Call to order the June 18, 2025, City of Deltona Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Staff, if you would call the roll, please. Member Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Member Norley. Member Stewart. Here. Member Trenzanovsky. Here. Alternate Zeltos. Secretary Moroso, she asked to be excused. Vice Chair Diarico. Here. Chair Cardo. Present. Alternate French and Alternate Warnicke. Thank you. Approval of the minutes and the agenda from the May 21, 2025. Hearing, does anybody have any comments or alterations or changes that need to be made to the minutes? Move approval. Second. Call the roll. You don't call the roll. Oh, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed. Hearing none. Approved. Presentations, awards, and reports. Do we have any? No. Public forum. Do we have anybody from the public that would like to speak at this hearing? Thank you. Seeing nothing on the agenda for old business, we'll move on to new business. Public hearing ordinance number 24-2025, creating chapter 111, architectural and building design standards, and amending section 70-30, definitions of the land development code of the city of Deltona to include regulation updates and guidance regarding architectural design and aesthetics for commercial and industrial development. I believe staff has prepared a report or a presentation. Yes. I'll turn it over to the presenter. Madam Chair and board members, staff is bringing forward a proposed amendment to create chapter 111 of the land development code, establishing architectural and building design standards for non-residential development. These guidelines follow city commission direction earlier this year and are rooted in longstanding goals to improve the visual quality of development citywide. A zoning in progress has been in place since January, and the draft standards have been shared with numerous applicants during this time, with no pushback to date. At this time, I'll turn it over to Alexis Crespo with RBI Planning and Landscape Architecture, who will walk you through the proposed guidelines. Sorry. Good evening. That's much better. Okay. Alexis Crespo, I'm vice president of planning with RBI Planning and Landscape Architecture. Joining me tonight is Patrick Murray, who's project manager in our Orlando office. I presented to you, I believe in March, a new chapter on administrative procedures. So I'm glad to be back before you with something a little bit more creative and something to sink your teeth into. I do have a brief presentation to walk you through the proposed amendment and hopefully answer some of your questions to start. As Mr. Smith noted, the background is city commission direction from earlier this year. They met, Jessica actually gave a great presentation at a workshop in January where it was discussed some of the existing architectural character within the city and how to enhance the look of new buildings and redevelopment, as there's a lot of aging buildings in town that are ripe for redevelopment. How do we ensure that when people come to Deltona, they have a strong sense of place, they see it as an attractive place. This is a balancing act, though, where we don't want to go overboard with these standards and limit or stop good development and redevelopment from happening by making it too costly to do so. So we definitely looked at this amendment through that lens. We did use a document, the 2008, there was a pattern book created by another consultant. It was shelved. It didn't move forward. And so this is kind of dusting off some of the concepts from that pattern book. It was kind of policy-based, and it wasn't code that you could insert directly in the land development code, but it really served as the basis in some of the visionary pieces of this proposed amendment. So to start, this amendment will only apply to non-residential buildings. This will not apply to residential dwellings or townhomes. It won't apply to multifamily buildings either. There is a state law that was passed recently that prevents the local government from enacting local design standards for residential uses. So this will be your commercial retail, office buildings, government buildings, your light industrial kind of flex spaces. So it will apply to all those non-residential buildings in town. You may have noticed there's architectural terminology in the document. So we did include a fair number of architectural deviations or definitions as part of the amendment. And in terms of the hierarchy of the document, we have some just basic, all buildings need to do this. All buildings should have these minimum standards so they're not a big box with no character and no visual appeal to the public. Then we went a step further and defined some different architectural styles that we see throughout Deltona that are in line with the historical character of that small-town Florida charm we see. And that also have other architectural styles that are emerging and expanding in their use across the state. And we also did some fairly minimal site placement standards to get the buildings closer to the street and screen the parking areas a little bit better. So when you're driving down the major roadways in the city, you're not looking at an expansive parking lot that's sparsely vegetated, but you're looking at either an attractive building or minimal parking that's screened through buffering. So kind of a picture's worth a thousand words. I tried to incorporate a lot of pictures into the presentation, but this is what we're trying to avoid just the big boxes without a lot of detail, monochromatic, long, expansive blank walls such as this. And this isn't specific to big box. This is for all sizes of commercial buildings, to be clear. But here's an example of a newer big box store that makes you feel a lot differently when you look at it compared to the other examples. So why is that? Why does one look better to the other, to most people's tastes? One thing about the building on the left is there's no glazing. Glazing is kind of a fancy architectural word for windows. Windows give the idea of letting light into the building. It also provides visual interest and breaks up those thick, heavy walls that extend on these buildings. Along that line as well, the building has no undulation. It's just a straight, blank wall. It's not moving in or out or recessing in any way, shape, or form. Moving the building out and in and undulating the actual structure can be very expensive. And we hear from a lot of – we've done this work for several cities throughout the state, and we hear from chain retailers that we can't have the building go out six feet and in six feet. When you walk through a store, you don't want a lot of nooks and crannies along the walls because people can go into the spaces, shoplifting occurs. It's just not part of their program. So we understand we can't have – we're going to have generally kind of rectangular-shaped building footprints. But if we even just push that wall out or, in the case of the target, just have a one- to two-foot extension of that frontage, it just creates a whole different visual appeal and appearance from the roadway. So this one, you've got texture. You're breaking up that facade. So there's some wall. Then there's a textured piece of the wall. Then we've got some glazing and windows. And so you're having different pieces of visual interest as you move through the building. And you'll also notice the use of, again, the windows to create visual appeal. So this will apply to, again, your non-residential zoning districts. We're excluding the enterprise commercial overlay district that already has design standards. That's only for very specific parts of the city near your interchanges. But all other non-residential zoning districts, it would be applicable, as well as non-residential components of planned unit developments. In the case of redevelopment, so if someone comes in and they want to significantly change the building, they would need to come into conformance. There is going to be alternative design review process for people to work with staff on what is appropriate, depending on the extent of redevelopment they're doing to that building. If it's a fairly minor expansion or minor change, there's the opportunity to reduce the requirements of that process. For situations where it's just a change of use in existing commercial buildings being repurposed to another commercial use, they would have very minimal requirements, such as having an additional few ornamental trees or some planters or some decorative pavers, just something to dress the site up without making them redesign or repaint and reskin the building, because that can obviously be costly. And then you're going to have non-conforming buildings, buildings that were built 20, 30-plus years ago. Those would remain legal non-conforming in accordance with your code, just like any of your other older buildings, and over time would come into conformance depending on when they redouble. And all this is not an additional process for applicants. This just gets evaluated when they submit for their site plan, and then also when they submit for their building permits, obviously would have a lot of the details associated with the amendment. So just the general building design standards, it covers a couple different concepts. So it establishes what a primary facade is. That's what you want to be most beautiful, I guess you'd say, on a building, is the front of the building that's facing the public street. In the case of a corner lot where there's two streets, they would have two primary facades, and then the other facades would be secondary facades and would have lesser standards because they're not confronting the public realm. Exterior building colors, we wanted to work in some flexibility but also prevent what you see on the screen. We're not picking on McDonald's. We've got some good McDonald's pictures in here as well. But there's a lot of primary color. It's very bright. You don't see them doing this, and certainly they're not allowed to do this in a lot of jurisdictions anymore because of limitations on the use of primary colors on primary facades, the use of neon. So we're still allowing, you saw the target that had a red portion of that wall. They're still allowed to do a percentage of their brand primary color. You're going to have, you know, racetrack gas station. You're going to have Culver's. These are primary colors on these buildings, but it's limited to trim in just a certain percentage of the facade so you're not getting, you know, big walls of red. And, you know, Wendy's has some skins. I call the outside of the building skins sometimes. And they have an earth tone red, so it's not primary firehouse engine red. They've muted it. It's like a brick red. And so that would fall within the allowable warm and earth tones, and it's purposely written to give staff some latitude to work within that context. We're also limiting the number of colors. If you're a larger building, there's more opportunities for different trims and maybe different architectural features like shutters where you may want to incorporate more colors, but we've limited it to five on a single facade or four for buildings under 10,000 square feet. And then there's some minimal limitations on building materials, so you don't get corrugated metal or just ribbed concrete, very simple, low-quality building materials on these primary facades. Architectural style. So this was incorporated into the amendment in order to—we worked—again, we've worked through this with a lot of different cities in Southwest and across Florida, and there's the idea of creating a distinct architectural style with your buildings. And the intent here is to have enough elements so that it's truly emulating that style, and it's not just that kind of faux movie set-looking version of an architectural style, but it really is combining the different features that make it truly meet that style so that it's meeting the architectural intent. So the range of architectural styles we've incorporated, and you have four, but within each of these there's 20 different styles that are covered. So, like, for example, Florida, you've heard that called Old Florida. In Southwest Florida we call it cracker architecture for the cowboys that cracked their whips and lived in cracker houses. It's also called Key West, Caribbean. And so underneath, this is a very broad range of styles underneath each set vernacular. So we have Florida, Mediterranean, modern. A great example is the state college as you enter the city hall property. You can see that. And then traditional, which you see a lot of within Deltona. So, again, establishing just some minimal components for each selected style so that it looks like a real version of these buildings. So the first style is Florida vernacular. So we've got the image from the amendment as well as some other example images for you to kind of get a sense of that style. It's pretty popular or I would call common in Florida. That's where you have commonly metal roofs, large front porches or verandas, shutter features, oftentimes Bahama shutters or more traditional style of shutters, awnings, things, just natural things that would be very durable and were made for Florida because of the heat and the nature of the climate. The next style is Mediterranean. And there's a couple of, again, distinct features that make something truly a Mediterranean building. And one of the most commonly known features is that barrel tile roof. So it doesn't necessarily have to be the red clay color, but tile roofs is very inherent to that architectural style. Symmetrical massing of the building, covered verandas. Arching is also very common with the style, earth tones, as well as different types of trims and moldings. Modern is emerging more and more, I think, throughout the state. We see it. It's typically flat roof lines, geometric features, more windows and glazing than traditional and old Florida-style buildings, often breezeways or shading areas, and then also light-toned stucco. And then traditional vernacular, that can be Georgian, colonial. There's a lot of sub-vernaculars that fit underneath that, but that's often with the porch with the columns. Brick is a very common material. Roofs are typically shingle or slate. Cornices, dormers, and hip gable roofs are also inherent to this style. And not only the main picture, but you can see the other examples of local Florida versions of this architecture, so you can get a broader sense of its applicability. Getting into building placement standards, we incorporated some minimum site design features, again, to dress up the sites, add some interest. That can be seating areas. You see that more and more with even just retailers or office buildings where they're having areas for either the public or employees to have seating, maybe take their lunch outside. Also incorporating a fountain feature or planners. And, again, this is a menu approach where you can pick out of a list of which ones work best for your site, maybe work best with your budget. There's a requirement for additional buffering if you're putting your parking lot along the roadway and your building is set back from the road. That's just going to happen with a lot of shopping plazas. They want the parking out front. Some jurisdictions do want to force the building on the road, have the buildings kind of have faux entrances along the road or some appearance of entries, but then have the parking in the back and the main entrances in the back. And I think that's trying to create a look that's not actually functioning in that way. So what we were looking at, which I think the retail market appreciates, is the opportunity to just have enhanced buffering so that the sea of parking is not as visible. It's screened through some trees and hedges. You can still have your parking where you want it, but at the same time, it's not as you're driving down the main roadways of Deltona. You're not just looking at seas of parking. Interconnectivity between non-residential sites is super important, so you're not having to get back onto the arterial roadway network. Screening of overhead doors from the public viewshed. So that's kind of your quick lube oil changes with the roll-up doors or some industrial uses. Having those not put on primary facades where they're going to be facing the street. And then for corner lots, it's hard to tell in this picture, but having just a feature to anchor that corner and create, again, some visual interest in the place that could be through public art. In this case, there's just a simple, we'll call that a portico-type feature. You can see there's brick with some trellises over top, and it's fairly simple, fairly cost-effective. But I was driving through, I took my mother to Napa a week ago, and I was driving through, and I was like, that's what we're talking about, just a simple feature. It can be planted, and it really just can dress up these roadway networks. The last part I'll touch on is the alternative review process. So this is administrative, this would go through staff, and when they get a building permit that doesn't comply, they would work through the alternative review process. They would be subject to criteria. And basically, it's just, are you meeting the intent of the ordinance of enhancing the visual appeal of Daltona? So are you offsetting your request? If you want to do 25% primary color on your facade because it's very important to your brand, it allows Mr. Smith to make that judgment call and also look at, well, can we maybe add some additional brickwork to offset maybe the additional neon or primary color that they would like to do? And there's also an appeals process for that if, for some reason, Mr. Smith turns it down and it needs to be elevated to the city commission. So with that, I'm sure you guys will have questions about the amendment. This is, again, intended to just enhance the city of Daltona. This is the standard to have commercial design standards in your code. I was surprised that the only design standards were for a very limited area of the city. We feel we've achieved a balance with what chain retailers are going to want and need to locate in Daltona, but also push them to do a better standard than they would otherwise because we all know they're going to build the most affordable building that you allow them to. And so the lifespan of a building is, you know, 30-plus years. So what's being developed and redeveloped today is it's going to be there for a while. So just creating those standards to make it nicer is something we do recommend and was requested by your commission, of course. And this is, I think, a great picture, and I think it just shows national and international change. They will do, if they want to locate in your community, if they see the value in being in your community, this is, you know, turquoise arches in Sedona, Arizona. They have a plan to meet design standards if they want to be in that community, and I would submit it's time for them to show they want to be in Daltona. So I can answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Crespo. I appreciate your very thorough and detailed presentation. Any information that you brought before us? I'll start the questions off with Member Gonzalez. None? Member Stewart? Hey, yeah, thanks for your time. I have a few questions, and that was going to be one of the examples that I used, so thanks for including it in your presentation. My background in business development, I kind of was reading through and looking at a few things, and I just had a couple questions. On the Exhibit A, it would have been Section 111-101, Line 37. It says, where the cumulative increase in total building area. So this is bringing up existing buildings. So if we were to go in and I'm a business and we're renovating or redeveloping a building, this is only on the increased square footage. This is not if I take a 10,000-square-foot warehouse and I'm trying to renovate the entire inside and get it ready. As long as I'm not increasing the footprint of that building, I do not have to – basically I would be noncompliant approved. Is that accurate? That is accurate because we didn't have – some codes have a provision if you're increasing or if your improvements exceed 20% of the value of the building. Right. Then you wouldn't have to increase this footprint to trigger it. This allows you to do internal remodeling without tripping this standard. It's really if you're going to go expand the building or do something that's altering the external appearance is where we want it to fall on this. Yeah, I think that's kind of the best way, and to your point earlier you mentioned, we don't want to price out future businesses trying to come in. I like that. The next thing that I had on the exterior building colors, I wanted to touch base. A lot of businesses, you travel to communities, Winter Springs, Oviedo, Lake Mary, there's different restaurants and things that will incorporate murals into the outside of their space. Under these guidelines, under these restrictions, unless a special variance is requested or has to be approved by planning and development, is there room for that to take place and to allow them to do that? I agree that this is silent to that, and it would trip the alternative review process. I personally love murals, and I would love to see that incorporated if it's the pleasure of the staff. Especially like in a downtown area, like we've talked about wanting to build a downtown area and kind of create that place to go. Yeah, where we live here, work here, downtown Sanford, I think of. You know, you go downtown Sanford, you walk down the street, and on the side of a restaurant, they've got, I don't know, 20 by 40 mural on the type thing. Are we open to that type, or is this cutting that out? Member Stewart, if that's the will of the board, we can definitely put those recommendations in for the city commission. So, most definitely. Yeah, absolutely. That would be, yeah, that would be kind of just allowing that creativity to be there and allowing the arts to kind of be in a place. Now, I understand having four colors and having extreme colors and things like that. I wanted to also touch base as it relates. May I ask you a question about the mural direction? In some jurisdictions we work in, that requires a public hearing approval. Do you have an opinion on whether it should have a public hearing process? Depending, I'm of the opinion that there should be some type of conversation with the city. I mean, that would be up to planning and zoning on that, but I would be under the assumption, you know, just going out and painting a mural to paint a mural. I mean, I don't want to open it up for anyone with paint to go out and find a wall. A mural program where they have standards, and I think that's what you would like to see and that's what I would like to see, a program added. Same here. Allow for the creativity, but also set parameters to say, hey, we love creativity, we welcome that creativity in the arts, but this is the process that we get there. I'm thinking that maybe instead of tacking that here, it might be quicker and easier. I don't know where we are with the rewrite on the sign code, but a lot of jurisdictions incorporate murals as part of their sign code because it's building facade. So maybe looking at that as an alternative rather than as part of the architectural design standards. That was my additional question on that, and that's why I thought of that McDonald's in Arizona. Signage requirements, I know that's a different section, but I didn't know if it would be included or we would incorporate that into this somewhere because we've got the four different development types that we're looking at, and signage is important. It's pretty key, so I didn't know if that would just be covered in additional or if there should be something in this section as well that would point to where we're at on signage as far as colors, sizing, you know, all of those things. Member Stewart, the signage would be covered under our sign ordinance. Perfect. So where are you on reconsidering a rewrite of the signage ordinance to incorporate murals? We have not started that. Is it on your agenda to do? It is on our agenda to rewrite the sign ordinance, yes. Can we make a suggestion that you incorporate murals in the sign ordinance rewrite? Yes. Would that be sufficient for the members here? Yes, we're good? I think so. Yeah, I think it's in my last one, I promise. As far as on page 8 of 10, this would be under Section 111-401, site elements, to use your wording, the menu of options, they would be required to incorporate two of those on that menu. There's a requirement for planting of trees and things like that. Are there required or a menu of specific trees and native vegetation, native plants that would be required, or is that up to the business owner that would be designing that? Are there requirements at the city level, or do we need to spell that out into this? In the city's landscape code, there are preferred plantings. I do not believe that they are exclusively native. I believe it's natives and Florida-friendly plants. So we can certainly revisit that if that's the will of the board, but it is currently natives and Florida-friendly. Okay. Yeah, I was just looking at more or less, as far as requiring two accent or specimen trees above minimum landscape code requirements along the facade, if that was spelled out specifically, like, hey, this is the menu that we're choosing from. I mean, I guess that would be up to the rest of the board, their thoughts on it. I just want, basically, I'm just trying to put it out there, like, hey, if this is a requirement, you know, what are our thoughts on, if we're setting this, setting it now, what are our thoughts on, you know, requiring either native landscape or setting appropriate places? It would refer back to the landscape code. And the landscape plan would have to be submitted with the site plan, so staff's going to review it, and they're going to use the landscape code and the preferred trees versus prohibited plantings when they make that plan review. So I think we're covered there. Okay. Thank you. Member Northey? I have a lot of questions, and I'm sorry to bother everybody with it, but I went through this with a pretty close code, and I'm not review, and I'm trying to take all my notes and apply them to this, so bear with me. First of all, I want to tell the staff I think they did a great job. This is really something that we have needed for a long time. Bob Nix, who was the original growth management director, he actually identified back when we were a first city, first year, the vernaculars, vernaculars, am I saying that right, around the city. And unfortunately, the fact that it never came before the council, or excuse me, for the commission for finalization, was just a sad testament to the way we were operating back then. Anyway, I love what you're saying. We have some of the very same ideas. So some of the stuff I can mark off, like art in public places. I think that we've talked about that. Signage. I just want to put a note out there on signage. We have got some really run-down signage around the city, and FDOT is bad with it, too. You got to Saxon Boulevard, and the signage out there, you can hardly read it. So I guess that's not part of this process here, but I just need to put that out there that that needs to be reviewed. Let's see. Did we require, or can we require, encouraging redevelopment with, did we get a benefit if they would use green technology? Do we have anything in our code that talks about green technology as far as the building elements, not the landscaping, the building elements? Member Northey, we do not. We cannot? We do not. We do not. Correct. Is there a reason why we didn't consider green technology when we were redoing the land development code? I mean, is there? There's no reason, no. Okay. Well, I would think we would want to think about, I know that requiring them is one thing, but we ought to be able to offer some kind of exemption or an upgrade on standards to do that. The county is LEED certification, yeah. The library across the street is LEED certified, so I just put that out there. I think there's room to work something like that into that site, those site design standards where you pick two. We could incorporate some, we call it low impact development standards. Low impact, LID. Yes, that's a good way of saying it. LEED is kind of proprietary and expensive. With LID, there's all kinds of things they can do under that, so I would be interested in that. Native landscaping, we talked about that. That's in the design standard that they can do native landscaping. I wish that we would all make that another item that we would enhance their ability to do stuff by them doing green and native landscaping. I understand that Tim Blodgett sent in a list of native plants, which I don't know whether we need to add anything like that to this ordinance or not, or that's a staff issue, but I think we need to identify what, for me, what is acceptable. Also, in the body of this, we talked about transit shelters, this applying to transit shelters. I don't know what that means. I don't think this would not apply to transit shelters. Okay, it says that somewhere in here, I'll find it and send it over to Jordan when I go home, but it does talk about transit shelters. The truth is, we don't even have transit service anymore, and we ought to be tearing those transit shelters down unless they're on a roadway that gets bus service, and I don't think we'd use bus service, do we, Jordan? Aren't we all? Don't we have just exclusive, like Uber? Not Uber, but it's a county. Vote trans. Uber. Yeah, I believe the city has, there are very few vote trans stops within the city. There is an active litigation regarding the bus shelters and the, excuse me, not the bus shelters, the bus benches that we are. That was my next thing. Yeah, that we are coming close to a settlement on. Okay. Through the commission and executive session. So I would like to not discuss that. Okay. All right. Well, you're working on it then. We probably have the same idea. Okay. Can we, I love the idea of the standards and the different way that we're going to approach them. Give me an example. Let me give you an example, and you tell me how we would implement this with that. The old shopping center that we have down on Deltona Boulevard, the original shopping center, used to be a Publix, not Publix, and Dixie in there, and it used to be all kinds of different. That is one attached building, and then there's some off buildings. There's a bank there that no longer is a bank. I guess it's going to become a medical building. And then there's a section that was added that has an Indian restaurant and some veterans' offices there. Those are all smaller than 2,000 square feet individually. But totally, that location is rather large. So we have a CRA in that area. How would these architectural standards impact a redevelopment project there? If they were going to expand, so first they would have to trigger the code. So they'd have to be expanding, which I agree 2,000 square foot is a low bar for such a large structure because obviously the percentage is not an issue. It's that 2,000 square foot that would trigger them if they came in for an expansion. So I think something as what I'll call unique or in a shopping plaza like that, they would likely enter into the alternative design process. But we're seeing this a lot because a lot of Florida developed in the 60s and 70s, right? And we didn't get AC or air conditioning until, you know, the middle of the century there. So we see there's all that kind of original development after the AC and the population boom in Florida that are, again, ripe for redevelopment. And we're seeing them slowly, you know, they're shops going out of business. And so then they get a lot of vacancies. And then someone swoops in. Usually there's a lot of national developers that specialize in acquiring failing shopping centers. And they're doing a variety of things. They're, A, redeveloping some of the excess parking out front and putting either, in some cases, like townhomes or putting a Starbucks out parcel out front. And then they're going back and redoing the facades to dress up the building because they can't get good tenants and good rents. And, you know, the second the Taekwondo studio goes in, you know, the shopping center is going to slowly go out of business. So they want to get those chains back in and retailers. And so they go in and invest in, and that's not a dig on Taekwondo. It's just kind of known as one of the low-rent spaces. So they'll come in. They'll pick a style and work with staff on. They may not be able to, they may not want to do the whole roof over again. But they're going to paint, they can put on, you know, Bimini shutters or Bahama shutters over. You see that on Publix quite frequently. They can do some paint banding is one of the key features on most of these. Maybe do some concrete moldings on the exteriors of the buildings to break up those long, expansive walls. And so kind of work with them through the process to get something that meets their budget but also elevates that shopping center. Okay, but they would have to be adding something to make that trigger that, correct? Correct. Okay, so like the Volusia Mall took, they had a lot of outbuildings that they added and took up some parking spaces. That would be what you, what you mean, correct? That would do it. That would trigger it. Okay, and then, and this might not be in the, certainly in the, certainly in the land development code, but I don't think it's an architectural and building design standards, but I do need to know, are we going to require some kind of a sidewalk as part of this? Do we do that now, require sidewalks as part of the development? We require it now. Okay, and do we, like, there is consideration of putting a trail, an urban trail up Providence Boulevard. It's probably not going to happen right now, but would we require the building to, the people that we're doing, redoing the building to widen that sidewalk to match what is coming up to meet it? Does that make sense, Jordan? I'm sorry if I'm not making sense. Zach? Yeah, I guess the, this, the distinction would likely lie in where that pedestrian path lies. So the architectural design standards are intended really to apply for, on the private property. So anything on the public right of way really falls under the jurisdiction of the city or the county. There are certainly processes for new development where we could require those improvements in the situation of a redevelopment that is generally less likely unless you're coming to a significant change where you're coming back for a, for a new site plan. And alluding to the CRA, they're, you know, due to a property's location within the CRA, there may be opportunities for funding, which the CRA board could provide to help incentivize it. That's not going to happen, yeah. Which leads me to a question on residential. I know this is not residential, but you potentially have a lot of residential, particularly in the CRA area because they're talking about putting a sewer there, that could become residential to commercial. You see it all across the county where they take old homes and put offices in them. What would, what would trigger, if they were to do that, they were to put some kind of office in? Yeah, a mixed-use building would have to meet the standards. Okay, so they would have to come in. Yes. Okay, all right. And then what, what does it mean when it, when you say facade, a blank wall? What, what is, what is, what does that mean to me? Does that mean that they have to do something to that wall, an architectural standard to that wall, or they just can't leave it like that first slide that you showed? Correct. Would that be correct? So that's on page three of ten. And so if they have a, a long wall, you know, these big box are 200 foot long in some cases. So they need, depending on the, the larger the building, the less breakups you need of, you can either, again, like a stamped concrete feature, a window. They're not going to want to do a window on the side of the building. So they're going to do some kind of vertical banding, maybe some texture, a textured panel. And so they're, if it's a big box, they're going to have to do that every hundred feet. If it's a smaller building, it's every 75 feet. And then for a building under 10,000 square foot, it's every 40 feet. They have to do something along the side of the building. They can't just leave it. They can't just leave it as a gray wall. Okay. And then I'm, I'm almost done. I promise. They're in, in the, in here talks about colors. So it says pastels, and then you can use a brighter color as a, as a secondary color. Correct. Correct. So would lavender be a color they could use with bright purple as a secondary color? Would that qualify? I think that would, that would qualify. So some jurisdictions, because this is, this is beauty in the eye of the beholder. Pastel is in the eye of the beholder. These are subjective terms. You, you know when it's bad, you know, when it's a, you know, fluorescent highlighter green pawn shop comes to town, but I'm not eating on pawn shops either, but so there is latitude in this. Taekwondo puts up a, there you go. I sold to two businesses already. Um, so what's been done is Sherwin-Williams has palettes with, you know, hundreds of, hundreds of shades. Then they have their secondary trends. A lot of jurisdictions adopt of color palettes. And this is, I would say more so for downtown areas where they do want everything to kind of jive and go well together. Citywide. Yes, there's cities that adopt a specific color palette. Again, with a broad range of colors, but again, proprietary. Um, we've had, we've had cities reject that because they just feel that it's not giving enough property rights to the business owner to be so confined. So yes, you could do lavender with purple trim though. There's a house there in town that is lavender with purple. Huh? It's, it's quite something. Um, okay. Let me, let me go to, I think my last one, I'm sorry, but, uh, this is just fun. This was fun reading this stuff really. And y'all did a really good job. I was very impressed with, with what I read. So, um, okay. We talked, we talked about the plantings and the minimum trees because that was a former commissioner comment about the trees and about how close they were. Yes, that, that was a good point. Um, so I think he's referring to canopy trees. If you plant, if you plant live oaks, you really can only do about four to five per hundred linear. Yeah. Um, the intent here is that you would maybe do three oaks and a palm, a palm cluster, a crepe myrtle. Okay. And so you, you, you can, you can fit 10 trees per hundred linear feet if you pick species correctly. And so, and the intent was not to require that many canopy trees because that would also be a cost burden on the applicant. Okay. And, and I just have, I think my final question, let me just check here. Oh, no, that's not my final question. I have two more. Um, when you say, I, I just don't know what this definition is. It's conveyance of a cross access easement because I'll give you, um, Orange is, is a good example. On one side of the road, you can go from one building to another building and, and then on the other side of the road, the north side of the road, you have to go back in on Saxon, which I understand we're trying to correct that here. But we use the expression when you can't, it goes to the, to the, um, we go to Jordan to make a decision, but it says he would make a decision on, on, on conveyance of a cross access easement. I, I don't know what that means. I'm just curious what that means. So often, uh, I'm on the private development side in some cases. So we have a client, they, client, developers never want to interconnect their sites. They don't. This is crazy. They don't want, they don't know what's going on next door. Or they, they don't want to do it. And so you need code to require interconnections. Now there's cases where the use next door is that, you know, they'll argue it's not compatible. No one's going to stop in at my business and then go to that business. They're too different. Or the site next door may be vacant and they say, I shouldn't have to build a road to nowhere. So this just ensures the city gets the legal ability that when the time comes of that, either the site redevelops to something more compatible or comes online with, with development, we can, we can say, okay, you've, you've got to interconnect to your neighbor because they've conveyed an access easement to the city. And now you can kind of force the connection because it never comes in together. You know, it's never going to all come, all get submitted at the same time. And so you've got to catch them when they're in there. Because we've, I've had that situation in another city we work for where we didn't require they, the access easement and then we had no way of forcing it on the neighbor when he came in to vault the property. But we're fixing that in here. This would at least, yeah, they don't have to build a road to nowhere, but they at least have to leave the legal rights in place. Okay. All right. And then when it talks about walk-up service, it says we have to, you have to have a pedestrian option. I'm assuming that means when you say, it's talking about a drive-in, a drive-in building that does not have an internal restaurant or an internal place to grab a cup of coffee, but it says you have to have walk-up service. Is that what I'm thinking that that means when I read that? It does. Okay. Basically, it's saying you must allow a patron to enter the building. Now, it's a, you made a very good point because I think there are emerging coffee buses that are not doing this. One in land. So you may want to recommend we get rid of that. Okay. Well, that's a concern because I'm seeing that more often that they're putting in just drive-ups. Yeah. And, okay, my final one is a request and a comment on definition is iconic nature-based symbols, and it lists different kinds of nature-based symbols, but what does that mean to this? I'm curious how we integrate that. I love the symbols. I thought they were great. And, frankly, Jordan, I don't know whether you do, again, on signage, we are using signs now that have robins on them that make no sense at all considering the birds that we have in this community, but give me an example of where you would use an iconic nature-based symbol. So that, and that idea came from your 2008 pattern book, so that was a whole section of the key birds, animals, and types of plants that are native to Deltona that they wanted to see integrated around the city. And so that would apply, I'm on page 10 of 10, for those corner lots. We said if you're on the corner of a major, you know, arterial to a collector or better, you need to do something on the corner. And so one of your options is you could do, like, a sculpture of a crane or something that's... That would be great. Okay. Yeah. I think that's all I have for now. I'm sorry. Price, Chair. All right. Well, I should be pretty quick because everybody already asked some really great questions, so I'll stick just to new ones. Question, and I think, Pat, you might have been going here when you were talking about what triggers this, is so this is for new buildings being constructed or redeveloping if they hit that parameter. What if it's an existing building being sold or transferred to a new owner? So then they would just be getting a change of use permit, and the only thing they would have to do is on page to it, I believe it's... On 8 of 10, they would have to pick two, or now we are going to have a fifth, but they would either do some decorative planters outside, they could do some stamped concrete near their entry, have a fountain feature, add two additional specimen trees, or we could work in a low-impact development concept into this idea. So they would pick two of those, just things that they would do, you know, probably in the front of the building to add some visual interest to it. They don't have to change the architecture. They're not touching the building. They're just doing some minimal elements. Okay. I don't know how I feel about that, but I'll... I don't know. I'll leave it. I would like a little something more. I mean, I think that's a challenge we have now, is we have some very old buildings that just seem to remain that way, even if they change ownership. There's... I don't know if there's something... I mean, at least, you know, a fresh coat of paint or stay current, you know, with the current sign standards or just something that would just make it a little more appealing. I wasn't sure if you're going the other direction with that. No, no, no, no, no. I was not going the other direction. Upgrading sign standards would be really good. Yeah. That would be really... Yeah, and that's because, you know, we do have a lot of older buildings and a lot of older signs that are not the greatest, which... So that... So that... I don't need to keep laboring that point. When staff rewrites the sign code, the change of copy, because if it's a change of business, all the words are going to change, that should trigger clients with... Okay. And on that note, we could tie into that future update and just note that I think it's a good thing to have a signage, even, you know, the doors on your dumpster enclosure, it should all match with your architectural style. So that could be a way of kind of tagging in the signage without dealing with it holistically, but... Right. And if maybe if they are going to repaint, do we hold them to the standards of the color schemes with that? Is that something that we would also do? If they're going to repaint, they would have to adhere to the... That would... Okay. All right. Fantastic. Thank you. We already touched on the trees a little bit. And I have the same, because that works out to a tree every 16 feet, so I have concerns about that. I did just want to ask... I know I heard it said that we would use native and Florida-friendly trees. Try to say that five times fast. When we say Florida-friendly trees, are we referring to water-absorbing trees? In general, what we refer to is the UF-EFAS list of the native and Florida-friendly trees. Okay. So... And I hear you on the water-absorbing trees. It may not necessarily be appropriate in every situation, right? You plant a bald cypress in a pine rockland, it's not going to do very well. Okay. But certainly, I think we could recommend something that would be appropriate to the site, add some language to that. Yeah. I would love to see that, like, where it does make sense if we can influence water-absorbing trees, just so they actually don't... They don't just look pretty. They serve a purpose as well. So, and then, I think I just had... All right. So, we talked about the alternative design standards on page 10. So, is that just if someone wants to deviate from one of the four architectural styles, or is that just for any deviation they want to make? So, for example, if they want to do less windows, less trees? It would be for any deviation from this code. Okay. All right. Fantastic. That was all I had. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Alternate Xactos? Hi. All right. Sorry about that. I appreciate the discussion on this topic tonight. I think it's important for the growth and advancement of Deltona's overall appearance. But in that vein, I would like to call attention to Holland Boulevard. It is a very high-traffic road, one of the bigger roads in Deltona today. And if you look at it, they're not applying the same standards to that road. It's got varying degrees of landscaping and no landscaping. And it looks terrible when you're driving through there. And I just wonder what people would think when they go home and try to describe Deltona's first impression. I mean, it's a golden opportunity for Deltona to really do a good job on that road. And there's nothing being done. And it's aggravating to see every day. And I think that this topic includes the overall look of Holland Boulevard, specifically, because I see it every day. And I'm disappointed for the lack of attention paid to the landscaping, specifically, in the media. Other than that, everything that I heard on the panel today, I was in agreement. And I think it's a good topic. And I look forward to seeing what it's going to bring tomorrow. Okay. Thank you. Member Trojanowski? Yeah. There's one big key point I think we all need to look at as well, too. And it's not just great design standards and a fresh coat of paint, you know, like putting lipstick on a pig. But there's a big security issue. I mean, what do we talk about? And you hear the citizens talk about it all the time. Crime, right? Crime's getting worse. But a lot of these architectural pieces that you're putting into here, and Mr. Smith knows exactly where I'm coming from because I'm certified in crime prevention through environmental design through the state, is, you know, when you talk about glazing, I mean, one, you're talking about eco-friendly, less use of lights because you're letting in more natural light. But you're see and be seen. When people think they're being seen, they're less prone to prevent crime. So you look at, you know, active shooter, police being able to see through the building when they're having to go in. There's a lot of improvements just from incorporating these designs into that. And when you talked about murals, murals is one of the ways that you reduce graffiti. Also, when you take darker spots between buildings that may be a little shallower, six foot, eight foot between buildings, you can brighten that space and open it up for use by the use of murals and signs. So it's a great opportunity to introduce that. Also, even, you know, the little utility boxes and electrical boxes is being able to put murals on those so they're not getting tagged, scratched, and kicked around. So that's all back into that SEPTED, that, you know, crime prevention through environmental design, which a lot of it is incorporated here. The only question I had is, and I didn't see it in here, is parking standards, because right now I don't think anybody's really addressing it, is that when you get X amount of square feet and you say you have to have 250 parking spots, 30 of these are going to be disabled parking. Once the permits are done and everything goes in, and now you have 10 gig spots up front, you have 20 delivery parking spots. Theoretically, their parking is less than what they were permitted for, because now they've redesigned all these parking spots for something else. Does that accommodate anything here as far as parking for these as well? So the parking is covered in our land development code, and when someone comes in for redevelopment, staff does look at the parking issue, and it is addressed at that stage. Thank you. Just a couple of questions. I'll try to make it brief. If we can look at page 8 of 10, section 111.402A, an enhanced right-of-way buffer will be required where off-street parking areas abut a public right-of-way and exceed one double row of parking. So can you define for me a double row of parking? A double row of parking is when you have, you've got your building, you've got the front row parking where you park and walk directly in, then you have the drive aisle, it's usually 24 foot wide to have people going both ways, and then you have the row facing or closest to the street at that point where they're parking their car with the headlights facing towards the street. So you've got basically the two rows of parking with the intervening drive aisle. So in some, that's about 45 feet of width between the building and the road with those uses being occupied there. Okay, in some codes, double row of parking refers to parking stalls that abut one another. Tandem parking. Yes, so this could possibly be misinterpreted to mean abutting parking spaces or head-to-head parking spaces when you say a double row of parking, because the drive aisle separating the two rows of parking stalls, now they're not connected to each other. So I would recommend that staff look at potentially clarifying that language. That's a good suggestion. And then looking at number three, so I understand that in all of this, we're giving the business an opportunity to select some things from a menu. And I understand that normally when we have buffer requirements abutting public right-of-ways, the intent is to ensure that the headlights of the parked cars don't glare into the street. And so we want to put some type of something there with an opacity percentage that could potentially help to block those headlights. I think that mandating you put a berm in, I'm not sure that that's fair. I would suggest that we say you pick two of the four, and the fourth one we would want to add would be a row of shrubs or hedges or a row of shrubbery with a minimum height at time, a planting of 24 inches, with a maximum opacity after one year of growth, I don't know, 80-90%, something along those lines, that language, so that we can then give folks an opportunity to not put a berm in, but now they're putting trees and maybe shrubs, and that kind of idea. That, and I agree with you 100%, and I thought I had this in here, and I'm looking at line 245, and it says a double staggered row, and it stops, and that was supposed to be a double staggered hedgerow, but I like the specificity you just quoted with the heights, and so that was a good catch, and we can improve upon that. Thank you. With your input, yeah. Last item, page 9 of 10, and it's item C, drive-through slash drive-up establishments, number one, drive-through lanes shall not interrupt direct pedestrian access and avoid potential pedestrian-vehicular conflicts, so each drive-through facility has to provide a walk-up service door or service option, as well as the drive-in. I have a problem with that. Pedestrian access cannot be routed through the drive-through lane. There are some sites that you can't develop them unless you put some type of pedestrian path through the drive-through lane, i.e. Chick-fil-A in Orange City, right? However, clearly marking them, clearly delineating them, using a different type of material, surface material to designate the pedestrian pathway, I think is very important. So, I would like to suggest that we remove the requirement that a walk-up service option is also required on any drive-through facility. Yes, I believe Ms. Northey said that as well, and I agree, there's businesses that are going to have just drive-throughs, so that's very good. And I think rewording that a little bit, because you're correct, it does say pedestrian cannot be routed through the drive-through lanes unless clearly marked with an elevated pedestrian crosswalk, so we can incorporate some of your comments into that to make that more clear that, of course, they're going to have to traverse the drive-through lanes, but doing so in a safe way. Absolutely. And last but not least, a suggestion for you all to consider is pedestrian connectivity. So, there are a lot of jurisdictions that require pedestrian connectivity from the public right-of-way or the sidewalk in the public right-of-way to the front entrance of the building, again, through a clearly defined pathway, either by using pavers or stamped concrete or just painting and marking and delineating how the pedestrian would get to the front entrance. And when you're talking about connection between businesses and cross-access availability, you also want to provide the pedestrian a pathway as well. So, I think that incorporating something along those lines, if we're trying to promote pedestrian activity, keeping cars on the main arterials and trying to be more pedestrian-friendly, I think that's an important element that you should consider inserting as well. Absolutely. That really makes me think. Do we define biking as pedestrian in our land code? Because we are becoming a biking community. We certainly are designated that according to the state. So, how do we – I'm really big on pedestrian safety as well as biking safety. So, how do we integrate that by code so that we take care of pedestrians, but we also take care of biking without it being part of – I understand it's a mobility, but it's not cars. It's a different kind of mobility. So, how do we integrate that? We can certainly – I think the term pedestrian is very limited to the five- or six-foot sidewalks. So, once you get into multimodal pathways, that's the term we can incorporate, multimodal meaning bike or ped. Typically, you need a – if we want to comply with FDOT standards, which is a good thing, we would need to have a wider-than-standard sidewalk because it needs to be safe because the bicyclists start conflicting with the walkers, and so that's something to be considered. But we can write language into this that addresses multimodal, internal – I think you're talking about internal circulation. We know there's going to be a sidewalk that drops you off into the site, but then if you're hiking across a parking lot, you're not – it's not enjoyable or safe. So, I think we can work multimodal access, internal access into this. Where are we at with the parking code as far as that being revised, Mr. Scott? The staff has not started the parking code. Is that on your list of codes to review? Yes. Can you add to that that you will also take a look at implementing bicycle rack requirements, bicycle parking requirements, and bicycle access as part of that code rewrite? We currently do have bike rack requirements for retail buildings. Where do you have them in the code? 110, 828, or 829. Okay, but what part of the – tell me what part of the – It's in the parking section. It is in the parking section? Okay. Well, that's good to know. I think that we need to maybe look at taking it one step further as a recommendation from this board when you get to that code review. If you can take those recommendations into consideration, we'd appreciate it. Does any of the board members – any of the other board members have any other comments, questions? So, I believe – I don't believe that there's anybody here from the public that wishes to speak on this matter. So, closing the comments section session, I'm going to call for a recommendation. Madam Chair, I will make a recommendation that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend the City Commission approve Ordinance No. 2425 with the suggested changes that the Planning and Zoning Board has presented this evening. I'll second that. Prior to the vote, if I may read the ordinance title into the record. Please do. Thank you. This is Ordinance No. 24-2025, an ordinance of the City of Deltona, Florida, creating Chapter 111, Architectural and Building Design Standards, and amending Section 70-30 definitions of the Land Development Code of the City of Deltona to include regulation updates and guidance regarding architectural design and aesthetics for commercial and industrial development, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and ineffectivity. Thank you. Staff, can you call the roll? Member Gonzalez? Gonzalez, yes. Member Northey? Yes. Member Stewart? Yes. Member Trojanowski? Yes. Alternate Zaltos? Vice Chair Dierka? Yes. And Chair Carto? Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Wonderful. Moving on to the next item on our agenda. Ordinance No. 20-2025, amending Section 110-814, additional regulations for certain permitted principal uses and structures of Article 8, Supplementary Regulations of Chapter 110, Zoning, and Chapter 70-30, Definitions of Article 2, Land Development Code, Chapter 70, General Provisions of the Land Development Code of the City of Deltona to update regulations of metal buildings at first reading. I believe we have a presentation by staff. I'll turn it over to you. Good evening. I'm Matthew West, Planning Manager, City of Deltona. I'll be here three months. Next week is my three-month anniversary. So, what we have before you tonight is an amendment to an existing set of regulations that deals with metal buildings. Ordinance No. 20-2025 updates the Land Development Code regarding the construction of metal buildings in residential zones. So, this ordinance and these regulations of metal buildings would not be applicable in the Agriculture Zoning, the RE-1, or the RE-5. And I'll show you later the list that it actually does impact these regulations. We're trying to provide clarity and measurable standards for limiting or prohibiting metal buildings in residential zoning districts. I've had at least three – I've been here almost three months and had three different situations with customers at the counter, residents trying to get permits to put a metal building in. And the existing regulations, when we get to that section, are rather vague about how you screen or how you mitigate the impact, visual impact, of a metal building. And needless to say, the existing code did not have a definition of what a metal building is. And so, this ordinance attempts to address that as well. Originally, in 2018, the City adopted regulations for metal buildings. The proposed amendments were going to update and clarify those by providing a definition of metal building and prohibiting them in specific residential zoning districts. One of the key changes is the definition itself. There appears to be, in the City's code, there's a threshold of 240 square feet for accessory structures, where if you're over that, there's a set of rules and regulations that accessory structures larger than 240 square feet have to match or be similar to the principal structure. But below that, they don't have to comply. So, I went ahead and wrote the definition as any building, and that could be a garage, a shed, a workshop, any kind of building that we're talking about. That's more than 240 square feet in area with metal cladding covering more than 30% of the exterior wall surface area. And when you're doing that measurement, it would exclude the window areas, the door areas, the garage door areas, and the roof itself. This basically is basically saying that if you're over 240 square feet, 70%, you need to have some kind of facade or treatment if you're building a metal building that covers it like stucco or board on board or a faux brick, there's all kinds of things you could use to clad the outside of the building. This is the list of residential zonings where metal buildings would be prohibited. And the other thing I want to talk about is the 240 square feet issue is, and it appears that the original ordinance was passed because there was concern about the number of metal buildings that were being put up, and that maybe that was too many, and this is another kind of architectural issue. And the 240 square feet is not a magic number. If you want metal buildings to comply with this ordinance that are half that size, that's the discretion of the city commission and the board. So what this does is it provides measurable standards for identifying what metal buildings are and then what specific zoning districts they're permitted in or prohibited in or from being built. We're recommending that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of ordinance number 20-2025. The first reading will be in front of the city commission on July 7, 2025. And I just want to wrap it up with, and this resident may come to the August, probably the second reading in August of this ordinance, we had a resident come to the counter and wanted to put in, I think, a 560 square foot metal building for storage. And she owned a lot that was on a corner, a corner lot. And when you read the old regulations, when you go to the end of the ordinance here, you'll see all the verbiage that's being stricken. When she came to the counter, I had no set of standards to say, you can have this metal building provided when you read the strikethrough part of this ordinance, you screen it. Well, there's no standards for screening. It doesn't define what kind of opacity or how high the screen has to be. And it basically is saying if you can see that metal building from off-site, you have to mitigate the impact of it by making it not look like a metal building or putting up a wall or something to hide it from being seen off-site. And that seemed a little extreme. And I was trying to work with this resident to ask her to put up, like, southern wax myrtles that grow big and grow thick and grow bushy and plant them around the base of the metal building and possibly then putting a fence out by the property line. But once you start doing that, you start making the metal building cost prohibitive. And maybe that was originally the goal. She was very frustrated, and she decided not to go through with her, you know, trying to put this building in. And I actually had heard that she probably might want to come and talk at the August 2nd reading because she was very frustrated. And I felt bad for her, too, because I didn't have a set of standards to negotiate with about how you screen or mitigate the impact of that metal building. I think this is very clear. You can perform calculations, and you can decide where they're allowed and where they're not by zoning district. With that, I'm available for any questions. Thank you so much. Appreciate your presentation. Member Trezanowski, do you have any questions? No, ma'am. Alternate Santos? No. Vice Chair? I do. I'm sorry. Just one quick question. Can you go back to how you were defining a metal building? I just wanted to make sure I picked up on something. So is this including metal sheds? Yes. So are we saying that basically you cannot – if someone has a shed that's more than 240 square feet, it has to have – but if it's under 240 square feet, it does not have to have that. It could be 100 percent. Which I think is what the guideline is now for an ancillary structure. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that part was not changing. Thank you. Member Northey? Yeah. I think that is maybe some of my confusion. I'm reading on page five. It says metal buildings on – it looks like I amending – it amends I. Metal buildings shall underline not be permitted in the following zoning districts. And R1 is listed. So it looks to me like we're not allowing any metal buildings anywhere. If they're 240 square feet or less, you could have a metal building. When they get over 240, it can't – it's got to be covered with something other than – But that's not what it says here. Member Northey, that's why we're updating the definition section as well. Okay. So we would refer to the metal building definition. Okay. That's all I need to know. Thank you. Member Stewart? Yeah. Thanks for your presentation. I had a few conversations with residents who have recently built a metal building over 240 square feet and some that are in process and some that acquired or purchased a property that already had it on there. And actually two of them had a special shout-out and said what a great process it was working with Chad and going through the permitting process and inspections and all of that. But what I kept getting – several people had issues out of the five that I talked to had issues. You know, they're hobbyists. They do woodworking. They do various things on their property. And as of right now, correct me if I'm wrong, as long as I'm 10 foot from the back of the property line, five feet between any other structure, I'm not over and I'm maintaining the same roof profile as the current – you know, I'm not going – putting a 12-12 pitch on a metal building when I have, you know, a 3-12 pitch on a roof right now and it's, let's say, 1,000 square feet. I would be in compliance with the code is how it's written right now, correct? Well, there's also building lot coverage. There's a percentage, a maximum percentage of building lot coverage and then impervious surface area. There's a maximum for that because – for drainage reasons. Okay. And so – but as long as I met those standards, I could build that metal building, go through the process. I follow those. I'm good to go. Under this new – under this update, that 1,200 square foot or 1,000 square foot metal building, I wouldn't be able to build that – Correct. Any longer. Okay. So this won't impact current residents. They would just be approved, noncompliant. Yes. Okay. Legal nonconforming. Okay, legal nonconforming. But going forward, that's going to prohibit any additional – even if the roof profile is below the current roof profile, they follow all the setbacks, all the things, we're saying no more metal buildings. You can still do metal buildings in RE1, RE5, and agricultural zoning districts. Okay. But not in any of the residential ones. The single-family residential for compatibility and consistency with the neighborhood. So all five that I talked to were in R1. I put in their address, pulled up the map, and was able to check on it. And a few people that I know that are looking or moving into the area were looking to come to Deltona because they had that flexibility and the ability to do that. Let me ask this. You mentioned if I have a 1,200 square foot, I build that metal building, but I have siding on it or I put something else on it. That would be permissible. All we're saying is we have to have some way to just not show the metal. Don't make it look like a metal building. Don't make it look like a metal building. So I can still have – not me personally, but I could still have my wood workshop or I could still have my man cave or – what are they? Man caves and a she-sheds. Yeah, she-sheds. I could still have my man cave or she – I wouldn't have a she-shed. Or anyone could have their she-shed. Come on, Dave. You'd rock a she-shed. I'm just saying, just saying. I would be able to have that as long as it just doesn't look like an industrial building. Correct. Okay. As long as your house is not in R1. Right. Right? Okay. Is that correct? No, it could be that. You can still have an accessory structure. It would not be able to be a metal building, anything over 240 square feet. So in R1, he'd have to make it not look metal. Correct. Yes. Regardless of the size. Correct. It would typically match the style of the house, the materials, colors, yes. And to clarify, to your example earlier, using the wax marble to kind of cover it, it is using building material to hide the size, not vegetation. Okay. Understood. So it can still be done. And there's guidelines on how it looks. Perfect. Thank you. And can I also clarify, Chair Cardo, if it's less than 240 square feet, it can be metal? Because I know you said any size, so I just wanted to reiterate that. Thank you for the clarification. Member Gonzalez, do you have any questions? No, I think everything's been answered for me. Thank you. Wonderful. I don't see anybody here from the public wishing to speak on this matter, so I'm going to turn it over to the board. Does anybody have any other questions or comments they'd like to make before we move for a motion? Someone would like to make a motion? I'll move the motion, but you have to read it into the record, right? Yes, ma'am. So this is Ordinance No. 20-2025, an Ordinance of the City of Deltona, Florida, amending Section 110-814, additional regulations for certain permitted principal uses and structures of Article 8, supplementary regulations of Chapter 110, zoning, and Section 70-30 definitions of Article 2, Land Development Code of Chapter 70, general provisions of the Land Development Code of the City of Deltona to prohibit metal buildings within certain residential and commercial zoning districts, providing for conflicts, codifications, severability, etc. I'll move that motion. I will second. Staff, can you call the roll for us, please? Member Gonzalez? Gonzalez votes yes. Member Northey? Yes. Member Stewart? Yes. Member Trojanoski? Yes. Alternate Zaltos? Yes. Vice Chair Dierko? Yes. And Chair Cardo? Yes. Motion passes. All right. Eighth on our agenda today is staff comments. Do we have any comments from staff? Yes. Yes, Madam Chair. Just a reminder, we're having a special P&Z planning and zoning board meeting on Monday, June 23rd at 4.30 p.m. Staff has passed out the agenda packet, and it's also in your email as well. On June 16th, the City Commission denied the prohibition of medical marijuana dispensaries, so staff is going to work with legal to update the regulations again. So third time's the charm, so I'll come back to you again. And then the P&Z bylaws were approved by the commission on June 16th. And then lastly, if there's any code amendments you would like the planning department to work on, you should make a recommendation to the commission. Thank you. So the code suggestions that we made as part of our review this evening, we need to make those recommendations to the board? I would put it in motion. So the implementing code for the planning and zoning board provides that the board may request reasonable staff assistance and may report through staff and the city manager to the city commission any projects which the board deems worthwhile for commission consideration by a majority vote of the board's entire membership. So we would just need a motion and a vote tonight to have that brought to the commission prior to staff moving forward. And this is specific to items that are not already before you. Certainly, if you're making comments on an item before you, we take those considerations and incorporate those into the recommendation to the commission. So do you need a separate motion for the signs and the murals and the parking that we suggested and the allowable species in the landscape code? Are you saying that we need a separate motion for that this evening? We would need a separate motion for the signs, the murals, and the parking. The species, as I understood it, was relative to the architectural standards and encouraging the use of appropriate plantings for the site environment. If I misunderstood that and there's a different request, we would take a motion on that as well. Okay. So I would like to make a motion that we recommend. I'll second it. Yeah. There you go. Yes. Signage code rewrite parking and... Murals. Thank you. Did you second? Yeah, second. Okay, second. Stuart seconds. November Gonzalez. Yes. Member Stewart. Yes. Member Northey. Alternate Zaltos. Yes. Member Trudanowski. Yes. Vice Chair Cardo. Sorry, Vice Chair Diarco. Yes. And Chair Cardo. Yes. Motion passed. Okay, excuse me. Board committee member comments. Anybody on the board have any comments? Member Northey. I have a question. Zach, I'm a little confused about the, or Jordan, whichever one, I think it was Jordan, was talking about the medical marijuana. I watched that meeting, on first reading, that proposal was denied on a 6-1 vote. Did I understand that correctly? That is correct. It was denied by the City Commission to prohibit medical marijuana. So why, if it was denied, why is it coming back? It is coming back because our code is currently out of compliance with Florida statute. Okay. Correct. So we have to update our regulations. Update the regulation. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from board members? Motion to adjourn. Moved. Second. All those in favor, say aye. Meeting adjourned. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye. All those in favor, say aye.