January 18, 2024 Minutes

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2024 The Meeting of the City of Dover Historic District Commission was held on Thursday, January 18, 2024, at 3:30 PM as an In-Person meeting in the City Hall Conference Room (anchor location) and virtually using the videoconferencing system Webex. With Chairman Czerwinski presiding, the other members present were Mrs. Mason, Ms. Horsey, Mrs. Ellen H. Richardson, and Mr. Street. Planning Office Staff members present were Mrs. Melson-Williams, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, Mrs. Savage-Purnell, and Mr. John England (Code Enforcement Officer) as well as Assistant City Manager Sharon Duca (assisting with management of the Department of Planning and Inspections). APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Mason moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mrs. Richardson, and the roll call vote was unanimously carried 5-0. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2023 Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2023, are still being prepared. The adoption of the minutes will be at the next meeting in February. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated regarding the item that you were considering at that meeting on November 16, 2023 for 153 S. Bradford Street, we have not received any additional information on that to put it back on your agenda. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Summary of Applications for 2022 and 2023 Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that included in your packet first is the Summary of Applications for 2022 and 2023. In 2022, there were seven (7) applications that appeared before the body and in 2023 we ended up with a total of five (5) that were assigned application numbers. A number of them have either been completed or are underway at this point. I don't know that there's a specific change to highlight there, but I'd be happy to answer any questions about the report on Summary of Applications. Summary of Architectural Review Certifications for 2023 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is where we report on permit activity in the Historic District. In some cases, they require review for Architectural Review Certificates and other instances they do not because they are totally interior work. This is the complete calendar year of 2023 and for that calendar year there were a total of 51 permits in the Historic District. I would note that this doesn't count Plumbing and Mechanical Permits or Fire Protection Permits; it’s just ones that are building related. Of those 51 Permits, eight of them had some appearance before the Historic

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

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2024 Other Information Delaware Preservation Fund - Small Grants Program: Application deadline is February 9, 2024 for the funding available through Delaware Preservation Fund, Inc. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that included in your packet was information on the Delaware Preservation Fund Small Grants Program. The eligibility and the process for application requirements we included. We certainly encourage you, if you are aware of a project or a property that could benefit from seeking such Small Grants, certainly share this information with them. It's the Delaware Preservation Fund, which is associated with the Preservation Delaware Incorporated. Applications for this Small Grant are due February 9th. It basically focuses on historic resources, and it does include some opportunities for capital projects as well as studies and documentation activities. If you have questions, certainly reach out to the folks that administer that program. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any questions. There were none. NEW BUSINESS Review of Permits Referred to Commission: HI-24-01 Referral of Fence Permit #23-1868 at 146 S. State Street - Referral by the City Planner to the Historic District Commission for Review of Architectural Review Certification for a Fence Permit #23-1868. The project involves a 6-foot vinyl fence to the rear of the property spanning from the fence at the northern adjacent property along the parking lot to the south side adjacent property fence with 2 pedestrian gates. Additionally, there is a 6-foot vinyl fence segment between the northern adjacent property fence and the building with a pedestrian gate. Property is zoned C- 2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The owner of record is State Street 146 Properties, LLC. Address: 146 S. State Street. Tax Parcel: ED05-077.09-02- 58.00-000. Council District 4. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that at the present time we do not have a representative for the application that has joined us either in person or virtually. I'm not sure what you would like to do. You can certainly move forward with a discussion and evaluation of this request, or you may choose to defer action and request that they make an appearance before you at a future meeting. Chairman Czerwinski asked what was the status of Case #23-3983? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied the Code Enforcement case was related to work done without a permit. They have filed a Permit; however, the Permit has yet to be issued. The Code Enforcement case is sort of still open but that does not prohibit us from taking action or dealing with the Permit that they did file. Mr. John England (Code Enforcement Officer) replied as far as he can recall the case is still open. Because they applied for a permit, permits typically are good for six months. So, during the six- month process no action is being taken at the current time. They have six months to respond before we move on to the next step. 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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