Dokiman ki tache

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 9:00 AM City Hall Council Chambers 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES of May 18, 2016 Meeting OLD BUSINESS Applicant #V-16-05 385 Saulsbury Road. Family Dental Associates c/o Christoper A. Nacrelli has requested a variance from the requirements of Article 6 §3.1 and §3.11 of the Zoning Ordinance for parking as related to the maximum allowed parking for the proposed use. Subject property is zoned C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-067.19-02-02.06-000. The owner of record is Christopher A. Nacrelli. At its meeting of May 18, 2016 the Board of Adjustment conducted a public hearing regarding this case but deferred action because a representative was not present. NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-16-06 1310-1324 Forrest Avenue. Margaret H. Johnson has requested a variance from the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Article 3 §27.66 pertaining to the maximum allowed height of buildings located with the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). Subject property is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1. Tax Parcels are ED-05-076.10-01-01.00-000, ED-05-076.10-01-02.00-000, ED-05-076.10-01- 03.00-000, ED-05-076.10-01-04.00-000, ED-05-076.10-01-04.01-000. The owner of record is Margaret H. Johnson. ADJOURN 29 Del.C. § 10004(e)(2) THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES May 18, 2016 A Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 9:00 A.M. with Chairman Sheth presiding. Members present were Colonel Ericson, Mr. Senato, Chairman Sheth, Mr. Hufnal and Mr. Keller. Staff members present were Mrs. Townshend, Mrs. Purnell, Mr. Diaz, and City Solicitor Nick Rodriguez. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Colonel Ericson moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Keller and unanimously carried 5-0. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 2016 Mr. Senato moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 20, 2016 with any necessary corrections with the condition that the language reference be verified on the recording and verified if necessary, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Keller abstained. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development stated that the meeting today will be conducted in accordance with the agenda. There are 2 agenda items: one deferred item under Old Business, and one new item under New Business. The application file will be read, and the floor will be opened for questions of the applicant by the Board and for public testimony. If the Board needs to consult the City Solicitor, they will adjourn to discuss legal matters. If the applicant must leave, they can contact the Planning Office at 736.7196 to learn of the Board’s decision. A formal notice of the decision will be mailed to the applicants. Approved variances expire after one year if the approved project has not commenced. All public notice for the new applications on this agenda was completed in accordance with code requirements. The meeting agenda was posted in accordance with Freedom of Information Act requirements. NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-16-04 131 Nob Hill Road. Wayne S. Lipscomb has requested a variance from the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Article 4 §4.1 pertaining to required off-street parking in the R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone) as it relates to Zoning Ordinance Article 6 §3.2 stipulating how areas for parking are computed. The Tax Parcel is ED-05-77.07-06-97.00-000. The owner of record is Wayne S. Lipscomb. Mrs. Townshend Exhibits for the record: Staff report and plans submitted by the applicant. Legal Notice was published in the Delaware State News-on May 8, 2016. The public was notified in

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 2016 accordance with regulations. Mrs. Townshend gave a brief overview of the application. Responding to Colonel Ericson’s question as to what point does the Office look to make sure there is a Certificate of Occupancy, Mrs. Townshend stated that with a residential structure before it is allowed to be occupied a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. The difference with this property is it was used as a model home. Typically, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is granted for the use of a model home, but she was not sure why this property did not have a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Upon reviewing the paperwork Planning approval was the only outstanding issue. Responding to Colonel Ericson’s question whether most builders are aware that a Certificate of Occupancy is a requirement before transferring, Mrs. Townshend stated yes, but again this property transitioned from the original builder to when the development was acquired and then to the current owner. Mrs. Townshend stated that when a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued the conditions are listed in order for it to become a Final Certificate of Occupancy. One of those items would be restoring the garage to a garage use. Representative: Mr. Brandon Jones, Attorney. Mr. Jones stated that everything listed in the report is what occurred. The company that built the house and used as a model transferred the property in 2011. Afterwards, the company went bankrupt. This is how some of the items fell through the cracks and there was no Certificate of Occupancy issued. Several years passed before Mrs. Lipscomb brought the property. In the contract for the purchase of the property there was mold remediation, repairs, etc. This was typical of buying a used house and there was nothing that alerted them that this was technically a new house. Presentation Color Photo of the stone facing property. Mr. Jones stated that there are clearly two (2) off-street parking spaces and both of them cannot be in the front yard. The driveway seen in the photo is more than adequate for the two (2) off- street parking spaces. He has been ensured by Mrs. Lipscomb that there have been no complaints the entire time that she has owned the property and as far as he is aware the City has had no complaints. The only reason this has come to light is because the City was cleaning out records. Mrs. Townshend stated that the office received a couple of phone calls and inquiries at the counter, but once the situation was explained people did not seem at all concerned. She could not say for sure, but the impression she received from the people that it was not going to affect their property directly. Mr. Jones stated that this is a hardship that was not created by the current owner. This was an 2

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 2016 innocently come-by, with a bankruptcy in the middle of it which probably contributed majorly to it falling through the cracks. To correct this as we refer to the photo would be a major and significant expense to someone who currently has a mortgage and other living expenses and cannot afford something of that nature. He stated that he brought a house that had a nice room that could be used for living space and had no clue that it was supposed to be a garage and it was required to be converted over for no reasonable purpose that he can think of and it would truly be a hardship for the current owner. Responding to Colonel Ericson’s question of the estimated cost to convert the garage, Mr. Jones stated that he did not know exactly, but it would be thousands of dollars and not hundreds of dollars. Responding to Chairman Sheth’s question whether during the settlement, title search, or title insurance is there a standard requirement, Mr. Jones stated that the standard of practice in the community at the present time when you deal with new construction you know that you get a Certificate of Occupancy and release of mechanics liens each time. However, when you buy an existing (used) house that is not new construction you do not inquire whether a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. Responding to Chairman Sheth’s question whether the title insurance company was involved when something like this happens, Mr. Jones stated no, it is not part of what is insured. There is no insurance that covers the lack of a Certificate of Occupancy. This is universal throughout the community. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he agreed 100%. Representative: Mrs. Wayne Lipscomb, Owner Mrs. Wayne Lipscomb was sworn in by Mr. Rodriguez. Mrs. Lipscomb agreed to adopt all the facts stated by Mr. Jones. She testified that she had read all of the material for the application and accept it as part of her testimony. She also read and accepts the report submitted by City Staff. Chairman Sheth opened the public hearing. Chairman Sheth closed the public hearing after seeing no one wishing to speak. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any member present who had a conflict of interest and there was none. Chairman questioned if there was any additional correspondence for the record. There was none. Mr. Keller stated that any number of times he has seen new development taking place and it is not uncommon to have a model home with a driveway leading to what appears to be ultimately a garage or originally planned to be a garage, but it is in fact used as a model home sales office. He agreed with Mr. Jones that no doubt it would be very expensive to reconvert facing and interior of 3

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 2016 that particular room back to a garage. He would like clarification that in fact that this was perhaps an oversight since through the normal Building process a plan submitted knowing that there is a requirement for the off-street parking of the two spaces and how it would progress with construction on an interim basis, he asked if it was occasionally temporary, Mrs. Townshend stated that normally for a model home a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is granted. From the model home perspective, the garage is the logical place for the sales office. She was not aware of any other cases where they have had issues with that being converted back to the garage. Mr. Jones is correct that the bankruptcy caused it to fall through the cracks. Normally when the phase is finished the model home becomes occupied. In this case everything kind of died for a number of years. At that point the office also had turnover and the people that were involved was no longer with the city. This is certainly not the fault of the applicant and she is obviously directly affected. Colonel Ericson stated that looking at the property and if he was going to be the second buyer he would assume that everything had been approved and would not have known that there was a required Certificate of Occupancy. When you look at the property with the brick on the front, two (2) doors, and windows it looks like a permanent structure. Mrs. Townshend agreed. Colonel Ericson stated that he did not see any fault of the individual buyer to have to pay any sort amount of money to change it and it would be unreasonable. Chairman Sheth stated that he agreed with Colonel Ericson. As he stated previously why this was not found during the second settlement or title search. He has no problem in this case and asked if the Board would be setting a precedent. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the Board of Adjustment would not be setting a precedent because it is a different situation completely. The property changed hands from the original developer, went through bankruptcy and was then purchased. He did not think that any attorney would look at it and say that they had to get a check for a Certificate of Occupancy for this building. If you grant the Variance, when writing it up it could show as not being precedential. Chairman Sheth gave an example of a similar situation on 348 North DuPont Highway when it was sold and refinanced seven (7) times. When he was ready to purchase the property there was an auction to lease and buy the property and it never cleared. No one wanted to review the title insurance, therefore he went to the previous insurance company regarding owners title insurance and not mortgage title insurance. Mrs. Townshend stated that it has brought two (2) things to her attention that the city needs to tightened up, (1) how the city deals with model homes and be consistent, (2) more regular follow- up on expired Certificate of Occupancies and items that never made it to Certificate of Occupancy paperwork. This was a number of years between the paperwork on file and the information of the current owner. Responding to Mrs. Townshend’s question of the length of time the owner has owned the property, Mrs. Lipscomb stated since 2013. Mrs. Townshend stated that this has identified a couple of areas where the city needs to tighten up 4

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 2016 the process which will be done. Responding to Mr. Hufnal’s question whether if the variance is approved will a Certificate of Occupancy be issued so this issue does not come up again, Mrs. Townshend stated yes, it could be issued today. Mr. Keller moved to approve application V-16-04 and grant the variance in order to permit the existing driveway within the front yard setback to be counted as sufficient for meeting the requirement for two (2) off-street parking spaces based principally on the evidence and testimony given today, as well as the documented information provided by the City Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Senato and unanimously carried 5-0. Applicant #V-16-05 385 Saulsbury Road. Family Dental Associates c/o Christoper A. Nacrelli has requested a variance from the requirements of Article 6 §3.1 and §3.11 of the Zoning Ordinance for parking as related to the maximum allowed parking for the proposed use. Subject property is zoned C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-067.19-02-02.06-000. The owner of record is Christopher A. Nacrelli. Mrs. Townshend Exhibits for the Record: Staff report and plans submitted by the applicant. Legal Notice was published in the Delaware State News - on May 8, 2016. The public was notified in accordance with regulations. Chairman Sheth stated that the Board would continue the case in absence of the applicant. Mrs. Townshend stated that the applicant is not present today. This is a variance similar to what has been considered in the past. The 25% over the minimum parking required for smaller parking lots. The smaller parking lots create a real challenge especially with medical offices where they have a lot of turnover and need parking. This sometimes leaves them under parked. This has been identified as one of the ordinances that the City will be working on to correct during this calendar year, but it has not yet been corrected. Typically, the Board has not heard cases without the applicant being present, but it would certainly be the option of the Board to do so. It has been noticed for public hearing. Mr. Keller stated that in the past he has been one to note that the Board should take a pause with the absence of the applicant and/or a duly appointed representative where there is written authorization for representation in the owner’s absence. He had questions that could not be answered due to the applicants’ absence. Colonel Ericson stated that no vote should be taken on the application without the applicant being present in all fairness. Mr. Rodriguez stated that since it has been properly advertised the Board could hold the public hearing. Chairman Sheth opened the public hearing. 5

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 2016 Chairman Sheth closed the public hearing after seeing no one wishing to speak. Chairman questioned if there was any additional correspondence for the record. There was none. Mrs. Townshend stated that there was a neighbor by the name of Gail Nemcic who called the office on May 11, 2016 around 10:00 A.M. She owns the property at 910 Walker Road adjacent to the subject property. She has no objection to the granting of the variance per se, but commented that the area of the proposed parking does periodically back up after heavy rains. There is a storm water drain of some sort there, as shown on the plans. She just wanted to register her concerns regarding that issue. Mr. Cook informed her that he would convey her concerns regarding that issue if she was not present for the public hearing. He also explained to her that the project would be reviewed by Kent Conservation District as part of the Administrative Site Plan process and that he would convey her concerns also to Kent Conservation District and the site engineer who would have a say over required site design with regard to storm water management. Mr. Keller noted that the existing drain would be within one of the proposed new parking spaces. It may or may not have some comprising effect on that one parking space. In adequacy of the drain. Mrs. Townshend stated that it would be something that the engineer could answer. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any member present who had a conflict of interest and there was none. Mr. Senato moved to table application V-16-05 until the next meeting because applicant was not present. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hufnal and unanimously carried 5-0. Colonel Ericson commented that in the case V-16-05 that was just discussed in the Variance Recommendation it is stated that “While a variance request must demonstrate uniqueness and exceptional practical difficulty associated with a specific property, and for these reasons past decisions are not necessarily precedential,” the Board goes out of their way to make sure that each decision made is based on a unique circumstance. For example, if a decision made in the past may or may not be set up a precedent and he thought this could open the Board up for legal actions later on if it was disapproved. He would like to see those word not used in the reports. Mrs. Townshend stated that it states “not necessarily precedential” and Colonel Ericson stated “not necessarily” but maybe. Mrs. Townshend stated right. Colonel Ericson stated that he would like to keep that out of the wording. Mrs. Townshend stated okay. Colonel Ericson stated that if the applicant comes up and states that this was done then it would have to be examined. Mrs. Townshend stated right. This one in particular there is a code issue that has been identified by the Board and Staff that is creating the problem. Colonel Ericson stated that it needed to be explained during the meeting because he has no problem with it. 6

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 2016 Mr. Keller stated that Table 1 was missing from the report V-16-05 on page 3 of 7. Mrs. Townshend stated that she will make sure Table 1 is in the report at the next meeting. Mr. Hufnal moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Senato and unanimously carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:41 A.M. Sincerely, Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 7

MEMORANDUM Department of Planning & Inspections P.O. Box 475 Dover, Delaware 19903 Phone: 302.736.7196 Fax: 302.736.4217 DATE: June 8, 2016 TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Application V-16-05, June 15 meeting A public hearing for Application V-16-05 was held at the Board of Adjustment meeting of May 18, 2016. Because the applicant was not present the Board deferred action to the June meeting. The staff report previously distributed is attached with no changes. At the May meeting it was noted that Table 1 referenced in the report on page 3 was omitted. The table is included below: Table 1 Off-Street Parking Calculations 385 Saulsbury Road (V-16-05) Parking Spaces As Required by Floor Area (1) Existing Structure (S.F.) 3,818 Required 13 Maximum Permitted 17 As Required by Employee Count Number of Employees 12 Required 12 Maximum Permitted 15 Requested Existing Parking (legal non-conforming) 20 Four (4) Additional Spaces 4 Total Requested 24 (1) Code requi res the grea ter of ei ther ca l cul a tion method

City of Dover Board of Adjustment May 18, 2016 V-16-05 Location: 385 Saulsbury Road Applicant: Troy Adams, Mountain Consulting Owner: Christopher A. Nacrelli Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.19-02-02.06-000 Application Date: April 19, 2016 Present Zoning: C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) Present Use: Dental Office Reviewed By: Bill Cook Variance Type: Area Variance Variance Requested: To allow an increase to exceed the maximum parking spaces permitted for medical offices.

V-16-05 Family Dental Associates at 385 Saulsbury Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 7 Project Description The applicant is requesting a variance from the Zoning Ordinance requirements of Article 6 §3.1 and §3.11 for parking as related to the maximum allowed number of parking spaces for the use as medical offices. The applicant proposes to expand an existing parking lot to add four (4) additional parking spaces, bringing the total parking spaces to 24. Background At some time in the winter crushed stone was put down by a contractor on the site adjacent to the existing parking area, and a code violation was issued (case #16-00000310). While a Building Permit for the parking lot improvement was subsequently applied for (#16-246), it could not be issued because the surface is not a "hard paved dust-free surface" as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Because of the proposed increase in impervious surface area, an Administrative Site Plan application must be submitted, and the parking area must be constructed in accordance with the requirements for parking areas with regard to dimensions of spaces, width of drive aisles, striping, and surface material. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow an increase in the permitted parking spaces so that an Administrative Site Plan can be subsequently submitted and reviewed to bring the property into compliance. Adjacent Land Uses Refer to the Zoning Map (Exhibit A). The property is located on Saulsbury Road just south of the intersection with Walker Road. The area is a mix of residential, office, and retail/commercial uses. Immediately surrounding the subject property are other office buildings zoned C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone), and the vacant property across Saulsbury Road is also zoned C-PO. Diagonally across the intersection is the Hamlet Shopping Center, zoned SC-1 (Neighborhood Shopping Center Zone). Properties on the north side of Walker Road east of the intersection and the east side of Saulsbury Road are zoned R-7 (One Family Residence Zone) and are occupied by houses. This property and surrounding properties are within the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). This overlay zone includes additional provisions related to building design, landscaping, and parking layout, however the COZ-1 is not pertinent to this application with regard to the requested parking variance. Code Citation The use as a dental office is considered a professional office and is permitted in the C-PO zone as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Article 3 §26.1(a). The “Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations” found in Zoning Ordinance Article 4 §4.14 for parking in the C-PO zoning district requires the greater of one (1) off-street parking space per 300 S.F. of floor area or one (1) parking space per employee. Calculations under the

V-16-05 Family Dental Associates at 385 Saulsbury Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 7 provisions of Zoning Ordinance Article 6 §3.1 for “Medical Offices-All types” are the same as the zoning district regulations for parking. Zoning Ordinance Article 6 §3.11 states that “the maximum number of parking spaces shall not exceed 25 percent over the number of parking spaces required by the code.” Table 1 shows a summary of the required, maximum, and requested parking provisions for the site under the existing and proposed scenarios for the site. Exceptional Practical Difficulties Tests Zoning Ordinance Article 9 §2 dictates the specific powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment with regard to granting variances. Specifically the Board must determine: 2.1 Variance – The board shall have the authority to authorize variances from provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not contrary to public interest where the board determines that a literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship or exceptional practical difficulties to the applicant. In granting variances, the board shall determine that the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done. 2.11 Area Variance. A variance shall be considered an area variance if it relates to bulk standards, signage regulations, and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that address lot layout, buffers, and dimensions. In considering a request for an area variance, the board shall evaluate the following criteria and document them in their findings of fact: (a) the nature of the zone in which the property lies; (b) the character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein; (c) whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses; and (d) whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Review of Application As a part of the application, the applicant was asked to state how the requested variance relates to the above three criteria. The applicant’s responses are provided below, along with a staff assessment of the application in accordance with the required criteria. 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Responses: “The property is in a C-PO zone. The existing use as a dental office is permitted and is classified as a business/professional office.” Staff Response: The C-PO zone permits business, professional or governmental offices, banks, medical laboratories, and drive-in facilities accessory to any permitted use. Certain

V-16-05 Family Dental Associates at 385 Saulsbury Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 7 conditional uses are permitted when they are accessory to a permitted use on the same lot, as well as residential uses including multi-family and one-family residences. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Responses: “The property is located on the east side of Saulsbury Road in close proximity to the southeast corner of Walker Road and Saulsbury Road. The property is bounded by vacant lands of the City of Dover on the North; lands of Steven Nemcic on the East; lands of National Council on Agriculture on the South; and Saulsbury Road on the West.” Staff Response: The vacant land to the north is an approximately 40-foot wide strip of land along the Walker Road frontage owned by the City and designated as open space. The properties to the east and south are office uses and similar to the subject property, and of similar architectural style characterized by one-story structures with pitched roofs. Styles and materials are somewhat residential in character. The structures have yards with grass and asphalt paved parking lots behind them. To the north across Walker Road and along McKee Road are one-family residences. Diagonally to the northwest and across the intersection is a single-story shopping center. A vacant property, offices, and a day care center are found across Saulsbury Road and travelling south. The property is in character with the surroundings, which could be described as suburban mixed use with generous lawns and adjacent to a wide arterial street. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Responses: “The subject property has no interconnectivity to any of the adjacent commercial properties. The additional 4 spaces requested will not have an effect on neighboring properties and uses.” Staff Response: Sole vehicular access to the property is from Saulsbury Road. The subject property has sufficient space to allow for additional parking on site, and the proposed placement of the parking does is not regulated by provisions of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The additional parking would not impact adjacent properties, and would reduce the likelihood of visitors of the subject property seeking parking on adjacent properties.

V-16-05 Family Dental Associates at 385 Saulsbury Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 7 4. Whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant Responses: “Parking facilities are very important for both staff and patients. Convenient parking can have a favorable influence on patients' perceptions of a dental office. Dental offices typically require more parking spaces due to the frequency of appointments throughout the day. The peak period is from 10am to 2pm. Four (4) employees consistently park in the gravel area to accommodate the patients. There are times that patients have to park at the adjacent parking lot to the south. The rule of thumb for determining the number of parking spaces needed for a dental office is to multiply the number of treatment rooms by 1.5 and add in the number of staff parking spaces. There are eight (8) treatment rooms, one (1) x-ray room, and 12 staff members for a total requirement of 24 parking spaces. A parking count less than 24 spaces will not allow the business to operate efficiently nor meet the demand of patient traffic. This could negatively impact the long term sustainability of the practice.” Staff Response: Staff concurs with the applicant’s statement of the necessity of parking due to the volume of patients, number of staff, frequency of appointments and patient turnover. A dental office functions in an intense and efficient space whereby the demands for floor area within the structure do not align with the traditional parking requirement calculation which is based on floor area. The space demands of a dental office may be different than other medical offices. The Zoning Ordinance makes no distinction between medical specialties or the operational characteristics of different practices, thus the conventional calculation method for parking based on building square footage may insufficient compared to actual parking demand. Staff, the Board of Adjustment, and the Planning Commission have all recognized the need to revisit parking regulations for certain uses. Variance Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance for the increase in parking to a total of 24 spaces for reasons as follows:  The proposed variance would not be out of character for the zone and the surrounding uses.  The parking proposed by the applicant is reasonable considering the demands of the business as stated. The Zoning Ordinance does not differentiate between dental offices and other types of medical or professional offices.

V-16-05 Family Dental Associates at 385 Saulsbury Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 7 While a variance request must demonstrate uniqueness and exceptional practical difficulty associated with a specific property, and for these reasons past decisions are not necessarily precedential, staff notes similarities with application V-14-11, Lands of Dover Family Properties, LLC at 1084-1086 South State Street, approved by the Board of Adjustment at its meeting of October 15, 2014. The Board unanimously approved a variance to increase the parking for a smaller (2,730 SF) dental office with the same number of employees (12). The code requirement for that property was minimum 10 spaces, maximum 13 spaces, with 23 total parking spaces requested by the applicant and approved by the Board. Advisory Comments to the Applicant  If granted, variances become null and void if work has not commenced within one (1) year of the date the variance was granted. At present there is no provision for extension.  Improvements to the property are subject to Administrative Site Development Plan approval processes and appropriate permits from the City of Dover Department of Planning & Inspections and other agencies.

V-16-05 Family Dental Associates at 385 Saulsbury Road Board of Adjustment Report APPENDIX/ATTACHMENTS GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Zoning Exhibit Map 1 (Staff) B Administrative Site Plan, proposed 1 (11” x 17”) (Applicant)

City of Dover Application No.: V-16-05 Department of Planning & Inspections St wn B ro Bu t tn M er R-8 Pl R-7 C-2A R-8 RG-3 R-7 Dr Virginia A v e ow Ann R-7 CPO il H o ll Ave Vi a McK Qu lla ROS ge Dr ee R d H itc hi n g P os t Dr SC-1 RG-3 He ritag e D r d er R Walk CPO ROS Site CPO S a u ls b ury RG-1 Rd t Dr Patrio Cir er g A r lb Dr tc o a t Mon Wha R-8 t B la RG-2 B ic e R-8 M a tt nc B n te n e rh o lv d n ia l ir rn D e rg R-8 Hom b C B lv d r IPM ROS ROS Title: Lands of Family Dental Associates Address: 385 Saulsbury Rd Parcel ID: ED-05-067.19-02-02.06-000 Legend Zoning: C-PO, Commercial and Professional Office Zone COZ-1, Corridor Overlay Zone Subject Property Owner: Christopher A. Nacrelli Dover Parcels Date: 5/09/2016 Zoning « 0 175 350 700 Feet Corridor Overlay Zone

.lilIE....ll6I6 I tAX f'ARCf] ~ . CD-0~7 tt-02-02.06-000 1 SIT{ . , , , , - ,.. ............. """' DCJll'OI. or 1i'I04 ., c,w,,«_1,1 ADCll'lS$ OOl!Slt)P,04""""11J ""'~"""' D(l'.1:R. DC 19906 • IJ4~fil' OF" RtCORO PIO'l'L-~PC ~'* COcSU,.11MC:,. If<: L_ - snun t 10.3 s. tllRADrOM> J DCMJt. CIC I ~ JOl-744 ·le7!t C-PO. OOl~T ~~- -- ~~- - ~~- -- ~~- --- ~ - OCHTM. oma:. PROPOSCD OChlAI. ornct: n.~6, sr co", ACS..) CliKJS.'5 nocJllt Nil.A. .UIIM Sf ~ PfilOPOS[I) l.l,!ODt sr l ~ l :;, Ol:H ACS 0}0t ,c:s ... 61 :ll'l ~ WALKER ROAD (KCR 70 w.JOR COLLECTOR) 10 PARK I~ Di\lA. T'l'PCArt """"""' 9',tCfS 9W1 ~ 9" k 20" ~ D USC: CIC.HlAl OF~ICL I I - t- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - ~ · ! · ~ - - -- - - --\----- PN'kl"i!C 9.tien IWCUAD> I J SPACES PNftC·J< SPMXS ~ 20 5.P.ACtS (XfSl•,': .. SPN:ES PROPOS(D PARCEL MAP 1"=400' LOCATION MAP l"= l,200' 11 L~'SJ'Aen NON( .,.OOIICD ti Sil[ soa..s hi. ~ I.IAMN V,.O. 0 IO ~ PlRCI kl SU>f''lS HSC I. "1:R\" LDW SLW',tQ'. 'V(JmCH...;M..018 """'°"" HCIIIZ'DHTAL.. DC1MIAII[ s,•rc Pt.M£. t~, ..,. -- - - -- -U"€5 - - - - - AD.IC)•,~ PflOPCRTT U"wtS D 04~ 0017 J CIQJ7 077'6 ' .... flftS fUUN) Proposed Project Area -- - - - Qlr,jt(Jt L "" (4 spaces) =0= = ~~ IASIN • 11 'n-s PA0P£.RTr IS "''' NTCCTCD 8'I' n< n.c>ooPt.A<,.. .\S SHCM~ OH IUIJ htJMe(Jf 10001COIUH. V1'CCTNt: D"1!: MAY ~ 200.l. ====== {.&"11& aq 8 n ,tCIPI ~ r" M>J NTtCt[D 8'I' ~ ~ OR fOR{S,1 - U : , 0 - - ...... "' OIST\.I08AM2 - IASril-lC , roor C'fJNrOU11 EMK SIM&805 [):r '+(;; .r:"1No. C·PO IU ~> ;a Or.ii .,.. w,t,; Lv, JllitlA. U1.J,1 LOf wiOlH Wi'f LOI DCPHt ... ntoNl YARD $.JOO Sr ~ n 100 n 40" Milt - ~· WAX (COZ 1) .. . t»SnNC SPOT U&M~ lllOH /.Ft I-DIM) llJU' """° 4 1 ~r//t/C u11..1rrf'Olr ,.,... SU" $ n ~ M"AA YARO 1$ n "'~ 2~' $U/ACNI YMO A().I TO R(Sl()(N1W. ~ OIII ~ @] c»$11l¥C" TU(PH()H( PCDC'STN" Off $lRU.1 P ~ . 1 POI JOO SF. Of r\OOR AR£A ~ I POI: [MP\.c,m; ( ~ lS C.Rf'.Atnt) I ·.. ,, <} rnsrwc T1W71C /IQ r WAX. IUIU)l,c, t€1Qft, 4$' (J SltlflCS) nOOlltNlll(J.RAT'O 10 .... Ii) o,sr,,;; PCDCS"1'1AN ~ = LOT (OllfJIAG{ 7~1' D .. 06'.......C vrtJTr ,OX """/rnl'Mf'l'I.y D. a: GAil. L NEMCIC o"' l»SliWC Gi4.S MC1flf WI 02~-067 19-o:.! ·02 0J-000 910 WM.K(FI AQH) OR 350-1JO ZO,.U,. C-PO 0 67t ACS f\l 0 =-=-- n:IS'JC' CA/IC 11/JX ("""""""' I&) lt' C'6TM: - COUNr [XtSTINC @ PRCf'OSCD p ~ co.,., mo-STONY ~Ulll)NC ·.,,. c3\ (M°R , l)lf(/1</SH =- 2,917i Sf (FOOTPRINT) I ·; ~ ~ I ( I flROPOSlD ~ 1 ~ o w-.u NllA ro ec ROHMD ....., - OCll"Ql'IO" l>'<C . ... ....... :-- T \ ....... ·,-;;;- - ,.,.__ - · .,,. ~ ·J ·..• " \ ' .,,.I I I i """Jl'OllwlJ'I.• WMJCER SOU,t,R[ <Xllll)() ,., rPf 02 -O!t o&7 19- .n-~ 111 i:,o '-"2 WMJ([R 'lQl,D OR .3.164-Sl ZONCD C-PO ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN o.60~ ACS re (CCUMCJ>OAI. U5C) 385 SAULSBURY ROAD FAMILY DENTAL ASSOCIATES EAST DOVER HUNDRED - KENT COUNlY CllY OF DOVER - STATE OF DELAWARE .. """"" mountain . IJOVfll.OOl- mnJJr.ADQN Of QINfBStP L CHArSfOPHCR 4 MCR(W h{A(9'I' ((P'tJf"'r THA• Tt4 OW"C(Jt or P(COAD DCSICNAll]) ~ IS rw ow,,.(_R or ,...l PNQPUITY CJuaaBLO NC;. SM)MI consultmg ,..,...72 ,xMJ. 00 •- ()ti n«$ Pl>N. ANO 'n4A.T n<_ P\>H WA'~ MAO( At f)1( Dll(C'TIIJH Qr 1K CJ,IN(R_ N«J ~ I ~ n« ~ TO • 11"$ ACT N.rJ DCSR. rat TffC P\>H TO 8£ 00'£1.0PO> 1tS ~ ll'i ~ : r 'lftlf'H ALL .IPPI.JC.tlt.L V.~ MO - ..,..,. -----....-: ~ ._. IICQ.U"""5, -..--·-·-- ------ ............. .. .. .. """' "' ""., ......... I a,'

Attachments have been reduced from their original size and resolution to allow 8.5” x 11” printing and ease of transmission by email.

Exhibit A City of Dover Application No.: V-16-06 Department of Planning & Inspections RG-2 Greentree Dr Dr rew A nd RG-2 SC-2 C-2A C-1A Forrest Ave CPO SC-1 C-3 C-2A June Ln Independence Blvd C-2A C-1A C-2A RG-2 CPO RG-2 RG-2 Farmview Dr RG-2 Title: Lands of Margaret Johnson Legend Address: 1310/1324 Forrest Ave Parcel ID: ED-05-076.10-01-01.00-000 Subject Property ED-05-076.10-01-02.00-000 ED-05-076.10-01-03.00-000 Dover Parcels ED-05-076.10-01-04.00-000 ED-05-076.10-01-04.01-000 Zoning Zoning: C-2A, Corridor Overlay Zone Owner: Margaret H. Johnson Corridor Overlay Zone Date: 5/31/2016 2012 Buildings « 0 125 250 500 Feet Kent County Parcels Wetland Areas

City of Dover Board of Adjustment May 18, 2016 V-16-06 Location: 1310/1324 Forrest Avenue Applicant: IDE3 Associates, Inc. Owner: Margaret H. Johnson Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.10-01-01.00-000, ED-05-076.10-01-02.00-000, ED-05-076.10-01-03.00-000, ED-05-076.10-01-04.00-000, ED-05-076.10-01-04.01-000 Application Date: May 18, 2016 Present Zoning: C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Present Use: Unoccupied former residential structures Reviewed By: Bill Cook Variance Type: Area Variance Variance Requested: To allow in increase in the maximum permitted height in the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone).

V-16-06 Lands of Margaret Johnson at 1310/1324 Forrest Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 9 Project Description The applicant is requesting a variance from Zoning Ordinance Article 3 §27.66(a) pertaining to the maximum building height allowed in the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The applicable provisions state “Buildings shall be limited in overall height to 35 feet and shall not exceed two stories.” The applicant proposes two new buildings on the site:  A one-story retail building located at the front of the site facing Forrest Avenue.  A four-story apartment building located behind the proposed retail building and extending to the rear of the property. A variance is requested to allow an increase in height from the maximum permitted two stores to four stories to allow construction of the four-story apartment building as proposed. Exhibits B (6 pages) and C (8 pages) show the proposed site location, existing condition, proposed site plan, and building elevations. Any site development would be subject to the Planning Commission Site Development Plan review processes and would require a parcel consolidation plan. The exhibits shown should be considered preliminary as they relate to the site plan elements and architecture. Adjacent Land Uses Refer to the Zoning Map (Exhibit A). The property is located south side of Forrest Avenue between June Lane and Independence Boulevard, across from Greentree Village shopping center. The area is primarily a mix of commercial uses facing Forrest Avenue, including restaurants, retail uses, and services. Within the immediate area residential uses are typically located on streets feeding to Forrest Avenue and behind the commercial uses that front Forrest Avenue. The subject properties are the site of former residences which have since been demolished. Former residences (now zoned commercial) can be found at various points along Forrest Avenue, including the properties located immediately west of June Lane. Some are residential structures still used as residences, while others are occupied by commercial uses. Code Citations C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) Zoning Ordinance Article 3 §14 outlines uses permitted in the C-2A, which includes apartments and multi-family dwellings. The “Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations” in Zoning Ordinance Article 4 §4.14 state that maximum permitted building heights in the C- 2A zone are:  75 feet and shall not exceed six (6) stories. COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone)

V-16-06 Lands of Margaret Johnson at 1310/1324 Forrest Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 9 The subject properties and surrounding properties are within the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). This overlay zone includes additional provisions related to building design, landscaping, parking layout, and height among other criteria.  Within the COZ-1, building heights are limited to 35 feet and shall not exceed two (2) stories. As with parking regulations, there are instances where bulk standards or other dimensional criteria (such as height) are stated in various sections within the Zoning Ordinance, such as in the base zoning, overlays, or supplemental regulations. In cases where multiple standards are given, the more stringent standard applies. Building Height Zoning Ordinance Article 12 provides the following definitions related to height:  Height: The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the roof for flat and mansard roofs and to the mean height between [the] eave and ridge for other types of roofs.  Story: That part of any building, exclusive of cellars but inclusive of basements, comprised between the level of one finished floor and the level of the next higher finished floor, or if there be no higher finished floor, then that part of the building comprised between the level of the highest finished floor and the top of the roof beams.  Basement: A story in a building having a floor below the finished grade at any point on the periphery of the building and having a structural ceiling level at least four feet above the average finished grade along each side of the building facing a street (see Cellar and Story).  Cellar: A space in a building with a structural ceiling level less than four feet above the average finished grade along any side of the building facing a street. Staff notes that buildings exceeding two (2) stories and/or 35 feet are present at various sites on or near Forrest Avenue. This condition can exist for several reasons. Some examples include multi-family housing, such as the 3-story Dover Country Club apartments and Brandywine Court apartments/condos located on the north side of Forrest Avenue near the intersection with Mifflin Road, are legal non-conforming and predate the COZ-1. Woodmill Apartments, located adjacent to the subject properties, is three (3) stories, but is not located in the COZ-1. The Grande Apartments, located on the north side of Forrest Avenue near the intersection of Saulsbury Road, is a senior apartment complex with buildings four (4) stories in height. This project was approved through a PND (Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option) process whereby the Planning Commission has the ability to relax requirements related to dimensional requirements “where the developer can demonstrate that such action is desirable and consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan.”

V-16-06 Lands of Margaret Johnson at 1310/1324 Forrest Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 9 Dover High School is located within the COZ-1. At its meeting of September 16, 2010 the Board of Adjustment granted a variance V-10-10 to allow construction of a three (3) story building 60 feet in height with architectural features up to 85 feet in height. Exceptional Practical Difficulties Tests Zoning Ordinance Article 9 §2 dictates the specific powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment with regard to granting variances. Specifically the Board must determine: 2.1 Variance – The board shall have the authority to authorize variances from provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not contrary to public interest where the board determines that a literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship or exceptional practical difficulties to the applicant. In granting variances, the board shall determine that the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done. 2.11 Area Variance. A variance shall be considered an area variance if it relates to bulk standards, signage regulations, and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that address lot layout, buffers, and dimensions. In considering a request for an area variance, the board shall evaluate the following criteria and document them in their findings of fact: (a) the nature of the zone in which the property lies; (b) the character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein; (c) whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses; and (d) whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Review of Application As a part of the application, the applicant was asked to state how the requested variance relates to the above four criteria. The applicant’s responses are provided below, along with a staff assessment of the application in accordance with the required criteria. 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Responses: “Section 27. - Corridor overlay zone 1 (COZ-1) The corridor overlay zone (COZ) is established for the following reasons: A. To promote superior urban corridor development and the highest quality built environment; B. To foster coordination and linkage among corridor properties and with adjacent lands; C. To preserve the functionality and efficiency of the roadway for traffic movement; and D. To achieve a visually balanced streetscape environment which is friendly to the pedestrian and motorist alike.

V-16-06 Lands of Margaret Johnson at 1310/1324 Forrest Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 9 Superior urban design. For the purposes of this ordinance the term "superior urban design" shall meet the following criteria: 1. Superior urban design places a strict and primary importance on the pedestrian. The concept should lend itself to interconnectivity while presenting building structures as aspects of the street, not simply islands existing in the "sea of roads". The design should encourage fewer car-trips, as well as promote automobile trips on an interconnected local street system rather than trips that utilize the arterials. In demonstrating superior urban design, an applicant must show that the plan presented exceeds the requirements of the zoning ordinance in at least two of the following areas: A. Transportation amenities for bicycles, pedestrians and transit that exceed those required by the zoning ordinance; B. Architectural features including, but not limited to: LEED-certified buildings; unique architecture not replicated in other locations; use of architectural elements such as entry porticos, porte-cocheres, colonnades, cornices, porch columns and balusters, band courses, coins, water tables and other trim that enhances visual quality and function of the structure; and use of the highest quality construction materials. C. Landscaping that exceeds the requirements of this section, including robust use of trees, shrubbery, and flowering plants to screen parked cars; water gardens and ponds; arboretums; tree preservation measures; D. Public spaces and art including, but not limited to, sculpture, memorials, murals, public court yards and pocket parks, and fountains; E. Green technologies for stormwater management, as well as green energy technologies such as geothermal heating and cooling and solar energy supplies.” Staff Response: The applicant’s response is near verbatim from the opening subsections of Zoning Ordinance Article 3 §27 relating to the purpose of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and defining the criteria by which “superior urban design” is evaluated. Staff reiterates that any site development plan related to the property is subject to review by the Planning Commission. Review by staff and the Planning Commission would evaluate future projects based on compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, including the provisions of the COZ-1 as they relate to design requirements and objectives for the zone. The proposed four- story building is consistent with the C-2A zone, but inconsistent with the requirements of the COZ-1. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Responses:

V-16-06 Lands of Margaret Johnson at 1310/1324 Forrest Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 9 “The area on Rt 8 east and west of the proposed site is primarily commercial properties with residential behind. (See drawing C1)” Staff Response: The immediate vicinity of the subject properties, as seen from Forrest Avenue, is mostly commercial. The subject properties are south and across the street from the Greentree Village shopping center. To the east of the subject properties is a restaurant (Betsy Ross Pizza) and a retail store (Salvation Army, formerly a drug store). To the west are 1 ½ story residential structures of undetermined use. The subject site was previously occupied by similar structures. Farther west are a gas station, automobile service business, and small shopping center. The property abutting the subject property at the rear is Woodmill Apartments. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Responses: “The proposed 4-story building is located in the center rear of site. It is 235' from the road with a proposed 1-story commercial building between it and the road. The east/west side property lines are 83.50' & 111.50' from the building. There is 120' between it and the 3-story apartment complex located adjacent to the rear (south) of the site. Visually we do not see this having a significant impact on anyone. The increase of 49 residences will benefit the surrounding businesses many of which are within walking distance via sidewalk.” Staff Response: Staff concurs with the applicant’s description of the site location, noting that visual impact is somewhat subjective and further review would fall under the purview of the Planning Commission and staff’s evaluation of a Site Development Plan upon submission. The additional residences may be of benefit to surrounding businesses and contribute to the economic vitality of the area. 4. Whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant Responses: “The owner wishes to maximize the density of this parcel with multiple uses while adhering to the COZ-1 requirements. The COZ only allowing 2 stories would require the building footprint to spread making it difficult to combine Residential & Commercial uses to work with each other in way that benefits the community.” Staff Response: The C-2A zone allows for a mix of uses, including apartments and multi-family residential dwellings, one-family residential dwellings, and various commercial uses

V-16-06 Lands of Margaret Johnson at 1310/1324 Forrest Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 9 such as retail stores, restaurants, service establishments, hotels, places of public assembly, and offices. Staff recognizes that there can be certain community benefits related to mixed-use development, and the Zoning Ordinance supports this. However such issues would fall primarily under the purview of the Planning Commission in their overall analysis of the project, including review of compliance with objectives of the Comprehensive Plan generally, and the C-2A and COZ-1 zoning specifically. The limitation of two (2) stories would impose a challenge for this and other properties and uses as it relates to the building footprint and also for the provision and location for parking. However staff notes that while a two-story building height may force a building footprint to “spread” over the lot, a four-story building would have a similar effect if it can be assumed that a taller building would have more dwelling units or greater square footage. This would force a greater requirement for parking which would similarly consume lot area. The applicants wish to maximize density does not qualify as an exceptional practical difficulty. While the applicant introduces a point that density on the site is difficult to achieve due to the COZ-1 restriction on height, and that such restriction makes it difficult to combine uses in a way that benefits the community, the exceptional practical difficult has not been supported as it relates to the limitation on height.

V-16-06 Lands of Margaret Johnson at 1310/1324 Forrest Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 8 of 9 Variance Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the variance for the increase in height to a total of 4 stories for reasons as follows:  The application has not demonstrated exceptional practical difficulty as it relates specifically to the limit on height and the ability to make improvements to the property that are permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Advisory Comments to the Applicant  If granted, variances become null and void if work has not commenced within one (1) year of the date the variance was granted. At present there is no provision for extension.  Improvements to the property are subject to Site Development Plan approval processes and appropriate permits from the City of Dover Department of Planning & Inspections and other agencies.

V-16-06 Lands of Margaret Johnson at 1310/1324 Forrest Avenue Board of Adjustment Report APPENDIX/ATTACHMENTS GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Zoning Exhibit Map 1 (Staff) B Location Map, Existing Plan, Site Plan, 6 (11” x 17”) Renderings, proposed (Applicant) C Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, proposed 8 (8.5” x 11”) (Applicant)

IDE3 ASSOCIATES Exhibit B CONSULTING ENGINEERS Exhibit B CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS 106 W. COMMERCE ST SMYRNA, DE 19977 Tel: 302 659-9090 Fax: 302 659-0909 Email: ed@i3allc.com ΅ͲΉ͑΁Ͳ΃ʹͶͽ͔͑͘Τ ͣͦͨͧ͢͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ ͣͦͨͧͣ͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ ͣͦͨͧͤ͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ ͣͦͨͧͥ͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ ͣͦͨͧͥ͢͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ SITE LOCATION 04/28/16 1:400 C1

΄Ά΃·ͶΊ͑ͫ ͼͶ΃ʹ͹Ͷ΃͑ͶͿ͸ͺͿͶͶ΃ͺͿ͸͑ͺͿʹ͙͚͑ͣͦ͢͡ IDE3 ASSOCIATES ΅ͲΉ͑΁Ͳ΃ʹͶͽ͔͑͘Τ 106 W. COMMERCE ST CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING 04/28/16 ͣͦͨͧ͢͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ SMYRNA, DE 19977 C2 1:50 ͣͦͨͧͣ͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ Tel: 302 659-9090 ENGINEERS MANAGERS ͣͦͨͧͤ͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ ͣͦͨͧͥ͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ Fax: 302 659-0909 ͣͦͨͧͥ͢͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ Email: ed@i3allc.com

΄Ά΃·ͶΊ͑ͫ ͼͶ΃ʹ͹Ͷ΃͑ͶͿ͸ͺͿͶͶ΃ͺͿ͸͑ͺͿʹ͙͚͑ͣͦ͢͡ IDE3 ASSOCIATES ΅ͲΉ͑΁Ͳ΃ʹͶͽ͔͑͘Τ 106 W. COMMERCE ST CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING 04/28/16 ͣͦͨͧ͢͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ SMYRNA, DE 19977 C3 1:40 ͣͦͨͧͣ͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ Tel: 302 659-9090 MANAGERS ENGINEERS ͣͦͨͧͤ͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ ͣͦͨͧͥ͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ Fax: 302 659-0909 ͣͦͨͧͥ͢͢͢͢͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͞͡͡͞͡͡͡͡ Email: ed@i3allc.com

Exhibit C

ROGELIO GAYTAN 9279 LEONARDO AVE. EL PASO, TEXAS 79907 455' - 4" TEL. 915.329.6188 25' - 0" 250' - 0" 89' - 0 1/2" 50' - 0" 41' - 4" designfracto@gmail.com A301 ! 5' - 0" 8' - 0" 4  

  
   A300 60' - 1" 4 77' - 0" 
 


 
  17' - 0" A301 3 RETAIL UNITS 140' - 0" 1 A301 (1-STORY) (7- UNITS) UP UP UP APARTMENT BUILDING FORREST AVENUE A300 3 (4-STORIES) 66' - 0" 2 A300 236' - 0" (48- UNITS) 261' - 0" UP UP UP 261' - 0" 6' - 3" 8' - 9" 15' - 0" 20' - 1" 1 2 64' - 0" 24' - 0" A300 147 PARKING SPACES A301 20' - 0" 34' - 0" 25' - 0" 247' - 10" 207' - 6" 455' - 4" SITE PLAN 1 1" = 20'-0" SHEET:  
  SHEET NUMBER: A000

ROGELIO GAYTAN 9279 LEONARDO AVE. EL PASO, TEXAS 79907 TEL. 915.329.6188 designfracto@gmail.com ! 250' - 0" 1 A200  

  
   23' - 9" 10' - 3" 35' - 6" 35' - 6" 10' - 3" 35' - 6" 35' - 4" 10' - 2" 30' - 5" 23' - 4" 2 A200 3 A200 UP UP UP REF. 
 


 
  33' - 1" DW DW DW DW DW DW DW WH WH WH WH WH WH REF. REF. REF. REF. REF. REF. WH 66' - 0" REF. REF. REF. REF. REF. REF. WH WH WH WH DW DW DW DW DW DW 32' - 11" UP UP UP LEVEL 1- FLOOR PLAN 1 3/32" = 1'-0" SHEET: 
   
  SHEET NUMBER: A100

ROGELIO GAYTAN 9279 LEONARDO AVE. EL PASO, TEXAS 79907 TEL. 915.329.6188 designfracto@gmail.com ! 239' - 6"  

  
   23' - 5" 10' - 3" 35' - 6" 35' - 6" 10' - 3" 35' - 9" 35' - 1" 10' - 2" 43' - 7" 4 A200 DN DN DN UP UP UP 33' - 1 1/2" WH 
 


 
  DW DW DW DW DW WH WH WH WH REF. REF. REF. REF. REF. REF. 66' - 1" DW REF. REF. REF. REF. REF. REF. DW WH WH WH WH DW DW DW DW DW 32' - 11 1/2" UP UP UP WH DN DN DN LEVEL 2, 3 & 4- FLOOR PLAN 1 3/32" = 1'-0" SHEET: 
   

   
  SHEET NUMBER: A101

35' - 4 1/2" 11' - 5" 12' - 4 1/2" 11' - 7" 30' - 5" 23' - 0" 12' - 8 1/2" 10' - 6 1/2" 7' - 2" 12' - 9 1/2" 10' - 2 1/2" 4' - 0" 5' - 9 1/2" 10' - 11" 15' - 6 1/2" 17' - 4 1/2" ROGELIO GAYTAN 11' - 1" 9279 LEONARDO AVE. 9' - 1 1/2" 25' - 1 1/2" EL PASO, TEXAS 79907 TEL. 915.329.6188 designfracto@gmail.com REF. 34' - 8" 32' - 11" 29' - 11" 29' - 11" 4' - 1" 32' - 8" ! 2' - 3" 29' - 11" 7' - 1 1/2" 4' - 3 1/2" 8' - 8" 3' - 9" 11' - 7" 12' - 6" 3' - 11 1/2" 8' - 9" 10' - 6 1/2" 7' - 2" DW 6' - 2 1/2" 9' - 2 1/2" 6' - 0 1/2"  

  
   DW DW 13' - 3 1/2" WH 6' - 6" 6' - 6 1/2" 8' - 9 1/2" 8' - 1 1/2" WH 7' - 6 1/2" REF. 
 


 
  WH REF. 8' - 3" 4' - 6 1/2" 0' - 2 1/2" 10' - 0" 23' - 0" 23' - 3" 7' - 2" 30' - 5" 8' - 6 1/2" 6' - 0 1/2" 16' - 3" 4' - 6" 35' - 3 1/2" 1 BEDROOM UNIT A 1 BEDROOM UNIT B 2 BEDROOM UNIT 3 2 1 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" 43' - 3 1/2" 23' - 4" 6' - 2" 13' - 9 1/2" 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 9' - 2 1/2" 12' - 8 1/2" 20' - 7" WH 6' - 2" 32' - 11" 32' - 11" 9' - 10" 4' - 3" 9' - 6 1/2" 6' - 8 1/2" 4' - 0 1/2" 3' - 2 1/2" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 9' - 1 1/2" REF. SHEET: DW  
   3' - 8" 15' - 8" 6' - 6" 3' - 6" 13' - 11" 43' - 2 1/2" 2 BEDROOM CORNER UNIT SHEET NUMBER: 4 1/4" = 1'-0" A200

ROOF 44' - 0" Level 4 33' - 0" ROGELIO GAYTAN Level 3 9279 LEONARDO AVE. 22' - 0" EL PASO, TEXAS 79907 TEL. 915.329.6188 designfracto@gmail.com Level 2 11' - 0" ! Level 1 0' - 0" EAST ELEVATION  

  
   1 3/32" = 1'-0" ROOF 
 


 
  ROOF 44' - 0" 44' - 0" Level 4 Level 4 33' - 0" 33' - 0" Level 3 Level 3 22' - 0" 22' - 0" Level 2 Level 2 11' - 0" 11' - 0" Level 1 Level 1 0' - 0" 0' - 0" NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION 2 3 3/32" = 1'-0" 3/32" = 1'-0" ROOF 44' - 0" Level 4 33' - 0" Level 3 22' - 0" Level 2 11' - 0" Level 1 SHEET: 0' - 0"   4 WEST ELEVATION    3/32" = 1'-0" SHEET NUMBER: A300

ROGELIO GAYTAN Level 1 Level 1 0' - 0" 0' - 0" 9279 LEONARDO AVE. EL PASO, TEXAS 79907 EAST ELEVATION- RETAIL TEL. 915.329.6188 NORTH ELEVATION- RETAIL 2 designfracto@gmail.com 1 3/32" = 1'-0" 3/32" = 1'-0" !  

  
   Level 1 0' - 0" Level 1 
 


 
  0' - 0" SOUTH ELEVATION- RETAIL WEST ELEVATION- RETAIL 3 4 3/32" = 1'-0" 3/32" = 1'-0" SHEET:      SHEET NUMBER: A301