Board of Adjustment 5-20-20

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VIRTUAL MEETING MINUTES May 20, 2020 A Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment was held virtually using a telephone and video conferencing platform system (WebEx) on Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 9:00 A.M. with Chairman Sheth presiding. Members present were Chairman Sheth, Mr. Keller, Mr. Senato, Colonel Ericson and Mr. Hufnal. Staff members present were Mr. Swierczek, Mr. Hugg, Mrs. Bulkilvish, City Solicitor Mr. Rodriguez, and Mrs. Savage-Purnell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Senato moved to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hufnal and unanimously carried 5-0. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2020 Mr. Keller moved to approve the meeting minutes of January 15, 2020 with the necessary corrections. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hufnal and unanimously carried 5-0. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING APPLICATIONS Mr. Dave Hugg, Planning Director stated that the meeting today will be conducted in accordance with the Agenda. There is one new (1) application on the agenda under New Business. The Application file will be read, and the floor will be opened for questions of the applicant by the Board and for public testimony. If the Board needs to consult the City Solicitor, they will recess to discuss legal matters. If the applicant must leave, they can contact the Planning Office at 736- 7196 to learn of the Board’s decision. A formal notice of the decision will be mailed to the applicants. Approved variances expire after one year if the approved project has not commenced. All public notice for the new application on this agenda was completed in accordance with Code requirements. The meeting agenda was posted in accordance with Freedom of Information Act requirements. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS The next Board of Adjustment regular meeting is scheduled for June 17, 2020 at 9:00am. NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-20-02 245 McKee Road. Delaware Department of Corrections has requested a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 pertaining to permitted sign height and sign area for Nonresidential Uses Adjacent to Residential Districts along an Urban Minor Arterial. Specifically, to increase the height from 7 ft. to 8 ft. tall for a monument sign with an electronic message center and to increase the total area of the sign face from 32 SF. to 42.5 SF. at the entrance to their facility on McKee Road. Subject property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2020 Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone 1). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-067.00-02-16.00-000. The owner of record is National Cup Co. Mrs. Bulkilvish gave a summary presentation of the Variance Application Request for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 pertaining to permitted sign height and sign area for Nonresidential Uses Adjacent to Residential Districts along an Urban Minor Arterial. Exhibits for the Record: Staff Report, Zoning Exhibit, and statement and photos submitted by the applicant. Legal Notice was published in the Delaware State News on May 10, 2020. The public was notified in accordance with regulations. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any member present who had a conflict of interest. Mr. Senato commented that he had worked for over 15 years as the Correctional Sergeant with the Department and 10 years in Headquarters in various positions is and currently on the Governor’s Board of Adjustment which is the Advisory Board to the Commissioners and Bureau Chiefs. City Solicitor stated that after hearing Mr. Senato comments that he would not be disqualified from voting on the application. Representative: Ms. Colleen Michelle Allen, Rogers Sign Company Inc. Ms. Colleen Michelle Allen was sworn in by City Solicitor Mr. Rodriguez. PowerPoint Presentation Ms. Allen testified that they are applying for a LED message center for the Department of Corrections with brick base and column. The proposed sign is only 10 square feet higher than what is allowed in this district. However, it is more than 10 square feet less than what they currently have. The property across the street is protected from view by a berm and vegetation and you really cannot see anything. The neighboring homes to the right of the property are blocked by a fence and trees. She did not think that the sign would be a distraction by anyone in the neighborhood. Chairman Sheth asked the Applicant if she was aware that Staff did not recommend approval of the variance to permit an 8ft. tall sign. Ms. Allen replied yes, the height pertains to the aesthetic. If you look at Exhibit D which is the sketch of the sign, the base of the sign is only 18 inches. The LED portion is 50 inches in height and the header panel is 25 inches. Most of this is related to the LED header panel size and the LED having to be 70 percent. If we reduce the base or the header panel that means that we would be reducing the LED which is really the focal point. The more we reduce the height, the more we would have to reduce everything else to be in line with the Code. 2

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2020 Mr. Hufnal mentioned that he did not have a problem with the increased size because it is smaller than the existing sign. Mr. Hufnal asked the applicant if they had considered rather than reducing any of the brickwork which is the basic aesthetic value of that sign, but instead reduce the height of the actual sign and increasing the width. In other words, you currently have 6.3 feet high, perhaps consider reducing that to 5.3 feet high and extending the width from 6.7 feet to 8 feet. Ms. Allen replied it could be a consideration. The reason we went with the current numbers is because when programming the LED when it is more square than horizontal, it is easier to read and program. You also get better graphing/photos. She stated that the Department of Correction also wanted to put photos on the sign. When you have a horizontal sign, it is nearly impossible to program. Mr. Hufnal asked if it was easier to operate the LED sign in its current configuration than it would to change the structure of the actual sign. Ms. Allen replied correct. We can somewhat reduce the brick somewhat, but she did not know if it would make it enough. Mr. Hufnal mentioned that aesthetically the way that you have the brick design in the L-shaped with the 18 inches of brick all the way around makes it look great. If you did reduce the brick, it would be a deterrent to the actual sign itself. Ms. Allen replied right. We wanted the sign to match the building, so it looks like it is part of it. Mr. Hufnal said right, and he agreed. It is a L-shaped sign with the LED electronic work added into it. Is that right? Ms. Allen replied yes, it is sitting on top. Mr. Hufnal asked for confirmation that there was no second side going up along the Corrections name, it is the actual part of the LED sign. Ms. Allen replied correct. Chairman Sheth stated that he was concerned about establishing a precedent if the second variance was approved to increase the height and that they had denied similar variances requests in the past. Mr. Hufnal commented that aesthetically the sign looks great as it is. You are only talking about a 1-foot difference in a matter of a ½ mile to the next sign which is near Westminster. Then you will need to go another ½ mile the other way to get to the Hamlet before you see another sign. He did not think that the 1-foot variance in that neighborhood with the way the berm is set up and the buffer areas that anyone is ever going to notice the difference of that height. Mr. Keller commented on the comments in the City’s Report under “Project Description” that it is a legal non-conforming sign according to the Zoning Ordinance. He asked if it was legal non- conforming or non-conforming. Mrs. Bulkilvish replied that she did the Report months ago and does not recall whether the sign is legal non-conforming or non-conforming. Mr. Keller mentioned that it is currently noted as a non-conforming sign. Mrs. Bulkilvish replied right. Mr. Keller commented as he referred to Exhibit I drawing and asked if the new proposed sign would be lower in height than the existing sign? He asked if it was a true representation of what will happen. Ms. Allen replied that it was not a true scale, it was her hand drawing. It is not 100% accurate, but to the best of her knowledge it is close. She believes the existing sign is 10-feet tall from the bottom of the post to the top of the post. It may even be shorter than that. 3

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2020 Mr. Keller mentioned if the existing sign is a non-conforming sign under the current zoning regulations and if it is a legal non-conforming sign, then the new proposed sign when constructed (if the depiction is correct and Ms. Allen’s statement is correct) there would not be an increase in the degree of non-conformity of the existing sign if approved as presented. The sign would be a smaller area and there would be a decrease in the square footage from the existing sign. The new sign would be lower in height than the existing non-conforming sign. It would be 1-foot higher than the maximum allowed under the current zoning. If it is some legal question in the past and it is a legal non-conforming sign, then the new sign would not increase but would in fact decrease the degree of non-conformity. For that reason, he would not have any dilemma or objection to an approval of both the square footage question as well as the height of the sign question to the degree of non-conformity. Mr. Hufnal mentioned that he agreed with Mr. Keller because even though the sign shows an increase in height, it is still shorter and smaller than what currently exists. Mr. Senato questioned whether the sign is legal non-conforming or non-conforming. He asked Mr. Keller if he was referencing in his comments the current sign and what was his main point. Mr. Keller replied that he was referring to the existing sign that is non-conforming. It does not comply with the existing Zoning Ordinance dimensions. Mr. Keller replied that his main point was that the newly proposed sign would differ 12 inches in height. From the existing Zoning Ordinance dimensions, it will be none the less smaller in the square footage area as well as shorter in height than the existing non-conforming sign. If the existing sign is a legal non-conforming, then the proposed sign would be less dimensionally in both area and height than the existing sign. For that reason, he would not have any dilemma or objection to an approval of both the square footage question as well as the height of the sign question to the degree of non-conformity. Mr. Senato asked with the extra foot. Mr. Keller replied yes, no objection to an approval. Colonel Ericson mentioned that we should not be comparing this sign to the old sign. We are comparing this against what the Code states now. He has not heard any rationale that is going to be a hardship if they stayed within the Code. Why can’t the applicant conform to the Code? Ms. Allen replied that the reason they selected this size is because they started with the size of LED. It is something that would be visible to everyone driving down the street and it would make sense to the client. The Code states that you need to have a header panel which is a certain percentage of the LED. This is what we came up with and with the brick face of 18 inches it is pretty minimal in height. If we reduce the size of the sign it would be smaller and the Department of Correction would not be able to announce their applications for State events, training and hiring, etc. effectively. Colonel Ericson mentioned that if it was approved, it would be setting a precedent and the Board did not want to set a precedent if they could help it. He did not see where it was mandatory to make it this size. Ms. Allen replied that if it was made smaller (32 square feet), we would end up losing so much LED to compensate for the header panel that it would not be sensible. You would not be able to read it. 4

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2020 Mr. Hufnal mentioned that his comments were rather than reduce the height to the LED and make it wider there would be too much distortion in the lettering to do it that way. This was the applicant’s way of making the sign readable and understandable from a distance as the vehicles go by. Mr. Hufnal asked the applicant if this was correct. Ms. Allen replied yes, that is correct. Colonel Ericson mentioned that with every application the Board has for a sign, the applicant says the same thing. The applicant likes the sign and want it for their own personal requirement when in fact it does not meet Code. You start out with a Code and if it requests an exception you have to meet all of those requirements. He does not believe the applicant has stated their position adequately to vote yes. Chairman Sheth mentioned that the statement is on the sign twice (logo) and “Delaware Department of Correction.” Ms. Allen replied that the top panel statement will always remain the same. The bottom panel wording can change and state anything that the Delaware Department of Correction wants to add to the sign. It was just a quick mock up. The sign may not look like that at all. Mr. Senato asked as he referred to the proposed sign and Ms. Allen comments that the “the bottom panel wording can change and state anything that the Delaware Department of Correction want to add to the sign. It was just a quick mock up. The sign may not look like that at all.” The top panel is the permanent sign and the bottom panel would be the electronic signage and that they really cannot go any smaller. If you took away the top sign panel, would it give you what you needed on the entire sign? Chairman Sheth asked since the Board was having difficulties understanding the comments from everyone, they could table the application until the next meeting in hopes that the next meeting would not be virtual. Ms. Bulkilvish commented on Mr. Senato’s question about, if the top panel had been removed, it would resolve the sign area issue that we are having. Ms. Bulkilvish replied that it would; however, the Code states that a sign cannot be strictly in an electronic message center. It can be a portion of the sign face and not to exceed 70% of the sign face. This is what the applicant has shown that the top panel does meet Code. The complete sign face is not completely LED but is less than 70% LED. Mr. Hufnal asked if we have to keep the top panel and the bottom panel as the LED sign, could the applicant go into the brick area and compromise to reduce the sign 6 inches into the brick so that you would have 1-foot of brick level at the bottom and 18 inches on the left side. Chairman Sheth agreed with Mr. Hufnal. Mr. Hufnal asked if it were a compromise that the applicant would be acceptable with. Ms. Allen mentioned that she did not hear what was previously asked due to her computer died, but she asked if Mr. Hufnal asked to shrink the brick face by 6 inches so that it is 12 inches. Mrs. Bulkilvish replied correct. Ms. Allen replied that the only reason they do not recommend that is because if you go out and look at the brick face it is short and looks as if the sign is sitting on the ground. 5

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2020 Chairman Sheth mentioned if the applicant is not in agreement, he suggested postponing the application until the next meeting. Colonel Ericson suggested tabling the application until the next meeting and perhaps the meeting will be in person. Mr. Senato mentioned that he agreed with Colonel Ericson. Colonel Ericson suggested to table the application and start at the beginning at the meeting because the Board has not had a good chance to talk with the applicant and this would be fair to the applicant. This would give the applicant more time in case she had more ideas or options for the next meeting in order to meet the standards or compromise. Ms. Allen mentioned that she would also like to talk with the contact person at the Department of Corrections for his thoughts and propose a few things as compromises to see what they would like to do. At the end, this is their sign and she is going to have to bring back to the Board what they would like for her to do. There was brief discussion between the Board members regarding the public hearing and tabling the meeting. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the Board could table the meeting. He asked the Board if they wanted to open the public hearing now and then they would not need to have a public hearing at the next meeting. Colonel Ericson mentioned that he wanted to make sure Ms. Allen would be able to speak at the next meeting in person. Ms. Allen mentioned that she did not hear a lot of the conversation due to computer issues. The public hearing was deferred. Mr. Senato moved to table variance application V-20-02 until the next Board of Adjustment meeting. The motion was seconded by Colonel Ericson. Roll Call Mr. Keller – yes Mr. Senato – yes Mr. Hufnal – yes Colonel Ericson – yes Chairman Sheth - yes The motion unanimously carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned by Mr. Senato and seconded by Colonel Ericson at 10:21 A.M. Sincerely, 6

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2020 Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 7