequate space to fit the ramp and sidewalk. o. Any light fixtures utilized on the property should be consistent with the style of the lighting used in the nearby areas of the Capitol Square Context of the Historic District. p. Any revisions or changes in the identified materials may be subject to further review by the Historic District Commission. 3) Some of the site improvements/amenities were not specifically described or had limited information within the application information. Please provide information for consideration and discussion. a. Provide information on the dumpster enclosure construction and screening. b. Identify format of black aluminum fencing. c. Provide information on the tree planting plan, other landscaping, and the format of the Zen garden area. d. Identify location of bicycle parking (exterior rack). 4) Clarify whether existing trees on the site will be preserved. If they are proposed to be removed, replacement of removed trees will be required. The development area (the property) is also subject to tree planting requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 5) Staff recommends the following pertaining to the site design elements of the project: a. The C-2 zoning district requires that parking lots be screened from the street. This Revised Plan appears to have deleted to the parking lot improvements from Innovation Way that added curing and grass areas. These should be reimplemented. b. Evaluate the parking lot space locations as some spaces are not full sized or would be impacted by the Dumpster Enclosure gates. Also, the northern drive aisle does not meet the width requirement for two-way travel. Remove unnecessary paving to create green islands. Add parking bumpers to ensure vehicles do not impact fence. c. The sidewalk system on the street frontage should continue and include barrier free access, crosswalk striping, etc. at the points of intersection with the entrance and exit drive aisles. d. Any proposed landscaping or tree planting locations, and lighting fixture locations should be depicted on the plan and be consistent with the character of these elements as they exist within the Capitol Square Context area. 6) The existing building has a cornerstone/date stone that should be retained. There may also be an opportunity to add a plaque or other method outlining the history of the building (time of service as the Dover Post Office). 49

Item 6. HI-25-01 The Old Post (Revised) at 55 Loockerman Plaza Revised Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission November 20, 2025 Meeting Page 12 of 12 7) For building construction, the requirements of the building code or fire code must be complied with. Consult with the Building Inspection Staff and Fire Marshal regarding these requirements. The resolution of these items can impact the site design in some cases. 8) In the event that major changes and revisions to the design, materials, or site layout occur in the finalization of the plan and/or construction drawings contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Historic District Commission. 9) This site development plan for this Revised project is also subject to the application and review process for Site Development Plan (Article 10 §2 of the Zoning Ordinance) before the Planning Commission. Note: Additional technical items for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and other regulations may be identified during the Site Plan Process. Review comments pertaining specifically to the Site Plan set will be issued at that time. 10) The applicant shall be aware that Building Permits are required to proceed with any construction activities on the project site. The permit applications must comply with the approvals and conditions granted through the Architectural Review Certification and Site Plan Review process. 11) The applicant should be aware that a Sign Permit is required to proceed with the placement of signage on the property. Historic District Commission Action Required on Revised Submission The Historic District Commission shall consider the Revised Proposal and provide a recommendation in regard to the Architectural Review Certification for the Old Post building and associated Site Improvements as Revised. The recommendation should reflect consideration of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. 50

Item 6. 51

Item 6. 52

Item 6. 53

Item 6. 54

Item 6. 55

Item 6. 56

Item 6. 57

Item 6. 58

Item 6. 59

Item 6. SITE HATCH LEGEND: SITE LEGEND: A STOP SIGN (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-102) B HANDICAP PARKING SPACE WITH SIGN (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-102) PROPOSED CONCRETE C MODIFIED 1-6 CURB (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-102) D DUMPSTER (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-102) E PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROPOSED PAVEMENT SECTION F PROPOSED ADA RAMP G PROPOSED 4' TALL BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE H PROPOSED GATE EXISTING CONCRETE PARKING LOT I PROPOSED STEPS J PROPOSED PATIO/BALCONY K PROPOSED FLAG POLE L PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-102) M EXISTING LIGHT POLE N PROPOSED PATIO 60' EXIST. R.O.W. INNOVATION WY. 5' SIDE SETBACK R1 6' CITY OF DOVER, KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE G G F M G M M G M A PROPOSED A 2' I ZEN GARDEN 5' 23' I 5' H 8' 2,482 S.F. (VARIES) OLD DOVER POST C I 5' J J J J J ' M R5 B J 18' 18' 9' F K 9' N K B K PROPOSED 9' 4 STORY EXIST. M 11 11 BUILDING ACK R.O.W. ADDITION VARIES ETB B 43,092 S.F. ONT F 14 24' 18' S 0' FR M 18' COMMERCIAL PROPERTY 9' 6 9' G 6' 2' R5 J J J J ' 9' 9' 5' 12' . KERM 19' I AN ST (VARIES) M 10' LOOC 8' R C 24' M 18' 18' J 9' R5 9' ' 20' REAR D SETBACK 24 5' SIDE J SETBACK H G M M L L G P:\lighthouse\2916a039 old dover post\DESIGN\2916A039-SITE PLAN.dwg Oct 28 , 2025 - 4:21pm KESR Date: APRIL 2025 Scale: 1"=20' Dwn.By: CAW Proj.No.: 2916A039 SITE PLAN Dwg.No.: 0 20 40 60 C-101 60 THIS DRAWING, THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES DISCLOSED ARE PROPRIETARY TO DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC., AND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR REUSED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2025

Item 6. City of Dover ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT Recommendation from the Dover Historic District Commission Meeting of February 20, 2025 And Staff Review Report Application: The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza, HI-25-01 Owner: City of Dover Equitable Owner: Old Post, LLC Location: Northwest corner of Loockerman Plaza and Innovation Way in Dover, DE Addresses: 55 Loockerman Plaza Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.05-04-53.00-000 Size: 1.267 acres +/- Present Uses: Vacant Building – Former Dover Post Office Proposed Use: Mixed-Use Commercial and Multi-family Housing (Apartments) and associated parking Present Zoning: C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) H (Historic District Zone) SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) For Consideration: Architectural Review Certification ACTION OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION: The application was considered at the February 20, 2025 Meeting of the Historic District Commission. The following members were present at the February Meeting: Chairman Eric Czerwinski, Vice-Chair Mrs. Ellen Richardson, Mrs. Ann Horsey, and Ms. Mary Mason. The application was represented by Mike Glick of Lighthouse Construction along with Lauren Townsend. Public testimony was received during the Public Hearing from Todd Stonesifer as Board President of the Downtown Dover Partnership. Action Taken by Historic District Commission: The motion to recommend approval passed 4-0 of the members present for this application at the February 20, 2025 Meeting. The Historic District Commission recommends approval of the Architectural Review Certificate for Application HI-25-01 The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza based on the applicant’s presentation and plans with reference to the Staff notes and P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 61

Item 6. HI-25-02 The Old Post Architectural Review Certification Recommendation Report from Historic District Commission February 20, 2025 Meeting Page 2 of 10 amendments (Staff Recommendation Report – Section VI) and with information from the applicant’s Response Letter. During the Meeting, the Historic District Commission heard the applicants’ presentation on The Old Post Project and including their response to the series of Staff Comments and Recommendations. They presented information on the site’s history; the development site and building placement; building architectural features and materials; and other site items. Questions focused on the building elevation detailing, planned uses in the building, and building height. An Excerpt of Meeting Minutes is being prepared. Note: This Review Report was initially prepared by Staff of the Rossi Group (under a Planning Services contract with the City of Dover). The Report was completed with additional review and editing by the City’s Planning Office. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic District Commission will act to make a recommendation for an Architectural Review Certificate for a Site Development Plan Application for the proposed building renovation and expansion for a mixed-use commercial and multi-family (apartment) development in Downtown Dover, to be located at 55 Loockerman Plaza, also known as The Old Post. The development proposal for the 1.267-acre site includes the demolition of the rear warehouse portion of the existing building, the preservation of a 4,560-SF portion of the existing building, and a proposed building addition of 31,500 SF for 36 residential apartments. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and is subject to H (Historic District Zone). The south portion of the site along the frontage of Loockerman Plaza is within the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 3 Excellent Recharge Area. Because the property is within the Downtown Redevelopment Target Area, it is exempt from the requirements of the SWPOZ. The owner of record is the City of Dover, and the equitable owner is Old Post, LLC. Property Address: 55 Loockerman Plaza. Tax Parcel: ED-05- 077.05-04-53.00-000 Surrounding Land Uses The location of the subject property at the corner of Loockerman Plaza and Innovation Way is within the Downtown Development District (and Downtown Redevelopment Target Area). As previously noted, the parcel is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and within the Historic District. Properties immediately adjacent to the subject project location are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The Dover Public Library is adjacent to the site to the west. Properties owned and occupied by the State of Delaware are adjacent to the north (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control) and across Loockerman Plaza to the south. The property across Innovation Way to the east is Treadway Towers, which includes offices and a restaurant. The surrounding properties are also within the H (Historic Zone) and the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 3 Excellent Recharge Area. Previous Applications The existing structure was constructed in the 1960s and was in service as the Dover Post Office until the new post office location opened on Bank Lane in 2021. The property owner is the City of 62

Item 6. HI-25-02 The Old Post Architectural Review Certification Recommendation Report from Historic District Commission February 20, 2025 Meeting Page 3 of 10 Dover. After the Post Office closed, the City initiated an RFP process to solicit proposals for redevelopment of the site. The equitable owner, Old Post, LLC was selected through this process. Application Z-24-01, approved by City Council on February 12, 2024, rezoned the property from IO (Institutional and Office Zone) to C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) with it remaining in the H (Historic District Zone) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). II. HISTORIC PROPERTY INFORMATION Review of Historic Maps Prior to 1926, Loockerman Plaza did not extend beyond South State Street. Loockerman Plaza was extended between 1926 and 1936. The building was constructed in the 1960’s. Property Information The subject property is located within H (Historic District Zone) as established by the City of Dover. There are four contexts that contribute to the historic character of Dover, including the Green Historic Context; the Victorian Historic Context; the Loockerman Historic Context; and the Capitol Square Historic Context. This property is located within the Capitol Square Historic Context. The first buildings in the Capitol Square Context were built in the 1930’s and 1940’s as part of the Federal Works Project Administration. The Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone describe this context as “neo-Georgian featuring two-story brick facades with a water table, marble surround at the entrance, keystones over the window heads, dentilled cornices and hip roofs… greater latitude is recommended in determining what is appropriate for new construction and additions within this context… a compatible contemporary building is preferable to a falsely historical one.” The building located at 55 Loockerman Plaza was constructed in the 1960s. The most prominent features are the 5-bay Classical pediment with its turned gable, tympanum, and large columns. Under this projection, the front elevation wall is setback and includes the door entry with pedimented surround. The building has a gable roof with the rear being a flat roof system. It features a brick exterior, columns, dentil cornices, and shuttered windows. The building currently includes second floor offices (approximately 2,160 SF), a basement (approximately 5,865 SF), and the first floor of approximately 21,151 SF. There is an existing on-site parking lot (unmarked) and loading dock. The interior has been completely gutted as a result of recent asbestos abatement. The structure is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and this portion of the Historic District is not part of an Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places. III. PROJECT PROPOSAL PROJECT PROPOSAL (Submission of January 2025): The application proposes the demolition of the rear portion of the existing structure and replacement of that structure with a new addition, while maintaining and rehabilitating the front of the present structure (4,560 SF). Capital City 2030: Transforming Downtown Dover Master Plan identified the Old Dover Post Office as a Project Site. The Master Plan proposes that a new commercial building could reactivate the site. This project is also identified as a Key Project within the City’s Downtown Development District (Renewal) application of 2024. 63

Item 6. HI-25-02 The Old Post Architectural Review Certification Recommendation Report from Historic District Commission February 20, 2025 Meeting Page 4 of 10 The proposed development will repurpose two 2,500-SF retail units and one 2,000-SF for a business (office) space in the former Post Office front area. The rear warehouse portion of the building will be demolished and replaced with a new three-story structure comprised of 36 apartment (multifamily) units. The Applicant’s submission includes a Narrative Letter, a Site Plan set, and Architectural Graphics set with building elevations and 3-D views. The elements of the project are as follows: 1. Partial Demolition: The rear flat-roofed warehouse portion of the building is to be demolished as this is where the three-story building addition is proposed. The front gable roofed portion of the existing building is to remain. 2. Existing Building Renovations: New wood trim is proposed to match the existing. It is unclear from the submission if the design includes dentil cornices. New replacement shutters, windows, front door are noted to match the existing. The building elevations feature headers or some framing above each of the smaller windows. Each wing of the front portion of the building will include new larger openings with a proposed large glass Nanawall door system. 3. Building Addition: The proposed three-story addition will be located directly behind the preserved portion of building. The proposed addition will be 35 feet tall. The existing building is 33’ 2” tall at the peak of its roof. The addition will feature a brick veneer and brick engaged pilasters along all sides on floors two and three and floor one using EFIS in a limestone finish. The east and west elevations include large glass windows (with door) for the apartment unit spaces. Glass and black aluminum railings will be used to enclose balconies. 4. Parking Lot: A parking lot will be developed along the west side and north side of the building with access from Innovation Way. This new parking lot will not have vehicular access from the large municipal parking lot at the Dover Public Library. The applicant is also working with the City in regards to the adjacent row of parking to the east of the Library. The parking lot is fenced and appears to have grass lawn areas at the perimeter. 5. Sidewalks and Site Amenities: The proposal maintains connected sidewalks along Innovation Way and Loockerman Plaza. Therea re also sidewalks adjacent to the parking lot leading to the building. The renderings show additional amenities, including bicycle racks and benches. A fenced in dog-run is proposed to abut the building addition along Innovation Way. 6. Tree Planting and Landscaping: The project plan identifies five existing trees on the current site, it is not clear whether they will be removed to create space for new concrete patio areas or be kept. Please identify the trees on the site plan (Sheet PL-03) or where five replacement trees will be located. 64

Item 6. HI-25-02 The Old Post Architectural Review Certification Recommendation Report from Historic District Commission February 20, 2025 Meeting Page 5 of 10 See the attached Plan submission and associated graphics and drawings for detailed information on building dimensions, locations, and material choices. IV. ZONING REVIEW The entire project site is located in the H (Historic District Zone) and subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §21 and referenced sections. Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §3.2 outlines the review process for Architectural Review Certification and related building height, bulk, and setback standards. The property is partially within the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 3 Excellent Recharge Area, but it is exempt from the requirements of this zone due to its location within the Downtown Redevelopment Target Area. The subject project area is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone). The C-2 zone allows for “retail stores, apartments and multi-family dwellings provided that now dwelling units shall be permitted on the first floor on the street frontage of Loockerman Street; uses accessory to the residential units such as lobby and amenity spaces are permitted on the first floor; live-work units; parking lots and parking structures” as principal uses. The subject property has frontage on two streets, Loockerman Plaza and Innovation Way. The C-2 zone requires a zero minimum front yard. No side yard is required; however, if one is provided then it shall be a 5-foot side yard minimum. A 20-foot rear yard setback is required above ground floor and 5-foot is required at ground floor. The maximum building height for this district is 10 stories or 125 feet. Code Compliance for C-2 Required Provided Front Setback 0’ > 35’ Rear Setback 20’ above ground floor. At > 100’ ground floor, 5’required Side Setback None required, but 5’ min. if Approx. 15’ provided Building Height 10 stories (125’) 3 stories (35’) The C-2 zoning district also includes some design standards provisions. See the code excerpt below: Article 3 Section 13 13.5 Design standards. The following standards shall apply to the site and building development in the central commercial zone (C-2): 13.51 Façade articulation. Building facades should incorporate design elements to provide a base, middle, and top of the building to reinforce the pedestrian scale at the street level. 13.52 Height. For buildings greater than four stories in height, then the upper floors above the fourth story shall step back six feet for fifty percent of the width of the primary facade. For buildings greater than six stories, then the upper floors above the sixth fl oor shall step back an additional six feet on the primary façade. These step back areas may begin at a lower height than these minimums as part of the building design in order to be compatible with the character of the area. 65

Item 6. HI-25-02 The Old Post Architectural Review Certification Recommendation Report from Historic District Commission February 20, 2025 Meeting Page 6 of 10 13.53 Step back areas. The step back areas should be open to the sky and can be open air balcony spaces or other design architectural features that are not enclosed spaces. 13.54 Off-street parking. Off-street parking lots shall not be permitted to be situated between the street line and the primary facade of the principal building. Consideration should be given to locating parking to the side or rear of the building. 13.55 Screening. Any off-street parking lots provided shall be screened from the street line by buildings, landscaping, or other means. Off-street parking lots shall be screened from adjacent residential zones and residential uses. This screening provision does not apply to adjacent alleys. V. Review of DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The subject property is located in the H (Historic District Zone) within the Capitol Square Context. The Capitol Square Context is described on pages 2-8 and 2-9 of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. This Design Standards and Guidelines describe this context as “neo-Georgian featuring two-story brick facades with a water table, marble surround at the entrance, keystones over the window heads, dentilled cornices and hip roofs… greater latitude is recommended in determining what is appropriate for new construction and additions within this context… a compatible contemporary building is preferable to a falsely historical one.” Location within the Dover Historic District Zone requires proposals for demolition, new construction, building additions, and certain renovation or rehabilitation activities to existing buildings to receive an Architectural Review Certificate. As stated in the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone, an Architectural Review Certificate will be granted “if it is found that the architectural style, general design, height, bulk and setbacks, arrangement location and materials affecting the exterior appearance are generally in harmony with neighboring structures and complementary to the traditional architectural standards of the historic district.” In accordance with Article 10 §3.2, the Historic District Commission will provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the project’s compliance with the architectural review standards. This proposal must be reviewed for conformity with the design criteria guidelines found in Chapter 3: Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings and Chapter 4: New Construction, Additions, Demolition and Relocation. Information on the review considerations is given below. Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings The Design Standards and Guidelines for Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings (Chapter 3: pages 3-1 through 3-27) provide the design criteria and development guidelines. The preservation of the historic character of the District is largely a function of the preservation of the existing historic building fabric. This Chapter discusses the various building elements and should also be referenced with new construction. Any off-street parking lots provided shall be screened from the street line by buildings, landscaping, or other means. The guidelines specify that “parking lots should be screened from the street, their layout should include borders and islands planted with trees and shrubs to break-up 66

Item 6. HI-25-02 The Old Post Architectural Review Certification Recommendation Report from Historic District Commission February 20, 2025 Meeting Page 7 of 10 expanses of paved areas. Given a parking lot within the Dover Historic District zone, at least 20% of the area within it should be unpaved and planted.” Demolition The proposal for demolition of a portion of the building must be reviewed for conformity with the design criteria guidelines found in Chapter 4: New Construction, Additions, Demolition and Relocation. The Design Standards and Guidelines gives guidance to the Historic District Commission by listing specific criteria to be evaluated when considering applications for the demolition of buildings (or portions of buildings) in the historic district (Chapter 4: pages 4-10 to 4-12). These guidelines are summarized below (see Design Standards and Guidelines for the complete text). 1. Determine the financial implications of maintaining a property versus demolition. 2. Regardless of economic issues the relative significance of the individual buildings slated for demolition should be evaluated. 3. 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. 4. Determine the extent of adequate recordation of a property the applicant would be required to complete if demolition were approved. 5. Lots left vacant by demolition should be treated in a manner that is sympathetic to the historic context. New Construction The Design Standards and Guidelines for New Construction (Chapter 4: pages 4-1 through 4-8) provide the design criteria and development guidelines. The guidelines specify the following individual considerations for new construction to be considered in the review by the Historic District Commission (and Planning Commission) of the project for Architectural Review Certification: • Style • Scale (building to reflect dominant cornice and roof height of adjacent buildings) • Elevation of the First Floor • Floor-to-Floor heights • Bays, windows, and doors (size, relationship, spacing of) • Absolute Size (compare overall size of new building) • Massing (relationship of solid-to-void) • Orientation (location of primary façade) • Proportions (comparison of height to width of building and elements) • Materials • Forms (shape of building and roof to be complementary) • Siting (location of building on lot and in relation to street) 67

Item 6. HI-25-02 The Old Post Architectural Review Certification Recommendation Report from Historic District Commission February 20, 2025 Meeting Page 8 of 10 • High density/ large-scale construction The proposed project must also be reviewed for compliance with the standards established by the Zoning Ordinance. The standards include items such as setbacks from property lines, lot coverage, height, etc. This Proposal for the Old Post appears to conform to most of the bulk requirements of the C-2 Zoning District, however, should be verified via site plan review. The City of Dover Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Historic District Commission to waive certain bulk standards when issuing its recommendation to the Planning Commission for an Architectural Review Certificate if necessary. VI. STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff Comments and Recommendations for this application regarding project activities and Architectural Review Certification were provided in the Architectural Review Staff Report issued for the February 20, 2025 Historic District Commission Meeting. The following are Staff comments and recommendations for this application regarding project activities and Architectural Review Certification. 1) Staff recommends conditional approval of the Architectural Review Certificate for The Old Post project, finding that the building to be of a compatible design with the nearby buildings and with the intent of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. This includes the demolition of the rear portion of the building, the renovation of the front section, and the new building addition. The proposed multi-use site enhances the pedestrian scale of the downtown area. The preservation of the building portion fronting Loockerman Plaza maintains the historic context of the area. The brick exterior finishes on the upper two stories and EFIS in a limestone finish (to resemble stone) along the first story on the new addition take cues from the architectural styles seen in the Loockerman Street corridor and Capitol Square context. 2) The following conditions are recommended by Staff to improve the project’s compliance with the recommended guidelines of the Design Standards and Guidelines. The following are recommended conditions: a. The selected brick choices should be compatible with the brick on the existing structure. The brick material color, size, and format should be identified. b. Clarify the wall section at the cornice shown as a soldier course to clarify if the cornice protects in a different plane than the general wall surface. Cornicework is a very significant feature of the buildings in the area. It is unclear if the proposed building would include dentil cornices. Dentil cornices are recommended, particularly on the south-facing side of the building. c. Consider additional detailing on the north elevation walls of the new building addition and the transition brick wall of the front building section. In the elevations provided these walls appear flat as large blank areas. While they are not visible from the adjacent streets, they are visible from the parking lot areas. d. A paneled door should be used on the door along Innovation Way. Modern flush doors are not appropriate. 68

Item 6. HI-25-02 The Old Post Architectural Review Certification Recommendation Report from Historic District Commission February 20, 2025 Meeting Page 9 of 10 e. Repairing windows with in-kind materials is preferable to replacing windows. When irreparable, replacement windows should replicate the historic windows as closely as possible in light pattern, opening size, and function. f. While shutters are encouraged, vinyl and aluminum shutters are inappropriate. The material for the replacement shutters was not identified. g. It is inappropriate to remove historic decorative elements such as roof cresting or finials. h. Consideration of wall or free-standing signage may require additional review. i. Any light fixtures utilized on the property should be consistent with the style of the lighting used in the nearby areas of the Capitol Square Context of the Historic District. j. Any revisions or changes in the identified materials may be subject to further review by the Historic District Commission. 3) Some of the site improvements/amenities were not specifically described or had limited information within the application information. Please provide information for consideration and discussion. a. Any off-street parking lots provided shall be screened from the street line by buildings, landscaping, or other means. A four-foot black aluminum fencing appears to be proposed. b. Provide information on the dumpster enclosure construction and screening. 4) Clarify whether existing trees on the site will be preserved. If they are proposed to be removed, replacement of removed trees will be required. The development area (the property) is also subject to tree planting requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A Landscape Plan sheet is listed in the Index on the Site Plan set as PL-04 but was not included in the submission. 5) Staff notes that the required setbacks and proposed building height listed in the data column are incorrect on the Site Plan set. Also use the project name of The Old Post consistently. See Dover Code, Appendix B, Article 4; Sec 4.14 for Bulk standards for the C-2 zoning district. 6) Staff recommends the following pertaining to the site design elements of the project: a. The sidewalk system on the street frontage should continue and include barrier free access, crosswalk striping, etc. at the points of intersection with the entrance and exit drive aisles. b. Any proposed landscaping or tree planting locations, and lighting fixture locations should be depicted on the plan and be consistent with the character of these elements as they exist within the Capitol Square Context area. 7) For building construction, the requirements of the building code or fire code must be complied with. Consult with the Building Inspection Staff and Fire Marshal regarding these requirements. The resolution of these items can impact the site design in some cases. 69

Item 6. HI-25-02 The Old Post Architectural Review Certification Recommendation Report from Historic District Commission February 20, 2025 Meeting Page 10 of 10 8) In the event that major changes and revisions to the design, materials, or site layout occur in the finalization of the plan and/or construction drawings contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Historic District Commission. 9) This site development plan for this project is also subject to the application and review process for Site Development Plan (Article 10 §2 of the Zoning Ordinance) before the Planning Commission. Note: Additional technical items for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and other regulations may be identified during the Site Plan Process. Review comments pertaining specifically to the Site Plan set will be issued at that time. 10) The applicant shall be aware that Building Permits are required to proceed with any construction activities on the project site. The permit applications must comply with the approvals and conditions granted through the Architectural Review Certification and Site Plan Review process. 11) The applicant should be aware that a Sign Permit is required to proceed with the placement of signage on the property. 12) The existing building has a cornerstone/date stone that should be retained. There may also be an opportunity to add a plaque or other method outlining the history of the building (time of service as the Dover Post Office). VII. Historic District Commission Action The Historic District Commission considered the proposal at their Meeting of February 20, 2025 and have provided a recommendation in regard to the Architectural Review Certification for The Old Post and associated Site Improvements. The recommendation reflects consideration of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. The specific conditions of the Recommendation are noted in this Report under the heading of “Action of the Historic District Commission.” Note: An Excerpt of the Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes focused on this Application HI-25-01 is still being prepared. Documents Considered by the Historic District Commission on February 20, 2025: • Narrative Letter dated January 17, 2025 • Project Architecture Graphic Preservation Set of architectural renderings of building floor plan and elevation drawings of Building • Site Plan Set (PL-01, PL-02, and PL-03) and Landscape Plan sheet • Applicant Response to Review Report Letter dated February 18, 2025 70

Item 6. 71

Item 6. 72

Item 6. February 18, 2025 City of Dover 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, Delaware 19901 Attention: Dawn Melson-Williams Subject: Architectural Review Staff Report The Old Post at 55 Loockerman Plaza, HI-25-01 Dear Ms. Melson-Williams: After careful review of the Architectural Review Staff Report, we have provided a response to each comment below: 1) Staff recommends conditional approval of the Architectural Review Certificate for The Old Post project, finding that the building to be of a compatible design with the nearby buildings and with the intent of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. This includes the demolition of the rear portion of the building, the renovation of the front section, and the new building addition. The proposed multi-use site enhances the pedestrian scale of the downtown area. The preservation of the building portion fronting Loockerman Plaza maintains the historic context of the area. The brick exterior finishes on the upper two stories and EFIS in a limestone finish (to resemble stone) along the first story on the new addition take cues from the architectural styles seen in the Loockerman Street corridor and Capitol Square context. No Comment 2) The following conditions are recommended by Staff to improve the project’s compliance with the recommended guidelines of the Design Standards and Guidelines. The following are recommended conditions: a. The selected brick choices should be compatible with the brick on the existing structure. The brick material color, size, and format should be identified. We plan to use a common brick bond pattern and standard brick size to compliment the existing structures along 55 Loockerman Plaza and Innovation Way. For color, we want to align with a similar red brick that is used on the existing structure and surrounding buildings. b. Clarify the wall section at the cornice shown as a soldier course to clarify if the cornice protects in a different plane than the general wall surface. Cornicework is a very significant feature of the buildings in the area. It is unclear if the proposed 73

Item 6. building would include dentil cornices. Dentil cornices are recommended, particularly on the south-facing side of the building. On the existing structure, we will be replacing the rotting wood cornice, with a match to the original; this will include the dentils. On the new addition, we are proposing a cornice that steps three times from the face of the building that consists of a rowlock course, followed by a soldier course, and topped with a rowlock course; giving the new addition a decorative cornice, without competing with the intricate detail of the existing structures’ cornice. Please see the diagram below for detail. c. Consider additional detailing on the north elevation walls of the new building addition and the transition brick wall of the front building section. In the elevations provided these walls appear flat as large blank areas. While they are not visible from the adjacent streets, they are visible from the parking lot areas. In response to the larger blank walls along the north elevation, we are considering adding inset windows window blanks similar to the rear of the Schwartz Center for the Arts. d. A paneled door should be used on the door along Innovation Way. Modern flush doors are not appropriate. Agreed. Doors to be changed to 6 panel doors to match the character of the area. e. Repairing windows with in-kind materials is preferable to replacing windows. When irreparable, replacement windows should replicate the historic windows as closely as possible in light pattern, opening size, and function. We intend to repair all windows where appropriate, and in cases where windows cannot be salvaged it will match the existing size, pattern and function of the window it is replacing. f. While shutters are encouraged, vinyl and aluminum shutters are inappropriate. The material for the replacement shutters was not identified. Our intent is to repair or relocate existing shutters to locations that are currently missing original shutters. g. It is inappropriate to remove historic decorative elements such as roof cresting or finials. Regarding this comment, the existing building does not include 74

Item 6. any roof cresting or finials, but it is our intention to leave decorative historic elements on the existing structure wherever possible. For example, the trim work around the round window will remain. h. Consideration of wall or free-standing signage may require additional review. We understand any signage shown is currently not approved and will require additional approval. i. Any light fixtures utilized on the property should be consistent with the style of the lighting used in the nearby areas of the Capitol Square Context of the Historic District. Our goal on light fixtures is to match the existing context of the Capital Square Context. Our proposed hanging lantern light is a call back to the original hanging lantern when the building was the former Dover Post Office. j. Any revisions or changes in the identified materials may be subject to further review by the Historic District Commission. We understand any revisions to our proposed materials will require additional review. 3) Some of the site improvements/amenities were not specifically described or had limited information within the application information. Please provide information for consideration and discussion. a. Any off-street parking lots provided shall be screened from the street line by buildings, landscaping, or other means. A four-foot black aluminum fencing appears to be proposed. Yes, this is our intent. b. Provide information on the dumpster enclosure construction and screening. The dumpster enclosure will be constructed of brick that compliments the proposed project. 4) Clarify whether existing trees on the site will be preserved. If they are proposed to be removed, replacement of removed trees will be required. The development area (the property) is also subject to tree planting requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A Landscape Plan sheet is listed in the Index on the Site Plan set as PL-04 but was not included in the submission. We intend to preserve all existing trees on the site. The Landscape Plan sheet will be submitted along with this letter to clarify our intent. 5) Staff notes that the required setbacks and proposed building height listed in the data column are incorrect on the Site Plan set. Also use the project name of The Old Post consistently. See Dover Code, Appendix B, Article 4; Sec 4.14 for Bulk standards for the C-2 zoning district. The Civil Engineer will correct data column for site submission, the project will be referred to The Old Post. 6) Staff recommends the following pertaining to the site design elements of the project: a. The sidewalk system on the street frontage should continue and include barrier free access, crosswalk striping, etc. at the points of intersection with the entrance and exit drive aisles. Agreed b. Any proposed landscaping or tree planting locations, and lighting fixture locations should be depicted on the plan and be consistent with the character of these elements as they exist within the Capitol Square Context area. Agreed, 75

Item 6. the landscaping plan is submitted along with this letter. Our tree selections match similar trees along Loockerman Plaza including City of Dover City Hall, and Wesley United Methodist Church. Site lighting will match similar fixtures within the district. 7) For building construction, the requirements of the building code or fire code must be complied with. Consult with the Building Inspection Staff and Fire Marshal regarding these requirements. The resolution of these items can impact the site design in some cases. Agreed 8) In the event that major changes and revisions to the design, materials, or site layout occur in the finalization of the plan and/or construction drawings contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Historic District Commission. Understood 9) This site development plan for this project is also subject to the application and review process for Site Development Plan (Article 10 §2 of the Zoning Ordinance) before the Planning Commission. Note: Additional technical items for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and other regulations may be identified during the Site Plan Process. Review comments pertaining specifically to the Site Plan set will be issued at that time. Understood 10) The applicant shall be aware that Building Permits are required to proceed with any construction activities on the project site. The permit applications must comply with the approvals and conditions granted through the Architectural Review Certification and Site Plan Review process. Understood 11) The applicant should be aware that a Sign Permit is required to proceed with the placement of signage on the property. Understood 12) The existing building has a cornerstone/date stone that should be retained. There may also be an opportunity to add a plaque or other method outlining the history of the building (time of service as the Dover Post Office). Agreed, it is our intent to keep the existing cornerstone of the structure intact. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time. Sincerely, G. Michael Glick, President 76

Item 6. THE OLD POST An Adaptive Reuse, Mixed-Use Development 55 Loockerman Plaza | Dover, De 77

Item 6. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THE OLD POST (2) 2,500 SF RETAIL UNITS 36 APARTMENT UNITS 2,000 SF BUSINESS Apartment Entrance on Innovation Way Proposed Development 2 78

Item 6. THE OLD POST INNOVATION WY PROPOSED 3-STORY ADDITION 31,500 SF EXISTING BUILDING 4,560 SF LOOCKERMAN PLAZA Site Plan Proposed Development 3 79

Item 6. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THE OLD POST Front Facade Proposed Development 4 80

Item 6. HISTORICAL CONTEXT THE OLD POST 1. 1. 1 Images courtesy of Delaware Public Archives historical context 5 81

Item 6. BEFORE & AFTER THE OLD POST Intersection E Loockerman St & Legislative Ave BEFORE & AFTER 6 82

Item 6. BEFORE & AFTER THE OLD POST Library Entrance on Loockerman Plaza BEFORE & AFTER 7 83

To match Existing Brick Existing Brick New Brick Item 6. Solider Course EFIS New Addtion Limestone Finish Coping Detail Proposed New Exisiting Structure BUILDING ELEVATIONS EFIS Brick Addition To match Existing Brick Brick Veneer 35' - 0" Brick Columns Existing Building 33' - 2" THE New Wood Trim to Match Exisiting New Addtion Solider Course Glass Railing OLD POST Coping Detail Proposed New Exisiting Structure Existing Asphalt Shingles Addition Brick Veneer 35' - 0" Solider Coursing Exisiting Asphalt New Wood Trim to Existing Building Brick Columns Match Shingles 33' - 2" Exisiting New Wood Glass Railing Trim to Match The Old Post Exisiting EFIS - Limestone Finish New Wood Existing Asphalt Shingles Trim to Match Proposed Windows Exisiting Solider Coursing Exisiting Asphalt New Wood Trim to Elevations Shingles Match Exisiting Painted Wood Surround New Front Door to Match Original Wood Door Painted Proposed Glass EFIS - Limestone Wood Surround Finish Nanawall Door or New Wood New Replacement Shutters & Windows to Similar Trim to Match Match Exisiting Proposed Windows West Exisiting 1 1/8" = 1'-0" Painted Wood Surround New Front Door to Match Original Wood Door Proposed Glass Painted Wood Surround Nanawall Door or New Replacement Shutters & Windows to Similar Match Exisiting South Elevation Solider Course Proposed New Coping Detail Exisiting Structure New Addition Addition 35' - 0" Brick Veneer Glass Railing Existing Building Solider Coursing 33' - 2" Exisiting Brick Columns Solider Course Asphalt Coping Detail Shingles Exisiting Structure New Addition Black Aluminum Brick Veneer Railing on Juliet Glass Railing Balcony New Wood Trim to Match REV RE ng Exisiting Solider Coursing Proposed Firm N Windows & Brick Columns Sliding Glass Door Black Aluminum EFIS - Limestone New Wood Railing on Juliet Finish d Trim to Match Balcony atch Exisiting REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION Proposed Firm Name and Address : 0' - 10" Windows & Sliding Glass Projec New Replacement Prefab Metal Door Lighthouse Construction, Inc. 859 Golf Links Lane, Suite 1 Shutters & Windows to Canopy Magnolia, DE match existing EFIS - Limestone d Finish atch South 2 East Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0" 0' - 10" Project Name and Address : New Replacement Prefab Metal Projec Shutters & Windows to Canopy The Old Post The Ol Building Elevations 8 match existing Date : Issue D Enter address here 84 Scale : As ind

EFIS Limestone Finish EFIS Brick To match Existing Brick Existing Brick Item 6. New Brick New Addition Proposed New EFIS Addition Limestone Finish Exisiting Structure 35' - 0" EFIS Brick To match Existing Brick Solider Course New Wood Trim Existing Building THE Coping Detail to Match Existing 33' - 2" Brick Veneer OLD POST New Addition New Replacement Windows Proposed New Solider to Match Exisiting Existing Structure Addition Coursing 35' - 0" Brick Columns Solider Course New Wood Trim Existing Building Coping Detail to Match Existing 33' - 2" New Brick to Match Brick Veneer Existing Brick & New Replacement Windows Pattern Solider to Match Existing Coursing EFIS - Limestone Rowlock Course Finish Brick Columns Solider Course Level 1 New Brick to Match0' - 0" Proposed Existing Brick & Rowlock Course Windows Pattern EFIS Brick Wall EFIS - Limestone Finish Level 1 0' - 0" Proposed Windows Cornice Detail 1 East 1/8" = 1'-0" North Elevation Cornice Detail Existing Asphalt Shingles New Addition Proposed New Solider Course Coping Detail Existing Structure Addition 35' - 0" Brick Existing Building Veneer 33' - 2" Existing Asphalt Shingles Solider Coursing New Addition Solider Course Proposed New Coping Detail Existing Structure Addition Brick 35' - 0" Columns Black AluminumBrick New Wood Existing Building Railing on Juliet Veneer Trim to Match 33' - 2" Balcony Existing Solider Proposed Coursing Windows & Sliding Glass Brick Door Columns EFIS - Limestone Black Aluminum New Wood Finish Railing on Juliet Trim to Match Balcony Existing New Replacement Shutters & Windows to Match Existing Proposed Windows & Sliding Glass Door West EFIS Elevation Finish - Limestone New Replacement Shutters & Windows to Match Existing Building Elevations 9 North 1/8" = 1'-0" 85

Item 6. ARCHITECTURAL PACKET 86

Item 7. BY-LAWS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OF CITY OF DOVER --------------------------------------- OBJECTIVES Section 1. The objectives and purposes of the Historic District Commission of the City of Dover, Delaware, are those set forth in Dover Code, Appendix B, Article 10, Section 3, and amendments and supplements, thereto, and those powers and duties delegated to the Historic District Commission by the City Council of the City of Dover pursuant to such statute. POWERS. DUTIES AND PROCEDURES Section 2. The duties, powers and procedures of the Historic District Commission are as set forth in the following documents: (a) The Ordinance adopted by the City Council establishing such Historic District Commission; (b) The building Zone Ordinance as to matters relating to the Architectural Plan Review Certification process, the designation of Historic District boundaries, historic preservation and the establishment of standards and guidelines for preservation and conservation of Historic District zones. OFFTCERS Section 3.1 The officers of the Historic District Commission shall consist of a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman. 87

Item 7. Section 3.2 The Chairman shall preside at the meetings and hearings of the Historic District 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 Historic District 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 records 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 Section 5. The City Clerk shall be the official custodian of the records of the Historic District Commission and shall make them available to the public as provided by law. The City Clerk may designate the office of the Secretary of the Commission or the Planning Office as the place where such records shall be kept. 88

Item 7. ELECTIONS OF OFFICERS Section 6.1 The officers shall be elected by the Historic District Commission at the annual organization meeting which shall be the regular scheduled meeting in November of each year. Section 6.2 A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire membership of the Historic District 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 Historic District Commission at any scheduled or special meeting. Section 6.4 The Chairman and Vice-Chairman may serve two appointed terms. (Six Years). MEETINGS Section 7.1 The Historic District Commission shall hold one regular public meeting during each calendar month. The Chairman may cancel a regular meeting upon determination that there is no pending business or new application for Architectural Review Certificates; however at a minimum the Commission shall meeting quarterly. 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 consider all applications concerning matters within its jurisdiction only at its public meetings. All items to be submitted for consideration at any public meeting shall be submitted in complete 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 89

Item 7. 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 Historic District Commission shall commence on such date of 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. Section 7.6 Special meeting may be called by the Chairman or by a majority of the Commission, providing not less than 24 hours notice by writing or telephone is given to eachmember 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 the 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 such 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 90

Item 7. 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 a 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 theCommission. 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. COMMITEES Section 10.1 The Chairman may appoint special subcommittees of the Commission from time to time as needed to investigate or research certain matters pertaining to the Historic District 91

Item 7. Commission. Such subcommittees shall consist of at least one member of the Commission and may also consist of members of the general public. All members shall serve at the pleasure of the chairman. PUBLIC HEARINGS Section 11 The Commission shall hold public hearings as required by statute and applicable Ordinances of the City and the State of Delaware. In addition to those required by law, the Historic District Commission may at its discretion hold public hearing when it considers that such hearings will be in the public interest. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 12 No member shall vote on any Architectural Review Certificate application where They have a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest shall at a minimum be any vested interest by a member or a member's immediate family in a project being reviewed by the Commission or ownership in property by a member or a member's immediate family that is within 200 feet of a project being reviewed. AMENDMENTS Section 13 These By-Laws may be amended at any time by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Historic District Commission. Original Version (retyped 1.9.2004) 92

Item 8. 2026 City of Dover, Delaware HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Here is the Schedule of the Application Deadlines and Historic District Commission Meeting dates for the year 2026. The submittal procedures for the Historic District Commission are outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10, Section 3.2. Prior to an Application submission, a Pre-Application Meeting with Planning Staff is required. The Historic District Commission Meetings are typically scheduled for a 3:30PM start time. MONTH DEADLINE DATE MEETING DATE JANUARY 12/12/2025 01/15/2026 FEBRUARY 01/16/2026 02/19/2026 MARCH 02/13/2026 03/19/2026 APRIL 03/13/2026 04/16/2026 MAY 04/17/2026 05/21/2026 JUNE 05/15/2026 06/18/2026 JULY 06/12/2026 07/16/2026 AUGUST 07/17/2026 08/20/2026 SEPTEMBER 08/14/2026 09/17/2026 OCTOBER 09/11/2026 10/15/2026 NOVEMBER 10/16/2026 11/19/2026 DECEMBER 11/13/2026 12/17/2026 JANUARY 12/18/2026 01/21/2026 For Information Contact: City of Dover Department of Planning & Inspections City Hall at 15 Loockerman Plaza, P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 (302) 736-7196 Planning Office Phone (302) 736-4217 Fax www.cityofdover.com Email: compplan@dover.de.us DRAFT 11.11.2026 93

CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLG) Item 9. HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND GRANT APPLICATION PACKET and FORMS The Authorized Representative for each CLG will be notified annually of grant availability. This notification will indicate the tentative award amount and the due date for grant applications which varies annually (dependent on passage of the federal budget and notice of the funding opportunity). No late submissions will be accepted without prior approval. Any excess grant funds will be re-assigned in accordance with the criteria outlined in the Guidelines. Please email grant applications to: gwen.davis@delaware.gov. If the application must be sent by US mail, please notify the SHPO Grant Manager at the above email address, first. Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed to determine if they meet the requirements outlined in these guidelines. The CLG’s Project Coordinator listed on the application cover form will be contacted if there are any questions regarding the proposed project. The CLG grant application packet consists of four main sections. Attach any supplementary materials required to support the project as outlined in the Eligible Grant Activities section of the Guidelines. 1. CLG Grant Application Packet Cover Form (Attachment 1 form): Indicate the name of the project, the project contacts, and provide a short description of the project. 2. Project Narrative (Attachment 2 form): A detailed description of the project, limited to no more than three typed pages, and addressing all of the questions outlined below for each project activity to be included as part of the project: What: What will be achieved as a result of the project? All projects must result in some tangible outcome/product. [See the Eligible Grant Activities section for further guidance.] Where: Where is the geographic area that will be impacted by the project? [Provide a map, as needed.] Why: Why is the proposed activity important to your community? Indicate benefit to historic preservation in your community that would result from the project. Indicate the objectives in Delaware’s State Historic Preservation Plan that would be met by the project. How: How will the activity be undertaken? Indicate the methods to be employed to achieve your objectives. Who: Who will be involved in the project? Provide the names and/or titles of all personnel who are to be involved in the project indicating their role. For known project personnel who will serve as a Principal Investigator, provide their resume. NOTE: If the project will be administered by a third party (e.g., an educational institution), the application must clearly state that the CLG is delegating administration of the grant to that third party. When: Indicate the schedule for completing project work. If there are specific events, when will they happen? If there are reports, when will they be completed? 3. Project Budget (Attachments 3 and 3A forms, or equivalent): The project budget information must indicate all costs associated with the project, as well as information related to the donor, source, kind, and amount of non-federal (matching) funds for the project. Please refer to the Guidelines on Allowable Costs for CLG Grants, and see Attachment 3A for guidance on defining applicant match that may be contributed by the applicant or a third party. Applicants may use Attachments 3 and 3A to provide the budget information, or use their own project budget forms as long as they contain equivalent information. 4. Statement of Assurances for CLG Grants (Attachment 4 form): Certification that the CLG is in compliance with the administrative requirements of the grant program. It must be signed by the chief elected official/authorized representative of the CLG. 94

Item 9. CLG GRANT APPLICATION: ATTACHMENT 1 – Cover Form Federal Fiscal Year of the Grant: FFY2024 CLG Applicant: City of Dover, Delaware Contact Responsible for Responsible for If Applicable* Person Program Management Fiscal Management Responsible Third Party Entity Name/ Dawn Melson-Williams, AIPC Principal Planner Sharon Duca, PE Assistant City Manager Dawn Melson-Williams and Sharon Duca Not Applicable Title (Assisting with Management of the Department of Planning & Working with the City's Department of Inspection Finance Address City of Dover City of Dover Department of Planning & Inspections Department of Finance PO Box 475 5 E. Reed Street / PO Box 475 Dover DE 19903 Dover DE 19903 Phone (302) 736-7042 (Finance Director (302) 736-7196 (Planning Office) ) Email Dmelson@dover.de.us Finance Dept. contact TBD sduca@dover.de.us * If the CLG will delegate administration of the grant to a third party, please clearly state that in the Project Narrative and provide the name of the third party entity and contact information for its program and fiscal managers that will administer the grant. Checklist of Attachments: Project Narrative (Attachment 2) Statement of Assurances (Attachment 4) Project Budget (Attachment 3 or equiv.) Resume of Principal Investigator Applicant Match (Attachment 3A or equiv.) Other Eligible Grant Activities (check all that apply): Survey Commission/Staff Training National Register Public Outreach Planning Support for CLG Staff Short summary of the application’s goals and activities including the time frame of the project: Addendum to Design Standards & Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone: Modern Materials & Technologies: The City of Dover will hire a consultant to assist the Historic District Commission and Planning Staff in a project for an Addendum to the Design Standards & Guidelines document focused on the use and role of modern materials and construction technologies for construction projects within the local Historic District area. The project will consist of a series of phases: Planning, Public Outreach, Guidelines Revision and Refinement, and Preparation of Draft Addendum Document. Subject to the selection of the consultant, the Project's timeframe is expected to be about 9 months. 95

CLG GRANT APPLICATION: ATTACHMENT 2 – Project Narrative Form Item 9. Federal Fiscal Year of the Grant: FFY2024 CLG Applicant: City of Dover, Delaware PROJECT NARRATIVE (use continuation sheet if needed) Provide a detailed description of the project, addressing all of the questions outlined below for each project activity included as part of the project: • What will be achieved as a result of the project? • Where is the geographic area that will be impacted by the project? [Provide a map, as needed.] • Why is the proposed activity important to historic preservation in your community? • Goal(s)/Objective(s) in Delaware’s State Historic Preservation Plan that the project would meet. • How will the activity be undertaken? Indicate the methods to be employed to achieve your objectives. • Who will be involved in the project (names/titles/roles of all personnel)? For known project personnel who will serve as a Principal Investigator, provide their resume as a separate attachment. • Is the CLG delegating administration of the project to a third party? Yes ■ No If yes, name of the third party entity: • Schedule for completing each part of the project, including dates of specific events, if applicable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Attached Project Narrative and Map of City of Dover H (Historic District Zone) with location of National Register of Historic Places - Historic districts. The project is related to the Delaware's State Historic Preservation Plan 2018-2022 - Goal #3: Encourage inclusion of historic preservation values as a best practice in landscape and community planning. 96

CLG GRANT APPLICATION: ATTACHMENT 3 – PROJECT BUDGET FORM Item 9. Federal Fiscal Year of the Grant: FFY2024 CLG Applicant: City of Dover, Delaware (Complete applicable sections; round to nearest dollar) COST CATEGORIES COSTS TOTALS Personnel Salary and Fringes # of hrs. (Rate $ ) $ # of hrs. (Rate $ ) $ # of hrs. (Rate $ ) $ # of hrs. (Rate $ ) $ Personnel Total $ Volunteers (This must be listed in Attachment 2A) # of hrs. (Rate $ ) $ # of hrs. (Rate $ ) $ # of hrs. (Rate $ ) $ # of hrs. (Rate $ ) $ Volunteer Total $ Consultant Services (Name, if known, and rate/hr.) Project to seek Consultant Services for task. $20,000 Consultant Total $20,000 estimate Supplies and Expenses (List specific cost categories) $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies and Expenses Total $ Indirect Cost Rate (see Allowable Costs for CLG Grants) ($ X %) $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ON THE GRANT* $20,000 FEDERAL SHARE REQUESTED 11,530 $___________ * Do the total costs of the project exceed this amount? If so, please indicate the full amount $ for consideration in the event that additional grant funds are available for award. 97

CLG GRANT APPLICATION: ATTACHMENT 3A Item 9. APPLICANT MATCH BUDGET FORM (To be provided by CLG applicant, or an entity partnering with the CLG) Federal Fiscal Year of the Grant: FFY2024 CLG Applicant: City of Dover, Delaware City of Dover, DE Donor: General Fund (Operating Fund for Dept. of Planning & Inspections) Source: Type: Cash $10,000* Budgeted in City's FY2025-2026 Budget Amount: Donor: It is noted that the Grant timeframe will span across City Fiscal Years; so, the Department will also Request Funding in the City's FY2026-2027 Budget. Source: Type: Amount: Donor: Source: Type: Amount: TOTAL MATCH: $ 10,000 (Must equal or exceed 40% of the total project costs) Definitions to be used to complete the information above: Donor: Indicate applicant’s name or list name(s) of other donor(s) Source: Indicate the source of the funds (examples: operating funds, private donation, appropriated funds) Indicate the kind of match (examples: cash, applicant personnel or in-kind services, Type: donated/volunteer time, or indirect costs (with a federally approved indirect cost plan) Amount: For each kind of applicant match indicate the dollar amount 98

CLG GRANT APPLICATION: ATTACHMENT 4 Item 9. STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES FOR CLG GRANTS FFY2024 Federal Fiscal Year of the Grant: As a duly authorized representative of the government which is applying for this federal CLG Grant, I certify the following statements to be true. 1. The applicant has complied with all requirements of Delaware’s CLG Program including timely submittal of their annual report outlining CLG commission actions and activities for the prior year. 2. The applicant has a satisfactory record of integrity, judgment, and performance, especially with prior performance of grants and contracts. 3. The applicant will be able to comply with the proposed completion schedule for the project. 4. The applicant has adequate financial resources for performance, as well as the necessary experience, technical qualifications, and facilities. 5. The applicant has an adequate accounting system and auditing procedures to provide effective accountability and control of property, funds and assets sufficient to meet federal audit requirements. 6. The applicant will comply with all applicable requirements of the federal Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) regulations 2 C.F.R. Part 200 and the National Park Service’s Historic Preservation Fund Grants Manual. 7. The applicant will perform the required financial and compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, and OMB-Circular A-133. 8. The applicant will conform with all federal statutes relating to non-discrimination. 9. The applicant will comply with provision of the Hatch Act which limit political activities of employees whose principal employment responsibilities are funded in whole or in part with federal funds. 10. The applicant is not debarred from receiving federal funds. 11. The applicant will comply with the Grant Requirements outlined in application guidelines, and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects, as applicable. 10/30/2025 Signature of CLG Authorized Representative Date Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, Dept of Planning & Inspections Typed Name and Title of Authorized Representative City of Dover, Delaware Applicant (Municipality or County) 99 Rev. 2025

Item 9. Project Narrative FFY2024 Addendum to Design Standards & Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone: Modern Materials & Technologies The City of Dover is proposing a preservation planning project to evaluate and update portions of the Design Standards & Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone document. The result of the project will be a Draft Addendum document focusing on modern and technological advancements in materials and construction activities of items discussed in the Design Standards & Guidelines. The current Design Standards & Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone document was created1 and adopted in 1992-1993 with the formal establishment of the City’s Historic District Commission (HDC) by ordinance adopted July 26, 1993. The ordinances of the City of Dover allow for the designation and protection of historic properties. The purpose of Historic District regulations is: “to preserve and enhance that unique character and value of the old portion of Dover as an area of special charm and interest. It is particularly intended that the regulations prevent, in the historic district, any change of conditions that would be deemed to be a disfigurement or degradation of the present unique visual and architectural qualities of the district.” (Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 21) The geographic boundaries of the Historic District (H) zone are established as a zoning classification. The original boundaries of the Historic District established in 1961 were generally described as extending from just north of Division Street south to South Street inclusive of the properties fronting on South State Street and The Green then east to the St. Jones River. In 1997, the boundaries of the Historic District Zone were expanded to include properties fronting on West Loockerman Street from Bradford Street to the railroad corridor and areas in the vicinity of South Governors Avenue, South Bradford Street, North Street, and Bank Lane. The areas of expansion in 1997 included many commercial and residential properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Victorian Dover Historic District but not the entire District area. The H (Historic District Zone) was expanded by 1.74 areas in early 2022 to include the full extent of the block bounded by South State Street, Water Street, South Governors Avenue, and Bank Lane. See attached Map of City of Dover Historic District showing the current boundaries (shaded in orange). As a preservation and redevelopment tool, the Design Standards and Guidelines provide guidance for property owners, design professionals, staff and the Historic District Commission (and Planning Commission). The “historic district design guidelines and standards” are defined by the Zoning Ordinance as follows: “Historic district design guidelines and standards: The document adopted by the City of Dover Planning Commission as being the source reference document for construction and maintenance of buildings, structures, and additions with the Dover Historic District and which is the guiding document for the historic district commission and city planner in their review of applications for architectural review certification.” Therefore, it is utilized as a guiding document in the decision making process of reviewing of construction activities in the Historic District zone for issuance of Architectural Review Certification (Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3). Applications for Architectural Review 1 The current document Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone was prepared in 1992 by John Milner Associates Inc. with funding by a grant from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior and administered by the State Historic Preservation Office. City Planning Staff, the State Historic Preservation Office, the Friends of Old Dover, Main Street Dover, and other interested parties participated in the development of the document. 100

Item 9. Certification are reviewed by the City Planner (Staff), the Historic District Commission, and Planning Commission. See the following code excerpt regarding the architectural review standards. Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3.25 Architectural review standards. (A) An architectural review certificate may be issued if it is 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 complementary to the traditional architectural standards of the historic district as set forth in the historic district design guidelines and standards adopted by the planning commission and as set forth in the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (B) The city planner, historic district commission or planning commission shall not consider normal maintenance and repair (see definitions, article 12), interior arrangement, or building features not subject to public view. The Zoning Ordinance references the Design Standards & Guidelines when establishing the Architectural Review Certification process for the City of Dover’s Historic District zone (H). An Architectural Review Certificate is required for a demolition, erection, reconstruction, alternation, restoration or exterior repairs on properties within the Historic District. Most projects within the Historic District are eligible for administrative review of the Architectural Review Certificate as part of the Building Permit process for such projects as signs, roof and door or window replacement, and exterior finish/siding/trim work renovations. Project activities only involving interior renovations are not subject to the Architectural Review Certification process. For example, in calendar year 2024, a total of 32 applications (permit activity in the Historic District) were reviewed under this process with 27 Permits requiring Architectural Review Certification and 5 Permits not requiring Architectural Review Certification. 2 Historic Preservation Planning is part of a comprehensive approach to land use planning in the City of Dover. In Dover’s current plan, the 2019 Comprehensive Plan (as amended) this information is presented in Chapter 6 - Historic Preservation and associated Map 6-1A and Map 6-1B. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan includes sets forth goals and a series of recommendations for each goal. The Historic Preservation Goals are as follows: Goal 1: Preserve and Protect Historic Resources Historic Goal 2: Provide and Promote Incentives for Preservation Activities Preservation Goal 3: Increase Public Information on Historic Resources Goal 4: Collaborate with Diverse Groups and Governments 2019 Comprehensive Plan, excerpt from Table 1-2: Plan Chapter Goals To achieve Goal 1, one of the adopted Recommendations was the Evaluation of Design Standards and Guidelines since the original document was adopted in the early 1990s. The recommendation also suggested consideration of the standards and guidelines for the levels of protection for The Green and the Loockerman Street areas. There is also a specific recommendation to “evaluate and consider the use of modern materials and technologies in the standards and guidelines. For this project for an Addendum to the Design Standards & Guidelines, the City of Dover will seek to hire a consultant through a Request for Professional Services process to assist the Historic District Commission and Planning Staff with the project. The consultant will be required to have a Principal Investigator (PI) who meets the professional qualification standards in 36 CFR 61. Also 2 The volume of Permit Activity in the Historic District over the past five years has averaged around 45 applications a year with a majority of them eligible for Architectural Review Certification review by Staff. 101

Item 9. involved in the project, the Historic District Commission consists of five (5) appointed members and the Planning Commission3 consists of nine (9) appointed members. The Planning Staff serves as staff support to the Historic District Commission and will manage the activities of this project. With the project, we hope to create an Addendum to the Design Standards & Guidelines that focuses on the modern and technological advancements in materials and construction activities. In recent years, the use and role of alternative and composite materials in construction has increased with options for wood composites, PVC/vinyl products, and others. In addition, features like solar panels and other conservation related measures have become more common place. This Addendum will focus on these types of materials and items as associated with the practices for maintenance, preservation and construction activities within the Historic District. Components of the Addendum document will continue to provide guidelines for treatment of historic properties and features focusing on maintenance, repair, alternations, and preservation or restoration of existing buildings; guidelines for new construction activities (additions and new buildings), guidelines for demolition activities; guidelines for landscaping and site elements, and guidelines for signage. The document is to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties (Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines). The project will consist of a series of phases: Planning, Public Outreach, Guidelines Revision and Refinement, and Preparation of Draft Addendum Document. The following chart outlines the anticipated activities of the project. Timeframe Project Phase Activities and Products TBD Consultant Services Identify basic scope of work and solicit quotes/proposals per City’s Procurement Policy. Select Consultant 2 months* Planning Meetings with Consultant, Staff and HDC to outline timeframes /refine general project approach, goals, and format for may overlap Addendum guidelines, determine public input strategy. 3 months* Public Outreach Analysis of guidelines. Conduct focus groups/stakeholder meetings and a Public Workshop. 4 months* Guidelines Revision Prepare example page format (text and photographs). & Refinement Meetings with Staff and HDC to present drafts. Review of multiple Drafts by Staff, HDC. 2 months* Preparation of Draft Conduct Public Workshop on Draft. Review of Draft by Addendum State Historic Preservation Office. Document The specific scope of work, tasks, and deliverables by the consultant will be further refined with Planning Staff. Electronic copies of documents are anticipated for use at meetings and posting on the City’s website for review. Subject to the selection of the consultant, the Project’s work timeframe is expected to be about nine months with a formal adoption process to follow with the Historic District Commission and Planning Commission. 3 The Planning Commission, per the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3.25(A), is involved in the formal adoption process for the Historic District guidelines. 102

All Dover Historic Districts S ILV ER L A K E B L Item 9. DR EW VI R P AT E EA K FR LA LY N N D R D N DR D ER R DU C LV K EN VD WAL S B NT PO TE OR Y R HW S ST A ROS RN T LN D VE N O V DU O AK E GO OD AVE R EWO O PO CAR VIEW N BR LAK RD FAIR NT L ST AK O O ADF HW NW TE ST HI ISON PL ST W Y ST T MAD ATE EST RD S RD N ST NEY ST ROD IAM T WILL N GO ON S R ST INGT LE H PEA T WA S RA S W CLA NOR IS VER M IL Y D L W EL R DR PK T HAZ E RA S E VE PL CLA S AV YLA ND A MA MA R N D Y ST UP MAR T ST WS NIA ON EEN N NE LVA N AM N QU NSY T PEN HW A ERIC ST Y IO N IL ST I V IS OOD CEC E Y E D N AV AVE S HW KING RKW N KI NW ST TON FUL RI ST RD EST DG PA R I LL NH EL ST EE Y S K DR GR S BR DR ST ST T TON ION IVIS N WES D ADF A W E RM CK S KI T ST OO E L ST E ED S ORD EST O W R RKW FOR ES T SW ST T OD S TIVE LINCOLN ST ST ISLA MAN COURT ST C H ER R Y S R OCKE LEG W LO L ERA PAUL ST FED ST AVE T ER S LN T VE K U G HT S T BAN S LA E A T O RT H SE S ST W N ST S QU REE TER T ATE E WA S TL WS S ST K LN BAN ST S NE EEN CA H ST BAN N RIV R R ST EL M T E N EW ST ATE ER ING WW RD ST EST SW T H ST SOU Legend L TE R PON T HW Y L S CU S AV E Parcels 1 inch = 917 feet S DU OD S G O V ER N O R LLY ¯ Date Created: June 19, 2019 HOPE ST Dover Green Historic District ST Updated: April 22, 2022 File: LVD I:\Comprehensive Plan 2019\ Victorian Dover Historic District GELY B Historic District Workshop RID Department: Planning & Inspections City of Dover Historic District 103 City of Dover, Delaware DOVER ST

Item 9. Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs State Historic Preservation Office 29 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901 (302)736-7400 ● (302)739-5660 (fax) HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND GRANT APPLICATION GUIDELINES FOR CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Allocation of Grant Funds in Delaware ................................................................... page 1 General Grant Requirements ................................................................................. page 2 Eligible Grant Activities ...........................................................................................page 3 Historic Property Surveys ........................................................................... page 4 National Register Nominations................................................................... page 4 Preservation Planning ................................................................................ page 5 Outreach ...................................................................................................... page 5 Training ....................................................................................................... page 6 Support for Qualified Staff .......................................................................... page 6 Allowable Costs ...................................................................................................... page 7 Grant Application Packet Instructions ................................................................... page 8 ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDS IN DELAWARE Each year, the Congress appropriates a federal Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grant to each state in support of various preservation activities allowable under the regulations implementing the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. In Delaware, this grant is administered by the Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs, whose Director acts as the State Historic Preservation Officer. One of the requirements of this federal grant is that a minimum of 10% of the funds must be sub-granted to Certified Local Governments (CLGs). Because the federal grant award to Delaware varies from year to year, the amount awarded to Delaware’s CLGs also varies. Only local governments which have been formally certified as a CLG prior to January 1 of the calendar year and which continue to meet the requirements for certification are eligible to apply for HPF subgrant funding. Among the requirements for maintaining CLG status is the submission of an annual report on activities. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)’s CLG Coordinator typically contacts the CLGs each year to request this report. If not requested or received beforehand, the SHPO may require that the annual activity report be submitted and approved as a condition of awarding a subgrant to the CLG. Each CLG that meets the above requirements and submits an application that is consistent with these Grant Application Guidelines will receive grant funding. Delaware’s CLG allocation formula provides for a minimum allocation of $2,000 to each CLG plus an additional allocation based on population (US Census Bureau decennial figures) to make up a yearly Basic Program Allocation (BPA). Funding Category Equivalent Population Minimum Allocation Population Factor BPA 1 Less than 3,500 $2,000 + $1,000 = $3,000 2 3,500 – 10,000 $2,000 + $2,000 = $4,000 3 10,000 – 40,000 $2,000 + $3,000 = $5,000 4 Over 40,000 $2,000 + $5,000 = $7,000 1 104

Item 9. Because the HPF grant 10% set-aside that the Delaware SHPO is required to award to CLGs typically exceeds the amount of the BPA, the CLGs have been placed in Funding Categories in accordance with their 2020 census populations (based on available data) and are assigned points equivalent to that Funding Category. The points derived are used to calculate the additional grant funds that CLGs will be awarded. The total number of points is divided into the difference between 10% of that year’s HPF grant and the total dollars that are assigned in accordance with the BPA allocation. A total award is then calculated using this formula times the number of points assigned plus their PBA. The table below shows the point distribution for a typical year. Certified Local Governments 2020 Population Funding Category/Points BPA City of Delaware City 1,885 1 $3,000 Town of Milton 3,291 1 $3,000 City of Lewes 3,303 1 $3,000 City of New Castle 5,285 2 $4,000 City of Dover 39,491 3 $5,000 City of Wilmington 71,818 4 $7,000 New Castle County 570,719 4 $7,000 Totals 16 $32,000 Each year that Delaware receives an HPF grant award, the SHPO evaluates each Delaware’s CLGs eligibility to receive grant funding. The SHPO notifies each CLG of the amount of the federal funds which the SHPO has determined to award (based on the above formula), and the date on which application for that year is due. If any CLG is not in compliance with Delaware’s CLG Program Guidelines at that time, they must take corrective action to change their eligibility status prior to the date on which the application is due. The federal award indicated in the CLGs notification cannot exceed 60% of the project total budget. The CLG must provide match, either in cash or in kind, which equals at least 40% of the project budget. A CLG may partner with another entity which is willing to provide all or part of the non-federal (matching) funds for a project. If the project will be administered by a third party (e.g., an educational institution), the application should clearly state that the CLG is delegating administration of the grant to that third party. In addition, two or more CLGs may collaborate and pool their awards to allow for a greater project budget to accomplish common goals, such as training for commissioners; the CLGs involved must notify the SHPO Grant Manager prior to submitting a joint application. If, for whatever reason, a CLG chooses not to apply for their allotted federal funds or applies for less than the amount allotted, the SHPO will determine how to equitably distribute these monies to those CLGs whose grant application shows there is need for additional grant monies and who have the ability to provide the increased matching funds. GENERAL GRANT REQUIREMENTS Each CLG must fulfill certain programmatic and administrative requirements in order to obtain a grant award. Programmatic Requirements: • As noted in the discussion of eligible grant activities below, some projects require a Principal Investigator whose professional qualifications are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualification standards (https://www.doi.gov/pam/asset-management/historic-preservation/pqs). • Projects must result in tangible outcomes which address a preservation goal, and which are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/upload/standards-guidelines-archeology-historic- preservation.pdf), as applicable. • All products must acknowledge receipt of federal funding as well as include a non-discrimination statement. • A Grant Agreement between the SHPO and the responsible parties must be signed before any federal funds may be disbursed. o Content: The Grant Agreement contains the approved scope of work, budget, project performance period, detailed performance schedule, list of activities to be accomplished, and references to the performance standards, stipulations, and federal regulations appropriate to the project, including (but not limited to): 2 105

Item 9. non-discrimination, political activities, disclosure of information, conflict of interest, insurance, handicapped accessibility, and record retention and accessibility. o Signatories: If the CLG is administering the grant, the CLG’s Authorized Official (e.g. Mayor, Town Manager, or other government staff with oversight responsibility) must sign the Grant Agreement. If the project will be administered by a third party (e.g., an educational institution) on behalf of the CLG, the Grant Agreement is made between the SHPO and the third party, with the CLG’s concurrence. • All activities and expenses associated with the grant, including the hiring of a consultant, are to take place between the start and end dates indicated in the Grant Agreement or in any amendment to it. Start and end dates vary by year and by the nature of the project. Any extension to the end date requires written approval by SHPO. • Matching Share: o The project budget must indicate a local match, either in cash or in kind, equal to a minimum of at least 40% of the total project costs. o A CLG may partner with another entity that is willing to provide all or part of the matching funds for a project. If the project will be administered by a third party on the CLG’s behalf, that party may be contractually obligated to provide the match. In either case, the CLG must remain engaged in the project, including ensuring that the required match is expended. • CLGs may not charge fees for grant-funded programs except to cover associated direct costs that will not be reimbursed with grant funds (e.g., providing meals for workshops), in accordance with federal rules. • CLG grants are funded on a reimbursable basis and requests for reimbursement of project costs are made either on a schedule indicated in the Grant Agreement, or at the close-out of the grant. Each request for reimbursement which contains evidence of grant approved expenditures will be reimbursed at up to 60% of the documented expenditures, but in no case will the reimbursement of expenses exceed the grant award. SHPO may retain up to 20% of the awarded grant funds until the tangible grant outcome is achieved/produced. The Grant Agreement will stipulate the last date on which a request for reimbursement of grant expenses can be submitted. Administrative Requirements: As part of the grant application (see Attachment 4), the CLG’s authorized representative certifies that administrative requirements have or will be met, ensuring that the CLG: • Has complied with all requirements of Delaware’s CLG Program including timely submittal of their annual report outlining CLG commission actions and activities for the prior year; • Has a satisfactory record of integrity, judgment, and performance especially related to performance of grants and contracts; • Has adequate financial resources for performance, as well as the necessary experience, technical qualifications, and facilities; • Has an adequate accounting system and auditing procedures to provide effective accountability and control of property, funds and assets sufficient to meet federal audit requirements; • Agrees to abide by applicable Federal regulations in the expenditure of Federal funds and performance under this program (2 C.F.R. Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements For Federal Awards) and the National Park Service’s HPF Grants Manual; • Has financial and compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, and OMB- Circular A-133, and submission of the audit report which covers the period of the grant to the SHPO Grant Manager; • Has conformed with federal debarment requirements (i.e., does not use consultants or contractors that have been debarred from federal work) as well as statutes relating to non-discrimination; and • Has complied with provisions of the Hatch Act which limits political activities of employees whose principal employment responsibilities are funded in whole or in part with federal funds. • Special Note for Federal Fiscal Year 2025 grants: The National Park Service’s requirements for Historic Preservation Fund grants were updated to include adherence to current Executive Orders. While we don’t anticipate an effect on the types of eligible CLG projects, as identified in these guidelines, please contact the SHPO Grant Manager if you would like to discuss in advance of submitting an application. ELIGIBLE GRANT ACTIVITIES Several broad categories of projects have been approved for CLG grant funding. Within these categories, the CLG may choose specific activities which align with their local needs. If uncertain as to whether a proposed project might 3 106

Item 9. qualify for grant funding, applicants should discuss their proposals with the SHPO Grant Manager prior to submittal. The allowable grant activities and the requirements related to each are outlined below. Special Note for Federal Fiscal Year 2025 grants: The National Park Service is encouraging CLGs “to prioritize projects in support of the celebration of America’s 250th birthday (America250). This may include, but is not limited to, preservation planning, interpretation, public engagement, and rehabilitation projects that recognize and honor the nation’s founding, history, and cultural heritage.” Historic Property Surveys: • An historic property survey project should reflect a defined area, and may be conducted at either identification or evaluation level. • Identification surveys identify and gather data on a community’s historic resources. They require the preparation of standard survey forms, maps and a report. Evaluation surveys build on the identification survey by developing contexts under which the significance of properties can be determined. The final report also specifies the boundary of any property or area which has been determined to have adequate significance and integrity to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as all contributing buildings/structures. • For areas surveyed more than 20 years ago, the CLG may conduct update surveys. Such surveys must produce Delaware Cultural Resource Survey (CRS) forms, maps and photographs which conform to current standards. • All survey projects must produce a survey report which meets the applicable federal standards and state guidance contained in the SHPO’s guidelines, “Architectural Surveys in Delaware” (Feb. 2015, or its successor), including forms and photographs. CRS forms are submitted online through the Cultural and Historical Resource Information System. Photographs should be in original TIFF, or first-generation JPEG converted to TIFF. • The application’s project narrative must indicate the type of survey (identification, evaluation or update); a written description as well as a map of the area to be surveyed; and the estimated acreage and number of properties within the survey area. Final reports must indicate the total number of acres actually surveyed (this data is reported annually to the National Park Service). • Draft and Final survey reports, which are in compliance with the SHPO’s guidelines, “Architectural Surveys in Delaware” (Feb. 2015, or its successor), are submitted to the assigned SHPO Reviewer and the SHPO Grant Manager in digital format for review, in accordance with the schedule listed in the Grant Agreement. • Historic Property Survey projects require oversight by a Principal Investigator (PI) who meets the professional qualification standards contained in 36 CFR 61. If the PI for this project is a staff member or intern employed by the CLG (or a partnering/third party entity, if applicable), then their resume should be attached to the application. If the CLG will hire a consultant to carry out this project, then the resume of the PI should be provided to the SHPO Grant Manager when the consultant or entity has been determined. The PI should contact the SHPO Historic Property Research Center Manager prior to initiating any survey project in order to review the existing information on file and assess requirements. National Register Nominations or Amendments: • A National Register project consists of preparing a National Register nomination for an individual property, or historic district, or amending or providing significant additional information for a district or property already listed in the National Register. Completing or updating CRS forms is also required if the property was not previously surveyed or existing survey data does not meet current standards. • The name of the property to be nominated or updated need not be known at the time of application. The CLG is encouraged to consider a range of property types, including those currently underrepresented in the National Register and/or identified as a priority in the Delaware State Historic Preservation Plan (update in progress). • Within a timeframe defined in the Grant Agreement, the CLG must provide the SHPO National Register Coordinator with a list of properties being considered for nomination. A CLG representative would then arrange a site visit with the National Register Coordinator, nomination authors, and the property owner to determine the property’s potential for nomination and research criteria that would likely be required to support the nomination. • Within a timeframe defined in the Grant Agreement, the CLG should provide the National Register Coordinator with an outline that includes but is not limited to: name of property; likely period of significance; applicable National Register criterion, area(s) and level of significance; brief description of the property’s integrity; proposed areas of research (including consideration of archaeological resources, if applicable); anticipated 4 107

Item 9. number of contributing and non-contributing properties; proposed boundary; property owner’s name and address; name of nomination author(s); and the proposed schedule for completion of the nomination. • The CLG must allow adequate time in the schedule for the National Register Coordinator to review and comment on a draft(s) of the nomination and for the author(s) to address such comments prior to submittal of the final draft. Final drafts of nominations are to be submitted electronically by the end of the grant period. The National Register Coordinator will provide guidance as to the requirements for the submittal. In general, such submittals will include: the nomination form in Word format with all fields completed but editable; individual, unaltered TIFF photographs with labels and a photo key; a USGS topographical map showing the location of the property/historic district; a site map showing the nominated boundary (including coordinates) and the location of contributing/non-contributing properties; other supporting documentation as needed, a list of figures, and other information as may be specified by the National Register Coordinator. • The final draft submittal must also include the names and addresses of property owners, to allow formal notifications required by federal and state rules. The CLG is responsible for providing the property owners with a copy of the draft and final draft nominations for their review and comment, prior to public presentations. • The CLG is responsible for obtaining approvals of its local commission, and for preparing and presenting a PowerPoint presentation before the State Review Board for Historic Preservation. This may take place outside the grant period, but whenever feasible the schedule should allow for the nomination to be heard by the local commission and State Review Board within the same federal fiscal year. The CLG must inform the National Register Coordinator and the SHPO Grant Manager if the local commission requires changes to the nomination after it has been approved by SHPO, and provide a revised copy of the final nomination. The CLG and SHPO will coordinate on addressing any changes recommended by the State Review Board. • National Register projects usually require oversight by a Principal Investigator (PI) who meets the professional qualification standards contained in 36 CFR 61. If the PI for this project is a staff member or intern employed by the CLG (or a partnering/third party entity, if applicable), then their resume should be attached to the application. If the CLG will hire a consultant to carry out this project, then the resume of the PI should be provided to the SHPO Grant Manager when the consultant or entity has been determined. If students are assisting with nomination research and contributing to the writing of a nomination, their name and that of their faculty advisor should be submitted as soon as that information is known. The PI should update the National Register Coordinator on their progress in completing the nomination on a monthly basis. Preservation Planning Assistance: • A planning report may address any preservation related topic which is of concern to the CLG. Some examples of planning projects are: preparation or update of the historic preservation component (including defining areas of archaeological potential) of a municipal or county comprehensive plan; development of an historic context; development of or revisions to an historic zoning ordinance; or assessment to expand a local zoning or National Register historic district. • Planning projects must produce a report or draft document which meets applicable Standards. In the application, the project narrative should indicate the type of planning document to be produced; the geographic area of impact; for contexts, the theme, time period and geographic zone; and if the project will produce a new or a revised document. SHPO will assign a staff member to perform an initial review and provide comments on planning reports. Final reports must be submitted to the SHPO Grant Manager prior to the end date of the grant period in electronic form. • Preservation Planning projects generally require oversight by a Principal Investigator (PI) who meets the professional qualification standards contained in 36 CFR 61. If the PI for this project is a staff member or intern employed by the CLG (or a partnering/third party entity, if applicable), then their resume should be attached to the application. If the CLG will hire a consultant to carry out this project, then the resume of the PI should be provided to the SHPO Grant Manager when the consultant or entity has been determined. Outreach to the Public on Preservation Issues: • Outreach projects may include, but are not limited to: technical or informational workshops or seminars (in- person or virtual); brochures addressing issues such as design review guidelines, local zoning laws, driving or walking tours; or web pages on the aforementioned topics. • The CLG is encouraged to discuss specific public outreach proposals with the SHPO Grant Manager in advance of applying to ensure that the topic is eligible for grant funding. In the application, the following questions should be answered, as appropriate. 5 108

Item 9. o Who is the intended audience for the project and why is that constituency targeted? o If a program/workshop/conference is proposed, how many people are expected to attend? [In-person programs must be held at handicapped accessible locations and should be free. If a fee is to be charged, it should be limited to only direct costs that are not reimbursable by the grant, e.g. for covering meals. For virtual programs, please indicate the anticipated platform to be used.] o What form will the publication take? How will it be disseminated? If printed materials are an element of a project, how many copies will be produced? [Examples of published materials include: web pages, GIS-based story maps, brochures, pamphlets, monographs, reports, videos or PowerPoint presentations. The number of copies of printed materials should be adequate to disseminate the information it contains to the intended audience. Published material must be distributed without charge.] • Project oversight by a consultant, partnering entity, or a staff member who meets the professional qualification standards may or may not be required, depending on the nature of the outreach. If professional assistance is part of the project, the application should indicate this. Public Outreach projects also often involve volunteers. Please see the section below on Allowable Costs for CLG Grant - Donated Time for further information on how volunteer time is compensated. Training for Commission Members or CLG Staff: • CLGs may seek grant funding to provide commission members and commission staff with training which assists them in fulfillment of their responsibilities or furthers their knowledge of preservation issues. NOTE: Advance approval from the SHPO Grant Manager for attendance at each training/workshop is required. Such approval may be obtained when the grant is initiated or may be requested during the grant period. If such approval is not obtained prior to the workshop/training event, costs related to it will not be reimbursed. • In the CLG grant application, include the following information: o the name of the workshop/training and the organization that is providing it; o whether the workshop/training will occur in-person, virtually or be taken online o the anticipated date(s) of the workshop/training o if in-person, the location and mode of travel o who will attend/participate, and how it will benefit those attending. • On-line training courses and/or participation in virtual conferences: costs of course fees and conference registration may be covered with grant funds. • In-person travel: Cost of basic registration (no tours unless directly related to training), transportation, and lodging may be covered by grant funds. Restrictions may apply. • Contracting with the National Alliance for Preservation Commissions (NAPC) to provide its Commission Assistance and Mentoring Program (CAMP) is an allowable project under this category. Support for 36 CFR 61 Qualified Staff or Intern: • The resume of the 36CFR qualified staff person or consultant to be supported in whole or in part by grant funding must be attached to the grant application. • Staff that will be supported by grant funds must carry out projects which fit the approved categories above, and/ or administrative/technical assistance to the CLG as described in the list of activities below. The application must define the proposed projects, state the categories of technical assistance that will be included in the grant and the estimated number of cases in each category. Approved technical assistance activities are: o To administer the grant project, including all required reports; o To provide information on state or local preservation plan goals and priorities to the public and those within their governmental agency; o To educate themselves, those within their agency, and their boards and commissions regarding historic preservation issues; o To explain the goals and objectives in the State Historic Preservation Plan to those within their governmental agency and the public; o To provide information to their agency regarding preservation goals to include in local land use/agency plans; o To distribute information regarding federal or state historic preservation tax incentives or other federal programs which might meet constituent’s needs; o To assist the public by determining whether their property is potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; o To explain survey or National Register work and train interns to carry out such work; o To review or advise their agency’s officials and the public on historic preservation rehabilitation standards; 6 109

Item 9. o To make determinations of eligibility and identifying projects that may affect archaeological resources or National Register-eligible historic properties within their jurisdiction, and advise project managers on ways to avoid or minimize effects; o To review demolition permits and land use changes for their impact on historic properties; and o To assist those within their governmental agency and federal agencies with whom they interact in regard to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, including development of Programmatic Agreements. [Note: Costs associated with mitigation activities performed as a condition or pre-condition of obtaining a federal permit or funding by other federal programs are not allowable.] ALLOWABLE COSTS FOR CLG GRANTS The list below includes most types of allowable costs associated with CLG grants. Note that a number of cost categories require advance discussion with the SHPO Grant Manager. Any proposed cost not indicated in this list should also first be discussed with the SHPO Grant Manager. 1. Advertising – If the advertising is directly related to project activities, and includes required disclaimers. 2. Books – If directly related to project objectives and after prior approval by the SHPO Grant Manager. 3. Personnel Compensation (including wages, salaries and fringe benefits) – These may be paid from the grant or may be matching share as long as the personnel are directly involved with grant activities or administrative or fiscal oversight. In addition to salary, employer’s contributions or expenses for social security, employee’s life and health insurance plans, unemployment insurance coverage, workmen’s compensation insurance, and pension plans are allowable provided such benefits are granted under approved plans and are distributed equitably. Note that benefits in the form of regular compensation paid to employees during periods of authorized absences from the job, such as for annual leave, sick leave, court leave, military leave, and the like, are allowable only if the cost is equitably allocated. 4. Capital Expenditures (Costs Over $500) – Requires prior approval from SHPO Grant Manager. 5. Donated Time – Volunteer time may be used as a part of the matching share if it is integral and necessary to the project. The application should indicate the estimated number of hours and the hourly rate claimed for each volunteer. Rates claimed for volunteer services within their area of professional expertise (e.g. lawyer’s performing legal services) must be consistent with rates paid for similar work in State government, up to a maximum of $50 (Contact SHPO Grant Manager to discuss rates). For all others, the Delaware minimum wage rate must be used. 6. Exhibits – If the exhibit is temporary and the topic is related to grant objectives. 7. Indirect Costs – If developed in accordance with applicable indirect cost principles and based on a current provisional rate awarded by a federal agency in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan. Include a copy of the indirect cost plan approval, and documentation of the approved rate, the time period which it covers, and the cost categories covered by the rate. NOTE: The SHPO caps this rate at 25%. The cap on overhead was advised by the NPS, to ensure that total administrative costs for the entire HPF grant (SHPO funds and those allocated to CLGs) do not exceed the 25% limit defined by the National Historic Preservation Act, the enabling legislation of the HPF grant program. 8. Materials and Specialized Supplies – If these supplies are directly related to project goals; general stationery and office supplies are excluded. 9. Mileage – reimbursable only up to the approved state mileage rate (currently $ .40 per mile). This may be an approved cost either for travel (such as to conferences) or for transportation costs incurred for carrying out other program activities (such as survey). Discuss with the SHPO Grant Manager. 10. Postage and Shipping – If directly related to project objectives. 11. Printing and Reproduction – If directly related to project objectives (includes photo reproduction and duplication, and photocopying). 12. Professional and Consultant Services – Procurement of services is to be conducted in a manner that provides open and free competition (Discuss with SHPO Grant Manager). The maximum rate of pay may not exceed 120% of a Federal Civil Service GS-15 Step 10 salary (currently $93.53 per hour), divided by 2087 hours (see US Office of Management and Budget table). 13. Registration – For attendance at conferences/workshops (basic registration only – no special tours unless directly related to HPF program areas) and online participation in virtual conferences/workshops (SHPO Grant Manager must approve attendance in advance). 7 110

Item 9. 14. Travel – Costs of transportation to and from the conference at the state approved mileage rate between the attendee’s home or office and the conference location. Public transportation is reimbursed at cost when receipts are provided. Lodging at the federal per diem rate is also allowed. Other restrictions may apply (contact the SHPO Grant Manager). GRANT APPLICATION PACKET INSTRUCTIONS The Authorized Representative for each CLG will be notified annually of grant availability. This notification will indicate the tentative award amount and the due date for grant applications which varies annually (dependent on passage of the federal budget and notice of the funding opportunity). No late submissions will be accepted without prior approval. Any excess grant funds will be re-assigned in accordance with the criteria outlined above. Please email grant applications to: gwen.davis@delaware.gov. If the application must be sent by US mail, please notify the SHPO Grant Manager at the above email address, first. Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed to determine if they meet the requirements outlined in these guidelines. The CLG’s Project Coordinator listed on the application cover form will be contacted if there are any questions regarding the proposed project. The CLG grant application packet consists of four main sections. Attach any supplementary materials required to support the project as outlined in the Eligible Grant Activities section above. 1. CLG Grant Application Packet Cover Form (Attachment 1 form): Indicate the name of the project, the project contacts, and provide a short description of the project. 2. Project Narrative (Attachment 2 form): A detailed description of the project, limited to no more than three typed pages, and addressing all of the questions outlined below for each project activity to be included as part of the project: What: What will be achieved as a result of the project? All projects must result in some tangible outcome/product. [See the Eligible Grant Activities section for further guidance.] Where: Where is the geographic area that will be impacted by the project? [Provide a map, as needed.] Why: Why is the proposed activity important to your community? Indicate how historic preservation in your community will benefit from the project. Indicate the objectives in Delaware’s State Historic Preservation Plan (update in progress) that would be met by the project. How: How will the activity be undertaken? Indicate the methods to be employed to achieve your objectives. Who: Who will be involved in the project? Provide the names and/or titles of all personnel who are to be involved in the project indicating their role. For known project personnel who will serve as a Principal Investigator, provide their resume. NOTE: If the project will be administered by a third party (e.g., an educational institution), the application must clearly state that the CLG is delegating administration of the grant to that third party. When: Indicate the schedule for completing project work. If there are specific events, when will they happen? If there are reports, when will they be completed? 3. Project Budget (Attachments 3 and 3A forms, or equivalent): The project budget information must indicate all costs associated with the project, as well as information related to the donor, source, kind, and amount of non-federal (matching) funds for the project. Please refer to the above guidance on Allowable Costs for CLG Grants, and see Attachment 3A for guidance on defining applicant match that may be contributed by the applicant or a third party. Applicants may use Attachments 3 and 3A to provide the budget information, or use their own project budget forms as long as they contain equivalent information. 4. Statement of Assurances for CLG Grants (Attachment 4 form): Certification that the CLG is in compliance with the administrative requirements of the grant program. It must be signed by the chief elected official/authorized representative of the CLG. 8 111

Item 9. The activities funded under the CLG grant program are financed in part with federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions in these Guidelines do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, or the National Park Service. The U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination in its federally assisted programs on the basis of several factors, including but not limited to: race, color, or national origin (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); sex (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended); handicaps (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973); or age (Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended). If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity funded by this Program, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240. Rev. 2025 9 112