to us was when you put landscaping when you put buildings of different height around those buildings when you don't make a monolith i think matthew matthew we also went to altamont springs to see the building that you call i think the eyesore on i4 um that that is you know that building while as tall as some of the other buildings that we saw um it does it stands out because there's nothing around it there's no context to help make that height um fit in with the greater community there's no landscaping around it there's no scale that helps bring down that um in the deland the the building in deland i when i was just a half a block away you could barely tall see it because of the landscaping because of the other buildings around it the scale of it really became quite diminished uh same thing with the sanford building i could have shown you a picture of sanford with the clock tower that's a half a block away from the building and you can't even see it anymore um because of the way the scale works and that's what makes that's that's what makes mixed use work mixed use works when scale when height um when streetscape when landscaping all come together in one uniform structure and so this really is a question of design because you don't want buildings that stand alone as a monolith that's not what we're talking about we're talking about buildings that are truly a mixed use community but the other thing that really makes these work um and again in a future one we could do a lot more pictures about design and how this works but at the first floor level if your your base floor of if you have an awning structure that is similar in height you don't feel what's above you it could be a one-story building uh of about 35 feet you could have a seven-story building of 75 feet it really wouldn't matter because it's that first floor awning um the active windows um active landscaping all of that at that first floor really helps create create that sense of context i'm i'm watching you jessica nod your head because we did a walking tour do you want to elaborate on how many of my comments or you know my husband my husband i need to quote you have you quoted for my husband later when he disagrees that i'm not right um all right so now we want to show what that means for you and on this one i'm going to turn the microphone over to ed ning who worked um with our team on creating a series of maps that show what this means in terms of context for deltona ready thank you for having me this evening on the map all the little parts that you see are either commercial industrial mixed use or so forth something that really gets people like really wound up with live local and ideally across the state is that they can apply to everywhere no it only apply to very specific parcels that you're doing a certain way so as opposed to showing a map of all the parts of later in deltona before we even get through that circular area those are the parcels that currently qualify for live local um those um now the expense of what we have here um with that uh circle is if you recall from live local density is citywide it's what the highest one citywide a separate clause in the live local is your height and the height is only one mile from what is permitted so we had our gis uh and planner uh uh um just draw a one mile buffer around the uh uptown makes use district there and that because it's proposed at 75 feet would be what uh uh uh uh um principle there right now and this is not working everywhere in the city right now with existing can be up to 45 feet um so you see that you know because you have certain zoning allow for 45 feet anyway uh um when you draw circles around all those districts to see what the expense of what you currently allow you see what that covered is most of the city except that little circle in the middle that little blank area is actually water so it does when we looked at it you know you're not going to build on top of water uh um we're not in water wells yet but it covers all the parcels that you see right there now let's go to the next one this is the effect of the economic mixed use district so go back one and then go forward one so those parcels that you see there will shift from 45 feet to 75 feet just those parcels are highlighted not everywhere outside next please and then um this is an existing buffer radius for those uh for uh uh for 75 feet so you saw those before that was 45 feet well if you were to layer this on top those were 75 feet anyway because of where uh you have existing c2 c3 industry or in the other district and so what we had to do was just layer this on top i know it can look confusing but anywhere that pink one before and after standpoint that's 45 feet anywhere that's green but outside of the blue that's actually the extent of the effect of what you're raising 75 feet everything in the blue based on your existing regulation would have been at 75 feet anyway so you see from the uptown portion the actual area effect it's actually really small because it's just where the green area is but outside the blue that that's um um the effect of the mixed use district however is a little bit more pronounced so anywhere that was previously pink but outside the blue that's where the uh where you see the orange are so anywhere that is not blue but orange that that's the area that affects the changes of the economic mix actually make use district now that i thoroughly confuse anyone everyone um do we um maybe let's good time to pause we're going to do five slides like i said earlier that way they're all taking notes that way we continue and that's pretty much it for the map right yeah that was about five slides right yep that was so on that if i think what we but remember that even though you're seeing these as one mile radiuses the only properties that are affected are the properties underneath them so if it if it is not an identified property then it isn't affected the properties underneath the properties underneath that are highlighted right not all the properties right the properties that are the properties that are highlighted in the reds or the greens those are the only properties that would be affected by live local so this is while it looks i mean because i know i will i'll be honest when i first saw this map i said eddie this looks like the entire city is covered and he said kathy you have to remember it's only and i'm going to go back to the the original slide it's only these properties that are shown in the green the red and the orange those are the only properties that would be impacted by live local not just the the understand the one mile radius is just trying for us to capture which properties sit within that one mile radius but it is not the entire one mile radius it's only those properties within them and on that are there any questions about this section that eddie and i have just gone through commissioner allington thank you mayor so it looks like we have 75 feet plus 50 feet so that's 125 feet correct that that would be that that would be in the uptown center only so what that would indicate is if somebody goes in there and puts in say 10 to 12 feet stories that we'd be allowing them to have up to 12 stories i and again i know we're not going back to stories however if you break it down by math 12 feet would be 120 which would be underneath the cap so are we still now back to going from 9 to 12 so that was when we and and this is just a proposal i'm not we are this is commissioner hollington this is a draft and this is we what we took what we originally had put and put it on paper if this is not comfortable for everyone then we can certainly scale it back but we just wanted we wanted so many things have been changing that we felt it was only fair to go to the original the original context now we have talked about one of the one of the ideas that has been presented although we did not hear clear direction on it was to go to do a um to do and i would have to do the math on it the six stories and additional three stories by bonus we would also note that because deltona faces uh a bit of potential flooding and should be think about resiliency in the future our commissioner we would recommend to staff that you would have requirements during land development regulation for your first story to be more than 10 to 12. it is something you see in other cities as well because it gives you uh different angles approach in the future why do we do this in other cities both for economic reasons and for resiliency adaptation reasons when you have for example a 20 foot first story if you need to raise the road over time now you know if you started with 10 feet right and you had to go five feet up well now you got a five foot first full story that's never going to work for anyone i mean i i mean i wouldn't be able to fit there i'm five nine but if you have 20 or 25 now that five feet you still have that 20 foot uh first story and so there's an aspect to consider as well when you're thinking about how much height you're giving in feet um as far as the difference between commercial and residential i've seen developments run the gamut it's rare that i see people get really comfortable with the 10 foot and they're looking at quality development just because you're looking at more closer to 12 feet and so you know there is the variation and you're right to bring that up we want to actually just expand your kind of thought on that from both the resiliency and an economic standpoint as well well and i can understand that i mean i could still get a 20-foot first floor in there and still have a 10-story building i mean that's that you know the thing that set every you know set off the concerns previously was the nine stories and here we are now giving them you know the possibility to go even higher so that's my concern and i sat through the planning meetings with the residents and i believe there were some members from the planning committee that also were there and we don't remember our residents asking for these sky high buildings again we we are we are making recommendations we are but we are but outside consultants if you tell us to bring it down then we will bring it down what we're trying to do is show that it's a question of design predominantly and that there are issues regarding real resiliency you also want to make sure that so for example on the sanford building that building is actually higher than you think than it shows in the picture because there is another story that is set back that you have to be quite a bit distant to be able to see that story back there and that building that story is there to cover up things like the on the um uh the infrastructure and the um and the what did you have and the hvac systems and the elevator and an elevator shaft all of those things so that's the other reason that we were trying to provide additional height now all of these also remember this is your comprehensive plan your comprehensive plan can be further create additional standards when you get into your into your land development code and once again this is this is but this one area and if everyone tells us this is too high we are happy to bring it down we were just trying to propose some ideas that would deal with height that would provide for additional opportunities for to design and then um jordan you also one of the concerns that has been raised to repeatedly through our questions is that once we have a building that is x stories or is x tall then that building now becomes a new qualifier but under the statute that is not the case you want to talk about that so what kathy's bringing up is um and i don't have the um live local statute in front of me but um in regards to the qualifying height it has to it's based on what was permitted at that point and i forget what the um time frame is but it's not what is um currently coming or built within the last year there's a certain criteria when that qualifying height is my concern with that is that we are not future proofing in the fact that live locals changed now what two three times at least two times i i don't know about anybody else but i don't have a crystal ball and i don't know what tallahassee is going to do in two years while live locals still in play so if we're not protecting our community from potential changes that come down the road and let's face it we can see what's happening and where it's trending and it's mitigation on our part and going out to 2050 i mean we're talking 25 years there's a lot of changes that can happen and our residents have been fairly vocal about what they expect in our community so i think that we need to take that into consideration thank you we're going to go to commissioner santiago then commissioner novick and then we're going to move on thank you mayor appreciate it um question okay so the mixed use area that it's in the green circle we're only talking the 75 feet with the additional bonus feet we're only talking that area the city of deltona is that correct okay so we currently have a hospital there right how tall is that hospital how many stories seven okay and and i understand some of the concerns that some of the residents have but i also want to make sure that you hear my concerns is that we've i've had people call me i've had people contact me and they want a hotel right they want to see a children's hospital there and i in that area it's the best area right right there to have it and i'm good with the 75 and the 50. so i think that's a perfect combination it allows for possibly the bonus in case we do need in case we do have that hotel because yes in the future people people use a lot the center and they're always looking for a hotel in that area so i've been getting positive feedback on this particular information so thank you thank you for the update appreciate it commissioner and i may be jumping the gun a little bit but i thought we were going to have streets on our map do we i mean we've asked every meeting to have streets on the map so we have definite areas that we can detect is it further in the meeting or we still don't have streets yeah um i'm sorry we don't have streets on this particular map because we were trying to show we were trying to keep it as clean as possible we wanted to be really able to see where those properties were that was the most important thing for us to just distinguish on these and when we put the streets on it because there is such an extensive street network here in deltona the map became somewhat difficult for us to really point out those properties but and the final map series that we will be bringing forward next month there will be all of them all of the streets um it again this was this was done we just had a very specific thing we wanted to make sure that was clear and that was those properties that could be impacted by live local i i mean i would have been happy with the main ones 415 doyle road um courtland normandy and howland i mean that we can kind of get it from there and we will make sure that those are on there in the in every map in the future all right any other questions continue and then after five slides we'll stop five slides yeah well we need to clarify so we can move forward on whether the concern is visual in nature or density in nature the reason i ask that is because back to the example of eight stories i can design a story building and it can be 120 feet or it could be down to 85 feet that 40 feet is a big difference it's still a story we keep saying stories we keep going back to stories but a 45 difference is very visually very different so in order for us to best help you how look at how to move forward in the draft we need to better understand is it a density matter or a visual matter just for the purpose of argument can you go back to that picture where the baldwin and sanford and them are there okay this is the reason why we need to stick to to feet versus story and then make sure that our land development department puts in specific and strict regulation in there to make sure that people don't go over let's say eight feet i don't know who on earth would live in an eight foot thing right but if you look at some of those properties the third the third picture right there unless you really look from a different angle that's one two there's three stories right there but then you look at the building directly next to it you have one two three four five stories that's just a great example that's like keeping it by feet and then if you look at the fourth picture that first that first story can essentially take up the three stories above it so we need to stick to feet whatever we decide to do we need to stick to feet and then make sure we have a baseline where we're requiring each story to be a certain amount of feet because we want quality development in that uptown we don't want to just push something that's going to just give us some type of a something that we don't want to see we want quality for that uptown so uh commissioner novick or member warner key yeah you have you have to stick to feet and you i don't think we we should we could get to minimums on a story only because the the design and the engineering of some of the mechanical equipment and plenums and things that run through the building could require additional feet between each story or every other story depending like if you look at the land and a lot of the the land stuff is built out so they have to get when something new comes in they have to get very creative in some cases when they're going to be running it equipment or they're going to be running new hvac technology changes so we probably should have a minimum as far as what defines a story but not necessarily a maximum the other the other comment would be going back to what commissioner santiago said um the the idea in that in that area up there the activity area is to create a um a density within within that area and then create the things that go along with that the walkability component having the the small shops the the coffee shops and all that and creating that downtown type of atmosphere that's what the height of those buildings will help generate and create and i think that's better than trying to spread that density out over a larger footprint is by allowing it to go vertical that that will uh stop the the sprawl in in that in that area you'll get the same same amount of desired people on a much smaller footprint and it's a lot easier to provide the services and amenities within that area by going by going vertical not limiting ourselves too much on that commissioner harriet thank you mayor i just want to clarify with staff that when um it would be the land development code when we when we update that after this that would dictate where the uh like the setbacks from the boundary property line boundaries that that's where that would go correct that's right okay yeah all the design standards that we talked about just a second ago they would be they would be codified in your land development code and so even once we consider the the setback from the property boundary where we can even more so say that the impact on the surrounding properties is likely to be even even more farther minimized that's right and um one thing i want to make clear on the uh on the uptown center is the only one that will allow a bonus or i shouldn't say that we have actually modified it's because we brought down the height of or we brought down the height of all of the other centers so that we could and we put in uh we changed some of that additional height to a bonus standard but those bonus anything that's in a bonus would have to meet very specific criteria so it is not a given a given that you would ever get the maximum height that's allowed in any one district because the those balance standards are very high and would be very specific the other thing is that as eddie just went through there are some areas that we've actually brought down we brought down actually quite a quite a few areas and so that is something that we will have to work on to help people understand why we would want in those areas a lower height than is currently allowed by your existing code vice mayor of vila vaskowitz thank you mayor and i know that um we were asking for streets and stuff like that but to make it a little bit more clearer for myself and other residents the area you're referring to is by exit 114 yes that's commercial area right it's not anywhere else in the city of deltona and that's the area that's been identified for this type of development it's only so again we do have mixed use centers throughout this throughout the city anything that is in the hatched are areas that would allow for mixed use but they would be at the smaller either community or neighborhood level the community the the community is um most and i'm going to use stories just because that's that's still what's in my head and i can't remember the height difference um the most is six stories it's five stories by right six stories and then in the neighborhood and main street area it's three stories by right and four stories with a bonus so we have so so the anything that is in hatch has a mixed use but it is only the area that is up in the green that is the uptown area that would allow for the maximum height that we've talked about okay so just exit 114 just just that area there's no street names and stuff like that at least it'll give everyone an idea of what area we're speaking about yeah we're that's the only area that gets that tall thank you commissioner harriet thank you mayor where would it be appropriate to designate that that first density story or density um that for or sorry not density that first bonus story or bonus edition um is used for a specific purpose like conservation so the the there are a number of different ideas that have come out through both the community meetings as well as the one-on-ones and we would we would codify those in the land development code okay thank you by codifying them in the land development code vice mayor that means that as ideas change it's easier to make those amendments vice mayor's over here oh i'm sorry i didn't mean it's okay yes no it is it is in the land development code that way you can that way you can make modifications to that all right did you need any other i think we i think we got exactly what we needed so we're ready to move on if everybody else is fine okay so the next section is goal flu goal future land use two um and this is the mixed use centers corridors and deltona activity center to promote mixed use centers and corridors and strengthen the deltona activity center as the city's primary regional and employment has support redevelopment housing opportunities multimodal and mixture of uses um and this is just talking about the design section so these are the design and implementation at a high level once again we would get more specific in the land development code but this is establishing the ins the kinds of that there would be incentives for density height that there would be density standards that it would that we would be establishing building design and placement standards that would be in line with the pictures that we showed for mixed use um we would have build two lines instead of build from lines in suburban areas you do build from lines in mixed use downtown areas and main street areas you build build two lines they we would create standards for non-residential ground floor uses the public space streetscaping pedestrian oriented design neighborhood development transitions and public safety and design standards those are sub ted standards and then continuing with block standards natural and environmental resource protection parks infrastructure and um other traffic and design standards and then finally um we would talk this this section talks about how these areas would be consistent with interpretation of land use the objective of the development standards and then the definitions for each of the areas that we've talked about are there any questions about this section again this is establishing a framework that would be further evaluated and standardized in the land development code so commissioner to your question about whether or not we would specifically call out a standard what this does is say that we have incentives but we would allow those incentives to be identified in the land development code yeah i have a question with regards to the number of categories and if you can speak to why we went from zero to seven different types of mixed use categories seems like there might be some overlapping or some repetitive language um and i'm just wondering why you chose to create seven different areas so let's quickly go through the what they are from the uptown center down to the economic mixed use the uptown center is your is your uptown area this is the area that we've had the most conversation about is at the interchange area and this is the one that would allow for the greatest height density and intensity the next one the next two the community mixed use center and the mixed use corridor they are a pair but they are different then they're different in their design so a mixed use center is um more in a area where a corridor exists along a corridor frontage primarily with very little um set with very little design into the residential area so this would be along like a howland boulevard or something like that where your your design for the mixed use is fronting a major corridor but doesn't extend further into blocks and other things that your centers would the neighborhood mixed use center and main street mixed use center once again this is a pair the density intensity standards are the same in this pair just like they are in the community but again one is a center area and one is a corridor area so that is the difference for them and why there may seem some redundancy between the mix the community mixed use center and the community mixed use corridor the neighborhood mixed use center and the main street corridor they are um they are similar in their density intensity standards but they are very different in terms of their design standards glenn can you close the door please and then finally the economic center is the one that is a predominantly economic use this is your um innovation districts any other questions and we're going to hold all questions until five slides please so that was the end of that five slide anything else all right um so this continues um this continues into discussion of the regional transportation network and how these areas would be established from a transportation standpoint mixed use centers um do differ in transportation than in other areas i'm sure eddie could get into further clarification if you have any questions about how a mixed use uh transportation network is different but in terms of design in terms of streetscape these are areas that are really designed at traffic calming if you are the idea is that you want people to go slow through a mixed use center because you want people to see that little restaurant that they've never seen before that little shop that they may want to stop at you really want people to be driving uh slow but it also by driving slow they're driving at a more consistent space pace and therefore traffic moves more calmly and consistency consistently did i say that right eddie this one also talks about how the single family neighborhoods would blend in those that's why the corridors are different than the center areas because the corridors are really protecting the single family neighborhoods behind them um where the center are areas where we see opportunities for deltona to increase the intensity and density of um its strip plazas basically that's where we've identified these areas as in your strip plazas by those that are currently vacant or underutilized and the ability to transform them into mixed use areas and that is the end of this goal are there so even though i haven't gone five it's a good stopping spot okay let's stop here is there any questions about where we just spoke so then the next section goal three is your traditional future land use categories and these are your existing land use categories we made some modifications to these but we did not significantly change them we've kept all of your existing land use categories and again this is the end of this goal so it's a easy stopping space if there are any questions i just want to add that we did add um a land use category residential estate which is one units per two acres okay the next one is the osteen local plan and this is recognizing that this osteen local plan is as it adopt is as it is adopted today and remains the same for the comp plan update i i have a question specific to what jordan has said earlier about no changes and i'm looking at future land use 1-1.13 and it says the city of deltona shall continue to coordinate with the volusia county to plan and implement appropriate land uses for the area locally known as osteen as indicated on the joint planning area boundary map which is figure one dash six of the future land use map serving um series that has been eliminated according to this it's xed out or scratched out cross out thank you so i'm confused by j what you had said earlier in this language here that that definitely is change page six six member northy um we will definitely look at that um it's a possibility that it was moved somewhere else in the document okay but um we will go through this with a fine-tooth comb and make sure that nothing has been changed regarding the osteen local plan would that also address character of an area we took that out of two different places right and so the um you and i spoke and we did provide those comments to the consultants um and we're making sure that nothing has been touched yes okay thank you yeah just to piggyback on that um there were some policies some language in the uh in the osteen plan that didn't have policies attached to them it was just text so throughout your plan there's a couple times that that's happened and we've tried to assign them objectives and policies to be consistent with the rest of the plan yeah so moved and got labeled rather than change significantly yes yeah because gordon and i had said there was he told me there was no change i just wanted to confirm for our osteen people correct thank you the next goal in the future lane use element is coordinated development through development agreements and this just talks about how development uh how development agreements would be work would would be worked on property specific levels and on that we were ready to move on to the transportation element right all right transportation mobility you'll see that it's a different name and uh the goals are a bit more realigned the reason behind it is really to try to get your transportation mobility policies to first establishing what your network is point of order go ahead commissioner novik let's i'm sorry on goal number five coordinating the develop development through the developers agreement that that language is very weak and i know we're going to better define it in the land development code but appropriate levels of service for governmental services that to me needs to be more definitive in this being this is the overseeing policy document we need to define specifically what those levels of service are okay can you give us an example just so they know what we're looking what what are we talking about are we talking about pickleball courts here are we talking about fire protection so so remember that is a goal that's also specifically about development uh development agreements which are a formal document between your council and the developer right there so but there's too much room for it's too vague understood but also typically those da's end up being i know you're going to pay for this we're going to pay for that right i understand we can change that language more specific here as a guiding principle okay that's fine thank you on transportation and mobility um let me start over again so we looked at your existing uh element and try to restructure from a logical standpoint starting with like a complete street network uh we you'll see there a complete uh uh uh you know complete network uh approach to transportation because i thought with this and it logically progresses right first you have to figure out what your your grid in the future is then you determine based on your vision of what it should be what you should be building over time how it should operate uh how you're going to find and you know what you want to build and you have to figure out then how you're going to finance that and lastly looking at those intergovernmental coordination aspect either because they're cross-jurisdictional aspect or because you're trying to seek outside money to help you build your grid so we try to align it back on that logical progression for how a transportation network should be developed um going to the first go down complete street network for transportation mobility uh we really looked at some complete street network um trying to say hey you should have an understanding of each grid item so a roadway your final roadway network your final bicycle network your final pedestrian network and aspect of transit thinking about the future there's um how these things come together in a master format involves thinking about things like how to you know first and last mile your first mile away from your house your last mile to a business or work um and how you change mode because even walking from your house to your car you're walking sometimes just through your driveway right um and then at the end if you're in a centralized parking or not you're walking from the parking spot or from the bus stop to your work and so there's uh uh um aspect of that in there now you know we go through each of these objectives to try to hone in on the requirement for each particular network so the roadway network has certain requirements let's face it in the future we're not going to necessarily give it a course but we have to think about how that network can be enhanced either from a safety or proficiency standpoint or efficiency standpoint that goes from everything from traffic calming to uh particularly a tailored here you have some making linkages um and of course ride share and uh technology in the future we went in and did similarly with pedestrian network and i looked at design standards there new sidewalk priorities lighting and safety being part of it what we heard uh similarly with bicycle and mobility infrastructure importantly here we looked at policies uh based on what we heard from members of the public during the workshop which really pointed to the need for a greenway system that's not thinking about bicycles that's just a uh getting you from work to public or no home to public to work but also at recreational here in deltona genetic quality of life um transit then it's a fourth component uh there uh we take some policies here but uh uh you know looking at local circulation over time and local service in the coronation um something that we did not have before that we thought would be good here because you have natural assets in your blue ways and um either from a recreational or otherwise standpoint it's something that really wasn't discussed in your prior plan but it's something that in other cities that we work with where have you have that natural resource it's something naturally that you should be discussing from a policy standpoint one way or another whether to protect a certain way or to allow certain things here um importantly we thought it's important you know throughout florida that we have uh aspects of emergency evacuation transportation resilience we separate that out into very specific concrete policies here um deltona is um you know we treat freight work networks differently uh um deltona is on a critical path for within the state when it comes to the freight system so it deserves its own objective to look at how we manage that aspect also so that you don't have too much truck intrusion in the local neighborhoods so planning for that from a comprehensive plan standpoint allows you to look at that further in the future and that's the end of goal one which is just to look comprehensively at how these everything layers together so that you can sometimes you know you have limited you have a certain amount of space right so understanding what your network is allows you to think about the trade-off in the spatial requirement for each and maybe some roadways in the future are more for vehicles maybe some of it is that you want to enhance for bicyclists and um but this is where you first start your first start with understanding where your network is all right i'll take questions now uh member northean thank thank you could we go back i think it's i think it's 1.5 no i guess it's back more it's it's stuff on the bikes the biking there i'm sorry 1.4 i don't know if this is the place that we addressed it or not but there is uh two things one e-bikes now when we talk about bicycle education safe routes to school parks bicycle trails and greenways what is it a policy for the comp plan or is it just an ordinance where we would address whether we allow e-bikes and what what an e-bike what level what yeah it's usually a combination of both of other cities we work with um upon the policy standpoint if it's something that is regulating or prohibiting we would definitely say from an ordinance standpoint um the state has continuously toys with ideas on how it's going to define that e-mobility this even this year there was legislation that was proposed what was actually passed which really pared down from the original language so they've moved away from that definition but that doesn't mean that they won't go back and revisit it the next session and it's highly likely they will do so my advice is because that is still so um in the air and to defer to using this in your ordinance and think about your e-bike from the standpoint of how you address technology as a whole which is how uh we go we have tried to kind of wiggle this in there because technology is also evolving but you know if the commission wants to go a different direction we're happy happy to hear it okay all right i i just know that it's becoming very controversial and um there are a lot of concerns about not not the level one e-bikes but above that about how they're using the the network also access to greenways and trails when you say greenways and trails and that access to greenways and trails i would assume that we would have something in there that talks about a county-wide network and how we access the county-wide network is that or are we just talking about internally i would say that you just generally talk about it internally when it comes to this network and because you don't have control over what the county does now you can look through the intergovernmental policy to say this is what we want that to advocate well the county has already designed their trail network so in and that it's just about linking it up but you're you should be able to use your policy to supplement what the county has designed because at times maybe you want to look back and say well the county has designed this network and we think that there's this link here as we develop as a community as you know we might you might put in a new park there are additions there that you might want to think about so i wouldn't necessarily just lock that into place entirely i would build upon it but i would suggest that the best thing to do is to have policies that allow you to or direct your staff to actually review this every several years and say we have a master plan change it uh change the company maybe we acquired a park maybe we have a new development do we have to you know put these new linkages in and how well let me ask and jordan i understand we do not have a master plan but we have we have contracted for one is that correct that is correct with bike florida bike yes when is that due um i'm having a meeting with them next week and we should be getting started within the next couple weeks okay will that come back to the pnz will we have an opportunity to to weigh in on that or that that go directly to the commission uh we can definitely provide the pnz uh um update on that but that would go to the commission final report okay and then could we go to i think it's two forward uh no i mean the other way i'm sorry two back the the the i want to talk about about the i4 any any and that kind of okay future high speed rail there used to be because i worked on on the plan where the plan was to extend um sunrail it would come over 472 it would make a loop into deltona and then go back so there's an envelope in the interstate on uh all the way to daytona and then go back into daytona do you know that that is still there it's like other plans it's it's on the shelf right now it's on the shelf right now um you know we you know i work with other rails systems and uh uh within the state as well and i can tell you that financing is probably the most difficult thing in addition to acquisition of the right of way um it's why the alternative exists for one way reason or another now what we've done in here is we haven't eliminated this policy uh and and instead of like shall we said may because we believe that it's in the best interest of the city we recommend to you at the best interest of the city that you continue to monitor it so that the plan does come back the commission can direct staff to say hey remember this policy we want you to advocate review this and advocate for what the best policy for deltona is should it come back now if you if the commission wants to push it over further and say we want to advocate for this directly uh let us know how we should change that language um it can go either way right now we left a little bit more open-ended for your you know considerations and your determination because of the sheer amount of costs um uh involved um i you know when working on another similar rail system down in broward i actually was the one who wrote the standards that removed some of those tods uh uh in place and with one community um they were happy to see those standards uh because they gave them an excuse to say well we're not going to meet that standard but the real reason was they didn't really want to pay for you know 80 million dollars for like a train station extension so there's that aspect to consider as well and then finally just one other question and this comes i don't know we need to do what we do with this but there apparently the federal government now has money to extend the the lexus lane on i4 which i think would include a bridge over to rhode island is there some place in the comp plan that that would that that would go or do we just do that in the road program from uh the standpoint of rail or the extension of rhode island the the extension it would be uh like um expressways putting in you know i call a lexus lane i think we can go back and look at um where we have priority projects yeah we can just look back at the intergovernmental and the and the portion of the policy where we do call a specific project uh that's in a later uh goal and objective i just don't want us to lose sight of the fact that that should include an overpass on to rhode island that we could as part of that toll lane rhode island yeah since we're on the on the section of transportation and stuff i think very importantly what are we doing about walkability especially in the uptown area and and i wanted we discussed a little bit this specific matter i'll give you a great example you go to saxon boulevard and you go to the walmart unless you want to hang out because you got a meeting with your friends whatever it's not really a walkable area to go from walmart to boston coffee you're gonna get i mean hopefully you don't but unless you have a designated space for you're gonna get hit by a car right unless so you're gonna have to drive to the other parking lot versus if you go into orange city where they have the the ross you walk from ross right to coals no problem there's a big difference in walkability there are we going to address that in this specific area yeah actually we tried to address it already actually because um so there are multiple stages here right first is you have to have the sidewalks otherwise you're just walking on grass or you know in an unprotected area but after that about having the appropriate pedestrian design standards that's rooted in walkability and your existing comprehensive plans didn't actually go very far in that so what we try to do we try to separate out into the pedestrian network with a little bit more room to turn on the policy which points you towards the need to think about design the need to think about new sidewalks and where they're missing links and also to particularly think about pedestrian lighting and safety with uh regular reviews with our recommendation and that should be wrapped up in both the master plan process and in how you regularly monitor from a uh kpi standpoint with public works i see something and mayor just add on to that if if you look at policies tm 1-3.1 all the way to 1-3.5 discussing monitor monitor pedestrian facilities monitor friendly pedestrian design new sidewalk priorities and pedestrian lighting and safety so that all goes into the walkability element okay and then to piggy off member nor these comments i think the the purpose of her commenting on the trails to make sure that we're connected to the county stuff is i think the biggest focus that we need to do is we want to connect people to each other right that's the whole purpose of an uptown it's not just to have a beautiful uptown and go hang out all that it's connecting people with each other with community and a lot of us enjoy our trails doesn't look like i do but i do um but jokes aside we we want to make sure that independent whatever it is that the county does or does not do we want to make sure that we're able to have that connectivity to those trails and that regardless of what they're doing does not impede us from making sure that we're connected yes and mayor i i really appreciate that comment because that's why we started with the first objective the way we did as opposed to your current uh transportation element which was to look at the plan holistically and make sure that your pathways are context sensitive you're connecting people with each other and the place and a master setting now the county is one piece of that so when you master plan think about your grid as a whole and you think about your final build out it naturally has to include both the county and what the city itself is doing and sometimes what private actors are doing too with their own property whether it's a big development or just uh the sidewalk in front of their house um and so we really wanted to push you towards a holistic look that you didn't have your existing element for that exact reason you're stating about that connection of people and to people and place in a context sensitive manner two two last final points before we go to commissioner howington is uh in in these areas and i hear it even outside of it right but e-bikes are becoming an issue people that enjoy walking are having to at the last minute move out of the way sometimes jump out of the way or get hit by an e-bike can we make sure i don't care if it's controversial or not and i'm not going to wait for another city to sit here and come up with an idea so we can follow that's part of being a leader we need to not do dumb things but we can come up with something that's sensible that makes sense and that the sheriff can help enforce get us all together and get that done but we need to make sure that also the pedestrians are safe and that includes putting some type of i guess you can call it a regulation whatever to to make sure that the pedestrians are following the same road rules a lot of cities have bike paths that pedestrian that uh these e-bikes can follow is that going to get addressed at some point as well yeah we will coordinate with staff in the best approach and then bring it back to commission for further uh determination uh but what take it and then the as you know voltran has gone away for a lot of areas that's just it's happening uh before ottoman jumped on the autonomous bus thing that believe it or not was an idea that deltona was talking about when they saw what lake nona was doing with autonomous buses that is such an important part of connectivity because we have the senior center over there at the center of deltona which can help us connect some of the seniors to wherever the uptown is finally going to get developed and keep them in with the ability of being able to have transactions with other human beings all right are we addressing that as well your yes we what we've done in policy five one to five three was try to broaden it a little bit more your existing process plan policies really relies overly on voltran and so there needs to be at some point where the commission might need to think about policy determination for how it not only may fund a local circulator as other uh municipalities have or you know but also considered maybe perhaps like coral gable the others did is to build that into their bonus system um uh for the incentive for uh with development there are multiple ways to skin a cat on this and um you know this range from uh really looking at either grants or finding sources of funding including your own source of funding but having policies that move away just from relying on voltran but without locking you in to something allows you that policy discussion in the future to simply say that please evaluate a local circulator um and come back to us with a viable plan for our discussion and determination um so the first step is not relying on voltran we know where that's headed right now and it's a scale back so that's where the policies were written to broaden can we can we when you guys after this can you guys look into that so you can send to the commission and the members uh some of the transit beep is a good example one of them what they're doing in lake donut but more specifically it takes very little infrastructure to put into place what they've done in altamont by rain uh rains with the cranes roost uh and some of their transportation that they're pushing over there it's it's state of the art it's really it's really great so commissioner howington thank you mayor i had a question about uh 1-8.3 the city-owned parking facilities are we talking about the city actually purchasing land or is that repurposing city facilities that we already have and opening it up to city-wide parking um because it gets a little confusing in the last sentence where it says as needed the city will plan construct or encourage centralized parking but this is headed as city-owned parking so are we talking about city-owned parking or are we talking about the development agreement yeah how does that we could probably name that to centralized parking facility that's both the city-owned um yeah i think it's a point well taken um so i think a change in the title would probably be in order okay because it looks like it kind of goes down into the activity node parking and kind of overlaps a little bit um because i'd be concerned that we'd be building something in here essentially saying that the city is going to be either acquiring property to turn into parking lots or what's happening there right and so we wrote it in a way as we as you just read it out that it's either the city should determine that it's the best vehicle pardon the pun to uh uh provide the parking or to find a path forward that encourages um a developer to do so sometimes the city is partially the vehicle you know the money comes to developers right right now my morning meeting was with uh city of miami and little havana where they put a parking trust fund uh uh into place for that uh district they're trying to revitalize and the point is to have the developers pay into the fund but the city's the one that has to aggregate all the funds from all the developers so that they can get the centralized parking resolve their parking issue for the area the parking tends to be kind of a nebulous topic and there's a lot of different ways to address it what we wanted to do was provide from a comprehensive plan standpoint the multiple avenues that you could do so and not restrict you okay so that would kind of fall into the mobility fund okay thank you very much i appreciate that clarification is a member warner key or is it commissioner not commissioner novix thank you mayor um we talked about e-bikes do we need to address anywhere in this document um golf carts um we generally uh define uh golf carts under micro mobility and in the uh in the uh proposed policy to you we have continued to kind of subsume that under micro ability however if the commission wants us to do a separate policy specifically on golf carts or similar we could definitely look at that further but generally my recommendation is to take micro mobility as a whole because you don't know how that's going to evolve and then do the more precise golf carts and other actions within the land development within your code of ordinance and not necessarily land development regulation so you can go either way for example debarry has golf cart zones right within the city and i think we need to probably identify yeah here right and you know all that is then covered under the specific portion of the state statute that allow for a community to adopt specific policies in uh with regarding golf carts i've written a few of those plans actually for other communities in the state uh kava skate miami springs and others i can tell you that when i worked on those studies we did not have to make comprehensive plan changes because uh we had to take it from an ordinance basis in nature the term micro mobility is broad enough to cover that and um it allows you that discretion now that being said if the commission wants to get really into the weeds with this we're happy to look at that further but it's not something that you necessarily need to put in your comprehensive plan we resolve it just by including golf carts in the definition itself of micro mobility yes and i would also say and uh uh um you know if you're going to do in the comprehensive plan you just then also make sure that any right regulation your code and ordinances is defined very specifically in the future um so that definitely that's something done mr cb you care to comment on that really please i mean i think that that's a i think putting it in the definition is a good way to fix it for now i mean it doesn't seem to be like a pressing problem i think as a future problem if you put it there then at least we have a plan right yeah i mean that's why i normally defer to like defer to a code of ordinances to deal with a golf cart at the subset of micro mobility because as micro mobility you know changes over time like five years ago we weren't talking about e-bikes like we are now right and that is the form of micro mobility um 10 years ago well actually 15 years ago we weren't talking about golf carts as much as we are right now even 10 years ago and you know to uh you know other comments from commissioner housing about future proofing sometimes being a little bit more loose with the definition of more broadly definite comprehensive plan allowing a code ordinance to be adaptable to end those definitions allow for that proof future proofing a little better as well thank you all right let's move on go to you know expand on the first one and also speak to the mayor's point about connection orange and destination we want to make sure that we really reinforce that as you think about the grid is context sensitive and then as part of that is then going through and making sure that it's tied back your land use regulations you'll see that we did not delete some of the important aspects of trying to get money or commitment from developers who are coming in with site plans uh touching those too much might create an sb 180 issue if we remove it or delete it and try to add it back elsewhere in the future so we aired on a side of you know caution to maintain the city's ability to make those requests um past that um uh their design standards as well uh we do want to um push most of our clients towards utilities planning uh um and some future technology as well particularly since a lot of times um how many people how many have thought about if everyone wants to do um have electric vehicle if our energy grid would sustain it it wouldn't if i wanted to have an electric vehicle overnight our energy grid would collapse we just don't have the capacity for it now the city doesn't build necessarily some of this grid but it's important that you think about the uh electric vehicles and the autonomous vehicle technology you need wi-fi internet you need electricity and all that you need coordination with outside entities and these policies begin to push you towards that um and with that um i'll pause here commissioner howington thank you um i have solar panels on one of my houses and it it is a really nice thing because my bill is about 35 a month but what we were told at the time that they were installed is only about 20 houses within a community can get the solar panels because it would overload the utility grid so with that said is there a way that we can build something in either here or into the land development code to ensure that when these communities are being built that they put in the larger transformers that can sustain higher usage of green energy how do we manage that from normally they were going to infrastructure element of a comprehensive plan and then that gets reinforced through your uh up to multiple uh areas uh including the coordination with fpl for example and that's where that really comes into play because a lot of times communities they want that extra capacity within the grid but they're not the ones actually going on and building it and fpl does have a work program over time it's about that advocacy that pushing from that to get that capacity um now there are communities that have gone ahead and worked out a deal where they front the money for it and then you know fpl puts it in and then reimburses over time so i've seen that done as well so sometimes that's part of the policy right i want to have this and i'm going to be able to point to that policy and say staff please come back with a plan on how we can work out some sort of agreement so that we can get this objective a little bit faster than what fpl schedule looks like because it's my understanding that today if a community runs out of space that then the next house that wants to get solar panels is fronting the cost to upgrade the grid for the next set of 20 houses or so and so that's my concern is how do we make it more inclusive when we're building these communities from school yeah and i think that's a well a legitimate concern it really does start with the policy to say we want to make sure that we push towards an upgraded grid within your infrastructure element and then taking the next step and doing that coronation with the utilities uh using this as a directive to staff okay thank you commissioner novick or member warnecke so under advanced air mobility mobility i don't know if that's the right place to put it or not do we i think we need to have a section specifically dealing with uh commercial drones delivery drones and such how we're how we're going to design design those those drone facilities whether it be like walmart making deliveries amazon would this be the spot to put that or that would probably be where we're heading with it because it's all integrated right uh whether it's a drone for delivery it has to come from a distribution point center um we put in terms of advanced area mobility feasibility because there are multiple layers to this there's the drone aspect then there's the vertiport and heliport and because orlando is actually one you know and our area region here is actually the test site and one of the leading areas the total will actually be one of the first cities affected by any changes uh there we can definitely look to subsetting part of that policy to uh look at the commercial drone but we would recommend that you take all the aerial mobility items as a whole because they do really belong together to that point commissioner novick we we looking at the future this is for 20 20 50 as well we do have that component orlando is one of those test sites and and if you've seen them i geek out because i love all this technology stuff but we're talking about drone taxis even so we're going to need a space specifically here for that specific type of adventure ability but what you brought up is a very legitimate point as well thank you so come mayor i just want to state and um jimmy can help me out with this as well our hands are pretty much tied in terms of what we can do um in the comp plan or the zoning in regards to drone facilities um were preempted by state statute and also faa right third goal is now that you thought about what your grid should be to look like and some of the standards uh whether it's safety or how connect people how are you gonna get it built and that financing and so forth so you know the first important thing is that um the state does require under a statute that if you have a transportation impact fee or mobility fee which you do it has to be plan space so this reinforces the need to have a plan that creates the basis for your plan based fee uh that's as required under the statutes uh i think it's one six three three one eight zero and three one eight zero one uh uh are the particular portion of the statute there that are relevant um past that uh having the plan and knowing the vision of it it's one step but then having the step to put it into your capital improvements update having them uh and particularly having maintenance first and then expansion as a priority make sure that you know you're maintaining what you have before expanding further you don't want to necessarily expand and then have another piece of what you already have deteriorate that's generally a recommendation we make and uh with that you know just go back and of course importantly what we didn't see before was like thinking about the grant and outside funding and priority connections uh there commissioner novick or member warnecke under 3-1.2 the master plan will be reviewed and updated as needed by the city based on evolving conditions at least every five years and shall be referenced during the annual cip update process um is that consistent with our other master plan updates five years typically five years is the standard what we have across the board i would note that the state does mandate you require it does mandate that you update your fee basis every four years okay so the plan being the basis for your impact fee we will we're saying five years here but technically speaking there should be at least some sort of review and update every four years or so so that you can tie it back to your uh for your transportation uh impact fee your mobility fee update so that's where five years get consistent with your other plans but four years for consistency with your so should we change this to four i would recommend you do it at four or five yeah well three three to prepare us for the fourth year i would say you should do a major update about every five to seven years and a minor update in the three-year mark just to make sure that you're keeping in compliance with state statute and the levying of any impact fee that would be my professional like recommendation there um go forward just uh general mobility operation coordination this is next uh just go um this is uh that the background for how your your methodology for the roadways like what's your level of service and to just really move you towards a future mobility mode level of service they're not quite there yet so it really hangs on the roadways you do need to do a little bit of study in order to get to a multimodal standpoint where you're providing level of service on the bicycle and pedestrians next please um we heard a lot about safety as well so we're suggesting that you think about vision zero um and the safe streets aspect from the federal government and tying into those program there are also federal monies and uh fwa monies that are available uh um and so aligning your policies a certain way allows you to kind of tap in those a little bit more um overall you know i will say more um meaning some uh certain a requirement 88 is always one that when you flew a role title to apply so that's just uh there for federal statutes and coordinated regional planning because you might have your grid all thought about but you know you're not necessarily going to build your entire grid by yourself you want that outside partner you want that to be part of the npo plan so they will fund some of it in the five-year tip um and you know the project that you think of as a city should be included in the long-range transportation plan for the region to get those money than fair member northy then commissioner okay i have can we go back to that slide that was just up there okay i and i don't know this says meet ada requirements yeah is that effective only i mean when we redo something it's my understanding we are not required in unless if it if it is past a certain date to make them meet ada requirements and that is really really sucky out of it go ahead yeah if you're just resurfacing parking adopted level you know the parking where you park right if it's not set straight or it's not good get a ramp i mean we're not we're yeah would that be part of of of this what we went anything that meets the threshold above what the department of justice has issued in terms of requirement to meet title ii of the american uh with abilities act generally that's anything above resurfacing so if you're putting in new bike lanes for example onto a roadway if you're putting new sidewalks um you're putting a new transit stop and that then becomes the trigger because it's above routine maintenance does resurfacing of a parking lot no not necessarily um now you might have regulations that would require you to uh consider the ada handicapped spot on resurfacing that's something i've enforced in other cities and have really had no problem getting those uh done when you know when i was a community development director um so there's those aspects there but generally the policy is really looking at those ada policies for your general roadways um okay because we have a lot of redevelopment areas this is an old really an old community with some of the commercial and as they change we are not updating our ada standards for parking right if they're just generally doing resurfacing and restriping there is no requirement they're generally speaking unless the code has something otherwise we can't make that higher a higher level right now it's a recon yeah if you're reconfiguring the site like i've had with some of them then i i can go back and then say well you have exceeded the threshold but that's more of a land development regulation discussion than a comprehensive plan discussion member north member northy we will be addressing that during the land development code update so it is on our plate to look at thank you commissioner colwell uh thank you mayor i have a question i have a question with regards to the table at the bottom of page 14. it's policy 4-1.1 just wondering why we're allowing a level of service on arterials and collectors as e which is the lowest level allowed most jurisdictions would consider that failing and yet we're allowing it a level e uh 4-1 4-1.1 bottom of page 14 there's a table roadway level of service yeah arterials and collectors an acceptable standard is you've got e in the box for arterials and collectors that's a failing roadway at a level e so why are we allowing that e is um failing well um first this is your adopted standard we didn't touch your standards uh uh on those uh as far as e um i think that was done to be consistent with the county right all the county thoroughfares they have yeah that's failing right so here's my take on level of service you can adopt a higher level of service but you have to be willing to put the money behind it otherwise someone can compel you you can't mandate a developer to upgrade a roadway if the level of service is is is failing they want to develop next to a failing roadway you can only get them to update as far as their impact so if you have a a roadway that is already there at level service e and you want to bring the d you have to supply the money yourself first to bring it to d then you have the basis if it tips over to get the developer to pay so it's not that someday they would pay automatically up front we're telling them that it's okay to develop next to a failing roadway they can add more traffic to a level of service that's an e what i'm saying is is if they want to develop next to a roadway and our level of service is c or d and they trip it over to an e now we have room to mandate that they upgrade the roadway because the level of service has dropped because of the amount of traffic they're adding to the road and so i don't think that we should be at an e on arterials and collectors as a matter of fact they think on arterials we should be c collectors we should be d and locals we should be d yeah and that's also why we're also recommending that you move to a mobility basis on a plant basis because then you're not looking at a tip tipping point in order to get those fees you're looking on a on a person trip methodology and absorption methodology over time to a degree your revised fee that you adopted in june does begin to move you in that direction um past the point of the tipping point i think it's a point well taken our recommendation from a professional standpoint is if you do want to go from an e to a d we will gladly like provide that as a change for you but we do have to advise you that because your roadways are operating a certain level you cannot compel a developer to fix something that's already a problem only the impact would they create carrying forward and to demonstrate that as well then it was already tipping point and you have not fixed it and make the threshold for you and your staff to get that contribution a bit harder so to the community that i work with that want to change the standard that is my general advice it is you know a policy decision but it's one that you have to put the money behind to get to that certain standard in order to get that future come you know aspect of compelling otherwise it makes it very difficult you're adding traffic to failing roads and we're allowing it right that's one of the major things that we hear is a problem from our community when we have an application that comes before us what kind of traffic impact is this going to add to an already crowded road and we're allowing a level of e service and that's a failing roadway right and if the commission wishes to change it that's why we're bringing this now it is your determination this is your plan we will happily change it we just have to provide you with that advice that i just did so that you know you're going into an informed manner i think if we ask the majority of this commission we need to start sending start setting an example and and do upgrade some of these and maybe initially we have to put some money into it ourselves but moving forward the develop i i'm sorry i know i just don't trust we see it in the commission all the time we agree to some development and the vice mayor has said it in the past then they turn around and they do something completely different right so i think we start setting the standard make the change and we'll get a consensus from the commission and the pnz and then moving forward after we've spent some of the time of putting our money where our mouth is then they know moving forward that they have to abide by this then we're gonna have to face some issues with like with the county and with state roads and stuff like that uh that maybe we can address differently but we do need to set a standard that isn't a failing road yeah the other advice that i have to provide you is that in the other comprehensive plan that we have worked on if you change your level of service standards it ties your concurrency it has not withstood sp 180 on the review from the state so i want to be really clear up front with that that's also the other reason why we did not touch someone's concurrency standards like it has been knocked back in other cities what we worked on and certainly we as staff will support whatever you want right as policy makers but you you will be binding future commissions to tax increases to be clear if you require a higher standard of roads that is the that is the prac that is what will happen so if you say we must and we will put our money where our mouth is that's fine you just need to understand that that will mean an increase in taxes there's no other way to pay for it so just to be clear so just for clarification that means that if a developer for example culverts was just made to repave that whole road that they're going to be on right now so so what and i and i'll defer to the planners here when you are increasing your standard from e to d that is for everywhere this is a city of a hundred thousand people with a huge geographic area and you're drilling down on one developer in one place fair but you're obligating the city everywhere so that's fine go you are allowed to make that policy but i want to be clear that that's very expensive hold on for i think what we're trying to say is are we not able to do zones for the roadways are we not able to do specific zones for roadways i mean because we're able to do zones right now for different developments so i don't want to mix up i think the culver examples is a good way to demark the differences between what we're talking about my understanding is that was a substandard roadway that was paved so that they and built what was gravel or something that they so that that's different than level of service it was for access right which you have design standards and codes that require that that's different than level of service which is capacity vehicles per hour that type of thing how many how many lanes you're going to need um i'm not going to we've already heard the arguments the other the other thing to think about yeah that was the point of me bringing that up because they put a traffic light up they were asked to put a traffic light right and that has to do with turning movements and other capacity traffic lights usually don't create more capacity on a roadway they reduce them because there's more red time on the main road when you're talking about raising the level of service for every roadway in the city what we're trying to say is we don't want to have an additional impact to our current residents what we do want to know is why can't we make developers who are coming to the city paying transportation mobility impact fees increasing the traffic impacts to our roadways they should be incurring the cost for bringing that development here and where where at what point do we say you mr developer are asking to add traffic to a failing road there has to be a fix there somewhere we don't disagree with you we're just trying to make sure you guys are knowledgeable about state law has certain requirements lots of developers can just write a check and go they don't have to do the actual improvements that's not something you local government can overcome that there's state laws about that right so we just want you to have all the information before you make your policies in that regard what developer could be required to pay had to pass a dual what we call the dual rational nexus test it has to be related to the impact which you're bringing up and it has to relate to their proportion from a theoretical standpoint your plan-based methodology for your fee should be covering that so when they have to pay that fee for the entry impact you are charging the fee on the impact of their development now the place to to to to look at them because the state has mandated that your fee must be plan-based is how you use your plan to justify that fee the standards here can go into that aspect but in reality a plan-based methodology looked at the project that you have planned out in order to reduce that traffic over time um so you know that's i i i don't thought that's the answer you're looking for but it's going beyond this and setting a different standard the reality is exactly as the city attorney's uh uh has indicated you can only use avalorum taxes because beyond that what you're charging the fee is the facto from a correct my wrong uh uh uh gemma uh uh uh your fee is your judgment of the impact already you cannot ask them to go beyond that because they can come back and say well no you're not meeting what the court has said with the dual rational nexus test you're asking me to pay for something that is not proportional and that is the danger that you're going to run with with this commissioner knobbick and commissioner santiago okay so i i agree with the idea of changing the arterials and the and the collector roads but before we would give final direction on moving that forward i would suggest that staff prepare a for lack of a better word an impact analysis of what this potentially could mean in terms of budget considerations before we move forward and and obligate ourself to something that's going to run us millions and millions of dollars um so i'd like to have an idea of what that potential impact is before we would put this into effect once we have that data i think we can come back then and see if it makes sense to go ahead and change this i would also recommend that you consider evaluating the impact of senate bill 180 um because we've had multiple both eddie and i have had comprehensive plans that have been turned back on this very item um so it may be it it may be something that you would want to include in that report and here's you okay we good with that yes commissioner santiago then commissioner notwinton thank you mayor um yeah just i agree with you commissioner novick i am not ready to um go ahead and make those changes you know i understand your concern and what you just brought up about the roads being at its lowest level um allowed but we also have to think about you know and look into the county why is the county also at e what why do they have it at e you also have um them telling us cannot compel a developer they also have proportionate share fare that they pay into um that goes part of the development they also have development agreements that they do put the the um streets and whatever is needed for that development to be there so for for us to sit here and say okay we wanna we wanna not have an e that you have to look a little bit more it's gonna cost money a lot of money and guess who's gonna pay for it he just said it we are the people are so yes we would love to have all that but no way am i ready to tax our residents they've they're already taxed enough and um we do have a great plan with our developers they've already paid we've increased our tax impact our impact fees three three times so leave it alone in my opinion i'm not i am definitely not in support of increase increasing this right now um and if you want to look into it we should really look into what the county is doing and why they are at an e and that's all thank you very much commissioner how we thank you mayor can we please get an updated uh report of what the major arterial roads are currently operating at because if i'm not mistaken some of the worst roads in the city are the county roads and i appreciate that thank you and to member cardero's point i did ask jordan about this last year and he actually brought forth the statute that says that we have to allow developers to build regardless whether or not the streets are failing so there is a statute that requires us to allow them to overburden our streets even though we know that they cannot withstand the increase in growth which is very concerning when it comes to state statute but it it does exist unfortunately move forward the next this is one years oh the next element is point of order i'm sorry but didn't you ask for a consensus or something or no we're gonna get more information they're gonna get more information you have a new commission coming in literally in no time so um to buy for us to bind them i there's really great points right nobody's saying that we want to tax people but the fact is if you look at graves that road is beyond failing and the last thing as long as i'm mayor anyways i want to see is our roads continue to deteriorate that's why i've been a very big proponent and and and cheerleader of giving howland boulevard to the state for that same exact reason because i know that they'll do a better job in taking care of the roads now that's not a dig at the county because the county and the city have a great relationship i can tell you that um but we we need to start focusing and looking ahead on making changes that are going to also benefit our residents so but no to answer your question they're going to do uh get some information gather it and provide it to the commission the next element is the housing element this element is largely unchanged it includes three goals facilitate provision of quality housing nine objectives and these deal with ada transportation disadvantaged systems ensuring that you have accessibility of housing for all wait i went the wrong direction there we go promoting a variety of housing types ensuring that your housing practices meet state standards and affordable housing standards much of this is regulated or is at least stipulated um by the community planning act and what is to be included in your housing element the missing middle 80 provision of adus encouraging student housing and congregate fields living facilities co-living and micro units substandard housing reduction and how you would reduce the substandard housing in the community through demolition code enforcement building code uh compliance energy efficiency land use categories that support housing and the different types of housing and how to ensure that those housing stocks are provided through your land development code and your development efforts integration of group facilities protection of historic historically significant housing housing element discouraging sprawl through mixture of land uses and infrastructure expansion and multimodal transportation systems and densities and underutilized and use of underutilized parcels addressing resident dislocation addressing federal state and local housing subsidies and this one is the one that is new to the housing element this deals with his disaster resiliency and is on page it's unnumbered um it's the fourth last page of your packet um and this deals with post-disaster housing assistant post-storm permitting post-storm permitting uh post-disaster housing permitting and temporary housing so this is how to deal with housing in the case of a storm and that is your housing element just so you know this is i think what we talk about when we we're talking about getting ahead of the curve this is great whose ever idea was to put that in that's what we want to see you're jumping ahead and just yeah if you want to take credit it's fine but we want to see more stuff like that instead of us trying to figure things out after they happen let's get ahead of it jason is a certified but is certified in these areas of planning so any other questions on the housing element as i said most of this except for this this particular housing element is already existing to your plan and we made minimal changes this is the newest thing commissioner does the temporary housing element address any benchmarks or timelines as to how long it remains temporary it's a it it doesn't not in not this establishes standards for to to provide that but the the ordinance land development code would be where you would get more specific so in the land development code we would address timelines timelines okay thank you all right thank you want to move forward oh hold on uh commissioner harriet thank you mayor we just want to make sure when we do address that that we're not we're not preventing the federal declarations to provide that housing you know preliminarily cutting off uh city support for it so right so what you want to do is uh get ahead of the curve because uh for any disaster preparation of your pre during and post stages i just i just know that there's different time timelines depending on which program is enacted and i want to make sure that we don't like arbitrarily say no only for six months when some of those programs last longer and that's why we would normally not put in a specific timeline a comprehensive plan that it's actually more rightfully should be in a disaster management plan or did that the preparation plan a community should have for you know storm related situation exactly that was a great point commissioner harriet only because when we got in i remember we were facing some hurricanes and giving out those temporary trailers and the city had to come up with things right away this essential as long as we don't say hey we don't need the federal government's help or the state's help we have something in place that we don't have to go crazy trying to figure out so and when you do that just from experience uh i've working with a community that had 14 and a half feet of storm surge it never occurs as fast as you think and it literally was two years before some of those temporary housing so you know the their current ordinance was 30 days uh which is not so think about that when you're redrafting some of those all right so property rights i get the fun one uh this is the minimum necessary for you to be consistent with state law and i we did not get any direction to do anything extra in that and i i don't know of any communities that are doing extra in this really so uh it's just to be consistent and compliant so i get the reward for the least amount of time on mike hopefully well there you go we uh we're are we want to say something jordan hold on oh there we go just so you understand the uh how's the property rights element is actually a model ordinance or a model element that almost all jurisdictions are using i just want to thank the mayor and commission for um allowing us to get through the um these three four elements tonight um our next workshop workshop number nine will be on november 16th monday november 16th got it uh yes is there any public comment yes mayor there's two all right let's bring him on courtney crossburgos miss crossburgos if you can just make sure the microphone is requested on so i can there we go um i just thought it was really important that when you're considering the building heights stories that we go up and not out and save some of our green spaces i've lived you know i've been here over 30 years but up north i lived in a couple places where we lived over a store both in new york and new jersey this town in new jersey was kind of like the land so it wasn't that big but it can be pretty cool to live on top of the building too and be able to walk just downstairs and get yourself a cup of coffee or something to eat you know now with my dogs it's not as cool anymore but yeah but i mean it is it's you know it has a different opportunity than what a lot of people have here now you know with big yards and farms and animals and whatever but you know as i'm getting older i would like to have a place like that that i could just you know go sit out on my balcony and watch the parade go down like they do in the land that one building that has all the um balconies and we were just in the land the other day and i lived over there for 14 years and now they better build the big town homes down there i mean i don't know what they look like on the inside but on the outside it's beautiful and it's right outside of town you know i mean you can walk down to the wine place and whatever so i think it's something that we really need to think about because we want to save our green space and davison brought up a very good point before the last meeting that it's a it's a good bonus um a way for us and to entice businesses to do the right thing instead of um giving tax breaks or you know wherever else you um come up with you know this isn't going to cost us any money into you know if they're going to do the right thing somewhere else and build something nice or leave the nice green space or build a park right next to whatever they're building or whatever it is that you consider a you know a benefit why not give them the bonus if they're going to do the right thing that's the kind of people we need here that's the kind of development i'll rent one norma gene guida i am not elon musk so i will not bore you about electric cars and why you omitted it from the plan because that's the here and now but i will ask you to put up tm 1 3.4 please the here and now really is that's the right one the here and now is we are the jetsons living in the flint stones version of deltona we don't have sidewalks we send our kids out with the helmets you guys provided and we tell them to be careful on their bikes on the way to the park you're on new mark so you're competing with cars i want the damn sidewalks i don't think it's asking too much so i propose this be changed and you have the record clerk to priority for the installation of not new priority for the installation of sidewalk infrastructure within the city will be strike based on promoting network connectivity addressing safety needs period this is all about basic public safety thank you that's all mayor all right city manager comments all right that being said meetings