Delaware Parking and Safety Committee Meeting – April 28, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Delaware Parking and Safety Committee Meeting – April 28, 2026
The Parking and Safety Committee of the City of Delaware met on April 28, 2026, at 6:00 PM to discuss a Sandusky Street roadway reconfiguration study, several parking regulation changes, public record fees for body-worn camera footage, and a proposed farmers market street closure. The committee heard public comment, deliberated, and took actions including recommendations to City Council and one tabling.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Courtney Green (Preno Road, Terra Also Housing Development) formally requested the removal of no-parking signs installed on April 14 without prior notice. She argued that the cul-de-sac is wider than average (120 feet), has no traffic or emergency access issues, and the restriction is inconsistent with smaller cul-de-sacs where parking is allowed. She requested a modification or removal of the restrictions.
- David Dreesey (owner of 147 East Winter Street) expressed surprise at the proposed changes, questioned whose idea it was, and noted that the new development across the street requires space but that accommodations should be made for both sides.
- For Annette Street: David Dreesey and Philip Mahaffey (147 1/2 East Winter Street) opposed the parking ban, stating the road is too narrow for parking on either side and that the change is premature given the proposed building may never be built.
- For Lake Street: Thomas Murrafield (331 Lake Street) opposed the parking ban, concerned about property damage during construction and difficulty accessing driveways. Kurt Kenny (321 Lake Street, also owns 317) noted that removing on-street parking reduces access for tenants and asked for streamlined driveway expansion approvals. John Henson (335 Lake Street) presented a petition from residents, argued that the no-parking sign was originally for White Sands (county property) and not a full ban, and requested that the city keep on-street parking for safety.
Discussion Items
Sandusky Street Roadway Reconfiguration (Presentation)
- Jonathan Owen (City Engineer) and Kevin Westbrooks (GPD Group) presented a traffic study evaluating a road diet for Sandusky Street from Ointang Avenue to Central Avenue. The study found that reducing the road from four lanes to three (one lane each direction plus a center turn lane) would maintain acceptable traffic levels of service (A–C) through 2050, improve safety (141 crashes in 2022–2024, 8 pedestrian crashes), and free up space for wider sidewalks, bike lanes, or parking. The study was prompted by the 2021 Downtown Action Plan, a potential Columbia Gas project, and future pavement resurfacing. The committee discussed the possibility of angle parking and the need to plan for gas meter placement. No action was taken; the presentation was informational.
Annette Street Parking Changes (Item 4A)
- Staff proposed banning parking on the west side of Annette Street north of Winter Street to allow parking to be striped on the east side in conjunction with a development by Common Ground Free Store. The road is 29 feet wide, insufficient for parking on both sides. After public opposition, the committee voted to recommend the change to City Council (motion by Dr. Bogan, seconded; voice vote: both yes).
Lake Street Parking Changes (Item 4B)
- Staff proposed banning parking on the west side of Lake Street to accommodate a southbound left-turn lane required for the Greenwood Commons development. Road improvements are already under construction. Public comment opposed the ban, citing loss of parking, property damage, and safety concerns. Committee discussion included the possibility of widening the road into the west side right-of-way if residents unanimously agree. The committee voted to table the item to the June 30 meeting (motion by Dr. Bogan, seconded; voice vote: both yes). A special meeting was also discussed for sooner action.
Potter Street Proposed Parking Restrictions (Item 4C)
- Staff proposed installing no-parking signs on the west side of Potter Street on CSX property and city right-of-way to prevent future abandonment of vehicles, following the CSX bridge replacement project where four cars were impounded at city expense. The committee voted to recommend the restriction to City Council (motion by Dr. Bogan, seconded; voice vote: both yes).
137 North Sandusky Street 2-hour Parking Spaces (Item 4D)
- Staff proposed extending the two-hour parking restriction north on both sides of Sandusky Street to prevent all-day parking by employees and residents, which hinders access to businesses and county facilities. The committee discussed notifying the county and recommended the change to City Council (motion by Dr. Bogan, seconded; voice vote: both yes).
Public Record Reproduction Fees for Body Worn Cameras (Item 4E)
- Police Chief Moore presented the need to charge fees for processing body-worn camera video requests, as allowed by Ohio Revised Code (up to $75/hour, max $750 per request). The city spent 63 hours in 2024 and 103.6 hours in 2025 on redaction and processing, and the volume is increasing due to AI-generated requests. The chief expressed preference for a fee that recovers costs (e.g., $35–$37/hour) while maintaining transparency. The committee asked staff to develop a policy and bring it to a future council meeting.
Farmer's Market-Expanded Zone/Sandusky Closure (Item 4F)
- Staff and Main Street Delaware proposed a trial closure of the Sandusky Street block from William to Winter for the farmers market, starting in May. The closure would use barricades and police cruisers for safety. The committee expressed support for the trial basis, noting it would enhance pedestrian safety and the market experience. The closure does not require committee action.
Key Outcomes
- Annette Street Parking Changes: Recommended to City Council for approval (unanimous).
- Lake Street Parking Changes: Tabled to June 30 meeting; special meeting possible; staff to investigate feasibility of road widening into west side right-of-way with unanimous resident consent.
- Potter Street Parking Restrictions: Recommended to City Council (unanimous).
- 137 North Sandusky Street 2-hour Parking: Recommended to City Council (unanimous).
- Body Worn Camera Fees: Staff to develop policy for future council consideration.
- Farmers Market Closure: Supported on a trial basis; implementation to proceed.
- Next Meeting: Regular meeting June 30, 2026; special meeting possible before then.
Meeting Transcript
The time is now 6 p.m. We will call to order the City of Delaware parking and safety committee meeting. Roll call, please. Dr. Bogan. Here. Vice Chair Frazier. Here. And Chair Rider is absent this evening. Motion to approve chairwriter from today's meeting. Second. Dr. Bogan. Yes. And Vice Chair Fraser. Yes. In uh Chair Writers' absence, uh, as Vice Chair, I'll chair the meeting this evening. Uh so we will move on to item two is our which is our public comment. Do we have anyone in the audience this evening who would like to come forward? Yes. And as you come forward, you'll give us your name and address for the record. And then there's a long bar. You'll push that and the light will come on. Can you hear me? Okay. Um, good evening. My name is Courtney Green. I live on Prada Road and the Terra Also Housing Development, and I am here to formally request a review and removal of the no parking signs which were installed around the call de sac on April 14th without any prior notice or any notice given at all to residents uh who came home to find parked cars to be ticketed on benoast to residents who were never warned to move their cars or given a reason for these new postings. Based on my observations, the call de sac is significantly wider than the average call de sac. You can see on the maps that I um handed out, the measurements are significantly greater than the recommended 90 feet for emergency access, being we we measure at 120 feet across. There have been no noticeable issues with traffic flow, visibility, hazards, school bus access, or emergency vehicle access. And we even had an 18-wheeler truck um turnaround in our in our call de sack without an issue. Given these conditions, a full no parking restriction seems broader than necessary. The no parking restriction has created significant inconvenience for the residents and their families, as families and guests have no place to park when visiting. Contractors also have no place to park their work trucks and supplies when working on our homes. Guests have no legal parking options near our homes nor down the road as parking is also restricted there, causing extreme inconvenience when visitors are elderly or handicapped, and overcrowding of street space around other areas of the neighborhood when our guests are finding legal parking options. We would like to host our children's birthday parties or graduation parties, or just simply enjoy having our friends over without having to worry about the hassle of finding parking and getting those with mobility issues to our houses. Again, this is a low traffic area, no previous street parking and PETA traffic flow nor emergency access. And guests have no legal parking options near our homes nor down the road as parking is also restricted there. The no parking restriction is also inconsistent with other call-de-sacks in the city. For example, the call-de-sac on Plum Court, Pecon Court, Hurry Assignment Court, and Crofton Court are all significantly smaller and parking is allowed. And I included pictures and measurements of those, and they're averaging around 73 foot width. Um there are many more examples across the city where parking is allowed and smaller cul-de-sacks, and there's also an emergency turnaround on our road that you can see on the map where parking is also restricted. We the residents would appreciate any information regarding the basis for this decision, including if it was prompted by a traffic study, safety concerns, or resident complaints, as all the residents on Preno Road wish these restructuring restrictions to be removed. We kindly ask the department to consider the placement of these signs and evaluate whether a modification or removal of the restrictions would better serve the community, which we know it would. And we also request to be included in future meetings in which we have can have this concern formally addressed. Thank you. Thank you. Hit it one more time, it'll go off. I don't want to get started.
openpublica.com