Attachment

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AGENDA THRUSDAY, December 15, 2011- 3:00 P.M. City Hall – Conference Room ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING on October 20, 2011 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1. Meeting & Deadline Schedule for 2012 OLD BUSINESS 1. Discussion of Role of Historic District Commission a. Review of Draft Resolution/Letter pertaining to Role of Historic District Commission NEW BUSINESS 1. Annual Meeting of Historic District Commission a. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman 2. Building at 22-24 West Loockerman Street – Presentation of Information on the proposed Renovation project to the existing building at 22-24 West Loockerman Street owned by the Downtown Dover Partnership. The renovation project involves proposed changes to the Loockerman Street façade, changes to the North Street façade, and interior renovations to divide the building into multiple tenant spaces. Certain portions of the project are eligible for administrative review of Architectural Review Certification during Building Permit process; however, other project aspects may require submission of an application for Architectural Review Certification review by the Historic District Commission. The Historic District Commission requested an informational presentation on this project as it is being designed and planned. 3. HI-11-05 North Street Area Improvement Project – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to the City of Dover Planning Commission on the Architectural Review Certificate for the North Street Area Improvement project. The project involves three project areas/phases consisting of the following: a parking lot consolidation project on the south side of North Street; streetscape improvements to the block of North Street between South State Street and South Governors Avenue; and the redevelopment a vacant area in the block between North Street and West Loockerman Street as a plaza with parking lot. The project area consists of multiple parcels of land totaling 4.1635 acres ± of land zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) or RGO (General Residence and Office Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The project area is focused on the segment of North Street between South State Street and South Governors Avenue and the area between West

City of Dover Historic District Commission Agenda Meeting of December 15, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Loockerman Street and Bank Lane. The owners of record include Rudolph von Croy c/o Colonial Investment & Management, Delaware State Housing Authority, Collegian Plaza Hospitality Group II LLC, and the City of Dover; the equitable owner (for certain parcels) is the Downtown Dover Partnership. The property addresses include 114, 116, 120, 126 and 128 West Loockerman Street; 100, 104, 106, and 119 West North Street; 309 South Governors Avenue; and 16 and 22-26 The Green. Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.09-04-32.00- 000, ED-05-077.09-04-06.00-000, ED-05-077.09-04-31.00-000, ED-05-077.09-04-30.00- 000, ED-05-077.09-04-08.00-000, ED-05-077.09-04-09.00-000, ED-05-077.09-04-43.00- 000, ED-05-077.09-04-42.00-000, ED-05-077.09-04-51.01-000, ED-05-077.09-04-53.00- 000, ED-05-077.09-04-53.01-000, ED-05-077.09-04-07.00-000, ED-05-077.09-04-50.00- 000 and ED-05-077.09-04-54.00-000. ONGOING PROJECTS 1. Discussion of the Project to Evaluate and Update the “Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone” 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.

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION November 21, 2011 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday November 21, 2011 at 7:00 PM with Chairman Hemmig presiding. Members present were Mr. Hemmig, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Holt, Mr. Shomo, Mr. Ambruso, Mr. Tolbert, and Mr. Nichols. Mr. Friedman and Colonel Welsh were absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mrs. Townshend (Arrived at 7:04), Mr. Koenig (Arrived at 7:03), Ms. Cornwell and Ms. Metsch. Also present were Mr. John Paradee, Mr. John Fellows, Mr. Stephen Davies, and Mr. William Weaver. Mr. Hemmig stated that there is a revised agenda on your desks this evening noting application C-11-06 Kent County 911 Center: Parking Expansion at 911 Public Safety Boulevard (Item #2 under New Development Applications) that will not be heard this evening. The application will be deferred to the Planning Commission Meeting for January. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Nichols moved to approve the agenda as revised, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Friedman and Colonel Welsh absent. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2011 Mr. Shomo moved to approve the regular Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 17, 2011, seconded by Mr. Ambruso and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Friedman and Colonel Welsh absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Planning Commission Quarterly Workshop previously scheduled for tomorrow November 22, 2011 at 4:00 PM has been cancelled due to lack of agenda items for that meeting. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there is a reminder of the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Monday, December 19, 2011 at 7:00 PM to be held in City Council Chambers. Please let Staff know of your attendance for that meeting so that quorum can be confirmed. Mrs. Melson-Williams further stated that in the packet was a schedule of deadlines and meeting dates for the calendar year 2012. This schedule establishes the application deadline for applications to the Planning Commission for Site Plans, Subdivisions, Conditional Uses, and Rezonings. It then sets forth the other important meetings including involvement with City Council and Development Advisory Committee, as well as the Planning Commission meetings for the calendar year. Mrs. Melson-Williams provided an update on the regular City Council meeting of October 24, 2011; the Legislative & Finance Administration Committee, the Utility Committee, and the regular City Council meetings of November 14, 2011.

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2011 OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the meeting. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business for discussion. NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS C-11-05 Amended Royal Farms and Bank with Drive-thru at 293 South Saulsbury Road – Public Hearing and Review of an Amended Site Plan to also include the addition of a 4,600 S.F. bank building with drive-thru on the property where previously a Conditional Use Site Plan was approved for the construction of a 5,786 S.F. retail store building, a 1,407 S.F. car wash building, eight doubled-sided gasoline pumps under two canopy structures, and other associated site improvements. The property consists of 3.64 acres+/- and is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property is located on the northeast corner of Saulsbury Road and West North Street. The owner of record is Roadway Express, Inc. The equitable owner is F&B Properties, LLC. Property Address: 293 S. Saulsbury Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.11-01-43.00-000. Council District 4. Waivers Requested: Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing and Use of Alternative Materials for Fence Component of Opaque Barrier. The Planning Commission granted conditional approval for Conditional Use Site Plan for the retail store, car wash and gasoline pumps on August 15, 2011. Representative: Mr. John Paradee, Prickett, Jones & Elliott; and Mr. John Fellows, Duffield Associates. Ms. Cornwell provided an overview of the application. Mr. Paradee stated that for the record, he would note that the application does meet all of the Code requirements and we agree with all of the Development Advisory Comments of record. Mr. Nichols stated that he is not sure if the final plan has been submitted; however, what was submitted to this Commission looks just like another cookie cutter building. When it comes back to this Commission, it will need to have an A-roof on it or something that has the apparent look of an A-roof. There is no other building in this area that has a flat roof except General Foods. Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Fellows stated that what we have submitted for this evening’s review is what we anticipate to be the end user for a bank. We have not secured the actual tenant at this point. When an actual tenant is secured, we will comply with the Corridor Overlay standards. Currently, this is the look the current possible tenant could give. Also responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Paradee stated that this was a pitched roof not a flat roof. Mr. Fellows stated that it is a flat roof that has a cornice located at the top which will break up the vertical element. Responding to Mr. Fellows, Mr. Nichols stated that they need to be prepared to come back with an A-roof. 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2011 Mrs. Townshend stated that Staff’s recommendation is to bring it back for review by the Planning Commission if there are significant changes as the architecture is fine tuned. She feels that once they have a tenant, you will have a better sense of what the architecture will be. Mr. Hemmig questioned that if they approve it this evening in this format, this will not be the final architecture? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mr. Paradee stated this is correct and they understand that they will have to come back. Mr. Holt questioned that they do not have a tenant at this time. Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Paradee stated that they do not at this point. They have not inked the deal; however, they are close, just not there yet. Mr. Tolbert stated that the plan does indicate that this is for the Royal Farms and a bank. Are you sure that you will have a bank at this location? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Paradee stated that they are confident that they will have a bank. They are just not confident that they will have any particular bank and expect to have confirmation soon. Mr. Hemmig opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Mr. Hemmig questioned that this is not necessarily the final footprint or design for the building? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mr. Paradee stated that no, what they are trying to do in the Site Plan approval is get the envelope approved. When they have the final design, we will come back to this Commission. What you are approving in terms of the Site Plan is just the envelope at this point. Mr. Hemmig further questioned what the dimensions of the building would be without the drive- thru canopy? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mr. Fellows stated that it would be 60x75 feet. Mr. Hemmig stated that it looked pretty square on the Plan and he was concerned with the long side facing the Corridor. Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mr. Fellows stated that visually from the corridor elevation, you will also have the drive-thru canopy that will make the building appear longer from the street side. Mr. Hemmig stated that as a reminder, there is a waiver request for an alternative material for the fence component that Staff is recommending approval of the applicant’s desire to use a vinyl type of fencing instead of a wood fence. Staff has recommended approval of this alternative material. Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mr. Paradee stated that a prior condition that was approved should be reconfirmed is regarding curbing and the elimination of some sections to allow for stormwater run-off. Mr. Fellows stated that the elimination of curbing also included around the building to provide level egress into the Royal Farms building that would be blocked off by bollards all around the building. Mr. Nichols moved to approve C-11-05 Amended Royal Farms and Bank with Drive-thru located at 293 South Saulsbury Road to include the waiver request for the alternative vinyl material for 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2011 the fence, the elimination of some of the curbing for the Royal Farms building for drainage, elimination of curbing around the Royal Farms building and the DAC comments of record, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Friedman and Colonel Welsh absent. S-11-19 Dover Behavioral Health Systems Building Addition at 725 Horsepond Road – Public Hearing and Site Plan Review to permit the construction of 12,000 S.F. building addition to the existing 47,105 S.F. building and associated site improvements. The subject site consists of one parcel for a total of 14.746 acres +/- of land. The property is situated on the east side of Horsepond Road south of South Little Creek Road. The property is zoned I-O (Institutional and Office Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). The owner of record is UHS of Dover, LLC. Property Address: 725 Horsepond Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-078.00-01-08.00-000. Council District 2. The property was the subject of Board of Adjustment application V-11-02. Waivers Requested: Reduction of Parking Requirement, Number and Size of Loading Spaces, and Partial Elimination of Sidewalk. Representatives: Mr. Stephen Davies, Apex Engineering; and Mr. William Weaver, CEO, Dover Behavioral Health. Mrs. Townshend stated that this application is subject to the Airport Environs Overlay Zone-APZII which is the Accident Potential Zone II with Noise Zones B & C. The applicant has requested three (3) waivers. One is a reduction of parking, the second is the number and size of a loading space, and the third is partial elimination of sidewalk. Mrs. Townshend further stated that there have been a number of previous applications for this property in the past. In 1993, the Planning Commission approved the Site Plan to build the psychiatric hospital in this location. In 2006, there was a minor subdivision that created three (3) lots that would include the lot for the hospital and a lot on both sides that is owned by Bayhealth. In September of 2011, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to permit the addition of 12,000 square feet of building area. The Airport Environs Overlay Zone would have limited that addition to 3,000 square feet. Mrs. Townshend stated in terms of parking, in review of the Code, the parking would be determined by the number of beds or by building square footage, whichever is more. The building square footage gives you a higher parking count so based on building square footage, 198 parking spaces would be required. With the spaces that would be lost due to the building addition, there are 161 spaces proposed on this site. The applicant has requested a parking waiver, a reduction of 18.7% or thirty-seven (37) spaces to build the 161 parking spaces. They did include in their waiver request an analysis of the actual parking usage on site and Staff believes that parking on site is sufficient. Mrs. Townshend further stated with regards to loading spaces, there is an area that shows loading spaces along with some signage that indicates fire lanes that will be fixed. There are two (2) full loading spaces shown and they are undersized according to Code; however, they are an existing condition. Staff does not expect that the addition will change anything related to that and they (the applicant) have submitted a waiver in that regard. 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2011 Mrs. Townshend further stated in terms of bicycle parking, nine (9) bicycle parking spaces are required. There is a bike rack shown at the southern portion of the building. There are, at this point, no bike racks shown in the area closer to the entrance. Mrs. Townshend further stated with regards to the Landscape Plan, they submitted a sheet that shows the existing trees on site of 220 trees with three (3) trees being lost for the building addition. This would leave 217 trees. Based on the area calculation, 215 trees would be required so the tree requirement would be met. Mrs. Townshend further stated with regards to the sidewalk waiver, they show a sidewalk along the frontage on Horsepond Road. On the Plan that they submitted, it stops just shy of the entrance driveway. In the DAC meeting, it was discussed to extend it down to the entrance driveway so that there was no gap. They indicated that there is actually a swale located there and a grade difference that makes it very difficult. What Staff suggested is that if they are going to stop it just shy of that entrance road, that they request a waiver as there is no sidewalk further south. In the DAC discussion Staff determined that even if the Planning Commission grants the sidewalk waiver for this portion of sidewalk, it is possible that DelDOT may require them to construct it anyway. Mrs. Townshend stated that the other agencies provided their comments. Mr. Davies stated that with regards to DelDOT, they have asked that we have a painted bicycle lane along the frontage. We would rather not do that because to do that we would have to widen the cart way by four (4) feet and that four (4) feet would cause them to have to move a couple of utility poles that are major. There is no other bike lane up and down Horsepond Road so we would request that we not do this in accordance with DelDOT’s comments. We are in agreement with all the other DAC comments of record. Mr. Holt questioned with regards to the request for the bicycle path, if this is part of the new bicycle movements throughout the City now? This could be a part of their reasoning. Responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Townshend stated that the requirement for the bicycle shoulder is more a shoulder improvement not a separated path. Also responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Davis stated that this would be a painted lane on the road itself between the travel lane and the deceleration lane. Mrs. Townshend further stated that this is a standard on all DelDOT roadways of this classification (major collector). The applicant makes a point that there is not a lot of bicycle traffic in this area. The point is he (Mr. Davies) wanted it on the record because it is a part of the DAC comments and if they can work with DelDOT to change that they wanted it noted on the record. Mr. Baldwin stated that with regards to bicycle lanes, he has found it amazing that at most of the businesses that he visits on his bicycle, there is nowhere for him to place his bike when he gets there. His question would be is there a reason why the bike rack is located in the back of the building? Responding to Mr. Baldwin, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Staff recommendation was that they have a bike rack located in the back of the building where the employee entrance is and that they also add one to the front of the building as well. It was indicated by the applicant during the DAC meeting that this would not be a problem. 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2011 Mr. Hemmig opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Mr. Hemmig questioned if there were any DelDOT plans for now or in the future for this roadway? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that she was unaware of any. Mr. Koenig stated that any future plans would be way down on DelDOT’s list. Mr. Tolbert moved to approve S-11-19 Dover Behavioral Health Systems Building Addition located at 725 Horsepond Road to include three waiver requests: the reduction of parking with the necessary recommendations as stated by Planning Staff, the number and size of loading spaces, and the partial elimination of sidewalk, seconded by Mr. Nichols and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Friedman and Colonel Welsh absent. MI-11-13 Text Amendment: Revisions to Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 17 Shopping Center Development – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on a series of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §17 – Shopping Center Development (SC-1, SC-2, and SC-3) relating to permitted uses within the Neighborhood Shopping Center Zone (SC-1). The proposed ordinance adds Section 17.31 to permit retail and service establishments, to permit gasoline pumps as an accessory use subject to conditional use approval, and to prohibit wholesaling, warehousing, storage, and motor vehicle service, sales, and/or fueling stations. Ordinance #2011-25. Representative: Brought forward by Staff. Mrs. Townshend stated that this Ordinance would add the language to the SC-1 Zone that you have in the C-1A Zone and then adopted by reference into the C-2A Zone that allows places like Royal Farms their pumps and retail in general. The SC-1 Zone at this point is more narrowly written to reflect something more similar to the C-1 Zone. Mrs. Townshend further stated that in preparation of this text amendment it was determined what properties are zoned SC-1 so that we could determine the extent of the proposed change: the former Playtex Plant located at the northwest corner of Route 8 and Route 13, the Hamlet Shopping Center located at the corner of Walker Road and Saulsbury Road, the Dover Downs Shopping Center which is the location of Best Buy, and the Route 8 Plaza which is the location of Talbots. One of the things with the shopping center zones is that the way that they are setup is a minimum acreage. There are a number of things that are comparable in use in terms of what would be the SC-2 zone; however, because the acreage is less, they fall back to SC-1. Mr. Hemmig stated there are smaller acreages than the SC-1. However, do we have any situations currently where you have a shopping center and you have buildings connected together with one of them having a gas station? All of our gas stations are pretty much standalone such as Wawa and Royal Farms. Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that we still have some of the smaller chain gas stations throughout the City that seem to be fewer and far between. There is the Duncan Depot with other retail establishments in the same complex and there are the pumps located at Safeway which is accessory to the grocery store. More and more we are seeing the gas pumps as accessory to the retail operation. 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2011 Mr. Hemmig further questioned in these shopping centers, if the parking areas are in common to most of the retail stores. In other words, each individual store does not own a piece of the parking lot. Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that typically not. She does know that in Gateway West Shopping Center there are out-parcels so for instance where the Westside Health Center is located and where the liquor store is, these are out parcels so they actually have parcel lines and their own parking. Sometimes, even though there are no lines, there are artificial lines in the Lease Agreements. Mr. Hemmig further stated that his concern would be if you think of somewhere such as Rodney Village Shopping Center. When you come into the shopping center and come down about four (4) retail stores and then there are some gas pumps then more retail stores, this would be a very weird configuration. He would like to avoid this type of situation. A gas station should be set- off by themselves as opposed to being part of a strip shopping center. Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that even though this should be permitted, it should be a Conditional Use. This would give the Commission more ability to work with the site in terms of placement. This came about because there is someone looking at the Playtex site and we got into a discussion of whether they should put a zoning line through the middle to have a C-4 piece or whether it made sense to add this to the zone. Staff felt that you get better planning if you can work within one zone rather than creating a split zone parcel or having them take a parcel off to do that. Mr. Hemmig further stated that it is going to pretty much be at the Commission’s discretion as someone comes forward with a Plan that we feel is a reasonable design and a safe design. Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that yes, it would be. Mr. Hemmig further stated that as long as they have control over the overall design and we feel that the configuration makes sense, it could be located in a shopping center. Even Wawa is separated from the Dover Mart. It creates a separation from where people are walking from parking lots with people running in and out of a gas station. Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that typically, for the retailers and the convenience store they would look to do this anyway for their own business purposes; however, it is something that we would be able to work with them on. Mr. Nichols questioned that on the report it states the Playtex Plant, how about the Wal-Mart building that has just been sold as he understands? Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mrs. Townshend stated that she is not entirely sure that this is what has happened with it; however, she has heard about three (3) different scenarios of what has happened with it and has not been able to confirm any of them. Mr. Nichols questioned if this would be included as a free standing building such as Playtex? Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Wal-Mart is zoned C-4 Highway Commercial so they would be able to do the gas pumps and convenience store if they wanted to anyway under the current zoning. Mr. Tolbert questioned what an example would be of an accessory use? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated that the accessory use is essentially the Royal Farms with pumps or the Wawa with pumps and Safeway with pumps, it is where you have a retailer who has a 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2011 retail establishment and then they have as an accessory to that retail establishment the gas pumps. Mr. Tolbert further questioned if this Ordinance is recognizing that there may be legitimate uses in any shopping center to put up gas pumps? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated yes, in the SC-1 zone subject to Conditional Use approval. Mr. Tolbert further questioned if we would want to ration these shopping centers with the businesses that start putting up gas pumps? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Hemmig stated that he would suspect that if someone like Wawa wanted a building somewhere that was not part of a shopping center, they would come to us stating that they want a retail shopping center with gas pumps. They could get it zoned properly to do so in the SC-1 zone. However, if you are talking about something like the Hamlet Shopping Center where there is retail and they would want to put in gas pumps, this would allow them to do so; however, only conditionally based on this Commission’s approval. Mrs. Townshend stated for the record the SC-1 Zone is at least one (1) acre and the SC-2 Zone is at least fifteen (15) acres. You could have a ten (10) acre site that would not be eligible to be zoned SC-2. This is why Staff looked especially, because it is called Neighborhood Shopping Center, at the locations where the zoning exists to make sure that it would not be creating a problem. Mr. Hemmig stated not to expand the number of zones; however, did you consider possibly making an SC-1A zone that has eight (8) acres as opposed to making a one (1) acre shopping center? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that it is likely that one (1) acre is very small for a shopping center and typically if someone wants to do the convenience store with gas pumps and they have a site that is zoned SC-1 and the SC-1 Zone does not permit it, they will come in for rezoning. From a practical standpoint, it may not make a huge difference because the areas where these would be would be areas where we would not typically frown upon a different zoning classification. For instance, if you look at where Best Buy is located, it is all C-4 zoning around it. Also, where Talbots is located, there is C-2A and C-3 so there are other adjacent zones that if they could not do it in the SC-1 Zone, they would likely be able to go to something else. Mr. Hemmig further questioned that if we lose the SC-1 as it is now, what else do we have? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that we are dealing with a somewhat dated Zoning Ordinance. At some point, we may need to question what the purpose of the zone is. Staff would like to do this as a larger project; however, it is a very time consuming task. Mrs. Townshend stated that there was a letter received and will be made a part of the record from Konover Acquisitions, LLC who is the contract purchaser for the Playtex property. They will be on record in favor of the change to the SC-1 Zone. Mr. Hemmig opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2011 Mr. Ambruso moved to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of MI-11-13 Text Amendment: Revisions to Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 17 Shopping Center Development establishing Ordinance #2011-25, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was carried 6-1 with Mr. Friedman and Colonel Welsh absent and Mr. Hemmig voting against the motion. MI-11-14 Text Amendment: Revisions to Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 1 and Section 7 regarding Corner Lots and Fences – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on a series of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 1 – Supplementary Regulations Applying to Residence Zones and Section 7 Supplementary Regulations Applying to All Non-Residential Zones. The proposed ordinance clarifies the designation of front yards, side yards, and rear yards for corner lots and establishes the maximum fence heights within such yard areas on residential lots and non-residential lots including corner lots and dual frontage lots. Ordinance #2011-26. Representative: Brought forward by Staff. Mrs. Townshend utilized a series of graphics in describing the proposed amendments. Mrs. Townshend stated that based on the definition of a front yard in the Zoning Ordinance corner lots have two (2) fronts one along each street frontage. The Zoning Ordinance also limits the height of the fence in the front yard. In a residential zone, fences that are located on a corner cannot be any taller than four (4) feet especially if located next to a street. This has been an issue that Staff has struggled with as there have been cases where fences have been put up without permits and we have not been able to resolve them because of this challenge. Mrs. Townshend further stated that what this amendment would do is allow anyone located on a corner lot for the portion along the side of the house that a taller fence would be permitted. Even though it would technically be the front yard, you could have a six and half (6 ½) foot fence on a residential property and eight (8) foot on a non-residential property. It treats the front yard more like a side yard for the purpose of the fence. Mrs. Townshend further stated that the other thing that it does in terms of corner lots is it identifies which yard gets treated as the rear yard and which gets treated as the side yard. If you go by the definition there are two front yards, two rear yards, and no side yards. It is not a big deal until you decide to put in a building for placement. What Staff did in this Ordinance is clarify that the yard that is adjacent to the rear of the house would be the rear yard and the yard that is adjacent to the side of the house would be treated as the side yard. Mrs. Townshend further stated that while Staff was dealing with fence heights and odd lots, there are a number of properties in the City such as those located on Walker Road along the backside of Bicentennial Village and Four Seasons where you have a lot of people who have tall fences. If Staff looks at the Code, it would technically be a front yard and subject to a limit of four (4) feet in height. On lots with dual frontages, what is parallel to the rear of the house, you could have the taller fence. Where the front yard is parallel to the front of the house, it would be limited to four (4) feet. 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2011 Mr. Hemmig questioned for clarification the four (4) foot height restriction runs parallel to the front to the edge of the house? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that it is anything in the front yard. If there is something that is parallel to the side lot line once you are in the front yard setback you cannot go above four (4) feet. It is the setback line and not where the house is located. Mr. Holt stated that he feels this is a good idea because it gives the definition of what is the front and side yard. Mr. Ambruso questioned why Staff takes the position of only allowing four (4) feet in residential areas? Responding to Mr. Ambruso, Mrs. Townshend stated that this is what the Code is currently. When you get to a certain height in terms of a fence, it creates a walling affect. If you have six (6) foot fences that go all the way to the street line or all the way to the right-of-way line, it creates a wall affect in terms of the neighborhood. Mr. Ambruso questioned that what if a homeowner wants that and wants the height for privacy? Responding to Mr. Ambruso, Mrs. Townshend stated that a case could be made for that; however, from the Planning Offices perspective, we would not recommend in favor of that. Four (4) feet is what it currently is now and we are not proposing to change that. If the Planning Commission feels strongly, we could bring back something to do that. Mr. Hemmig stated that greenscape could solve that problem for privacy. Mr. Holt stated that he felt that greenscape would look better than a fence. When you start getting the wall affect, it is like everyone is in their own little prison being all boxed in. Mr. Hemmig opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Mr. Tolbert moved to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of MI-11-14 Text Amendment: Revisions to Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 1 and Section 7 regarding Corner Lots and Fences, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Friedman and Colonel Welsh absent. MI-11-15 Text Amendment: Revisions to Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding Public Utilities Infrastructure – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on a series of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, to add Article 5 §21 – Public Utility Infrastructure. The proposed ordinance would permit public utility infrastructure, with some exceptions, in all zoning districts and provides for exemptions from the requirements of Article 4 – Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations while establishing specific requirements for setbacks, fences, and site development plans. Ordinance #2011-27. Representative: Brought forward by Staff. Mrs. Townshend stated that this is an issue that has come up regarding pump stations, water towers, wells, and electric transformers that are not necessarily anticipated in the Zoning Ordinance. For instance, a lot of times there are areas set aside for pump stations where if they 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2011 were to subdivide they do not meet the minimum lot size so what they have had to do is put them on permanent easements because we cannot allow creation of a lot that does not meet the minimum lot dimensions. There is also the issue where water towers may be in a residential zone that has a thirty-five foot height limit requirement; however, a thirty-five (35) foot water tower is not going to serve much of a purpose. Mrs. Townshend further stated that what Staff has determined over time is that the Zoning Ordinance in terms of the bulk standards does not truly address the utility infrastructure in terms of the needs for height and lot dimensions. If you are fencing in electrical substations and you have a fence height of four (4) feet that would not be sufficient for safety requirements for the substation. What Staff is looking at in doing this is the ability to exempt certain public utility infrastructure from the strict application of the bulk standards of the Zoning Ordinance. There were no questions from any Planning Commission members at this time. Mr. Hemmig opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Mr. Nichols moved to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of MI-11-15 Text Amendment: Revisions to Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding Public Utilities Infrastructure, seconded by Mr. Tolbert and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Friedman and Colonel Welsh absent. Meeting Adjourned at 8:00 PM Sincerely, Diane Metsch Secretary 11

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Schedule of application deadlines and Historic District Commission meeting dates for the year of 2012. The submittal procedures for the Historic District Commission are outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10, Section 3.2. Prior to application submission a Pre-Application Meeting with Planning Staff is required. MONTH DEADLINE DATE MEETING DATE JANUARY 12/16/11 01/19/12 FEBRUARY 01/13/12 02/16/12 MARCH 02/10/12 03/15/12 APRIL 03/16/12 04/19/12 MAY 04/13/12 05/17/12 JUNE 05/18/12 06/21/12 JULY 06/15/12 07/19/12 AUGUST 07/13/12 08/16/12 SEPTEMBER 08/17/12 09/20/12 OCTOBER 09/14/12 10/18/12 NOVEMBER 10/12/12 11/15/12 DECEMBER 11/16/12 12/20/12 JANUARY 12/14/12 01/17/13 For Information Contact: City of Dover Department of Planning 15 Loockerman Plaza P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 (302) 736-7196 (302) 736-4217 Fax www.cityofdover.com E-mail: planning@cityofdover.com

MEMORANDUM Department of Planning & Community Development P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Phone: (302) 736-7196 Fax (302) 736-4217 DATE: December 5, 2011 TO: Historic District Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: 22-24 West Loockerman Street Building Renovation Project Please see the attached information (floor plan and building elevation concepts) regarding the Building Renovation Project at 22-24 West Loockerman Street. This is presented for informational purposes to satisfy the request of the Historic District Commission from their October 20, 2011 meeting. To date, a formal application or Building Permit has not been submitted for the project. Planning Staff has met several times with the project architect to discuss the building renovation project at 22-24 West Loockerman Street in Dover. Our discussion focused on determining the appropriate review process for Architectural Review Certification of the renovation project. For properties such as this that are located in the Historic District zone, the Zoning Ordinance requires an Architectural Review Certificate for exterior construction activities affecting existing buildings (Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 21.3). The Architectural Review Certification (ARC) process is then described in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3.2. There are three different ways that ARC Review may be achieved which depend on the scope of the project work proposed; the three ways consist of City Planner review, Historic District Commission review, and Historic District Commission recommendation with Planning Commission action. The first part of the project at 22-24 West Loockerman Street involves the front façade renovations on the Loockerman Street side (window & door replacement, addition of decorative features-cornice). In July 2011 Planning Staff determined that these project activities were eligible for ARC Review to be completed administratively by the Planning Staff/City Planner as part of the Building Permit application process. For the project involving the (rear façade) North Street side, based on the project information of 11/16/11 (new door/window openings, new exterior finishes, new wall form with no site improvements) Planning Staff determined that this portion of the project is eligible for ARC Review completed administratively by the Planning Staff/City Planner as part of the Building Permit application process. However, Planning Staff anticipates referring the permit to the Historic District Commission for consultation. (See Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 3.22A and B.) Planning Staff anticipates referring the permit to the HDC as the project scope for this

Memorandum on 22-24 West Loockerman Street December 5, 2011 Page 2 of 2 facade is more than the intended minor types of activities allowed for “Planner review-only” but does not reach the level of the project types requiring a full Application submission to the Historic District Commission specifically. When a Permit is referred to the Historic District Commission, it is placed on the agenda for their next meeting and there is no additional application form, fee, or public hearing necessary. It is noted that this Memorandum does not grant approval of the project activities described above or specifically determine the review processes for other site improvements, new structures, or exterior building projects that may be proposed for the property. DEMW:demw

City of Dover ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT Before Dover Historic District Commission December 15, 2011 Application: North Street Area Improvement Project, HI-11-05 Project Location: Segment of North Street between South State Street and South Governors Avenue and the area between West Loockerman Street and Bank Lane Property Addresses: 114, 116, 120, 126 and 128 West Loockerman Street 100, 104, 106, and 119 West North Street 309 South Governors Avenue 16 and 22-26 The Green Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.09-04-32.00-000 ED-05-077.09-04-06.00-000 ED-05-077.09-04-31.00-000 ED-05-077.09-04-30.00-000 ED-05-077.09-04-08.00-000 ED-05-077.09-04-09.00-000 ED-05-077.09-04-43.00-000 ED-05-077.09-04-42.00-000 ED-05-077.09-04-51.01-000 ED-05-077.09-04-53.00-000 ED-05-077.09-04-53.01-000 ED-05-077.09-04-07.00-000 ED-05-077.09-04-50.00-000 ED-05-077.09-04-54.00-000 Owners: Rudolph von Croy c/o Colonial Investment & Management Delaware State Housing Authority Collegian Plaza Hospitality Group II LLC (Equitable owners: Downtown Dover Partnership) City of Dover Present Zoning: C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) RGO (General Residence and Office Zone) H (Historic District Zone) Existing Uses: Parking lots, street segment, and vacant lots Proposed Uses: Consolidated parking lot, street segment, new parking lot and park/plaza area Project Description: The Historic District Commission will act on a recommendation to the City of Dover Planning Commission for an Architectural Review Certificate for the North Street Area Improvement Project. It is Conditional Use/Site Development Master Plan project. This application consists of a project involving three project areas/phases consisting of the following: the redevelopment a vacant area in the block between West North Street and West Loockerman Street as a plaza with parking lot; streetscape improvements to the block of North Street between South State Street and South Governors Avenue; and a parking lot consolidation P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

HI-11-05 North Street Area Improvement Project Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Prepared for December 15, 2011 Meeting Page 2 of 6 project on the south side of West North Street. The project area consists of multiple parcels of land totaling 4.1635 acres ± of land zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) or RGO (General Residence and Office Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The project area is focused on the segment of North Street between South State Street and South Governors Avenue and the area between West Loockerman Street and Bank Lane. Previous Applications: The subject areas of this proposed project were involved in previous application appearing before the Historic District Commission. A summary list of these applications is provided below. HI-02-01 Demolition of 116 West Loockerman Street (Capitol Office Supply). Building demolished and area adjacent to Loockerman Street was landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs with a fence. Application S-02-18 Collegian Hotel for construction of a six story mixed-use building (retail, offices, and hotel). Project expired. HI-06-05 Demolition of the buildings at 114, 126 and 128 West Loockerman Street (including old Dover Newsstand and Dover Hardware). Buildings were demolished in March –May 2007. HI-06-09 Collegian Complex for construction of a multi-story mixed –use (commercial and apartments) building fronting West Loockerman Street. Project expired. HI-07-07 Demolition of Garage Building at 100 West North Street. Building demolished Fall 2007. HI-08-02 Parking Lot at 100 West North Street. Construction completed of a fourteen space parking lot. Property Information: The entire project site is located with the local Historic District Zone (H) and subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §21 and referenced sections. The project site area north of West North Street is located within the boundaries of the National Register listed Victorian Dover Historic District. A series of late nineteenth and twentieth century commercial buildings which previously stood on these now vacant lots are described in the building inventory listing found within the National Register nomination completed for the Victorian Dover Historic District (nomination completed 1977-78). A series of historic maps was reviewed by Planning Staff for preliminary information on this block located between West Loockerman Street and North Street. The 1868 Beers Map published by Pomeroy & Beers shows a limited number of buildings fronting on Loockerman Street; a more significant number of buildings are shown fronting directly on North Street. By 1885, the 1885 Bird’s Eye View of Dover shows multiple commercial buildings fronting the south side of Loockerman Street and the series of buildings fronting on North Street appear to be residential dwellings. Review of the series of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps would show the changes overtime for these areas including the disappearance on the residential dwellings as the area redeveloped. Additional research using other primary and secondary source documents would provide more information on the history of each property. 2

HI-11-05 North Street Area Improvement Project Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Prepared for December 15, 2011 Meeting Page 3 of 6 The area south of West North Street is located within the boundaries of the National Register listed Dover Green Historic District. A portion of the subject site on this side of North Street historically served as the ‘back yard’ area of the properties which front on The Green and included accessory buildings for those dwellings. The 1868 Beer Map and the 1885 Bailey Map: Bird’s Eye View of Dover also shows a series of residential dwelling fronting on North Street for the subject site area. PROJECT PROPOSAL (Drawings dated 10/4/2011 and revised drawing dated 11/4/2011): The application proposes three (3) project areas for the North Street Area Improvement Project. See descriptions below and submitted drawings. The overall project strives to follow the design and planning strategies outlined in the Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan and Design Book. Specifically, the concepts of centralized parking options and streetscape improvements are addressed in this proposed project. 1) Loockerman Way Parking Lot & Plaza: This area consists of the series of vacant lots to the north of West North Street which also extend to front on West Loockerman Street. The subject area includes a parcel owned by the City of Dover which was previously known as Loockerman Way Park providing a mid-block pedestrian way. The new project proposes a new parking lot of thirty-three (33) parking spaces with the balance of the area including a pedestrian way of various hardscape paving treatments (brick, concrete) and landscaping. A parking lot as the principal use (the only use) on a property zoned C-2 requires Conditional Use Site Plan approval by the Planning Commission. 2) North Street Streetscape: The segment of West North Street between South State Street and South Governors Avenue is proposed for streetscape improvements. The Plan includes sidewalk upgrades/installation of a brick sidewalk, street lighting, and undergrounding of utilities. 3) North Street Parking Lot Consolidation: This area consists of a series of existing parking lots on the south side of West North Street. The parking lots are held by several private property owners providing parking to designated buildings (offices and residential). The parking lots have multiple access points onto the public streets and are not currently interconnection for access between lots. This new project proposes consolidation/reconfiguration of the parking lots into one large lot with specific points of access to West North Street and Bank Lane. The new parking lot will increase the overall number of parking spaces available in the lots. Tree plantings are also proposed. Review of DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The subject project site is located in the Dover Historic District Zone within the Loockerman Historic Context and with the Green Historic Context. The Loockerman Historic Context is described on pages 2-7 through 2-8 and the Green Historic Context is described on pages 2-3 through 2-5. Location within the Dover Historic District Zone requires proposals for demolition, 3

HI-11-05 North Street Area Improvement Project Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Prepared for December 15, 2011 Meeting Page 4 of 6 new construction, additions, and certain renovation or rehabilitation activities to existing buildings to receive an Architectural Review Certificate. As stated in the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone, an Architectural Review Certificate will be granted “if it is found that the architectural style, general design, height, bulk and setbacks, arrangement location and materials affecting the exterior appearance are generally in harmony with neighboring structures and complementary to the traditional architectural standards of the historic district.” In accordance with Article 10 §3.2, the Historic District Commission will provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the project’s compliance with the architectural review standards. This proposal should be reviewed for conformity with the design criteria and development guidelines found in the Design Standards and Guidelines of Chapter 3: Maintenance, Repair, Preservation, and Restoration of Existing Historic Buildings. More specifically the sections on Design Guidelines for Landscaping and Site Amenities, Paving and Bordering, and Parking Lots found on pages 3-24 through 3-25 and 3-27. These guidelines highlight the consideration that should be given to the areas surrounding buildings including the choice of materials. It notes that parking lots are elements that are located within the historic district; however, the choice of materials and the introduction of landscaping can assist in mitigation of their impact. The Design Guidelines state that parking lots should be screened from the street and “their layout should include islands planted with trees to break-up expanses of paved areas.” It also recommends that 20% of the parking lot should be unpaved and planted. (See page 3-27.) STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following are Staff comments and recommendations for this application regarding project activities and Architectural Review Certification. 1) Staff recommends conditional approval of the Architectural Review Certificate for the concepts presented in the Master Plans for the North Street Area Improvements involving the three projects of the Loockerman Way Parking Lot & Plaza, the North Street Streetscape, and the North Street Parking Lot Consolidation. This recommendation is made subject to the following comments and suggested revisions. 2) The following conditions are recommended by Staff to improve project’s compliance with the recommended guidelines of the Design Standards and Guidelines. The following are recommended conditions: a. Implement a landscaped screening of the parking lots from North Street through the planting of low growing shrubs. The Zoning Ordinance requires this screening specifically in areas where parking lots are located across from residential uses. b. Evaluate the North Street Parking Lot to reduce the amount of paving and increase the amount of landscaped green space available throughout. This may accomplished with reduction in drive aisle widths, reducing selected paved areas, increasing the size of parking lot islands, placing additional parking lot islands (around lighting), etc. 4

HI-11-05 North Street Area Improvement Project Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Prepared for December 15, 2011 Meeting Page 5 of 6 c. Light fixtures/poles utilized along the streetscape should continue style of the lighting used in the Downtown Loockerman Street area. The acorn-style lighting is proposed by the applicant which is found in the Downtown. d. The acorn style light fixtures shall also continue to be utilized for the site lighting internal to the two parking lot areas. This could include single fixture poles or poles with two light fixtures. Any existing large (silver colored) metal light fixtures should not be reused as they do not fit the character of the historic district. e. Install several benches or other types of seating options within the Loockerman Way plaza areas and install several trash cans on plaza site. These would be small trash cans and recycling cans (street furniture size) similar to those found along Loockerman Street and with provisions made for maintenance (trash collection). f. Utilize black posts for signage elements including traffic control signs. 3) Some of the site improvements/amenities were not specifically described with the application information. Please provide information for consideration and discussion. a. Identify the location of the Code required bicycle parking spaces including the design/format of the parking rack system. b. Clarify the materials for the landscaped and hard-scaped areas of the plaza including surface pavements, columns, tree and shrub plantings, benches or other seating, bicycle parking racks, etc. c. Clarify the surface treatment (lawn areas, plantings, type of mulch, etc.) within the parking lot islands and medians and the area between the parking lot and street sidewalk. d. The plan provides limited information on the projects’ strategy for stormwater management. This may impact the parking lot and landscaping designs. e. Identify the location, design and materials of any fences proposed. The fence materials selected must be appropriate for use within the Historic District. Staff suggests the use of a black ornamental metal fencing with a maximum height of four feet. f. Indicate the location of any proposed fence/gate system on the Delaware State Housing Authority property to limit and/or direct pedestrian access to the rear of these office buildings. 4) The use of brick paving materials for sidewalk construction is a key feature found throughout the Historic District area. The City’s standards for sidewalk format must be met including the installation of accessible ramps and removal of any unused curb cuts along the street frontages. 5) The proposed landscaping including tree plantings and landscape plantings should be completed with species appropriate to the site conditions of an urban area. Consultation with the City’s arborist regarding the tree species selected is recommended especially regarding any new street trees. 6) Staff recommends changes to the designed layout of the North Street Parking Lot. The angled parking section in the eastern portion of the parking lot should be reversed to 5

HI-11-05 North Street Area Improvement Project Architectural Review Staff Report for Historic District Commission Prepared for December 15, 2011 Meeting Page 6 of 6 allow the drive aisle direction of travel to head east toward the east parking lot exit onto North Street. As currently presented the access to these spaces conflicts with an exit only circulation aisle. Also evaluate the width of the available drive aisle width once vehicles are parked in the angled spaces. 7) Staff recommends the installation of a hitching rail to accommodate horse and buggy parking at a place within these parking lot areas. 8) The applicant should be aware of the potential for historic archaeological resources which may include previous building locations, wells, privies, etc. on these properties. The State Division of Historical & Cultural Affairs can provide technical assistance when dealing with archaeological resources including previous studies at the subject location. 9) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the design, materials, or site layout occur in the finalization of the plan and/or construction drawings contact the Department of Planning and Community Development. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Historic District Commission. 10) The plan for this project is also subject to the application and review process for Conditional Use Plan and Site Development Master Plan (Article 10 §1 and 2 of the Zoning Ordinance) before the Planning Commission. Note: Additional technical items for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and other regulations may be identified during the Plan Review Process. 11) A parking lot as the principal use (the only use) on a property zoned C-2 requires Conditional Use Site Plan approval by the Planning Commission (Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §13.26 and Article 10 §1). An Application C-11-07 has been filed for review. 12) The applicant shall be aware that the Building Permit for the parking lot is required to track the construction activities on the properties. The permit application must comply with the approvals and conditions granted through the Architectural Review Certification and Plan Review process. Historic District Commission Action Required The Historic District Commission shall consider the proposal and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission in regards to the Architectural Review Certification for the project site development plan. The recommendation should reflect consideration of the Design Standards and Guidelines. 6