City Commission on 2025-04-21 6:30 PM - Apr 21, 2025

Commissioner Caldwell, here. Commissioner Howington, here. Commissioner Luley, here. Commissioner Santiago, here. Vice Mayor Harrow, here. Vice Mayor Avila, here. Mayor Avila, here. This time, I will call Commissioner Harriet to do the invocation and pledge. We'll start with the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty. And justice for all. And if everybody would remain standing, then we'll do a 30-moment of silence. Thank you. Okay. This time, we're going to go into presentation awards and reports. And we're going to start with the Superstar Student Awards for the second grading period of the school year. And if I can please have the commission meet me on the floor. Deltona Lakes Elementary, Blakely Meyer, fifth grade. Discovery Elementary, Cristiani Alverio, fifth grade. Forest Lake Elementary, Dallas McCarthy, third grade. Forest Lake Elementary, Dalton Fritzie, fourth grade. Friendship Elementary, Janieles Velasquez, third grade. Pride Elementary, Micah Duncans, third grade. Sunrise Elementary, Matias Ramos, second grade. Volusia Pines, Aidan Bradley, fifth grade. Deltona Middle, Yarisel Oquendo, seventh grade. Galaxy Middle, Denisi Serrano, eighth grade. Heritage Middle, Kavor Harnor Randhawa, seventh grade. Deltona High, Dean King, ninth grade. Pine Ridge, Katie Gruse, twelfth grade. Timbercrest Elementary, Saskia Emanuel, third grade. We're going to give the parents and students that are not going to stay a few minutes to empty the room, and then we'll continue with the business of the city. Okay, at this time we're going to go ahead and move to Deltona Community Events. If we can please have our PIO come up and tell us a little bit about some of the community events. First is this Friday, actually, is our annual Arbor Day Tree Giveaway. It starts at 11 a.m. right here at City Hall. And as you all know, these trees go fast, so come early because it will last until supplies last. So the trees always go fast, so come early. We also have a Mother's Day brunch on Mother's Day, May 11th. This is going to be a nice, upscale dining experience. Take mom to dinner. And as you all know, reservations are hard to come by the closer you get to Mother's Day. So make your reservation now. It's going to be at the center. So reserve your spot now. A couple things from the Parks Department. At West Crow Park, we do open gym volleyball every Thursday all day long, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Stop by any time to join a game. The Parks Department also has a few limited spaces in their summer kids camp program. You have to sign your child up in person at West Crow Park. So if you're still looking for a summer camp for your kids, this is a nice, fun, affordable summer camp. We did receive a couple community events. The Daltona Pickleball Club, they're doing a pickleball tournament May 3rd at Harris-Axon Park. Sign up if you'd like to participate. And then the Daltona Women's Club is hosting a Bridgerton afternoon tea party on May 18th. Again, if you'd like to participate, just give them a call, put your name down, make a reservation. Those are just a few of the events going on in the community. And then, as always, if you're a community organization that wants your event out there, contact me, cbarker at daltonafl.gov. Thank you, Ms. Barker. This time we're going to go to consent agenda. This time I'll entertain a motion. May I make a motion? Motion by Commissioner Avila Vasquez. Second. Second by Vice Mayor Harriet. Is there any public comment? No, sir. Okay, motion passes 7-0. This time we're going to go ahead and go into ordinances and public hearings. If I can please have the city attorney read the public hearing. Yes, Mr. Mayor. This is a quasi-judicial public hearing. Please be advised that the following items on the agenda are quasi-judicial in nature. If you wish to comment on any of these items, please indicate the item number you would like to address when the announcement regarding the quasi-judicial item is made. An opportunity for persons to speak on each item will be made available after the applicant and staff have made their presentations on each item. All testimony, including public testimony and evidence, will be made under oath or affirmation. Additionally, each person who gives testimony may be subject to cross-examination. If you do not wish to be cross-examined or sworn, your testimony will be given its due weight. The general public will not be permitted to cross-examine witnesses, but the public may request the commission to ask questions on their behalf. The full agenda packet on each item is hereby entered into the record. Persons representing organizations must present evidence of their authority to speak for their organization. Further details of quasi-judicial procedures may be obtained from the clerk. At this time, commissioners must disclose any ex parte communications concerning items on the agenda, and that is for this agenda item, only the public hearing regarding the rezoning. Okay. So we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Lalee. Commissioner Lalee, do you have any ex parte communication? Yes, I spoke with the applicant last year in December. Commissioner Lalee, Commissioner Colwell? I also had a meeting with the applicant. Thank you, Commissioner Colwell. Commissioner Avila-Vasquez? None. Thank you, Commissioner Avila-Vasquez. Commissioner Santiago? Yes, I did have a meeting with the applicant. Thank you, Commissioner Santiago. Commissioner Howington? I didn't have a meeting with the applicant, but I did speak to him at the workshop that we had a couple weeks ago. Thank you, Commissioner Howington. Vice Mayor Harriet? Yes, I, with staff, along with staff, met with the applicant. Thank you, Vice Mayor Harriet. And I, myself, also met with the applicant. So that's our ex parte communication. At this time, you can do the swearing. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. At this time, I will swear any person who wishes to testify on any quasi-judicial item, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you hereby swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help you God? I do. You may be seated. And this is Ordinance No. 12-2024, an ordinance of the City of Deltona, Florida, amending the official zoning map to rezone plus or minus 36.46 acres of land located along the North Normandy Boulevard corridor, south and east of the I-4 Logistics Park, within the activity center from the single-family residential R1AA to mixed-use plan unit development and PUD, providing for conflict, severability, and an effective date. Thank you. At this time, we'll hear a presentation from staff. Good morning, Mayor. Not good morning. It's been a long day. It's a long day. Yes. Good evening, Mayor, Commission Jordan Smith, Director of Planning. So, before you, it was Ordinance No. 12-2024, Synergy at Normandy MPD. This item was— I'm sorry. We really need to be able to listen. We're in the middle of a quasi-judicial meeting. When we start our regular business, we need silence in the back. If I can hear you up here, the rest of the people in this audience can hear you as well. It's my one and only warning. Go ahead and continue, Mr. Jordan. This item was tabled at the November 18, 2024, City Commission meeting. The subject site is approximately 36.46 acres of vacant wooded land, currently zoned R1AA. It is located within the activity center overlay, which calls for more integrated development. As it stands, the zoning is inconsistent with the city's long-term land use goals. The city's comprehensive plan requires any development within the activity center to proceed as a planned unit development. The proposed rezoning to MPUD meets this requirement and supports the city's objective of promoting walkable mixed-use areas with the balance of residential and commercial uses. The project proposes a balanced mix of uses on the non-residential side. Approximately 52 percent of the site, just over 19 acres, will support economic development with permitted uses such as flex space, offices, retail, and restaurants. The lots have a minimum size of 1.5 acres, and outdoor storage uses are prohibited to protect the visual and functional quality of the area. Lot 5, around 17 acres, is reserved for multifamily housing. The proposal allows up to 343 units, though 320 units are currently planned, across buildings up to four stories. Lots 1 through 4 cover about 19.26 acres and are designated for non-residential uses. The permitted uses include flex space, offices, showroom, retail, and restaurants. Each lot must be at least 1.5 acres to maintain aesthetics and compatibility. Indoor and outdoor storage uses are prohibited. Our architectural standards will apply across all buildings, and truck traffic will be directed away from adjacent residential areas to minimize impacts. In terms of architectural control, to maintain visual harmony and ensure high-quality design, the development will adhere to unified architectural standards, which is noted in your DA development agreement. The goal is to create a cohesive look across the entire development, while also being functional and aesthetically pleasing. The roll-up doors must face inward, away from public view. Heavy vehicles and equipment must be screened. Parking should be placed in the interior with buildings closer to the road. Elevation drawings are required at the plat or site plan stage, and a property owners association will oversee these standards and handle any requested exceptions. In terms of the residential component, which is Lot 5, Lot 5 makes up 17.20 acres and is planned for multifamily residential development. The buildings can be up to four stories. The project allows for a maximum of 343, and the developer is currently planning to construct 320 units. The applicant has worked closely with city staff in Volusia County to ensure the project supports long-term infrastructure needs. They've agreed to dedicate a 30-foot strip along the northern boundary for the future extension of Rhode Island Avenue and additional right-of-way along North Normandy Boulevard to support the county's planned realignment. A proportion of fair share agreement will also be required before any certificate of occupancy are issued, ensuring that development contributes to the necessary improvements. This development is strategically located within significant access to major routes. The property fronts North Normandy Boulevard, which is a two-lane thoroughfare connecting to key highways. To the north, there's the Amazon Warehouse, while the south is bordered by a well-established residential neighborhood. Future access will be enhanced with the extension of Rhode Island, which will provide additional entrances and exits, improving traffic flow, and supporting the overall development. In terms of the TIA traffic impact analysis, it has been submitted and is currently under review by both Volusia County and the city's traffic consultant. This analysis is critical in evaluating the potential impacts that development will have on local traffic patterns. The DA for the project includes a commitment to fully implement any mitigation measures recommended by the reviewing agencies. Staff recommends that the city commission hold a public hearing. If I can have somebody from the city clerk's area, so on my iPad, I can't see who has a request to speak. I've left the meeting, and I went back in, and they're still—I think they have me as—I think it's set up as commissioner or something, because I can't see who's requesting to speak. So while they fix that, if the commissioners would like to speak, if you can just flip your name over, please, that way you'd— Oh, I got it now. Never mind. I got it. And Mr. Mayor, the applicant is here for a presentation as well. Okay. We'll do questions to city staff first, and then we'll go to the presentation by the applicant. So Commissioner Lully and then Vice Mayor Harriet, I see you guys are on the board. Thank you, Mayor. I need to make a quick clarification to the ex parte. I didn't have my notes in front of me. I did have another Zoom call with the applicant on March 10th of this year, and then on March 18th, I emailed them asking if they were planning to come before the city in April. So I wanted to clarify that, and thank you. Thank you. For our—Mr. Smith, when we talk about Rhode Island, I think that's a really important aspect of this, because we've been rolling over these funds from year to year about extending Rhode Island over I-4. What exactly does this—if we say yes to this, what does that do for Rhode Island specifically? Does it help move that extension along? This will help move yes and no. They're helping to dedicate part of what's needed for the Rhode Island extension, but the state will still proceed with planning for the Rhode Island extension. Is this the—under its current zoning, is it buildable as it is? Under the current zoning, it's zoned R1AA, and it has to be rezoned to a PUD per the comp plan. Okay, so it does have to be rezoned to something? Correct. In order to make it developable? Yes, per the—it's in the activity center overlay, yes. Are there any applications or plans that you're aware of for any other additional services or developments within the activity center right now? That are active. This is the only one. Okay. I think that's what I have for now. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor Harriet, then Commissioner Howington. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to reiterate Commissioner Lully's question was with the point that as the land currently sits with the current zoning, it must be rezoned to a PUD in order to be developed? Yes. And the PUD must include a residential component because the requirement within the activity center is mixed use? This applicant is requesting an MPUD, which must have different uses, and they're including multifamily within their MPUD. Okay. And then I also want to highlight that the—this project dedicating additional right-of-way for Rhode Island is a positive, as well as the way that they've got the traffic pattern interior to the project, so they've minimized curb cuts, essentially, or access to the project to only a few primary access points, so that the bulk of it is within the project. And, Vice Mayor, when the applicant gets up, they can expand upon their dedication to Rhode Island as well. Thank you, Mayor. That's all I have. Commissioner Howington? Do we have the final location for Rhode Island Extension yet, or is this just going to be set aside, and we could potentially put it somewhere else? We have a general idea of the alignment, and we have a study about to go underway with a traffic consultant. So, we have, I believe, about $15 million for Rhode Island Extension right now. Will any of the proportional share go towards that, or is this land that's being set aside as the dedicated portion for Rhode Island, would that be used in exchange for proportional share or anything? That has not been determined because we do not have the updated TIA. Okay. And—because it's currently residential right now. It's zoned R-1-AA, correct. Which they can no longer do because of the zoning changes, correct? Because it requires a—it's within an overlay activity center. It requires a PUD amendment, or a PUD. If they were allowed to build residential, how many houses would they be allowed to build, based on what it is zoned today? The land use was low-density residential, about six dwelling units per acre. I'm sorry? About six dwelling units per acre, so— So, 40 acres, roughly— 300 is—is that what it's here? I think it's 343 is what they would be allowed. Well, that's under the— That's the multifamily component. Yeah. But she's asking if the activity—I think—I think your question is if the activity center wasn't there, what would they be allowed to build? Which, right now, they're not legally able to build based on what their current zoning is. Correct, because it's an overlay that it's not permitted for single-family homes. Okay. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Villabasquez and Commissioner Santiago, and then I'll go after that. Thank you, Mayor. Jordan, can you repeat again, where is the entrance and the exit of this development, or where will it be? Okay. So, there's—if you see the map, the applicant will also expand upon this as well, but there's two ingress-egress on Rhode Island Avenue. It looks like two proposed on Normandy, and then one on Ruth Avenue. So, there's two exits or ingress on Normandy, and there's another one where? Two on Rhode Island Extension and Normandy Boulevard. What would be Rhode Island? So, if this project gets developed before Rhode Island, there's just going to be two in and outs, correct, until Rhode Island is developed? I think that's a question better suited for the applicant. And these exits are for everything that will be built in that square? Correct. Homes, businesses, everything? Well, multifamily, the flex office, showroom, the gas station, retail, flex space. And the exits on Normandy is to go either way, right, north or south? We don't have the updated TIAs, so—and this is just a bubble plan at this point, so the applicant is here to answer those questions as well. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Santiago. Thank you, Mayor. Jordan, I know you mentioned the gas station in the corner. Is there a way on the developer's order that we can aesthetically move the tanks in the back and make it more aesthetically landscaped, nicer-looking than what we currently have right now? If that is the will, the commission staff can put that in the TIA. Yes. Okay. Mr. Smith, my question is, did the applicant revise any of the plans? Because I remember last time we met, we requested that we get some type of modifications. I don't see any modifications from what we got. Was there any modifications that were done? Mayor, there were no modifications. If you remember, at the November commission meeting, there was a more detailed plan, and they went to this bubble—concept bubble plan. Okay. Vice Mayor Harriet. I do have one more question. And, Mr. Smith, the—with this project, was it in place before we changed the architectural design standards for the city? This application was in place before the zoning in progress for the activity center, and it was also—was submitted prior to the zoning in progress for the architectural design standards. However, the applicant will be working with staff regarding architectural aesthetics for this particular site. Thank you. That's why I just wanted to clarify that in our conversation—the conversation I had with the applicant. They were more than willing to follow the increased standards to make it look aesthetically pleasing for the community. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Do you have any other questions, Vice Mayor? No, no questions. I would just like it if we could include that in the development order, if possible. I would like to speak to the— Yeah. At this time, we're going to go ahead and—thank you, Mr. Smith. We're going to go ahead and call the applicant or his attorney or their attorney up so they can do their presentation. And then after that, we'll do questions and questions from commissioners. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the commission, staff, and our neighbors. I thank you for the opportunity. Pardon my raspiness. I spent five hours today in chemo and radiation for some throat issues, so I have this dry—this terrible dry mouth. So it's not nerves today, actually. It's the dry mouth. We're here pleased to present this. As you know, most of you know that we've been into this project now for five years, and we've been working diligently with staff. We originally started—we did not have the whole box. We had the northwest corner and the southeast corner, and we originally were working with a builder out of Jacksonville who wanted to do build-to-rent units, a combination of duplexes, tris, and quadruplexes. We—subsequent to dealing with staff and dealing with staff, that group dropped out, and then I was able to put together— assemble the northeast corner and the southwest corner to make the 36-acre box. And working with staff and looking at the requirements in your activity center for Deltona, which is shown on this picture here, it's an 800-acre activity center. It goes from the hospital, basically, down to our south border. It goes from I-4 over to Wolf Road, and it includes the YMCA, the Volusia County water plant, and the Amazon buildings, et cetera, and it goes all the way up to the hospital. The area that we're concerned about here is shown here. We're the yellow on the bottom left. That's 36 acres. If you kind of look at that map, you'll see that there's basically six boxes there. We're the west box, and there's three more to the east of us. And then north, there's a box, and then going back toward Amazon, there's boxes. It's roughly a little over 216 acres of land. The box that's immediately adjacent east of the Amazon building is primarily owned by a fellow named Bruce Schweitzer, who's been assembling that for about 18 months. He has approximately 24 of his 36 acres. Frank DeMarche, who you're all familiar with, owns the box to the east of him. And Frank owns, that's not quite 36 acres. He still has five lots that are outs that he's been trying to buy for 20 years. Bobby Luther owns a lot of the southeast corner, the far box to the right, and there's various owners through the whole thing. It's interesting to note that that's kind of a blowup of that area. Again, we have blocks 1 through 10, so we start at the bottom left. It goes 1 to 5, and then it's 6 to 10. You can't really read this, but in here, there are 97 owners that own property in this area. There's 2,868 lots, 22,868 individual single-family lots, 97 owners. There's 10 of us that own a good chunk of it, but there's still 87 owners that own somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 lots that are totally scattered throughout the subdivision. I love the idea of the town center or the activity center being over to the east of us, but typically what happens is developers like me need to come in and do the assembling. I've been working for four years. I assembled 462 lots, over 18 different owners, and it took me four years to put all that together. So I suggest to you that while the town center might be a really great idea to go to the east of us, the implementation may be very difficult and extremely time-consuming. That kind of is of a—I can give you all copies of this later. It shows how many owners and the blocks. I research every single block. There's 56 blocks of property. We have 10 and 462 lots, and all the rest are still owned by various other people. They go—by the way, it's just interesting. You may be interested in this. They go from as far away as France and Hawaii, and there's almost every other state in between. There's California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, et cetera, and all these people are scattered, and a lot of them just don't want to sell. You know, Bruce is—I talk to Bruce fairly often. He would have been here tonight, except he's got pneumonia, so he couldn't make it. But he's been working for 18 months, and he's got about 24 of his 36 acres. One of the big benefits to Synergy with the three primary uses, and there were a couple of questions that y'all asked. Number one is access. I'll come back to the access, if I may. But we did make modifications to the plan based on some of the meetings that we had with staff and with the commissioners. We went from six sites to five sites. We may not be doing the gas station. The gas station site, which is up at the northwest corner, may go in with an office showroom industrial component, which is now considered lot four. So we have one, two, three lots along the frontage on Normandy still, and then we have two lots—or the apartments behind the frontage road, and then we have lot four, which incorporates the piece that was originally—the building was separated by itself. There were also questions about—I'll come back to that. Here, for taxes, I think it's interesting to note is we'll be paying nearly $1.03 million in taxes. If you look at the impact of that over a straight 20 years, it's almost $26 million of taxes that Synergy will be paying. Based on today's 2025 numbers with no escalation in assessed value nor any escalation in tax rates or assessed value or anything. I think that's fairly significant. We're paying right now $45,000, so we'll be paying about, you know, $1.250 million more in taxes. I did a comparison here for you. I think most of you have this piece of paper, but Walmart at Howland is paying $280,000. The Amazon's paying $240,000 when you adjust it to our 19 acres. And the gas station, in case we end up with the gas, the Wawa is a better example than the racetrack, and they're paying $56,000. So when you added those up, the difference that we would be paying over 20 years from other uses that could be there is almost $15 million. So from an economic benefit, and I know a number of you ran this time on no increased taxes for the city, because I looked you all up, is this is going to be a nice project in terms of the taxation. The other benefits we have is when you read, and if you look at your staff report, the staff goes through all the policies for the activity center, and we hit every single one of them. Live, work, and play. I was here the whole day for your workshop a few weeks ago. The consultants came in, and one of the things that they said is, you need more activity centers in town, not only in this area. And you have to understand that Frank has, DeMarsh has approximately 100 acres north of Amazon, and Bobby has 70 acres north of the Wawa, back up in there. Those areas both have one owner to deal with. So if I'm a developer trying to come in, I'm not trying to buy 2,000 lots from 87 owners. I'm trying to buy one from Frank or one from Bobby, which may, and it also has higher visibility to Howland, which I think is an advantage there. I think the taxes are a big deal. Here is what we revised the master plan to. We still have the three lots that are along Normandy. Excuse me one second. We relabeled lot three to a gas or flex, because we're not fully committed to gas on that site. We know a number of you had a concern about that. We were dealing with a buyer on lot four who would entertain lot three, and we're more than happy to give them that instead of the gas. We have an apartment developer in hand. The access points, we had several of you questioning those. Coming north on Normandy, which is at the bottom right corner, we have a right in, right out to lot one. Excuse me. Between lot one and lot two, we have a full in and out there. We understand, and in the traffic report, we have to do a turn lane going south on Normandy to turn into there, and up between lots two and three, or at the very end of lot three, there's a right in, right out there also. Then going along Rhode Island, the existing Rhode Island is in part way. That's the existing access and entry to the Amazon building. To clarify the right-of-way there, which I think is really important, the county has 130 feet going from I-4 to Normandy. There were 70 feet that was donated to y'all or traded or however that worked with from the Portland, which is the I-4 Logistics Park, the Amazon building donated 70 feet. South of that 70 feet was an existing 30 feet, which is Amelia Avenue. So that was 100. So we're donating 130 to make it 130 to get it all the way over to Ruth Avenue, which is to the east part of our boundary. We're also talking with Richard Luck, who has the next two blocks over, 16 and 17, and I think we may end up trying to buy that property from him and including it somehow into Synergy, and that would give us another approximately 600 feet of Rhode Island. We fully intend to build Rhode Island to Ruth Avenue and probably build Ruth Avenue down part way. It's very specific that the city does not want a connection for Ruth Avenue from Rhode Island to Furwood. Everybody's made that abundantly clear, and we're totally fine with that, and we will agree to not abandon or do whatever is necessary for our hunk of the right-of-way once that gets assembled. That particular block has a bunch of owners in it, and they haven't been very willing to sell it all. I've been trying to buy those for four years, the next block over to us, if that makes any sense. So we have two access points on Rhode Island. The interior access points, as Vice Mayor represented, coming out of Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3, we have a private internal road that provides parallel access to Normandy so that there's no cars going in and out of individual businesses. All those businesses will be accessed from that service road, and we decided to go ahead and have the apartments needed a second access in accordance with all your development standards, so we decided to go ahead and pop Ruth in. We put that building that was initially over towards Ruth, we put it back into Lot 4. So it had been a separate lot. We made it, and then that way we can control the traffic so that the buildings could be parallel to Rhode Island with fronting Rhode Island so that it'll look really nice. The truck wells will be in between, and then you'd have frontage of the buildings going out to the apartments. On the north side of the apartment between Lot 4 and Lot 5 is where the anticipated retention will be. The uses are on that sheet there, which should be in your packet. And again, we have, you can see the three buildings along Normandy, which are toward the bottom left. We have the two buildings up on the north side, which may end up changing slightly, but the plan there was that the truck wells are inside between the buildings. If you go out there now and drive on the existing Rhode Island, there are 97 truck wells from Amazon facing Rhode Island. So we intended to have the front of our buildings looking out to Rhode Island so that it looks nice. There would be parking for the businesses there, no truck parking. And then also at the very west end of that truck area, we've agreed with the city to not have any truck access there. So the trucks will have to go over to Ruth Avenue and come in that way. We would have with your police and fire department an emergency breakthrough entrance there. But the plan is to not have truck traffic going on the north-south road that's parallel to Normandy. We're trying to incorporate excellent, good, excellent planning techniques. We're working with your staff. We know that you're implementing new design standards. We've agreed to abide by all those standards because we want this to be really nice. This could be, you've got another roughly 180 acres coming in to the east of us. And there ultimately will be an expansion of Rhode Island that goes either out to, all the way to the east or cuts north and goes up to the racetrack. However, that's figured out over the course of time. We want to be an integral part of this. And we started with staff four or five years ago, and we suggested having a meeting with the city, the county, Deland, and Orange City because of Rhode Island. Just for further clarification, the Rhode Island Bridge and the anticipation from Normandy over to veterans is part of what they call stage four of the I-4 expansion plan. And it's a $997 million program that is also fed and is an important factor is the redo of the bridge over St. John's River. I thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to a successful arrangement with you all. See you. Thank you. Well, you can stay there because some of the commissioners have questions. So we'll start with Vice Mayor Harriet, then Commissioner Vila Vasquez, and then Commissioner Lully. Thank you, sir, for being so willing to work with the commission and with staff. The one thing that I don't think anybody's touched on yet is something that we talked about in our meeting a few months ago, the buffer between the existing residents that are off of Furwood and the apartment complex. Yes, and you guys were willing to increase that buffer so that it wouldn't impact the residents on Furwood. They wouldn't—it would lessen the impact to the residents on Furwood. Let me—if I can address that, there's a 60-foot power right-of-way. We then have a buffer area, and we're more than happy to put parking there. Yep. So roughly a parking—a double parking set is roughly 80-ish feet, 64 feet plus buffers on either side to get to the building. So the building's—the closest building to the single-family residential on Furwood would be approximately 160 feet away. Thank you for explaining that. That was important. I think it's a little intrusive if we were putting apartments right behind homes and you had—it just—I wouldn't want an apartment, a four-story or three-story apartment going in right behind my house. So I think that's—that's a— Further, a couple things. We plan to landscape that nicely to go along with your standards. The other thing is we'll be incorporating the low-impact lighting. So all the lighting will—nothing will shoot towards the neighbors at all. And then there will be a wall around that side, around the whole thing, basically. And that'll prohibit or stop the regular traffic—the car lights as they pull up into their parking place from—from intruding into the neighbors. Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Villavasquez and Commissioner Lully. Thank you, Mayor. So, um, I just have a—one a little bit more, um, explanation on the, uh, entrance and exit on Normandy Boulevard. Where on this circle—and at what point from Normandy Boulevard are your warehouses going to be built? Is it—I can't see where Normandy Boulevard is there. Uh, Normandy is right along the very left side in that southwest corner. Those three buildings all front Normandy, and we're putting the fronts of the building to the—to Normandy so that the—the, um, any—any, uh, garages or anything else will be interior to the—to the subdivision, so as you pull up from Firwood, there would be a right in to the—that bottom building. Let me go back to—Normandy runs along the south border. This should be kind of flipped 90 degrees for north to be north, but, um, there'd be a right in. You can see where the Firwood lots are there. There'd be right in only. And up a little bit, we have the—the double entrance in and out. And it's really critically important that—that when you get into the design of this, because ultimately, someday, that Rhode Island—Normandy intersection is going to be a major, major intersection. We have to be—I only have 1,250 feet of frontage, so I'm going to have to be over 600 feet away to have the entrance into the apartments in order to be able to comply with the county's regulations relative to the intersection of Rhode Island and Normandy. And that's not now, but ultimately, if the design is actually out, the preliminary design of that, that's two lanes each way, or four lanes, I'm sorry, plus turn lanes, that's why they need the 130 feet. So the entrance from Normandy is going to be—so coming from Graves, you're going to have warehouses there, which means there's going to be trucks and stuff coming in. The trucks will all turn on Rhode Island and go over to Ruth to get into the project. So they will not be going through Normandy? Well, they'll be on Normandy for part of it. I'm sorry? They'll be on Normandy from Graves down to Rhode Island. And they—from there, they do what, a left turn? Yes, yes, ma'am. Left turn only? Yeah, we— And coming out will be right turn only? No, both ways. That'll ultimately be a signal— For trucks? Yeah. No, the trucks are not going to have to go to the north. That's what I'm trying to understand. Yeah. Trucks are not—nowhere going to be near Normandy. No, the trucks are going to go from Normandy to Graves, back and forth, just like Amazon's. Right. So when they come out of the complex, they're not allowed to make a left onto Normandy. That's what I'm trying to understand. I imagine we can—that's up to the county and the city. Well, it's up to us, because then you'll be driving down residential areas. We're fine with it. I'm fine with that. I'm fine with that. Okay. And we can—we can accomplish that with signage, et cetera. Right. And that's why Amazon has their trucks coming out left turn only and going in right turn only, to avoid the trailers from going to residential areas on Normandy. Yeah, the little bit of an intersection that was built right now at Rhode Island and Normandy is going to have to be redone. The I-4 Logistics Park has a requirement to put a left turn lane in. We have a requirement to put a left turn lane in, too. So sooner or later, as our development develops, that little existing interchange will be fixed. Okay, as long as we don't have any trailers or trucks driving down the residential area of Normandy, right now we get a lot of complaints from Amazon, as it is. Yeah, we're totally fine with that. We have no problem with that. Okay, because those trucks are not—they're not made to handle, you know, those big— Yeah, those are residential roads. They're not commercial roads. The warehouses, you say, they're going to be built on the Furwood side of—is that where they're going to be built, the warehouses? No, the only building that goes down to Furwood is Lot 1, and that's a small building that could be a combination of flex space or office showroom or whatever. It hasn't been determined yet. You may want to specify box. Yeah, the other thing is our buildings are small, and so we're going to end up with the majority of our trucks are going to be box trucks. They're not going to be the semis. We still don't want box trucks on Normandy. We're going to get a lot of complaints. If they can be rerouted towards Graves, that would be awesome. We're happy to do that, but I'm just saying that we're going to have a very few tractor trailers. We're not—we're the small buildings. We're not these giant buildings like Amazon. Those two little buildings are 30,000 feet each, and so there's several different levels of office showroom-type warehouse, flex space, they call it. They're small, and then they get into the 200,000 to 300,000 feet, and then the 300,000 up. Okay. Remind me again, what is it that you said that was going to be built on the other side of the residential? It goes from Furwood, and then we have the power line buffer, then we have the parking lot buffer, and then the apartments, the multifamily apartments will be that next. You can see over there, if you look to the right, all those little boxes to the right of Lot 5 are the single-family houses along Furwood. So you will have apartments looking on down to the houses on the other road? Somewhat, yes, at some point. Which is what you say you don't want? Well, they're going to be 100 and something feet away. A minimum of 160 feet. Okay. Commissioner Lully? Thank you, Mayor. I want to touch again on Rhode Island, just because there's, you know, people in this room that they've been hearing about in Rhode Island for, you know, many, many years, and we've been rolling over our funding for that extension from year to year in our budget. Can you just emphasize again what this does for the Rhode Island extension? I believe probably, in reality, the only thing it's going to do is get a part of it built, and then if we end up with the next two blocks over, we would be going approximately 1,280 feet, plus another 600, we may get 1,800 of it, plus the right-of-way. Okay. Thank you. And then you had said that the tax revenue would be $1.3 million per year, is that correct? That's based on taking, I took the apartments, the six apartments that were recently completed in Volusia County from the tax assessors or the tax collectors thing, and extrapolated them, I have a backup sheet that has all the complexes on there, like Integra, for example, does not have a full tax year yet, because they're still getting CO'd, so I took most of them are over in Daytona, but we used those numbers as comparison. Then I used the Amazon as kind of an industrial, because you don't have very much industrial to comp, and then I took the Walmart, the Lowe's, and the Publix, and it kind of extrapolated those to what a common number was, I took the higher number of those, and then extrapolated that back to create what would be an assumed assessed value tax basis that we would have. Okay. Thank you. And just a general comment, you know, I'm not, and we've talked, I'm not a huge fan of putting in more apartments in an area where there's not a whole lot of services at the moment, and importing new residents when we have a lot of issues, but I will say that kind of dollar amount is pretty attractive when you look at us coming into budget season and looking down at costs, continuing to increase for things like solid waste, and we didn't get to it in our recent workshop, but we had plans for public safety and park infrastructure investments, so just a general statement that that is an attractive number as much as I am not really a big fan of creating those apartments, but I do appreciate you putting us together this plan that's very comprehensive. If I can address some of that, we're going to be paying a lot of impact fees into parks and some of that too. We're also working with the county to extend the water line from the plant down wherever it's going to go, north-south, over to Rhode Island, and then connecting it over to Normandy so that it creates the loop. That will also give you all the ability to open more of that up for development with water and sewer. Okay. I think that's what I have for now. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. I'll go next, and then Commissioner Villabascaz is back on the board. Can we go back to the picture? Here, the rendering, that one right there. So, the small box trucks are going to be on the top, middle section of that, correct? Yeah. We would anticipate, you know, based on those things, you might have, let's say, a semi that comes in and drops off. Sure. Let's say Toro lawnmowers. Okay. But then the Toro lawnmowers are all going to go out through this whole general area in box trucks. So, you're going to have a once-in-a-while type of semi coming in, and the rest of it's going to be box trucks. There's a real good complex off of Uppsala Road in Sanford. It's almost the exact thing of what we're doing here. And you can drive in there, and you see it's all box trucks. I'm going to give you some of the issues I have. Okay. And I'm glad a lot of the commissioners up here brought a lot of this up already. But right now, we have such a struggle with Amazon. I know I'm not the only commissioner or the person on this dais that's complained about it, right? We have signs. We can put signs up all day. And, you know, folks that are coming to do deliveries, they usually don't read those signs. And what I'm looking at is until the Rhode Island extension gets done or overpassed or whatever's going to happen within five to ten years, those trucks are going to have to use that Normandy highway. And looking at page 96 of your intersection traffic volumes, I'm looking at a subject intersection being Saxon Boulevard. If they come in through Saxon, they're definitely going to be going through residential neighborhoods. I mean, that's not a question. That's not your fault, right? That's just people that are doing deliveries are not—they have an address, they go. I get that. But it's a big concern, obviously, because right now we've had some talks with Amazon, and it's not even—the roads are taken. We have a huge issue with them parking at the gas station, parking at the right-of-way. We have those huge issues. And then the other problem that I'm trying to figure out how we're going to be able to manage, right, is the apartments. 320-some units. I appreciate the buffer of the two flex spaces you're putting in. I appreciate the consideration of removing that gas station, because there's literally two other gas stations down the street. But emergency situations, I see a parking situation right before you hit the apartments. I mean, we technically have, what, only one ingress and degress, maybe two. Can you walk me through that? Like, God forbid there's a fire in one of the apartment complexes. How are we going to be able to manage that? So, to access the apartments, you come in off of Normandy and go straight into the units, or you can come down roof and curl in the back side. So there's two different ways. There's also other ingress, egress, by going up the private road. That's between lot three and four, two, two, three, and four. That's a private road. So that'll access also for the apartments, down to Building 1. Also, it's important to note, in terms of the apartments, I know y'all don't like the apartments too much, but the apartments give, number one, a huge tax base. But a fellow named Daryl Spradley is going to speak in a couple minutes to the apartments. You guys are so far under apartment compared to every city around this area. It's absolutely amazing. And not only that, but there are four or five apartment complexes planned on veterans, some south of where Rhode Island is, which is the big Ford property. They're talking about putting a BJ's in there with a bunch of out parcels, and they're talking over almost 1,200 units. And then up at the corner of MLK or Kentucky and 472, there's a bunch of apartments planned going in there. So part of our thing is you want all those tax dollars to go across more bridges again. So my biggest issue before I go to Commissioner Villavasco is this. I don't personally have an issue with apartments. I have an issue with apartments where we're not making it pedestrian safe, I want to say. If we had a more pedestrian safe apartment development where we literally, I mean, 320 units, we're talking at a minimum one car per household, right? So you figure 320 cars, some houses are going to have more. And then at the same time, we're really not putting in some of the amenities that residents are really looking for. So it's not that we're bashing on the apartments, or at least not me specifically. And I recognize that we do need some light industrial, but, you know, some of the areas that you're discussing that they're going to be bringing in a lot of these apartments are in Orange City. They have all the amenities that we wish we would have had better planning that we would have today. We don't. That's water under the bridge. Moving forward with the little bit of acreages we have left, you know, if it's not something that you guys can legally build, we have to be mindful of, hey, what can we do to better bring what residents are asking for, what we can help develop. And you're right. We do need a lot more commercial because that's going to increase our tax base. But we can't use the tax base as a, hey, you guys are going to get more money because, yeah, while that's very enticing, it's very – it looks nice on paper, we're also going to have to develop a lot of infrastructure for that. And you guys seem to be great developers, right? I'm not talking about you guys. But in the past, I mean, we're dealing with situations right now currently in different areas where, you know, infrastructure was engineered and we have a lot of failing situations. So let me go because we have two other commissioners. Can I just address those real quickly? Thank you. We're going to have sidewalks on that interior road going from the apartments all the way up to Rhode Island. We'll have sidewalks going up and down Normandy. The apartments are going to be highly amenitized with, you know, pet things and EVs, charging stations, clubhouse, resort pool, all those kind of things. So I think it is going to be friendly. They'll be able to go up a sidewalk up roof to get out, and then that's going to open that whole area up to the east. And, you know, I'm also willing – I think we can put a bus station in. The bus doesn't go there yet, but I think we put a bus station in on Rhode Island that would help go into the east and maybe expand the five-foot sidewalk on Rhode Island to eight feet to give some more ambulatory options for the residents. Also, the whole live, work, and play, they'll be able to ride their bicycle up to the hospital. Thank you. Commissioner Villabasquez and then Commissioner Howington. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor Harriet. Have you identified any of the businesses that are going to possibly be building or moving in that area? Not yet. We've had several meetings with John Cox, who's your economic development manager, and we've talked to those of you that met with us about, you know, bring us tenants. We're ready to talk to them. Thank you. It's hard to do that until we have zoning. Commissioner Howington, then Vice Mayor Harriet, then we'll go to a presentation from people with standing. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to understand, because now you're requesting an MPEB, which is required. It was the will of the commission that it had to be multi, which means that it would have to be residential, industrial, or some form of a combination of multiple categories within the zoning. Because I believe at one point you had a plan that was completely industrial, did you not? Yes, ma'am. We had an alternative optional plan that would put all industrial on the site versus the mixed uses. So you did have an option that did not include residential, but we essentially, as a commission, killed that, correct? What happens in it, the zoning that I have to have is an MPUD. Right. So that's a mixed PUD, which means we have to have a myriad of uses. So all industrial did not provide that. And then in talking with your staff, they suggested that we stick with the MPUD with the myriad uses. Okay. And so, let's see. I think Mr. Smith has one clarification. Go ahead, Mr. Smith. Just for clarification, this commission never saw a plan with just industrial. It was always input. Right. We never saw it, but he did speak of one. He spoke to one at the meetings individually with you all. Yes. Right. Yes. Just wanted to clarify. I'm just—I want to make sure that I'm considering all the facts. This commission did see—sorry for the interruption. This commission did see a plan that was presented prior to this one that was voted no on, correct? Okay. Oh, this was tabled. It was tabled. Okay. Thank you for that. Yeah. And currently, it's residential. So, I mean, really what we're looking at now is the opportunity to bring in industrial that we do not currently have. You are in a predicament because we have changed the zoning requiring you to have an MPUD. And so, your current allotment does not allow you to build what you legally purchased the property with the right to build. Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Thank you so much. Vice Mayor Harriet. Thank you, Mayor. Just want to clarify a couple things. Zach, I don't know if you or Jordan would be best suited to answer this, but do we currently have parking requirements within the Land Development Code for apartments delineating the number of spaces required for this development? Yes, we do. Within the Land Development Code, there are parking regulations for all of the various uses. Okay. And then, like it's been, you know, hammered to death, this, every project that would go here, any project that will go here, will have to have a multifamily component according to the activity center overlay. There is an allowance for a multifamily within the activity center. Any development that occurs within the activity center must be a PUD, a planned unit development. It may be an IPUD, a CPUD, an MPUD. It can be any of those. So, it may include multifamily. Okay. It does not have to include multifamily. But it has to include mixed uses. This application, because it is for an MPUD, it does have to include a mix of uses. Okay. If this was, you know, going into the realm of what ifs, if this was an IPUD, for instance, it would be industrial uses. But would industrial uses alone meet the requirements of the activity center? As the activity center is currently drafted, yes. Okay. As long as it was a PUD. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Commissioner Cole actually came up, so you haven't got to speak yet. Hold on. I still have one more point to make. Within all of this discussion, at the workshop that we had a couple weeks ago, we discussed and we all voted for zoning in progress to discuss a downtown use adjacent to this property. Correct? Right? Okay. And we're talking about walkability. There is no other walkability when we're talking about downtown or downtown type uses without having a residential component within that. So, as far as the conversation goes about having a downtown, this is having multifamily residential is critical to that discussion. And the services or uses that those residential, this residential component would have would be associated or fulfilled with that downtown component as well. So, so they kind of go hand in hand, I understand, I wish that we could just snap our fingers and make it all happen at the same time, but unfortunately, especially in this area, I don't think that's going to happen with as many years as it's taken to assemble the parcels that you're, you have been able to assemble. So, I think it's important to consider this not individually, not as just as it's being presented today, but how it would fit holistically into what we're talking about for this, this area. So, thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Caldwell, Commissioner Villavazquez, and then we're going to, we have to go to a presentation from people with standing. So, Commissioner Caldwell, I know you have this. One of the conversations you and I had was reducing the residential aspect of it and putting in more light industrial. So, my question is, and this would be for legal, if this is denied today, they could come back to us with a different type of PUD, which would, they wouldn't have to have a residential aspect to it? That is correct. If the commission were to deny this application tonight, this applicant or another applicant could come back with a different application for a different type of PUD, that is correct. Can I make a motion at this point? We still have to. Okay. We still have to go through the quadrant judicial process. Commissioner Villavazquez. I have a question for legal. So, it's my understanding that the TIA report is under review with the county. Did I hear that correctly? Yes, that's correct. I'll defer to Jordan if there are any additional details. So, my question is, this was approved today and the county comes back and denies the report for the TIA for whatever reason. What happens? So, the TIA doesn't get necessarily approved or denied. The TIA tells us and tells the applicant what improvements will be required based on the proposed uses. And with that, we generate either, you know, proposed improvement that the applicant has to make or a proportionate fair share, which a proportionate fair share would come back to you. You know, additionally, as TIA, as a development moves forward and after we have this initial approval of the master development plan, you have site plan and plat where you actually get to specific uses. Those include a more detailed traffic analysis where you see the more granular types of improvements like signalization, signal timing, left in, left out, those types of improvements as the granularity of the TIA increases. So, depending on what the county comes back with, we can change, if we approve this, we can, you know, request things be changed to accommodate all the traffic that will be going in and out of that development. If it exceeds, is there a number right now that the county or we should be looking at as far as the TIA report? I guess as far as the number, are you talking about the number of trips generated or are you talking about a, okay, so I think that's still under review. Commissioner, that is still under review, but whatever comes back from the county, the applicant would have to adhere to any recommendations in the TIA. He will be recommended or he will be requested? No, he would be required to follow any recommendations from the county. But then we've already approved it, so. We're only talking about, we're talking about mitigating the traffic. Yeah, the item before us tonight is about zoning, not necessarily about the infrastructure impact. I know that they go together, you know, by, you know, just way of logic. But tonight, this item is about the zoning, not the consideration of the traffic impact analysis. And if I could add to that question, Mike Woods, Cobb Cole, attorney for the applicant. The way that this is structured now under your activity center, which the comp plan requires the PUD, there is no ability for Mr. Banto or anybody else to go to site plan to do that type of granular level, as the city attorney stated. And that can be somewhat frustrating for you at this point in time. But that's why the DA, as drafted, contemplates whatever that TIA says we have to provide. And if you look at it kind of from a sifting grain, so to speak, you're utilizing your zoning authority here to authorize what will be able to be utilized in the maximum usage. Within that, he then has to do the analysis, and he's in the process now with the basic TIA, but then you get a site plan of what will that require him to do to meet those requirements. And if he can't meet those, then he has to scale back that development level. But you're setting what the policy is and holding him accountable in the traffic engineering to be able to meet those requirements. Again, it's a little unique because of the way that your activity center requires the PUD. He can't go any farther to get more detail because he has no certainty as to what he can do on this property right now. And, you know, and again, a denial. He has nothing underlying it. And the one point I just want you guys to realize, and I think it was brought forward really well with staff report, normally when you have a PUD and you're doing a rezoning, there's usually something underneath it that, all things being equal, if you guys just say no, there's still an ability to go do something, right? If you're out in the Osteen area and you're rezoning for, you know, ag lands and you want to bring in a million condos or townhouses and you say no, you still have those ag lands, he doesn't even have that. There is a designation of a zoning category in place, but he's not allowed to move forward with it. He's got nothing underneath. So trying to get the clarification now after four years of work to then be able to move forward and know what he can do with his property, the counterposition of that is really tenuous to vote down that he can't do anything with his land, and that's problematic. So thank you. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Hamilton, I'll call you right after public participation. We're going to go to people with standing and then public participation, please. Bradley. Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Daryl Spradley, and I'm speaking this evening on behalf of Synergy at Normandy related to the apartment demand-related issues for this site. During the, and I currently serve as Senior Vice President of Charles Wayne Consulting at Maitland, and we've been in business for 40 years and have worked on over 500 projects throughout the state of Florida, including projects such as Baldwin Park and Avalon Park and Celebration and so forth. So this is our, our business. My background as Senior Vice President is mainly focused on apartments, and my expertise extends to 12 states and over 500 projects in the United States. So I wanted to talk about apartments and the demand for apartments, but before I do that, there's a more urgent demand that's related to why you should have apartments. apartments, and if you took a five-mile radius zone from the Normandy site and you ran an employment analysis, what you would find out is that 70 percent of the 57,000 people with jobs in that five-mile radius, that 70 percent of them would get up every morning and get in their car and they would leave. They'd leave the five-mile radius, they'd leave Deltona, and they'd go to other locations. Now, those other locations include other parts of Volusia County, but 30 percent of those people are going to go to Orange County and 24, 25 percent of those people are going to go to Seminole County. So people are in this location or in this sub-market because there's a value to property and it's generally described as affordable, although there are obviously some high-end subdivisions. The point being is that they're willing to make that commute and that travel. So Veltona and its partners at Orange City and DeLand and DeBerry need to really focus on job generation through major employment entities in Central Florida in order to retain all those people that get up every day and just leave here. They're not here at all. We know that because we monitor federal data related to emergency vehicle traffic patterns in the United States. So I'm here to say that jobs are an important part of that, and in order to get jobs and employers to come to this market area, you need to have apartments. And to draw a parallel for you, in Orlando, in the Orlando MSA, we have several hundred thousand apartments, and for every three houses built, one of those is an apartment and two of those are a house. That house could be a single-family home or it could be a townhouse, but the point is that about 38 percent of every new inventory that comes onto the market in the Orlando MSA is an apartment building, and the reason for that is that you have to, they're necessary to support the employers that come to a marketplace and say, you know, I'd like to go to Orange City or I'd like to go to DeBerry and I want to build X, Y, or Z, and I want to hire 10 people, I want to hire 100 people, and where are those people going to live? And the quality of the day's apartments are exceptionally high. The amenitization of apartments is off the charts. There are single-family neighborhoods in this market. Thank you. Just for clarification, are you more of a witness than somebody withstanding? I'm speaking in favor of the— So you're a witness for the applicant. I just want to clarify that since it's a quasi-judicial. I don't do this often, so if I said the wrong thing— It's fine. Thank you, sir. Okay. Russell Maynard. And I'm assuming this would be the same thing, correct? Yes. Is there anybody withstanding on that? No? So then this would be part of public comment. Okay, go ahead. Russell Maynard. I'm with Central Florida Engineering Consultants. We are the engineering consultants for Scott Banta, the applicant. I'm really here to answer any questions you might have regarding that. I know this is a zoning situation. You're not getting into the engineering part of it yet, but there have been a lot of engineering questions. Scott has answered a lot of them, and I'm just here to support him. Thank you. Thank you. Public participation, sir. Albert Bryant. Withoutstanding, sir. Again, the four—the two prior are also part of the public participation. The next issue I have with this right now is the fact that you're putting parking next to residential. Hmm. You call that a buffer. Hmm. I find that interesting that we're calling parking a buffer. When I think of a buffer between something like this and residential houses, I think of trees, bushes, and stuff like that, and or otherwise. The other thing I have about this is the fact that I appreciate that he's actually putting something into Rhode Island rather than ignoring Rhode Island. Because Rhode Island, no matter what y'all think, is going to be intricate to relieving traffic to Howland Boulevard, no matter what. Now, do I appreciate the 320 apartments? Nah, not so much. But, you know, in order to be able to extend Rhode Island, you're going to have to give and take. Because not all the property owners are going to want to give you the right-of-way. We know that. But when the county has come out and told us that they're willing to give all their impact fees from this area to extend Rhode Island, why are we sitting on our dust doing nothing about it? Why are we not working diligently, day and night, to get the property for a right-of-way that we need to make this happen? Orange City has already said that they're working towards it. And all we keep hearing from the county is that Deltona hasn't done anything. Why is that? I've been working with this for the last five years. And I keep hearing the same thing. That since one manager left, no manager has picked up the torch to run with it. None. We had one, Mr. Chisholm, that literally moved money around and said, oh, we're going to buy property with that, but not for Rhode Island. And then all of a sudden I find that that money was switched back to Rhode Island fund. How is that possible? How do you move money out of transportation fund to another fund and then back to the transportation fund without a vote from y'all? Last I heard in the state of Florida, from fund to fund, that's illegal. I find that interesting that it worked that way. Anyhow, before we get too much into the mud with this, the other problem I have with this is the fact that you're seeing these buildings facing Rhode Island or Normandy rather than the apartments. So you've got to travel through this conglomerate of buildings in order to get back to the apartments. In order to have what you call walkability, you're going to walk through the industrial area to get to your, quote, unquote, downtown, whatever the hell that is. I've never understood what a downtown is in Deltona, especially since it was never on the map as a downtown ever. So when you talk about walkability, there's no walkability here, none whatsoever. Where's the closest market? Oh, that's right, down on Howland. A new Aldi, as a matter of fact, is the closest market. Or you hop across the bridge and go to, oh, that's right, a Super Walmart on the other side. That's the closest we got there. Now, you know, I don't care if they put a gas station here or not, but put another dollar store there, you know, for all I care. But at the end of the day, where's the walkability, people? Where? Like I say, I appreciate the work towards extending Rhode Island. But other than that, what is it? Super patient. Thank you. Okay. At this time, we're going to go ahead with Commissioner Howlington. And then, go ahead, Commissioner Howlington. Thank you. I just had a question, probably for Zach. You had mentioned several types of PUDs that would be allowed. If this were denied today, is it possible that the applicant could come back and ask for a residential PUD, being strictly an RPUD? No, an RPUD is not in a level of use within the activity center. Okay. So, that wouldn't be a risk that we would have to deal with. That's correct. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any closing comments on behalf of the applicant's attorney? If there is, you have four minutes. Thank you for that little walkabout. Again, Michael Woods with Cobb-Cole for the record. I thank you guys for your time and attention tonight. I don't know if now is the time to do it or after the fact, but I know there is a letter of support in from Mr. Luck that was sent into the planning department. We'd like to have that right into the record, if at all possible. But to kind of summarize where we are here, you guys have had a flurry of a lot of forward thinking in the last couple of weeks. It's a city that has long kind of languished between kind of indecision, and you guys are biting off a lot right now. I saw the workshop. I was not able to attend. I was out of town. But you're going to be doing a lot of stuff, and that is a good thing. There's that new focus on how to get there. That's good. And, you know, I like to tell people when they ask, what do you do for zoning or whatnot? You know, you play Sim City or a video game where it's a clean slate, but you all don't have that. You guys are still paying for the sins of Volusia County from 20, 30 years ago, and you have to deal with that. So transition is difficult for you guys. How do you make the pieces fit when you don't have a clean board? But it's also difficult for the property owners. And what Mr. Banta has proposed with the application is a project that checks all the boxes of what your comprehensive plan states as the goals, policies, and objectives for a Daltona activity center. There's nothing that's been identified as inconsistent with that. And he spent four years doing that. And that's a message to consider that here's a gentleman who, in good faith, worked within exactly what you were doing and tried to bring the project that matches all the requirements that you have. And I know there's conversations about, well, would we rethink multifamily or not? It's expressly contemplated in your activity center. For him to go in good faith, do that, put all that together, only to have it pulled out from underneath him at the 11th hour, seems a little kind of disingenuous. And I think it's a bad message to send. That being said, I know you guys are working forward with, you know, your new challenges and what to view for the rest of the city. Nothing here is inconsistent with that. Nothing here prevents you from doing the downtown area to doing a—to re-envisioning what you're going to do with the activity center. But what you do have is a consistent transition between much larger warehouses with Amazon into the smaller flex space warehouse that we have. You've got single-family residential that, rather than being adjacent to industrial or whatever other uses are allowed in the activity center, you do have multifamily to work as a transition. And to be clear, that buffer—Mr. Banter was talking about the setback for the building being that far, they will still have to provide the landscape buffer that's required by your code and under your standards. To the good, you have a project that was designed to fit with your adopted policies for the Deltona Activity Center, and you have an applicant that's bent over backwards, meeting with staff over the last four years to try to come up with something that hits everything that you guys want. If somebody else wants to come in and kind of re-envision it down the road, there's nothing that prevents them from doing that. But while you get those ducks in order, while you guys figure out what those policies are going to be, Mr. Banter can't do anything with his property right now, and he needs an ability to move forward in some way, shape, or form. You have a project that looks pretty darn good, and you're going to go through with more detail at site plan as it goes through, but you can't get to that step until you get the rezoning in place. As you think your goals and objectives moving forward with the overall project, nothing here interferes with what you're trying to do. And I just want you to realize that the Deltona Activity Center was created at Deltona's request to diversify its tax base. It's taken 20, 30, 35 years to get where you are here. You're finally realizing the benefits of that work from 30 years ago. And if you're looking to pivot and move forward, you're free to do so, but you can't put him in the lurch. He needs to be able to move forward with his property. He needs to be able to put his property to use. And with this project, I think you've got a good one. Thank you so much. Thank you. At this time, we will entertain a motion on behalf of the district, what district? This is district two, right? So district two commissioner will entertain a motion. After listening to everything, I do just want to say one quick thing. I think with the changes that we've said just recently with the buffer, the landscaping, the retail in the front. With that said, I want to hereby move to approve ordinance number 12-2024, amending the official zoning map to rezone 36.46 acres of land from R1AA to MPUD at first reading. Second. There is a motion by Commissioner Santiago, second by Vice Mayor. Harriet? Mayor, I just wanted to, if I may, read approximately three conditions that I caught during today's discussion to make sure that those are included with the motion, if that's the will of the commission. So I heard a request for buildings that are located along Normandy and Rhode Island frontages to include storefront elevations that promote human scale and walkability and or enhanced landscaping to mitigate negative visual impacts. For the enter and exit turning of trucks on Normandy Boulevard to be directed away from residential areas. And for a minimum of 160 feet distance between the existing residential neighborhoods and the front elevation of any multifamily buildings. Correct. Vice Mayor? Absolutely. Okay. All right. At this time, we will do a verbal vote by the city clerk, and the commission will provide the reason for the vote. Commissioner Avila-Vasquez? Plus, this is a rezoning, and we will have the capabilities of adjusting, making, and requesting changes, additions, and so forth. I vote yes. Commissioner Caldwell? I'm voting no. I don't think that we need more of the multifamily residential in that area. Commissioner Harington? I'm voting yes. I think that it's unfair for an applicant to currently have no way to develop their property at all. That just seems like bad business on our part. Commissioner Lulee? I'm going to vote yes, because it meets objective FLU 2-1 in our comprehensive plan. Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Like I said, I just wanted to say real quick, this is just a rezoning, and with the development agreement, we can make the changes that we want to see in that area. Thank you. Vice Mayor Herriot? Yes. This is consistent with the comp plan and the discussions that this commission has had at the last workshop regarding it downtown, and this developer is stuck in limbo if we don't do anything today. Mayor Avila? And not to add, not to mention, sorry, that every time that we have asked him to make an adjustment, to make a change for us, he has been the first one to say yes and give us a thumbs up and work with us, opposed to just saying no and strictly thinking about dollars. Thank you. Can I go next? You can. Mr. Banta, I want to thank you for having a lot of patience, right? Obviously, those of us up here that you might have felt were a little difficult with you or not, we just, we thoroughly care for our city, right? And we appreciate developers that are willing to work with us. You know, I think I've told you when we've met that I don't dislike your project. I just didn't like certain aspects of it. So, with that, I appreciate you being able to make some changes, which I think are extremely important, specifically the walkability aspect of it. So, I'll be a yes as well. Six yes, one nay. Okay. So, the motion passes. Thank you guys so much. All right. At this time, we're going to go ahead and move to action items. If I can please have Zach read action item 9A. Yes, Mr. Mayor. This is a request for rehearing of resolution number 2025-24, which was accepting the final plat for phase one on the Vineland Reserve RPUD. This is just the request for rehearing. This will not be hearing any of the merits of the project itself. Okay. At this time, I'll entertain a motion. This is in District 6, so, Commissioner Lully, would you like to make a motion? Certainly. I hereby move to deny the motion for rehearing of resolution number 2025-24, accepting the Vineland Reserve phase one final plat. Who is the second? I'm sorry. Can you hear? Oh. There is a motion by Commissioner Lully to deny and a second by Commissioner Colwell. Is there any public comment before we get to the presentation? Yes, sir. Lori Warnicke, please. We're going to go to public comment. We'll come to you right after. Thank you. My name is Lori Warnicke, and I am a member of the Collins community, and I have a lot of my pie peeps here tonight. We were here on the 18th. We're here again because Lenar didn't feel they needed to show up at the last meeting. But my feelings are that Lenar needs to take care of their problems in phase two and three before they're allowed any vertical construction in phase one. Ms. Warnicke, this is specifically for a rehearing. So your comments are specific to this hearing, not the project. Okay. Well, I believe that Lenar should have been here last time. Thank you. There are no other comments, sir. Good evening. For the record, McGregor Love, 215 North Eola Drive, Orlando. You're in receipt of my letter that requests the rehearing. It provides the basis for the request. I can provide a little bit more color for the commission to kind of understand what we've been doing in the meantime between March 18th and today. And at the outset, I do want to say that if we're granted a rehearing, we can get into the substance of the concerns that you addressed last time, the concerns that the public expressed last time, but for the record, phases two and three are owned and were developed by an entity that is entirely unaffiliated with the developer of this project. So there is, and we understand that there are concerns about those phases two and three, but I just wanted to put that on the record. And when I reviewed the hearing and heard the public comment, heard your discussion of it. Sir, this is, again, I don't mean to be rude or interrupt, but this is specifically to your request for a rehearing. Correct. So anything about projects from other phases, this has nothing to do with it. I entirely agree with you. I only mentioned it because of the woman who mentioned it. So, again, what I heard is you had questions. There were a couple of really important questions. Again, I won't go into the substance of our answers, but we do have answers. There is the Pegasus memo that we will provide the improvements for. We submitted on Thursday and revised engineering plans that reflect those changes. And the biggest question was, is the plot that I'm looking at right now going to change if they have to do what the Pegasus memo is suggesting? And we're confident we'll be able to show you in the city, we're working with the city to agree that there won't be any changes. And, again, I know that there are plenty of detailed questions that you'll have for me, and we can get into those if we're given the opportunity for a rehearing. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see anyone on the board, so can we please go for a vote? Can we hear the motion again, please? There was a motion on the floor to deny by Commissioner Lully, and there was a second by Commissioner Cole to deny the reapplication—the rehearing. Yes. We've got it. Commissioner Harrington. Out of curiosity, since we are discussing a rehearing, we all showed up to the meeting two weeks ago, and we had a demand letter from you from the beginning of February dictating that we needed to expedite this process. Nobody showed up to represent this project, which was somewhat, in my mind, disrespectful. So now you're asking for us to grant you a rehearing, grant a rehearing. Would you show up? Yes, we would. We would. And, again, I apologize that there was a discussion on the final plat at the last hearing. We weren't aware that there were going to be issues with the final plat. Typically, final plats are approved as almost ministerial, but I respect the fact that—I watched the video. You talked about this for an hour. So I respect the frustration. We do. We are looking for an opportunity to answer your questions if we're giving it. Now, I do have a problem with it because of the fact, obviously, you recognize that there were engineering issues that were brought forth. And we all received, basically, documentation saying that you would take us to court if we didn't move forward immediately. That's where I truly have a problem. And I think there was, you know, delay with getting a hearing scheduled, and we were anxious to get a hearing scheduled. I don't believe that, you know, there was any—we were just trying to push the process along as quickly as possible. And we've been working with the city throughout the process, and since the denial, we've been working with them. We intend to keep doing that. Okay, and as you probably just saw earlier this evening, we do value developers who are willing to work with us and do make exceptions and things like that. I just feel like we've started off with a bad business relationship. And I can respect that. And we met with staff a couple of weeks ago to go over, you know, what the big issues are, what your big concerns were. And we're putting ourselves in a position where we'll be on the same page as your professional staff about, you know, how to address those concerns and the fact that there won't need to be any change to the final plat. You know, we're happy to provide a bond. You know, there are other items that I have not mentioned, because this is just the request for a rehearing, that we're happy to provide in recognition of the city's concerns. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So this time we're going to go ahead for a vote. And for clarification, if we vote yes, we were voting to deny. And if we vote no, we're voting to not deny, just for clarification on the dais. The motion fails, three to four. Okay, at this time we'll entertain another motion. Just to make sure everybody has it right, yes means deny, no means go for another vote. Is that correct? Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. The motion fails, we do another vote. That's correct, so we would need a motion to approve, if that's the will of the commission. All right, I'll be the one to do it, that's fine. This, I'll make the motion to grant the rehearing, only because the gentleman representing the developer showed up tonight with the understanding that you guys will be here at the rehearing to answer every single question. You saw how lengthy the discussion was without you, and I hope that you will be prepared to have an even longer discussion with you guys. There's seven or eight people behind you that are just a small portion of the people that will be here for your rehearing, if it gets approved, so please be prepared to answer every single question. And I'll second. It's a motion by Vice Mayor Harry, it's second by Commissioner Howington. Again, this is just a motion to approve a rehearing, this does not approve your final plat. Mr. Mayor, if I may, if the commission approves this motion for rehearing, the matter will be placed on the agenda for May 5th, 2025, and public notice requirements will be fulfilled in accordance with the city code. Thank you. Thank you. Motion for rehearing passes, 4 to 3. Mayor, if you don't mind. Zach, you said that was going to be May, or Jordan, sorry. You said May 5th? Yes. Okay. Collins Road Community, you guys heard May 5th. Okay. All right. We're going to go ahead and move forward to action items B, if I can please have the city attorney read the ordinance for the resolution. Yes, Mr. Mayor, this is resolution number 2021. Article 2515, a resolution of the city of Deltona, Florida, activating the ordinance review committee, providing for conflicts, implementation, sunset, and an effective date. Okay. This time we'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion. There's a motion by Commissioner Villavazquez. I'll second that. Second by Commissioner Lully. Is there any public comment? I have a question, May. Right after the public comment. No comment, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner Villavazquez. Is this going to be handled the same way as the other boards, where every commissioner nominates somebody? Yes. Somebody? I believe that was the direction. But I'll let Zach answer that. Yes, that's correct. The member composition, as provided in the Code of Ordinances and referenced here in the resolution, is that there will be seven members with each being appointed by one of each of the commissioners. Thank you. Commissioner Santiago? Yeah, just real quick for Zach. Zach, for this ordinance review committee, not only do we have to select someone, don't we have to hire someone as well? There's going to be additional funding that's needed. Yeah. So part of the consensus of bringing this resolution forward and was that the city manager would need to hire a consultant to assist the board with the review of the city code provisions. I am not aware of whether there's funding in the budget for that or whether that would need to be contemplated at a mid-year or next fiscal year basis. But the consensus that we saw from the board was, or from the commission, was that a consultant would be needed if this were to move forward in order to guide the members in their review of the code and prepare any revisions to the Code of Ordinances in order to provide a streamlined process? I don't mind the committee. My only concern is that it's going to slow the process. I mean, we're doing such a great job. We have wonderful staff. We have a great legal team. I think that's just going to put a buffer. If anyone has an issue with an ordinance, that's why we have public comments. I don't think we need to do another committee. And like I said, it's going to cost the city more money. So in my opinion, I don't think we need one right now. That's what we were elected to do, was to pass ordinances. And I think we just need to stick to that and not have another committee, because that's just going to postpone the ordinances. This is going to take longer, and we're doing such a great job with a wonderful staff. Vice Mayor Harriott, then Commissioner Hamilton. I agree with Commissioner Santiago on just about everything that you mentioned. The only thing that I think is still important is that we do hire a consultant to help us go through systematically and make sure that everything is addressed. So my question is, regardless of whether we proceed with the motion, with the agenda item as presented, or we do it differently, is there budget available for a consultant that was referenced in this? There's nothing budgeted specifically for this, Vice Mayor, but certainly we'll be able to find the funding and bring it back to the Commission for a change in the budget. Okay. So there is a plan to bring back an amendment? Yes. Thank you. Correct. Commissioner Howington? I'll go, and then Commissioner Villavazquez. I agree with Commissioner Santiago and Commissioner Harriott. I don't see the reason for a review committee. We have been moving fairly quickly when issues are brought forward, and I would like to keep that momentum as we continue to move forward. And I think that if we have to wait for other groups to meet, potentially once a month, we could be pushing something out to two, three months, and that's a concern. Okay. So thank you. Okay. So I'll go, and then Commissioner Villavazquez. There's a purpose that I brought this up is, number one, I think, you know, we're trying to build that trust again with our residents, and I think transparency is a big thing, right? So, and yes, correct. We were all elected to do this. Now, there's been instances where I've heard our great attorneys come and run into situations like the noise ordinance, where we have a really bad ordinance, and we don't really find out about it until, I mean, we have residents who are extremely upset. You know, I saw a bunch of emails back and forth between the sheriff and our city, and the goal was to, not necessarily the stuff we're doing now, but have a group of folks that are helping the city attorneys go through ordinances to get updated. The premise was, let it sunset after a year, because, you know, we're hoping that while they're working on one end, the committee would be working on the second end, and we would have a consistent stream of ordinance updates or ordinance removals coming to this dais, so that was the premise of having that there. If the attorneys, or not the attorneys, if the consultant is an issue, I mean, I think we would need a consultant anyways to go through our ordinances regardless. I mean, I just heard Vice Mayor request that. The idea was also to get it started during the budget talks, not where it starts right now, but it would be able to start during our budget conversations, so that's just my clarification. Commissioner Villavasquez. Thank you, Mayor. So, that was my idea, my understanding of having an ordinance review as well, to update all our ordinances. Did we not have an ordinance review board, Joyce? Yes. Yes. And it was run by staff. We didn't have an outside consultant. It was run by someone within the department that knew about our ordinances, and we didn't have a problem. I was on the board. I was on the board. Troy, the former commissioner, was on the board, and there was a lot of people that were on the board. So, I don't understand why we need an outside consultant to tell us what our ordinances are. And again, I agree with the mayor. It was supposed to be a temporary thing just to help the attorneys get up to speed and bring everything up to code and, you know, to be easier, hopefully even putting it online for us to follow and go with it. But I don't understand why we have to have a site, outside person tell us what our codes and ordinances should be when every other board here is run by, and also run by volunteers with the residents of the city of Deltona. That's my understanding. Thank you, Commissioner Vila Vazquez, Vice Mayor Harriet. Commissioner, I think my, not I think, the reasoning for me wanting a consultant involved is because I know that we've got city attorneys that have a large workload that we've asked them to address. We've got staff that is, I feel like, pretty much maxed out with the workload that we've asked them to look at and asked them to address. So, it's not about telling us what ordinances need to be addressed. I think that that would be the function, if I understand correctly what the mayor is envisioning, that would be the function of the board. Correct. Would be to bring the specific ordinances that need to be addressed or need to be updated. It would be their function to bring those and prioritize them, and then the consultant would be there to help make the update, recommend changes, and whatnot. Is that what your vision is? That way we don't put any more weight on staff or the city attorneys. And at the same time, at the end of the day, it still comes before us, and obviously the attorneys still have to review, but it gives an opportunity for the residents to play a part in their government and to help build that bond. So, I didn't mean to take any more. Oh, no, that's fine. The last point that I thought I heard that was interesting was the concept of building this into the budget. Would it then be that the onset of the board would begin October 1st, and then would sunset at the end of the fiscal year to coincide with the consultant, or would we… I don't believe that's the way it would be. That would be the way? Okay. I mean, and they can correct me if I'm wrong on that. Yes, if whoever is the maker of the motion, if they would just include that as part of the motion, that can definitely be accomplished. Commission will be the last question. I have a question. So, does it have to be sunset, or can we just, at that point, not have a consultant and continue with it because whoever's on the board is experienced enough to continue? It would be renewed, if the consensus that I requested was, when it sunsets, there is an ability to renew if it must be renewed. And then at that time… That's correct. The way the resolution is drafted is that after 12 months there would be a sunset, unless the commission extends. You got all that, Joyce? Okay. Who's second? Me, right? So, you okay with that? I am. Okay. That's okay. Joyce will give me the earful later. Can we re-read the motion? Yes, can Zach, can you re-read the motion? Yes, this is a motion to approve resolution number 2025-15, with an amendment to the sunset provision, that the board shall automatically sunset and be dissolved 12 months following October 1st, 2025, unless the life of the board is extended by resolution of the city commission. Stated resolution 15, it's 51, just for correction. Thank you, 51. The motion passes 4 to 3. Okay. This time, if I can please have the city attorney read Action Item 9C. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a request for approval of the Charter Officer Evaluation Process. Okay. There's nobody on the board. I did have a question, just for clarification. This is ICMA standard, correct? Correct. Is there any public comment? Yes, sir. One person. I'll get you right after public comment. Courtney Cross-Burgers. Hello again. I looked at the questions, and they all seem pretty good. And thank you all for getting to this, because I know the past few years it hasn't been done. And I think it's important, just like in any job. But I was wondering, after you all do the review, will it be like in a PRR, or will you publish it somewhere, or, you know, so that the residents can see what's going on? Yes? Yes. Thank you. That automatically becomes a public record, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. Okay. Thank you. That is correct, Mayor. Any other public comment? Yes, sir. Okay. Commissioner Villavascoz. Thank you, Mayor. So, the request to approve the Charter Officer's Evaluation Process. Can somebody give me a little information on this, please? That would have to be City Attorney. We're happy to handle this one together. Um, the commission, uh, requested that this item be moved forward. Um, this was on the workshop agenda. It just was not able—they were not able to get to it on the day of the workshop. Um, the manager, uh, elected to add it to this agenda, uh, to move it forward. It is spelled out in the manager's contract and in the city attorney's contract. Um, presumably, the commission will decide what direction they want to take with respect to process, because there isn't a clear process defined in either, uh, contract. But certainly, you are permitted to, uh, pursue, and this is the suggestion that we have laid out for you, um, a process for the city manager and a process for the city attorney evaluation. So, you're looking for the commissioners to say, uh, let's go ahead, um, and move forward? Are you looking for the evaluation, or are you looking for us to approve something that we have not gotten as to how we're going to review, um, the charter officers? Yes, this is, uh, according to my contract, uh, I would bring an evaluation process to the commission for the commission to decide to utilize or not. So, the ICMA process is before you that's used throughout the country. Uh, the city attorney's looked at a number of evaluations in the, in the region and put together, you know, something similar, but more dedicated towards, towards them. So, mine would start between the May 10th and June 10th. We have an entire month, I believe, uh, by contract, also charter in July, possibly for the, uh, the city attorney's. So, we're just asking you tonight to go through this process. Is this acceptable? You would answer these questions, forward them to the clerk's office. Clerk would tabulate all the scores. And then we would receive, uh, what the scores were and information, and it would be made, made public. Yes. So, each, each, uh, charter officers will put together their own evaluation questionnaire? It, it's in front of you, commissioner, uh, under section 9, is it 9C? I don't have anything. It's in here. It's in the evaluation process. I can't take this home. It's in the, it was in my binder. Okay. And certainly, we're open to alternative solutions. If you all want to do this differently, um, we're happy to accommodate. Just let us know. Commissioner Howington, you're on the board. We go to the ICMA evaluation process. That would essentially be us adopting best practices. Correct, Commissioner. Okay. So, this is something that's widely used nationwide, is fairly standard and typical. And, I would say, is better than what we've had in the past here in Deltona. Bingo. It's about the same. It's about the same. We go into action in Deltona. But this would be consistent with the ICMA. It's not the same. It's what I'm looking at. I'm sorry. Just glancing at what I'm looking at. It's about the same. There's a rating in numbers. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Santiago, and then we'll go to a vote. Oh. Is there a motion made? Yeah. Oh, never mind. Okay. Okay, can we vote? There was no motion? I could have. That was the first thing I asked. I'll be happy to make it, then. Okay, go ahead. Okay. I move to approve the Charter Officer Evaluation. I'm going to go back and listen to that video, just so you know. Go ahead. I move to approve the Charter Officer Evaluation process as presented. And I second. There is a motion by Commissioner Santiago, second by Commissioner Howington. If we can please go for a vote. Because I remember I even asked if there was any public comment. So, it's okay. No big deal. Okay. Motion passes seven to zero. Is there any city attorney comments? And how, Commissioner, or Vice Mayor, I promise I'm not going to. Absolutely. That's fine. I'm sorry. I'm still beating myself up for that. So, I feel like such a jerk. Sorry. Go ahead. Yes, Mayor. Thank you so much. We just wanted to advise, and as you all know, but we believe you all know this, but just to update the public as well, the noise ordinance that we had discussed at the workshop is in process. We have drafted it and presented it to the Lusia County Sheriff's Office. We're meeting with them tomorrow morning to ensure that they are comfortable with their revisions. But depending on the outcome of that meeting, we expect to bring it shortly in the next, either the next meeting or the meeting after, depending on how that meeting goes. So, we are moving things forward with that. Thank you, Mayor. Just want to wish everybody a good, wonderful, happy Easter season. Also, looking at the budget list meetings, looks like next Saturday, May 3rd, 9 a.m., in this room, we'll have the first of the budget meetings. It's the CIP projects and equipment. Expect to just be a couple, few hours. Hopefully, it won't be the full day. But that's May 3rd will be the first overall, talking about major projects and equipment. And that's it right now, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. And just a reminder, if you want to speak under City Commission comments and requests and reports, just make sure you put—there you go. Okay, we'll start with Commissioner Vila-Vasquez. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question for legal. On the information of the noise ordinance that you're reviewing with VCO tomorrow, did you happen to review the curfew policy as well? Because that falls into the same problem we had with the noise ordinance, and we do have a curfew policy. We will bring that up with VCO tomorrow as well. And if changes are needed, we can bring that back to the Commission. Okay, because I remember a few times doing the ComStat meetings, and there were issues going out there with, you know, gangs and stuff like that. I brought up the curfew, and it was mentioned that it was in the same situation as the noise review. So, if you could just look at that as well, and just maybe, you know, kill two birds with one stone. Yes, Commissioner, we will do that tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you. My other question— Why are we killing birds is what Vice Marissa was asking. Sorry. I will. Am I still? Yes, yes, yes. Okay. My request. Okay. Can we have an update on the sign, the welcome sign by exit 111A of I-4? I think I've asked this before, and I've never had a—multiple time. Thank you, Commissioner. And I've not heard anything, nor seen any changes on that road. And I also would like an update on the Lakeshore Drive. I know that staff has had meetings with St. John's Water Management, but we have not been able to get any information or any updates on what was agreed between the city and St. John's Water Management. I also remember last meeting, Commissioner Lally brought up something about trees, that each commissioner will be able to use some of the trees for the district. I think that this is one opportunity that we can use to buffer the lakeside part behind the Little Red Schoolhouse that was destroyed during the beginning of this project, that we could use some of that from District 3. I think that's it for now. Yep. Commissioner Lally. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lally, then Commissioner Howington, then Vice Mayor Herriot. Thank you, Mayor. I promise I will not forget. On the topic of, since we've talked a lot about Rhode Island Avenue tonight, I wanted to see if I could get commission consensus to draft a letter to FDOT District 5. Seminole County is doing it, and I believe Volusia County is going to do it as well, to ask FDOT to advance the I-4 projects, really through our city limits. That goes from basically the Sanford area all the way up to Howland. There's been, obviously, recently many traffic crashes and congestion issues that have plagued I-4 adjacent to our city. And when that happens, as I'm sure many of you guys know, it sends a lot of that traffic into our city. So we end up getting Saxon, Doyle, Howland, and then from there it kind of just spirals out into the city. So I wanted to get commission consensus to draft that letter. We could use the Seminole County letter, the Volusia County letter as a model, but it's something that our county partners appear to be supporting. Seminole County was in the news a few days ago talking about their proposal to do that. And I just, before we just get to consensus on that, I just wanted to say FDOT on their I-4 Beyond the Ultimate website does talk about the Rhode Island Avenue extension and having the direct connect from Rhode Island within our city to the I-4 managed lanes or sometimes known as express lanes. So I think that's really critical at this point. We've had just so many incidents lately, and I don't know that we can wait another decade or two for those improvements to be made through our city on I-4. So if we could just get consensus on that. I think this one should be simple, yes or no. So all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? This is absolutely needed. Thank you for bringing that up, Commissioner Lally. That's it? Yeah, thanks. Okay. Commissioner Howington, Commissioner Santiago, because you're the vice mayor, I have to put you a second. I still see your name up there, I promise. Okay, I just want to say thank you to several people. So we had the extravaganza two Saturdays ago, so thank you to Mark and his team at Parks and Rec for putting that together. It was absolutely amazing. Last weekend, we did the DuPont Lakeshore cleanup Day. Sonia does an amazing job with her cleanup. And I'm not sure if that was Public Works or Stormwater that was there with her, but they did an amazing job. I think I was out there for four hours, ended up sunburned, but it was a great day. Also, Kat and her team with the West Cryo sign, with the issues that we've had there, with that sign staying on all night when it had the glitch. I haven't heard any more information, so it sounds like it's working appropriately, so I appreciate that. And then specifically with Picasso Road Stormwater. Thank you so much to everyone involved in that. I think Phyllis was leading the charge, possibly Glenn. Those residents have been waiting for something to be done since like 2015, 2016. And they are grateful that finally we got somebody out there, so I really, really appreciate that. And then with that said, can we have the stormwater projects that we're working on presented so that the residents know what we're doing in preparation for the hurricane season? I think I've asked for that, and I think some other people have asked for that as well. So I think we'd like to hear that as quickly as possible. And then can we just get a budget schedule posted somewhere so that we have kind of a clear, concise schedule where we can check when we need to be here for the public as well? Thank you. That's it. Okay. Commissioner Santiago, and then our illustrious vice mayor. I don't know what. I'm trying to apologize. I just wanted to— That works better when it's on. I'll be real quick. Just the county is moving forward with that improvement on Howland Boulevard in front of Deltona High School. They did move forward with—they're going to color the concrete the color of Deltona High School. Moving forward with that. The county and the school did agree with that. And then attended the Deltona High School ROTC Military Ball. They're amazing young kids. Very proud of them. Had a great time. And I think that's all I have. Thank you to the staff for an amazing—even though I couldn't go extravaganza, I heard it was a beautiful event for the kids. And that's all I have. What? Sorry. I'm done. Thank you. Make me adjourn the meeting ahead of time. Are you done, Commissioner? I'm done. Thank you. I got you. Vice mayor, would you like a drum roll? Please. Okay. No, in all seriousness, the extravaganza was phenomenal. I got the opportunity to participate with my wife and I and our neighbors. Were you planning? No, I wasn't. I wasn't. But no, we had the opportunity to go with our neighbors and their three-year-old absolutely loved it. It was a huge hit. This is exactly the kind of event that we've all been asking for, along with the Celtic Fest, Celtic Fest. So, City Manager, thank you very much. I appreciate these very much so. And I know the community absolutely appreciates them. Um, I do want to reiterate a couple of things that were brought up during the, um, event announcements this morning, that the inaugural pickleball tournament will be held, huh? This evening? No, it'll, uh, May 3rd. Okay. May 3rd. You said this morning. Oh, sorry. No, I apologize. Oh, uh, yes. Before the meeting. Sorry. Um, but the inaugural pickleball tournament will be at Harris Saxon Park May 3rd. Um, and, uh, look forward to seeing everybody there bright and early. 8.30. That's, it's. 8.30. Exactly. We'll be there before that. Um, and then also the reminder tree giveaway is here at City Hall this Friday. It is a Friday. And every year people complain that they didn't get here early enough to get a tree. So, get here earlier. Um, and then, uh, last, um, and probably most important, um, I received an email from a resident on Danforth Avenue, uh, this, uh, afternoon, right before the commission meeting, asking if, uh, we can look into that road and this, to some speeding that's going on. I spoke with the sheriff's office and passed it on to, um, them and staff as well, if we could get that process started. I would be appreciative. Thank you very much. Uh, so I just got a couple of things. So, first, I want to thank the, I want to thank the sheriff because they, uh, they took some situations that were happening with some of the schools and today I took a quick trip and there was probably a sheriff in every one of the schools, uh, monitoring the traffic. So, for the residents, you know, sometimes we don't answer the groups because we want to violate, we want to avoid violations of the sunshine, but we're listening, you know, you, they see that you, the other commissioners reply. So, big thank you to that. Shout out to Sarah West. I'm sorry? Oh, yeah, shout out to, uh, one of our community, uh, uh, folks, Sarah Webb. Um, I want to also, uh, let the commission know I met with, uh, County Councilman David Santiago, actually ran into a certain commissioner that was picking up Starbucks. There's, uh, I noticed that there's some issues and I, I did call the city manager as well. I'm waiting to hear back from the County, uh, Councilman. Saxon, all of a sudden between Walmart, the neighborhood Walmart or the small Walmart, whatever you want to call it, all the way up to expert car care are developing what seems to be like, uh, sinkholes. And there are now several patches all the way down. So, um, the County is looking into if we should be concerned with a major sinkhole developing in that area because the patches are so close to each other. So, as soon as I have a report, I will make sure I send it to, uh, our city, uh, city manager so he can divulge it to the rest of this commission on Saxon between that Walmart all the way down to expert car care. There, there's literally like five patches, expert car care, where we took, where we took out the gas station. Huh? Air land? Now, there's some closer to our districts. Yes. If you drive down, um, like, the Fruitland area. Near Fruitland? Yes. You'll see that they have some metal plates over the road. And so I sent that to David Santiago as well, asking him to please look into it because it almost looks like it's in the areas near some stormwater drains. So I don't know if that might be playing into it. Uh, can I add one? Sorry, it just jogged my memory. Now? Go ahead. Um, we need to ask the county about potentially cleaning out the stormwater on Saxon. We have a lot of issues, and Sonia has told me that that's not under our purview, so we can't clean them. There's a lot that are filled with debris and dirt. Sorry. That's all I get for cutting Davidson off, so. Your debt hasn't been paid. Um, no, but I want to make sure this commission knew about it. I think it's important we're a team, so we've got to work together on this stuff, and everybody needs to be informed. Um, Doc, can we get an update, like, on the road work we're doing? Um, I wasn't very fond of a certain city manager, but he did, he did give us a list of all the roads that are being repaved. That, that, that is, that is such a, a crucial thing because it gives us the opportunity to, to see, you know, our, our, what our staff is doing, and it gives the residents an idea of, of some of the things we're doing. Um, I have not received. Yeah, I haven't received. Yeah. Um, I do have two things that I would like to request consensus on. TPO is such an important thing, and I would love for us to have at least a subject at one of, it doesn't have to be the next commission meeting, but sometime soon within the next four commission meetings, where we can actually have a discussion where we are able to, with our TPO rep, to possibly discuss, you know, some of the things that this commission would like to, to see, get, kind of, push quicker about the whole Rhode Island extension. Um, I think that'll help him. Obviously, with the letter, it will help as well, but, um, all of us giving that, that direction, and if something else needs to happen, I think, you know, and then it gives Commissioner Lully the ability of giving us a, a very detailed report on what's going on and how we can help him be a better advocate, you know, not that you're not, but be a better advocate or more effective advocate for our city as far as TPO, right? So, if I can get consensus from the dais on that, I think would be great. So, um, those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? Okay. Uh, the last thing is, you know, in, in the spirit of transparency, I've heard many times, I mean, there's a letter on here, um, that, you know, commissioners, former commissioners are meeting with lobbyists and all sorts of things. I would like for us, uh, to look into, and this is not something new, there's many cities that do this, some type of lobbyist registration where, um, you know, anybody that, that's going to be talking to us, we should all know us, you know, who, who, who's talking to us, who, who we're talking to. Uh, I know we disclose it in ex parte, but in the spirit of transparency, it stops the notion that anybody is doing something nefarious. Um, like I said, other cities have it, so I am asking for consensus for us to build a, uh, lobbyist registration, um, with some suggestions from the city attorney, um, at the next possible commission meeting, um, to help the city just keep transparency, make sure that everybody's aware, and it avoids the conspiracies going on, that current commissioners and former ones are doing things we shouldn't be doing, so. Mayor, if I may, are you asking for us to bring a draft ordinance? Yes. That establishes a lobbyist registration process? Yes. Based on other cities? Correct. Comparable? Correct. Okay, thank you. Can I make a request, Mayor? And, and this is something we've done a lot. We, we often have requests from the dais for, for ordinances and whatnot. Can I, I ask that we, that the request or consensus be to, to ask staff to present options to us at the next commission meeting or reasonable commission meeting, rather than just jump into drafting an ordinance. I would, I would like to see, I, cause I know that there are many other local government agencies that have, uh, some sort of lobbyist registration, but it's, it's, takes the form, there's many different forms that it takes. I, I, I would only say, let's get them to bring us an ordinance and then we can make amendments to it because, um, I think it's important that this gets done so the city is in a position where we can, again, stop all the conspiracy stuff. We get to move forward. Uh, I have no issues with, when they come, they make amendments, maybe we present a couple options and then based out of that, I mean. We, we could draft the ordinance, um, and advertise for first reading and if the amendments are minor and not substantive, move forward to second reading. And then if they are substantive, we'll re-advertise for a note first reading for the revised ordinance. That's fine. I mean, we're, we're happy to work with the clerk and the manager's office to do that. Is that good for you? And if I may, just real quick, I think that's a great idea because I've, I've heard all the time about, you know, lobbying and all that. So you would be for that, huh? I definitely would be for that. I think it's a great idea. Thank you for bringing it up. All right. I think it's a great idea. I'm very supportive of, of an ordinance. I just, uh, I feel like we're going to, we're wasting time. I would rather see what the different options for, for that, but that's fine. What, uh, whatever the will of the commission is. Can we do? Go ahead. So what are we trying to accomplish with that? Seriously, what are we trying to accomplish? Move our city forward, uh, make sure we have clear transparency. We can all see who we're all talking to essentially. If there's somebody lobbying in us, um, it's typical of major cities and even smaller cities have, uh, these types of ordinances. But you're not trying to restrict anybody. No. From, you know, trying to go to speak to our lobbyists or anything like that. That's not what it is. That's not a restriction for us. Exactly. No, I know that. But to me, it sounds, that's what it sounded like to me. Like to come up with an ordinance, like what we can do and cannot do. Oh, no. No. There would also be a registration fee, correct? So it would be revenue stream coming into the city. Okay. If you can do a verbal vote. Or you want to do, all in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay. We have consensus. This time the meeting is adjourned.