paperless packet

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AGENDA THURSDAY, October 20, 2016 - 3:00 P.M. City Hall – Conference Room ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING on July 21, 2016 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING on August 18, 2016 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1. Summary of 2016 Activity a. Summary of Applications 2015 and 2016 b. Summary of Architectural Review Certifications for 2016 2. Department of Planning & Inspections Update NEW BUSINESS 1. Review of Permits Referred to Commission 2. Presentation on Open Flags for Downtown Businesses (HI-16-06) OLD BUSINESS 1. Certified Local Government (CLG) Program – a. Update on FFY2016 Grant Project: Evaluate and Update the Design Standards & Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone NEW APPLICATIONS - None ADJOURN THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSION. Agenda Posted: October 10, 2016

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION July 21, 2016 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Historic District Commission was held on Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 3:00 PM with Chairman Salkin presiding. Members present were Chairman Salkin, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Scrafford and Ms. Horsey. Mr. Jackson was absent. Planning Office Staff members present were Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mr. Cook, Mrs. Purnell, Mr. Diaz and Mrs. Townshend. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved by acclamation. Mr. Jackson was absent. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING OF May 19, 2016 Mr. McDaniel moved to adopt the minutes of the regular Historic District Commission meeting of May 19, 2016, seconded by Ms. Horsey and the motion was unanimously carried 4-0 of the members present. Mr. Jackson was absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Summary of 2016 Activity Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that included in the packet was a Summary of the 2015 and 2016 applications that came before the Historic District Commission. Today the Historic District Commission will consider their fifth application of the year. There were a total of eight (8) applications in 2015. The South Bradford Streetscape Enhancement project is still in the design stage. Summary of Architectural Review Certifications for 2016 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that to date there have been twenty-three (23) Permits with activities in the Historic District that includes building interior and exterior projects, roof, signage, and fence permits. Fifteen (15) of the Permits were approved by Staff including three (3) that were heard by the Historic District Commission. There were five (5) Permits that involved interior items that were not visible from the public street which required no Architectural Review Certification. Department of Planning & Inspections Update Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there will be a DelDOT sponsored workshop on July 25, 2016 for the Senators Bikeway to the north of the area of the Historic District. We are in the next fiscal year and the budget was approved. The budget included the funding related to the Certified Local Government Grant Program. NEW APPLICATIONS HI-16-05 Mixed Use Buildings at 126 West Loockerman Street – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation on the Architectural Review Certification associated with the construction of two mixed use buildings on the existing site known as Loockerman Way. One four-story building and

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 one three-story building is proposed, with ground floor commercial uses and residential uses on upper floors, and associated site improvements, subject to future Site Development Plan approval processes. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and is subject to the H (Historic District Overlay Zone). The property is located on the south side of West Loockerman Street between South Governors Avenue and South State Street. The owner of record is Downtown Dover Partnership Corporation and equitable owner is Loockerman Plaza, LLC. Address: 126 West Loockerman Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-04-06.00-000. Council District 4. Mrs. Melson-Williams gave a brief overview of the application and Staff Findings. Staff Report was included in the packet. Mr. McDaniel stated that he is a member of the Economic Development Committee of the Downtown Dover Partnership. He will be able to do an impartial vote. (The Downtown Dover Partnership is the property owner. Property decisions require action by its Board and not the Economic Development Committee). Representative: Mr. Bob MacLeish with Lighthouse Construction Inc., Mr. Jules Dingle with DIGSAU and Mr. Jonathan Street with Becker Morgan Group. Slide Show Presentation by Applicant Mr. Dingle thanked everyone for their time today. They are very excited about the project. It is a project and is really the opportunity needed to revitalize the Loockerman corridor. While in-fill projects are great, this is one that is even greater because it is within the historical and tradition of the Loockerman Streetscape but also in the tradition of greater Dover urban public spaces. On The Green and throughout Dover, we see a wide variety of architectural styles that range from the 18th century to the 21st century. The old drugstore (photo series) shows the 19th century to the current which the building changed at least four (4) times over the years. While change is certainly vital and necessary for the urban environment, it is also important that change is managed. What is in the Design Standards and Guidelines is really an excellent document. They used the document as a guideline for figuring out how to bring this proposal forward today. It sets out standards and guidelines that promote very thoughtful contextual, but distinctly contemporary architecture that considers historic architecture as the starting point of the design process but not necessarily the final. He briefly talked about the zone of the plaza and the street starting with 1945. The Guidelines talk about what you do when a building is on a corner and how each face of the building should not be the same. There was an absence of street trees. It is a positive addition that street trees have been added. Stores used to have large awnings, mixed architectural styles and heights, diverse signage, the wall of the streets and the importance of the density on both sides of the street and carved in store fronts. The building with Loockerman Plaza on it stills exists. Dover Hardware Store used to be a JC Penny store. There was a creation of a mixed use building with a commercial level that is very functional in terms of the types of businesses that would work on Loockerman. He briefly mentioned the zone of the plaza on The Green regarding the movement away from the Federal and Georgian style to the Victorian styles. The residential area was very civil and social. There was a connection between the street and the front porches and the introduction of the balconies that turn windows into doors and make the very social space of the street amplified by the connection of both the landscape 2

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 and through the architectural features that engage residents with the street. The Richardson House which combined those elements with the informality of architecture of this period. He spoke about buildings that occupy a corner and how the buildings relate to the Design Standards and Guidelines. They are not at all suggesting that they are interested in the architecture that is a passage of a million different styles. It is much more about some of the characteristics of architecture and the spaces they create and how one building is very cohesive and coherent and read as one building. On Loockerman Street there is the very flat symmetrical formal facade that you see on the streetscape. The Plaza side they are trying to take some cues from the Victorian Queen Anne style from the residential character of the neighborhood and really amplify what is good about these buildings which is the connection to the public realm. He showed the flat two dimensional elevations of the proposal: the top view is the Loockerman Street elevation, the middle is one of the plaza elevations, and the bottom is the view from West North Street. On the middle elevation there is a series of potential Juliet balconies, instead of a window a door is placed in that location, very small bedroom, and the way of living is more attached to the landscape and the public space. Site Plan shows the mixed use buildings and on the ground level there is retail space and the upper levels are residential. The proportions are vertical and the architectural is distinctively contemporary but very contextual with brick and the proportions of the windows. Unlike some of the other buildings on the street, they have decided to keep the corners open as much as possible because while they are thinking of each of these elevations as a bit different in character from the elevations around the corner. They thought it was very important to invite you through and around so you can see the glassy corner of the retail. There is a proposition for a mounted signage. Looking into the Plaza from Loockerman Street you start to see the bays that has been discussed on the right. Sometimes in the living room the bay is a full balcony and in a bedroom it might be a balcony that just projects the 18 inches to 2 feet or a balcony that sits fully in. Many of the rooms have an opportunity to walk through the edge and participate in the action of the space. In the view from West North Street where in the distance you see different stories of buildings. The Site Plan has been modified. They are excited about this project because these mixed use building are the life hood of revitalizing an area like this. It is an incredible opportunity, but it is not one without risk. They are convinced of the way to do their best is to bring good and thoughtful design and partner with people such as Bob MacLeish who are committed to great design. We know that the design process with the right partners improves the project as it goes forward. Diana Welch questioned how will they be able to maintain (wood siding) on 132 West Loockerman and will her egress for the patio be cut off because she has a vibrant business right next door. She has some really personal concerns. Mr. Dingle replied that the answer to the second question is no. If you refer to the Site Plan, you will see that they have limited the extent of the western building so that the egress is permitted. For the first question, the intent is to build as is allowed to the site line. Diana Welch stated that they were required to put wood siding in keeping with the period of the building and there is a space there to maintain that wood siding and in order to maintain it they will need space and the egress for the patio is critical for them. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied that in the C-2 they are allowed to build to the property line and what is an existing exposed wall with wood siding technically when this project becomes more of a party wall situation. This is a Building Code issue to be worked through in construction of how this new building meets the wall of an existing building that is there. It is not something that this Commission has to say you have to give them 10- 3

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 feet. It is a situation where you are sharing the property line and it becomes a shared party wall verses an exposed wall. Ryan Weber owner of Golden Fleece Tavern at 132 W. Loockerman Street stated that previously it was a shared party wall with the old Dover Hardware. When that was demolished they were forced to put siding on the building and go the extra expensive route of doing wood and which case they had several issues and concerns. They were told that if they did wood that it could not become a shared party wall again. They must have access in order to maintain so the wood does not become rotten. Chairman Salkin stated that what is being discussed is not a purview of the Historic District Commission. After today the project will go before the Planning Commission where you will have the opportunity to discuss that issue or discuss with City Staff and neighbors. Historic District Commission is not in the position to answer any questions or offer relief. Mr. Scrafford stated that somewhere in the minutes in the past years that issue came before the Historic District Commission because of what was going there. If you pull those minutes, you can read what was discussed before this Commission and what the Commission involvement was. Mr. Salkin stated that at that point the Historic District Commission’s purview was in reference to the exposed wall. Ms. Horsey commented for clarification that Staff has made several points that are valid and wanted to know the applicant’s thoughts, Mr. MacLeish replied that upon reviewing the comments they did not agree with all of them. They believe that the time and effort that they have put forth and engaged with the services of the architect that he has done his due diligence to go out and really incorporate making different parts for them to look at. There are things in the comments that will detract ultimately from what this project could become or what it would be. We are not saying that we are not open to listen, but there are more specifics on how things will be done. The windows do match and if it is changed, then you will change the entire appearance of what it will look like. Then they will start to become like everything else. It needs to compliment and reflect on the Downtown and its future. He has been in business for 20 years. They want the best of the best for the Downtown. They want the project to make a statement and be vibrant. Some of the Staff comments are simplistic in what they are asking. Chairman Salkin opened the public hearing. Written Correspondence Mrs. Melson-Williams stated and read an email correspondence dated July 20, 2016 that she received from Bonnie Voshell that was also provided to the members of the Historic District Commission. Ms. Voshell also came into the office to view the application file. Ms. Voshell had concerns regarding the proposed improvements planned and stated that “she would like to see more architectural features on the proposed building face on Loockerman Street as it is the Capital of our state, the very heart of our Nation’s beginning. The new buildings deserve more decorative enhancements to blend with other buildings in the surrounding area. She asked if the applicant would consider adding contrasting trim around the windows and wide trim between the store fronts and upper levels.” 4

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 Mr. Eric Czerwinski of 34 Maple Lane stated that from looking at the pictures there are several buildings that he does not see in keeping with the rest of the buildings. If you look at the window density, there are more windows per square foot than any other buildings on the streets. The email that was sent pretty much stipulates exactly the problem. There are no features on the building. If you consider what is on the buildings, they are border line “brutalism”. There are no window frames, and no cornice. There are two (2) buildings that have identical design elements that are side by side and gapped by a walkway. There are no other buildings on Loockerman Street that are actually identical to each other. Therefore, the applicant is kind of powdering what the whole element about the diversity of architectural design. These things are very imposing and they stand out from the second floor above to the walker or driver. In his opinion, this would be a travesty to the street because there are no features on the buildings whatsoever. He talked about the frames in the parkway that extend which screams 1970’s architecture which are not in keeping with anything on Loockerman. He thinks there could be better design elements and decisions that would fit this into the environment. You could still have a postmodern look that would include fittings with the cornice and window frames and elements that would incorporate it with the rest of the street. Otherwise you have nothing but two (2) brick buildings in the middle of Loockerman Street with no features that will stand out. It is important because we are trying to preserve some essence of the Downtown past. Ms. Judy Diego with Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce located at 435 North DuPont Highway stated that she is not an architect, but we have someone who is willing to make a great investment in Downtown Dover. For the eleven (11) years that she has been with the Chamber, Downtown has struggled. They have had meetings after meetings and have worked with Mrs. Townshend working on Ordinances and signage; they tried everything. She urges everyone not to get caught up making everything look the same because she does believe what Mr. MacLeish stated is true. You have to have some elements from the past, but at the same time you have to start moving Loockerman Street into the future. If you want to have a thriving Downtown, it is going to look different than it looks right now. She does not think that it is necessarily a bad thing. She hopes that we can be open to having things look a little bit different if it does mean that we are going to create some economic stimulus for the downtown area. We are going to be able to draw people Downtown and bring businesses and residents back Downtown. She does not want us to keep turning people away from Downtown. Although she is not an architect or contractor, she sees a huge investment someone is willing to make. She asks that we need to be very diligent in our decision to make sure that we are helping Loockerman and Downtown Dover. Mr. Ryan Weber of 132 West Loockerman Street stated that he did not believe we needed the mixed use in Downtown right now. We currently have plenty of open storefronts and vacant open storefronts; this is not something we need. The residential part is a really brilliant idea; however, he has a big issue with the location. He has been Downtown on Loockerman Street for roughly 15 years (between different buildings) and over the last couple of years there have been activities on Loockerman Way that have taken off such as (Heritage History and Hops, Farmers Market, Octo Dover Festival) that bring thousands of people Downtown. While a residential apartment building will be great it does not bring thousands of people Downtown. He suggested taking vacant and empty buildings and storefronts that are already Downtown and renovating them or building there. For example, the building east of Loockerman Way which has been empty for years. We are not setting a Farmers Market or Heritage History and Hops on the center walkway. Loockerman Way is 5

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 already great as it exists. He does encourage these buildings to be built Downtown which is important, but he just does not like the current location or the mixed use. We have plenty of empty commercial buildings; we do not need to build more. We need to fill the ones we currently have. The residential is a great and amazing idea. You could make the architectural changes to make it look good such as the shutters and make one building siding and one brick. As he referred to the plan, he stated that it looks like his patio is blocked off. He currently has a viable business that has drawn a lot of people Downtown for seven years. He does not want to see his business suffer because if he loses his patio he loses his business. He would like to keep his patio the way that it is so it can continue to be enjoyed by his customers. Again, he thinks that this is a good project, but it needs to find another location. Mr. Bob Berglund owner of previous Dover Hardware Company. The building no longer exists, but the corporation still exists. The corporation owns property that was at the northeast corner of Governors Avenue and North Street. He thinks this project will look great Downtown. In his personal opinion, he thinks the project is slick and good looking. If you were to take someone else’s opinion and do something else that is fine, but the owners have done a great job to fit in and look good. As an adjacent property owner, he thinks it is great. Ms. Carrie Hart of 82 Grand Oak Drive, Dover Delaware who has lived in Dover all of her life. She has been a member of the Downtown Dover Partnership for nine (9) years. For nine (9) years, they have been trying to bring people Downtown. It is obvious that the applicant has put a lot of thought and effort into the project. The buildings look like dorms from the University of Delaware. She’s a little nervous about having them in Downtown Dover. She would encourage what has already been stated regarding a little more reflection on the past and how it is going to be used to move forward. She questioned who does the applicant envision living in the apartments because we have so many places that need to be filled currently Downtown. She wanted to make sure that we are moving forward, having everything filled and vibrant, and not taking the vibrant space away that they are using for something that may not be useful in the future. 3:55 Ms. Elena Stewart of 110 McBry Drive, Dover Delaware who has also been a part of Downtown Dover Partnership. She thinks the concept is really interesting. She thinks it is great to have mixed uses and we need more precious spaces. She thinks owners are not investing enough money into what buildings that are currently there and that is the reason they are vacant. She has concerns with the residential portion of the project. What kind of residents are going to be there, are they going to be like the apartments over Bayard Pharmacy or more upscale housing? She stated that she had two (2) small girls and she wants her family to be safe. Currently, there is nowhere in Downtown that she would want to take her kids. There is no place to take them to eat Downtown. There are great businesses, but when you have small children she was concerned about the kind of people who would be housed and who would be looking out onto the plaza and if she would even want to bring her kids Downtown. Ms. Kristin Pleasanton of 208 Crosby Knoll Circle, Dover Delaware has lived here for 25 years and thinks that it is really exciting to have interest and development in Downtown Dover because it really needs it. She has a lot of experience with the Downtown Dover Partnership. It has been frustrating over the years to see how things have been going. One thing about the Loockerman Way Plaza is it has become sort of the heart of Downtown in a way; for example, like The Green but the 6

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 modern version where people gather, events happen, and other exciting activities. It is hard to envision that space being lost. This is a great development idea for maybe other parts of Downtown. She would hate to see the plaza diminished because it has become well loved by the community. Mr. Bill Cook of 32 West Loockerman Street Apartment 302 made comments as a neighbor of the project and not in his capacity with the Planning Department with the City of Dover. Conceptually, he is very much in favor of the project. He thinks Downtown needs more residents and it would be beneficial to businesses and the economy. In long term would make such a project more sustainable. He understands other people concerns about the plaza and the potential reduction, but the flip side for him is having more activities at more hours of the day and more days of the week from an economic standpoint. For the purview of this body, his main comments would be from the Loockerman Street elevation perhaps some sort of more vertical articulation of the walls. He shares concerns about the windows and the fenestration. Conceptually as a neighbor and Downtown resident who plans to be a Downtown resident for a while, he is in favor of the concept. He thinks more market rate rental housing generally could be a benefit to the Downtown and the City of Dover. Ms. Tricia Arndt of 11 Pennsylvania Avenue, Dover, Delaware. She really loves the plaza and all of the activities that were previously mentioned. She would really hate to lose all of the gatherings like the bouncy house on the plaza and games which is fantastic for young families. It really adds to the community and everyone out there enjoying the space. As also mentioned previously, there are currently so many vacant commercial properties Downtown and by adding additional commercial space those existing spaces will continue to be underutilized and it will be harder to fill the spaces and revitalize Downtown. Mr. Scrafford asked if he could see the north side of Loockerman. There is a slide that shows the buildings on the north side so that he could see what the window arrangements look like on the north side of the street in relation to what the applicant have decided to do on the south side of the street. Mr. Dingle stated that the slide shows the existing condition but the photo does not show a dimensioned drawing. Responding to Mr. Scrafford’s question whether it was real (windows) or if it was part of a design (picture), Mr. Dingle replied that it was the best they could provide regarding the reflections. It is not a real photograph; it is computer generated of what exists. Mrs. Townshend stated that the property is owned by the Downtown Dover Partnership and when the plaza was initially laid out as part of the implementation of the Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan and Design Book this had always been planned to have two (2) buildings fronting the plaza. That had been the plan from the time of 2010 when we had the charrette and produced the plan out of the charrette. The charrette was a four (4) or five (5) day planning exercise where stakeholders and public and people were brought in to really develop a vision for what the downtown would look like. It really was a very visual type designed based plan. The plan that came from the charrette is one of the components of our Downtown Development District. The sale of the plaza for buildings on either side is again further implementation of the plans that have been in place. This was a decision made by the Downtown Dover Partnership Board of Directors. The plaza 7

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 has become a common area where people gather, but it has been part of the plan since before the plaza was even constructed. Mr. McDaniel stated that the charrette plan also includes other buildings on North Street. Responding to Mr. Scrafford’s question why there is retail on the first floor, Mrs. Townshend replied that all of the Downtown studies that have ever been done in Dover and all of the main street models encourage retail at the street level and continuous retail at the street level because when you get a break sometimes people stop walking. The main street model is very much built around retail usage at the street level with other uses above. Again, the mixed use has always been part of the plan. Mr. Scrafford stated that this was not something that the Historic District Commission controlled. Mrs. Townshend concurred. Mr. Scrafford stated that it was there because it has to be there in accordance with the City policies. Mrs. Townshend concurred. There are absolutely many vacant spaces without a doubt. There are many factors that caused that vacancy such as poor conditions and are very costly to renovate. In a number of cases you have property owners that are not willing to sell or lease at a reasonable price so they become financially unfeasible. A lot of the vacancies that they have not been able to push out is really due to the conditions of the building combined with the degree of repair that the buildings will need for code compliance and in many cases the unwillingness of property owners to work with the parties that trying to make the improvements. Mr. McDaniel stated that these property owners could benefit from the new project or activities Downtown. Questions Responding to Chairman Salkin’s question whether there was definitely parking behind both buildings and that parking at the residences will all be accommodated in the parking behind the building, Mr. Dingle replied yes. Responding to Mr. Scrafford’s question whether the parking would available for others to use, Mr. MacLeish replied that they were working through this item. The structure on the east side of the proposed building had control over the parking (ins and outs) and they went through great lengths to ensure that the parking was reserved strictly for their office. Responding to Chairman Salkin’s question whether there were any basements, Mr. MacLeish replied no. Responding to Chairman Salkin’s question whether within the plaza the wall section seating and gathering space in front of each retail would be a fixed design or dependent on what happens because right now they all look like they are going to be restaurants. He knows that this is not the case. When we look at this design are we looking at a specific plan for the plaza and the seating, the benches, and the separation or not? Mr. MacLeish replied that they are trying to develop something 8

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 that is inviting to the area. It is open and at the same time they want to create the environment that currently exists that compliments both the occupants of the two (2) buildings as well as the public. We are trying not to lose that feeling or sense. Responding to Chairman Salkin’s question whether the concept that they were seeing is not fixed, Mr. MacLeish replied that it is an idea that they have put forth, but it could change. Responding to Chairman Salkin’s question whether the ownership of the plaza is transferring to the applicant, Mr. MacLeish replied that they will be responsible for maintaining the property. Responding to Ms. Horsey’s concern about having the design modified and to accommodate what already exists, and it is important to compromise, Mr. Dingle replied that it has been important from the beginning to maintain access to the plaza. To shape the building in a way that pushed it out into the plaza to avoid full opening of the courtyard of the plaza would be a full detriment to the plaza and the buildings that are being proposed and probably an unnecessary hardship for new construction under the current Building and Zoning Codes. They would be very interested in working with Ryan and the Golden Fleece to figure out how to do something to maintain the south eastern exposure and maybe give a wall that could be planted or to project movies. Everyone and their business on Loockerman Street are essential partners in revitalizing this district. The intent is not at all to do wrong by the Golden Fleece, but to work with them to make it better. He is not sure if they will solve exactly what the idea condition is today, but that is their thinking. Responding to Chairman Salkin’s question whether this entire parcel was going to be owned by the applicant LLC from North Street to Loockerman Street, Mr. Dingle replied yes. Responding to Staff Comments & Recommendations /Questions/Comments beginning with page 5 (2a) Deliberation & Understanding Mr. Dingle responded regarding the east building and the number of stories noting that there is a five (5) story apartment building on the corner of South Governors and Loockerman Street. Historically, there have been a wide range of scales along the street. Along Loockerman a four (4) story building is not out of context. The important part of advancing to a more contemporary reality of what will work on Loockerman Street will requires different densities or models that are more financially viable. Their research indicates that the mix to create a four (4) story is a good sustainable economic model and they are working hard to ensure that those two (2) scales are compatible. They actually think that the two buildings begin some of the asymmetry in the difference that was heard in comments today. That the buildings could be in keeping more different than each other. He does not disagree with the comment as a way they could go, but it is not the way they chose to go and they are comfortable with the direction they took. There are some differences that don’t tend to show up in the new perspective views. We do think that the two (2) scales is an opportunity to make the buildings similar than different. Mr. MacLeish stated that initially they started out with a three (3) story building and afterwards they felt some the challenges as they started to work through it. That is when they added the story to the 9

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 east side building because the three (3) story building looked like it created one (1) plain and one (1) large building. Mr. McDaniel commented that the Downtown Dover Partnership owns the old Kunkel site; he questioned what was their design and if it was a four (4) story building. Mrs. Townshend replied yes the Kunkel site is owned by the Partnership and she thinks the design was a four (4) story building. Mr. Dingle stated that 2b was a good comment regarding the current window format on the upper floors and the Loockerman Street side proportions. We could add 8 inches to a foot of space between them to make them less vertical and it would not only make it more in keeping with the sort of modern association and with the Federal style. He stated that it is something that they would be interested in looking at. It shows sensitivity to the other surrounding buildings and they are very happy to look at the slightly less vertical proportions to make more space between the window and the wall. Responding to Chairman Salkin’s question whether he was referring to shorter windows, Mr. Dingle replied no, he was talking about the space between the windowhead and the sill which is a very small dimension. It gives the façade an extremely vertical proportion. They do like the verticality and would absolutely not want to track towards something more squarest. A Victorian or Federal vertical opening is what they want. They think there is a compromise there which would be slightly less window, but may proportionally work a little better. This is something they would look at in the next phase. Responding to Mr. Scrafford’s question whether the changing of the distance between the window head and the sill on the upper floors would be done in the construction, Mr. Dingle replied yes. Mr. Dingle that one of the things that may be missing from the front facades facing Loockerman Street in the drawing is the actual depth of the window surround. The intent is that there is a fair amount of depth around the windows and they can be seen later in the specific construction detail of the window surrounds. There is a very attractive cornice on the top of the building. They did think about a more animated façade. The Bayard Pharmacy and Library have very animated façades and features. This was not the approach that they thought was appropriate or necessary for a building that is primary on the street but instead to build the wall of the street and draw as much energy down the street level commercial as possible. There is reason for the actual cornice scale change that happens on the inside and with that comes complexity and cost. They feel that it is a very appropriate move around the corner. They are hoping that the simplicity of the Loockerman elevation which they really do like is sensitive, thoughtful, and appropriate. Chairman Salkin questioned Mr. Dingle comments which referred to the windows like the Federal architecture of The Green, but we are not on The Green, what are windows of this façade referencing on Loockerman Street. Mr. Dingle stated that he only singled out the Federal style about a desire for a flat façade with nice perfect proportions and minimal ornament. He would not expect or want anyone to look at it as Federalist building or direct quotation of Federal architecture, because it is not. The Secretary of Interior Standards that the historic guidelines are based on very clearly promote contemporary architecture that learns from history but deliberately does not confuse new architecture with historical buildings like Colonial or Federal. Sometimes it is treated as a 10

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 philosophical statement about buildings containing the information of the past. If you read a new building as an old building, then you are muddying the fudge ability of the city. For that reason, we do not want to get to close to something that appears Federalist or Victorian. Ms. Horsey commented that she thought what makes Federal architecture work in the historic context is the shutters, which is something that you have to break up the façade. The intention is truly on the cornice and entrances. She does not mind the verticality; she thinks if you are willing to adjust the proportions between the windows and maybe also not have the large brick space unless you want to put more of a rejecting cornice at the top it works. It is so minimalist now that it would really help the design an awful lot. Design needs a little tweaking. She does not mind what the applicant is trying to do; she thinks that it is quite good. The building on the right may not need the same. She thinks you should keep them a little separate from each other. Mr. Dingle commented that they would like to explore it at the level of the details and the brick. Brick is just a logical material to use in a place like this. This not quite the variety of brick we see next door on the library building. It would be something more settled than that; something that addresses the way that you use brick in the 21st century versus what was built in many of the historic buildings. It is a transition from an era where buildings were not heated, insulated, or cooled, and the walls breathe, to an era where the building’s skin is a veneer and buildings are sealed up and upgraded the exact opposite way than the whole building did. With that they find some very exciting construction opportunities to start expressing control and adding a variety of bricks or even make bricks do some things that it might not typically do in a pure load bearing capacity. This is one of the things that excites them about moving forward with this project. To be able to explore the nature of modern brick and what you can do and have to do with it from a construction point of view. There is a lot of opportunity to add texture and relieve visual interest about adding elements. They do not think it needs any more elements, but it certainly can benefit from texture. That is something that can be born in the process detail of the print. Mr. Scrafford questioned whether different façades for each of the buildings were discussed, in other words having the buildings look different from each other. Mr. Dingle replied yes, they did. The buildings are slightly different and obviously different in term of scale and ground level. Could they be more different, yes. Mr. Scrafford commented that the buildings should be different. Mr. Dingle stated that there is benefit to this plaza having a bit of uniformity around it. The buildings are very similar propositions functionally, while there is still more to be learned about what happens on the east side. There is not necessity in their mind to start over and do a totally different building. Mr. Scrafford commented cosmetically, he was looking at something that differnates it from the very inexpensive approach. Mr. Dingle stated that there is a logic to the window placement that they could stagger one or something. Again, this is one item that they would treat more at the level of the brick and detail. There are opportunities of color and texture, and maybe even the cornice at the top. Ideally, it is the storefronts that bring the identity of properties like this on commercial corridors, and to focus on the upper to say that they need to be stylistically different but I don’t think this is the case. As he previously stated could they be different, yes. Responding to Ms. Horsey’s question whether the color of the brick is different or is it just the lighting, Mr. Dingle replied it is just the lighting. They have not selected the exact brick. 11

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 Responding to Mr. Scrafford’s question regarding the four-story building and whether the applicant was contemplating adjusting the top floor, as also mentioned in comment (2a) “a setback or stepping back of the fourth floor, or other design options. Mr. MacLeish replied that they would like to stay with the four-story; originally it was three-story. Mr. Dingle stated that as he referred to (2a) that they felt considering the existing scale from vacant to five-stories that a four-story is not only consistent with the scale of the street, but historically reasonably consistent with the animated cornice lines that have always existed along Loockerman. Ms. Horsey suggested that a more complicated cornice would help the building. It looks like an afterthought. She asked the applicant to consider her suggestion. It does not necessarily have to be wood or plastic; it could be brick. As a projection now it is very historic and yet the applicant could really make the cornice look cool in a modern sense also. Chairman Salkin commented and asked how the applicant might address the issue of the entrance which is similar on each side and the angled brick wall on the street level that takes you into the corner retail space. Some treatment of that would be helpful because one of the things that the Commission looks for and the Secretary of Interior Standards looks for in commercial spaces is the traditional storefront. Although this does echo what was shown on the south side with the flat brick wall that has no character and does not give any hint of what is in there. No architectural features. He was wondering how the applicant might be able or if you are willing to look at it and see if there was some way to make the whole streetscape including the blank wall more in keeping with the continuing of storefronts. When he opened the packet and saw that it reminded him of the building on the corner of Governors Avenue near the Bayard Pharmacy which he does not care for at all because it is just flat brick wall. So when he saw this plan he thought we were getting more of the same. He does not think that is true with the rest of the design; although, he concurs with a lot of the other comments and critiques received, but those really stand out to him. Mr. McDaniel questioned whether the brick walls were slanted and if they divide the potential restaurant from some sort of retail area. Mr. Dingle replied the division is the restaurant and the residential area. The residential entrance is occupied within a brick funnel; the area that is not very transparent and that is deliberant. They do think that there are ways to animate the space and maybe even make it less of a recess, but they do think that with the angled brick it is going to be a nice space that with some solidity says this is the entrance that is not commercial. The commercial entrance is as glazed as possible with a corner condition. They think because of the exterior space at the corner and the way the lighting works it enhances the transparency of the glass. They really think that the glass at the corner at the angle really has something to do with tightening the transparency as you turn the corner. The applicant deliberately gave a no opaque grounding quality to the entrance to the residential. The applicant thinks architecturally it is going to be quite nice. There will also be opportunities for signage. In the 19th century there were photographs that reference beautiful painted signage on the more blank proportion of the wall and they are every bit as good as the Victorian storefront that was on the front. It will be part of a fit out potentially with the retail tenant, but it could be much more design with the entrance address. Chairman Salkin stated that he likes the design for a nice knitted space. On Loockerman Street it speaks to apartment entrance. It would be a whole different look for downtown streetscape from one brick wall to another than what they have had in the past. He is not opposed to it conceptually. He 12

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 just thought if the applicant could look at the entry ways and figure out a way to make them less stark and more of an echo of something that was there before, not necessarily in an old architectural style, but architectural space. Mr. Dingle stated that it can be certainly understated. As he referred to the comments expressed today about what the right use of the site is, in his mind, the mixed use on this site makes total sense especially if you want to imagine a fully revitalized future. You would want to build buildings that is ready for that type of mixed use. It is the investment that occurs in those buildings that attracts other businesses in addition to Mrs. Townshend’s comments. Chairman Salkin commented based on today’s discussion the color could be very important in addressing some of the design issues that have been raised. He stated that he was not make a recommendation but a suggestion (example) would be if the blank wall was a lighter color than it would not look like it is the foundation of a big apartment building. It would be an apartment entrance as described, but it might not look like or feel like an apartment entrance as you drive by. Color does not often make that much of a difference except for people’s personal preference. Mr. Dingle stated that they will probably not go to the extreme as the Library. It will be more of a subtle range of texture and color. Mr. Dingle stated that the glass would be as clear as possible. There is a very limited slope to the portion of the wall which may be brick. There will probably be internal gutters, roof drains, no downspouts, and mechanical equipment will be on the roof. For the low walls and planters they are proposing that they are board formed concrete (very textured form work that you used the leave on imprint of the wood on the concrete). They have used this on several previous projects. It is preferable to not have the same material as the building and the landscape. The landscape features are actually ones that are part of the connection with the openness of the ground floor space and not an extension of the building. They would very much like to use board formed concrete for this project. Responding to Mr. Scrafford’s question whether the planters would be relocatable or permanent, Mr. Dingle replied that there would be a small number of permanent and some relocatable. This has a lot to do with developing the fit-out of who will use the spaces and whether are not they are ultimately designed for retail or a restaurant. There will be a fixed number of planters for more of a large growth of trees that run down the middle. Near the restaurant they would probably be relocatable planters due to seasonal or commercial event changes. When you start to have significant plantings for stormwater features, those would be the elements that would have the concrete seat wall. Responding to Ms. Horsey’s question regarding the same treatment was used along the front of the four-story building or if it was another material, Mr. Dingle replied that it was one of the differences between the two. They have the opportunity for covered seating along Loockerman. That would be one of the decisions that would defer to the fit-out of the space. Ms. Horsey commented that she was driving at the look of the poured concrete on the sidewalk. Mr. McDaniel commented that he thinks it would look great because the brick would just be more. Mr. Dingle stated that the permanent stuff would be concrete. 13

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 Responding to Chairman Salkin’s question whether the applicant anticipated any other outdoor structure that is not on the current plans, Mr. Dingle replied that the dumpster space is in the back along the alley. Mr. MacLeish replied that they did not want it to look like a dumpster. Mr. Scrafford expressed his concern regarding the trees and utilities on North Street. Mrs. Townshend and Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the utilities are underground. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the applicant has a tree planting requirement that is part of the Zoning Ordinance that they have to achieve for this property or seek mitigation options. Mrs. Townshend stated that a lot of the site elements are details that get worked through further in the planning process. Chairman Salkin asked if Item 5f from Staff recommendations could be explained: “The plan provides limited information on the project’s strategy for stormwater management. This may impact the parking lot and landscaping designs.” Mrs. Melson-Williams questioned what it is the project’s strategy for stormwater management. Mr. Jonathan Street from Becker Morgan Group, who will be doing the work, stated that the stormwater would not affect the project. Chairman Salkin asked for clarity on Item 6 on page 7 regarding the use of brick paving materials for sidewalk construction, Mr. McDaniel replied that brick sidewalks are fine. There are not many on Loockerman Street. Mrs. Townshend stated that there is brick and concrete on Loockerman Street. Chairman Salkin commented that the existing design Downtown does not work well at all aesthetically for maintenance, ADA, etc. Mrs. Townshend stated that typically unless the brick is disturbing a portion of the sidewalk the City does not typically have them upgrade the sidewalk when construction has been done. In places where there is disturbance of the sidewalk, that will be an issue that will have to be worked through with Public Works. There are many places in the City where construction is happening and the existing brick sidewalks are removed. Mr. McDaniel stated that they are in the midst of the Bradford Streetscape project where they will either they will either have brick or concrete or both brick and concrete. Mrs. Townshend and Mrs. Melson-Williams agreed. Mr. McDaniel stated that he did not think that there were brick sidewalks on Loockerman Street. There are concrete sidewalks with Belgium blocks design. Ms. Horsey stated that there were brick sidewalks. Mrs. Townshend stated that they were brick accent. Chairman Salkin questioned whether it would be part of this project, Mrs. Townshend replied that she did not anticipate that it would be, but Public Works would be able to answer that question. Mr. Scrafford stated that it would be a DAC (Development Advisory Committee) issue. 14

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 Mr. MacLeish stated that he and his partners discussed this project with Mrs. Townshend. They believe that they can make a difference. Safety is the upmost concern. It is important that we see the growth in the revitalization of Downtown Dover. We will be able to do that with the right project. One of the first projects he did when he moved away in Newark was on the eastern edge and it ended up being a great project and others followed. They want to respect the people that are out there and make sure the current businesses survive. We want to do the right thing and bring people back Downtown. We want everyone to be involved and be a part of the project. Chairman Salkin stated that as the project moves forward the Commission may need to see it again for consultation and comments only. They have no desire to hold up the project. Mr. McDaniel reminded the Commission that without a doubt that this is the most exciting thing that they have seen before them. Mr. Scrafford concurred. Mr. McDaniel also stated that no one has even mentioned that they don’t want to put up vinyl siding which is what every other project they have seen called for. We all have our opinions and the applicant has done a good job with their due diligence and homework. This project could really be the catalyst do get Downtown revitalized. He would certainly like to walk a little further Downtown at night than to 33 West. He would recommend approval of this project, but he did not want to put to many handcuffs on the project. Mr. Scrafford concurred. Mrs. Townshend wanted to clarify what was being discussed that the project could be brought back to the Historic District Commission after it goes before the Planning Commission. Mr. Scrafford stated that in order for the Planning Commission to do their job, they need to be ahead of the Planning Commission. Chairman Salkin stated that the Commission support the project and wanted to keep the project moving. Mr. Scrafford moved to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of the Architectural Review Certification for project HI-16-05 Site Development Plan with two (2) conditions as discussed in (2A-E page 5 windows width and cornice) under staff recommendations and that the applicant will work with Staff and bring project revisions back to the Commission for consultation. The motion was seconded by Mr. McDaniel and unanimously carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS Certified Local Government (CLG) Program: Update on Application for Grant Funding for FFY2016 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the application for Grant Funding for FFY 2016 was submitted. The formal Letter of Agreement relating to the grant was received. They will be working on the signing the Letter of Agreement. With the project they will be looking to have consulting services assistance for an updates to the Design Standards and Guidelines document to develop the RFP/ RFQ. The City Budget did include the required cash match of $10,000 and the grant is roughly $7,000. The Commission thanked Mrs. Melson-Williams and Staff for their hard work. 15

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 Mr. McDaniel moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Scarfford and unanimously carried 5-0 Meeting adjourned at 5:09 PM Sincerely, Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 16

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION August 18, 2016 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Historic District Commission was held on Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:00 PM with Vice Chairman McDaniel presiding. Members present were Vice Chairman McDaniel, Mr. Czerwinski, Mr. Scrafford. Mr. Jackson arrived at 3:11pm. Ms. Horsey arrived at 3:12pm. Planning Office Staff members present were Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mr. Cook, Mrs. Purnell, and Mr. Diaz. Vice Chairman McDaniel welcomed new Appointment Mr. Czerwinski and Mr. Scrafford as a Reappointment. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Scrafford moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Czerwinski and the motion was unanimously carried 3-0. Ms. Horsey and Mr. Jackson was absent. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING OF July 21, 2016 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the minutes are still in the process of being prepared. Action will be deferred until the next meeting. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Summary of 2016 Activity Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that included in the packet was a Summary of the 2015 and 2016 applications that came before the Historic District Commission. For this calendar year there were five (5) applications. For 2015 there were a total of eight (8). There were no major changes with the exception of the HI-16-05 Mixed Use Buildings at 126 West Loockerman Street filed their Site Plan Application. This will go before the Planning Commission on September 19, 2016. Summary of Architectural Review Certifications for 2016 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that to date there have been twenty-seven (27) Permits with activities in the Historic District that includes building interior and exterior projects, roof, signage, and fence permits. Seventeen (17) of the Permits were approved by Staff including four (4) that were heard by the Historic District Commission. There were six (6) Permits that involved interior items that were not visible from the public street which required no Architectural Review Certification. Mr. McDaniel commented on The Century Club project on The Green was progressing well and the contractors were doing a splendid job. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that permits were issued for gutters, brick repointing, minor wood repair, etc. at that site.

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 2016 Mr. Jackson arrived at 3:11pm. Department of Planning & Inspections Update Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there were no updates. NEW BUSINESS Election for Vacancy of Chairman Position Ms. Horsey arrived at 3:12pm. Mr. Scrafford moved to elect Mr. McDaniel as Chairman for the Historic District Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Horsey and unanimously carried 5-0. Mr. Scrafford moved to elect Ms. Horsey as Vice Chairman for the Historic District Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. McDaniel and unanimously carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS HI-16-05 Mixed Use Buildings at 126 West Loockerman Street – Update on Project Design. The Historic District Commission on July 21, 2016 recommended approval of the Architectural Review Certification subject to conditions for Application HI-16-05 which proposes the construction of two mixed use buildings on the existing site known as Loockerman Way. One four-story building and one three-story building is proposed, with ground floor commercial uses and residential uses on upper floors, and associated site improvements, subject to future Site Development Plan approval processes. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and is subject to the H (Historic District Overlay Zone). The property is located on the south side of West Loockerman Street between South Governors Avenue and South State Street. The owner of record is Downtown Dover Partnership Corporation and equitable owner is Loockerman Plaza, LLC. Address: 126 West Loockerman Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-04-06.00-000. Council District 4. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that at the July 21, 2016 meeting, a Public Hearing was conducted and the Commission recommended approval of the Architectural Review Certification subject to a series of conditions. The applicant was asked to bring back a progress update in response to the discussion at the July meeting. Members received today two updated (2) sheets from the architect. Representative Mr. Adam Perza, Esquire who represents Lighthouse Construction. A supplemental set of drawings with the response to request from the Historic District Commission members have been provided. The appearance of the windows from the second floor to the top of the building look like a long line of windows that did not appear to be separated enough to appear to be 2 or 3 stories. The architect revised the plans by shorting the windows and eliminating the bottom panels so that there is more of a brick pathway that separates each of the floors. They have added more texture to the brick (that is set off from the wall panel). This was done to add more definition or depth to the building. There is also a modification to the balcony. There is an additional balcony added to the second and third floor in the west building. Additional color details do not get decided 2

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 2016 until part of the planning process. The builder plans to communicate and work with the Planning Office as it progresses through the construction phase to make sure the City of Dover and residents are happy with the development of the project and that it reflects well and conforms and compliments its surrounding properties on Loockerman Street. Mrs. Melson-Williams reiterated that the key differences are the window proportions on the west building (bigger brick space) between the top of the second floor window and the start of the area of the window on the third floor. The same thing somewhat occurs on the east building. The west building does have the addition of balcony space rather than just all windows across the Loockerman Street façade of the building. There has also been a slight change where the residential entry is on the west side. In the coloring rendering, you can start to see some of the potential for the brick treatment features (texture) on the building. The Historic District Commission made a recommendation of approval, but wanted to continue to hear the progress to date. The recommendation along with any updates will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will be involved in looking at the architecture and the Architectural Review Certification for this project. Chairman McDaniel questioned if the applicant would be asked at the Planning Commission what type of brick they will be using. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied that she did not know if they would have a brick color choice specifically decided even at that point. Material choices such as that tend to happen later in the process. The Planning Office can keep the Historic District Commission members updated. Ms. Horsey asked about the cornice at the top of the building which was also mentioned at the last meeting because it does not look like from the new rendering that it was done. She asked if it could be looked at. Mr. Scrafford stated that at the last meeting the applicant was in agreement that they would show the Historic District Commission members the update. Chairman McDaniel questioned whether this would hold up the project, Mrs. Melson-Williams replied no. It was certainly one of the items that was discussed at the last meeting and it may continue to be evaluated as part of the building design. Mr. Czerwinski questioned whether the applicant went to single solid pane windows. In the previous design the taller window frame had dual pane. The single pane windows are not attractive; He would like to see them incorporate a sash look to the window. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that it looks like it continues on the Plaza. The window is perhaps divided. Mr. Czerwinski questioned whether there was any problem with having the balconies right on the street, Mrs. Melson-Williams replied no. Mr. Czerwinski also commented regarding the cornice and stated that almost every building downtown has some type cornice to compliment what is there because these are major buildings. 3

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 2016 Mr. McDaniel recapped what was previously mentioned regarding the cornice and the windows on the east and west buildings. Mr. Perza commented at the last meeting the Historic District Commission did not want two identical buildings, he questioned whether they wanted the buildings looking the same, Chairman McDaniel replied yes. Mr. Scrafford moved to continue approval of the project from July and that they received a progress update. Two (2) suggestions were made regarding the revised submittal: the cornice to be placed on both buildings in accordance with the conversation and approval at the July 21, 2016 meeting and that the windows design on the east building be more reflective of the windows on the west building (similar in design). The motion was seconded by Ms. Horsey and unanimously carried 5-0. Certified Local Government (CLG) Program: Update on FFY2016 Grant Project: Evaluate and Update the Design Standards & Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Staff has started some initial work on the document they need to prepare to go out to seek a consultant. It has not been advertised at the current time. There is also a grant agreement document that needs to be signed between the City and State Historic Preservation Office that outlines the grant administration and the reporting on quarterly status and progress to date. She anticipates there would be grant monies starting next July so she suggests to be thinking ahead of the next potential project. Mr. Scrafford asked if any suggestions be brought to the Historic District Commission. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the grant money is not available for brick and mortar projects. The grant is more in the line for studies, public outreach, and specific training opportunities. Chairman McDaniel questioned whether Mrs. Melson-Williams was the point of contact for the program, Mrs. Melson-Williams replied yes. Mr. Scrafford moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Jackson and unanimously carried 5-0 Meeting adjourned at 3:36 PM Sincerely, Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 4

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2016 Updated thru October 11, 2016 FILE# PLAN NAME LOCATION TYPE ACTION STATUS HI-16-01 Capitol Complex Capital Complex Presentation of Presentation at HDC 2/18/2016 Meeting Project lighting concept for light fixture Lighting Area: Federal Street, Information and bulb illumination positively received Upgrades Martin Luther King by HDC. Project is informational only; no Jr. Boulevard, formal action or permitting process Legislative Avenue required. HI-16-02 Carriage House at 2 Kings Highway NE Demolition of garage Architectural Review Certification granted Upon receipt of Building Permit #16-337 2 Kings Highway and construction of with conditions at 4/21/2016 HDC project was identified as requiring NE carriage house Meeting; Staff Approval of Permit per ARC application to HDC; Application HI-16-02 building as accessory pending filed and considered; Permit approved (but structure not issued as of yet) HI-16-03 CLG Grant Certified Local Information File Notice of Eligibility for Grant 2/19/2016; Grant Application received; Formal Award Application for Government FFY2016 CLG Grant Application submitted Letter received and Letter of Agreement FFY2016 Application for 4/28/2016 to SHPO pending; Grant Timeframe 7/1/16-6/30/17 Grant Funding HI-16-04 Referral of Sign The Depot at 595 Sign Permit for Wall Permit #16-611 referred to HDC by City Permit approved based on HCD Permit #16-611 Forest Street Sign with Electronic Planner for Architectural Review consultation; Permit issued Message Center Certification consultation; Considered at 5/19/16 HDC Meeting HI-16-05 Mixed Use 126 West 3-story 7/21/2016 HDC Public Hearing and Review HDC Recommendation on ArchRevCert Buildings at Loockerman Street, Commercial/Apartm for Recommendations; HDC subject to conditions. Site Plan application Loockerman Way current site of ent Building and 4- Recommended Approval of ArchRevCert S-16-18 granted conditional approval by Loockerman Way story subject to conditions; Application S-16-18 Planning Commission in September with (plaza area) Commercial/Apartm reviewed by PC and granted Approval of approval of ArchRevCert subject to ent Building ArchRevCert with conditions 9/19/2016. conditions. Need to work to finalize Site Plan. HI-16-06 Open Flags for Downtown Dover Presentation of Presentation scheduled for HDC Meeting Concept for uniform Open flags with Downtown area Information on 10/20/2016 "Dover - Historically Happening" graphics Businesses

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2015 Updated thru October 11, 2016 FILE# PLAN NAME LOCATION TYPE ACTION STATUS HI-15-01 DRAFT Certified City of Dover Application to be Draft Application presented to HDC on Planning Staff completed DRAFT of CLG Local designated as a 1/15/2015. Draft Application reviewed by Application. Application presented to City Government Certified Local Legislative, Finance & Administration Council who endorsed its submission. Application Government Committee on 2/9/2015. City Council on Submission to SHPO with cover letter 2/23/2015 approved Application for dated 3/30/2015 from Mayor. Designated submission. a CLG on May 15, 2015. HI-15-02 Sign Permit #14- 151 Kings Highway Sign Permit for post Permit #14-1609 referred to HDC by City Permit issued for post and panel sign. Sign 1609 Referral SW, Woodburn and panel sign Planner for Architectural Review installed. Governors Mansion Certification consultation; 1/15/2015 HDC Meeting - approved ARC as submitted in permit; Staff Approval of Permit per ARC HI-15-03 Sign Permit #15- 6 South State Street, Sign Permit for Permit #15-15 referred to HDC by City Permit issued. Freestanding sign and fence 15 Referral Baird Mandalas & freestanding sign Planner for Architectural Review installed at property corner of South State Brockstedt and fence Certification consultation; 1/15/2015 HDC Street and Division Street. Meeting - approved ARC with conditions on height and size; Staff Approval of Permit per ARC HI-15-04 Building Permit 3 Loockerman Plaza, Building Permit for Permit #15-19 referred to HDC by City Permit issued. Construction complete. #15-19 Referral PNC Bank Drive-thru ATM Planner for Architectural Review structure Certification consultation; 1/15/2015 HDC Meeting - approved ARC with conditions for dumpster enclosure; Staff Approval of Permit per ARC HI-15-05 Biggs Museum 406 Federal Street Installation of Architectural Review Certification Permit issued. Installation of the sculpture Sculpture exterior sculpture of Application granted at HDC meeting of is complete. tree and birds 2/19/2015; Staff Approval of Permit per ARC

City of Dover Historic District Commission Summary of Applications 2015 Updated thru October 11, 2016 HI-15-06 Building at 312 312 West Determination of Determination of Demolition by Neglect by Active Code Enforcement Cases and West Loockerman Street Demolition by HCD at meeting of 2/19/2015. Property designated a Dangerous Building. Property Loockerman Neglect declared a Dangerous Building by City owner has until 9/9/2015 to repair or Street Council on 3/9/2015. demolish building. City taking action to demolish the building. Demolition Permit #15-1387 issued 10/9/2015. Demolition of building complete. HI-15-07 Santa House Loockerman Way Informational Permit issued. Structure placed Project and other locations Presentation Project for a portable temporary structure. 12/17/2015. Presentation on project at 4/23/2015 HDC Meeting. Staff Approval of Permit #15- 1159 per ARC recommendations. HI-15-08 South Bradford Bradford Street Informational Presentation of project Street segment between Presentation Project concept for proposed pedestrian concepts/alternatives. Public Workshop Streetscape West Division Street improvements including new sidewalks, held by DelDOT 1/12/2016. City Council Enhancements and West curb ramps, crosswalks, curbing, granted authorization on 4/11/2016 to Project Loockerman Street pedestrian lighting, landscaping. execute Transportation Enhancement Presentation on project concept at Program Agreement to initiate the project 12/17/2015 HDC Meeting. design.

Excerpt from Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone

Summary of Permit Applications with Architectural Review Certification 2016 - Updated Thru 9-30-2016 DATE PERMIT # LOCATION TYPE ACTION ON ARCHITECTURAL NOTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE 1/12/2016 16-35 47 South West Street Roof Permit Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Replacement of flat roof system. required due to lack of visibility. 2/8/2016 16-64 151 South Governors Sign Permit - Projecting Sign Staff Approval. Hanging sign under pent roof Avenue, Inkredible Art canopy. 2/4/2016 16-65 100 West Water Street Building Permit - Roof Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Additional downspout drainage Drainage system required due to lack of visibility. system connection on rear/interior parking lot side of building that is not visible. 2/10/2016 16-129 308 South State Street, Law Sign Permit - Projecting Sign Staff Approval Projecting sign hanging under pent Offices of Sean Lynn roof awning. Sign installed. 2/18/2016 16-175 40 The Green, The Century Building Permit - Gutters & Staff Approval. Project information Replacement of gutters using metal Club Downspouts update to HDC on 2/18/2016. half rounds and downspouts on sides of building. Limited visibility. Project complete. 3/28/2016 15-1702 34 South State Street, Administrative Building Permit Staff Approval Brick replacement of brick sidewalk Wesley College President's in herringbone pattern along House property frontage. Project complete. 3/7/2016 16-112 150 South Governors Building Permit - Exterior and Staff Approval with notations about Interior Renovations to retail space. Avenue Interior Renovations selection of exterior finish materials Exterior Renovations of door & and formats. window replacements, reclad in new vinyl siding with entire façade in horizontal siding of clapboard style product. Discussion at 2/18/2016 HDC meeting recommended evaluation of alternative finish materials. Project complete and CO issued. 3/11/2016 16-237 147 South New Street, Bait Building Permit - Interior Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Interior Renovation for take-out N Hook Renovations required for interior work. restaurant tenant.

Presentation on Open Flags for Downtown Businesses HI-16-06 A presentation will be made at the meeting on a concept for the design of Open Flags for the businesses in the Downtown area. See the attached:  Photograph of Concept

Summary of Permit Applications with Architectural Review Certification 2016 - Updated Thru 9-30-2016 DATE PERMIT # LOCATION TYPE ACTION ON ARCHITECTURAL NOTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE 5/10/2016 16-389 333 South Governors Sign Permit - Window Signs Staff Approval Consultation with Staff to refine Avenue, Access Labor sign proposal for approval of a Services series of window signs. 5/4/2016 16-400 102 South Governors Roof Permit Staff Approval Replacement of existing asphalt Avenue shingle roof with new asphalt shingle roof 5/23/2016 16-666 54 South State Street, Temporary Sign Permit Staff Approval Temporary Banner installed and Presbyterian Church removed. 6/24/2016 16-755 211-213 West Loockerman Sign Permit - Window Signs Staff Approval Two window signs installed Street, Janaids 6/20/2016 16-833 403-405 West Loockerman Sign Permit - Roof Sign Staff Approval Reface of existing roof sign. Sign Street, Coaching Great installed. Minds Preschool Academy 7/8/2016 16-934 304 S Governors Avenue, Sign Permit - Wall Sign Staff Approval Wall sign of individual raised letters Reith Hall to be placed in arched topped transom area over entry door. 7/11/2016 16-986 27 West Loockerman Street, Building Permit - Interior No Planning Staff Review. No Interior renovations for real estate The Moving Experience Renovations ArchRevCert required for interior brokerage business office. Project work. complete. 7/26/2016 16-1094 13 & 17 West Loockerman Roof Permit Staff Approval Replacement of pent roof system Street with metal roof. 7/26/2016 16-1095 15 & 19 West Loockerman Roof Permit Staff Approval Replacement of pent roof system Street with metal roof. 8/26/2016 16-864 126 West Loockerman Temporary Sign Permit Staff Approval Banners related to Farmers Market Street, Loockerman Way placed on Santa House 8/1/2016 16-1064 2 North State Street Building Permit - Exterior & Staff Approval Woodwork repairs to trim and Interior Renovations porch flooring; painting; repair of stone steps and brick paths. Project work underway. 8/3/2016 16-1107 317 South State Street Building Permit - Exterior Staff Approval. No ArchRevCert Reconstruction/Repair of second Renovations required for work on rear addition as floor rear addition's roof and not visible from public way. support posts.