5-16-24 Historic District Packet REVISED

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING Thursday, May 16, 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 May 16, 2024 will be held City Hall Council Chambers. 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 May 16, 2024 Join by Phone: Dial +1-650-479-3208 Access Code: 253 569 96133 Password from Phones: 36837432 Join Online: https://bit.ly/HDCMeeting5162024 Webinar Number: 2535 699 6133 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 January 18, 2024 2. Adoption of Minutes of February 15, 2024 (Minutes under preparation) COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING - May 16, 2024 PAGE 2 Summary of Activity 3. Summary of Applications 2023 and 2024 4. Summary of Architectural Review Certificates for 2024 Department of Planning & Inspections Updates Projects and Studies Activities 5. Update on C-2 Code Amendments Project for Potential Revisions to Zoning Ordinance for C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) - Adopted Ordinance #2024-01 6. Downtown Dover Pathways Study - Loockerman Street Design Charrette: May 13-15, 2024 with various collaborative meetings, activities, discussions, and Open House events. Project webpage: https://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/downtown-dover-pathways/ NEW APPLICATIONS 7. HI-24-02 Building at 148 S. Bradford Street: Demolition – Public Hearing and Review for Action on the Architectural Review Certification for the Demolition of the existing 1 ½ story, stucco clad building. The parcel consists of 0.13 +/- acres of land. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to H (Historic District Zone). The property is located on the west side of S. Bradford Street and slightly north of Minor Street Alley. The owner of record is Russell and Dee Ann Widder. The applicant is the Downtown Dover Partnership. Property Address: 148 S. Bradford Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-02-25.00-000. Council District 4. 8. HI-24-03 Building at 150 S. Bradford Street: Demolition – Public Hearing and Review for Action on the Architectural Review Certification for the Demolition of the existing 2 ½ story, frame building. The parcel consists of 0.17 +/- acres of land. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to H (Historic District Zone). The property is located on the west side of S. Bradford Street at the corner with Minor Street Alley. The owner of record is CEI Properties, LLC. The applicant is the Downtown Dover Partnership. Property Address: 150 S. Bradford Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09- 02-27.00-000. Council District 4. 9. HI-24-04 Legislative Hall Parking Garage at 425 East Avenue - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation on Architectural Review Certification for a Site Development Plan Application for a new Parking Garage for Legislative Hall to be located at the corner of East Avenue/E. Water Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard South. The proposal includes a three-story, 42,500 SF Parking Garage with 335 vehicle parking spaces and other site improvements. The 5.59 +/- acre property includes an existing surface parking lot and an office/credit union building (to remain). The property is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and is subject to H (Historic District Zone). The property is located at the southeast corner of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard South and East Avenue/E. Water Street. The owner of record is the State of Delaware. Property Address: 425 East Avenue and existing building addressed as 150 E. Water Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.10-01-02.00-000. Council District 2. 2

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING - May 16, 2024 PAGE 3 NEW BUSINESS Review of Permits Referred to Commission OLD BUSINESS Certified Local Government (CLG) Program Implementation of 2019 Comprehensive Plan ADJOURN Posted: May 9, 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. 3

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2024 The Meeting of the City of Dover Historic District Commission was held on Thursday, January 18, 2024, 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, Mrs. Ellen H. Richardson, and Mr. Street. Planning Office Staff members present were Mrs. Melson-Williams, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, Mrs. Savage-Purnell, and Mr. John England (Code Enforcement Officer) as well as Assistant City Manager Sharon Duca (assisting with management of the Department of Planning and Inspections). APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Mason moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mrs. Richardson, and the roll call vote was unanimously carried 5-0. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2023 Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2023, are still being prepared. The adoption of the minutes will be at the next meeting in February. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated regarding the item that you were considering at that meeting on November 16, 2023 for 153 S. Bradford Street, we have not received any additional information on that to put it back on your agenda. 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. In 2022, there were seven (7) applications that appeared before the body and in 2023 we ended up with a total of five (5) that were assigned application numbers. A number of them have either been completed or are underway at this point. I don't know that there's a specific change to highlight there, but I'd be happy to answer any questions about the report on Summary of Applications. Summary of Architectural Review Certifications for 2023 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is where we report on permit activity in the Historic District. In some cases, they require review for Architectural Review Certificates and other instances they do not because they are totally interior work. This is the complete calendar year of 2023 and for that calendar year there were a total of 51 permits in the Historic District. I would note that this doesn't count Plumbing and Mechanical Permits or Fire Protection Permits; it’s just ones that are building related. Of those 51 Permits, eight of them had some appearance before the Historic 4

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2024 District Commission to either be reviewed or to gain input for the Architectural Review Certification part of the process. Staff handled the other 43. With this we saw the highest numbers with Sign Permits and Roof Permits for the calendar year and then there were 9 that were Building Interior which were not subject to review. 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 still have vacant positions. We continue to have three openings: one for a Planner II position, the Planning Director position, and a Code Enforcement position. The positions have been posted. There are likewise multiple vacancies across the City. If you know of someone looking certainly have them visit the City's website and check out the opportunities to join the team here at the City of Dover. Projects & Studies Activities Update on C-2 Code Amendments Project for Potential Revisions to Zoning Ordinance for C-2 (Central Commercial Zone)-Proposed Draft Ordinance #2024-01 Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that the packet included as proposed Draft Ordinances as an update on the C-2 Code Amendments project for potential revisions to the Zoning Ordinance for the C-2 (Central Commercial Zone). At this point Staff presented to the Council Committee of the Whole: Legislative Finance and Administration Committee an update and that update included a Proposed Draft Ordinance #2024- 01. The version that was presented to the Legislative and Finance Committee was provided in your packet. That Committee recommended to move forward with the Proposed Ordinance into the formal review process. They did ask Staff to look at one aspect that was proposed related to the step back provisions related to heights of buildings. Staff did some additional evaluation with that. At this point, it is scheduled for First Reading at City Council on Monday, January 22, 2024, and that will set the formal dates for public hearing before the Planning Commission which would be scheduled in February and then the City Council public hearing and final action on the proposed Ordinance set for their March 11, 2024 meeting. As noted, a couple months ago I wanted to keep the Historic District Commission in the loop since the C-2 is found within areas that are also in the Historic District zone. The Proposed Draft Ordinance does not make any changes to the Historic District Zone. It focuses on the C-2 zoning district making some revisions proposed for uses in that district. It does add a series of design standards that would apply to new construction activities that are proposed and some changes to bulk standards within the zone. Additionally, the package for this Ordinance addresses provisions for dumpsters and parking requirements in the Downtown Redevelopment Target area. Those will begin a review process as noted once the First Reading occurs next week. I'd certainly try to answer any questions, but there is not a formal recommendation or action that the Historic District Commission needs to take regarding this application package for the Text Amendments to C-2. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if there were any questions. There were none. 2 5

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2024 Other Information Delaware Preservation Fund - Small Grants Program: Application deadline is February 9, 2024 for the funding available through Delaware Preservation Fund, Inc. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that included in your packet was information on the Delaware Preservation Fund Small Grants Program. The eligibility and the process for application requirements we included. We certainly encourage you, if you are aware of a project or a property that could benefit from seeking such Small Grants, certainly share this information with them. It's the Delaware Preservation Fund, which is associated with the Preservation Delaware Incorporated. Applications for this Small Grant are due February 9th. It basically focuses on historic resources, and it does include some opportunities for capital projects as well as studies and documentation activities. If you have questions, certainly reach out to the folks that administer that program. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any questions. There were none. NEW BUSINESS Review of Permits Referred to Commission: HI-24-01 Referral of Fence Permit #23-1868 at 146 S. State Street - Referral by the City Planner to the Historic District Commission for Review of Architectural Review Certification 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. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that at the present time we do not have a representative for the application that has joined us either in person or virtually. I'm not sure what you would like to do. You can certainly move forward with a discussion and evaluation of this request, or you may choose to defer action and request that they make an appearance before you at a future meeting. Chairman Czerwinski asked what was the status of Case #23-3983? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied the Code Enforcement case was related to work done without a permit. They have filed a Permit; however, the Permit has yet to be issued. The Code Enforcement case is sort of still open but that does not prohibit us from taking action or dealing with the Permit that they did file. Mr. John England (Code Enforcement Officer) replied as far as he can recall the case is still open. Because they applied for a permit, permits typically are good for six months. So, during the six- month process no action is being taken at the current time. They have six months to respond before we move on to the next step. 3 6

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2024 Chairman Czerwinski mentioned as (he looked at the fence he was confused because they're saying) that they want to add an additional fence that's already there. We have the fence that was installed without a Permit. Then you do the follow-up on a Permit; is the request for a new section of fence or for the same fence? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied it’s for the fence that is already there. There are two fence segments, so we identified them as Fence 1 and Fence 2. The Permit was filed after the fact to provide information on the fence that they did in fact already install. Chairman Czerwinski noted that the fence doesn't abide by our Guidelines. It’s a six-foot fence to 4-foot (requirement) and it's also made of vinyl. The fence is not that visible and really does not stand out. I'm not sure what your viewpoint is on the fence itself. It's not what should be there but it’s in the alley way behind everything. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that it is also covering up what’s behind it in the alleyway. Ms. Horsey mentioned that there is a difference between the two fences as mentioned in Staff’s request and comments. I used to walk the State Street Alley every single day for years and while the fences were never in good shape in all those decades. The high vinyl fence is not a whole lot better because it goes against the Historic District Guidelines. I agree with Staff regarding the back fence that you don’t see it and wouldn't from State Street. The one you do see which is on the west side of the street is bad and that's the one I think we need to address today. Staff has provided several options that we can consider. Even in the absentia of the applicant, we can still make a decision on recommendations. Mrs. Richardson asked which one are you talking about and is there a picture of it? Ms. Oehmke replied that Fence 1 is the one in the rear of the building and Fence 2 is the one that is on the north side of the building. If you took out the front fence, you would probably be able to see the back fence. Ms. Horsey mentioned either way this is not recommended, and the material is bad. Again, Staff has made possible recommendations as to what we can do. Mr. Street said his first question was if we had vinyl fences in there before. We typically run against them. Would you say that we have approved vinyl fences with conditions that they look wood-like but just not the shiny smooth vinyl? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied yes. There have been a couple of times where there were fence products and you recommended a different color. I think there was one that was being utilized as a dumpster enclosure. There are certainly ones that replaced an already existing 6-foot-high fence. There are some limitations, probably case by case depending on where that fence was on the property and how visible it was. Ms. Mason asked if the smaller fence in the front was 4-feet? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied that the smaller fence is not; it is identified as being a 6-foot fence. Ms. Mason was thinking they could replace it with a 4-foot fence. Ms. Horsey mentioned if it was a 4-foot fence then it wouldn't screen the tables and what's going on through the enclosures (the outside seating). Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned (referring to an image on the screen) here's the thing, the fence that we're talking about today is going to be between the building and basically that first shrub that's there. The taller segment of fence that is behind 4 7

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2024 those two shrubs is actually located on the adjacent property of the Grey Fox. That does screen their rear areas and appears to have replaced a 6-foot fence of some type that was there in the past. So, we're only talking about that white connection (fence) between the two buildings. We're only talking about the half on the left if you're looking at that image. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that there is a possibility that the fence at the Grey Fox may not have a Permit. It is also a vinyl fence and both fences are identical to each other. Both owners did the same thing. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that we are not sure about when the Grey Fox changes happened and some of their fencing would have been deemed as not visible from the public way because of its position. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned they're only concerned about that stretch across the front which is half vinyl. Ms. Horsey mentioned if we allow this to go through without our recommendations then what we're doing is permitting any other property owner in the Historic District to erect a fence first even though they know it’s not permitted. So, if they're going to put a fence up, they need to raise the regulation. Obviously, in this case they did not. I’m tired of everybody thinking that they can get away with something that they think is better. Chairman Czerwinski agreed that it's a good point, about begging for forgiveness at the tail end. Ms. Horsey mentioned that there is a long history with this City, and we can put a stop to it right now. Chairman Czerwinski asked the Commission what's their recommendation or suggestion. Ms. Horsey mentioned we could force them to either take it down or put an appropriate fence up or come to the Historic District Commission for recommendations. Why do we have an ordinance if we don't enforce it? I don't understand it. Mr. Street mentioned you make a good point, and I don't disagree with you. We're talking based on the property that we're talking about the fence. But it does match the Grey Fox in height. If we take action against this, do we take action against the Grey Fox? There really is no open enforcement against the Grey Fox. The fences are there. So not that I'm defending what they did because what they did isn’t exactly right. They just did it and they came back and said I'm sorry. It appears that there is an attempt to at least match what was there. They might have looked at it and said “this is here why can't we be here?” That's the hard pill that I'm trying to swallow. How can we force them to remove that fence? The only thing I could see is that they would remove that and then do something smaller which we've done before. We've allowed 4-feet in the front and then it gets higher in the back because of safety. It's removing and replacing with the same thing. I think we all would have said the same thing regarding the shiny vinyl. We don't like it; it's not fitting. They could defend themselves, but they can't right now because they are not present at the meeting. So, we are just left to decide. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that their Permit hasn't been approved. 5 8

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2024 Mr. Street mentioned that the Permit is here to do what they've already done. Ms. Oehmke mentioned that they submitted a Permit for work that has already been done and it is in the Historic District. The fines are doubled. Mr. Street said okay, so their Permit is to do the work that they've done. So, frankly what we can do is pretend that they haven't done the work, and their Permit is in. Their Permit requests X amount of 6-foot-high fence and this is where the 6-foot fence is going so that our recommendation would be well we'll approve the Permit, but we don't want a 6-foot fence in the front we want a 4- foot fence. The rest of the fence we can deal with the 6-foot vinyl maybe and that would be the approved permit. The Permit would be approved that way but then they would fix it and then that would be a Code Enforcement issue. Am I correct? Would that then be a Code Enforcement issue? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied for example, if you did that and gave specific criteria as to how the Permit could be approved. Permit is approved and issued. Then they have to implement the Permit and we would follow up on that permit activity. They're good for a certain period of time. Then we check in to see if they have completed their project or not, and if they have not then there are reminders. Then we move into a process related to them not implementing the Permit. Ms. Horsey asked for a point of clarification. I think we've asked this question before. Is there a way to change the finish somewhat on an existing white vinyl shiny fence? And if not, then what might be other (options) than landscape materials which you can't do on this cement sidewalk going to the gate. That's going to always show. Can we apply something that's going to dull it? Probably not, but I'm just asking. Is there something or even a brown thing? I don't know what I'm talking about. It’s just that white vinyl is never approved in the Historic District unless you can't see it. Mr. Street mentioned he thinks that Staff recommended landscape in front of it. Ms. Horsey mentioned that Staff has provided alternatives and if we are not familiar with the alternatives, we can go back through them. I think that might be the way to proceed. I think we need a recommendation today. She asked if that was correct. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied you can take some action today and we will move forward. You can defer it by asking that the applicant come before you if you think that will be fruitful. But you can certainly take some action today. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that I am looking at this application, maybe I'm not seeing it, it doesn't even say what type of material they're applying for in the Permit. It just states 6-foot fence. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned again what's already there. 6 9

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2024 Mrs. Richardson mentioned if we are approaching it as if this is not there, this would be a brand- new Permit. We would have asked for this information. Chairman Czerwinski replied absolutely. We would push for the 4-foot fence, and they would have a good reason for the 6-foot fence. We would be looking for a wood fence finish style. We would not be looking for white cap or a straight white cap on the top. The thing is obviously both of them did this at the same time. You had wooden fences on both sides of both properties. It looks as if they may have done it at the same time. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that I don’t believe the adjacent property just put the fence there. She believes it was already there. Some of the images were included in your packet. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that it looks as if something was missing in 2012 and 2019 (wooden fences) as he looks at the images. In 2024, they both have white fences. The neighbor of the Grey Fox piggybacked off the adjacent neighbor. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that you could go back to the Grey Fox and have them produce documentation allowing them to put that fence up. I would approve the Permit and indicate that it can't be a vinyl fence and it can't be taller than 4 feet. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that he finds it hard to believe that because he has been here for about 6 years. I joined the Historic District Commission in 2019 and I remember Grey Fox offering a Permit to build a fence behind Grey Fox. We need clarification. We should defer this until we get more information from the adjacent property. As Mr. Street mentioned, I think one thing we could do is look at Staff recommendations. He said he made a recommendation because it is a 6-foot-high fence that the shrubs be no shorter than 4-feet so that at least you are covering up the majority. If they can’t find any shrubs no shorter than 4-feet, then they can come back to the Historic District Commission and say these are the alternatives. Ms. Horsey said if you look around at properties that have been required around landscaping put in, it's only for a year that it has thrived. But if one day after a year it dies, it doesn’t have to be replaced; maybe that’s something that needs to be looked at in the Code. A year is not very long. If you don’t care for those shrubs, they will die. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that her concern is if we have to approve it because it is already there and it matches the property next door, then it will set a precedent. Then there will be 6-foot white fences going up everywhere. They'll all come back and say, “well you know these other ones were approved.” You know I don’t think we want to head in that direction especially with Dover’s Master Plan where there will be a lot of building and so forth and more fences, I assume. I think we need to draw a line in the sand to keep other people from taking it and keep from setting a precedent. Mr. Street mentioned that we have one example that's here in front of us. We don't know what the Grey Fox did so we can't sit here and say that the Grey Fox did this without a Permit and 7 10

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2024 that they did not have permission. I would submit that they worked on that end of the spectrum. I don’t disagree and I think that it does happen, but I don’t think it’s a rampant problem people have. We have definitely had Fence Permits in here where they have requested white vinyl fences and we have said no. It’s not a huge problem. But with regards to the Master Plan, as I do sit on the DDD Board, the larger developments are going to come in and that is easier especially with Staff. These Site Plans have to go through Staff. These things will happen where people who are going into business say oh, I am going to put up a white fence. Bigger things will happen and again the Site Plan has to go through Staff. If Staff catches something they will refer it to the Historic District Commission. Mrs. Richardson asked Mr. Street what he would recommend. Mr. Street replied it's tough because I also want to say it’s a 12-foot (length of) fence, tear it down, and put up a 4-foot (high) fence. There was a brief discussion on the color, height, and type. Ms. Horsey mentioned that we need to see why they wanted the 6-foot fence. Is it because of what is going on behind the building? Mr. Street said it’s just a parking lot. Ms. Horsey said there are people outside dining. Mr. Street said that is the Grey Fox. Ms. Horsey said, but the white vinyl fence is still there. Mr. Street and Chairman said we are not talking about the Grey Fox. There was a brief discussion regarding the fence and consistency. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that for him it’s all or none proposition as to whether or not to leave it there. Or will we force what is supposed to be done? I would personally like to defer this until we have clarification on the adjoining property, so we have the right impact as to what to do with this fence line. All members agreed. Chairman Czerwinski I feel bad because the nuclear options are that they put a lot of money into the fence. It’s not our position to say that they put a lot of money into it, and we should feel bad for them. If we are going to force, then force. Or are we not going to enforce it because they already have the fence. He would like to know about the fence regarding the adjoining property and the Permit issued. You don’t want one fence 4-foot and the other 6-foot, it would not make any sense. It is kind of an all or none proposition. If there was not Permit, we would apply the same logic. Mrs. Richardson asked who would get that information. Chairman Czerwinski replied City Staff. Mrs. Richardson mentioned that the Building (Permit) Application does not specify the type of material. Ms. Horsey mentioned that we can ask for clarification of the material. Mr. Street mentioned that he didn’t disagree. We should get clarification of the material or recommend the material. With this one I say we get clarification because the fence is already 8 11

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2024 there. I also would not mind getting clarification on (I tread on this lightly) on the Grey Fox. Having said that, Grey Fox has dining behind the building, and he knows that there are ABC controls and regulations and guidelines that they have to abide by for their liquor license as a Dining establishment that sells alcohol. Normally, you can’t have a building that leads through a fence to give someone alcohol on the outside. Mr. Street mentioned the tailspin evolves into are we going to take action against the Grey Fox and are we going to start setting the precedent of we are going to start taking action if you have done something already. Let’s say Grey Fox got a Permit and it was approved, and the adjoining neighbor did not. We need to get clarification on the Permit. Now you have two 6-foot odd fences that are visible to the street. So, do we want them to pull them down and do 4 feet or can we screen the whole thing? We just need to decide what to do about the fence and the shrubs because you can buy shrubs so that you can screen the whole thing at 4-feet and the only thing you would see is the top. Is that even a consideration? We don't have to make that decision now; he was only asking and asked you to think about it. Mr. Street moved that we request further clarification on the Permit with material, finishes, and color and for information on whether Grey Fox obtained a Permit. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Richardson and unanimously carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS Certified Local Government (CLG) Program Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there will be an opportunity this spring with a filing deadline in March to pursue a Grant from the Historic Preservation Grant Fund that is a matching Grant scenario. In your meeting packet from the previous months, we gave you some of the information about the Grant itself. She did not know if there were any additional thoughts about what to pursue other than maybe looking again at what was discussed before about the issue of alternative materials in the Historic District and to look at any Design Standards and Guidelines related to how you deal with those. Implementation of 2019 Comprehensive Plan Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that in December that is the opportunity for people to ask for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. We do have one that has filed such a request to make a change to the Land Development Plan Map of the City which gives land uses citywide. The property is not located within the Historic District; so, it will not be appearing before the Historic District Commission. They are seeking a Land Development Plan change for a property on Silver Lake Boulevard which would then follow up with their request to rezone that property to a different zoning classification. The review process for that Comprehensive Plan Amendment is underway at this point. There is a variety of office buildings, a townhouse community on both sides, an assistant living facility, and another office building. There is vacant land at the far east end of Silver Lake Boulevard. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any questions. Mr. Street mentioned that we have been going through this for years and have not found anyone with the time to do it. He asked if they could, as a Commission, recommend changes to the guidelines. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied that you could move through a review of the Design 9 12

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2024 Standards and Guidelines and make suggestions for changes and package that together. A number of years ago we did start a process working at each meeting going through topic areas. The potential Grant was to have a consultant do a white paper about alternative materials on how to incorporate them into the modern-day Historic District. As you start to move through the Design Standards and Guidelines and do that evaluation, it is not an easy task. Mr. Street asked who would make the changes. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied ultimately if you had discussions and put forth changes to it, we would probably have to package it as a new document. It would go through an adoption process with both the Historic District Commission and the Planning Commission because it is adopted by reference in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Horsey moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Street, and unanimously carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 4:25 PM Sincerely, Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 10 13

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 The Meeting of the City of Dover Historic District Commission was held on Thursday, February 15, 2024, 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, Mrs. Ellen H. Richardson and Mr. Street. Planning Office Staff members present were Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mrs. Kristen Mullaney, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, and Mr. John England Code Enforcement Inspector, 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 vote was unanimously carried 5-0. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2023 Mrs. Richardson moved for approval of the Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2023, with the necessary corrections, seconded by Ms. Mason and the roll call vote was unanimously carried 4- 0. Mr. Street abstained from approval because he was absent on November 16, 2023. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Summary of Applications for 2023 and 2024 Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that the first item is reflecting the Applications that were before this body; so, we're now looking at 2023 and 2024. In 2023, the property at 153 S. Bradford Street was the referral of the Demolition and Renovation Permit. Within the last week, we received the Supplemental Engineering Report, and it was forwarded to the Code Enforcement Staff. The property owner has not selected which remedy option to pursue at this time; whether the repair of the existing building or to move forward with that request to demolish the second floor. Our Code Enforcement Staff in conjunction with the Building Inspector looked at that Engineering Report and responded to the applicant’s representative. If they do choose the remedy of removing that second floor, then they will be invited back to a Historic District Commission meeting to continue consideration of the said Permit. Chairman Czerwinski said we do not have the content of that report. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied no you do not. Because at this point since they (the applicant) hadn't made a decision of which way they were going to pursue, we did not forward that to you. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there was an option to keep the floor. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied yes, there was the Structural Engineering Report that laid out a series of repairs or fixes. They were noticing things. So, it's back to the applicant at this point to decide which way they want to go. If they decide one way, it may never come back to you and if they decide the other way, then it will. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any questions; there were none. 14

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that for 2024 we just have one referral, which is the Fence Permit that will continue consideration of today. She asked if there were any questions on this application; there were none. Summary of Architectural Review Certifications for 2024 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there has only been one Permit in the Historic District area. It was for an Interior Renovation at 28 W. Loockerman Street which did not require that type of review. Department of Planning & Inspections Updates 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 Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that for the update on the C-2 Code Amendments project, the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance primarily focused on the C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) that has been proposed as Ordinance # 2024-01 with the Legislative, Finance and Administration Amendment #1. That Ordinance goes to a public hearing with the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 20, 2024. The Planning Commission recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their own hearing on March 11, 2024. This proposed set of amendments, as I noted before, focuses on changing some of the permitted uses in the zone. It looks to add design standards for certain aspects of the building including a provision for stepping back of upper floors related to height because this proposes to increase the allowable height in the C-2 Zone to 10 stories and 125-feet. Then the other parts of the Ordinance focus on dumpsters, parking requirements in the Downtown Redevelopment Target Area for new construction, and some definition amendments. It does not change any of the provisions of the Historic District. A lot of the properties that are zoned C-2 are also found in the Historic District; so, it doesn't change any process or procedure that way. It just has some changes to the base zoning. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if there were any questions. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that it does affect us because it is in the Historic District as well. So, you can have structures within the Historic District up to 10 stories. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated however it doesn't change the review process. If someone was building a building that large, it's going to require Architecture Review Certification by the Historic District Commission and work with the Planning Commission on Site Plan and that certification as well. NEW BUSINESS Review of Permits Referred to Commission 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 2 15

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 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 the record is State Street 146 Properties, LLC. Address: 146 S. State Street. Tax Parcel: ED05-077.09-02-58.00-000. Council District 4. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Staff can start in that you begin review of this Fence Permit Referral at your last meeting and ultimately had a couple of informational questions that you were seeking additional data about. The Planning Office did reach out by letter that was sent by e-mail to the representatives that we had for the site. We have not received a response from them, but in the interest of keeping this project moving Staff has prepared Addendum #1 to your Architectural Review Report that we previously issued to you in response to your two information requests. Your first information request was about what we called really the existing conditions of the fence at 146 S. State Street as installed. You had some questions about the exact material and to clarify its location. What Staff did was respond based on our observations of the fence since it is in place. We see that it is a 6-foot white vinyl fence. There's really two fence segments and the map that we had attached to the Addendum shows the locations of both fences. Fence 1 and Fence 2 is how we've been referring to them. Fence 2 is the small segment that's closer to South State Street and is the one that would be visible from the public way. Fence 1 is the larger one or longer one that's on the edge of the parking lot to the rear of the building. As previously noted, it's not technically visible from the right-of-way of South State Street and we're providing to you that both of those fences appear to be white vinyl at 6-feet in height. Information request number two was about the Permit history for the adjacent property at 140 S. State Street which is referred to as the Grey Fox location. Planning Staff did look at our Permit records and we did not find a Fence Permit specifically for the white vinyl fence that is observed at the rear of that building. We did provide a couple of Google Street View shots. There has been some permit activity over the years, some of which did involve fencing. Over time, it's been a restaurant since we believe at least the mid-1980s. There's a survey from 1985 that shows a 6- foot fence surrounding areas at the rear of this building and over time that fence has had a variety of formats including wood, painted wood, etc. There's a portion of fencing that was a chain link with the slats in it at the far rear of that property near the alley where they took down what was previously a barn structure in 2012. I would remind the Commission what you have before you is the Referral Fence Permit for 146 S. State Street. The Architectural Review Report includes Staff’s review, Staff findings, and some suggested recommendations as to dealing with what we were calling Fence 1 and Fence 2 at that location. Unfortunately, we continue to not have any representation from the property owner or their contractor with us today regarding this Permit. There has not been any outreach to Staff on this application. 3 16

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 Ms. Mason mentioned that she was just thinking when we were talking about it the last time and we realized that the only recourse we have is giving them a fine for it. I have two ideas: Number one, is it possible for us to go in person to the people of Grey Fox and discuss it with them? I don't know what the protocol is for that, but I sort of hate to see the whole thing just being ignored. Is there some way we can get in touch with them? Does that make sense? Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if she was talking about the Permit that's before us now or the existing condition of the Grey Fox with its fencing? Ms. Mason replied that she was thinking of the Grey Fox first about the information we need and wanting to talk to them about it. There should be some sort of communication and recourse. A lot of times if you send things by mail, they're just going to throw it out. I don't know if that's something that has been done in the past. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that Code Enforcement Staff was available to speak at the meeting today. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there is a member of the Code Enforcement Staff that's been dealing with the Code Enforcement case relating to 140-146 S. State Street which is where the Permit has now been filed because the fence was installed basically within the last year, 6 to 9 months ago without a Permit. Chairman Czerwinski asked Code Enforcement Staff if action was taken on 146 S. State Street when a Permit was filed after they got written up. Code Enforcement Staff Mr. England replied yes. Chairman Czerwinski asked so why don't we write up the Grey Fox? The Grey Fox should be written up as well. Ms. Horsey agreed. Mr. England replied at that point there was concern with this fence being installed and that's what we deal with. If somebody complains on the street about one fence I don't go looking at 100 fences. Chairman Czerwinski asked so somebody actually reported that fence. Mr. England replied yes. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned now I can understand why this has happened. So, would we move ahead with the recommendation of this, and that 140 S. State Street should also be issued a fine that their fence is wrong. He wanted to get some documentation showing that no Permit was filed for the fence. There is a possibility that both fences were installed around the same time. Mr. England mentioned if Mrs. Melson-Williams, Planning Staff sent him out to investigate and we know that there are no Permits then it would direct him to issue a violation letter to them to start the process. Mr. Street said let's look at the one for 140 S. State Street. Let's look at the one that we're looking at right now (the one that got the Permit) and figure out what we can do there. If we want to talk about the other one (Grey Fox) we can do that also. I think we have to be consistent with fencing. I think, if I remember correctly, the Tastee’s Chicken and Seafood of 147 S. New Street 4 17

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 came in because they had to replace a fence. He was near the building that caught on fire. He wanted to replace it with a white vinyl fence, and we said no. We said no because we didn't want white vinyl everywhere. We suggested a wooden fence. So, just for the sake of consistency, I feel like without anyone standing here saying this is why we did it or this is why we need it this way. For this one, for this application, for this Permit, I would think that we would want to come back with at least something similar at least for that 8 foot or 10 foot (length) or whatever it is that's visible. Can they come back with something comfortable but not white vinyl which we have said no to in the past? Mrs. Richardson mentioned that was her concern at the last meeting that in their application for the Permit they did not specify the type of material. We did ask for the information and Planning Staff went out to the property. We wanted the property owner to add this information to their application. Mr. Street mentioned that the Permit should be updated. For the sake of the fact that they're not here, I don't know whether the Permit has been updated. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied no. Mr. Street mentioned to keep moving forward, you can take action and say look for consistency. We recommend you pull down these 10 feet and put back what is appropriate. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned the argument here is that they want the entire fence replaced. If they replace the front that is visible from State Street, then the rest is not visible. What do we consider as visible? Because primarily looking clearly from the visibility it’s from the street. That's what we're concerned about. I understand what you're saying as far as I'm using improper material in the back. But do you really want to push the button on that? Because really it doesn't face the street. Ms. Horsey and Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that we've already determined the alley (fence), we just want them to replace the front section. Mrs. Richardson mentioned she could live with that. Ms. Horsey mentioned can we allow one property to put up an improper fence? Chairman Czerwinski mentioned this is the reason he wanted to move on and wanted you know and have a record stating that for consistency and zoning purposes. The punishment should fit all infractions. That's why I'm looking at 140 and146 S. State Street. From consistency, that's what I'm talking about, the Code Enforcement and 140 S. State Street. Because it's on record that both of those fences were actually built without a Permit. In the future, we don't know; however, if we vote here, there's a record saying there was a Code violation that we addressed. What about every time somebody is not enforcing the standards? Now what we want to do as far as remediation of this one is probably going to have a difference of opinion. Because there are ones on the Board that want all the fence replaced with wood fence, which would cost an absorbent amount of 5 18

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 money. Because the fence is in the back and it's not considered facing the street and visible from the street, we would leave that portion of the fence alone. Ms. Horsey mentioned, remember we're talking about two fences. One fence while in the alley doesn't count. I mean it's not right. I mean we were explained that the last time that it's not visible from State Street because it's in the alley which doesn't matter. What’s visible and that matters is one that you can see from State Street which I think is Fence 2. She asked Mrs. Melson-Williams if that was correct. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied yes. The one you can see from S. State Street we've identified as Fence 2. To clarify, Fence 1 is the one that is to the rear of the building, near the parking lot and that is basically most readily viewed from the alley which is not considered in the public view for Historic District Commission purposes. Ms. Mason mentioned that her first thing is you got to get in touch with people no matter if you're doing Code violations or whatever. People just can't go and build stuff and just ignore everything. The second thing is what you're saying is when you have the two things, are you going to make them fix their fences or give them a timeframe? I agree with everything you're saying, and I think we should just do something about it instead of having people just keep doing this. Everything you are saying makes a lot of sense. Chairman Czerwinski asked if everyone agreed. Everyone replied yes. Mr. Street asked if the fence could be vinyl in a different color? Can it be wood? Chairman Czerwinski mentioned this is where the amendment or the standards will give us options to say there's a material that looks just like the way that we would be happy with from the purposes that you can't tell the difference between the two. So, we've got to go with the old- fashioned method and say well you know what, you have to stick with the original materials and construction of 4 feet which is the recommended or required. We have approved 6-foot fences in the past for security (a waiver). With this being on the back of the building, I wouldn't worry too much about it being 6-foot because it is so far back. Mr. Street mentioned that he was okay with it for consistency’s sake as far as what is there right now. Ms. Horsey commented, I think the 6-foot fence that is there now behind the restaurant is for privacy and people dining or whatever else is out there. I can see that and as previously mentioned we have recommended 6-foot. In the past, they have all been metal, but if the material is what we like and recommend, then yes. Another material that is either wood or looks like wood or something that is not white vinyl, we also passed those. We have set precedent before, but not for what's there now. Ms. Mason asked if the suggestion was that they take down the fence because it’s vinyl? Chairman Czerwinski mentioned we were discussing Fence 2, the section that goes between the 6 19

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 buildings and if to replace it with a 6- foot wooden fence or 4-foot wooden fence. We could leave it at 6 feet for the privacy of the customers at 146 S. State Street. We are not talking about 140 S. State Street. Mr. Street mentioned if we act on a motion recommendation, can they come back if they want to entertain a new Permit and talk to us about providing something different than what we recommend? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied, they could certainly do that. What we would issue is the recommendation of the Historic District Commission in regard to that Permit and with these conditions that the Permit would be granted. Mr. Street mentioned if they don't like it, they've had an opportunity to say that because this is the second meeting. Mr. Street moved to recommend approval of Fence Permit 23-1868 with the condition that Fence 2 be installed at 6 feet with a wooden type of material. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Richardson and unanimously carried 5-0. Mr. Street asked Mrs. Melson-Williams if there was ever a Permit for the fence (at Grey Fox) that has been there for years. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied it is not totally clear. There is a 6- foot fence that is identified in a 1985 survey of the property. It doesn't give a height or material of it. There is again discussion of a fence in 1991 when the expansion to include an outdoor patio and deck for the restaurant went before the Planning Commission. The fence is mentioned in the discussion of that application. We did not go digging for that file. There's clearly a portion of the fence that was built in 2012 when the barn structure was removed. But that portion of the fence kind of closed off where that building once was at the rear of the deck. It wouldn't have been subject to Architectural Review Certification because it's not visible. Most of the fence would likely be considered as not visible from S. State Street because of its location predominantly to the rear of the building. The only piece that truly would be recognized as visible is the piece that is perpendicular to the building that's got a couple of shrubs in front of it. We've looked at street views. It's hard to tell the exact history of when various fences came and went at the rear of that building. Mr. Street mentioned that he thinks the point is that there has been a fence there for years (back in the 80’s). Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that in the picture there is a wooden fence. I guess at this point unless the City is going to impose the Code Enforcement, there's nothing much more we can do with that property. Mr. Street stated that he agreed. I think if they come before us with enforcement actions, that’s one thing. 7 20

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 OLD BUSINESS Certified Local Government (CLG) Program Information on FFY2023 CLG Grant Application-Update on Status Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that included in your packet is the information on the Federal Fiscal Year 2023 CLG grant application. We are coming up on a filing deadline of March 1, 2024. We included the e-mail that identifies the amount that the City of Dover would be eligible for with this grant opportunity. It's a grant opportunity of $11,530. the City would have to provide a match of 40%. That is $7686. We do in our current FY24 Budget have that and have made a request for similar matching funds moving into our FY25 Budget. Previously, we had attempts about a Grant Project that would focus on a consultant looking at and providing kind of informational guidance about modern materials and technologies that you might be encountering here in the Historic District and how to come up with kind of Design Standards and Guidelines for looking at those types of items. What I included was a previous project narrative that we had put forth a couple of years ago for a similar Grant that we did not end up pursuing with this program for various reasons. If the Commission is interested in moving forward, then Staff can work to prepare the Grant application and get that submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office. If we are not looking to pursue the Grant opportunity with this project or another one, I do have to let them know so that they can reallocate those grant funds to other potential awardees. I will note that this is what they call Federal Fiscal Year 23 (FFY23) money. There will likely also be an opportunity in the future for Federal Fiscal Year 24 (FFY24) money once the State Office knows a little bit more about what those numbers look like. This project timeframe for implementation would cross two City budget years which is something we can probably deal with, but we need to have some direction here of your interest and potential path forward if we want to pursue this Grant Application. Mrs. Richardson asked how many months for FFY23 are left to get everything together. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied for the grant application at least a good draft of it is due March 1, 2024. Typically, what happens after that is there has to be a Grant Agreement put in place that identifies exactly what the project is, deliverables, what the exact monies involved are, and then in this case the proposed Grant would have us go for consultant services. It is on the lower expenditure of consultant services so it's a little bit easier for the procurement process. To have a consultant on board, I would say it would probably be this summer and then we have through September of 2025 to complete it. The only thing there is that it will go across two City Budget years, but there's ways to make that work. Ms. Horsey asked if there were enough staff to put it together. Chairman Czerwinski asked if she was referring to the proposal for the project? Ms. Horsey said either way. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned the project could be the consultant to do the project. The key is I think a lot of it's already here. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that the bulk of it is if you're interested in pursuing the same type of thing. We've got at least a very good starting point. The rest of the Grant Application is a bunch of forms. It's listed there and it's a little bit of logistics getting it together, but if we're 8 21

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 interested in it and moving forward with it, then we'll work to make it happen. We had tried a couple of years in the past, but then I think the last time they had money out there was right at the time of the start of COVID. We had a Grant Application and we decided to abandon it because of what was going on at that point. We did not pursue FY22 money. Mr. Street mentioned that he thought that we had been trying to do this for years. He wanted to know what had changed. Chairman Czerwinski replied, he thinks part of the problem is staffing. Mr. Street asked did we ever receive any interest from other outside consultants on doing it? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied we never went out to find consultants. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned the more and more and every year we do this, the more this becomes essential to what we do because of the materials. There could be a lot of stuff that we don’t know. In getting the right consultancy for a chapter on materials and new products that are out there. They can make it a lot easier for us to make recommendations for people that are doing cornice, or façade work as well as fences. If there is a material out there that looks just like wood could be helpful in our case. This becomes more and more imperative every year that we do this because there's definitely a lot of materials out there that we could be offering or that could be used as an alternative source that's longer lasting and it looks just as good. We got a good start with this proposal. I think it's really down to Staffing and being able to run with the ball. It would be nice to get this knocked out and get a consultancy hired. He would like to see us do it again because it helps us make a lot of key decisions. I'm sure there's more materials out there that are more affordable or more available. Ms. Horsey mentioned that we would be up to date with other municipalities. Ms. Mason mentioned that she was not sure or understood exactly what this was and how it would be used. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied that the consultant would do the work preparing the documents. I would think that there would be some interaction with at least the Historic District Commission as part of that. There may also be some opportunity for public outreach as well depending on how the deliverables are proposed for the project. The bulk of the heavy lifts for the project itself would be done by a consultant. Ms. Mason asked if the Commission would be there to volunteer our time and to assist with this. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied that we could certainly as part of this ask that they report progress and drafts and have a conversation with the Commission about the concerns with the materials, like where are you seeing difficulties in reviewing applications; so, that there's some guidance for the consultant as well. Ms. Mason mentioned that she thinks it sounds like a great idea especially if we have it organized and have the time to do it. 9 22

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the consensus from the discussion is that Staff try to move forward to submit a grant application with the project being focused on this question of modern materials and technologies. Implementation of 2019 Comprehensive Plan Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that moving forward with a Grant program like this certainly goes to some of the goals and recommendations of the Historic Preservation Chapter. I will note that there is a consideration underway for a Stormwater Utility in the City of Dover to assist with the funding of stormwater citywide related to permitting and how we deal with runoff from properties and our city streets. Chairman Czerwinski asked if it was related to the environmental review. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied it's related to some environmental permitting that the City is required to have in place and take care of, but that's something I think that was in the other areas of the Comprehensive Plan. With the C-2 Text Amendments, you can point to parts of the Comprehensive Plan studies too. There's a number of studies going on in general across a number of different project topics in the City, but there's not anything to specifically to bring to you for your review at this point. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any further questions. There was none. Ms. Horsey moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mrs. Richardson, and unanimously carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 4:25 PM Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Acting Secretary Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 10 23

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2023 Item 3. Updated thru May 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. Sign installed. 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; signed installed. 24

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2023 Item 3. Updated thru May 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. Permit #23-1521 to be withdrawn as new Permit for renovation/repair of masonry filed in April 2024. 25

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2023 Item 3. Updated thru May 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 vinyl fence that is six foot in information on its materials, location, height. HDC granted ArchRevCert subject to and another nearby fence. 2/15/2024 conditions: Fence #2 must be wood and 4 HDC granted ArchRevCert subject to feet in height. Fence #1 due to location can conditions. remain at vinyl at 6 feet. Permit issued in April 2024. HI-24-02 Building 148 S. Bradford Review for Public Hearing and Review for Request to demolish existing building Demolition at 148 Street Architectural Architectural Review Certification by (currently used as offices). S. Bradford Street Certification for HDC scheduled for 5/16/2024. Demolition HI-24-03 Building 150 S. Bradford Review for Public Hearing and Review for Request to demolish existing building Demolition at 150 Street Architectural Architectural Review Certification by (currently used as offices). S. Bradford Street Certification for HDC scheduled for 5/16/2024. Demolition HI-24-04 Legislative Hall 425 East Avenue, Site Plan Review for Public Hearing and Review for Site Development Plan review for new Parking Garage at corner of East Architectural Review Recommendation on Architectural Parking Garage Structure and associated 425 East Avenue Avenue/ E. Water Certification Review Certification by HDC scheduled site improvements. Recommendation on Street and Martin for 5/16/2024 ArchRevCert to be forwarded to Planning Luther King Jr. Commission for future consideration. Boulevard South 26

Summary of Permit Applications with Architectural Review Certification Item 4. 2024- Updated Thru 4-30-2024 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. 2/21/2024 23-887 29 N State St, Office Sign Permit Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Installation of monument sign in required for interior work. State building sign format. 2/5/2024 24-84 3 S American Avenue, Building Permit - Interior Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Interior renovations of office space. Offices Renovations required for interior work. 2/23/2024 24-159 89 Kings Hwy SW, Roof Permit No Planning Staff Review. Roof replacement project. Richardson & Robbins Building 2/26/2024 24-198 401 Federal Street, Building Permit - Exterior Staff Approval Repair and reconstruction of ADA Townsend Building Improvements ramp system on north side of building and parking lot areas improvements. 3/4/2024 21-1660 215 W Loockerman Street, Building Permit - Exterior Staff Approval Renovations to entry door and Mountain Consulting Renovations creation of vestibule entry area with storefront door/window system. 3/19/2024 23-1383 8 The Green Building Permit - Exterior Staff Approval Replacement of wooden egress stair Renovations to side/rear of building. 3/25/2024 23-1868 146 S State Street, Offices Fence Permit HDC Consultation on ArchRevCert Fences built without a permit; Code 1/18/2024 and 2/15/2024; Staff Enforcement Case. Referral of Fence approval per ARC Permit as HI-24-01. HDC approved with conditions: Fence #1 to remain a 6-foot vinyl as limited visibility; Fence #2 to be replaced by 4-foot wood fence. 3/25/2024 23-1874 1 Kings Hwy NE Roof Permit No Planning Staff Review. Replacement of roof on back of house. 3/25/2024 24-147 108 W Loockerman St Roof Permit No Planning Staff Review. Roof replacement project. 4/23/2024 24-455 217 W Loockerman St Building Permit - Interior Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Interior renovations for fire walls Renovations required for interior work. and rear door to storage area. 4/29/2024 24-566 147 S Governors Avenue, Sign Permit Staff Approval Installation of hanging sign for Pastries Deli & More business tenant. 27

Item 5. City of Dover CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2024-01 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 Section 13. Central Commercial Zone (C-2) be amended to read as follows: APPENDIX B – ZONING ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS Section 13. - Central commercial zone (C-2). 13.1 Uses permitted. In a central commercial zone (C-2), no building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following: (a) Retail stores. (b) Restaurants, cafes, and eating establishments. Commercial kitchens. Microbrewery, craft distillery, and meadery establishments. (e) Hotels, including bed and breakfast inns. (f) Art galleries and artisan studios. (g) Service establishments. (h) Banks and financial institutions (i) Personal service establishments. (j) Business, professional, and government offices. (k) Apartments and multi-family dwellings, provided that no dwelling units shall be permitted on the first floor on the street frontage of Loockerman Street. Uses accessory to the residential units such as lobby and amenity spaces are permitted on the first floor. (l) Live-work units. (m) Indoor recreation and amusement establishments. (n) Parking lots and parking structures as a principal use. (o) Places of public assembly. (p) Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning, cooking, baking, or any other processing of products where goods so produced or processed are to be sold at retail on the premises or online and where the size of the establishment shall not exceed 5,000 square feet in floor area. (q) Open space areas. 13.2 Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10, section 1: 28

Ordinance #2024-01 - Amending Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 13 Central Commercial Item 5. Zone (C-2) and related development provisions of Zoning Ordinance Page 2 of 9 (a) Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning, cooking, baking, or any other processing of products where goods so produced or processed are to be sold at retail on the premises or online and where the size of the establishment exceeds 5,000 square feet in floor area. 13.3 Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited: (a) Fuel pumps and motor vehicle storage, sales, or repairs. 13.4 Enclosed buildings. All permitted uses and all storage accessory thereto, other than offstreet parking, shall be carried on in buildings fully enclosed on all sides, except for outdoor eating areas, outdoor gathering areas, and outdoor sales areas approved by the city planner or approved as part of the site development plan approval required by article 3, section 13.6. 13.5 Design standards. The following standards shall apply to the site and building development in the central commercial zone (C-2): 13.51 Façade Articulation. Building facades should incorporate design elements to provide a base, middle, and top of the building to reinforce the pedestrian scale at the street level. 13.52 Height. For buildings greater than four (4) stories in height, then the upper floors above the fourth story shall step back six (6) feet for fifty percent (50%) of the width of the primary facade. For buildings greater than six (6) stories, then the upper floors above the sixth floor shall step back an additional six (6) feet on the primary façade. These step back areas may begin at a lower height than these minimums as part of the building design in order to be compatible with the character of the area. 13.53 Step back areas. The step back areas should be open to the sky and can be open air balcony spaces or other design architectural features that are not enclosed spaces. 13.54 Off-street Parking. Off-street parking lots shall not be permitted to be situated between the street line and the primary facade of the principal building. Consideration should be given to locating parking to the side or rear of the building. 13.55 Screening. Any off-street parking lots provided shall be screened from the street line by buildings, landscaping, or other means. Off-street parking lots shall be screened from adjacent residential zones and residential uses. This screening provision does not apply to adjacent alleys. 13.6 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 13.7 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any change of use. 29

Ordinance #2024-01 - Amending Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 13 Central Commercial Item 5. Zone (C-2) and related development provisions of Zoning Ordinance Page 3 of 9 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 4 Section 4.14 amended to read as follows: Section 4.14. - C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-2A zones. Bulk and parking regulations for neighborhood commercial (C-1), limited commercial (C-1A), central commercial (C-2), and limited commercial (C-2A) zones are as follows: C-1 C-1A C-2 C-2A Minimum required: Lot area (sq. ft.) 2,500 Lot width (ft.) 25 Lot depth (ft.) 70 100 Front yard (ft.) 25 25 0 15 Side yard (ft.) None required, None required, None required, None required, but 5 feet min. but 5 feet min. but 5 feet min. if but 5 feet min. if if provided if provided provided provided Rear yard (ft.) 15 15 20 above ground 20 above ground floor. At ground floor. At ground floor, 5 ft. floor, 5 ft. required required Side or rear yards 15 15 15 25 which adjoin a residential zone (ft.) Off-street parking Per 300 sq. ft. floor 1 area or Per employee 1 (whichever is greater) Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 2 2 10 6 Feet 30 30 125 75 Floor area ratio 1.0 1.5 5.0 4.0 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5 Section 6 amended to read as follows: Section 6. - Dumpsters for trash and recycling. 6.1 Location of trash receptacles. In all zones of the City of Dover (except in residential zones where standard City of Dover 90-gallon trash containers are used), all trash receptacles and bulk recycling bins (excluding publicly operated recycling drop off centers), which shall be referred to collectively as "dumpsters" in this ordinance, are to be situated in order to allow safe and 30

Ordinance #2024-01 - Amending Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 13 Central Commercial Item 5. Zone (C-2) and related development provisions of Zoning Ordinance Page 4 of 9 efficient access by trash collection vehicles, and shall be screened from public view. All dumpsters must comply with the following regulations: 6.11 Location and screening required. All dumpsters must be located in approved locations on the lot. Dumpsters must be placed on hard, paved, dust-free surfaces and may not be placed in designated parking spaces, fire lanes, or access ways. Outside storage of trash, cardboard, or shipping pallets is prohibited. A dumpster enclosure is required to screen the dumpster from view whenever these units are situated so that they will be visible from any public right-of-way or from an adjacent property. 6.12 Minimum dumpsters required. Use Dumpsters Required Apartment complex or Apartment Two required for the first 48 apartments; one required for Building with over 10 units each additional 24 apartments or fraction thereof Non-residential uses Two required per property 6.13 Selection of trash service. Applicants for site development plan approval shall specify the proposed method of trash collection at the time of application. A change in the method of collection may require an alteration of the site plan, subject to approval of the city planner or the planning commission. 6.14 Maneuvering space. Adequate off-street truck maneuvering space shall be provided on-lot and not within any public street right-of-way or other public lands. Internal site circulation lanes are to be designed with adequate turning radii to accommodate the size and efficient maneuvering of trash collection vehicles. 6.15 Minimum dimensions for dumpster enclosures. All dumpster enclosures must be adequate to screen dumpsters from public view. Enclosures for private collection must be no less than seven feet in height. The height of enclosures for City of Dover collection may be no less than five feet high. 6.16 Enclosure construction. All dumpster enclosures shall be constructed of durable materials that will withstand the normal use and wear expected in trash removal operations. Whenever a dumpster, in its enclosure, will be visible from a public right-of-way, the appearance of the dumpster enclosures shall complement the architecture of the principal building on the lot, and be constructed with the same or similar exterior materials. 6.17 Gates. Gates are required whenever a dumpster, in its enclosure, will be visible from a public right-of-way. Gates must be designed to swing back behind the front of the enclosure and lock in the open position. If City of Dover trash service is provided, it is the responsibility of the property owner or occupant to open and securely lock back the gates to allow for trash pick up. The gates may be opened 12 hours prior to pick up, and must be closed within 12 hours after pick up. 6.18 Reduction of dumpster requirement. When a use is required to provide dumpsters as part of site development plan approval, the required number of dumpsters may be reduced under the following circumstances: 31

Ordinance #2024-01 - Amending Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 13 Central Commercial Item 5. Zone (C-2) and related development provisions of Zoning Ordinance Page 5 of 9 a) Dumpster pads reserved for future use. An area of the site reserved for a dumpster may be substituted for an actual dumpster. The provided area must be large enough to accommodate a dumpster and must be accessible to trash collection services. The city planner may require that the owner of record of the property provide a dumpster in the reserved location, together with any enclosure required, upon determining there is need for the additional dumpster. b) Trash compactor substitution. Trash compactors may be substituted for ordinary dumpsters at a two to one ratio. The city planner may approve a higher substitution ratio if specifications are provided indicating the machine will achieve a correspondingly higher trash compaction ratio. Trash compactors must meet the same location and screening requirements as other dumpsters. Sites providing trash compactors must still provide separate receptacles for recycling. c) Alternative solutions. Alternative solutions for the storage of and collection methods for trash and recycling receptables may be considered. The city planner or planning commission may authorize alternative solutions. 6.2 Location and screening approval required. The locations of new dumpsters on a site and any screening necessary shall be approved through the site development plan approval process, according to the type of review required in article 10 of this appendix. 6.3 Unauthorized dumpsters. Any dumpster not previously approved through the site development plan approval process may be required by the city planner to be moved, removed, or screened if said dumpster is a nuisance to neighboring properties by virtue of its current location. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 6 Section 3.1 amended to read as follows: Section 3. - Required off-street parking spaces. 3.1 Schedule of requirements. Accessory off-street parking spaces, open or enclosed, shall be provided for any lot as specified in Article 4—Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, or as specified below for each use in any zone, whichever is greater. (a) Exceptions. i. Where Article 3—District Regulations, specifies a minimum parking requirement, this parking requirement shall prevail. ii. For existing buildings within the C-2 zoning district, the requirements of Article 4, Section 4.14—C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-2A zones, bulk and parking regulations governing the C-2 zoning district shall prevail. iii. For new construction within the downtown redevelopment target area, as described in appendix C of the Dover Code of Ordinances, there is no minimum off-street parking requirement based on use. To utilize this exception, a parking strategy statement must be submitted for review as part of the site development plan approval required by appendix B, zoning, article 10, section 2. 32

Ordinance #2024-01 - Amending Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 13 Central Commercial Item 5. Zone (C-2) and related development provisions of Zoning Ordinance Page 6 of 9 For: At Least One Parking Space For Each Places of worship Two hundred (200) square feet of floor area, but not less than one (1) space for each four (4) seats, where provided Libraries Three hundred (300) square feet of floor area Medical offices—All types Three hundred (300) square feet of floor area Nursery school or kindergarten Adult attendant, plus one for every 20 children Elementary or junior high school Eight (8) seats in main auditorium/cafeteria or gymnasium High school, technical school, college or Five (5) seats in main auditorium/cafeteria or university gymnasium; if none, see Article 4—Zoning, Bulk and Parking Regulations Hospitals or sanitariums Three beds Apartments Two (2) per dwelling unit and one (1) for every two hundred (200) square feet of office space and 0.25 per dwelling unit for visitor space Roominghouses Guestroom Dormitories Three (3) beds Eating and drinking places Four (4) seats plus one (1) for every three (3) bar seats Funeral homes Two (2) employees, plus five (5) spaces for each chapel Hotels and motels Guestroom, plus one (1) for every 200 square feet of office space, banquet hall, or meeting areas Athletic fields, baseball, football or Three (3) seats boxing stadiums and arenas; race tracks Golf courses Per employee and four (4) parking spaces for each hole Golf or baseball driving range One-half (½) stall Airports Per employee and for each two (2) airplanes in storage 33

Ordinance #2024-01 - Amending Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 13 Central Commercial Item 5. Zone (C-2) and related development provisions of Zoning Ordinance Page 7 of 9 3.2 Areas computed as parking spaces. Areas which may be computed as open or enclosed off- street parking spaces include any private garage, carport, or other area available for parking, other than a street or driveway. However, a driveway within a required front yard for a one- family or two-family residence may count as one parking space, other than a corner lot as provided in article 5, section 1.3. 3.3 Location and ownership of required accessory parking facilities. Required accessory parking spaces, open or enclosed, may be provided upon the same lot as the use to which they are accessory, or elsewhere, provided all spaces therein are located within 150 feet walking distance of such lot. In all cases, such parking spaces shall conform to the regulations of the district in which they are accessory and shall be subject to deed restriction, filed with the city clerk, binding the owner and his heirs and assigns to maintain the required number of spaces available either: (a) Throughout the existence of such use to which they are accessory; or (b) Until such spaces are provided elsewhere. 3.4 Size of spaces. The minimum parking space dimensions shall be at least nine (9) feet in width and at least 18 feet in length. Disabled accessible spaces shall meet ADA requirements. 3.5 Access. Unobstructed access to and from a street shall be provided. Each drive lane shall have at least ten feet of width so that one-way drives have at least ten feet of width and that two- directional drives have two lanes of ten feet each. Unless otherwise specified within this section, access shall be provided by at least one two-directional drive lane or two one-directional drive lanes. 3.6 Drainage and surfacing. (a) All open permanent parking areas and access drives shall be properly drained and all such areas shall be provided with paved asphalt, concrete or other hard, paved, dust-free surface. (b) All permanent parking areas shall be enclosed with upright concrete curbing at least six inches in height. The city planner may relax this requirement for a portion of a parking area when there is a demonstrated need to convey stormwater to a proposed or approved stormwater management area. Curbing shall not be required for loading areas, handicapped access and for parking spaces accessory to a one-family or two-family residence (see also article 6, section 5.3). 3.7 Joint facilities. Required parking spaces, open or enclosed, may be provided in spaces designed to serve, jointly, two or more establishments, whether or not located on the same lot, provided that the number of required spaces in such joint facilities shall be not less than the total required for all such establishments. 3.8 Combined spaces. When any lot contains two or more uses having different parking requirements, the parking requirements for each use shall apply to the extent of that use. Where it can be conclusively demonstrated that one or more such uses will be generating a demand for parking spaces primarily during periods when the other use or uses is not or are not in operation, the planning commission may reduce the total parking spaces required for that use with the least requirement. 34

Ordinance #2024-01 - Amending Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 13 Central Commercial Item 5. Zone (C-2) and related development provisions of Zoning Ordinance Page 8 of 9 (a) Campus Parking Plan. When a new building or building addition is made to a campus involving multiple buildings under common ownership where one or more of the uses will be generating demand for parking when the other use or uses are not in operation, the applicant shall present a campus parking plan as a part of the site development plan that includes an analysis of the parking needs based on the provisions of section 3.8 of this article. 3.9 Adjustments to parking requirements. The planning commission or city planner, according to the type of plan review required by appendix B, zoning, article 10, planning commission, may reduce, in an amount not to exceed 50 percent, the number of parking spaces required when, in the opinion of the commission, it has been demonstrated that the use is adequately served by transportation and parking alternatives, including but not limited to: (a) Site plan proposals within the downtown redevelopment target area, as described in appendix C of the Dover Code of Ordinances, may be granted a 20 percent reduction in the amount of off-street parking normally required, due to the availability of mass transit, municipal parking and existing pedestrian amenities. (b) Designated off-street parking reserved for car pools, van pools, and bicycle parking facilities, in accordance with the following schedule: (1) Each carpool space shall be equivalent to three standard parking spaces. (2) Each vanpool space shall be equivalent to five standard parking spaces. (3) Every group of five bicycle parking spaces shall be equivalent to one standard parking space. (c) Employer participation in a traffic-mitigation plan approved by the Delaware Department of Transportation. (d) Cash-in-lieu of parking contributions toward the capital construction or improvement of municipal parking facilities that are proposed. The cash-in-lieu of parking contribution shall be in a monetary amount equivalent to the estimated cost of construction for the number of standard surface parking spaces for which the reduction is sought. To take advantage of this option, the developer shall submit to the city engineer a cost estimate for the parking requested to be waived. The city engineer shall examine the estimate for accuracy in current prevailing costs of construction at the time of proposal and shall report to the planning commission his/her findings. (e) Proposals involving superior urban design which contribute to an enhanced pedestrian environment and which include such features as pedestrian plazas and pocket-parks, pedestrian-way connections with existing sidewalk systems and community facilities, park benches and other street furniture, mass transit connections and shelters, and landscaping and shade tree plantings. In all areas, except the downtown redevelopment target area, the planning commission or city planner, according to the type of plan review required by appendix B, zoning, article 10, planning commission, may require the development plans to have an area of open space designated where parking could be constructed less than or equal to the number being reduced. In such cases the plan shall bear a note which explains that the petitioner, in accepting a parking reduction, agrees to construct such additional parking as is otherwise required under the provisions of this 35

Ordinance #2024-01 - Amending Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 13 Central Commercial Item 5. Zone (C-2) and related development provisions of Zoning Ordinance Page 9 of 9 appendix, if the planning commission, after a hearing, determines that the reasons for granting said reduction no longer exist. In all such instances where the planning commission determines that the reasons for granting a reduction no longer exist, the owner of record for the subject property for which a reduction was previously granted must construct the parking required to meet the regulations of the city during the next construction season. 3.10 Bicycle parking. Bicycle parking shall be provided for parking spaces at a rate of one bicycle parking space for every 20 parking spaces or a fraction thereof. The planning commission may waive the requirement for the bicycle parking if it is demonstrated that bicycle parking would not be appropriate for safety reasons or due to the nature of the use of the site. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 12 – Definitions be amended to read as follows: Live-work unit: A first floor business use, such as an office, studio, shop, café, service establishment, personal service establishment, or other permitted use in combination with an office and a dwelling unit located above such place of business. A person or persons other than the proprietor of the first floor business may occupy the dwelling unit portion of a Live-work unit. ADOPTED: March 11, 2024 SYNOPSIS This is a series of text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance provisions of the C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and related development provisions. These amendments revise the permitted uses and the conditional uses, add design standards, and revise the bulk standards for height and floor area ratio (FAR) of the C-2 (Central Commercial Zone). There are proposed revisions to other sections of the Zoning Ordinance related to parking requirements and Dumpsters. These text amendments are offered for consideration as part of the implementation of the Transforming Downtown Dover: Capital City 2030 (Transforming Downtown Dover) Plan. (SPONSORS: *) (INITIATION BY THE CITY PLANNER) Actions History: 03/11/2024 - Public Hearing and Final Reading for City Council 02/20/2024 - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation by Planning Commission 01/22/2024 - First Reading and Setting of Public Hearing dates by City Council 01/09/2024 - Introduced at Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative Finance, and Administration Committee 36

Downtown Item 6. Dover Let's talk about Pathways walking and biking in Downtown Dover! There are 3 ways to participate: 1 Chat with us at Dover Days on Saturday, May 4, 2024! 2 Fill out the Survey on Downtown walking & biking! Attend the Loockerman Street Design 3 Charrette on Monday, May 13 - Wednesday, May 15, 2024 (see details below!) https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/J5CV626 What is the Loockerman Street Design Charrette? A design charrette is a series of collaborative meetings, activities, and discussions between residents, business owners, and others in the community to identify needs and brainstorm ideas for improving the street. How can you participate? Attend the public open house and presentation Monday, May 13, at 5:00 pm at the Hive (28 W Loockerman Street) to tell us your vision for Loockerman Street! Eat lunch along Loockerman Street on Wednesday, May 15, and engage with project materials. Or stop by before dinner to learn about charrette outcomes at 5:00 pm at the Hive! There will be raffles and activities throughout the day! Project webpage: https://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/ 37 downtown-dover-pathways/

Downtown Item 6. Dover Pathways Let's talk about Loockerman Street! We are looking for businesses to participate in the Loockerman Street Design Charrette! There will be a meeting on Tuesday, May 14, 2024 at 9:00 am at the Hive (28 W Loockerman) to discuss how we can improve Loockerman Street. What is the Loockerman Street Design Charrette? A design charrette is a series of collaborative meetings, activities, and discussions between residents, business owners, and others in the community to identify needs and brainstorm ideas for improving the street. How can businesses participate? Business owners, employees, property managers, and others are encouraged to attend a meeting on Tuesday, May 14 at 9:00 am at the Hive (28 W Loockerman Street). We will discuss how to improve Loockerman Street to connect patrons with businesses. Also join us for an orientation and corridor walk on Monday, May 13 at 9:30 am. Project webpage: https://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/ 38 downtown-dover-pathways/

Item 6. May 2024 Loockerman Street Design Charrette Agenda Event Details: From Monday, May 13, 2024, through Wednesday, May 15, 2024, we will be hosting a series of collaborative meetings, activities, and discussions between residents, business owners, and others in the community to identify needs and brainstorm ideas for improving Loockerman Street. Activities will be held at the Hive on Loockerman at 28 W Loockerman Street. Legend: Key Stakeholder Event Key Public Event Businesses Meeting Community & Neighborhood Organizations Meeting Agency Meeting Note that drop-ins are welcome during Team Worksession times. Anyone can stop by to chat with the project team and interact with project materials. DAY 1: Understanding the Corridor MONDAY, MAY 13, 2024 Time Activity Venue 9:30 AM Event Orientation The Hive 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM Loockerman Corridor Walk 11:30 AM Street 12:00 PM 12:30 PM Lunch / Break The Hive 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM Team Worksession The Hive 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM Break / No Activities The Hive 4:30 PM 39

Item 6. May 2024 5:00 PM 5:30 PM Public Open House & The Hive 6:00 PM Presentation (5:30 pm) 6:30 PM DAY 2: Reimagining the Corridor TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2024 Time Activity Venue 9:00 AM 9:30 AM Topic Discussion - Businesses The Hive 10:00 AM 10:30 AM Break / Transition Time The Hive 11:00 AM 11:30 AM Topic Discussion - Neighborhoods The Hive 12:00 PM 12:30 PM Lunch / Break The Hive 1:00 PM 1:30 PM Topic Discussion - DelDOT & DART 2:00 PM 2:30 PM Break / Transition Time The Hive 3:00 PM Topic Discussion - City of Dover 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM Team Worksession The Hive 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 40

Item 6. May 2024 DAY 3: Bringing Corridor Ideas to Life WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2024 Time Activity Venue 9:30 AM 10:00 AM Team Worksession The Hive 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM The Hive / 12:30 PM Lunchtime Open House Loockerman 1:00 PM Street 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM Break / No Activities N/A 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM Dinnertime Open House & The Hive 6:00 PM Presentation (5:30 pm) 6:30 PM 41

Item 7. City of Dover ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT Before Dover Historic District Commission May 16, 2024 Project Name: Building at 148 South Bradford Street: Building Demolition Location: West side of South Bradford Street between West Loockerman Street and Reed Street, just north of the Minor Street Alley. 148 South Bradford Street Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-02-25.00-000 Property Owner: Russell and Dee Ann Widder Applicant: Downtown Dover Partnership Present Zoning: C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) H (Historic District Overlay Zone) Present Use: Offices (Previously a single-family home) Proposed Use: Vacant site File Number: HI-24-02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic District Commission will act on an Architectural Review Certificate regarding Demolition of the one-and-half story building located at 148 South Bradford Street. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to H (Historic District Zone). The parcel consists of 0.13 +/- acres of land. The property is located on the west side of S. Bradford Street and slightly north of Minor Street Alley. The owner of the record is Russell and Dee Ann Widder. The applicant is the Downtown Dover Partnership. Property Address: 148 S. Bradford Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-02-25.00-000. The following application for demolition at 148 South Bradford Street is submitted to the Historic District Commission regarding the issuance of the Architectural Review Certificate for a Demolition project. Applications for certain types of construction activity within the Historic District Zone (H) are reviewed by the Historic District Commission for Architectural Review Certification as part of the application review process. The Application is for review under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3.23. See below: 3.23 Architectural review certification by the historic district commission. (A) The historic district commission shall issue architectural review certificates for the construction or demolition of single-family and two-family homes, and nonresidential structures or additions involving a gross floor area of 3,000 square feet or less, after review of the proposed construction P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 42

Item 7. HI-24-02 148 S. Bradford Street: Demolition Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Meeting of May 16, 2024 and after a determination that the construction is in general accordance with the standards set forth in subsection 3.25 below. (B) All applications to the historic district commission for architectural review certification shall be subject to the procedures set forth in subsection 3.26. (C) All decisions of the historic district commission pursuant to this subsection shall be formalized in a written notice of decision. When the commission grants a conditional approval under this subsection, all conditions of approval shall be set forth in writing in the notice of decision. In the event of a denial, the notice of decision shall state the reasons for denial and shall identify all elements of the application found to be contrary to the provisions or intent of this subsection. (D) An applicant may appeal the decision of the historic district commission to the planning commission, and such appeal shall be considered as an architectural review certification application to the planning commission and shall meet all of the requirements set forth in subsection 3.24 and subsection 3.26. The Historic District Commission will act on an Architectural Review Certificate regarding the request for Demolition of the building at 148 S. Bradford Street. Property Information This building is located within a National Register of Historic Places Historic District, specifically the Victorian Dover Historic District. Provided below is the building summary from the building inventory listing found within the National Register nomination completed for the Victorian Dover Historic District (nomination completed 1977-78). K0396.152 – 148 South Bradford Street – 20th Century, 1 ½, 3-bay, frame, bungalow-style dwelling, now used as a doctor’s office; stucco-sheathed; gable roof, dormer, overhang on gable ends with large triangle brackets, hip roof façade dormer; 4/1 sash, Palladian window in gable end, half-round attic window; modern brick porch with iron rail. The property is located within H (Historic District Zone) as established by the City of Dover. A series of historic maps were reviewed by Planning Staff for preliminary information on this block of South Bradford Street. The 1868 Beers Map published by Pomeroy & Beers shows the established street grid and rear alley although the parcel lines may be slightly different. There appears to be a building on the site, with a different size, shape, and orientation. The 1885 Bird’s Eye View of Dover shows a series of residential buildings on this west side of S. Bradford Street and smaller detached structures in rear yards. The series of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps is also a reference source for information on the series of buildings which occupied this property over time. The 1897-1919 Sanborn Maps show a building with a vacant space at the subject site just north of the Monor Street Alley with another building located further north. The 1929 Sanborn Map shows this building present with an accessory structure along the alley and what appears to be a new division of the parcel. (see Attachments at the end of report) According to the tax records for the City of Dover, the Craftsman style stucco clad building at 148 S. Bradford Street was built in 1930. There is a parking lot at the rear of the property that looks to be connected to the parking lot at 150 S. Bradford Street. The accessory structure that was present in the 1929 Sanborn Map is not mentioned in the 1978 inventory for the National Register of Historic Places application. A small open front porch has a low metal railing. 43 2

Item 7. HI-24-02 148 S. Bradford Street: Demolition Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Meeting of May 16, 2024 PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR DEMOLITION The applicant has filed an application for Architectural Review Certification for the demolition of 148 S. Bradford Street. The submission consists of a narrative with attachments including a photo gallery. The project is described below: 1. Demolition of Building: The project involves the demolition of the existing 1 1/2-story stucco clad frame building on the property. The scope of Demolition notes that an asbestos survey will be conducted and the process for demolition and removal of debris. Information on the stabilization of the surfaces following removal of the building listed installation of sand/gravel to fill (to bring to grade). The rear of the existing property is paved for parking with access from a rear alley. The future use of the property is part of the Downtown Dover Partnership’s strategic plan Transforming Downtown Dover: Capital City 2030. This site will be combined with others to create a multi-modal transportation hub to be used for multiple businesses in the area for current and future enhancements to the downtown area. The redevelopment of the site will be subject to a separate review process. Review of DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The subject property is located in the Dover Historic District Zone within the Loockeman Historic Context. The Loockerman Historic Context is described on pages 2-7 through 2-8. Location within the Dover Historic District Zone requires proposals for specific types of construction activities such as new construction, additions to existing buildings, exterior renovations, and demolition of buildings to receive an Architectural Review Certificate. As stated in the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone, an Architectural Review Certificate will be granted for the project “if it is found that the architectural style, general design, height, bulk and setbacks, arrangement location and materials affecting the exterior appearance are generally in harmony with neighboring structures and complementary to the traditional architectural standards of the historic district.” Demolition The proposal for demolition of the building must be reviewed for conformity with the design criteria guidelines found in Chapter 4: New Construction, Additions, Demolition and Relocation. The Design Standards and Guidelines gives guidance to the Historic District Commission by listing specific criteria to be evaluated when considering applications for the demolition of buildings (or portions of buildings) in the historic district (Chapter 4: pages 4-10 to 4-12). These guidelines are summarized below (see Design Standards and Guidelines for the complete text); an excerpt of Chapter 4 is attached. 1. Determine the financial implications of maintaining a property versus demolition. 2. Regardless of economic issues the relative significance of the individual buildings slated for demolition should be evaluated. 3. In development related applications the City should review the schematic plans for the new structures to weigh the virtues of the new structure versus what exists. 44 3

Item 7. HI-24-02 148 S. Bradford Street: Demolition Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Meeting of May 16, 2024 4. Determine the extent of adequate recordation of a property the applicant would be required to complete if demolition were approved. 5. Lots left vacant by demolition should be treated in a manner that is sympathetic to the historic context. The Design Standards and Guidelines note that parking should not be permitted on vacant lots and suggests alternative uses. Also provided is information about development of parking lots (page 3-27) in the Historic District. The Guidelines excerpt for parking lots is as follows: Parking lots are the awkward by-product of a mobile culture. Their incorporation into historic districts is problematic. Parking lots should be screened from the street, their layout should include borders, and islands planted with trees and shrubs to break-up expanses of paved areas. Given any parking lot within the Dover Historic District zone, at least 20% of the area within it should be unpaved and planted. The Applicant, in their narrative, considers the Design Standards and Guidelines for Demolition outlining their reasons for such Demolition request. STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following are the Staff comments and recommendations for this application regarding project activities and an Architectural Review Certificate. 1) The Design Standards and Guidelines outline specific criteria to be evaluated in considering demolition applications (Chapter 4). The following are Staff’s consideration of the criteria for Demolition. a) In this instance, the economic maintenance evaluation of the property individually is not the issue for the applicant, but rather the need for the land to as part of a larger project in the Downtown Dover Partnership plan to revitalize the Downtown area and provide central parking. A central parking area would allow people to park their cars and visit businesses and residences on foot. b) Most of the structures included in the National Register of Historic Places Victorian Dover Historic District were constructed in the mid to late 1800’s. The Victorian Era, by definition, goes from 1820-1914. This building was built after the Victorian Era and along the way has had modifications to keep it current with the times and building code. c) Included in the application is a draft concept of the lots and its future use. However, the redevelopment project is not being reviewed at this time. d) We have not been provided detailed plans or renderings for the multi-modal transportation hub development. Nor have bids gone out for the demolition of the building. An asbestos survey will be initiated when the project can move forward, as required by the building and inspections department. e) The lot is not expected to be left vacant past 2026. 2) While it is not the practice of the Planning Staff to recommend Demolition of a historic building that has been adaptively reused, consideration must be given to the future redevelopment of the area. The building generally has integrity of its form of the Craftsman Style Bungalow. However, improvements to some exterior finishes (i.e. window replacements, doors, and roofing) since its original construction as a house. It became an office prior to 1978 and has functioned as that use since. 45 4

Item 7. HI-24-02 148 S. Bradford Street: Demolition Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Meeting of May 16, 2024 3) Staff notes the opportunities for the relocation of the building could also be an option for consideration. 4) Staff are not aware of any documentation/recordation of the existing building. The Historic District Commission could require additional documentation/recordation of the building if deemed appropriate. a) If demolition is unavoidable then, given the early twentieth century age of the building, the building should also have additional documentation completed in the form of measured drawings of the building’s floor plans. This should include other data gathering on the building’s construction. b) A series of photographs of the building’s exterior and interior should be systematically completed to include keyed location map of photographs. 5) If approval for demolition of the building is granted, Staff recommends the following conditions pertaining to the building demolition and site stabilization. These conditions are presented to improve the project’s compliance with the recommended guidelines for consideration of demolition in the Design Standards and Guidelines and other code provisions: a) A specific timeframe for demolition activities and site stabilization should be established. b) All utilities must be properly capped and/or abandoned. c) Clarify the plan for site stabilization of the site. i) The building footprint area following demolition of the building and removal of the basement foundation walls must be restored to grade. The disturbed area is to include stabilization with topsoil and seeding to establish a grass lawn area. The grass lawn area is to be properly maintained. d) Staff do not recommend installation of solid (opaque) fencing or chain link fencing on the site. If areas need to be segregated on the site, other alternative fence styles may be more appropriate. e) Parking could continue on the paved (rear parking) area only. Stabilization of the building footprint area with gravel is not an approved parking surface even as a temporary measure. ADVISORY COMMENTS: 1) The applicant shall be aware that a Demolition Permit is required to proceed with any demolition activities on the property should Architectural Review Certification be granted for the demolition proposal. The Demolition Permit application must comply with the conditions of approval granted through the Architectural Review Certification process. 2) If major changes and revisions to the project proposal occur, contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Historic District Commission. 3) Any future construction activities such as redevelopment of the site for a building or for an expanded parking facility are subject to additional review processes for permitting and plan review. 46 5

Item 7. HI-24-02 148 S. Bradford Street: Demolition Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Meeting of May 16, 2024 4) If the building is or will be vacant prior to the Demolition, then it may be required to be registered as a Vacant Building with the City under the Vacant Buildings program. Historic District Commission Action Required The Historic District Commission shall consider the Demolition Permit and take action in regard to the Architectural Review Certification for the demolition proposal. The action should reflect consideration of the Design Standards and Guidelines. Attachments: 1) Historical Maps of the property 2) Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone - Excerpts from Chapter 4: New Construction, Additions, Demolition and Relocation. 3) Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone – Excerpt from Chapter 3: Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings. 4) Google Street View photo. 47 6

Item 7. 1868 Pomeroy & Beers Map: 1897 Sanborn Map 48

Item 7. 1919 Sanborn Map 1885 O.H. Bailey & Co Bird’s eye map 49

Item 7. 50

Item 7. Demolition The pressure to demolish buildings within any historic district is a regrettable fact of life. Either through catastrophic damage or through years of neglect, there are and will continue to be situations when a building is deemed beyond repair and "not worth" preserving. As the Dover Historic District continues to attract new residents and businesses, there will be pressure to "make way" for the "progress” that new construction is believed by some to represent. Whereas issues of design guidelines for preservation and new construction are driven by architectural and aesthetic considerations, demolition, especially of repairable structures, is more frequently an economic issue. Indeed, the only other legitimate reason for consideration of demolition is if the building poses a threat to public safety. In considering applications for demolition, especially those based on economic or development considerations, the City must weigh issues beyond matters of architectural appropriateness, for demolition of an historic building in an Historic District is rarely if ever appropriate. Rather, the City must be convinced that all possible means of saving the building have been exhausted. It should be noted that the City of Dover is trying to prevent unnecessary demolition by giving the Historic District Commission the authority to determine when "Demolition by Neglect" is occurring. "Demolition by Neglect" is defined as "improper maintenance or lack of maintenance of a building, structure or object which results in substantial and widespread deterioration of the building, structure or object which threatens the likelihood of preservation, and which presents a threat to the public safety, health and welfare of the immediate community." Once the Historic District Commission determines that a property is in a state of Demolition by Neglect, it can direct the building inspector to take actions under the City's Dangerous Building Code or Housing Code to order repairs. It is the responsibility of all citizens to look for and report instances of Demolition by Neglect to the City of Dover Historic District Commission. The following criteria should be evaluated in considering applications for the demolition of historic buildings within the Dover Historic District: To determine the financial implications of maintaining a property versus demolishing it, the City may ask an applicant to submit documentation pertaining to differential costs, structural soundness, suitability for rehabilitation, estimated market value of the property as is and after renovation for continued use, economic feasibility of rehabilitation, purchase price, income, and cash flow information (relating to the property only) and any other information considered necessary. Regardless of economic issues, the relative significance of the building slated for demolition should be evaluated. If the building is not considered a contributing structure in the District, then its demolition may not be objectionable. If a building is significant, then even a finding of economic hardship may not be sufficient to allow demolition. Some buildings, such as the Richardson mansion, the Parke-Ridgely House, the Rose Cottage, etc., are so significant that extraordinary measures should be made to delay or prevent their demolition. Adaptive reuse of historic buildings is always preferable to demolition and new construction. In development-related applications, the City should review schematic plans for the new structure, in order to help weigh the virtues of the new versus what exists. 82 | P a g e 51

Item 7. Further, in order to provide some slight mitigation of the effects of unavoidable demolition of historic structures within the Dover Historic District, owners should be required to provide adequate recordation of a property. The extent of such recordation would depend on the significance of the property. At the least, archival photographs should be produced for every historic building that is lost to demolition within the District. When the demolition of an extremely significant building is unavoidable, measured drawings should be produced that comply with the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey. Lots left vacant by demolition should be treated in a manner that is sympathetic to the historic context. In the residential and commercial contexts, a 5' high opaque barrier should be constructed at the building line, either a fence or plant materials or both. Parking should not be permitted on vacant lots. Community gardens or parks should be encouraged. Relocation of Existing Buildings Moving historic buildings out of, into or within the Historic District should be discouraged. The removal of historic buildings from the District has the same effect as demolition on the historic character of the District. Moving historic buildings within the District confuses the actual history of the District. Moving historic buildings into the District falsifies the existing historic record by adding a building that does not belong to either time or place. Relocating a building, however, is always preferable to its demolition. 83 | P a g e 52

Item 7. 53

Item 7. 54

Item 7. 55

Item 7. 56

Item 7. 57

Item 7. 58

Item 7. 59

Item 7. 60

Item 7. 61

Item 7. 62

Item 7. 63

Item 7. 64

Item 7. 65

Item 7. 66

Item 7. 67

Item 7. 68

Item 7. 69

Item 7. 70

Item 7. 71

Item 7. 72

Item 7. 73

Item 7. Downtown Dover Partnership Main Street Dover 101 W. Loockerman Street, Ste 2B Dover, DE 19904 (302)678-2940 April 22, 2024 To: Members of the City of Dover Historic District Review Commission (May 16 meeting) Re: 148 S. Bradford St., Dover, DE The Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) seeks an Architectural Review Certificate for 148 S. Bradford St. The DDP acknowledges and values this historic building, as well as the historic context of which this building is a part. Nevertheless, a larger initiative is underway that will require demolition of this property: The Capital City 2030: Transforming Downtown Dover! master plan (“the Plan”). The Downtown Dover Partnership has led development of The Plan, the goal of which is to transform downtown Dover into a thriving residential, cultural, and business district with recreational, arts and music amenities, as well as a multi-modal transportation hub. The plan was created through significant community engagement and has been supported by a broad range of public and private entities, as well as non-profits and individuals. Most recently the Governor committed $25M toward two projects to kick-start the transformation. The property that has been identified for the public transportation hub is comprised of two existing parcels (city and DDP-owned, respectively) and requires the adjacent parcel of 148 S. Governor’s Ave. to complete the land massing for the structure. We ask that members of the committee be assured that The Plan will not only set the stage for a strong, sustainable future for the downtown business district and neighboring communities of Dover for years to come, but will also ensure that the Downtown Dover Historic Victorian district maintains a majority of its assets, character, and intrinsic value throughout the encompassing transformation that is associated with The Plan. The DDP appreciates the committee’s thoughtful consideration for the proposed demolition. Sincerely, Diane Laird Executive Director CC: DDP Board of Directors 74

Item 8. City of Dover ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT Before Dover Historic District Commission May 16, 2024 Project Name: Building at 150 South Bradford Street: Building Demolition Location: West side of South Bradford Street between West Loockerman Street and Reed Street, just north of the Minor Street Alley. 150 South Bradford Street Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-02-27.00-000 Property Owner: CEI Properties Applicant: Downtown Dover Partnership Present Zoning: C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) H (Historic District Overlay Zone) Present Use: Offices (Previously a single-family home) Proposed Use: Vacant site File Number: HI-24-03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic District Commission will act on an Architectural Review Certificate regarding Demolition of the 2 ½ story frame building located at 150 South Bradford Street. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to H (Historic District Zone). The parcel consists of 0.17 +/- acres of land. The property is located on the west side of S. Bradford Street and north of Minor Street Alley. The owner of the record is CEI Properties. The applicant is the Downtown Dover Partnership. Property Address: 150 S. Bradford Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05- 077.09-02-27.00-000. The following application for demolition at 150 South Bradford Street is submitted to the Historic District Commission regarding the issuance of the Architectural Review Certificate for a Demolition project. Applications for certain types of construction activity within the Historic District Zone (H) are reviewed by the Historic District Commission for Architectural Review Certification as part of the application review process. The Application is for review under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3.23. See below: 3.23 Architectural review certification by the historic district commission. (A) The historic district commission shall issue architectural review certificates for the construction or demolition of single-family and two-family homes, and nonresidential structures or additions involving a gross floor area of 3,000 square feet or less, after review of the proposed construction P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 75

Item 8. HI-24-03 150 S. Bradford Street: Demolition Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Meeting of May 16, 2024 and after a determination that the construction is in general accordance with the standards set forth in subsection 3.25 below. (B) All applications to the historic district commission for architectural review certification shall be subject to the procedures set forth in subsection 3.26. (C) All decisions of the historic district commission pursuant to this subsection shall be formalized in a written notice of decision. When the commission grants a conditional approval under this subsection, all conditions of approval shall be set forth in writing in the notice of decision. In the event of a denial, the notice of decision shall state the reasons for denial and shall identify all elements of the application found to be contrary to the provisions or intent of this subsection. (D) An applicant may appeal the decision of the historic district commission to the planning commission, and such appeal shall be considered as an architectural review certification application to the planning commission and shall meet all of the requirements set forth in subsection 3.24 and subsection 3.26. The Historic District Commission will act on an Architectural Review Certificate regarding the request for Demolition of the building at 150 S. Bradford Street. Property Information This building is located within a National Register of Historic Places Historic District, specifically the Victorian Dover Historic District. Provided below is the building summary from the building inventory listing found within the National Register nomination completed for the Victorian Dover Historic District (nomination completed 1977-78). K0396.151 – 150 South Bradford Street - Late-19th century, 2-story, 5-bay, single family dwelling; gable roof; single-bay 2nd floor projection at the center of the facade; gable roof, full return; 6/1 sash; facade porch, fluted columns, Ionic capitals, balustrade; converted into double-dwelling in 1966. The property is located within H (Historic District Zone) as established by the City of Dover. A series of historic maps were reviewed by Planning Staff for preliminary information on this block of South Bradford Street. The 1868 Beers Map published by Pomeroy & Beers shows the established street grid and rear alley although the parcel lines may be slightly different. There appears to be a building on the site with a different size and shape. The 1885 Bird’s Eye View of Dover shows a series of residential buildings on this west side of S. Bradford Street and smaller detached structures in rear yards. The series of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps is also a reference source for information on the series of buildings which occupied this property over time. The 1897-1919 Sanborn Maps show a building at the subject site with a growing footprint as rear additions were made. The accessory structure in the rear changed between 1897 and 1919. Between 1919 and 1929, the accessory structure was also enlarged. Staff believes this structure first presented in the 1897 Sanborn Map to be the structure that is present today. (see Attachments at the end of report) According to the tax records for the City of Dover, the shingle clad building at 150 S. Bradford Street was built in 1930 (appears to be an inaccurate estimation). There is a parking lot at the rear of the property that looks to be connected to the parking lot at 148 S. Bradford Street. The accessory structure that was present in the 1929 Sanborn Map is not mentioned in the 1978 inventory for the National Register of Historic Places application. 76 2

Item 8. HI-24-03 150 S. Bradford Street: Demolition Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Meeting of May 16, 2024 PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR DEMOLITION The applicant has filed an application for Architectural Review Certification for the demolition of 150 S. Bradford Street. The submission consists of a narrative with attachments including a photo gallery. The project is described below: 1. Demolition of Building: The project involves the demolition of the existing 2 1/2-story shingle clad frame building on the property. The scope of Demolition notes that an asbestos survey will be conducted and the process for demolition and removal of debris. Information on the stabilization of the surfaces following removal of the building listed installation of sand/gravel to fill (to bring to grade). The rear of the existing property is paved for parking with access from a rear alley. The future use of the property is part of the Downtown Dover Partnership’s strategic plan Transforming Downtown Dover: Capital City 2030. This site will be combined with others to create a multi-modal transportation hub to be used for multiple businesses in the area for current and future enhancements to the downtown area. The redevelopment of the site will be subject to a separate review process. Review of DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The subject property is located in the Dover Historic District Zone within the Loockeman Historic Context. The Loockerman Historic Context is described on pages 2-7 through 2-8. Location within the Dover Historic District Zone requires proposals for specific types of construction activities such as new construction, additions to existing buildings, exterior renovations, and demolition of buildings to receive an Architectural Review Certificate. As stated in the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone, an Architectural Review Certificate will be granted for the project “if it is found that the architectural style, general design, height, bulk and setbacks, arrangement location and materials affecting the exterior appearance are generally in harmony with neighboring structures and complementary to the traditional architectural standards of the historic district.” Demolition The proposal for demolition of the building must be reviewed for conformity with the design criteria guidelines found in Chapter 4: New Construction, Additions, Demolition and Relocation. The Design Standards and Guidelines gives guidance to the Historic District Commission by listing specific criteria to be evaluated when considering applications for the demolition of buildings (or portions of buildings) in the historic district (Chapter 4: pages 4-10 to 4-12). These guidelines are summarized below (see Design Standards and Guidelines for the complete text); an excerpt of Chapter 4 is attached. 1. Determine the financial implications of maintaining a property versus demolition. 2. Regardless of economic issues the relative significance of the individual buildings slated for demolition should be evaluated. 3. In development related applications the City should review the schematic plans for the new structures to weigh the virtues of the new structure versus what exists. 77 3

Item 8. HI-24-03 150 S. Bradford Street: Demolition Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Meeting of May 16, 2024 4. Determine the extent of adequate recordation of a property the applicant would be required to complete if demolition were approved. 5. Lots left vacant by demolition should be treated in a manner that is sympathetic to the historic context. The Design Standards and Guidelines note that parking should not be permitted on vacant lots and suggests alternative uses. Also provided is information about development of parking lots (page 3-27) in the Historic District. The Guidelines excerpt for parking lots is as follows: Parking lots are the awkward by-product of a mobile culture. Their incorporation into historic districts is problematic. Parking lots should be screened from the street, their layout should include borders, and islands planted with trees and shrubs to break-up expanses of paved areas. Given any parking lot within the Dover Historic District zone, at least 20% of the area within it should be unpaved and planted. The Applicant, in their narrative, considers the Design Standards and Guidelines for Demolition outlining their reasons for such Demolition request. STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following are the Staff comments and recommendations for this application regarding project activities and an Architectural Review Certificate. 1) The Design Standards and Guidelines outline specific criteria to be evaluated in considering demolition applications (Chapter 4). The following are Staff’s consideration of the criteria for Demolition. a) In this instance, the economic maintenance evaluation of the property individually is not the issue for the applicant, but rather the need for the land to as part of a larger project in the Downtown Dover Partnership plan to revitalize the Downtown area and provide central parking. A central parking area would allow people to park their cars and visit businesses and residences on foot. b) The structure of this property has been through several changes over the years. First from single family home, to duplex, to commercial use. The style was adapted by the owners at the time of renovations. If the structure present today is the same structure as the one present in the 1885 O.H. Bailey & Co Bird’s eye map, the projecting upper level in the middle bay was not present. The fish scale shingles on the attic level and the diamond shaped window are not mentioned in the 1979 description in the inventory of the National Register of Historic Places. This structure seems to be a combination of many styles that have evolved over its lifespan and not a significant representation of the time frame for the Victorian era. c) Included in the application is a draft concept of the lots and its future use. However, the redevelopment project is not being reviewed at this time. d) We have not been provided detailed plans or renderings for the multi-modal transportation hub development. Nor have bids gone out for the demolition of the building. An asbestos survey will be initiated when the project can move forward, as required by the building and inspections department. e) The lot is not expected to be left vacant past 2026. 78 4

Item 8. HI-24-03 150 S. Bradford Street: Demolition Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Meeting of May 16, 2024 2) While it is not the practice of the Planning Staff to recommend Demolition of a historic building that has been adaptively reused, consideration must be given to the future redevelopment of the area. The building generally is a historic structure, though not a representative of a specific style. However, improvements to some exterior finishes (i.e. window replacements, exterior finishes, porch renovations, front decking addition, various building additions, doors, and roofing) since its original construction as a houseAt some point, it became an office use. 3) Staff notes the opportunities for the relocation of the building could also be an option for consideration. 4) Staff are not aware of any documentation/recordation of the existing building. The Historic District Commission could require additional documentation/recordation of the building if deemed appropriate. a) If demolition is unavoidable then, given the late nineteenth century age of the building, the building should also have additional documentation completed in the form of measured drawings of the building’s floor plans. This should include other data gathering on the building’s construction. b) A series of photographs of the building’s exterior and interior should be systematically completed to include keyed location map of photographs. 5) If approval for demolition of the building is granted, Staff recommends the following conditions pertaining to the building demolition and site stabilization. These conditions are presented to improve the project’s compliance with the recommended guidelines for consideration of demolition in the Design Standards and Guidelines and other code provisions: a) A specific timeframe for demolition activities and site stabilization should be established. b) All utilities must be properly capped and/or abandoned. c) Clarify the plan for site stabilization of the site. i) The building footprint area following demolition of the building and removal of the basement foundation walls must be restored to grade. The disturbed area is to include stabilization with topsoil and seeding to establish a grass lawn area. The grass lawn area is to be properly maintained. d) Staff do not recommend installation of solid (opaque) fencing or chain link fencing on the site. If areas need to be segregated on the site, other alternative fence styles may be more appropriate. e) Parking could continue on the paved (rear parking) area only. Stabilization of the building footprint area with gravel is not an approved parking surface even as a temporary measure. ADVISORY COMMENTS: 1) The applicant shall be aware that a Demolition Permit is required to proceed with any demolition activities on the property should Architectural Review Certification be granted for the demolition proposal. The Demolition Permit application must comply with the conditions of approval granted through the Architectural Review Certification process. 2) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the project proposal occur, contact the 79 5

Item 8. HI-24-03 150 S. Bradford Street: Demolition Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Meeting of May 16, 2024 Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Historic District Commission. 3) Any future construction activities such as redevelopment of the site for a building or for an expanded parking facility are subject to additional review processes for permitting and plan review. 4) If the building is or will be vacant prior to the Demolition, then it may be required to be registered as a Vacant Building with the City under the Vacant Buildings program. Historic District Commission Action Required The Historic District Commission shall consider the Demolition Permit and take action in regards to the Architectural Review Certification for the demolition proposal. The action should reflect consideration of the Design Standards and Guidelines. Attachments: 1) Historical Maps of the property 2) Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone - Excerpts from Chapter 4: New Construction, Additions, Demolition and Relocation. 3) Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone – Excerpt from Chapter 3: Maintenance, Repair, Preservation and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings. 4) Google Street View photo. 80 6

Item 8. 1868 Pomeroy & Beers Map: 1897 Sanborn Map 81

Item 8. 1919 Sanborn Map 1885 O.H. Bailey & Co Bird’s eye map 82

Item 8. 83

Item 8. 84

Item 8. Demolition The pressure to demolish buildings within any historic district is a regrettable fact of life. Either through catastrophic damage or through years of neglect, there are and will continue to be situations when a building is deemed beyond repair and "not worth" preserving. As the Dover Historic District continues to attract new residents and businesses, there will be pressure to "make way" for the "progress” that new construction is believed by some to represent. Whereas issues of design guidelines for preservation and new construction are driven by architectural and aesthetic considerations, demolition, especially of repairable structures, is more frequently an economic issue. Indeed, the only other legitimate reason for consideration of demolition is if the building poses a threat to public safety. In considering applications for demolition, especially those based on economic or development considerations, the City must weigh issues beyond matters of architectural appropriateness, for demolition of an historic building in an Historic District is rarely if ever appropriate. Rather, the City must be convinced that all possible means of saving the building have been exhausted. It should be noted that the City of Dover is trying to prevent unnecessary demolition by giving the Historic District Commission the authority to determine when "Demolition by Neglect" is occurring. "Demolition by Neglect" is defined as "improper maintenance or lack of maintenance of a building, structure or object which results in substantial and widespread deterioration of the building, structure or object which threatens the likelihood of preservation, and which presents a threat to the public safety, health and welfare of the immediate community." Once the Historic District Commission determines that a property is in a state of Demolition by Neglect, it can direct the building inspector to take actions under the City's Dangerous Building Code or Housing Code to order repairs. It is the responsibility of all citizens to look for and report instances of Demolition by Neglect to the City of Dover Historic District Commission. The following criteria should be evaluated in considering applications for the demolition of historic buildings within the Dover Historic District: To determine the financial implications of maintaining a property versus demolishing it, the City may ask an applicant to submit documentation pertaining to differential costs, structural soundness, suitability for rehabilitation, estimated market value of the property as is and after renovation for continued use, economic feasibility of rehabilitation, purchase price, income, and cash flow information (relating to the property only) and any other information considered necessary. Regardless of economic issues, the relative significance of the building slated for demolition should be evaluated. If the building is not considered a contributing structure in the District, then its demolition may not be objectionable. If a building is significant, then even a finding of economic hardship may not be sufficient to allow demolition. Some buildings, such as the Richardson mansion, the Parke-Ridgely House, the Rose Cottage, etc., are so significant that extraordinary measures should be made to delay or prevent their demolition. Adaptive reuse of historic buildings is always preferable to demolition and new construction. In development-related applications, the City should review schematic plans for the new structure, in order to help weigh the virtues of the new versus what exists. 82 | P a g e 85

Item 8. Further, in order to provide some slight mitigation of the effects of unavoidable demolition of historic structures within the Dover Historic District, owners should be required to provide adequate recordation of a property. The extent of such recordation would depend on the significance of the property. At the least, archival photographs should be produced for every historic building that is lost to demolition within the District. When the demolition of an extremely significant building is unavoidable, measured drawings should be produced that comply with the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey. Lots left vacant by demolition should be treated in a manner that is sympathetic to the historic context. In the residential and commercial contexts, a 5' high opaque barrier should be constructed at the building line, either a fence or plant materials or both. Parking should not be permitted on vacant lots. Community gardens or parks should be encouraged. Relocation of Existing Buildings Moving historic buildings out of, into or within the Historic District should be discouraged. The removal of historic buildings from the District has the same effect as demolition on the historic character of the District. Moving historic buildings within the District confuses the actual history of the District. Moving historic buildings into the District falsifies the existing historic record by adding a building that does not belong to either time or place. Relocating a building, however, is always preferable to its demolition. 83 | P a g e 86

Item 8. 87

Item 8. 88

Item 8. 89

Item 8. 90

Item 8. 91

Item 8. 92

Item 8. 93

Item 8. 94

Item 8. 95

Item 8. 96

Item 8. 97

Item 8. 98

Item 8. 99

Item 8. 100

Item 8. 101

Item 8. 102

Item 8. 103

Item 8. 104

Item 8. 105

Item 8. Downtown Dover Partnership Main Street Dover 101 W. Loockerman Street, Ste 2B Dover, DE 19904 (302)678-2940 April 22, 2024 To: Members of the City of Dover Historic District Review Commission (May 16, 2024 meeting) Re: 148 S. Bradford St., Dover, DE The Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) seeks an Architectural Review Certificate for 150 S. Bradford St. The DDP acknowledges and values this historic building, as well as the historic context of which this building is a part. Nevertheless, a larger initiative is underway that will require demolition of this property: The Capital City 2030: Transforming Downtown Dover! master plan (“the Plan”). The Downtown Dover Partnership has led development of The Plan, the goal of which is to transform downtown Dover into a thriving residential, cultural, and business district with recreational, arts and music amenities, as well as a multi-modal transportation hub. The plan was created through significant community engagement and has been supported by a broad range of public and private entities, as well as non-profits and individuals. Most recently the Governor committed $25M toward two projects to kick-start the transformation. The property that has been identified for the public transportation hub is comprised of two existing parcels (city and DDP-owned, respectively) and requires the adjacent parcel of 150 S. Governor’s Ave. to complete the land massing for the structure. We ask that members of the committee be assured that The Plan will not only set the stage for a strong, sustainable future for the downtown business district and neighboring communities of Dover for years to come, but will also ensure that the Downtown Dover Historic Victorian district maintains a majority of its assets, character, and intrinsic value throughout the encompassing transformation that is associated with The Plan. The DDP appreciates the committee’s thoughtful consideration for the proposed demolition. Sincerely, Diane Laird Executive Director CC: DDP Board of Directors 106

Item 9. City of Dover ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT Before Dover Historic District Commission May 20, 2024 Application: Legislative Hall Parking Garage, HI-24-04 Owner: State of Delaware Location: East side of East Avenue at intersection with Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard South Addresses: 425 East Avenue (project location) and 150 E. Water Street (existing building) Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.10-01-02.00-000 Size: 5.59 acres +/- Present Uses: Parking Lot with Office/Bank with Drive thru Building Proposed Use: Parking Garage Structure with Office/Bank with Drive thru Building Present Zoning: IO (Institutional and Office Zone H (Historic District Zone) For Consideration: Architectural Review Certification Item: I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic District Commission will act on a recommendation for an Architectural Review Certificate for a Site Development Plan Application for a new Parking Garage for Legislative Hall to be located at the corner of East Avenue/E. Water Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard South. The proposal includes a three-story, 42,500 SF Parking Garage with 335 vehicle parking spaces and other site improvements. The 5.59 +/- acre property includes an existing surface parking lot and an office/credit union building (to remain). The property is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and is subject to H (Historic District Zone). The property is located at the southeast corner of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard South and East Avenue/E. Water Street. The owner of record is the State of Delaware. Property Address: 425 East Avenue and existing building addressed as 150 E. Water Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.10-01-02.00-000. Council District 2. Surrounding Land Uses This subject property location at the corner of East Avenue/E. Water Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard South is part of the Capital Complex where multiple State buildings and offices are located. The Del-One Credit Union Building with its drive-thru is located south of the project site but on the same property. Across the street to the north is Legislative Hall and to the west P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service 107

Item 9. HI-24-04 Legislative Hall Parking Garage Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission May 20, 2024 Meeting Page 2 of 7 across the street is the Tatnall Building (offices). Surrounding properties are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) with other open space areas like the Legislative Mall area zoned ROS (Recreational and Open Space Zone). The surrounding properties on the west side of the St. Jones River are within the H (Historic Zone). Previous Applications The initial Building and surface parking lot on the property were constructed in the late 1950s- early 1960s (in place by 1961). The more recent applications at this site were for the expansion of the OMB/DFM DFCU surface parking lot starting in 2005. An Administrative Site Plan was reviewed for the Phase 1 expansion of the parking lot (S-05-40) involving the restriping of the existing paved area and the addition of 4,516 S.F. to achieve a total of ten (10) additional spaces on the north side of the building. The Phase 2 expansion of the parking lot to permit the construction of a 105 space surface parking expansion to the east of the building was reviewed in 2006 under applications HI-06-01 and S-06-04. Application HI-07-01 and S-07-19 involved the Del-One Credit Union Drive-thru Expansion and building entrance improvements. That project application reconfigured the drive-thru to consist of four lanes including a drive-up ATM. The drive-thru is covered by a canopy spanning from the existing building to the new brick enclosure for the ATM. II. HISTORIC PROPERTY INFORMATION Review of Historic Maps A series of historic maps were reviewed by Planning Staff for preliminary information on the area and found that the area was predominately open space with scattered buildings until the 1930s when the new Legislative Hal was constructed and the street network that we know today begins to be constructed as the Capital Complex area developed. Property Information This property is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The property is located within H (Historic District Zone) as established by the City of Dover. The eastern property line of this property is the St. Jones River. The eastern portions of the property are located within the Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year floodplain/ 1% Annual Chance Flood) where development and impervious surface is limited. III. PROJECT PROPOSAL PROJECT PROPOSAL (Submission of April 2024): The application proposes construction of a Parking Garage Structure and other site improvements for the development of the Legislative Hall Parking Garage. This is an initial step in a larger project being planned for a future building addition to Legislative Hall (not under review with this submission). The project location is the surface parking lot located to the north of the existing brick building (Capitol Police and Del-One Credit Union Offices) located on the site. The Applicant submission includes a Design Narrative, series of site plan graphics, building elevations, and 3-D views, and schematic building footprint/site plan and architectural drawings. The elements of the project are as follows: 108

Item 9. HI-24-04 Legislative Hall Parking Garage Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission May 20, 2024 Meeting Page 3 of 7 1. Parking Garage Structure: The Parking Garage Structure is located at the southeast corner of East Avenue/E. Water Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard South. The structure is being designed to consist of 97 restricted access parking spots and 238 public parking spaces. The 3-story structure is predominately brick and rises to a roof ridge height of 55 feet. The west, north, and east elevations are very building-like in appearance hiding the ramped parking decks within. Vehicle access to the garage is via two entry access points from East Avenue/E. Water Street on its west elevation. The architecture of the Parking Garage is brick with window-like openings with keystone headers and trimwork surrounds, a series of dormer windows on the hipped roof in a concrete tile and turned gable roof elements. It is similar to Colonial Revival style seen in the Legislative Hall Building and the surrounding Capital complex buildings. The hipped roof of the garage structure will obscure the uppermost level of parking and is proposed to include solar panels on the southeast roof slope (side facing Credit Union Building). 2. Sidewalks: The street frontage sidewalks along the project site will continue to be brick paving to match existing sidewalks in the surrounding area. Additional traffic control/identification measures are planned for crosswalk striping. A more detailed crosswalk at streel level will cross Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard South towards Legislative Hall and include landscape planter boxes and alternative surface materials of brick pavers and concrete. 3. Tree Planting and Landscaping: The project shows some street tree plantings and grass areas between the curb and sidewalk and grass/landscaping between the sidewalk and building face. These areas also include light pole and wall mounted light fixtures as well. 4. Other Items: For the equipment compound area, it is partially enclosed by a brick wall at the northeast corner of the garage building. The compound where a generator and fuel tank equipment will be placed. A portion of the existing surface parking lot is proposed to remain on the northeast and southeast sides of the Parking Structure. This area is currently shown to be reached by a new access drive off the existing drive-thru circulation drive. Additional review and consideration will be necessary as this access drive appears to be located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. See the attached Design Narrative and associated graphics and drawings for detailed information on building dimensions, locations, and material choices. IV. ZONING REVIEW The entire project site is located in the H (Historic District Zone) and subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §21 and referenced sections. Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §3.2 outlines the review process for Architectural Review Certification and related building height, bulk, and setback standards. 109

Item 9. HI-24-04 Legislative Hall Parking Garage Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission May 20, 2024 Meeting Page 4 of 7 The subject project area is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) The IO zone allows the use for public and institutional building and makes the development subject to provisions of regulations the IO zone. A parking structure would be considered an allowable use. The IO zoning district has a front yard setback of 10 feet; please confirm if the building placement is meeting this requirement as the Historic District Commission can consider alternatives (narrative says that it is but site plan drawing is difficult to read). Review of DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The subject property is located in the Dover Historic District Zone within the Capitol Square Historic Context. The Capitol Square Context is described on pages 2-8 and 2-9. Location within the Dover Historic District Zone requires proposals for demolition, new construction, additions, and certain renovation or rehabilitation activities to existing buildings to receive an Architectural Review Certificate. As stated in the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone, an Architectural Review Certificate will be granted “if it is found that the architectural style, general design, height, bulk and setbacks, arrangement location and materials affecting the exterior appearance are generally in harmony with neighboring structures and complementary to the traditional architectural standards of the historic district.” In accordance with Article 10 §3.2, the Historic District Commission will provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the project’s compliance with the architectural review standards. This proposal must be reviewed for conformity with the design criteria guidelines found in Chapter 4: New Construction, Additions, Demolition and Relocation. Information on the review considerations is given below. New Construction The Design Standards and Guidelines for New Construction (Chapter 4: pages 4-1 through 4-8) provide the design criteria and development guidelines. The guidelines specify the following individual considerations for new construction to be considered in the review by the Historic District Commission (and Planning Commission) of the project for Architectural Review Certification: • Style • Scale (building to reflect dominant cornice and roof height of adjacent buildings) • Elevation of the First Floor • Floor-to-Floor heights • Bays, windows, and doors (size, relationship, spacing of) • Absolute Size (compare overall size of new building) • Massing (relationship of solid-to-void) • Orientation (location of primary façade) • Proportions (comparison of height to width of building and elements) • Materials • Forms (shape of building and roof to be complementary) • Siting (location of building on lot and in relation to street) 110

Item 9. HI-24-04 Legislative Hall Parking Garage Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission May 20, 2024 Meeting Page 5 of 7 • High density/ large-scale construction The proposed project must also be reviewed for compliance with the standards established by the Zoning Ordinance. The standards include items such as setbacks from property lines, lot coverage, height, etc. This Proposal for the new Parking Structure appears to conform to most of the bulk requirements of the IO Zoning District. The City of Dover Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Historic District Commission to waive certain bulk standards when issuing its recommendation to the Planning Commission for an Architectural Review Certificate if necessary. STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following are Staff comments and recommendations for this application regarding project activities and Architectural Review Certification. 1) Staff recommends conditional approval of the Architectural Review Certificate for the construction of the Parking Garage Structure project finding that the building to be of a compatible design with the nearby buildings and with the intent of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone and with its recommendations for large-scale development in Capital Complex Historic Context. The proposed Parking Structure is oriented to the corner and sited to bring the building close to the street/sidewalk creating a scale in proportion to the pedestrian and also to other nearby buildings. Its brick exterior finishes and detailing with building elements and sectioned wall surfaces break-up the expanse of the building elevations. but reflective of the architectural styles seen in the government buildings in the Capital Complex. It is very building-like in its exterior appearance, design and detailing while the parking deck ramp system is hidden within its walls. 2) The following conditions are recommended by Staff to improve the project’s compliance with the recommended guidelines of the Design Standards and Guidelines. The following are recommended conditions: a. The selected brick choices should be compatible to the brick of other existing buildings in the area. b. Utilize black posts for any signage elements to be attached to posts i.e., handicapped parking signage and any traffic control signs. c. Signage identifying the Parking Garage is integrated into the building as part of a sign band area in a cornice line. However, consideration of any free standing signage may require additional review. d. Any light fixtures/poles utilized on the property for site lighting should utilize a black finish color. Light fixtures/poles continue style of the lighting used in the nearby areas of the Historic District. e. Ensure proposed trees are appropriate to urban planting settings along streets. Clarify where trees and landscaping are to be planted as the architectural renderings f. Any revisions or changes in the identified materials may be subject to further review by the Historic District Commission. 111

Item 9. HI-24-04 Legislative Hall Parking Garage Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission May 20, 2024 Meeting Page 6 of 7 3) Some of the site improvements/amenities were not specifically described or had limited information within the application information. Please provide information for consideration and discussion. a. Based on the number of parking spaces (rate of 1 bicycle space per 20 vehicle spaces), the property will be required to provide bicycle parking spaces. The bicycle parking rack should be black in finish color and of a decorative style if placed on the exterior of the structure. b. The location of the sidewalk along the street frontages must be evaluated with sidewalk construction standards as sidewalk placement typically includes a grass area along the curb line setting the sidewalk back from the curb. The minimum width of the sidewalk is five feet but may be greater. 4) The following items should be clarified regarding the building designs. a. Identify brick material (size, form, etc.) and patterning. b. Clarify screening methods for the equipment compound area. c. Clarify format of the long band opening on the southeast side of the Parking Garage Structure. 5) Staff notes that the project location (building and site) may be an opportunity for the incorporation of public art projects. 6) Staff recommends the following pertaining to the site design elements of the project: a. The sidewalk system on the street frontage should continue and include barrier free access, crosswalk striping, etc. at the points of intersection with the entrance and exit drive aisles. b. Any proposed landscaping or tree planting locations, and lighting fixture locations should be depicted on the plan and maintain the character and type of these elements as they exist with the Capitol Complex area. 7) Compliance with the floodplain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance is required. The access drive to the remaining surface parking lot area appears to be planned within the Special Flood Hazard Area. The Zoning Ordinance limits development in the Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year floodplain). Either redesign to remove this impervious surface from the SFHA or an application for a variance (to the City’s Board of Adjustment) will be required. 8) For building construction, the requirements of the building code or fire code must be complied with. Consult with the Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshal for these requirements. The resolution of these items can impact the site design in some cases. 9) In the event that major changes and revisions to the design, materials, or site layout occur in the finalization of the plan and/or construction drawings contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Historic District Commission. 10) This site development plan for this project is also subject to the application and review 112

Item 9. HI-24-04 Legislative Hall Parking Garage Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission May 20, 2024 Meeting Page 7 of 7 process for Site Development Plan (Article 10 §2 of the Zoning Ordinance) before the Planning Commission. Note: Additional technical items for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and other regulations may be identified during the Site Plan Process. Review comments pertaining specifically to the Site Plan set will be issued at that time. 11) The applicant shall be aware that Building Permits are required to proceed with any construction activities on the project site. The permit applications must comply with the approvals and conditions granted through the Architectural Review Certification and Site Plan Review process. 12) The applicant should be aware that a Sign Permit is required to proceed with the placement of signage on the property. Historic District Commission Action Required The Historic District Commission shall consider the proposal and provide a recommendation in regard to the Architectural Review Certification for the Parking Garage Structure and associated Site Improvements. The recommendation should reflect consideration of the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. 113

Item 9. From: Gabriel Cheung, NCARB, LEED-AP, ALEP 2500 Wrangle Hill Road, Suite 110 Bear, DE 19701 cheungg@StudioJAED.com To: Department of Planning & Inspections City of Dover PO BOX 475 Dover, DE 19903 Date: April 12, 2024 Re: Legislative Hall Parking Garage – Design Narrative The project is the new construction of a 3-story, 42,500 sq. ft. parking garage at the corner of East Water St. and Martin Luther King (MLK) Jr. Blvd, across from Legislative Hall, Tatnall Building, and Del-One Credit Union. There is an existing surface parking lot located on the current site, that services the adjacent Del-One Credit Union, Capitol Police, and State employees and visitors to state agencies. The proposed parking garage serves the legislators, especially during session, and the general public. There will be 97 restricted access parking spots for legislators, and a 238 public parking spots for a total of 335 parking spots. The architecture of the Legislative Hall Parking Garage directly borrows the aesthetic of Legislative Hall, which was built in the Colonial Revival style. Some characteristics of architecture include the following: • Building symmetry • Hipped and gable roofs • Double-hung windows, with decorative keystone • Brick • Dormers • Dentil crown molding • Tile roofing Site Brick paving will be used on the sidewalk to match the existing sidewalks throughout the surrounding areas at the Legislative Mall. We are abiding by the 10’ setback requirement at E-Water St and MLK Jr. Blvd. There will be green space between the sidewalk and the face of the building, with low-growing shrubs and plants. Site elements including light poles and wall sconces, in period style, are proposed. There is a proposed crosswalk between Legislative Hall and the parking garage, approximately 75’ northeast of the intersection at MLK Jr Blvd and East Water Street. The crosswalk will be level with the street and will be identified with brick pavers and concrete. All materials and signage shall meet DelDOT standards. There are brick planter boxes with cast stone coping on each side of MLK Jr Blvd, with trees and low-growing shrubs and plants. There will be careful consideration of the trees and plants used so as to not block visibility for vehicles and pedestrians alike. There is a proposed access road from the existing banking drive-thru road at Del-One Credit Union to surface parking at the rear of the parking garage. Parking is for Capitol Police and maintenance of the 114

Department of Planning & Inspections City of Dover Item 9. Legislative Hall Parking Garage – Design Narrative April 12, 2024 generator and fuel tank that will serve Legislative Hall, the future addition, and the parking garage. The generator and fuel tank will be located behind a brick wall that will minimize the visual impact from MLK Jr. Blvd and dampen the noise from the generator. Façade The parking garage façade will be precast architectural concrete with thin brick; color and size to match those at Legislative Hall. We are also matching the brick water table on the ground floor. The use of decorative concrete medallions and dentil crown molding under the eave is a nod to colonial-style throughout Dover. The elevation along Del-One Credit Union has a unique treatment from the other three building faces. The structural system is partially precast concrete columns with precast concrete panels spanning the columns. This allows for a greater amount of openness on the exterior walls, enabling the parking garage to be considered open, utilizing the natural cross ventilation; mechanical ventilation is not required. The elevation is also not visible from any buildings on Legislative Mall. Windows The parking garage window proportions are similar to those at Legislative Hall and Tatnall Building, including the center keystone with soldier course header. There are three types of windows at the parking garage. At the lobby, office, and sprinkler room, there are windows have muntins and glazing. Throughout the open parking garage, most of the windows are frames with muntins and no glazing. At the dormers, the windows are frames with muntins and spandrel glazing. Roof There is a hip roof around the parking garage with a 9:12 slope. The roof material will be concrete tile, which matches the material used at the recently completed roof replacement at Legislative Hall. There is an internal gutter along the perimeter of the roof to a rain collector box and downspout. The dormers are similar in proportion, with concrete tile siding, standing seam metal roof, and white synthetic trim. The roof extends fully above the highest parking garage and vehicles parked there are not visible from any adjacent building. On the east-facing elevation, there will be a solar panel array installed. Sincerely, Gabriel Cheung, NCARB, LEED-AP, ALEP 115

GENERATOR AND FUEL TANK Item 9. WITH BRICK WALL 169'-6" C NEW ACCESS D D ROAD AND SURFACE A PARKING FUTURE SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED CROSSWALK FUTURE ENTRANCE 4 PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE HALL 254'-8" PARKING GARAGE FUTURE DEL-ONE LEGISLATIVE HALL CREDIT UNION ADDITION SYMBOL LEGEND # VIEW # B B A A ELEVATION 5 7 E WATER ST 6 MLK JR BLVD N LEGISLATIVE HALL 3 PEDESTRIAN RESTRICTED PUBLIC ACCESS LEGISLATOR ACCESS 8 C MLK JR BLVD S ACCESS NORTH ARROW E E N 2 TATNALL A BUILDING LEGISLATIVE AVE LEGISLATIVE AVE 1 N SITE PLAN 116

Item 9. DORMER - WINDOW FRAME WITH MUNTINS AND SPANDREL GLASS OPEN WINDOW FRAME WITH MUNTINS - NO GLAZING WINDOW FRAME WITH MUNTINS AND GLAZING 254'-8" 55' 57' PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE HALL PARKING GARAGE TATNALL BUILDING A-A - ELEVATION ALONG MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD S 169'-6" 55' 40' PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RESTRICTED LEGISLATOR ACCESS PUBLIC ACCESS DEL-ONE CREDIT UNION PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE HALL PARKING GARAGE B-B - ELEVATION ALONG E WATER ST 117

Item 9. 254'-8" 52'-5" 61'-5" PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE HALL PARKING GARAGE C-C - ELEVATION ALONG DEL-ONE CREDIT UNION 169'-6" 124' 52'-5" 53'-6" 61'-5" PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE HALL PARKING GARAGE LEGISLATIVE HALL TATNALL BUILDING D-D - ELEVATION ALONG ST. JONES RIVER E-E - ELEVATION ALONG LEGISLATIVE AVE 118

Item 9. LEGISLATIVE HALL TATNALL BUILDING LEGISLATIVE HALL TATNALL BUILDING PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE HALL PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE HALL PARKING GARAGE PARKING GARAGE LEGISLATIVE AVE 1 - VIEW LOOKING ACROSS LEGISLATIVE AVE 2 - VIEW ALONG MLK JR BLVD S LEGISLATIVE HALL PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE HALL PARKING GARAGE TATNALL PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE HALL BUILDING PARKING GARAGE MLK JR BLVD S MLK JR BLVD S PROPOSED CROSSWALK 3 - VIEW FROM LEGISLATIVE HALL ACROSS MLK JR BLVD S 4 - AERIAL VIEW OF CROSSWALK 119

Item 9. PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE HALL TATNALL PARKING GARAGE PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE HALL BUILDING PARKING GARAGE TATNALL BUILDING LEGISLATIVE HALL R ST E WATE EW ATE R ST 5 - VIEW ACROSS E WATER ST LOOKING AT PARKING GARAGE 6 - VIEW ALONG E WATER ST LOOKING AT PARKING GARAGE PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE HALL PARKING GARAGE TATNALL TATNALL BUILDING BUILDING DEL-ONE PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE HALL CREDIT UNION LEGISLATIVE PARKING GARAGE HALL LEGISLATIVE HALL E WA TER S T DEL-ONE CREDIT UNION E WATER ST 8 - VIEW ALONG E WATER ST 8 - VIEW ACROSS E WATER ST 120

THE RECEIVER OF THESE PLANS BY HARD COPY OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION BY USE THEREOF UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES AS FOLLOWS: *THE ELECTRONIC DATA TRANSMITTED ("DATA") MAY BE ALTERED DURING TRANSIT AND TRANSLATION. * JAED CORPORATION DO NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA. * THE RECEIVER WILL COMPARE THE DATA WITH AVAILABLE HARD COPIES. * JAED CORPORATION RETAINS ALL OWNERSHIP, COPYRIGHT, AND OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INTERESTS IN THE DATA AND INFORMATION ON THE PLANS. * THE RECEIVER WARRANTS THAT IT WILL NOT REPRODUCE OR OTHERWISE MAKE USE OF THE DATA OR PLANS IN ANY ENDEAVOR NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PROJECT FOR WHICH IT WAS PRODUCED. * THE RECEIVER SHALL MAKE NO CLAIM NOR INITIATE ANY ACTION IN LAW OR EQUITY AGAINST JAED CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO ANY DEFECT ERROR OR OMISSION IN THE DATA. * THE RECEIVER AGREES TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS JAED CORPORATION FROM AND AGAINST ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LIABILITIES AND COSTS (INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS OF DEFENSE) ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING FROM THE USE OF ELECTRONIC DATA. SITE NOTES: CURB SCHEDULE GENERAL SITE NOTES: BRICK POINT LAYOUT ASPHALT POINT LAYOUT 0' 20' PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1" = 20' 40' (NAD 83) BUILDING POINT LAYOUT CONRETE POINT LAYOUT 60' PROJECT DRAWN STATE OF DELAWARE SHEET NO. TCV SHEET TITLE THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF STUDIOJAED CONSULTANT OMB/DIVISION OF FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OMB/DFM CONTRACT #MJ1002000071 CHK'D ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS FACILITIES SOLUTIONS 15%/30% SCHEMATIC AND IS PREPARED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF ITS DLD REVISIONS Website: www.StudioJAED.com Email: info@StudioJAED.com ARCHITECT / ENGINEER SEAL FEBRUARY 28, 2024 LEGISLATIVE HALL PARKING GARAGE CLIENTS AT THE LOCATION INDICATED. NO OTHER C103 SITE LAYOUT MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD AND E WATER ST DELAWARE OFFICE PROVIDENCE OFFICE MARYLAND OFFICE 2500 WRANGLE HILL ROAD, STE. 110 42 WEYBOSSET STREET, STE. 403 213 FRONT STREET, P.O. BOX 254 23094 PROJECT NO. DOVER, DE 19901 BEAR, DELAWARE 19701 PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 02903 CRUMPTON, MARYLAND 216285 P: (302) 832-1652 P: (401) 648-0884 DOCUMENTS USE IS AUTHORIZED OR INTENDED. 121 Item 9.