2-15-24 Historic District Packet

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING Thursday, February 15, 2024 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 February 15, 2024 will be held in the City Hall Conference Room. The public is welcome to attend in person. The Meeting will also be provided as a Virtual Meeting using WebEx 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 February 15, 2024 Join by Phone Dial: 1-650-479-3208 Access code: 253 620 15877 (Password: 36837432) Join Online: https://bit.ly/HDCMeeting2152024 Webinar Number: 2536 201 5877 Webinar 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 November 16, 2023 2. Adoption of Minutes of January 18, 2024 (Minutes under preparation) COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Summary of Activity 1

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING - February 15, 2024 PAGE 2 3. Summary of Applications 2023 and 2024 4. Summary of Architectural Review Certificates for 2024 Department of Planning & Inspections Updates 5. Update on C-2 Code Amendments Project for Potential Revisions to Zoning Ordinance for C-2 (Central Commercial Zone): Proposed Ordinance #2024-01 CCOW-LFA Amendment #1 NEW APPLICATIONS NEW BUSINESS Review of Permits Referred to Commission 6. HI-24-01 Referral of Fence Permit #23-1868 at 146 S. State Street - Continued Review of Architectural Review Certification as Referred by the City Planner to the Historic District Commission for a Fence Permit #23-1868. The project involves a 6-foot vinyl fence to the rear of the property spanning from the fence at the northern adjacent property along the parking lot to the south side adjacent property fence with 2 pedestrian gates. Additionally, there is a 6-foot vinyl fence segment between the northern adjacent property fence and the building with a pedestrian gate. Property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The owner of record is State Street 146 Properties, LLC. Address: 146 S. State Street. Tax Parcel: ED05-077.09-02-58.00-000. Council District 4. OLD BUSINESS Certified Local Government (CLG) Program 7. Information on FFY2023 CLG Grant Application - Update on Status Implementation of 2019 Comprehensive Plan ADJOURN POSTED: February 8, 2024 THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING 2

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2023 The Meeting of the City of Dover Historic District Commission was held on Thursday, November 16, 2023, at 3:30 PM as an In-Person meeting in the City Hall Conference Room (anchor location) and virtually using the videoconferencing system WebEx. With Chairman Czerwinski presiding, the other members present were Mrs. Mason, Ms. Horsey, and Mrs. Ellen H. Richardson. Mr. Street was absent. Planning Office Staff members present were Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mrs. Kristen Mullaney and Ms. Katherine Oehmke as well as Assistant City Manager Sharon Duca (assisting with management of the Department of Planning and Inspections). APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Horsey moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mrs. Richardson, and the roll call vote was unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Street was absent. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2023 Ms. Mason moved for approval of the Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2023, seconded by Ms. Horsey and the roll call vote was unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Street was absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Summary of Applications for 2022 and 2023 Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that included in your packet first is the Summary of Applications for 2022 and 2023. Most notable is the Kent County Family Courthouse and parking lots project. The Building Permits were issued for both the Courthouse Building and the Parking Garage in late October just after your previous meeting. That project is getting underway. They are starting with some of the sitework activities related to a couple of smaller parking lot projects to kick that off. Additionally, for other projects from 2022, the Delaware Public Archives whom you met with about a roof project, the roof project is underway. It will look different than the blue tarp covering that you may be seeing at the present moment. That is not the final color. Also from 2022, the accessory structure at the John Bell House is also under construction. For 2023, we'll be looking at your fifth application of the year today with a Permit Referral. For other 2023 activities, we have a number of them that have already been completed with a couple of fence projects. The parking lot improvements at 34 The Green is also now under Permit and that is one of the parking lot projects associated with the Kent County Family Courthouse project. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if there were any questions on the applications of recent years and their status; there were none. 3

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2023 Summary of Architectural Review Certifications for 2023 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there has been a total of 42 Permits in the Historic District area. The Historic District Commission was involved with 6 of them and Staff were able to review the other remaining 36. Some of those include Building Interior Permits for which there is no requirement for the review for Architectural Review Certification. We have seen a good number of Sign Permits and Roof Permits is kind of leading the pack of the types of applications. As I previously noted, probably the most notable are the two Building Permits issued in the last month for the Kent County Family Courthouse and Parking Garage Building. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if there were any questions on any particular Permit activity item. There was none. Department of Planning & Inspections Updates Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that we have a new Code Enforcement Officer that has started in the last few weeks and his name is David. We continue to have two openings; one for a Planner II position and the Planning Director position for the office is also posted. We are coming into the holiday season and there are a number of City sponsored and Downtown activities, most notably the city's tree lighting event is on November 30, 2023. There are other events including a parade scheduled in December. Thank you to Sharon Duca who continues to assist in the management and operations of our office in general in this time of some staffing challenges. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if there were any questions about those items. There were none. Projects & Studies Activities Update on C-2 Code Amendments Project for Potential Revisions to Zoning Ordinance for C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that we had listed here an update on C-2 Code Amendments Project for Potential Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance focused on the C-2 zone which is the Central Commercial Zone. That is the zoning classification we find predominantly here in Downtown along the Loockerman Street corridor and some of the adjacent streets. We have been to a Council Committee of the Whole (meeting) and they looked at the concepts for these potential revisions. Included in your packet was the Table that we presented with the current Code and some of the recommended concepts for revision. These focus on uses in the C-2, looking at building height and related topics, parking requirements in the Downtown area, and then some miscellaneous related development type activities associated with development and those requirements. At this point City Council has directed Staff to begin preparation of the formal Text Amendment meaning the writing of Ordinance that would then go through the formal review process for its hearings and adoption. With the cancellation of City Council meetings for the last week in November, Staff is on target for presenting that Text Amendment language to Council at their first meeting in December. If it is recommended to move into the review process, then a First Reading will be scheduled in January and will end up in review and hearing with the Planning Commission in February and back to Council in the March timeframe. Originally, we were predicting a kind of a slightly earlier timeframe for that scenario but with the cancellation of Council meetings it has been pushed back slightly in order to meet all of the notice requirements that it will need once it moves into the formal review process. 2 4

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2023 As previously mentioned, these are concepts. The actual text is a work-in-progress that the Planning Staff are working on. We'll certainly be able to share that in a future meeting when it's getting ready to move forward through the review process. It is not required to come before this body, but since your Historic District contains areas that are in the C-2 as a zoning district I wanted to keep you up to date as to the status of that project. Chairman Czerwinski asked if the feedback on this would be outside the previous meeting to discuss the elements to this. I have some problems with how some of the changes are being made. How would I present those views? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied ultimately, it will begin a formal review process with the Planning Commission in February with a hearing. Chairman Czerwinski asked if it would be public hearing? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied it will be a public hearing. The presentation of the actual proposed Text Amendment to the Ordinance is scheduled for a Council Committee meeting on December 12th. (Note: The presentation was rescheduled to January 9, 2024). Certainly, if you have questions or concerns Planning Staff is happy to hear those. We did do a series of stakeholder meetings to gather some input about what potential changes may be needed in the C-2 and conducted a Public Walk-in Workshop. Those activities happened in early October as we were kind of putting together the actual concepts for this. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that he finds some of these things problematic. Basically, with the #8 concept for the apartments and they are allowing the first floor to be a lobby for the apartments above. I think that will be a problem in the retail district where you are turning retail into office space for apartments, or it gives the building owners leeway to say well because I don't have retailers in there I am going to use it for office space. It kind of allows them a bypass of City Ordinances as far as the six month ruling out the vacancy rule. I think that people are going to use it as a crutch to say well yeah, it's not being used but I am going to use it for my office for the apartment upstairs. So, I have a real problem with #8 of the Recommended Concepts for Revision. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned #17 was the other issue. No parking requirements for existing buildings in C-2 Zone and No minimum parking requirements for new construction in C-2 Zone. Mrs. Richardson mentioned concerns of #16 the ten-story building in Downtown. (Maximum building height 10 stories and 125 feet). Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that it was part of their vertical rising programs. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that #17 he thinks it was an issue with no minimum parking requirements and #18 “No minimum parking requirements based on use in the Downtown Redevelopment Target Area.” So obviously, they just use a separate set of criteria for parking. Here it's got the minimum parking requirements for different uses such as medical offices, apartments, restaurants, and hotels. There are no minimum parking requirements. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that (in the Table) the first column is what our Code contains today. The second column is concepts for changes to the Code. Right now, the Code very specifically says that if you're going into an existing building in the C-2 zone, there are new 3 5

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2023 parking requirements. If you're building a new building in C-2, the zoning district does not have a parking requirement but certain uses trigger a parking requirement. That's what's in #18 and that is through any district in the City. If you're one of these uses, there are specific parking rates based on that use that are called out. The concept is to look at having the Code reflect that there's no minimum parking requirement, meaning a use would not trigger a parking requirement if you're in the Downtown Redevelopment Target Area, which is basically an area that expands from a little bit north of Wesley to down to the Hospital, to the river and to just about the railroad tracks. It is that within that area that there would be a different consideration for how parking is approached. Chairman Czerwinski asked how that would be done? You just don’t know yet? Mrs. Melson- Williams replied that this concept would not set a minimum. What we've heard from developers, even in other instances in the City is that they are not going to build something that doesn't satisfy what they appear their parking needs are. So, they are not going to build an apartment building and expect their tenants to just find parking. They're going to build some level of parking attached to that development activity. Chairman Czerwinski asked that the Bayard Hotel specifically did not meet the parking requirements? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied that the Bayard when that was redeveloped it was a new build. The parking requirements are slightly different. It did receive a partial waiver of the parking requirements and that is already in our code. It’s something that the Planning Commission can consider. So, in that case there is some parking that is on site at the rear and under that building. As part of their proposal to satisfy parking, some of the accessory parking is located within a certain distance of the building. Our Code allows for that today. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned so now we are going to have possible issues in the future with these structures like the one that is supposed to be at Kunkel’s. That’s a big complex. So, there's no requirement for that building to have minimum parking requirements? So, they can just put a building there and say go park on the street. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied that our Code does not say that today. From what we've heard from developers is that they don't build that way. If they want to keep tenants, they're going to manage parking for their tenants. This is some of the concepts here are coming out of the Transforming Downtown Dover Master Plan. That Strategic Plan was done by the Downtown Partnership and is looking at how do we think about redevelopment and the future of Downtown from a number of perspectives. That's why we have a series of proposed concepts here that we’ll be flushing out in the text amendment for formal review and adoption. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that they were also talking about underground parking. Are they still considering that? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied that I can't speak to details of a particular project. There's not been an application. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that when he talked to them, they were talking about underground parking which really is not feasible in this area. I think it's a concern when we look at the back of the building that they don't blow off the parking every time they build a structure. There are issues that get worse as the Downtown gets developed. It’s going to affect Loockerman 4 6

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2023 Street and all the streets around that area. Bayard was case one, where they built a building that was not adequately supported in his opinion. Someone has to go a half a block across the street to park. I am hoping that this doesn't continue to happen when you build a building and take away parking. When you do the parking requirement, they are going to look at the least cost and so it ends up being parking. They will say we will do underground parking; and you ask do you realize how high the water table is there? Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if there were any other questions, thoughts or concerns. There were none. NEW BUSINESS Review of Permits Referred to Commission: HI-23-05 Referral of Demolition Permit #23-1521 at 153 South Bradford Street – Referral by the City Planner to the Historic District Commission for Review of Architectural Review Certification for a Demolition Permit Application #23-1521. The project proposes partial demolition of the existing two-story masonry building by removal of the second floor and construction of a new roof system. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The property is located on the east side of S. Bradford Street between W. Loockerman Street and Reed Street. The owner of record is JD Land Corporation. Address: 153 S. Bradford Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-02-35.00-000. Council District 4. Subject of Code Enforcement Case #23-3847 for condemnation. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this was a Referral of a Demolition and Renovations Permit #23-152 located in the Historic District area specifically at 153 S Bradford Street. Because the project is in the Historic District, it is subject to the Architectural Review Certification process. In certain instances, Staff can review that with the Building Permit and in other instances that very clearly has to come to the Historic District Commission. In the case of this one since it is a partial demolition, the City Planner has referred it to the Commission for consultation on that Permit. The Permit specifically is to do a partial demolition of the existing two-story masonry building. It is to basically remove the second floor of that building and then construct a new roof system. It will leave it as basically a one-story building. The roof system would be a flat roof system. This building is the subject of a Code Enforcement case that was opened in early August related to building conditions that resulted in condemnation. This Permit has been put forth by the property owner as a process to remedy the situation related to that Code Enforcement case. Our Staff Report includes some property information and the history of the property. From our quick research, it appears that the buildings as we see them today were likely constructed in the late 1940s or early 1950s. It is in an area that's part of a National Register Historic District known as the Victorian Dover District. It's a building that's 20th century construction and clearly, it's masonry. With this review, we are looking at the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. On page 3 of the Staff Report, we do look at the criteria that the Design Standards and Guidelines list for Demolition of buildings. In this case, we've got a partial Demolition of a building so those criteria should be looked at. Quickly on the Staff Findings and building location, there will still be a building footprint there that will remain the same from the massing and design of the building. It remains masonry with a flat roof; however, it would be going from a two-story to one-story. The material of the building is a yellow brick 5 7

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2023 with a new roof being a membrane roofing material when they reconstruct the roof system for it. We do note that in removal of this, the front facade is what is yellow brick. We suggest retaining some of that yellow brick. It may be helpful in final capping of the wall. As you make the transition from going to a two-story to one story building, demolition basically happens right below the windows that are on the existing second floor where the front facade faces west. From a Demolition Permit standpoint, we do note that the Demolition may be warranted depending on the building’s structural conditions and soundness. There is severe cracking in certain areas. This is an option for rehab of the building. It does leave us with a portion of the building intact. With this information from both the Permit and modern-day photographs, we can make updates to the Cultural Resource Survey information that is on file at the State Historic Preservation Office for the building. Attached to the Report is a series of photographs and historic maps. There is a copy of the Permit, the Letter of Referral, and a plan sheet of details, in addition to the Design Standards and Guidelines excerpt. Representatives: Elio Battista Jr., Parkowski, Guerke & Swayze Mr. Battista mentioned that he was not sure how much background the Commissioners have on what has occurred, but it may be helpful just to see how we got here. With the owners these are two buildings. There is a liquor store being operated by a tenant in the subject building. In August, I believe they were subject to Code Enforcement. It is an old building, either by intent, neglect, or just the passage of time. It needed to be fixed, bottom line. No one is denying that. The owners engaged with a structural Engineering Firm to do a preliminary assessment of the building. That was submitted; there were some questions that came back with respect to the structural report meaning you want to see some more. The Engineering Firm was not able to attend the meeting today, but they were asked to go backout on site and give an update. There were questions from the Planning Office about specific areas they wanted to be addressed. In addition, they are also engaging in a structural survey. The reason that we want the second floor demolished is to fix whatever problem needs to be updated. The issue that we came across was the subject area with the bowing (of the wall) may or may not occur is up there. I've been informed by the builder and the engineer that it's easier to demo than to fix that and remove the problem if there's one there. Also, the issue of the replacement of bricks that are up there and finding that particular type of brick. So, removing the second floor will definitely ensure the structural integrity of the building and it will have a completely new roof system. The brick that is there we could then use to cap as Staff recommended to fill in where it needs to be on the first floor. I don't know if you see the pictures now and I'm sorry I don't have more but I did ask the architect if there could be a more detailed architectural drawing. I can pass this picture around. We are trying to keep the same style and color of the building and again it's very rudimentary. It helped me and hopefully you also as to what it would look like. With respect to reading the Design Standards and Guidelines criteria, the first element of determining the financial implications of maintaining the property versus demolition. We want to maintain it. We want old things, but there is a Code now to fix it. We can maintain the integrity and enhance the structural integrity with this plan. It's not a question of will it cost too much but can we do it and can we do it right. Its economic issues again to the Historic District and my client to make it look nice with 6 8

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2023 respect to how it fits in with city planning and the goals of maintaining of how we are going to do it and whatever plans they have in the future. This has to be done. He asked if there were any questions. Mrs. Richardson stated that the first floor is just as old as the second floor. Mr. Battista stated I want to demolish the whole thing. We are renovating all of it right, by removing the second floor. Then if there is a problem with the building settling over time and again that's a lawyer speaking not the engineer, there's going to be a report as to this eliminates that problem. The ability then to renovate the first floor is enhanced because there's issues if you have to do patchwork on the second floor. If you have the adjoining building and there's issues, then I was told you don't want to do patchwork up the top because you will affect the adjoining building. I want to keep it nice and make it look nice. We can retain the same brick if there is anything that needs to be done in the future, then we are not searching around to find it. Mrs. Richardson asked if the renovation on the first floor would be exterior only? Are you just talking about the façade? Mr. Battista replied he was referring to the structure and the outside. Right now, it is a liquor store but who knows what it might be in the future. Whatever it is being used for in the future, you have to make sure that the building is structurally sound, it's safe, and meets with your historic requirements. Mrs. Mason asked if the people who own it are the same people who owned it before when it came to the point of having to be demolished? Are these going to be the same owners at the liquor store? Mr. Battista stated that you have the building owner and there's a tenant that runs the liquor store. They are the same owners, but they are not shirking any responsibilities. Mrs. Mason mentioned that they were difficult to get in touch with. Mr. Battista replied that it would not be a problem in the future. Ms. Horsey mentioned that she had a question regarding the structural integrity of the building next to it and whether the demo of the second floor is going to affect the structure. Mr. Battista replied that they were told it won't but if they were going to do the other work getting on the roof, lay person terms, then there could be some impact to the adjoining building with one side leaning on the others. Whatever needs to be done has to be done properly, correctly, and soundly. We have engaged an engineering firm. When we hire an engineer, they don’t want to lose that stamp. Any risk to the integrity of the firm is hard to get and the next conversation is “I'm committed to a presentation”. The goal is parallel, that is why they wanted to engage me. Chairman Czerwinski stated that he did not have any problem with the execution of demolishing the second floor. What he is concerned about is that you have an engineer doing a review right now that should have been completed before you came to us so that we can evaluate the amount of work it takes either directly versus demolishing it. It makes the Historic District Commission action tough. If the second floor is unsalvageable, I can fully understand taking it off, but if 7 9

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2023 you're doing this the simplify you know just take a simplification or you didn't talk to engineering enough to evaluate whether to do repairs to the structure. The rest of the structure is not brick it is cinder block, a concrete structure. The cinder block is deteriorated of course because the water gets behind the cracks. There was a comprehensive original report that the structural engineer provided. There were comments back from the City Planning Office saying we want you to address these specific issues. Mr. Battista stated that this is the original engineering report that was submitted and then this was marked up and there was a letter from the City. Chairman Czerwinski stated for me cost wise taking the second floor off is cheaper than doing the repair to the existing structure unless that structure is so compromised that it is not repairable, it's not economically feasible to do so. I'm not being told that and I'm not saying that. There's absolutely no way we can salvage this structure because it's just economically not feasible. I don't see any information regarding the second-floor structure. I see damage but we've also seen another company on State Street completely restabilize the whole corner of the building. Now you have identified a catch 22. Mr. Battista stated that we can fix it. It's not structurally compromised. The City comes back that “we don’t like that thought”. If you don’t like that, then the only other choice we have is to get rid of the whole second floor because you don’t like it. We will do whatever satisfies the Code. Chairman Czerwinski stated that we would like to see the paperwork so that the committee can understand what's going on. Because if it is something that you know that it's just not possible to save the second floor then we would like to know that. Mr. Battista mentioned that the City has to say that they agree with the engineer that keeping the second floor and that doing XYZ will satisfy them. Chairman Czerwinski stated that you are not giving us all the information we need because your engineers are just supplementing. Mr. Battista mentioned that there is a Letter that has been sent out from the Planning Office stating that that they got the report and gave us this supplementing the report that you are about to see. You may look at it and say that we have answered everything. And the City may look at it and say you have not answered everything. The letter is dated August 28, 2023. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that there is a separate Code Enforcement case and there was an original submission of an engineering report there. Upon the review by City staff, there were some questions that we had in that report. I believe that's what Mr. Battista is referring to. Mr. Battista replied correct. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that the Letter is not in your packet. What was specifically brought forward to the Historic District Commission was the Demolition/Renovation Permit that was filed. As an option remedy, it was something that Staff could not approve because of the type of work and it was in the Historic District which is why it's before you today. 8 10

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2023 Mr. Battista mentioned that's why I wanted to fill in on the whole story and that's why the applicant went forward with the partial demolition because then it removes all doubt. Ms. Horsey mentioned that the Historic District Commission has always wanted to see a building saved as it is. Mr. Battista stated that he understands. Ms. Horsey mentioned that is our highest and best use. It would be mighty nice to have a report from somebody saying how much it would cost to make it structurally sound. Sure, it's more money, but we all have a higher standard in the Historic District. Mr. Battista stated I am getting the engineer to supplement this report because as we stand now the City said no. If they're saying no its unsound and this is the only way to make it sound, then we come back. The City then has to say okay you've got this supplement and it’s structurally sound; it's not condemned, now renovate it. But if they don't come back and say that then this is the only option that we have. Chairman Czerwinski stated okay then we don't have the final answer. Mrs. Richardson stated that we need to have their answer first. Chairman Czerwinski stated that I can't imagine that renovation would cost you more than actually lopping off the whole floor. Mr. Battista stated we have to get the City to agree to that. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the letter that Mr. Battista is referring to is part of the Code Enforcement case. It is not part of what was brought to you was the Permit that was filed. Chairman Czerwinski stated that he hated to push this off. Mr. Battista stated but the good thing is if Code Enforcement says it’s okay, we agree with what you just submitted then the business opens, and we move forward. But if they say no then okay. Chairman Czerwinski stated that makes our decision, but right now I'm not given all of the information to say whether or not we could approve the plan as presented. Mr. Battista stated again because there's a parallel Code Enforcement final, you can’t like crossover. We have to deal with them, but in dealing with them we present our plan. I'm just here to reiterate the commitment of the owner to make this right. Somebody tells us yes or no. If it's no, then we're here again and have to do this. If it is sound and we can open up for business and renovate (repair plan). Mr. Battista stated it really wasn't a question about cost, it was about safety. Chairman Czerwinski stated until I can get that amendment and them to finally say “oh yeah well, I took a look and we’ve got crumbling in the cinder block further down and there's no way we can salvage the structure or because from what I see here it looks like this could actually just 9 11

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2023 replace a few pieces of cinder block where it's cracked.” I need them to come back, or I need the City and/or your engineer to come in and actually have a final decision on the Code issue. Mr. Battista asked Code issue? Chairman Czerwinski replied yes, because as it stands now it is the partial demolition and then renovation. It would make our decision a lot easier because we are here to save the buildings. It’s not a very attractive building but it is a building that's distinct to the 1950s. We gotta save the building if we can and we don't want to push to the extent that it is so expensive. Just because the building is condemned doesn't mean that the building has to come down. There are a lot of buildings that are condemned and are not safe. As mentioned, they can do a repair plan and state what has to be done to make the building safe and habitable. They said you need to repair the corners and make sure everything is sealed and that the building structure is as approved by an engineering firm. So, if the engineering firm’s supplemental (report) comes in and says all we need to do is those repairs, then yeah. I'm not saying you're not going to be able to go back in right away because you probably won’t because it is unsafe. There's a big difference between taking off the whole floor and doing the repairs to the sections that are actually cracked and having them demolished on the second floor. If there are just spots that need to be addressed that could save you money. I would not say patch it but repair it at a fraction of the cost because you would have a whole new roof that needs to be put in. I would definitely have them finish up that report and resubmit it to the City and see what the City says about it. If the City is putting their foot down then come back here and we will discuss their plan. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she would suggest that the Historic District Commission do some type of motion at this point that you’re holding off on action regarding this Permit Referral pending submission of additional information and what path that may lead to. I think there needs to be something. I think collectively you have kind of reached that conclusion, but it would be better suited to have a specific motion. Then as the path continues, we'll know eventually which piece is coming back to you and will be able to schedule that for a future meeting. Chairman Czerwinski asked if it was a motion to deny the request? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied I don't know that it's a motion to deny. I think it could be a motion to defer. That deferral action on this Permit which presents one option for the building because you've heard information about potential alternative options for the building. I think is where we're kind of at; if that makes sense. Mrs. Richardson moved the deferment of Application HI-23-05 and Demolition/Renovations Permit #23-1521 on the issue until we have additional information from the City Code Enforcement Office and the Applicant. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mason and unanimously carried 5-0. Mr. Battista asked when he gets the report, do you want me to just respond to this letter that's one that says we got it, but we want more stuff? Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that it is coming out of the Code Enforcement side. I would say yes, just submit it to them and copy me. We will do some type of written notice of the action to defer just so that it starts to tie up this part of the process and let Code Enforcement know what happened regarding it today. So that we're holding one option as you continue to explore hopefully in an expeditious manner other options. 10 12

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2023 Annual Meeting of Historic District Commission Election of Chair and Vice-Chair Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that per your Bylaws, November is the Annual Meeting of the Historic District Commission where you elect the positions of Chair and Vice Chair for the next calendar year. Included in your packet was a copy of the Bylaws. Currently your Chair is Mr. Czerwinski and your Vice Chair is Ms. Horsey. The Bylaws do note that the Chair and Vice Chair can serve two appointed terms which is basically a total of six years. Ms. Horsey made the nomination that Mr. Czerwinski remain the Chair for the next calendar year. Mr. Czerwinski accepted the nomination. Ms. Mason made the nomination that Mrs. Richardson be the Vice Chair. Mrs. Richardson accepted the nomination. Ms. Horsey moved to approve by acclamation that these two candidates be accepted as the Chair and Vice Chair. All were in favor by acclamation to accept Mr. Czerwinski as the Chair and Mrs. Richardson as the Vice Chair of the Historic District Commission. Meeting & Deadline Schedule for 2024 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that included in your packet a draft of the Meeting and Filing Deadlines for 2024. So basically, we establish a filing deadline that is a Friday in one month and then by meeting that deadline the applications appear the following month. Your meeting dates continue to be the third Thursday of the month at 3:30 pm. The deadlines are for projects that have to make a formal application to the Historic District Commission. Referral of Permits are not subject to that deadline. They are subject to us having to publish a meeting agenda in a timely fashion. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if there were any questions. There were none. Basically, to file an application with the Historic District Commission there is a Pre-application Meeting that Planning Staff conducts. It helps them understand what their filing requirements are for a project to appear before you. We do anticipate a number of projects coming to you in 2024. OLD BUSINESS Certified Local Government (CLG) Program Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that included in your packet was some information we got from the Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs regarding the Historic Preservation Grant Fund application timing. After a number of years of the status of grant money being influx with COVID and various other reasons, they are putting out the numbers for what we may be eligible for using what is Federal Fiscal Year 2023 money. The City is eligible for a grant of just over $11,000 which requires a match of about $7,600. The application date is no later than March 1, 2024; and those projects under that grant would need to be completed by September 2025. What was included in your packet is the grant guidelines. There are a number of different types of projects that could be undertaken. They call them eligible grant activities and then there’s also a 11 13

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2023 sense of what the application form looks like. Planning Staff has obviously not had time to really delve into this to put forth some potential projects. We do have the one that we kind of had on the burner for a couple of years that we just haven't gotten to. That was related to your Design Standards and Guidelines and looking at alternative materials type information, but there may be something else here that peaks your interest. I would suggest taking some time to read through this. If you’ve got any questions or ideas today that Staff can explore, we're happy to start to kind of look at that, but this is a grant opportunity. It is not bricks and mortar. It is for things like studies and research, public outreach, National Register nominations, and things of that nature. Chairman Czerwinski asked what is the completion requirement date? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied September of 2025. Chairman Czerwinski asked if it was a longer lead time. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied I think it's because they have multiple grant year money, and the Federal year never matches up with anyone's fiscal year or calendar year. I think it's a mix of a couple of things. There may be FY’24 monies but they don't know what those amounts are as of yet. Chairman Czerwinski seemed to think that it was pretty far out. He was questionable about the timeframe/cutoff. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that they were typically like a year time frame. I think they have been dealing with that issue across the board. I think they're refining how their process works. Mr. Street asked what is the amount of time to work on a project? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied with an application filing deadline in March. There is kind of a review process and you have to get a grant in place. You are looking at roughly a year. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any questions. There were none. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that we will look to the City's Comprehensive Plan which I always note here that has the Preservation Chapter and the series of goals and recommendations related to historic preservation in the City. There may be some opportunities that present themselves in that document as well. Implementation of 2019 Comprehensive Plan Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned there was no particular information for you all on that other than some of those other studies that I reported on earlier are certainly going towards meeting a number of goals and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. That is to be expected as part of the overall implementation coming out of the Comp Plan process. There's a lot of City Departments that have various studies and projects going on. There's a Downtown Pathways project as a study that the MPO is involved in. They had an outreach meeting within the last couple weeks and are looking for ways to improve biking and pedestrian access in and around the Downtown. There's a number of things on the water/wastewater with system improvements and wellhead development. There are a lot of things here in the City that we could point to in the Comprehensive Plan for sure. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any further questions. There was none. 12 14

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2023 Ms. Horsey moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mrs. Richardson, and unanimously carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 4:45 PM Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Acting Secretary Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 13 15

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2023 Item 3. Updated thru February 8, 2024 FILE# PLAN NAME LOCATION TYPE ACTION STATUS HI-23-01 Lands of Shank 34 The Green Site Plan for Parking Review for Architectural Review Site Plan granted conditional approval by Shack, LLC: Lot Reconfiguration Certification of Site Plan; Public Historic District Commission. Administrative Parking Lot Improvements Hearing and Review by HDC Site Plan review completed: Final Plan Improvements 1/19/2023. Recommended approval of approval issued May 2023. of ArchRevCert for project. Administrative Building Permit #23-1668 issued 11/6/2023 to commence construction. Improvements are associated with future Kent County Family Court Project. Project underway. HI-23-02 Referral of Fence 147 S. New Street Fence Permit Permit #23-781 referred to HDC by City Permit Application received 5/12/2023 and Permit #23-781 at Planner for consultation on Referred to the HDC for consultation. 147 S. New Street Architectural Review Certification; Permit to be approved for issuance per HDC 5/18/2023 HDC recommended action of 5/18/2023. Permit issued approval of ArchRevCert to allow 6/6/2023. Fence installed. height of 6-feet constructed of wood materials that may be stained (no vinyl fence). HI-23-03 Referral of Permit 43 The Green, John Sign Permit for Permit #23-987 referred to HDC by City Permit Application received and Referred to #23-987 at 43 The Bell House Informational Kiosk Planner for consultation on the HDC for consultation. Project is Green Architectural Review Certification; installation of information kiosk of 9 SF as 7/20/2023 HDC recommended post and panel style sign to display approval of ArchRevCert to allow kiosk information on the First State Heritage Park style sign subject to use of certain activities. Permit approved for issuance per materials. HDC action of 7/20/2023 requiring the use of black metal material or painted wood for kiosk. HI-23-04 Referral of Sign 32 W. Loockerman Sign Permit for 2 Permit #23-1462 referred to HDC by Permit Application received and Referred to Permit #23-1462 Street Business Tenants City Planner for consultation on the HDC for Consultation. Project is at 32 W. Architectural Review Certification; installation of signage for two tenants. HDC Loockerman St 10/19/2023 HDC recommended recommended Revised Signage. Permit approval of ArchRevCert for window approved for part of window sign portion of signs and signs on metal band. project. 16

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2023 Item 3. Updated thru February 8, 2024 FILE# PLAN NAME LOCATION TYPE ACTION STATUS HI-23-05 Referral of 153 S. Bradford Demolition Permit Permit #23-1521 referred to HDC by Building condemned by Code Enforcement, Demolition Street for Demolition of City Planner for consultation on Case #23-3847. Permit Application received Permit #23-1521 Second Floor Architectural Review Certification; for Partial Demolition and Referred to the at 153 S. Bradford deferred from October 19, 2023 HDC HDC for Consultation. Project seeks to St Meeting at request of Applicant. demolish the second floor of the masonry Consideration began at November 16, building and construct flat roof system. 2023 HDC Meeting; action pending Supplemental Engineering Report received submission of additional information. 2/5/2024 and forwarded to Code Enforcement Staff. Property owner has not selected which remedy option to pursue at this time. 17

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2023 Item 3. Updated thru February 8, 2024 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 vinvyl fence that is six foot in information on its materials, location, height. and another neaby fence. 18

Summary of Permit Applications with Architectural Review Certification Item 4. 2024- Updated Thru 2-8-2024 DATE PERMIT # LOCATION TYPE ACTION ON ARCHITECTURAL NOTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE 1/26/2024 24-67 28 W Loockerman St, The Building Permit - Interior Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Interior renovations - storage area Hive Renovations required for interior work. wall. 19

Item 6. City of Dover ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW REPORT Referral by City Planner to Historic District Commission Meeting of January 18, 2024 Permit: Fence Permit #23-1868 Location: 146 S. State Street, Dover Located on the west side of South State Street to the north of (but not adjacent to) West Loockerman Street Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-02-58.00-000 File Number: HI-24-01 Present Zoning: C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) H (Historic District Zone) Referral of Permit: The following application Fence Permit #23-1868 for 146 S. State Street 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 #23-1868 was filed on December 13, 2023 for a Fence project at 146 S. State Street in Dover, Delaware. The Project outlined in the Permit submission involves placement of a six-foot vinyl Fence (Fence # 1) to the rear of the building between the parking lot and the building spanning from north to south. There is an additional Fence segment (Fence #2) that goes from the building north to the adjacent property and connects to an existing six-foot vinyl Fence at 140 S. State Street. P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 20

Item 6. HI-24-01 Referral of Fence Permit #23-1868 146 S. State Street Staff Report to the Historic District Commission Page 2 of 5 It is noted that the six-foot vinyl Fences at 146 S. State Street have already been installed and was done so without a Building Permit. This work without a Permit is the subject of Code Enforcement case # 23-3983. The case was opened August 15, 2023. The Fence Permit as noted was not filed until December 2023. 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 current location of the side Fence segment (Fence #2) is in the “public view”; and it is deemed visible from the public way of the adjacent street. 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.” A majority of the longer Fence (at the edge of the parking lot) is blocked from view from South State Street by the mass of the building. The rear alley (South State Street Alley) is not considered to be a “public view” point. 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 Fence materials for use in the Historic District. Wood picket style Fences and cast iron (metal) fencing are Recommended. 21 2

Item 6. HI-24-01 Referral of Fence Permit #23-1868 146 S. State Street Staff Report to the Historic District Commission Page 3 of 5 Staff also looked at the provisions for Fences in the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance limits the height of Fences to four (4) feet within the front yard setback (Article 5 §1.55) with other provisions for increases Fence height to 6.5 feet for side yards, rear yards, and the second front yard on corner lots. 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 #23-1868. The Historic District Commission may add conditions for the Fences (Fence #1 and Fence #2) in order to comply with the character of the property within the Historic District. Staff Findings from Review of Building Permit: Staff findings and recommendations are summarized as follows for the Fence project as presented in Permit #23-1868 and accompanying documents. 1. Fence Location: The Fence #1 is located in the middle of the property at the rear of the building. There are 2 pedestrian gates on this portion of Fence which runs north south. The north side of the property has Fence # 2 that runs parallel to State Street between the building and the north property line, connecting to a Fence to the north on an adjacent property. It is noted that there is a decorative wrought iron Fence at the front façade of the building running adjacent to the street sidewalk. This Fence remains and spans between 146 and 140 South State Street. 2. Fence Visibility: The side Fence segment (Fence #2) is visible from the South State Street right of way. If this section of Fence were to be removed, the rear Fence (Fence #1) portion would then also be visible. 3. Fence Height – 6 ft. along a side property line: 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. Staff review of previous permits did find a Fence Permit (Permit #03-831) in 2003 for a 42” high Fence. This was to determine if this new Fence replaced a previously existing Fence. There was no diagram or specifications of material for the Fence in the file. The description as described is “48 L.F. of fencing (42” high) at curb in parking lot, next to building”. The 2012 Google Street view shows what looks to be a wood picket Fence that matches description from the 2003 Fence Permit. This earlier wood fence appears to have been removed as 2019 Google Street view does not show a Fence in the locations that are present today. 4. Fence Material: The Fences are of white vinyl as a solid panel between posts system. 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). 22 3

Item 6. HI-24-01 Referral of Fence Permit #23-1868 146 S. State Street Staff Report to the Historic District Commission Page 4 of 5 5. Current Condition & Location: The Fences (Fence 1 and Fence 2) applied for in the Permit exist today. A Permit was applied for after a Code Enforcement Case was opened 8/15/23 for No Valid Permit. 6. Adjacent Fence at 140 South State Street: Planning Staff looked for information on the adjacent Fences. The only survey on file at the City of Dover offices for either adjacent property is from 1985 for 140 S. State Street. The survey shows a six-foot Fence inside the property line for an enclosure for the restaurant. However, the 2019 Google Street view shows a four-foot Fence approximately on the property line. Current conditions show renovations to the rear patio area including what appears to be 6-foot vinyl fencing as the enclosure. Recommendations: • Fence #1-Staff finds that Fence #1 location generally has limited visibility from the public way of South State Street due to the building and other fencing. The 6- foot height is unfortunately used to create a privacy Fence with limited visibility between parking lot and the building it serves. Given the location of the Fence, an allowance for it to remain could be granted. • Fence #2-Staff finds that this Fence is visible from South State Street and connect to an adjoining Fence blocking the through view to the alley. Even at this distance, the actual material is difficult to determine from the street. Consideration could be given to reduce this Fence to a height of 4-feet. A recommendation would be to add landscaping (shrub planting) on the South State Street face of the fence to screen the vinyl material usage (and taller height). 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 January 8, 2024. • Building Permit #23-1868 Application Form and Permit submission documents • Map: Actual locations of Fence #1 and Fence #2. • Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone, Chapter 3, page 3-26 to 3-27. • Pictures taken January 4, 2024. • Screen shots Google Streetview. • Code Enforcement Case #23-3983. 23 4

Item 6. HI-24-01 Referral of Fence Permit #23-1868 146 S. State Street Staff Report to the Historic District Commission Page 5 of 5 24 5

Item 6. City of Dover January 9, 2024 State Street 146 Properties LLC Bright Side Roofing Zach Foust Brian Duerr 33 S. State St Dover, DE 19901 Via email: Brian30286@yahoo.com Re: Referral of Fence Permit #23-1868 to Historic District Commission, HI-24-01 Fence at 146 S. State Street, Dover, DE Dear Mr. Foust and Mr. Duerr, This letter is to inform you that Fence Permit Application # 23-1868 has been referred to the City of Dover Historic District Commission for consultation. Fence Permit #23-1868 was filed on December 15, 2023 for a fence project at 146 S. State Street in Dover, Delaware. The project outlined in the Permit submission involves 6-foot vinyl fence to the rear of the property spanning from the fence at the northern adjacent property along the parking lot to the south side adjacent property fence with 2 pedestrian gates. Additionally, there is a 6-foot vinyl fence segment between the northern adjacent property fence and the building with a pedestrian gate. This permit was filed after the fence was constructed; it is the subject of Code Enforcement Case #23-3983: for work without a permit. 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). 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 the 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 was constructed of 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. P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 25

Item 6. Letter Re: Permit #23-1878 Fence at 146 S. State Street, Dover January 9, 2024 Page 2 of 2 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. The City of Dover Historic District Commission will review this Permit at their next meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 18 at 3:30pm. Options for participating in the Meeting include attending In-Person at the City Hall Conference Room 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 clink “Join Meeting” to attend that afternoon. This Permit Referral has been assigned Application #HI-24-01. 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 #23-1868 HI-24-01 Code Enforcement Case#23-3983 26

Item 6. 27

Item 6. 28

Item 6. 29

Item 6. 30

Item 6. 31

Item 6. 32

Item 6. Inside fence #1. Taken January 4, 2024. 33

Item 6. From the alley facing east. Taken January 4, 2024. From the alley. Taken January 4, 2024. 34

Item 6. Inside fence #1 facing north. Taken January 4, 2024. From South State Street showing the south side of the house at 146 S. State Street. Taken January 4, 2024. 35

Item 6. From South State Street on the north side of 146 S. State Street looking towards the rear of the property showing fence #2. Taken January 4, 2024. From South State Street looking towards the rear of the property between 146 & 140 S. State Street showing fence #2. Taken January 4, 2024. 36

Item 6. Showing second pedestrian gate on fence #1 from the parking lot. Taken January 4, 2024. 37

Item 6. Google Streetview showing fence matching description from Permit #03-831. April 2012. Google Streetview showing Oct 2019. 38

Item 6. 39

Item 6. City of Dover ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW REPORT – ADDENDUM #1 Referral by City Planner to Historic District Commission Meeting of January 18, 2024 Submission of Addendum #1 for Historic District Commission Meeting of February 15, 2024 Permit: Fence Permit #23-1868 Location: 146 S. State Street, Dover Located on the west side of South State Street to the north of (but not adjacent to) West Loockerman Street Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-02-58.00-000 File Number: HI-24-01 Present Zoning: C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) H (Historic District Zone) The following is Addendum #1 to provide information requested by the Historic District Commission regarding the Fence Project under consideration as HI-24-01. Information Request #1 Existing Conditions of Fence at 146 S. State Street (as installed) The fence as it currently exists appears to be white vinyl and six feet in height. The front section (Fence #2) closest to South State Street appears to be about 16 feet in length including the gate. It appears to connect to the existing six-foot white vinyl fence on the property addressed as 140 S. State Street. The rear fence segment (Fence #1), which is not visible from the right-of-way of South State Street, also appears to be white vinyl and six feet in height.  As a follow-up from the Historic District Commission meeting of January 18, 2024, a Letter was sent to the owner and contractor for the requested information on the fence materials and location. As of February 8, 2024, we have not had a response from the owner or the contractor.  This information was gathered by Planning Staff from the Permit submission and site observations. See Exhibit Map #1 (on Page 3) for red line showing locations of the two fence segments.  As presented in the previous report, there was a Fence Permit for 146 S. State Street from 2003 for a 42-inch-high wood fence in the rear of the building approximately where the new fence (Fence #1) was installed. This previous wood fence on the subject site was removed at an unknown point in time as the 2019 Google Street View shows that this wood fence is not present in the rear location. Information Request #2 Permit History for Adjacent Property at 140 S. State Street From the Planning Staff’s review of the City of Dover Permit records, a Fence Permit specific to the currently observed white vinyl fence on the adjacent property at 140 S. State Street does not exist in the records. Google Street View from October 2019 shows what appears to be a white P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 40

Item 6. HI-24-01 Referral of Fence Permit #23-1868 146 S. State Street Staff Report Addendum to the Historic District Commission Page 2 of 4 painted wood fence; see images on Page 4. Comparison of available street views of this location show that the currently existing vinyl six-foot fence replaced a previous wood fence sometime between October 2019 and August 2023. The vinyl fence is shown in Google Street View from August 2023. Several shrubs (vegetation) exist on the street side of the fence panel that extends perpendicular to the wall of the building. Further information on 140 S. State Street:  The recent Permit activity for the property in 2023 includes a Roof Permit and a Window Permit. In 2018, there was also a Window Permit.  Google Street Views of the property show a variety of fences enclosing the rear deck outdoor seating area and rear of the property over the years including solid wood stockade type fencing, painted wood fencing, and chain-link with slats fencing.  The entity operating as the Grey Fox Grille took ownership of the restaurant circa 2014- 2015 and at that time there were several Permits for renovation activities for both interior renovations and exterior repairs associated with reopening of the restaurant.  Previously, the location had operated as W.T. Smithers Restaurant since at least 1985. In 2012, there are Permits for the demolition of the rear barn structure that once stood on the property near the rear alley and including the installation of a 6-foot fence to close off the rear of the property where the barn structure once stood. This project activity was not subject to Architectural Review Certification as it was not in the public view (from South State Street).  Several Permit submissions from 1991-2000 make use of a 1985 survey of the property with annotations of proposed projects. A fence is shown in the 1985 survey; the survey outlines a six-foot fence on or near the property line between 146 and 140 South State Street.  In June 1991, the Planning Commission considered a Conditional Use application (C-91- 03) for construction of an outdoor patio & deck to add outdoor seating at the restaurant. A fence is mentioned in the discussion of the application in the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 41 2

Item 6. HI-24-01 Referral of Fence Permit #23-1868 146 S. State Street Staff Report Addendum to the Historic District Commission Page 3 of 4 Exhibit Map #1 42 3

Item 6. HI-24-01 Referral of Fence Permit #23-1868 146 S. State Street Staff Report Addendum to the Historic District Commission Page 4 of 4 October 2019 Streetview shows a 6 foot tall wood fence. 43 4

Item 6. Inside fence #1. Taken January 4, 2024. 44

Item 6. From the alley facing east. Taken January 4, 2024. From the alley. Taken January 4, 2024. 45

Item 6. Inside fence #1 facing north. Taken January 4, 2024. From South State Street showing the south side of the house at 146 S. State Street. Taken January 4, 2024. 46

Item 6. From South State Street on the north side of 146 S. State Street looking towards the rear of the property showing fence #2. Taken January 4, 2024. From South State Street looking towards the rear of the property between 146 & 140 S. State Street showing fence #2. Taken January 4, 2024. 47

Item 6. Showing second pedestrian gate on fence #1 from the parking lot. Taken January 4, 2024. 48

Item 6. Google Streetview showing fence matching description from Permit #03-831. April 2012. Google Streetview showing Oct 2019. 49

Item 7. From: Davis, Gwen (DOS) To: Melson-Williams, Dawn Cc: Eric Czerwinski (Dover) Subject: EXTERNAL: March 1 Application Due Date - Historic Preservation Fund Grants for CLGs Date: Tuesday, February 06, 2024 8:55:15 AM Attachments: FFY2022-2023 CLG Historic Preservation Grant Application Guidelines.pdf PDF Forms FFY2022-2023 CLG Historic Preservation Grant Application.pdf WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Dawn, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing as a reminder of the upcoming March 1, 2024, application due date for federal Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grant funds, set aside for Certified Local Governments (CLG), from the Federal Fiscal Year 2023 appropriation. CLGs apply for these grants through our office. For general information about the CLG program, please see https://history.delaware.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/179/2019/01/clgProgramGuide.pdf. The Application Guidelines, outlining eligible activities and requirements, are attached. The application forms are also provided here in a fillable PDF format (Word format available on request). Please carefully review the guidelines and the information in this email (including new Tips below), and let me know if you have any questions. This table indicates: the specific amount allocated to your CLG, the required 40% matching share, the application due date, and the date by which the grant project must be completed: Grant Available Grant Matching Share Application Due Grant projects Year Funds for (40%) Date must be City of Dover completed by no later than FFY 2023 $11,530 $7,686 March 1, 2024 Sept. 30, 2025 Request: If your CLG does not intend to apply for this grant, I ask that you let me know (in writing) immediately, so that the funds can be reallocated to other CLGs. Tips: Matching share can be cash or in-kind. To save time in the event that additional grant funds are available for award: If the full cost of your project exceeds the available grant funds noted in the table above, please include that information in the application – at the bottom of the Project Budget Form. In the narrative, you can also identify additional projects that you’d wish to undertake, should additional funds become available. Just keep that information separate from currently proposed work. Note that the required matching share will increase proportionate to any increased award. If your application is otherwise complete, just pending signatures from Authorized Representative(s) of your CLG, you can submit a Draft by March 1 for discussion 50

Item 7. purposes. However, our office will not approve the application or award the grant until all required parts of the application are complete. Reminder: If a CLG intends to use a third party to administer the grant on its behalf, the CLG must state in the application that it is delegating that role to the third party. Please see the attached guidelines for details. All applications are to be submitted by email to: gwen.davis@delaware.gov Planning ahead for FY2024: As of this writing, Congress has approved Continuing Resolutions for the Federal Fiscal Year 2024 budget. Therefore, the National Park Service has only issued partial apportionment information for Historic Preservation Fund grants to States. Our office is choosing to wait for the full apportionment figures to apply. We still anticipate FY2024 CLG applications to occur later in calendar 2024 or early 2025. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. -- Gwen Davis Gwenyth A. Davis Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs 29 North State St., Dover, DE 19901 tel (302) 736-7410 gwen.davis@delaware.gov website: https://history.delaware.gov/ 51

Item 7. 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 52

Item 7. 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. 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 53

Item 7. 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 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. 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 qualify for grant funding, applicants should discuss their proposals with the SHPO Grant Manager prior to submittal. For collaborative projects, prior notification of the SHPO Grant Manager is required. The allowable grant activities and the requirements related to each are outlined below. 3 54

Item 7. 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), 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), 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/properties to be nominated or updated need not be known at the time of application, but 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 current Delaware State Historic Preservation Plan. • 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 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 drafts of the text 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- 4 55

Item 7. 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 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. • Who is the intended audience for the project and why is that constituency targeted? • 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.] • 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. 5 56

Item 7. 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; 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.] 6 57

Item 7. 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 $87.93 per hour), divided by 2087 hours (see US Office of Personnel Management webpage). 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). 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). 7 58

Item 7. 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 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 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 59

Item 7. 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 do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination or age in its federally assisted programs. 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. 2023 9 60

Item 7. Project Narrative FFY2019 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 G A 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) r M The geographic boundaries of the Historic District (H) zone are established as a zoning N a classification. The original boundaries of the Historic District established in 1961 were generally n P described as extending from just north of Division Street south to South Street inclusive of the ar t 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 L Loockerman Street from Bradford Street to the railroad corridor and areas in the vicinity of South ra Pr E Governors Avenue, South Bradford Street, North Street, and Bank Lane. The areas of expansion included many commercial and residential properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Victorian Dover Historic District. See attached Map of City of Dover Historic EX District showing the current boundaries (shaded in orange). tiv oj 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 e ec 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 t 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 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. 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. 61

Item 7. 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 G A 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, r M in calendar year 2018, a total of forty-seven (47) applications (permit activity in the Historic a District) were reviewed under this process with 38 Permits requiring Architectural Review N Certification and 9 Permits not requiring Architectural Review Certification. 2 ar t n P Historic Preservation Planning is part of a comprehensive approach to land use planning in the City of Dover. In Dover’s current plan, the 2008 Comprehensive Plan (as amended) this information is L presented in Chapter 6 - Historic Preservation and associated Map 6-1. The 2008 Comprehensive ra Pr E Plan includes sets forth goals and a series of recommendations for each goal. The Historic Preservation Goals are as follows: EX tiv oj 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 e ec 2008 Comprehensive Plan, excerpt from Table 1-1: Plan Chapter Goals To achieve Goal 1, one of the adopted Recommendations was the Evaluation of Design Standards t and Guidelines since the original document was adopted in the early 90s. The recommendation also suggested consideration of the standards and guidelines for the levels of protection for The Green and the Loockerman Street areas. 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 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. 2 The volume of Permit Activity in the Historic District over the past five years has averaged 52 applications a year with a majority of them eligible for Architectural Review Certification review by Staff. 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. 62

Item 7. 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 G A Refinement, and Preparation of Draft Addendum Document. The following chart outlines the anticipated activities of the project. r M Timeframe Project Phase Activities and Products N a September 2019 Consultant Services Develop RFP and release. Select Consultant n P September – October 2019 ed Planning Meetings with Consultant, ar t vis Staff and HDC to outline L Re general project approach, goals and format for ra Pr E be Addendum guidelines, to determine public input strategy. EX ule tiv oj November 2019 – January Public Outreach Analysis of guidelines. 2020 ed Conduct focus ch groups/stakeholder meetings e ec eS and a Public Workshop. January 2020 – April 2020 am Guidelines Revision & Prepare example page format Refinement (text and photographs). Tim t Meetings with Staff and HDC efr to present drafts. Review of multiple Drafts by Staff, HDC. May 2020 – June 2020 Preparation of Draft Conduct Public Workshop on Addendum Document Draft. Review of Draft by State Historic Preservation Office. 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 September 2019 through June 2020 with the formal review process to adopt the Draft Addendum Document to follow in Summer 2020 with the Historic District Commission and Planning Commission. 63