Transcript: Planning Commission Meeting

Dawn Melson-Williams

Uh, good evening, everyone. This is Dawn, the host for the City of Dover Planning Commission meeting. Um, the time now is just after 7:00 p.m. on August 17th. Um, this meeting is being held uh, in person, as well as a virtual presentation. Um, and with that, I will turn it over to um, our acting chair, Ms. Denney.

Joan Denney

Good evening, everyone. Um, welcome to the City of Dover Planning Commission meeting for August 17th, 2026. This evening, we are conducting our meeting in person in the Council Chambers of City Hall, where the public is welcome to attend. The meeting is also hybrid as we are using the Webex platform to allow members of the public to attend remotely should they prefer. The order in which the meeting is carried out is dictated by the agenda, which may be found on the city's website at www.cityofdover.gov under the meetings calendar on the main page. If you would like to participate in this meeting, some reason this keeps going in and out, if you would like to participate in this meeting, you may do so in person, and we would otherwise encourage you to join the meeting using a computer with a microphone and/or video. If neither is an option, you may call into the meeting using the number provided for public participation. Instructions for participating in the public hearing or meeting, um, sorry, I lost my place.

Joan Denney

Um, instructions for participating in the public hearing or public comment portion of the meeting will be given in more detail when the time comes. If you are experiencing any difficulty in joining the meeting, please call the planning office at 302-736-7196.

Joan Denney

Um, so, do we call the roll yet?

Dawn Melson-Williams

So, uh, the planning staff will introduce the members of the Planning Commission that are here this evening, as well as the staff. Um, we have uh, Ms. Joan Denney, who is uh, the vice chair of the um, Planning Commission, is serving as the acting chair. Uh, we have Andrea Maucher, Mr. Michael Lewis, Ms. Kathleen Welsh, and Dr. Bobby Jones, who are here present in the room. Uh, joining us virtually is Planning Commission member, uh, Mr. Mark Reeves. And also, um, joining us virtually is the the newest appointee, um, observing the meeting here this evening, um, and her name is present this evening. Um, I'm Dawn Melson-Williams, the principal planner for the city. Um, helping with the presentation this evening is Alex Dewey. He is a Planner I with our office. Uh, Krista Mullaney is serving as the secretary, and Jason Lyon, the director of uh, Water Wastewater for the city, has joined us virtually, um, this evening. Uh, so Madam Chair, I will turn it back to you.

Joan Denney

Thank you. We ask that anyone speaking this evening first introduce themselves before they begin speaking to keep a clear public record. Uh, now let's continue the meeting. Would everyone rise and join me uh, in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Joan Denney

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Joan Denney

Okay. Ms. Mullaney, would you please call the roll?

City Clerk

Thank you. Mr. Lewis?

Michael Lewis

Present.

City Clerk

Mr. Roach?

City Clerk

Mrs. Denney?

Joan Denney

Present.

City Clerk

Mrs. Maucher?

Andrea Maucher

Present.

City Clerk

Mr. Baldwin?

City Clerk

Dr. Jones?

Bobby Jones

Present.

City Clerk

Mr. Reeves?

Mark Reeves

Present.

City Clerk

Mrs. Welsh?

Kathleen Welsh

Present.

Krista Mullaney

Please let the record show six members present, two members absent.

Joan Denney

Thank you. With six present, we do have a quorum. First matter of business is approval of the agenda. Everybody's been provided with the agenda, other members, and um, I'm looking for a motion.

Andrea Maucher

Madam Acting Chair, um, I noticed there was a a revised agenda on our desk, so I would move that the revised agenda be um, approved.

Joan Denney

Thank you. Yes, it was on my desk as well. Thank you.

Michael Lewis

Second.

Joan Denney

We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

Andrea Maucher

Aye.

Bobby Jones

Aye.

Mark Reeves

Aye.

Joan Denney

Any nays? Hearing none, motion carried. The minutes are or the agenda is approved. Next order of business is adoption of the minutes of the July 20th, 2026 meeting. Um, you've been provided with the meeting minutes. I'm asking for a motion for their approval or for any necessary amendments if if you have them.

Kathleen Welsh

Madam Chair, it's Mrs. Welsh. Um, I move that we adopt the meeting minutes of July 20th, 2026.

Andrea Maucher

Second.

Joan Denney

Okay. We have a motion by Ms. Welsh and a second by Ms. Maucher. Uh, all in favor?

Andrea Maucher

Aye.

Bobby Jones

Aye.

Mark Reeves

Aye.

Joan Denney

Any any nays? Hearing none, the minutes of the July 20th, 2026 meeting are hereby adopted. Okay. Moving on to communication and reports. A reminder that next Planning Commission's regular date is Monday, September 21st, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. And now, uh, Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams will give us an update on City Council actions.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Uh, thank you, um, Madam Chair. This is uh, Dawn with the planning office. Um, at your meeting, we report on the City Council actions since your last meeting, in this case since July. Um, on the City Council meeting of July 27th, uh, they adopted Ordinance #2026-05 with uh, staff amendment one and other amendments. This was an ordinance, um, related to the Dover Code of Ordinances Chapter 70, specifically Section 70-4 related to throwing, kicking objects and playing games in the streets and public places. Um, it's not part of the zoning ordinance, which is why it did not appear before this body. Um, it deals with um, activities in the street and things like basketball goals, um. So, moving into August, uh, the uh, City Council meeting on August 10th, uh, the City Council took action to approve the annexation of the lands of Johnson, that is the property at 102 Fox Hall Drive, and they set the city zoning uh, classification of R-20 for the property uh, that was adopted by uh, Ordinance #2026-13 and Resolution 2026-09 uh, that appeared before this body as annexation application AX-26-03. Uh, you had recommended for its annexation and that that zoning classification. Uh, also at that uh, council meeting, uh, they completed the reappointment of uh, Joan Denney to the Planning Commission to serve uh, an additional three-year term. Uh, they also uh, completed the appointment of um, of an individual to fill the seat vacated by uh, Mr. Witham. Uh, the uh, selected appointee is uh, Donna Lee Williams uh, to fill that unexpired term, um, which would be through June of 2027. Uh, Donna Lee has joined us this evening online, um, just really kind of observing what's uh, what happens with the Planning Commission meeting, and we will be doing a full onboarding, um, meeting with her as planning staff. Uh, the following evening at the city uh, Council Committee of the Whole meeting of August 11th, uh, the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee heard a presentation on the potential changes to the active recreation requirements for residential development. Uh, that presentation was made by staff of the Rossi Group, and there was a further discussion and recommendation from that group about how to proceed. Uh, this evening on your Planning Commission agenda, you will you'll get basically the same presentation, and we'll have a discussion on on that. Um, at the Utility Committee that same evening, uh, they reviewed the request for street abandonment for Liberty Street. Uh, that was presented to um, that committee with your recommendation of approval. Uh, if you recall, Liberty Street you considered, um, it's a piece of right-of-way that's to the east of Legislative Hall. Uh, so that has more process involving City Council that'll be happening in the month of September. The uh, Legislative Finance and Administration Committee, um, at that meeting that uh, Committee of the Whole meeting, uh, heard a presentation on proposed Ordinance 2025-19, uh, which is a series of text amendments to the Dover Code of Ordinances uh, to facilitate the adoption of the 2024 um, ICC codes, um, that is the International Code Council codes. It's the series of codes that uh, the city utilizes for building code review. Uh, so that includes the IBC, which is the International Building Code, the IRC, uh, which is the International Residential Code, uh, and others including the existing building code and other reference codes. Uh, the committee recommended that um, that ordinance move forward on to City Council for uh, its formal review process. Uh, they did propose a an amendment to uh, the provisions that were put forth related to the um, IRC, which is the residential code, uh, pertaining to sprinklers when existing buildings are being added on to. Uh, so we'll see where that where that lands. Um, probably the the key thing for this committee, uh, or this commission is that uh, those are not ordinances that you enforce, but they are related to development happening here in the city. Um, with the IRC, there is uh, the proposal uh, was to leave the requirement for new construction of residential uh, buildings to include um, residential sprinkler systems. Uh, so there's there's more to the process for that ordinance, um, that'll be happening in September beyond. The uh, last thing of note at that Legislative Finance and Administration Committee, um, was discussion on a proposal for drafting a temporary a moratorium for data centers and other large load utility user, um, types. Uh, so there was a discussion, and that was um, basically referred to staff to work with the uh, appropriate councilperson who is sponsoring the effort, uh, to move forward with drafting said moratorium. Uh, and that'll be something that City Council will have to act upon, um, by ordinance in the coming months here. So Madam Chair, that's the update on City Council actions. Uh, for planning uh, and inspections updates, uh, just a couple of things for you. Um, we have hired an additional planner, um, Chris Salzano, you may remember, um, previously was with our office. Uh, he is a rehire into the Planner II position. Uh, so you'll be seeing him at your upcoming meetings as uh, projects are assigned. And um, with that, I think that is um, that's the update on planning inspections updates at this point.

Joan Denney

Thank you. We conduct the meeting following specific

Nikki Denny

procedures for the review of applications and their public hearings, if required. We will hear the meeting procedures from Mrs. Melson-Williams.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Um thank you. I'd like to provide the applicants and members of the public uh tonight with an explanation of how the meeting will proceed. Um for the new applications, the city's Development Advisory Committee um reviewed the application uh that is subject to public hearing before the commission tonight. Uh that Development Advisory Committee is made up of the city's major departments, including the planning office, uh the Department of Public Works, the Department of Water Wastewater, uh the office of the Fire Marshal, the electric department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Additionally, there are other agencies at the state level that participate in that Development Advisory Committee. Those include DelDOT, um which is the State Department of Transportation, um the Kent Conservation District, which is related to stormwater management, and the Dover Kent County MPO, uh which is related to transportation planning. Um the DAC committee um issues a report, and that is part of the planning commission uh meeting packet for um the app- particular application. Uh so tonight with with an application, uh it will begin with the chairman reading the name and the location of the application. Um if you are representing that application, we ask that you move forward to the podium if you're here in the room with us. A staff member will give um

Dawn Melson-Williams

Chris, not not yet. We're not to you.

Dawn Melson-Williams

We have an anxious applicant. It's okay. You're following instructions. Um

Dawn Melson-Williams

so the staff member is pre- going to give a brief overview of the particular application and reference that uh Development Advisory Committee report. Um the chair will then um ask the applicants if they have any additional information to share with the planning commission. Uh the planning commission um will be given the opportunity to ask questions of both the applicant and planning staff. Once we've addressed those initial uh questions, uh the acting chair will declare a public hearing open and will proceed with public testimony. Uh if you're here as a member of the public and would like to address the commission, we ask that if you're here in the room to raise your hand to be recognized. If you have joined us online this evening, um we will go to the online participants uh to find those that wish to speak on that particular application. Uh if you have joined us online, uh if you don't mind including uh a quick chat to the host to identify that uh which application you're here to participate in. And making any statement during that public hearing, we ask that you be as brief as possible and that any questions or comments are limited to the project that is before the commission. If you're here with a group, you can elect someone to uh speak on behalf of that group, and we can recognize that group for the record. Uh it is the policy of the planning commission not to start any new hearing after 10:30 p.m. If there are still agenda items remaining, uh if that will be um the planning commission can elect to recess until another night um selected by the commission. Uh we do ask that you silence or mute your cell phones as a courtesy for all. Uh and if you've joined us online, um please as I noted uh indicate your um preference on which application you're seeking to participate with, and um that you remain in mute unless you are preparing to speak.

Dawn Melson-Williams

All right. Back to you, Madam Chair.

Nikki Denny

Thank- First order um on our first thing on our agenda tonight is old business, and under old business is a is a request for extension of Planning Commission approval. Um and it's we do have a request for um site site plan 24-11 S- I'm sorry, S-24-11, which is lot three, Garrison Oak Park Business and Technology Center, application number S-24-11. And um the applicant is uh respectfully asking or requesting a one-year extension. Um this is uh as a reference, it's the warehouse building at 601 Garrison Oak Drive. Um and the City of Dover Planning Commission originally approved this project at their meeting in August of August 16th of 2024. The reason for the extension request is that the application needs more time to finalize end users for the project before pulling permits. So um that's our first item. Uh is there anybody here who wants to uh speak to that? No.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Madam Chair, I'm not sure that there is. Um I did have Yeah, so planning um planning staff uh did in- did provide to the planning commission members their letter of request um that was filed once we discovered that it was um coming up on an expiration at the end of this month. So that is site plan S-24-11, a proposal for a warehouse building at 601 Garrison Oak Drive, uh which is lot three of the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Park. Um the site plan does have final site plan approval. Uh that was actually granted, meaning they've gotten all of their agency approvals in hand, um back on April 28th of this year. Uh they have just not moved forward to the permitting process or commenced construction. Um in order to keep a project alive, you have to continue to make progress um on the the request. And let me

Dawn Melson-Williams

We have one user, um this is Dawn, the host, that called in this evening. Um I just want to see if you are associated with this request for extension.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Give them a minute.

Public Commenter

No, I'm not.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Okay. Um which application are you here associated with?

Public Commenter

Um, I was here uh uh it's supposed to be at 7:00, I think. I'm not sure if it if it already went through, uh the Lafferty Lane project?

Dawn Melson-Williams

That is uh later on our agenda this evening. Um we'll When we get to that, I will check back with you.

Public Commenter

Okay, thank you.

Dawn Melson-Williams

So Madam Chair, there is not a representative of that application here this evening. Um planning staff can try to answer any questions that uh commission members may have. If not, uh you would be seeking a motion for um action on their request for extension.

Nikki Denny

So at this point, um do any of the members of the Planning Committee have any questions or comments or uh would like to make a motion?

Robin Maucher

Um Madam Acting Chair, I have a just a quick question for uh planning staff. So is there a time period in which they must begin pulling permits? I mean, could they begin as long as they begin before the 1-year extension deadline is up, that's fine? Or is there an expect- expectation that they pull before that?

Dawn Melson-Williams

So the zoning ord- This is Dawn with the planning office. The the zoning ordinance establishes an approval an initial approval time frame of 2 years from your initial action. Um then the code allows for an additional 1-year extension upon request. Uh so if they are successful with this request, they would have until August 31st, 2027, uh to move into that permitting process, pull a permit, and commence construction.

Dawn Melson-Williams

If they do not pull a permit and commence construction activity, then they will have to um restart the application review process.

Robin Maucher

Did activity have to um begin by August 31st, or do they just have to pull the permit?

Dawn Melson-Williams

They have to pull permits and be in active construction. Um the specific language in the code is commence activity. So, commence that construction activity.

Robin Maucher

Very good, thank you.

Nikki Denny

So, that question answered, I'm look- still looking for a motion.

Kathleen Welsh

Madam Chair, um this is Mrs. Welsh. Um in regard to um S-24-11, warehouse building at 601 Garrison Oak Park Drive extension request, I move that um we approve the request for extension for 1 year. Um

Carlton Jones

I'll second that motion.

Nikki Denny

Thank you. So, we have a motion from Mrs. Welsh and a motion um from I'm sorry. From Dr. Jones. I'm sorry, Dr. Jones. A second from Dr. Jones. And I think we need to call the roll for this.

City Clerk

Thank you. Mrs. Welsh?

Kathleen Welsh

I vote yes.

City Clerk

Mr. Lewis?

Michael Lewis

Yes.

City Clerk

Mr. Roach- oh, I'm sorry, not Mr. Roach. Miss Maucher?

Robin Maucher

I I I vote yes, but I I am a little reluctant. Um It's one thing if they're held up by, you know, things outside of their force, but, you know, to have gone so far along and not have what appears to be tenants for the property. But, I'll vote yes.

City Clerk

Um Dr. Jones?

Carlton Jones

Oh, yes.

City Clerk

Mr. Reeves?

Eric Reeves

Vote yes.

City Clerk

And Mrs. Denny?

Nikki Denny

I vote yes.

City Clerk

6 yes votes, 0 no votes. Motion carries.

Nikki Denny

Thank you.

Nikki Denny

Okay, so um we have a revision uh next on the agenda under old business is a revision to application H-124-07, Legislative Hall building addition at 411 Legislation Legislative Avenue. Um The revision is for the west entrance ADA ramp. Is there anybody here who would like to speak? Come forward.

Dawn Melson-Williams

So as the applicant's coming forward and signing in, um planning staff will give a a a briefing on this. Uh so this um this request is specifically associated with a proposal to add a west entrance uh ADA ramp um to the Legislative Hall building. Uh this property uh previously went through review with the Historic District Commission and Planning Commission back in the fall of 2024 uh for what is a proposed Legislative Hall building addition on the east side of the building. Um this however um it makes a change to the west side of the building. Uh it was presented to the Historic District Commission um back in June and July of of this year. Uh the Historic District Commission initially had some design concerns with um the opening um or the entry door, if you will, uh from the ramp system into the Legislative Hall building and asked the applicant to um do some design improvements uh to go back and take a look at that. Uh they did that, and that information was presented to the Historic District Commission at their meeting in July. Um and uh that July 16th meeting date, uh the Historic District Commission uh is recommending approval of the revised architectural review certificate associated with this application, which is HI-24-07. Um it just will be added The information will be added to the overall project, uh but because of how intertwined it was with what was previously presented to both the Historic District Commission and um the Planning Commission, uh we're bringing that back as at least an informational reporting um to you. Uh so as you can see in the image and the and the plan diagram that was presented, um the west entrance to Legislative Hall currently has kind of set of uh monumental steps that brings you up into the kind of elevated first floor entry. Um With any potential project affecting the east side of the building, then um their ADA accessibility becomes more limited for this building, so um this ramp uh addition on the west side was proposed. It is a brick ramp with a um kind of

Dawn Melson-Williams

metal railing system and it makes entry into the building through what is currently a window. Um and with this design, they're redesigning that window opening into a door opening. Uh the planning uh the Historic District Commission encouraged keeping basically the general form of that window opening including the uh the keystone that's above, and encouraging uh the use of glass in that door uh to replicate, at least from a distance, the sense that it is very similar to the window um because of the uh significant amount of symmetry that exists on this side of the building. Um

Dawn Melson-Williams

So we have included uh in your packet the kind of this the review uh portion of the the Historic District Commission what they saw and the including the staff recommendations. Um the applicant is here this evening uh and you can hear from him a little bit more about the this particular aspect of the of the project. Um we bring it to you uh somewhat like an informational item because this is something that uh the form could have just been approved by the Historic District Commission, but because you saw a larger project and ultimately issued that architectural review certification, we felt it best to have the information presented to you as well. Uh there is no public hearing required um with this application presentation. Um so Madam Chair, I think at this point we can certainly hear from the applicant's representative.

Denny

Thank you. So uh Mr. Ridgely?

Dan Ridgely

Thank you, Mrs. Denny. Uh my name is Dan Ridgely. I'm one of the project architects with Studio JAED on the Legislative Hall expansion project. Uh Mrs. Melson-Williams explained it very well, uh the intent uh to add a um ADA compliant uh ramp to the west side of Legislative Hall. Um just a little history on how we got here. Uh we've been uh um commissioned to design a addition to Legislative Hall, which takes care of some programming needs they have. Uh and it has been placed on the east side of the property. That addition will be fully ADA compliant uh and will include uh multiple elevators, interior, and all the interior spaces will be uh ADA compliant. Uh the um issue that we have we're currently trying to address is that during uh construction, which we estimate to take

Dan Ridgely

several years, uh of the uh the addition, we have to take the current ADA uh access to the building offline, which is on the east side of the of the building. So as you see the site plan that's on the screen there and you can see the darker uh somewhat rectangular shaped space on the upper side of the plan, that's roughly where the current ADA ramp is going, um within that addition footprint. Or that's where it is. So um when we start building that addition, we have to take the ramp offline. So, uh talking to um our client, which is

Dan Ridgely

Division of Facilities Management with the State of Delaware, they directed us to uh propose a permanent ramp on the west side. And we came up with one that we we took special care to respect the symmetry of the facade uh and the historic uh detailing of it, um but also trying to make it um a function uh as it intends and uh come to a point in the building where it can um uh be uh uh addressed by security, as well as the other public entrance. So security has has given us approval at this location. We found it constructible and uh did our best to um maintain the aesthetics. And And obviously it it does take away a little bit from the symmetry of the building, but we've uh we're doing what we can to maintain it by keeping the window opening as as as Mrs. Melson mentioned, uh large, uh using a lot of glass, and white trim uh to match the uh the opposite window and um and using architectural details that uh are appropriate for the uh the high level of detail on the building, and with the uh wrought iron railing

Dan Ridgely

systems uh or or a they they look like wrought iron, it may be aluminum, and the brick work on the ramp. Uh we would also be um using a a snow melt system, which um would provide a safe access. Uh So um uh that is uh our proposal today is to add this west ramp to our overall scope of work uh so that the building, which will remain occupied during construction, uh can maintain its accessibility, and then for the foreseeable future, have multiple accessible points of entry.

Denny

Thank you. Do any of the members have any questions or comments?

Maucher

Yeah, if

Denny

Of course.

Maucher

I got something always. Um, so I saw in the uh in the the summary in the Historic Commission review, one of the questions was how close is uh handicap parking to this? Because I know we have the parking garage going over, is it going Are they going to have to go all the way from there or is there uh handicap parking on the streets or immediately on the backside of the west side?

Dan Ridgely

Th- That's a great question, Ms. Maucher. So if you look at the screen there uh or any screen, you can see uh on the right-hand side of the page, that is Martin Luther King South. And um and on that side we're proposing restriping and reorienting parking spaces to create multiple ADA spots. And there will be an accessible route uh from those spots to the uh uh new ramp. Uh we're also uh adding a ramp on the site. Uh you could see there in the bottom le- uh right there uh a little red area, uh that's currently brick steps. So we're going to convert that to a ramp as well. So there will be an accessible route. Um however we uh since this plan's been submission submitted, excuse me, we took note of the Historical Route Board's recommendation and we asked our civil uh designer to add uh some ADA uh parking on the north side, too. That was their recommendation. So uh we're looking to improve on the plan you're looking at today.

Maucher

And just one other curiosity, um was pulling out the steps out further and making a more of a platform, was that not an option? Cuz then I think you It's just odd that you're um taking a window and making it into a door and it's going to

Dan Ridgely

So So there there's a challenge inside the building. As you walk into that front door, there's an additional four or five steps. Uh you're in a vestibule and then to get to the main level, there's additional steps. Unfortunately we don't have the uh it would be a lot more disruptive, I guess I could say, to modify that main entrance to be accessible.

Maucher

Thank you.

Dan Ridgely

Yeah, you're welcome.

Denny

Anyone else?

Denny

Looks like there's no one with any questions, but I just uh want to comment um, you know, hav- having a passion to preserve history and the aesthetics, and having a hi- an historic house in Camden, um I really appreciate your expertise and trying to preserve and do as much as you can with this, Mr. Ridgely. Thank you.

Dan Ridgely

Of course, thank you.

Dan Ridgely

Very welcome.

Denny

So if Was there anybody from the public that has any comments or

Dawn Melson-Williams

So Madam Chair, this does not require a public hearing um for this application, um kind of update to the planning commission, um but if there's all questions are answered, you can certainly seek a motion to um accept this information and uh its update to the architectural review certification for this project.

Denny

Okay, so at that point, we're not we don't take a vote on this at all?

Dawn Melson-Williams

Uh no, you would. You just do not There's not a public hearing required.

Denny

Okay, so um I g- guess the next thing to do is I'm looking for some type of a motion um from from the uh commissioners to the planning commissioners to um accept the revised plan here.

Maucher

Madam Acting Chair, in the matter of the uh revised um the revisions for the west entrance ADA ramp for Legislative Hall building, and I guess that's H HI or H1-24-07, I move we um accept the planning or the Historic Commission's recommendations.

Lewis

Second.

Denny

Thank you. So we have a motion um by Mrs. Maucher and a second um by Mr. Lewis um to accept the architectural review report revised plan. Um So uh can we call the roll, please?

City Clerk

Thank you. Mrs. Maucher?

Maucher

I vote yes. I I think they did a fine job, you know, accommodating all the needs of everyone.

City Clerk

Dr. Jones?

Jones

Vote yes for uh reasons uh espoused by Mrs. Maucher.

City Clerk

Mr. Reeves?

City Clerk

Mr. Reeves?

Reeves

Yes, I I vote yes.

City Clerk

Thank you. Mrs. Welsh?

Welsh

Uh yes, I vote in favor of the motion. I I just want to comment I've in the past I've done historical reservation restorations and um I appreciate just what you said about the door and the window and matching and and how difficult that can sometimes be.

Dan Ridgely

Thank you.

City Clerk

Mr. Lewis?

Lewis

I vote yes, and good luck with the project.

Dan Ridgely

Thank you.

City Clerk

Mrs. Denny?

Denny

I vote yes.

City Clerk

Thank you. That's six yes votes, zero no votes. Motion carries.

Denny

Thank you. So the architectural review report revision plan is hereby accepted unanimously by this group. Thank you all.

Denny

Okay. So moving right along, if I can catch up here, um we have next on the agenda are new applications. The first of those being uh application US-26-01 Dover Commerce Park Comprehensive Signage Plan. Um We'll have a staff presentation, but you're here too? Okay, so

Maucher

We'll uh we'll tell you when we know when we're ready. Okay.

Dawn Melson-Williams

So as the applicant comes forward to the podium to go ahead and sign in, the planning staff will give a brief overview of this um application. Um this, as noted, is a unified comprehensive signage plan for the property uh known as the Dover Commerce Park. It was uh went through our review process as the Dover Industrial Park. Uh the property is located at 350 Lafferty Lane here in Dover. Um the overall site is just over 9.7 uh acres of land and was um originally went through the review process here with the Planning Commission for um the development of the site.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Uh Ultimately, they are proposing three warehouse-type buildings. Uh Building A, which was Phase 1, um has been constructed and we're working through tenant fit-outs for portions of that building. Um the Phase 2, which will build Buildings B and Building C on the site, um was reviewed as site plan S-25-10 um Dover Industrial Phase 2, and that is working through its uh check print review process on that final um plan.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Uh Noting that there are three buildings um with this project um is key because with uh any campus that has um three buildings, three main buildings such as this, uh it qualifies for consideration of a unified comprehensive sign plan. So if we go to the kind of the site plan image, um we will see, hopefully, yep. Um so this is the the plan that shows the entire um property. Uh What's shown in the kind of the pinkish color, when it comes back up, there we go, um that's the building A, or the Phase 1, which also included improve-

Dawn Melson-Williams

amendments to a storm water management plan and they're working through the final details to be able to finalize the plan for the phase two which is in blue. Um, so

Dawn Melson-Williams

with a comprehensive sign plan, it allows the planning commission to consider um alternatives to our regular sign regulations, which are part of the zoning ordinance. Um, our sign regulations are based on the type of road and the proximity to um residential of that of that property. So with this proposal,

Dawn Melson-Williams

uh they are bringing to us uh one sign. Uh it is a freestanding sign that will be located uh kind of on the east end of their parking lot um near Lafferty Lane.

Dawn Melson-Williams

The the sign uh is near the entrance uh to the property um, which is actually a shared entrance with its neighbor to the east. Uh, and what you see on screen for the Dover Commerce Park is the proposal for this freestanding sign. Um, it generally meets the

Dawn Melson-Williams

description of what we deem as a monument sign. Uh, it's a little wider than it is tall. Um, however, the planning commission is being asked to consider some alternatives to the strict um provisions that are established in the the city's uh sign regulations. Uh, specifically those related to overall height of the sign and then the number of tenants that uh receive kind of a tenant space on the on the sign itself.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Uh, so the strict interpretation of the sign regulations would limit this sign to 7 ft in height. Um, this current version of the sign that the applicant is has brought to us um is has an overall height of 9 ft 4 in. Uh, so it's a it's a little taller than what is

Dawn Melson-Williams

typically allowed under basically if we wanted to review it through a sign permit review process with staff. Um, the other item is related to the tenant spaces, those panels. Uh, the design guidelines for our sign regulations would limit that to three tenants. Um, they're asking for the ability to provide space for seven tenants.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Uh, the planning staff is recommending approval of this uh version of the monument sign for the Dover Commerce Park. Um, we have worked with the applicant. Some of their earlier um versions of this sign were one in a different location and and took a very different format. Um, this is just this their comprehensive sign plan for this project just focuses on this one sign. Any additional signage

Dawn Melson-Williams

uh on the campus would be subject to our regular sign regulations which um prescribe the limitations on things such as wall signs. Um, there is the ability to do some directional signage on site without a permit. Um, but this is what is before the commission tonight. The comprehensive sign plan does uh charge the planning commission with, in reviewing this, uh to take a look at um whether the size and complexity of the campus warrants the need for the types of signage under these provisions,

Dawn Melson-Williams

um also looking at the number and type of entrances and how the sign is placed near those entrances. And then the signage proposed is adequate to safely direct the public um to these uh to the uses on the site. Um, and whether also you have to look at if the proposed sign to ensure it will not have adverse um impact on the visibility of neighboring signs uh and then also that it is uh the sign itself is generally of a style and color to compliment the architecture of the site and the area in general.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Um, I will note that uh this utilizes kind of a blue color for the base. That blue a blue color is also found in um the exterior um wall surfaces of at least building A at this point. Um, the kind of the end end tenant spaces have a have a blue that's utilized where the rest of the the wall system is kind of a series of grays. Um, so this evening you can hear from the applicant to talk about um this request for signage.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Uh this is subject to public hearing, so we will need to conduct a public hearing um before you take action. So return to madam chair. I think we're ready to hear from the applicant.

Chair

Okay, you're on.

Chris Evans

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Dawn. Uh, yes, I'm with Coastal Commercial Construction. My name's Chris Evans. I'm a project manager for this Dover Commerce Park. We're proposing this um monument sign, let's call it, uh for this business park. Um, I think it fits in with the design at least of building A right now, which is 54,000 square ft.

Chris Evans

Potential, we do have two tenants in uh right now. We're looking at getting a third tenant to take the remainder of the building. Uh we're proposing in phase two to uh build a 45,000 square foot building. Uh and phase uh the third building in phase two will be proposed to be 133,000 square foot building. Uh that's why we're proposing the um seven tenant uh spaces on the sign. Uh the sign will fit in well with the uh architecture of at least building A at this point.

Chair

Do any of the members have any questions or comments for Mr. Evans?

Kathleen Mauger

Hello, Mr. Evans. Um are there signs along Lafferty for other um businesses?

Chris Evans

Pardon me?

Kathleen Mauger

Are there other signs along, like monument signs, or other types of signs?

Chris Evans

There are across the street, there's a smaller uh business park. Um they do have, they used to have just a plywood sign on two 4x4 posts, and they did recently install a new sign uh with multiple uh tenants on their sign as well.

Kathleen Mauger

Okay. Thank you.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Uh, Mr. Reeves, um do you have any questions um regarding this application?

Mr. Reeves

No, I don't have any questions at this time.

Unknown Speaker

No, I don't either.

Chair

So, um

Dawn Melson-Williams

So, you need to conduct the public hearing.

Chair

hearing. So at this point um we'll we'll call to order a public hearing. And you can have a seat or stand, whatever works best for you.

Chris Evans

Okay. Thank you.

Chair

So um calling to order, opening a public meeting on application US-26-01 Dover Commercial Industrial Park comprehensive sign proposal.

Dawn Melson-Williams

So Madam Chair, I'm going to out, this is Dawn in the planning office. Um there are no members of the public wishing to speak in the room. Um I do want to, for the record, go to those that have joined us online. Um our call-in uh user, um can you identify yourself for the record? Um and I think you mentioned that you had no questions or comments, uh but just so that we capture that.

Dawn Melson-Williams

the Senate Joint Resolution 8, which is a housing and land use reform effort. One of the things that we've—they have flagged, we have flagged, is related to our active recreation requirements. As noted earlier in this meeting, the one of the council subcommittees heard this presentation last week. We felt it appropriate to bring to the Commission this evening, and with that, I'm going to turn it over to Tom, who has joined us online. We have the series of slides, and if you just say next slide, we can move through those so that they're visually on the screen for you. They were also provided in hard copy to the Planning Commission members as part of their meeting packet. So, Tom.

Tom West

Great. Thank you very much, and good evening, members of the Commission. As was mentioned, my name's Tom West. I'm a certified community planner with The Rossi Group and one of the team members working on the project that Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned, which is a land use or zoning reform project. And one of the things that she described is we've looked at—we're basically looking at zoning and subdivision provisions and processes that each of the jurisdictions that we work with in, things that raise flags or things to be discussed.

Tom West

And tonight, I'm here to talk about specifically open space, recreation, and public facilities provisions that are in place in your zoning ordinance in Section 10. So if we go to the next slide, please.

Tom West

Just these are points on the on the project itself. It's a voluntary pilot program. It was started with Dover. We're looking at the regulatory analysis, and this it's we're looking, as I mentioned, at active recreation tonight requirements, and part of it is to look at some of the examples that have happened recently that create confusion or delay. Most notably are the Cecil Street townhouse townhome project and then Nixon Lane minor subdivision, which came up, I think, in the same meeting, and there was discussion about some of the provisions. I'm just put tossing them out there now, but we'll look at some details about how the code affected those and and other ones, too.

Tom West

So if we'd look at the next slide, we'll get into some code language, not the most exciting things to look at, but basically what this is saying, and these are the details that are important, is for a recreation area in the city, a a development needs to provide 275 sq ft per dwelling unit or one-half acre. So that's pretty straightforward. That's an area size that if if development's coming in, they need to provide open space for, and Section 10 gives all the details about why open space and recreation are important. So this is the first detail, if you will, that we'll look at. And then the next slide.

Tom West

So, with that requirement, there are some exceptions, and this is one of the things that where we were looking at. There's some overlap in these. I think the first two, which are different provisions in the ordinance, have different requirements or, in this case, exemptions. So that's part of the the the things that we're looking at is to is there conflicts or things that can be clearer. These are the exceptions, and we'll talk about those. They're basically exemptions from meeting that requirement for recreation area or fee that we'll talk about.

Tom West

So the next slide talks about a cash-in-lieu. So if it can be if there are exceptions to providing recreation area, but you're supposed to provide a fee, there needs to be a determination on how to get to the fee. So in Dover's case, it's based on appraisal value of the land, the land that's under consideration, and that's part of the plan that was submitted to you. So to get the fee, an appraisal needs to be done for the value of that land if it were if it's to be developed, and that's they're not given the recreation area, they're providing money instead of it, based on some of the exceptions. And I'll talk about the the cash-in-lieu of, but, again, the main takeaway from this is you need an appraisal, which costs money, it takes time, and sometimes applicants aren't as familiar with it, especially smaller projects. That's where some of these more complex provisions come into play.

Tom West

The next slide is also another section of the ordinance talks about the cash-in-lieu of for exceptions. So this is when it's a very small development, in this case less than five acres, so they're not providing their land, but they're providing a fee. Again, you need an appraisal for it. It's based on the gross land area, and the the applicant needs to provide that up front as part of the appraisal for the construction financing, money that they're doing for the appraisals for other things. So we talked about land, we talked about determining a fee. So if we go to the next slide,

Tom West

So this this is just talking about, in general, some of the challenges with the process the way it's currently set up. There's too many carve-outs or and exceptions, and sometimes they're not always the same. So it's a confusing process going through the ordinance and for applicants to look at it, and I imagine the Planning Commission too, when you're looking at a plan, what is being required when the ordinance is saying different uh different provisions.

Tom West

The second one is the cash-in in in-lieu. Again, I mentioned it: you need an appraisal for it. Sometimes it happens where smaller projects is coming in and they do the appraisal, and it's kind of a surprise to them at times that they need to do this, and then they're trying to secure construction financing, and all of a sudden they have a problem to to move forward with it.

Tom West

And then the the third one is just saying really it it it none of these are really, I don't think, troubling for bigger developments or applicants who've been through the process before. I think the case where we're seeing the processes create bumps or challenges is on is on smaller projects.

Tom West

So, the next slide, we're going to move on from this foundation I laid of you need area or a cash a cash-in-lieu of, meaning dollars, for open space and recreation. So we're suggesting, as part of this process to promote affordable housing and, looking at your code, are there ways to clear up provisions? Open space is very important, and it's needed, but is it can it be clarified so especially smaller projects don't get caught up in some of the complexities of it?

Tom West

So this slide's showing a new approach where there's different tiers. Our our analysis and and discussions with city staff is it's really not impacting the larger developments like Bay Village, ones like that. It's the smaller developments that it becomes confusing or causes delays or causes because people, when we're going through it, it's just not as they're not as aware of it, and it causes problems as the process unfolds. And there's also, at the bottom, minor subdivisions. We're saying that recommending that certain ones be exempt: minor lot line changes and minor subdivisions. But that third one down, for projects under those thresholds, meaning they're under the major subdivisions, conditional use site plans, a flat fee could be established instead of an appraised fee. Fee, excuse me.

Tom West

If we go onto the next slide, we'll clarify what we mean by this, but this is that's basically the slide that's showing the suggested approach to move forward. So instead of a cash-in-lieu of with an appraisal, we're we looked at other flat fees in the area. So this these are some of the examples in nearby communities: Harrington, Smyrna, New Castle County, and Delaware City. So we we look at those, and and we're saying that these are they're not impact fees, but they're instead of a cash-in-lieu of for an appraisal, just set a flat fee, and it becomes much clearer in your in your ordinance and then to applicants that are going through the process if they're just dealing with that dollar value up front.

Tom West

The next slide is showing some comparisons of how the the areas are broken down. So in Newark and Smyrna, you can see this is back to the recreation area, how much is required. Right now, Dover's requiring 250 sq ft or half an acre. We're looking at some of the land dedication examples in other communities such as this tiered one in Newark or 15% in Smyrna.

Tom West

The next slide is similar. It's showing, instead of other communities, some recent developments, how much have they dedicated to the recreation area going forward. So this is, Bay Village is at the top, and the two the two ones lower are more in the city proper, if you will. You can see their the different unit sizes and how much site area there is, and then how much of the recreation area was provided as part of the approved plans moving forward for these developments. So things that we looked at as we were comparing how to approach the the overall process if we can streamline it.

Tom West

So, back to that— I'm sorry, did someone have a question? Okay.

Tom West

So the next slide is kind of a wrap-up. This is this is this is the information that we've we're we've looked at as part of just this one section of the code for open space and recreation. We think open space and recreation is very important. Summary of it is that the the provisions work well for larger developments, but we think that they're smaller developments coming in, infill developments, where it might be too much for them or there are definitely there's some things that might be conflicts in the ordinance to look at cleaning up. Back So what we're looking for is: is there support for that general framework? And we can go back to that, but the top two tiers would stay pretty much the same. The bottom one, we would be exempting very small developments from the requirements, as a suggestion. And the middle one is to just change the fee-in-lieu-of calculations instead of a appraised fee to a flat fee. So we're looking for your thoughts on that general framework. Should minor subdivisions be exempt or subject to a flat fee? Right now there's they are subject to a flat fee. And is there a general sense of what the area requirements should be for land, or based on a gross land area of or density?

Tom West

And with that, I'll turn it back over to the Commission and Madam Chair if there's any questions to start off with for me that I can hopefully clarify for you.

Chair

Thank you. Um, do any of the Commission members have any questions, or thoughts, or comments?

Male Commissioner

Madam Chair, just just a comment or two. I was on the panel, the City Council or subcommittee panel that heard this last week, and just in general the City Council seemed sympathetic to the, you know, revision proposals, and they seem It to me, it seems like common sense to make some revisions, and it did to them as well. I think particularly of our friend with the Cecil Street townhouses who have been who's been here multiple times and to that other panel multiple times going back and forth on, you know, what his cash-in-lieu would be, etcetera, etcetera. So ideally we'd be encouraging more people like that, and things as it as the as they stand, I could see that where that would get in the way of somebody wanting to do that, to be forced to come back multiple times for something like this. So, I'm in favor of revisions. Thanks.

Chair

Does anybody else have any thoughts or comments?

Andrea Maucher

This is Andrea, I do have a couple. So, currently, the cash-in-lieu, does that go to general fund, or is there a dedicated capital park improvement fund?

Dawn Melson-Williams

So this is Dawn with the planning staff. The question is about, when that cash-in-lieu payment occurs, where does it go? It is very specifically in our code that it must be designated for a Parks and Recreation fund. So it goes into a fund that can be utilized for park and recreation improvements city-wide. So it is a specific pot of money.

Andrea Maucher

Is it specifically for capital improvements, or...?

Dawn Melson-Williams

I'm not sure if it's specifically listed for only capital improvements. I think that is what it has trended to be used for. I'm not sure if it can be utilized for any kind of programming-type efforts as well. In the past, I know they've used it for like replacing playground equipment, things of that nature, but that is certainly something that could be clarified moving forward.

Andrea Maucher

Thank you. Also on the...

Planning Commission Member

I'm I'm more sympathetic to duplexes and townhomes that don't have, um, yard yards necessarily available. Um, but when why were single-family detached homes thrown into into that grouping? I mean they they have yards and then and also was the is any con- consideration given to the proximity to other recreation areas? That were the proximity of the project to other recreation areas?

Planning Staff

I would just say, um, the grouping is from my understanding this is the way it's set up now that anything with 25 lots it doesn't matter what kind of housing it is is subject to that's that tier. Um, and I don't I'm not aware of and I could be I'd have to go back and look if there is any consideration of proximity to existing parks or other things that would, um, affect that impact from those those types of developments, but it basically broken down by lots and multifamily at the top is is part of the uh the way it's distinguished as well.

Planning Commission Member

Thank you.

Planning Commission Chair

Do any other members have comments? Yes. Yes, Dr. Jones.

Dr. Jones

Yes, um, may not have direct relationship to the uh to the uh the considerations and revisions, but I think they are generally good. Uh, but I do have a question perha- terms of the ad- tration of the fees, and Dawn this may may go to you. Uh, at what point in time currently or with the proposal is the assessment paid in lieu of when is it paid? Is it up front? Is it at the completion? Can you help me?

Dawn Melson-Williams

Yes, so, um, if a project currently goes through the process, and, um, the cash-in-lieu, um, is accepted for, instead of building recreation area as part of the project, um, the administration involves the uh submission of the appraisal from the uh applicant. Um, the staff then does the calculation, and that calculation is reported both to the Planning Commission and to the um Parks and Recreation uh committee as part of the review of the, if you will, plan for active recreation. That fee does not come due until you are ready for your first building permit. So, it must be paid prior to us issuing the first building permit for that development.

Dr. Jones

And you probably know, I've I've mentioned this, I live in a development where the developer's change has changed two or three times. And I think there were some wrinkles in the active recreation area. Am I right, Dawn? I think I've talked to you about that before. I don't know if I And so that's why I'm looking if a developer um uh let's say for whatever reason goes bankrupt or what have you and somebody else comes in. I know some things have happened in my development that may have finally come to fruition.

Dawn Melson-Williams

So, um, with that particular development, there was the original plan for what active recreation was going to be for that larger subdivision. Um, the plan for the subdivision changed, it became about half the number of units it was initially planned for. And at that time then, um, there was also a proposed revision to the active recreation area. Um, I'm not sure which developer it was, um, but the plan was revised. I think that in particular, that neighborhood initially had a plan for a clubhouse and different things that way. When the number of units changed, then the active recreation um required area went down, um, and they proposed alternatives for active recreation. Um, basically, I think they kept um there's some very small open open-space parcels, but the main amenity, in the case of that neighborhood, was to ensure that there was the walkability to what is one of our major parks, um, Schutte Park. So, it was to ensure that there was the sidewalk connections to get from this neighborhood to that existing large city park land. So, proximity to something, um, actually helped that project, cuz it was accepted as meeting part of the active recreation requirements for that property. Um, so, right now, with an app- with a with a project depending on the type of project, um, between what the actual requirements are and those exemptions that we have, you end up with a land area number that's required for active recreation. And then how the developer chooses to meet that is reviewed as part of the process, whether it is building amenities as part of the development or if they can't if they aren't going to propose building amenities, then that cash-in-lieu scenario, um, which results in a donation to the parkland fund, um, based on the appraisal and the calculation process that we must do.

Dr. Jones

Thank you very much. There were three developers there. As we move along with this process, as I said, I think the revisions are are great, but I there should be some consideration about when that fee actually comes in, when the assessment is actually uh levied against the the developer and us. So.

Planning Commission Chair

Does anybody else have any comments? Okay, so Go ahead.

Mr. Reeves

This is Mr. Reeves, I have a question. With regards to the the fee and the fund, um who is the approval authority for disbursing those in lieu of uh fees?

Dawn Melson-Williams

So, this Dawn with the planning office. The question is about disbursement from that fund. Um I believe that is would reside with the um kind of a combination of the Department of Parks and Recreation for the city. If it is a capital project, it is probably outlined in the city's, as part of the city's budget process, um for and it's if it's of a certain amount, in the city's Capital Improvements Plan, um which is part of our budgeting our budget process. Um but that is certainly something that we can, you know, learn more about. It is not a responsibility of the Planning Commission to approve disbursements from that fund, um or for the planning office to approve disbursements from that fund.

Mr. Reeves

Thank you.

Planning Commission Chair

Anybody else? So, um I have I'm not sure whether they're really questions or comments, but um many years ago, um I uh at I At one time, first of all, I'm just gonna caveat is, at one time I managed the Town of Camden, one time I was a councilwoman, eventually I became the town administrator, so I'll just lay that out there. But there came a time where um we a a a very gracious senior citizen who was knew that she would soon be not with us anymore, uh, left her land to the Town of Camden. And initially there was a little bit went back and forth, was it going to be county, was it going to be the town, but anyway, ultimately, that it was left, and then so we had a group small group of people, I got At this point I held no office or anything, but I had been very close to her, and so, um and we were represented by a lawyer, uh, cuz that was the first thing I thought needed to happen, but at any rate, to just to cut to the chase, you it the, "What do we do with this?" and ultimately everybody knows it ended up being Brecknock Castle, um, which what was ended up We really had very little funds, almost no funds. Um we had some small some smaller like e- even at that point $10 was a $10,000 was a small amount, but we had some some monetary help. Uh the City of Dover felt like they shouldn't be contributing to the Camden park, you know, we went through all that a lot of politics involved, but but ultimately we we ended up that we just decided, well, the community the community in and of itself will build it, and we went to electric companies and water companies and eventually, through the graciousness of of uh smaller monetary uh contributions, as well as a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, we we ended up building a little city there where we had people who were providing food, cooking food, we had businesses who would donate the food and we were feeding the people, and we were operating 24/7, and we had well drillers and electricians who were build, you know, donating time and energy and telephone telephone poles. And it it was a wonderful project. But anytime something like this comes up where we're saying um like in lieu of recreation, that's a giant example, but to me, when we do that, when we take money instead, I feel like we're taking away, um, you know, what could could be, you know, a couple of park benches or a little bit of a dog park, because that wasn't as popular back then, but like when you're over there now, it's there's so many people walking dogs and all. I mean, there should be dog parks and things. So, I I always, in my mind, have trouble with this, uh, in lieu of, because I think it should be something that the people who live in the houses in that particular development or apartment complex or something should be able to appreciate, and it shouldn't just go to like some type of a general fund. And I'm not suggesting that it is, but that's my feeling about that. And then the other question I have is, so with some of these impact fees and all, like what happens, and this comes before, you know, in the county quite often, is a family comes in and, you know, great-grandfather left 600-acre family farm to 18 grandkids, and then they start, they want to make it into lots, individual lots. And, like, so then if you have all these impact fees from breaking up these lots, how, and, and that's a question, like how does that get divided, what happens with, what happens there, because, ultimately, they just inherited the land, and they probably could just leave it, but if they're going to build, build houses or, you know, what happens? How does that work out with the in-lieu-of aspect?

Applicant Representative

good amendments and definitely be back before the Planning Commission and Council. Um, I look forward to working with with the team to help you out with this project and working with you um in the weeks and months to come on it. But appreciate your time tonight.

Kathleen Welsh

Thank you.

Andrea Maucher

Just just, Madam Chair, if I get just one one last comment. Um, regarding the the the flat fee, I'm I'm supportive of that. I think it's a cleaner, easier way to handle that. I think it should be high enough to be meaningful, but not so high as to add additional burden to what we're trying to do, which is create affordable housing. I think it should also be scalable to ex- to some extent, so it's not set in code and you have to amend code to be able to change that dollar amount if it could be some way it could be ratcheted after or placed under the review of, you know, every 5 years or something like that.

Kathleen Welsh

I certainly agree with Mrs. Maucher.

Applicant Representative

Yeah, I've seen similar uh provisions like that that it's scalable. And then since it is in the code, it's would be harder to update all the time, but you should have some time frame or some criteria that there are updates to it. Appreciate it.

Kathleen Welsh

Anybody else?

Kathleen Welsh

Okay, moving on. So, we have an opportunity for public comment.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Madam Chair, you you you uh you missed an item, item number six there.

Kathleen Welsh

Oh, really? So, um the next uh topic on under new business is the annual meeting of the Planning Commission, nomination, election of officers, and appointments to subcommittees. So, where do we start? We start at the bottom or the top?

Dawn Melson-Williams

So, so, Madam Chair, I know we had um your bylaws uh indicate that July is the annual meeting of the um Planning Commission. Uh at that's the time where you have received information on any reappointments, new appointments, and the like. We pushed that off because in July we had not heard that um to date. Uh Since that time, uh you have had one of the um positions um Madam Vice Chair, her her term was uh renewed, if you will. She was reappointed for a 3-year term. There are two other members of the commission that their term is up this time of year, and I I would imagine that the Mayor's Office is working through um that process if you seek to continue or or not. Um And then with the uh resignation of uh your previous chair, Mr. Witham, um that seat has now been filled with a new member for the um commission, and that's um Donna Donna Lee Williams. Um At this point, you can certainly move forward with the nomination and election of officers uh for the Planning Commission. There is a chairperson and a vice chair um per your bylaws. Uh We did submit a to you a copy of your bylaws so that you have that for reference. Um There is limitations on how many years someone can serve in the chair position. Uh We do not have that situation at this point. Um By the bylaws, the election process um elections are by um ballot unless you suspend that voting process um in a separate motion. Um But at this point uh if you are interested in moving forward with your election of officers, uh then I would believe that our acting chair would be in acceptance of um motions regarding the position of chair and vice chair.

Kathleen Welsh

Whatever the the planner Planning Commissioners as a whole would like to do. I'm open to, you know, you know, either ballots or voice nominations and votes, or what Um, I'm one person, and I just happened to be in this chair at the moment as the acting chair. So, whatever works for the commission members because, you know, I don't think it's I never feel this in any time ever that it's up to one person. I think that that's why we all have a voice in who leads who leads who's the leader of the band, shall they say. Whatever you all whatever you as the commissioners decide in either, you know, paper ballots or nominations, or whatever.

Nikki Denny

Ms. Madam Chairman, I I'm just going to make a comment that according to the meeting meeting minutes from last meeting, we did make a motion to defer voting until the appointments and reappointments have taken place. So, um...

Kathleen Welsh

My appointment, I was reappointed, and I think um we have a new member who's been appointed. I don't know who else was up or if anybody was up.

Nikki Denny

I was just bringing that up because I I didn't know you'd been reappointed, so trying trying to find out where where we stand where we stand on that issue, I guess.

Kathleen Welsh

I went I received a letter um after the last um after the last Council meeting, I received a letter of reappointment.

Andrea Maucher

So, so I guess my my question would be if we're not If there's two additional reappointments that have to occur, there's no guarantee, I guess, lack of better word, that the person holding the chair currently would be reappointed. I mean, it's probably more likely than not, but um so I I think I would move that we wait until those final appointments are done, and then uh Ms. Williams would be probably be here in person or Cuz I think just tonight she's just observing. So, I think that's an also also an issue.

Kathleen Welsh

Yeah, I I believe that was her intention was to just observe.

Kathleen Welsh

So, um Dawn, um I mean, I believe she's been appointed, but she's

Andrea Maucher

Right, but she's just observing.

Kathleen Welsh

She's just observing tonight. She needed She's is, I'm sure, listening in, but uh she needed to be at home this evening for reasons. Um So, the other So, we still have two vacancies or two that are coming up?

Dawn Melson-Williams

Um so this is Dawn with the planning staff. Um The appointments to the Planning Commission are structured so that three terms expire each year. Um At this point, um of the three that are expiring this summer, basically, one of them has been reappointed, and that is um Mrs. Welsh. There are two other individuals that their seats or their term is up. Um Per the bylaws or in code, I'm not sure which, they the current appointees continue to serve until superseded basically by someone else or they're reappointed themselves. Um So, that's kind of where we are. So, there are two individuals, and I believe it's I believe it's Dr. Jones and it's another individual. I can't uh and and Mr. Reeves are the two individuals whose term also expires here in 2026. But the full process for formal reappointment has not yet been completed, and at this point the earliest that could happen would be in September. Because City Council The mayor makes the appointment, and it is acted upon by City Council. The next City Council meetings are not scheduled until September.

Kathleen Welsh

So that given, perhaps we should just wait until the September meeting. Or until at least the September meeting, so all the ducks are in a row.

Kathleen Welsh

If if that's what you're suggesting, I certainly agree with it, and I guess

Andrea Maucher

That's that's my inclination. Because I Because again, you know, Mr. Reeves could be appointed chair and, you know, be be voted as chair, and then if if his reappointment should not go forth for whatever reason, which probably not going to happen, but then you're back in the same position you were before, so I would

Kathleen Welsh

Yep. Okay, so I guess what we just need is a motion to um revisit this in September.

Andrea Maucher

So moved.

Nikki Denny

Second.

Kathleen Welsh

So, we have a motion and a second to um to postpone addressing um the uh nominations of structure for for the commission until the September meeting. Um Should we do a roll call or all

Dawn Melson-Williams

I don't think you need to do a roll call. I think a voice vote is fine.

Kathleen Welsh

All in favor?

Commissioners

Aye. Aye.

Kathleen Welsh

Any nays?

Kathleen Welsh

Mr. Reeves, were you trying to did you try to say something?

Michael Reeves

No, no. I just said, 'Aye'.

Kathleen Welsh

Thank you. So...

Dawn Melson-Williams

And so then there's a second piece to this, and that is the appointments to the subcommittees. Um You had asked planning staff to um pursue the availability of the two design professional members. We're still waiting to hear information back on that piece of this. Um So, we'll certainly see if we can have an answer on that for your September meeting as well, and hopefully we can take care of all this. So, I think that was We still have our marching orders and we have nothing to report at this point.

Kathleen Welsh

Okay. So, that said, I guess we're looking for a motion to adjourn.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Madam Chair, we do technically need to do the public comment opportunity.

Kathleen Welsh

Public comment.

Kathleen Welsh

Okay, so um do we have any So, we're open for for public comment with regard to the uh nominations of structure for

Dawn Melson-Williams

No. So, this is um

Kathleen Welsh

No, okay. I'm sorry. I'm lost.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Yeah, so this is a a general public comment opportunity that is given to members of the public uh to provide comments to the Planning Commission where they're not specifically related to an application that's before the commission with a public hearing. Uh Seeing that there are no members of the public in the room and there are no members of the general public that are still with us online, don't believe there's any public to provide that opportunity tonight. So, Madam Chair, I think having said that, um you can certainly move for the adjournment of this meeting if the commission so desires.

Donna Lee Williams

Madam Chair?

Kathleen Welsh

Yes.

Donna Lee Williams

This this is Donna Lee Williams. Um If if I may, I just want to um thank you um as members of the Planning Commission for um deferring this um vote uh this evening so that I will have the opportunity to uh meet with all of you and and participate in this process. I'm very much looking forward to meeting with everyone. I have um attended a few Planning Commission meetings uh in the past. However, I have not had the chance to personally speak with all of you, and I'm really looking forward to this opportunity to work with you in service of our community. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Kathleen Welsh

Thank you.

Kathleen Welsh

So, anyone else with any public comment, thoughts, anything they'd like to address? Is there anybody online?

Dawn Melson-Williams

No, I already said that. It's just you chickens.

Kathleen Welsh

Just the chickens. Okay, so does anybody want to make a motion to adjourn?

Nikki Denny

Madam Chair, so moved.

Kathleen Welsh

Okay, we have a motion, a second Mrs. Maucher. All in favor?

Commissioners

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Kathleen Welsh

Thank you all for your patience tonight.

Dawn Melson-Williams

Uh so with that, that adjourns the um Planning Commission meeting for August 17th. Thank you all for being here um and enjoy the rest of your evening. I think it did rain outside, so can't tell you if it's I can't tell you if it still is, though. Thank you.