Planning Commission votes to repeal and replace Part 11 of the City code, modernizing zoning rules

The City of Delaware Planning Commission voted unanimously on June 4 to repeal and replace Part 11 of the City of Delaware codified ordinances, a comprehensive rewrite of the city's planning and zoning code intended to simplify language, reduce obsolete chapters and align zoning with the Delaware Together comprehensive plan.

The rewrite reduces the number of zoning districts, consolidates scattered rules into single procedure and definitions chapters, and adds new, clearer tables and appendices to guide applicants and staff. Planning staff described the changes as intended to “simplify, diversify and clarify” the code to reflect current development practice and the city’s growth.

The code update reduces roughly 30–36 existing districts to 18 (including plan districts), consolidates definitions previously scattered through the code, and reorganizes procedural chapters so that developers and residents can find processes for development plans, conditional uses and variances in a single place. Staff told the commission the rewrite also consolidates subdivision rules and removes references to city council in plat approvals where the charter change removed council from that role.

Key changes cited by staff include: - Residential districts reduced to five base categories plus plan districts, and a new “residential neighborhood mixed” category to allow small-scale, neighborhood-serving commercial uses in otherwise residential areas. - Commercial districts reorganized into five categories (including a downtown core and community-scale and general commercial districts) to better match lot sizes and commercial intensity. - Parking and loading standards made less prescriptive with new bicycle parking standards and lower minimums intended to reduce excess surface parking. - Site and building design, landscaping and screening rules clarified and reorganized; new allowance for rain gardens and bioswales in buffers. - An expanded, rewritten sign code that removes content-based regulation and is designed to conform with recent First Amendment case law. - New or clarified chapters covering accessory dwelling units (ADUs), short-term rentals and alternative energy (solar and wind), including design and screening rules for ground-mounted systems and small-cell wireless facilities. - Appendices added: a consolidated schedule of permitted uses (Appendix A), a sign table (Appendix B) and downtown architectural standards (Appendix C).

On short-term rentals, staff said the code will require an annual registration and a guideline packet for hosts; staff recommended setting an administrative fee after passage (they said a likely range would be $85–$100 but that the fee would be set by the city’s fee schedule and not codified in the zoning text). On home occupations, commissioners asked about a provision cited in the draft that used an instructional example limiting the number of students for instructional home businesses; staff said the language is intended as an illustrative example and that enforcement would generally be complaint-driven.

Planning staff emphasized that the rewrite is intended as an operating document that staff will update periodically. The presentation team told the commission the rewrite had involved roughly 18 months of work, public outreach (including two open houses in 2024 and on‑site boards available to the public for months), and consultation with outside counsel and sign-code specialists.

Commissioner Nana moved to repeal and replace Part 11; Commissioner Stelzer seconded. The vote was recorded as: Commissioner Stelzer — yes; Commissioner Nana — yes; Vice Chair Hoffman — yes; Chairman Simpson — yes. The motion passed unanimously among members present. The commission closed the public hearing portion of the item before deliberation; no members of the public spoke on the code update during the meeting.

The commission recommended sending the replaced Part 11 to city council for final action. Staff said some administrative follow-ups remain (for example, adding the short‑term rental fee to the annual fee schedule and continuing work on the historic district architectural standards), and that future, periodic updates are anticipated to refine the code after use.

Planning staff and commission members said they will return a small number of editorial corrections (typos and formatting) before the final council submittal but emphasized the structural and policy changes are complete and intended to streamline permitting and reduce unnecessary nonconformities across the city.