Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.
The City Council held a workshop on August 24, 2026, beginning at 17:00 UTC, to continue the previous month's discussion of proposed amendments to the deed restrictions and declaration of covenants for Independence Commons Business Park, located on the North Side of Airport Road. A quorum was present. The agenda and minutes were not included in the available record.
Workshop. Economic development code enforcement workshop to continue our discussion about uh from the last month. Um gonna take 15 minutes for our public comment. Is there anybody online? Uh there is nobody present in the room, and there is nobody online for public comment. Okay, we can go for it. We do have a quorum, so we're good. Um Rob, you're up. Uh good evening, members of council. Uh in your packet is some additional information from a follow-up from our last committee meeting last month uh regarding the deed restrictions within uh the Independence Commons Business Park. And again, the Independence Commons is the business park only located on the North Side Airport Road where the food bank, uh the boys and girls club and the veterans home and a couple other small businesses are located. Um I went back and made some modifications to the draft um amendment to the deed restrictions, the declaration of covenants. I've included a red line of uh Article 2 in the packet uh for the committee's consideration. Um at the last meeting, uh staff had recommended uh eliminating the sign requirements completely from the deed restrictions. Um members of the committee uh seemed to like they they wanted to keep some sort of control over what the the aesthetics of those signs uh look like. So I I've modified the the requirements to say um as stated, paragraph A signs for this development shall incorporate architectural features and colors common to the principal buildings, and those principal buildings are governed by the uh architectural standards that are in this deed restrictions already. Under paragraph B, I eliminated some of the uh reference to size limitations since the zoning code already handles uh sign requirements and just say signs may be only be indirectly illuminated with non-color light. Um, just so that you know that that would be an additional standard above and beyond what we uh permit uh in the zoning code. Uh paragraph C, I just wanted to provide uh an opportunity for a property owner or applicant to appeal uh the decisions of the planning department regarding the sign requirements. So I just modify this these paragraphs to state decisions made by the planning department regarding these sign requirements may be appealed to the planning commission who may review and approve alternative designs. So all of the buildings that come through site plan review are required to go through the planning commission for architectural review. So this would just allow an applicant an opportunity if if the planning department says it isn't consistent or we feel like there's um some inconsistencies, uh, they could go through the planning commission and ask for their approval, which is similar to what would be done with a site plan review. And then the last paragraph will be um just slightly modified, but it'll remain in place. Uh we do allow uh what is called a comprehensive sign plan for larger complexes. Uh this would probably no longer come into play for the independence commons. Um I think the food bank submitted a comprehensive sign plan, conditional use application to city council. Um, but the comprehensive sign plan outlines some flexibility. It's similar to like a plan unit development application, but for signage, and it gives a lot of discretion to the uh city council as to what uh the sign um package for that property could be. It typically is like for like a health campus like Bay Health, Sussex Campus, or a shopping center, a large shopping center, may want some flexibility in the design standards, and they would submit like a comprehensive sign package that would run with the land. So though those are the modifications that uh you know I wanted to bring back in front of the committee and and get any feedback and and make sure um we are headed in the right direction. And if you know this this um would move forward to city council uh with the committee's support. So with that I can uh entertain any questions. Um, but again, it's just a follow-up from our discussion at the last meeting. Chair, are there any questions? Any questions? Yes. I have a question. Hey Rob, um take a look at the um uh the uh what'd you say there? What paragraph is it could be um uh the the uh the owner uh can appeal? I think was where it says decision made by the planning department regarding these sign requirements may be appealed to the planning commission. Okay. Is it would there be a fee for that?