Minutes

CITY OF DOVER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE OF PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 2012 A special meeting of the City of Dover Planning Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee for the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM. Members present were Mrs. Kathleen Still, Mr. Terry Jackson, and Mr. Jerry Peters. Mayor Carlton Carey arrived at 4:22 PM. Staff members present were Ms. Cornwell, Mrs. Melson-Williams, and Ms. Metsch. Also present were Mr. Nick Alessandro and Mr. Richard Clark. INTRODUCTION Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the members of the Subcommittee include Mr. Terry Jackson who is a Design Professional; Mr. Jerry Peters who is with Facilities and Planning with Bayhealth and also a Design Professional; and Mrs. Kathleen Still who is a member of the Planning Commission. The Subcommittee is to consist of five (5) members. Currently, we do not have a second Planning Commission member that is appointed to this body. The fifth member is either the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee. Mrs. Melson-Williams further stated that the purpose of the Subcommittee is outlined in the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Dover. As part of the review process for applications to the Planning Commission, Architectural Review of the proposed buildings is part of that review. The Zoning Ordinance outlines the things that the Planning Commission is supposed to consider. At times if the Planning Commission has difficulty in dealing with architecture of a proposal, then they have the ability to refer the application to this Subcommittee for assistance. Mrs. Melson-Williams further stated that the Planning Staff put together a packet of information for this Subcommittee regarding what your task to do is for this afternoon. Staff included a brief summary including the Code citations where it talks about architectural design and what the Planning Commission looks at in that regard. Mrs. Melson-Williams further stated that with the application today, the Committee is to discuss the architecture and come up with a recommendation regarding the architecture and that recommendation will be reported back to the Planning Commission at their meeting next week. The Planning Commission will continue their deliberation on the application and make a final decision. There is one application before you today; that is Application C-12-06 for the Dover First Christian School located at 647 Wyoming Avenue. REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURE Ms. Cornwell stated that the original application is for a pre-school kindergarten to be located on the property of the church. It is a separate building from the church of 4,000 square feet located off the end of the parking lot. The building, as proposed to the Planning Commission, was vertical metal siding with a vertical watertable feature of a different color with a metal roof. Over the entranceways there are porticos and on all four sides there are windows that were proposed with shutters on either 1

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE OCTOBER 9, 2012 side of the windows. The Planning Commission had concerns regarding material choices. As proposed in Options #1 and #2, the metal siding is now proposed to be vertical siding with either Option #1 is a brick watertable feature or Option #2 is a stone watertable feature. The packet included a Site Plan diagram showing the location of the church in relation to the new building, the original architectural drawings, and three renderings: the original that was submitted to the Planning Commission and the two options that are being proposed today by the applicant. Mr. Peters stated that the renderings appear to be horizontal siding and Staff stated vertical siding. Responding to Mr. Peters, Ms. Cornwell stated that the original application was showing vertical metal siding. Mr. Alessandro stated that with regards to steel siding, steel roof, and steel wainscoting this was the initial choice of the church which met with opposition from the City of Dover. There are several concerns with Dover First Christian with regards to their budget as they were forced to include 1,200 linear feet of sidewalk and various other things that were not accounted for in the initial budget. Making changes to the exterior of the structure such as going from a steel siding to a vinyl siding adds $7,000 to the budget. Obviously, changing from the steel wainscoting to brick or stone would add several thousand dollars. It is making it tough on the church to have to build all these other items and stay within a budget that they could afford. If they exceed the budget, then they would not be able to do the project. Mr. Alessandro further stated that we, the contractor, have done quite a bit of the construction at cost and the mason contractor has donated concrete and work for the sidewalk to try and keep the church in budget. Even though the budget was tight, the church did a lot to enhance the aesthetic value of the building by adding the porticos and wainscoting which really does not do anything for the structure it is only there for the aesthetics. Mr. Alessandro further stated that steel siding is not an option as horizontal siding. If they go back to horizontal siding, they would have to revert back to a vinyl product. Steel is a green building product that is completely recyclable that has a thirty (30) year warranty against fading. It is an excellent building product and does not have to look industrial; it can look nice. He has brought several samples of vinyl siding and several samples of stone. If we have to do brick for the wainscoting, we will pick brick that will match the church. He has brought samples of the colors of the metal roof. He feels that a lot of what is aesthetic value is not necessarily a material that is being chosen; however, the trim colors and the colors of the main structure. Mr. Clark stated that the renderings show a picture of the church and buildings that are around it that are visible to the school building from their homes. The first shows the end of the church where the new building will be built on. The next picture shows the house directly north of it which is approximately 300 feet away with the next house east of it which is approximately 200 feet away that goes up Woodford Drive. This is where only four houses in the front look at the building. For the houses on Wyoming Avenue the rear of the houses looks at the front of the church or the side of the houses looks at the front of the church. West of the project is New Burton Road. Mr. Jackson questioned what the cross hatched red addition that looks out towards Woodford Drive is? Responding to Mr. Jackson, Mr. Clark stated that this is an existing building that they put in a request to use for the school while the school is being built. 2

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE OCTOBER 9, 2012 Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if there were any questions. What this body is here to do today is have a discussion regarding the best options for the architecture. The Planning Commission heard a lot about how this building should fit into the neighborhood and is why there are some pictures showing the adjacent houses and what they look like. There was some concern regarding materials overall. Mrs. Still stated that is was her impression that there was a lot of concern from the residents in the area and in order to mitigate some of that and still work towards being able to allow the Conditional Use. She does not believe that there was any concern about the Conditional Use as far as the Commission was concerned; however, in order to try and work within the parameters and look for something that fit more into a residential look, there was a lot of negative feeling from the community for the metal building. Not to discount what your purpose is for the school, her impression was that if they could come to a happy meeting place there then it would probably not be as adverse to the community as far as the view. The goal is to work with you to negate that so that should the Commission vote for that, there would be a little less likelihood that there would be opposition. Mr. Alessandro stated that it is important to mention that the church was not against changing options to make it more aesthetically pleasing and to make people happy; it is all budget related. They have to attain two things, we have to make everyone as happy as we can and be able to build it. Mr. Clark stated that the church is willing to do anything to make the project go forward. We are not firm in saying that we need this metal building with the metal siding. We are willing to go with brick or stone wainscot whichever one you think would be better with vinyl siding. He would like to keep the metal roof for one reason, longevity as we would be looking at sixty to seventy years as opposed to twenty or thirty. The color just about matches anything to make everyone happy with the colors because the church is not steadfast on any color and whatever works is fine. We want to be easy to work with and understand that we are in a residential area. Mr. Peters stated that he probably would not want a metal building in his neighborhood; however, the scale of the building itself fits in with the neighborhood more than it fits in with your existing building because the existing building has more mass to it. He stated that one change may be related to the chain link fence which to him would be more objectionable than Option #1 and #2 for the kid’s playground. Responding to Mr. Peters, Mr. Clark stated that it would not be a chain link fence; however, a vinyl fence. Mr. Jackson stated the addition should come to the massing height, eave height, and materials of the existing church as much as possible. He feels that they should do brick on the addition and if that does not work, the brick wainscot should and there should be as much of it there as possible. The panels of the widows of the existing building fit in well as an architectural feature of the existing building. He is not sure that they need to copy that on the new building as it may be to your advantage material cost wise to do that. He would like to see the rhythm of the existing building reflected in the addition. Eave height should be matched and he is sure they could do metal roofing, if need be, to match the color of the existing grey shingles. Mr. Jackson further questioned how they felt about a metal roof versus a thirty year shingle? Responding to Mr. Jackson, Mr. Alessandro stated that a thirty year shingle is certainly more attractive and they would probably get forty years out of it. 3

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE OCTOBER 9, 2012 Mr. Jackson further stated that he would also add that the roof of the addition should match the existing roof; as he is trying to make sure that the building does not look like bits and pieces rather it looks more like one building. He feels that with the surrounding neighborhood that has many styles and shapes and colors, the more this building looks like one building that is joined the better. To clarify the school building is an “addition” to the site. He has small reservations regarding the playground; although fenced it is breaking the setback. It is closer to the road, fenced and he feels that this would be an objection. Mr. Peters stated that they could turn the fence and make it a little safer off of New Burton Road. Responding to Mr. Peters, Ms. Cornwell stated that the State prescribes the location of the play area based on the school so it would get partially approved by the State when they do their review. Mr. Jackson further stated that we do not take into consideration the cost of doing a project to meet the Code and just because something it expensive, it is no reason not to do it. Responding to Mr. Jackson, Mr. Alessandro stated that by taking aesthetics out of the situation, when you look at a steel roof versus an asphalt roof it is not nearly as close to the life expectancy of a metal roof. Mr. Alessandro questioned if vinyl siding was or was not an option as it matches most of the homes? Responding to Mr. Alessandro, Mr. Peters stated that it matches closer to the homes; however, it does not match as close to your existing building. Mrs. Melson-Williams questioned if they could look at a vinyl siding color that is similar to the insets that those windows are in and would that be something to tie to two together? Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mr. Jackson stated that there is a buff color in vinyl siding. Mr. Jackson questioned if there was difference in price for vinyl siding versus brick? Responding to Mr. Jackson, Mr. Alessandro stated that the cost of the brick is more expensive because you have to have footers to hold up the brick. Mr. Jackson stated to summarize, he would definitely match the eave height and he would match the brick. He is open to suggestions as to what they are trying to go up the gable with wall wise. It could be dryvit to match the panels in the windows and do the window vertical band elements like the existing that would cut out some brick. Mr. Peters stated that he would stay away from a metal roof as he feels they would get more acceptance in this neighborhood if they went with an asphalt shingle roof. If your budget allows it, he feels that a brick building would be your best choice. Responding to Mr. Peters, Mr. Alessandro stated that he does not think anyone disagrees; however, it is a budget issue. Mr. Alessandro questioned what would be the minimal changes the church would have to make for it to be acceptable? Responding to Mr. Alessandro, Mr. Jackson stated that his view would be that the new building should match the old building being all brick or brick with panels. Mr. Alessandro stated that in the last meeting that they were in it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they match the houses in which the big objection was the horizontal siding versus vertical siding. That is why the brick wainscoting came into play to have some architectural detail to tie it into the church. 4

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE OCTOBER 9, 2012 Mrs. Still stated that matching the houses is probably the thought there; however, to her it was more to give it a more residential look or a less industrial look from the all metal siding. She does not feel that anyone expects it to look like a house because it is not intended to be. From her personal perspective, with the profile of this there is no high ribs so to her, if it was all brick, it probably would not be as objectionable as long as the metal roof for financial aspects would bring the financial scales back into balance. Then the brick versus the metal roofing she would not be so adverse to it provided the color was correct and have the brick with the insets at the windows. Mrs. Melson-Williams questioned if there is a consensus out of your discussions today that we can gather up to take back to the Planning Commission? Mr. Peters stated that it would be desirable if it was a building that was consistent with the site. One of the suggestions in the report is to mimic what is on site. Mr. Clark stated that they were thinking that with the brick wainscoting with the vinyl siding matches the very next house north of it. In other words, the church being the closest thing to the new building with the next closest being the house north of it which is brick wainscoting with vinyl siding. We could build a building that basically would match either one of them. Mr. Jackson stated that the church has been there for many years on a corner lot and he feels that they need to match the existing church not play to the neighborhood. Mayor Carey questioned how old the roof is on the existing church? Responding to Mayor Carey, Mr. Clark stated that the roof on the church is five (5) years old. Mayor Carey further stated that if the roof had some age on it they could consider a metal roof as an option. Responding to Mayor Carey, Mr. Clark stated they put a thirty year shingle on it four to five years ago. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that if this is a consensus, you could put forth that related to the roof it would be an asphalt shingle. Mr. Peters stated that this building is setback far enough from a residential area that he does not see that a brick building is out of character with this site. Mrs. Melson-Williams questioned if the consensus is that the best option would be a brick building? Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mr. Peters states yes with some dryvit accents. Mrs. Melson-Williams questioned if there was other detailing they could consider? Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mr. Jackson stated that he thinks that the triangle in the gable end could match the panels and the existing windows which would save some brick. If you are not going to do the window panels set in dryvit, then you do a total brick wall that would simplify the construction. You could set the brick where the windows are back by a half of an inch to mimic the panels that are in the existing building which would also break up the façade some. Mr. Jackson stated they would match the roof with shingles, do the whole new building in brick with the possibility of setting the brick back to establish the window pattern and possibly something on the 5

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE OCTOBER 9, 2012 gable end of the addition could have dryvit in the gable triangle. They could make it a gable vent and pretend it is a window. Mrs. Melson-Williams questioned the porticos over the entry doors, any thoughts of those? Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mr. Jackson stated that they should match as close as possible to the existing portico covers on the existing building. Mr. Clark stated that there is none; however, he would like to do them he was just unsure as it would not match the existing. It looked better with porticos on all the doors. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated in summary we are taking back a recommendation to the Planning Commission that the roof be an asphalt shingle, that you match the eave heights with the existing church building and that the recommendation is for a brick building with the gable ends on the triangle be dryvit material to match the existing church or the option to brick it. An addition detail that is suggested is the setback of the brick in the areas of the window to create the pattern that the church has. Mr. Peters stated that is maybe outside of our pervue; however, he would get the playground out of the setback to get it further away from New Burton Road. Mayor Carey questioned in order to eliminate any possible concern when you put it back to the Planning Commission, did you want to show it brick all the way up versus the dryvit and that way the recommendation would be the way you want it? Responding to Mayor Carey, Mr. Clark stated that this would be satisfactory to them. He would have to take it to the church board for final approval as he is only their spokesperson. Meeting Adjourned at 4:59 PM Sincerely, Diane Metsch Secretary 6