City Commission Workshop on 2026-09-28 5:30 PM - Joint Meeting with P&Z Board - Sep 28, 2026

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay, everyone. Sorry for the little confusion here, but we are going to now start the joint meeting with the PNZ board. Can we have the call to order, please? Roll call. Commissioner Caldwell. Commissioner Harriot. Here. Commissioner Howington. Commissioner Novick. Here. Commissioner Santiago. Got to hit the right button. Yeah. It's on the wrong button. Vice Mayor of Villa-Vasquez. Present. And Mayor of Villa. And then Jess will do the roll call for the PNZ. Member Blodgett. Member Northey. Member Stewart. Here. Member Warnicke. Secretary Amoroso. Vice Chair Diarico. Here. And Chair Cardo. Present. Okay, we're all good. Can we all please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? Okay. We're going to go to the discussion items. The Joint Workshop City Commission and Planning and Zoning Board Comprehensive Plan Amendment Workshop 7. So this is my first time running a PNZ joint meeting. So I'm just going to hand it over to you guys. Good evening, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, and members of the Planning and Zoning Board. So tonight is Joint Workshop No. 7. Tonight we will talk about the goals and objections and policies for the future land use element, housing element, and the housing. And the purpose of tonight's workshop is to review the proposed guidelines, receive feedback and direction, and identify any final changes that need to be incorporated. And with that, I'll turn it over to Kathy and Jason. Thank you. Sure. Member Pat Northey. I just have a couple specific questions. This is 85 pages long. Is it the intent that we get through this tonight, the 85 pages? Just because I got halfway through, and I have a lot of questions. The goal is to try to get through it tonight. I was afraid you were going to say that. So any questions you do have, we can provide to the consultant. You will be seeing this again for when it goes for transmittal. So it's going for transmittal to the PNZ in November. November? November, and to the City Commission for transmittal in December. And is there any, because it is so comprehensive, I mean, it is practically a rewrite of the comp plan. Is this going to be, is there going to be any kind of public hearing other than the PNZ and the, excuse me, commission? There will just be public hearing for PNZ and commission for the transmittal. And then when it comes back from the state, there will be an adoption hearing, which will be another public hearing. Okay, and finally, did I, did I understand this correctly, that there is some sections that are total rewrites? I mean, it's all new language, and there's, like I think, in section two? So in the future land use, and the consultants will go over this, a lot of it is from the mixed use portions. Okay. The housing pretty much stayed the same, transportation, so I'll turn it over to the consultants, and they can go over the changes. And when you do your discussion, could you please define ECHO Center for me throughout this book? Yeah, well, that'll be, I'm going to highlight that early. Okay, thank you. I also have a question. Do you want, if somebody has a question in the middle of a presentation, or would you like them to wait until the presentation is completed? I'll leave that up to you, Vice Mayor. Yeah, so during, so we're going to try to keep this the same format as we did last time, which we'll introduce on the screen objectives, related goals, objectives, and then a list of the policies. We're not going to read all of that because of the time constraints. We're hoping that you have some comments and notes. If there's a policy that jumps out at you in a certain grouping that you have concerns about or comments about, then we can discuss those. If there isn't, then we'll just roll through. That's kind of the format we were doing. And we're trying to do that in a quicker way by us not reading everything also. But we definitely want to slow down if you have questions and comments about it. Yes, and there are certain sections. So what you have, I'll jump to that part. What you have in front of you in your packet does include a lot of the mixed-use language in the future land use element. We just put it in there so you could see the layout and the format. That was all language that was presented at the previous workshops and incorporated comments that you guys had all provided before. So, but I'll start, take a step back if that's okay. Thank you for having us, Kathy. I always say this, but we really do enjoy coming here, and I think your questions show how much you guys care about this process and are invested in it. So we do really appreciate that. So, again, it's just the same group that you've had for the last couple years. We're here to go through these. We are in community workshop seven. We're getting towards the end. November is right around the corner here, but we want to make sure we're taking forward a plan that you're pretty happy about. Just to recap real quick, I'll go through that. So the first thing I'm going to recap is the next three slides are basically some of the comments that came out of the last workshop. A checkmark essentially represents we think we've addressed it internally with some policy on the previous elements. The box is we're going to work a little bit closer with staff to fine-tune it, and then there's a couple that are in red that we haven't finalized addressed yet, but know that we are working with staff to do that. So just as a recap, again, there's a couple in red that we're working through some language. It's not done yet. We will work with staff to finalize that and get final direction on those items. And then this is the other page of comments that we got. So a lot of it's add this language, tweak that. That's what we did based on the last workshop, some of those comments that we had. So for today, we can skip over these. These are all of your guiding principles, just as a reminder. So today we're talking about the three elements that Jordan mentioned and the goals, objectives, and policies for those. And again, all those work together. You'll have a goal. You have multiple objectives within that goal. Then you have multiple policies within each of those objectives. And your future land use element does incorporate a lot of the underline that you see in the beginning of that is the mixed-use centers, language that was already addressed. The future land use element needed to be rearranged a little bit to get it to flow in a manner that made more sense than what you were doing with the mixed-use centers. There was also some text that was in the front of your future land use element that did not have any goals, objectives, or policies assigned to it. It was just text. And so some of that you may see as an underline of being moved and being added as a policy or an objective to make it formally part of that GOP format. So some of it isn't really new. It's just being moved in policy where it is an example, a number being added. So Osteen local plan is in there. We've left that alone. There's a couple sections that you will see very minimal changes to, and that was the direction that you had. So that's it for as far as the format. Does anybody have any questions about that? Because it's going to look very similar to the previous approaches that we had. Any questions on that? And so I'll turn it over to Kathy to cover the future land use element. So in the future land use element, sorry, there we go, we have five goals, sustainable growth, mixed-use centers, corridors, Deltona Activity Center, which we have already reviewed. We reviewed those back over the summer. The traditional future land use categories, the Osteen local plan, and the development agreements. So goal one is about sustainable growth. It is a goal you had previously. We just modified the language. And under that goal, we had Objective 1.1, which is coordinated growth in public facilities and services, and these are the policies related to those. Are there any questions related to this set of policies? For the most part, this set of policies is revised, not rewritten. There's a couple of policies that were deleted and one policy that was rewritten, but most of it is just edits. Thank you. I have a couple questions. And one of them is on a policy that we have not changed, but I was wondering what we do to meet the requirements of this policy. And it's Protection of Historic and Archaeological Resources and Public Awareness of Local History. And we use the word shall in there. Shall protect significant historic and archaeological – I can't speak. Archaeological – page 12. I'm on page 12. 12? 12, yeah. That's 17. Yeah. 1.5. I think you are in a – you aren't in this section. Can we wait? Okay. I thought we were doing one. I thought that's what you said. We're doing 1.1 to 1.8, the ones that are on the screen. Okay. Okay. It starts on page 4. It starts on page 4, and it goes to page 6. Then my notes are – my notes are for page 12. So for our record keeping, if you have a policy, you want to say 1.8, 1.12, 2-point, whatever, that would help us keep better notes for you, if we can, just to help keep it moving along. And also for your fellow colleagues, if you can identify which policy number or objective or goal you're talking about so they know. So are there any comments in these eight policies? Again, it's page 4 to 8 of your packet. All right. And we'll go to the next section, which is the next objection, which deals with efficient and coordinated development plans. There's two policies, and they are on page 7. Are there any questions about these two policies? The next objective is court – oh, yes. Sorry. Do we have any extra handouts, any extra copies of the handout? Thank you. Is everybody all set? Are we good? Are we good? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. So are there any questions on page 7, objective 1.2? No. The next – I've got one. Yes, sir. On 1.2, higher-density housing in strategic locations, how does the city determine whether or not existing infrastructure can support that higher density? And I know typically it's looked at on an individual case-by-case basis or independently, but what metrics are we looking at or how are we evaluating the strain on infrastructure? With a cumulative impact, adding all those different things, I'm just curious as to what that looks like and how we determine what that impact will be. So, I mean, generally, I think the staff probably has a process, too, but if somebody was trying to apply for an amendment to a high-density housing category or was proposing a PD or something like that, with high-density, you would evaluate the capacity of the infrastructure, timing of its availability, right? So water and sewer is an example, is a wastewater treatment plant, is there capacity available for it in the future? Because you should be keeping track of not just what the daily flows are, what the commitments are, and how much capacity is going to be used, projected as you go, right? Sometimes it's on paper. Sometimes it's real world. But you've got to combine all of those to decide if there's sufficient capacity. And line size plays a role in that, too. That's really the process, in theory, that you would do to just make those decisions. It doesn't necessarily have to be there that day, but that's where the concurrency part comes later on where, yes, but we're planning to build an expansion to a plant or we're planning to upsize a line or we're planning to – and then maybe the project can move forward with plans and site plans and that sort of thing. Any other questions? Yes, I have Commissioner Howington. Thank you. So what exactly is a missing middle housing since we had a survey done and we are not lacking in housing options in the city of Deltona? So it's not whether or not you're missing housing as a whole, but whether or not you're missing types of housing. Predominantly, when we did your vision plan and we did the analysis of your housing stock, your housing stock is single-family, low-density, single-family, quarter-acre, predominantly lots. So there is actually different types of housing that are missing. And, in fact, in order to – as we've talked about, when we get to the mixed-use components where we increase the density, the reason we're increasing the density is because in order to effectively develop mixed-use areas, you really need to have a higher density of housing units in those areas. So the missing middle is the types of housing that would allow for things other than a single-family dwelling unit. So is that where the nine-floor buildings come in? It's where your multifamily units come in, yes. Did we ever expand to look at if that was safe from a fire perspective because we don't have fire trucks that can handle nine-story buildings? I have concerns about when we put people living in the middle of floods and we put people living in housing that can't be sustained by our safety. So just because I know this comment has been out there for a little while, I will let you know that we have revisited the nine-story, and it was only in one of the center areas. It was in the uptown center area. We've revisited that area, and what we're proposing to do with staff agreeance is that we're going to do six stories by right, which is the same as the community centers would have allowed for, and then there would be allowance for an additional three stories by performance density standards, and some of those standards may have to do with fire safety and other issues that deal with that. But again, allowing for that increase of density, if you don't increase the density in your mixed-use centers, your mixed-use centers will not work. Mixed-use centers are really dependent on a higher level of density where people live, working, and playing, and single-family residential by itself will not sustain a mixed-use area. Bless you. Thank you. Commissioner Nabe? Yeah, once you get past a three-story building from a fire safety standpoint, you're not looking at apparatus being able to reach over three stories because of the angle of the ladder and the setback that you have to create. So a 110-foot aerial is going to reach the top of a three-story building. That's it. Beyond that, you're dealing with systems. So you put a fire sprinkler system in. You put early detection systems in. You create areas of refuge within the building. The code provides for multi-story protection for life safety and for the protection of the building itself through systems, not through apparatus that's on the ground. There's just not a piece of equipment that reaches a 10-story rooftop. So three stories and above is really just dealt with with systems. Okay? Jordan? Vice Mayor, I'd just like to clarify that. Once again, these are just policies, and we'll be looking at all these things when we do the land development code update, and we'll be working with the fire department and putting these codes in place. So if we decide later on to have a six-story building, those regulations will be in place. And we'll also have to work with cap and improvement to make sure we have the proper apparatus and equipment as well. So it'll still have to, sorry, it still has to go by city policies and regulations? Correct. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I have additional questions when we get to the whole six-story, nine-story mixed use. Do you want me to wait until we get to that section? Okay. I was only, because it was. I just didn't want to. Yep. I didn't want to miss my window. No, you definitely have not missed your window. It's yet to come. I think there, was there any other questions? Not on my, okay. I guess somebody else has any other questions. All right. The next objective is coordinated public facilities and services. This is objective 1.3 in the associated policies. They're on page 7 and 8. And for the most part, these are edited policies. Any comments? The next section is 1.4. This deals with natural resources. It's on page 9. No comments. This section, objective 5, deals with protection of natural, archaeological, and historic resources. I believe there's at least one question in this section. And these are on page 9, 10, and 11. Ms. Northe, is this where you had a question? Commissioner Harriot? On the 1-4.3, protection of environmentally sensitive lands or sensitive areas, where is that defined? And who makes that decision in terms of what is considered to be environmentally sensitive? And who, if I'm assuming there is a definition somewhere, who makes the decision that it meets that criteria? The environmentally sensitive areas are defined in your conservation element, and they are defined by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Is there any, do we have any leeway outside of the state statutes that allow us to tailor that to our community? So, you can, working with SWIFT MUD and with the DEP, you can, a local government. I can expand on where I'm getting at. Yeah, because according to Senate Bill 180. I understand. That limits your ability to tailor what the state, what the state, how the state defines things. And if I, if I remember correctly, as long as we don't get a hurricane within the next year and a half, or a declared disaster, we should be out of that umbrella for a little bit at least. So, Senate Bill 180 is set to expire in October of 2027, so just about a year from now, unless. We get something. Well, unless we get something, or unless something changes in the coming legislative cycle. Understand. Under the current legislative language, it is set to expire in October of 2027. Okay. The, where I'm getting at, though, is that here, specifically in Daltona, we, while we do have some wetland areas, our predominantly sensitive ecosystem is the upland. Mm-hmm. And that happens to also be some of the best, most buildable land. Cool. So, the state's done an okay job of protecting wetlands, but we haven't, we don't see any protections for uplands. Is there, how do we, is there a way to address that in the comp plan? Currently, I think that, so what, what the way that we have sought to deal with these issues is to allow for the Land Development Code to further define things. And the Land Development Code, which, as we've talked about subsequently, will be developed by the city subsequent to this effort. The Land Development Code is also, is, is also subject to Senate Bill 180, but when you, by the time, so we actually talked to staff about this today, we're estimating a time frame to start the Land Development Code would be. Kind of overlapping that same time that SB 180 may expire. Exactly. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah, because we would, we'd be looking at, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Smith, but we'd be looking at a winter, an early winter start to the Land Development Code, and the Land Development Code will take a year to a year and a half to, to finish an update. So, that time frame should be able to pass. Okay. I'd like to keep that on the front burner, so that if we do get an opportunity to amend our code, if, if SB 180 does lapse, we can jump on that and make those amendments, if there is a gap. Okay. Thank you. And I just want to jump in and give you an example of how you would do that. You know, your policy to protect those areas, but then your Land Development Code can specify what types, upland habitats, certain types of, you know, birds or whatever it might be, and you can incentivize those. You can do other, there's other tools that you can use through that code to encourage, ensure, and then also ultimately protect. And that may be an opportunity with some of those density bonuses. Correct. That if somebody is willing to set aside land for conservation and put a perpetual conservation easement over it, then they could be eligible for some of these bonuses, correct? Correct. Correct. And we've even seen drafted language, personally, that had first one in, has to find and pick that area they're preserving. Everybody else, all the development that happens around it, then adds to that, so then you get a larger track, right, that ends up being preserving, and everybody benefits from the same incentive. Okay. So, yeah. Thank you. Are there any other questions about Objective 1.4 or 1.5? De'Arco? Thank you. 1.5, 1.5.6, top of page 11, we're talking about if we're developing within a floodplain, et cetera, et cetera, to minimize the disturbance. Who defines what minimizing is? I'm sorry, Tara. You said 1.5? Yes, ma'am. 1.6. 1.5.6. Page 11, because I have it on page 10. Well, it starts on the bottom of page 10, but the new language is on the top of page 11. On the top of page 11? So where we say minimize the disturbance? So, again, this goes with the comments that we just made about the previous policy. This would be something that we would further define in your land development code. Thank you. And remember, so just remember, like, and when I think about the future land use and the zoning code, I think about a funnel. The future land use are the broad policies that set the stage for then the implementation by standards and regulatory tools in your zoning code and land development code. You good, Tom? Yes, thank you. Member Northey? Thank you. This is specific to a policy that has not changed, but I thought maybe you could answer the questions. Policy 1.5.11, Protection of Historic and Archaeology Resources, and then also 12, the city, it's on page 12, the city of Daltona shall promote public awareness and appreciation for local history and resources. Jordan, could you tell me what we do now? Because it just says we're going to do that. It doesn't say how we do that. Could you identify for me how we do that, how we identify that, and how we actually promote public awareness? Because I've never seen us do that. And I don't know that we have that much historic anyway, but we do have some. It's a historic cemetery. There's a few other things here. Member Northey, I would have to get back to you on exactly what the city does, but the city does have materials and records, so that's one way we preserve it. And then we also try to promote the history of the city of Daltona as well through material that goes out to the residents as well. Okay. But I can get you more information about that as well. And so planning process, what identifies historic? What year? How many years does something have to be that old before it's considered historic? So it's actually interesting. We've had these conversations with staff about this. Deltona is actually just starting to get into the historic nature. It's 50 years. And at the beginning of Deltona Lakes, some of your- So it would go back to the original PUD, not when we became a city and incorporated. That's right. Okay. And there are some areas that we have identified in the Deltona Lakes original corridors that both from a planning. So there are different things that are looked at for historic preservation, not only the building and the building development, but also the planning, the master plan component. So there are areas that we have identified that could be identified for the historic registry. And there are some resources that are available to the city to do a historic resources survey. I know that one of Florida's most well-known historic preservation planners is someone who is a colleague that used to work with Mr. Smith and Mr. West. And the four of us have had conversations about a historic survey and what that would do for Deltona. So there are certainly opportunities. Again, if you think about the comprehensive plan as a strategic document that provides the foundation for future efforts to come in place, a historic survey, especially of those original Deltona Lakes areas, may be an opportunity for the community to recognize its history because every place has a history. And certainly Deltona and Deltona Lakes is historic, not only for the community, but for Florida. It was one of the original, it was one of the original platted lats communities. So there is, there is a history here and it is something we have talked about in relationship to future implementation of the plan. Thank you. I just have a question. When you said that you have identified some of these historical information, do you have a paper or something you can share with us at the next meeting? I actually, we did do some mapping of some of the resources along that corridor. We didn't, I mean, because it wasn't part of our contract. We did this just as an exercise to see what might be available. So I, I, we have some very minimal information that our team has put together, but it isn't a report or a sort of study, but there are some maps that we did. Yeah, we would like to see, I mean, I would like to see that. Okay. Thank you. We can certainly provide them. Thank you. Commissioner Harriet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to just real quick make a note, not for necessarily discussion, since I think the answer is going to just be that it falls under SB 180, but I'd like to make a note that if we have the opportunity to adjust, I'd like to look at 1-5.6 again, where we, the language talks about development within a floodplain that cannot avoid a floodplain or other flood hazard area shall minimize the disturbance of natural floodplain functions. I'd like to strengthen that if we can so that we've had a couple developments, one specifically that was voted down two years ago at the back of Fernanda Place, Phase 3, where their plan for the floodplain was to isolate the development from the floodplain and put in a pond, and that doesn't function. I mean, it doesn't take an engineer to tell you that that doesn't function the same as a connected floodplain. So I'd like to strengthen that if we get the opportunity here in October. Next year. Next year. Next October. Thank you. We're good. Anything else on Objectives 1-4 or 1-5? No one else. The next Objectives is 1-6, and it starts on page 12 and goes to page 13. And this Objective deals with innovative and resource-conserving development regulations. Yes, Mayor. Member Northey. Thank you. Policy 1-6.2 has been completely eliminated with no other language. So I'm wondering what that means by eliminating, because it talks about shall be considered protected, the land area deemed to be environmentally sensitive. So how do we now do that if we have eliminated that? So that policy was merged with the old 1-6-3 to create the conservation-oriented development clustering policy. Okay. Thank you. Is there any way when we do the clustering or allow for the clustering, is there something other than it just being written into the development order that would solidify the surrounding area as conservation? And what I'm thinking of is, you know, is a land put under a conservation easement or something to that effect that's more permanent? Do you want to take that? Yeah. So there's a lot of tools that you can use. Conservation easement gets pretty open-ended, actually, if you read the definition of conservation lands, surprisingly, under state law, like logging, right? But, yes, there's lots of tools you can do. Plugging the tool for conservation, though. Right. Most, right. Most, depends on what you want, the intent of what you're trying to protect, right? And so your tools through the land development code, most of communities that have that will try to implement some type of restriction so that they're not coming back and filling it in and then developing it later on, 20 years from now, when we forgot about that it was supposed to be protected. Exactly. Yes. There's tools that in forever. Is there any way that we could change this language to specify that that land must stay conservation when it's done for clustering purposes? I would say no because of the challenges we have, but it's at minimum maybe there's a policy to be added or strengthened on this that talks about evaluate tools to ensure that lands that are conserved are done in perpetuity. Well, if we're going to encourage them to be flexible with site design techniques and concentrate development within suitable areas, then we have the ability to say yes or no to that, that plan. And if, if we're, if we're not going to say, if we're going to say yes to giving them more, then we should also be able to say yes to the land around it is, has to be held into perpetuity and never developed. Yeah. The challenge is that that language, there's so many different ways you can do that that are going to be unique depending on the site and the resource that you're trying to preserve or protect that it's hard to do that in a policy specifically, right? We're going to do it this way because there's 10 or different ways you could do it. And I understand that, but can we include in here that it must be preserved into perpetuity by some mechanism that can be established in the future? Yeah. And that's what I think that's what I was trying to say is yes. I think directing that you shall evaluate in your code, establish a list of procedures, a list of opportunities, a list of ways to do that. Pick one. And coming up with some, and then your staff and your attorney and whoever being able to have that input to say this is, or is not the correct way to do that. Absolutely. I absolutely think that's, that's yes. That's why I'm saying maybe there's a policy that directs us to evaluate that and consider that as part of the land development code. Understand. Thank you. So if the question about policy 162 was raised earlier, the best way maybe just to reestablish that policy as written, because if it's as written, if that policy is stated as written, then it is not one six one one 80 says you can't create anything new. That's more restrictive, but it doesn't say you can't keep it. Yeah. I mean, I, I, my sense is you'd like to go further than that, but at least that, but it, but it at least brings back the idea that somehow it is, it's going, those lines would be preserved. Preserved. Yeah, absolutely. That'd be great. Thank you. Any other questions on one six? We're good. One seven. Back on one six. Oh yes. You take a look at one six points. What is it? Five one six point point six safe and walkable community design. Mm-hmm. Down at the bottom where it talks about supporting walkability, accessibility, visibility, and high quality public realm. Can you add the phrase ADA accessibility just before the word accessibility? Yes. Would that preclude any other types of accessibility if we're just focused on requiring ADA accessibility? It should be all inclusive by its very definition. Yeah. Let's look at it. I mean, because some of that is really directing whether it's visibility triangles or connections, it's intended for all, but we can, we can work that some of the language in there to ensure the ADA stuff. I just, I just don't want to preclude any other type. It becomes, right. It becomes the one thing instead of. Very specific to ADA only. I got you. Yeah. We'll work on that. Accessibility excludes the ADA. ADA includes accessibility. Just for clarification. Thank you for that. Anything else in one six? The next one then is one seven. This is balanced land use compatibility and redevelopment. Yeah. This is a lot of existing policies that have been amended. Are there any questions in this section? Yes, Ms. Martin. I have a question on the manufactured housing in residential districts. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Dorby, can you turn off your mic? That's policy 179. Yeah. On page 16. Page 16. Yeah. What is considered, shall be permitted inappropriate residential districts? What is designed? That's right. This, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is based on recent legislation that was just passed. Okay. Yeah. So this is a required, this is a required element. Required? Okay. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. This is a, this is a required policy by Florida statute. I thought maybe that was it. Thank you. Any other questions in one seven? Seeing none. The next one is one eight, and this deals with housing choices. This is on starts on page 18 and continues on page 19. Are there any questions on this section? I have a question. This might be for city staff as opposed to yourself. On the accessory dwelling units, one eight dash six on page 19. I noticed that we've been allowing some accessories structures in the city already metal buildings and such as, are we required to put an approach to those buildings? Um, I noticed a lot of them are using those garages and things. You're talking about a driveway approach? A driveway, correct. It depends what the access, it depends what the structure is used for. Um, if it's a garage, it would require, um, proper approach. It depends on how they apply then. Correct. If they apply it as a, just a storage shed and it's got a four car garage in it, then we don't require them to put a driveway in. They are required to have proper access to the, the structure. Um, so we do look at that when we look at the survey. Is that something else? Yeah. I think just to add, I think what Mr. Smith's getting at is the requirement is different for if it's some, if it's something like a garage or a shed where vehicles will be stored in access from the street versus something like, uh, you know, like a, your mother-in-law's quarters or something like that, where it may be a separate structure, structure, but the access is pedestrian. Right. Well, I mean, I have one in particular that I'm talking about. And in my district where there was a two car garage, put it back with a carport off the side and they're parking boats, campers and everything in there. And they're driving across the sidewalks with no approach. So how are we allowing this to happen? Is there any way to control that through this? So that is all covered in the land of Elma code. And we can get with you afterwards and take a closer look at that. All right. Thank you. Are there any other questions? So I have commission on topic. Thank you, vice mayor. In one dash eight point four at the bottom of page 18. Do we, or should we include in that list the recovery houses? Yes, we can include those. Thank you. Anything else in this in one eight? Good to go. Thank you. In one, one nine, we are dealing with contact sensitive land uses. This starts on page 19 and continues through page 20. 24. Most of this is existing, but edited. Yeah. I have a question. Member Northey. On page 24, we have added, I guess this is a definition of green building. And that is new. I know that some years ago, the charter review committee for the city tried to get a, to put this out on the, on the ballot for consideration. This says shall promote consideration and where appropriate in corporation. So who gets, I mean, I know staff gets to make that, that decision. I would guess, but what, what defines appropriate and what defines consideration? And that would be in your land development code. Remember this is, this is setting policy that would then allow the land development code to, to refine and identify what the standards and benchmarks for that would be. Commissioner Colwell. Just thinking ahead a little bit. Will we, will we be incorporating that in our land development code as a requirement? These are all things that when we do the land development code update, we will be considering bringing this all. Yes. As long as it does not conflict with Senate bill 180. Correct. But that's hopefully that'll sunset in 27. Right. And we'll be doing this for about a year, year and a half. So thank you. And one legislative cycle. There's always another legislative cycle. We have one of each. We're good. Okay. The next objective is 110 compatible public institutional and recreational uses. This starts on page 24 and consider it continues to page 26. Most of these policies once again have been edited, but are existing. I just have really one quick question about data centers. I don't see anything in here about data centers. So is there anything in policy in the comprehensive plan that addresses data centers? Because that's the word of the day. So the scope of this, the scope of this consultant has not provided for data center amendments within your comprehensive plan. There is a current moratorium or there's, we're in the process of enacting a moratorium and there's no data center that is a permitted use under your current land development code or comprehensive plan. So as we look at that through the course of the moratorium, once enacted, we may do a secondary amendment to the comprehensive plan or incorporate that into the land development code as appropriate. which way would better protect the residents in the comprehensive plan or through the land development code? So the right. So your comprehensive plan is a broad is broad policy. And we have dealt fairly recently with another local government that was interested in providing for regulations of data centers and actually opted rather than providing for specific regulation or specific land use where data centers could potentially be permitted and regulated within their comprehensive plan. actually opted not to do that at this time and decided to leave that for their land development code and utilize the other comprehensive plan language that they have related to compatibility of uses, what's appropriate in an industrial or commercial area and their conservation elements to form the basis of their comprehensive plan. And by not putting it in a comprehensive plan, it leaves it open to change through the land development code. It's easier to change it through the land development code to allow them at that point. So your comprehensive plan is able to be amended in much the same way as your land development regulations. It's an ordinance on two readings. The comprehensive plan does have to be transmitted to the state of Florida in between first and second readings. And certainly if it's the direction of the commission that you want us to look at amending the comprehensive plan to account for this, we can get with the consultant. I think we should definitely look into it. I think we're better off in addressing it ourselves and including it in the plan, because if it's not there, another entity, a court will decide what will be done with it rather than us. So if we include it in the plan, the comp plan, and then we address those regulations through the land development code, we're probably less likely to have a challenge that will be decided by somebody other than us. Commissioner Hurriott. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And just to expound on that point of the courts, we all know that if the courts decide that somebody can do something, then they're going to let them do a lot more than we had the opportunity to negotiate, and we're going to have to pay for them. But I'd like to look at 1-10.3. The original language, they both use the term may, but it seems like in the original language, jurisdictional wetlands, floodplains, public well fields, and primary wellhead protection zones and habitat management areas were a little bit more protected in the sense that they weren't, there was a little bit more meat on the bones to keep them out of the density calculations. Is there anything that we could change? Would it be out of turn for us to change the may to the shall in the updated language? So do you just want to do that, or do you want to reestablish your existing language? If we could change the may to a shall, that would be more concrete for me. Okay. We certainly can take a look at it. Fantastic. Thank you. Regarding the data center, the data, I know it was raised in this section, but it really would belong in 1-9, the non-residential developments, so we can look at that section. A data center would not be a public entity. It would likely be a private. You good? Member Cordrea? Yeah, I'd like to look at page number 25, the land use chart. Item number 3 says government and administrative buildings are allowed in all future land use categories except for conservation. I'd like to recommend that we change that language to mirror what we have in number 10 under cemeteries, to also include residential low, medium, and high density as an exclusion. That makes a lot of sense. So recognize that government and administrative buildings also include school facilities, which are usually considered, especially an elementary school, is usually considered appropriate for residential uses. I'm not giving my recommendation one way or the other, but that is why we did not include the residential, because government and administrative buildings include school facilities. So we have schools and residential zoning classifications? Thank you. Oh, yeah. Yes, thank you. Commissioner, Harriet? To build on that same point, though, land use number one is for public, private, charter schools, and educational facilities specifically. If it's already pulled out and identified separately, if we could just take a look at that and see if that works. It's 1-3. Any other? Go ahead. The next one, the next section is the goal that we have already discussed, but I know that there are questions about. This is the mixed-use goal. It is all new language. We have reviewed it at a previous workshop, but I understand there are additional questions. Member Northey? Thank you. I'm on page 27, and it's growth framework, and it defines the framework that directs development, redevelopment, and public investment to uptown, designated mixed-use centers and corridors, Deltona Activities Eco-Centers. What are – does that include land and preserve? It is, Tom. Is that an eco-center? So you asked that question earlier. You told me we'll talk about it later, too. Eco-mixed-use centers are going to – and that's language I left behind. That category is going to be removed. There's too much confusion over what it was doing, and if you remember the previous conversation during the mixed-use topics was there's some density related to it because there's a couple areas – I think ultimately there's multiple areas designated with it that weren't the same. They weren't all about environmental and such. So just to simplify it, we're going to remove that category. And there's conservation that will apply to conservation lands, and there's other categories that will apply to those other lands that were subject to that before. So we'll remove that reference from all the policy. Member Tara. Thank you. All right. So circling – oh, sorry. Circling back to contemplating the nine story, which I heard earlier now at six, potentially with a three for – with additional conversation. I'm just going to just say I'm not even comfortable with that. Me – and I know a lot of residents are not comfortable with that either, so if we could just really make sure that we're looking at that. I also – I mean, I hear what we're saying about if we want to have commercial activity centers, there needs to be the residential component around it to support that. But we are a city of 100,000 residents. I feel like we already have the residential component to support commercial centers. The ones that we have that really fit the needs that the residents want, they're packed. They're crowded. And people don't have a problem driving a little bit to get there. So I would just – I would just ask that we just take another look at that. I also want to just ask, when we say mixed use, what are we talking about? Like what's the ratio of commercial versus residential? And not sure if that comes later under the land use. No. So each one of these land use categories, as we described earlier, and this starts on page 32 and then goes through page 36. Each category is defined with its variety of uses. These mixed use areas are intended to provide – once again, and this was established in your visioning exercises. These areas, and they have been specifically identified on the new future land use map, are more in line with a walkable mixed-use downtown area or a walkable Main Street area, similar to a Mount Dora or a Deland or a Stanford. It's short blocks. It is on-street parking. It's building to the street. These are different than your current shopping plazas. We recognize that you have your current shopping plazas, and they meet the demands – they meet some of your demands. But the reason that we are bringing forward these land use categories in these targeted areas were that, one, we identify these as areas that could be redeveloped. Two, we recognize that you don't have a lot of – Filtona does not have a lot of land to provide additional commercial areas, and therefore we need to maximize the space of the land of the areas that you have. And a suburban strip plaza type development isn't going to maximize those lands because they allow for a lot of land to be used in non-revenue generating facilities. So these are specifically targeted areas. These are a different development pattern than anything that exists here in Deltona today. And they are in specific locations, and they start at the highest of the uptown area, and then they go through the community mixed-use areas, the community mixed-use corridors, the neighborhood mixed-use center, the neighborhood mixed – or the Main Street mixed-use corridor, the activity – the Deltona activity center, and those are the mixed-use land use categories. Each one of them has different mix – allowable land uses. Each one of them has different density standard. Each one of them has a different height standard. So this is not a one-size-fits-all approach. We certainly looked at the surrounding land uses in the area. We looked at if you are going to have one uptown – I like – I think about it as your community center, your true community hub, your downtown area, your central location. It is the largest of the areas. It also has the highest density and the highest height. And the height, again, was established by existing buildings and existing allowances of properties in that area, specifically the hospital. And then it goes – so in that one, which is your uptown center that is on page 32 and the top of page 33, the land uses allowed are established there. It has a density of 65 units an acre, which is the highest of any of them. But remember that 65 units an acre is not a property-by-property standard. It is an area-wide standard. So your total area on the mixed-use – on your land use category in this area would be 65 units. Some properties may have less. Some properties could have more. But the overall average is 65 units an acre. This is the one that we have changed because we understood the concerns about the nine stories. So by right, it would be – we're proposing it would be six stories with a bonus height up to nine stories. Again, the nine stories is compatible with the existing land use – of existing standards within that area. And then the next one down is your community mixed-use center and mixed-community mixed-use corridors. They both have a maximum density of 40 units an acre. The corridor allows up to six stories. The center allows up to five stories. And then you go to the neighborhood mixed-use center and the Main Street corridor. Both of these allow for a density of 25 units an acre and three stories. And then your Deltona activity center, this is more meant for an intensification of your economic uses. Think of an innovation center, and they have minimal density, 20 units an acre for multifamily and an FAR of one. And then their story – they are five stories or up to seven stories were authorized by the Land Development Code based on existing land uses. So we went in detail over these land use categories. We've already made modifications based on those. We certainly can continue the discussion. This is – this, to me, of everything that we are doing in the update to your comprehensive plan, this one goal, this section, is the most significant change. And it's really – to me, it's really important. And I think Amendment 3 only emphasizes why this is important for Deltona. We know that you have a lot of residential. And we also know you're very vulnerable to resident – to changes in residential property tax base. So you – it's incumbent on the city and really important for the city to best utilize its existing commercial industrial economic land uses so that they are producing the most amount of taxable value that you can. And unlike other cities, you just don't have areas to bring into these – you can't annex new land. You don't have a lot of annexation opportunities around to bring in new revenue-generating lands. Oh, sorry. But if we can maximize those uses through this strategy of the mixed-use centers, which staff and your consultant team have worked very hard over the last year to develop and propose, it does not mean that it isn't worth looking over. It is probably – because it's so important, we should get it right. But we think it's – we think it's absolutely imperative to include this section in your new comprehensive plan, is that it really is foundational to this new comp plan. I agree. So – and it is very important. And this is – and I know staff and you all have worked very hard on this. So I thank you all for that. And this is not to diminish the hard work that has gone into this. It's just that I know I and a lot of residents have seemed to have a lot of concerns about the building height. And I know I keep going back to this the last time is, especially now with the new mandates that have come down with affordable housing rights. So now, again, if we now have an up to an 11-story building within a one-mile radius, there could be any other building can go up that high that fits that affordable housing criteria. And that does not come in front of our commission to make that decision. So I think we just – I would love for us to take another look at – Absolutely. Because right, that didn't exist when this was first done. So I think we need to be forward-thinking and look about not only how is this impacting this one thing, but what could be a domino effect. And I just feel like we're potentially opening up Pandora's box. Once you allow an 11-story building, once you allow it once, it's never only going to be once. So that is why we have already made that modification. The 11 stories is no longer allowed. We've already – we have made this change. And I'm going to ask Mr. Ning to approach – he is also a member of our consultant team, and he is our legislative expert. Eddie? Eddie? You're up. Eddie. So we did the six stories – the six story by right and nine story by bonus. We believe – and Eddie wasn't part of this conversation, so he may correct us – but we believe by establishing the six stories that the radius that is permitted under statute would be the six stories, because that is what was by right, the bonus structure of the three additional stories would only be allowed through specific criteria that are established through the Land Development Code, and therefore wouldn't be applicable to the expansion of the radius. Right. Live Local Act explicitly excludes anything by bonus, so it has to be right-right. Anything that's often in nature by statute doesn't apply here, so there's no expansion of radius in that regard. We took careful pain during the workshopping process for how to develop these districts – okay – to run through that, because we understand that certain fears about how Live Local would be expanded. There we go. Are you more comfortable hearing that at a six story by right and up to nine stories by criteria? By the exception, so to speak, so Live Local would not benefit from that exception. Right. Correct. Okay. Is that more comfortable? It's more comfortable – I mean, yes, of course, it's more comfortable than a nine story building, but still some concerns there. Yes, and you're on the – and I was just going to ask her if she's okay. Yeah. Thank you. And I think from our group, and I think – I hope we speak for staff, like, let's figure that number out so we're not – two months from now still debating that. So that input is very valuable for us to make this direction. So we want this to be smooth as we go through the transmittal. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Are you okay? Yes, ma'am. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Cole, you were on the line and you got – okay. So I had Commissioner Harriet and then Commissioner Howington. I'm sorry? Commissioner Howington, go first. Okay. So thinking out loud, dangerous, but thinking out loud, since conservation has been an underlying priority for myself throughout this entire series of workshops, would this be an opportunity where we could even maybe reduce that density or that height, the stories, by right to, say, five stories or four stories and then add an additional bonus for some conservation, you know, some conservation features or setting aside conservation land, maybe even if they have it adjacent to a different project or something to that effect, we can incentivize more conservation? So, yes, I mean, I would be cautious about how you word that in here. Some communities spell out their priorities for that bonus development, right? It's not just about height. Sometimes it's density. Sometimes it's – you know, in other communities it's FAR, whatever it might be. Some of them put that plan-specific wording in their plan, and that makes it harder to change later on. So some of them then, like we're suggesting to the land development code, and you can spell out those priorities, which makes it more adjustable and you can react to needs over the years. I would actually like it to be more spelled out specifically for conservation, and I actually object to the idea that we should get rid of the ecocenters, especially considering we have Lyonia Preserve and the area right along Lyonia, around Lyonia, is designated as a main street. I would like to see that designated as an ecocenter along with the Lakeshore area that's already identified as an ecocenter and the area around D Ranch is, I believe, identified as an ecocenter. So I think we should – Right, but those also had other future land use categories assigned to them, I think, through the county and through annexation, and it was conservation. I think the ranch was more conservation. Well, that specific property was, but the area around it – Right, so the trouble was the ecocenter was a tool that was taking multiple issues, and so people had concerns about the 10 units an acre because the other property was different than that property. I understand. So then we were in the position of, well, then let's create two different categories, and then your future land use category list started looking like a zoning list. It was getting a lot of categories. And so we were trying to think of how do we better streamline this, and it turns out the properties that we're talking about, the other properties, can just be conservation. And there's a few of them that are going to get assigned a city category that already had high density from the county, as an example. It matches your high density. You just assign it a city high density, and then the ranch was going to be conservation under the existing definition of that. So it lessened the impact and the need for the ecocenter since it was doing multiple things, and I think people were concerned about what does that tend – we had to get way more specific in that policy, in that category. Okay. So we can talk that through, I guess. It's just having an impact on multiple properties, and there's a concern about it. Okay. I will challenge you then to find a way to meet that goal of the ecosystem or ecocenters that we had talked about previously, by reducing the overall height by right with a specific spelled-out conservation density bonus or height bonus. I'll leave that to you to kind of tailor, but I would like to see it specific for conservation, whether it's floor area ratio, height, stories, however it may lay. But I would like to see that specific to conservation, and then allowable to be – it doesn't have to be specific to that project, right? Because I don't think there's really an opportunity for conservation in what we're kind of thinking about for an uptown or the activity center. But that – if they took that investment in conservation to a different area, then they could receive that benefit on the – Yeah, and Eddie's been working on some of that with you guys on the other thing anyway, so I think that feeds into what we were – we've gone in and out of talking about, which is whether it's TDRs or other kind of tools to set the stage for that. Okay, we have another commissioner, Howington, on the board. Thank you. Going back to the six stories by right, as it stands today, Live Local applies to by right. However, this comprehensive plan is supposed to cover 25 years, correct? Right. How do we know that in five years they're not going to come back and say, if there's a 10-story building next door, it doesn't matter if you have the right or not, you can have that 10-story building? I think it's probably going to behoove us to build something into our comprehensive plan to protect ourselves from future legislation like SB 180 that came back and said, if it wasn't on your books as of two years ago, then you can't fix it. I mean, it's a great question because we don't know what legislatures are going to do ever, right? So I was just asking a question about zoning, too. I don't even know if you had, do you guys remember, do you have a zoning district that allows, or height that's allowed above five feet right now, or five stories? You have to do a PUD, right? So, and I think that's excluded from the, well, there's some points in the Live Local that- Yeah. Well, Live Local is structured in such a way right now that the effective date of, whether it's August 1st, 2023, or your current code, whichever is greater, is actually the latest, because folks have gone back and changed items. So, you know, there is the, you know, like, thing that we have to go back to and look at in terms of, hey, are we pushing too far forward in terms of that, is there a way back? Now, Live Local does also only extend to 2031 when a sun sets at that time. Now, the reality is that, you know, I deal with the, with Tallahassee on a regular basis because my role is the president of our statewide planning organization, well, president-elect of our statewide planning organization. Yeah. I'm the, our LPC chair. And so, through those efforts, you know, what I've realized is this, is that you're often, like with every other city, placed in a position where, you know, there's very little to guard again. They're going to be looking at housing next year, but they're really looking at starter homes and other things. And so, what's the best way to deal with it? It's actually by being proactive. There's very little protections that you can think about in advance in a 25-year plan. And I would like to give you a better answer than that, but I'm giving you the honest answer. And so, the honest answer on how to approach this is, is to set yourself up in a way where it makes sense in the now, based on what you currently know. Be proactive in monitoring as this legislation comes up, because there are effective dates of July and January and October of the following year after it passes. And make those adjustments in the meantime, based on what you see that comes out in March of each year to May of each year. And we can tell something different, but that's the best advice I can give the Board and Commission as a planner. I just wanted to address the safety issue with the high-rise buildings. They're actually very safe. Once they got over six stories, what they did was they did design changes in the buildings. The water reservoir for the sprinkler systems is always put on the top floor. And the escape routes are always put on the outside of the building that are fire-rated. And they have fire and smoke doors to keep them, anybody trying to evacuate, very safe. So having an engine that can reach that high really isn't necessary. But it seems like everybody's kind of scared of that, and they don't really need to be. Commissioner Colwell, you want to? Yeah, I want to talk about everybody's concerns here, about going over the six stories here. And my concern as well, you know, if we expand that to a mile at the Uptown Center that we're proposing, then Live Local can expand it another mile beyond that? So the radius for Live Local is the rate is measured from the proposed structure outward. So, yes, if those circles overlap, then... I'm sorry. The concerns are if we build a six-story building where the center is at or the Uptown area, then Live Local can come in and expand a mile from there, six-story building, correct? So for clarification, we just checked the zoning code. Our C3 zoning district allows up to 75 feet in height, which would be about six stories. That's currently... That's currently? That's our C3 zoning. I don't know what's going on with the meeting. It doesn't build off. It doesn't keep incrementally. You don't get one, and then that one justifies another one. But under Live Local, they can change the zoning and build with... Under today, your code today, you can apply for a C3, get it, and have 75 feet in height, which is about six stories. Can you... Oh, sorry. Karen? Sorry. Let me... Catherine? I don't know if she's here. I think... How many mics are going off by themselves? I think we can only have so many microphones on. Vice Mayor, I'll jump off if you'll just allow me one moment. Staff is a little concerned about timing for tonight's meeting. I believe the consultants are a little behind. So I don't know. At this point, we may need to add an additional date. But if you want to just kind of hit the points, good conversation, this is what we should be talking about. So we're just going to point that out. Really quick point. Because you already... Remember, I just mentioned that it's either July 1st, 2023, August 1st, 2023, or later, whichever it's agreed to. Since you already have that 75 feet, as noted by staff, anything you change, like, I mean, you already have that. So there's really no way to... You had that in 2023. So you already had that set in. It's not really defensible at that point, like, you know, to Commissioner Howland's point of if there's things you can put it in. You already had it. And they tried to close the loophole that other cities were using by doing that retroactive aspect. So it becomes... Makes it kind of moot at this point. Just wanted to point that out. Thank you. Are you okay? I think if everybody's uncomfortable with it, then we should probably not allow the extra three-floor potential and just keep it at the six that we had as of 2023. Okay. Does everybody agree into that? No. I'd like to know... I keep hearing we have a concern about the height. What is the concern? Is it... Okay. What aspect of that does not fit? I need to understand what... Is it the aesthetics of that high of a building? The visibility? Is that... Okay. Can we turn on our mics because people are not being able to hear at home? No, no. I want to hear what... Because everybody keeps saying I have a concern about a nine-story building. I need to understand what that concern is. But my concern is the placement and the fit in the city where it's at. So the aesthetics. The aesthetics. If you're going to put a nine-story building where there's a residential area and it's going to stand out like a sore thumb, then yes, I have an issue with that. I have issues with traffic as well. Exactly. So I think that there's a little bit more to it. So I'd like to put it forward to a vote. It'll come to a vote. We can do a consensus vote. I don't know that this is a... Okay. Can we have a consensus vote to take it up at another meeting? I'd like to just have a consensus vote for the six stories. So in this setting at a workshop, you can provide the consultant with direction via consensus. And then the final version of this is going to come before you all for a formal vote. Okay. City Clerk, can we call the consensus, please, individually? Commissioner Caldwell? Yes. Commissioner Harriot? No. Commissioner Howington? Commissioner Knobbeck? I need to have the, I guess, motion for the consensus restated. Okay. What exactly are we saying that we're going to keep it at six stories? Across the city. The entire city, no density bonuses, no bonuses whatsoever. No. I vote no. And then Vice Mayor Villavasquez? I vote yes. Three, two, in favor. Okay. Are we going to reschedule, Doc, as you suggested? Or are we going to continue? Because I would like to give the residents a chance to speak as well. I'd like to speak on this item as well. So Vice Mayor, this goes to 730. Yes. But if you want, we can, since there's a lot of material here, we can hold this. We can do the remainder on October 19th, and then we'll have to schedule another workshop for the remaining elements. So we still have another half hour. We just wanted to let you know there's a whole lot more that we haven't gotten to. Yes. So at what point do you want to end it? It's up to the consultants where you feel is a good spot. Since we have a two-hour firm stop, and we, I don't know how much more discussion we're going to have on this mixed-use section. I don't, we've talked about the hype, but there were also questions raised about the land uses that were allowed. And there is more discussion in this section that discusses some of the high, some of the design standards and design components of it. I know that we've already had one meeting about this, but I don't know how much more discussion. My proposal would be that, because I don't really want to start an element and then be halfway through it, that we would finish the future land use element tonight, and then move, and maybe we could get to the housing element, because there isn't much with the housing, but transportation, I would definitely recommend we move to the next meeting. So you want to end it here at this point? I would like to end it at the end of the future land use element. Okay. I have Commissioner Harriet who wanted to speak, but let's keep it short, because I want to give the residents a chance to speak as well. Commissioner Harriet? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Jordan or Zach, how tall is Halifax, the hospital? We'll have to double-check that and get back to you. I remember correctly, it's six or seven, and then it's, they're allowed to go up another one or two on top of what they've already got. So what we're doing by essentially saying no to anything more than six stories at this point is we're taking away our bargaining chip to gain conservation somewhere else, to gain, to really incentivize, unfortunately, the way that it has to be done based off of state law, but we have to incentivize the developers to do what we want them to do, and we're taking that completely off the table. So six stories, and they have a capability of- Two more? Yes. So we're not, I'm just disappointed in this commission, because it, you know, I think at the end of the day, we want some of the same things, but we're taking away our ability to bargain and achieve those things. Well, I don't think this was a final decision. I think it was just a consensus to- Continue on with the plan as six stories, rather than- And maybe come back with some other ideas. Well, but you told them six stories max, so they're not going to go and do, look at additional ideas when you have told them that their goal is to max it all out. They already have a developer's agreement to go to nine. Halifax has a developer's agreement- I was just thinking about Halifax as a reference for what height looks like within our community. And I think what the commissioners, some commissioners are considering is the areas that these developments are going to be built, maybe in one section right now where Halifax is, if they continue with four or five or six in one section, it doesn't look bad. I think the concern is having, the way Deltona is built right now is having houses here and a building in the middle and then a store here and another building. I think that's what my concern is, mix, being all these different heights being mixed. But that's not what was articulated. What was articulated was a six-story max across the entire city, period. If we want to limit it to the activity center in the uptown, I got no problems with that. I can agree with that 100%. I don't think that we necessarily need to go any higher than six stories. And I think, quite frankly, six stories is pretty damn tall if you're talking about, you know, El Cam and Howland or Fort Smith and Cortland. I agree with that. But to say that we're going to just take our bargaining chip away within the activity center and the uptown, I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot. And then the direction was to limit it to six. It's my request for them to look at a conservation density and how that could be included or approached for above that would now not be looked at if we're stopping at six. Okay. I would like to hear from the residents, and then I will. Can I just clarify what we heard? Yes. So, first of all, the only area that was in discussion for the higher height of up to nine stories was in the uptown area, which currently does not have residential. That was why we picked that area, because it does not have a residential in the area. None of the other mixed-use categories allow for that. The highest in any of the rest of those would be six, and as few as three stories. So, in the areas where the residential areas are, where residents currently live, those were where we had three stories. That's why we identified those as being the neighborhood or Main Street areas, because there is a lot of residential in those areas. The areas that we saw opportunities for the community, we allowed for five with a bonus density to six. And then only in that one uptown community center area were we allowing the height density standard. I just want that to be clear. But what we heard from the consensus vote is that nowhere in the city should there be anything higher than a six story. So, my notes right now, I just crossed out the density bonus of the additional three stories in the uptown area. So, if that isn't what you're looking for, that is what we heard. I'd like to hear from the residents as well to get their input. Joyce? Kathy Bryan. Good evening, Kathy Bryan. Several things. One, is affordable housing required with part of these multiple-use areas? I feel like some point in time, we need to allow that in here, because, and I get the reasons why, a lot of the reasons why not, but there's a lot of reasons why, too. And how much of a living document will this be as changes come about? When we talked about walkways and making them comfortable for pedestrians, et cetera, I think we probably should make some kind of consideration for motorized vehicles, like our mini e-bikes, scooters, and stuff like that, because they're riding them everywhere, so you might as well plant it in there. Can we give discounts, perks, or maybe those aren't the right words, but when somebody opts for using all-native landscape or green building if it reaches a certain percentage? All walk or for recharge areas should not be for recreation, simply because people can't help themselves but abuse these areas. And Lyoni over on this side is a perfect example where people have left trash, they burn bonfires, they bring their motorized vehicles in, and it's a dumping ground. So, and that's not even supposed to be for recreation yet. When we talk about the transitions between densities, uphold it, please. Data centers, once those get into any ways into our stuff, I would like to see it where it's enforced that they do self-generated electric and recycled water. Those companies can afford it, and it can be done. It's been done in Texas in some places. So, if you guys, I mean, we don't have much room. You're going to have to build up. I've said for a long time, and especially in Florida, you really need to build up. I don't like the idea of even a six-story building in a residential area, but down in the activity center, there's no reason to not to, and you're going to need parking as well. So, and that parking garages that go up or however you want to do it, but building up is really, we should have been doing that in Florida for a long time. The only thing I would say in that area is if there's not been a sinkhole risk assessment done recently, I would do one before you make plans to put that into place. And the reason I say because years ago, we had the one on Howland right in front of the high school, and then several years ago, we had one more or less in the high school where the choir and band room are. Two in the high school. Two at the high school, yeah. The one was in front. That was huge because it took out part of that neighborhood. But I would do that risk assessment because things underground change, and I think it's required for multi-story buildings. Thank you. That ends public comment. Thank you. So, my question is, going back to the consensus, taking into consideration what one of the residents brought up, which is that area has been prone for sinkholes. And this is just one level building. The high school, the house that is on the other side of the high school, Howland Boulevard, Chris, you remember that huge sinkhole right in the middle of Howland Boulevard. So, would that be a concern going forward if you were to build higher buildings in that area, considering what's been happening in other cities? So, once again, I'm going to remind everyone that this is the future. This is the comprehensive plan. This is the policy directive level. The standards by which development happens, which is what we're now getting into, how do you allow for height to happen? How do you make sure that there are conservation lands? How do you make sure that sinkholes are taken care of? Those are land development code items that we will address once we get through this comprehensive plan. But we can't get into the details, the standards by which development happens until we have established the framework within which we want the development to happen. That's why these discussions are so important, and we want to make sure we get it right. So, yes, absolutely, those things would be addressed, but they would be addressed not in this document, but in your land development code. And there was one other area that we allowed a bonus density up to seven stories, and according to the consensus vote, you only wanted six stories or 75 feet, which we probably should do the 75 feet to make it consistent with your code. And that was in the activity center or the economic areas. So, you help me. No, so, yeah, so that actually, the problem with that direction is if there's seven stories allowed in that activity center, that's your current policy. That's not new. We didn't change anything in that activity center. So, you can't dial it back to six. Right. No, well, considering... I mean, you can have an exclusion to your direction, but I just want to point that out. Right, considering that it's going to be kept in one area of the city of Deltona, I'll retract my vote. So, you currently have up to seven through bonus in your activity center, the Amazon warehousing and all that, that kind of corner over there. And then what Kathy was talking about is the uptown. That's the other one that was the higher. Right. Everything else is lower than that. Since you explained it, that it's restricted to that section of just Deltona, and it's not going to be all over Deltona, then I'll retract my vote to no. And next time we can bring the map and show maybe the visualization of... Because that would be a very concern for us. The neighborhood mixed-use center, where is it? You know, considering that area and has already sinkholes. That'll help you connect those two things together. I agree. I agree. I think it's hard to have this conversation about these different mixed-use centers without seeing the map. So, we will bring the map back at our next meeting. Appreciate that. Can we proceed? We still have 20 minutes. Should we proceed with the rest of the future land use element? Yes. Vice Mayor, can I make the consensus? I'm just going to have to... Oh, there we go. Yeah. So, right. This was direction given by consensus, so it's a little bit informal. But I would recommend that for clarity, we have a motion to reconsider, and then we take that vote again. I don't have the picture anymore of who's getting in to speak, so... Can I make a motion to reconsider? Commissioner Harriot? Yeah, you're not on the winning side. Oh, that's true. To anybody? Okay, I make the motion to reconsider. Okay, can we call a vote, City Clerk? Well, I'd like to put a motion forward, since that was just recalled. Yes, then. Let's move this forward. Yes. Ready? Commissioner Caldwell? Yes. Commissioner Harriot? Yes. Commissioner Howington? Yes. Commissioner Novick? Yes. Vice Mayor Avila-Vasquez? So, I would like to make the motion that we retain our existing requirements set at six feet and, or sorry, six stories, and seven within the activity center. Is that what it currently is? There I am. Your current is 75. Can I, can we just, so that everyone is clear, can we walk through each of the standards as proposed? So, starting with the Uptown Center on page 32, 33, what we had proposed. I think, I'm sorry. Can we do that, or we do need a second? Okay. So, starting with the Uptown Center, which starts on page 32, but the standards are on page 33, we had proposed up to 65 dwelling units per acre on a gross acreage for that activity center, and then we changed it to up to six stories, or 75 feet, with up to nine stories, and we'll figure out what the feet is by a bonus. In the community mixed-use center, we had proposed up to 40 dwelling units per acre and up to six stories, although there's some discussion of whether that should be five stories and then one story with a bonus. And then in the community mixed-use corridor, that is 40 units an acre and up to five stories. In the neighborhood mixed-use center, that is up to 25 dwelling units an acre or three stories and three stories. That is the same for the Main Street mixed-use corridor, 25 dwelling units an acre and three stories. And in the activity center, it is what it is existing today, which is 75 feet and up to seven stories with a bonus. That is what we've proposed. These are in very targeted areas, and again, the areas where the residential, where the highest concentrations of residential are where you have the lower density and the lower height. The only area that the area that we are proposing the higher is where you already have an economic center, and there is no residential currently in that area. Okay. City Clark, can you call the votes, please? Can we have discussion first? We're trying to wrap this up as soon as possible, so you can make it short. Yeah, I think that by handcuffing us to the current plan or the current allowable heights, we're completely taking off the table the ability for us to negotiate with density bonuses or height bonuses. And again, it's not actually achieving the goal for these two very specific areas. I would really like to see us continue and see what they can do in terms of the language for conservation and provide a plan to allow for bonuses within these two very specific areas with conservation in other parts of the city. I have a question for possibly Jordan or legal. So as far as the development of the multi-use being residential and commercial, how does the impact fees apply to that? Is it applied as all commercial? So your impact fee is calculated by use, so it'd be by percentage of residential versus commercial. And did the study provide for any designation of mixed uses? Okay, because my concern is we just reduced the impact fees on commercial development by quite a bit. So the impact would be on the residents at that point. Well, the impact fee would be based on the new residents coming in. Based on the new residential asset. Right, so existing residents do not pay for that impact fee. Right, the commercial developer does. Correct. Residential developer, commercial developer. If it's a multi-use development and there's six stories of residential above a story of commercial, how is that applied in the impact? Is that all commercial? It would be based on the units and based on the square footage of the- Units would pay an impact fee on residential in the- Okay. Correct, yes. Because there's a multifamily and a single family component of the impact fee. All right, thank you. Okay. Let's also not forget we could dial it back later before this is formally adopted and we could let them continue with what they're researching and proposing and looking into. They're not going to go for- It's too late for them to go back and develop language at that point. Okay, city clerk, can we call the vote, please? Commissioner Caldwell? Legal? Aye. Yeah, so at this point, the Commissioner Huffington's motion, you correct me if I've recollected incorrectly, is to keep the city's existing height restrictions of six feet or six stories or 75 feet overall and then seven stories within the activity center. Commissioner Harriet? Commissioner Howington? Commissioner Novick? No. Vice Mayor of Villavasquez? No. Motion fails. I'd like to- You guys okay? I think what we would like to see is just for our understanding and because we have enough time to do this last exercise, if we could go through each of the center areas so we understand what direction we're supposed to be looking at as we bring back things. So if we could start with the uptown center area, which again, we have proposed at 65 units for an acre, gross acreage, up to 75 feet and up to what the equivalent of feet, and I don't have my calculator in front of me, but for up to nine stories, is that acceptable to the board? For planning purposes, I think that that's acceptable for discussion and consideration of what the possibilities may be in terms of bonuses and whatnot. Right. This is just for discussion purposes. We haven't, we're, you're not adopting anything, it's just giving us an understanding of what we can go forward with. I don't have the piece that tells me who's logging in, it went somewhere that way, so just chip in, just chime in. I'll just go next then. You know, my concern is in the uptown area, we're going to have a six-story building sticking out on top of that hill, and in your words, you said there's no residential affected by that. I believe all the residential to the south side, all the residential to the north side is five acre residential parcels, is it not? Or one acre to five acre residential parcels? Is it Red Fox Road that goes back that way? I don't, I'm looking at the map. I think it's a good distance away. What is a good distance? Look at a six-story building. Apple Maps doesn't have a scale on it. Hold on. So, Vice Mayor, if I could, please. This is too important to rush through in the next ten minutes, folks. Let's end this conversation tonight. We need some maps. We need some drawings. We need some pictures to look at that's to scale so that we can make an informed decision, not have somebody looking at an iPad and trying to measure something out. No disrespect, Commissioner, but we need a lot more information at this point. And if it's going to take a couple more meetings to get this done, then that's what we need to do and not try and rush through it this evening. Are we in agreement on that? I do have a question. So, if this is coming back before the commission in December, what if they, if the commission decides to make changes, how difficult will that be to make changes at that time? I think what we're hearing this evening is the schedule that was originally proposed is going to be amended. So, it will, we are going to have to, and I agree completely, Commissioner, that we, this is too important to rush. And, you know, this section of your comp plan, as I mentioned earlier, is the biggest section that is driving everything else that we're discussing. So, at the October meeting, we will bring back maps. We will show where these areas are, and we will discuss how these are proposed to be changed. We will look at, Commissioner, we will look at potential bonuses and criteria for those bonuses, including conservation, but maybe including some other items. So, what would, what, what would a developer be able to bring forward that would allow for those density bonuses to happen? We will look at each of these land use categories under the conversation that we had today and be prepared to have a much more detailed, with a map, conversation at the October meeting. And, just to answer Commissioner Harington's question, you can make changes during the transmittal portion of the public hearing. So, you will be able to do that. And, just to give you context for that, we push to make sure that you guys get it right and want to get it right what you want, because, to your point, your question, we have 10 working days after you transmit to get the packet together and out. So, the more changes we're making at that meeting, the harder it is to get that packet done. That's a lot more hours, right? So, the better we can walk into that meeting with 95% of it in agreement, it's easier to do that packet afterwards. So, we're on a short timeline once. If you made 1,000 changes, that would be, it's a lot to do in 10 days. So, we want to go into it with a lot of corrections done. So, that's why we're doing these as joint workshops, because we want to know that when we go to the hearing for the LPA and for City Council, that we have got this as close to perfect as possible. So, at that, we understand what we need to be prepared for next meeting. We will continue with the future land use element, starting with the mixed-use goal, and then proceeding with the rest of it, and then moving on to the transportation and housing element, and we'll punt the remaining ones to a meeting to be scheduled. And make sure that when we do those maps, we address those one-mile radiuses visually, so we can see with road names on the map, not just a squiggly line that we're trying to figure out what road it is, specifically having the names of the roads on there, so we can identify specific neighborhoods and areas that there seems to be concern for. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the floor? If not, I mean, we did bring up new ideas, and I just want to give the residents a chance to, if anybody else wants to make a comment or come up to speak. Okay, well, this workshop is closed. Thank you. Thank you.