City Commission - workshop

Marking demand and enforcement considerations. At this time, I'd like to introduce Edward with the Cordina Group, and he will provide an overview of the findings and recommendations and facilitate discussion with the Commission regarding potential policy direction.

It's all right. All right. Cool. Thank you.

All right. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners. Thank you for having us back again to discuss this very important topic. As you recall, last time, the Commissioner had asked that we look into certain things a little bit more, cul-de-sacs, fire, and so we... You know, step back, got together with staff, you see Danny and Sharon, we got with fire, we got with code enforcement and public works and so forth. So we'll go to some of the issues reviewed today, looking at public safety, operational access, infrastructure, equity enforcement. We do have some preliminary recommendations for you, but, you know, ultimately, we also uh hope to get out this meeting from a staff perspective um a bit more direction on how you would like that to proceed uh with those recommendations one way or the other um we do have an updated crash review uh we updated from three to five years as requested and uh looking at the time between january 1st 2021 to december 31st 2025 We note that there's a total of just over 6,000 documented crashes and a small amount, only like 100, I believe. I think it was Commissioner Caldwell when you had to ask if we could look into more about actually how much were on site, because we were like, well, that's really not that much. And it is a small amount, 16% 16 crashes occurred with on-demand delivery vehicles and nine crashes occurred with emergency vehicles. So it's not a very high number of the crashes overall in the city. Of those 99 crashes, which are all mapped, we were requested to map them as well. You see that they're citywide, no fatalities and incapacitating injuries, only three of them with minor injuries and four with possible injuries. It does occur in both the new and the older residential areas. We were asked to look at, you know, whether or not there was a difference because our newer residential areas have smaller right-of-ways, and we know that that could be kind of an issue. But we found no discernible significant pattern when we expanded the data, looking at it from that standpoint. However, we do find out of the crashes that did occur, there are restricted site distance due to parked vehicles. So, you know, it's not, while it's not overly a big issue statistically, it is enough of an issue to have 100 crashes in those years. and that time frame and you know vehicles backing out drive with limited visibility that could be an issue for children uh in particular i know that's something that was brought up by the commission last time like we look at like uh uh um crashes with the children um there are no documented crashes involving children's driver's visibility zone so we're very thankful for that uh we still think that from an engineering and planning standpoint that You just have a little bit of an elevated risk of that. You know, there is one documented crash with a cul-de-sac. The vice mayor asked us to look into the cul-de-sac a little bit more. That was at Hartley Court. We do find that there are a row with the two or more on-street parked vehicle crashes. We separate them out, you know, places like Fernanda Drive. It's not really surprising there because of the more narrow right-of-way. The Heath, Kettering, Rosedale, Wanderer, some of these sound familiar because they're part of our newer subdivision. So there is enough for us to say, hey, you might want to think about the width of your roadways and design standards. We also went back and chatted with our fire department, and thank you, Sharon, for getting us a lot of the vital information we needed to kind of look at this a little bit further. We really appreciate the fire department giving us their time and information. We know that our fire apparatus requires a minimum of 20 feet of unobstructed space for deployed equipment. We know that from an engineering design standpoint, we look at something called the Green Book, which is what we use. You want certain width for travel purposes, and they really should be based on design speed. So you have lower speed, people aren't traveling long, you have a little bit more like a reaction time, you can get away with slightly smaller width. But still, you know, 20 to 25 mile per hour, you want 10 feet of travel lanes, and 30, 35 mile per hour, you want 10 to 11 feet. You're running a bus or something on a road where you want 11 feet minimum. That's pretty much engineering design standards. And we try to take this from a standard standpoint, think of our recommendation. You add all this together up, right? You want to be able to have, you have to run a fire truck through for them to turn, to be able to have staging and take, you know, you know, haven't permitted the fire, but you know, we have great, you know, staff here that, you know, respond to it, but I'd be able to get there. And that means that when you have certain roadways, you should have a certain amount of whip. And so one of the recommendations that we want you to consider is, um, having no on street parking road with a design speed over 35 miles per hour. And then based on the design speed of the road, think about restricting your parking so that you have enough maneuverability. This means that certain roads where we don't have enough width, you have the standard. You could get to there by paving more of your right of way. or if you don't um you know you might want to have to want to restrict parking again it's really about um having that clearance room and setting a design standard or a parking standard that is related to how much width you have so that um your emergency vehicle can maneuver around um i'll just stop here for a second if there's any questions on design speed and width and so forth before moving on commissioner nabic

Go back to the, I believe it was the second slide.

This slide, sir?

Yes. Okay, that was on street park vehicles. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Commissioner Colwell. yeah on your uh survey that you've done here you know in deltona not too many roads are straight there's several curves so right how would we determine which ones we would allow parking in the rows and which ones we wouldn't um without repaving all the roads here in the city we would also recommend thank you for that commissioner we also recommend your curved road you try to restrict parking on the curve of the roadway just because it's how it restricts your line of sight

really use your site that's in triangle in addition to the curvature road but also like what it relates to driveways and that site distance triangle really using that to restrict the parking to so that you reduce the risk of those collisions that have occurred so if we put a general ordinance out there for parking in the right-of-ways

What would the restrictions be from parking and coming to the intersection? Like I said, most of the roads are curved and winding through Deltona. We don't have too many straight roads. So what would the distance be between the curve and the parking area, so to speak?

Normally you would restrict from the intersection anyway, general standards, about 100 feet. So that goes without saying. But beyond that, it would be additional restrictions. There's an aspect of if you don't want folks to park in front of a driveway, for example. So it really depends on the direction you want to go, right? Admittedly, there's some parts of it where you would have to go on a street bike that's on your curvilinear roads within the city. There are a few. For the street roads, you would probably just put a standard where you set a distance from the intersection and then you set at least a 5 to 10 feet minimum from a driveway and then let the site, you know, the design reviewer look at it like, well, what else is there that might block your, you know, visually.

Can you go back to the second slide? That one's on. Are we going to get a copy of this?

Yes.

All right. I want to make sure we look at that crash map when it comes time to talk about fire stations. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. So, you know, talking about site conflict points, you know, the vehicle parked on the interior side of a roadway curve is probably, you know, we've all driven here. So we know that you turn a curve, that there's, you know, this visual kind of shows that like where you're, the visibility, you know, could be impacted. You know again and mentioned well parking for painting minimum 5 feet separation. No on-street parking wrong, but to the interior side of the curve You could probably do the outside curve and be okay. You're like short on parking So but you want to designate those spots and on the approach you want to have the appropriate You know signage is needed and so forth DISTANCE TO STRUCTURES WERE SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE HAD FOLLOWED ON BASED ON COMPETITIONARY DISCUSSION. FOR EXAMPLE, NOTED THAT THE STORY OF PALM COAST, SO, AND HAVING THOSE PARKING ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSES. SO WE LOOKED AT THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. THEY HAD TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. FIRST, THEY STARTED WITH ARVEY'S CORK TOO CLOSE TO HOMES AND WITH BOTH THE COLLECTIVE PINENOS AND THE FIRE SPREAD. So we looked at standards from other places, and generally you want to keep a certain distance. We would suggest that the Commission consider a 30-foot separation between structure and where you park those vehicles, and everything around it should be maintained, you know, free of debris and so forth. You also have defined in your revised code like commercial vehicles with certain gross weight and so forth. Consideration here though is that many homes lack side or rear parking space for these vehicles, so you're restricted to that 30 feet. then you have to think about um where in the city they may park and that means opening up some uh land through commercial development of uh parking stores like an rv parking or a vehicle you know a boat vehicle storage that is a conscious policy decision that other cities have engaged in they don't allow in your side yard then they try to encourage that other aspect because your residents will have those boats no matter what so they have to go somewhere so it's a matter of making that policy decision say which direction are we going to go um but we do think that you know it's a fire it's a aspect of concern what we see in other cities is dirty feet and that separation, you would have to go back to your code and think about small vehicle storage lots, and that's directed to staff at that point to look at your zoning outside of this.

Commissioner Harriot, also your mics are, that's not your mic, but go ahead.

I see. this graphic that you guys have up there you're showing the arrow from the vehicle to the front corner of the property is that intentional or should the minimum 30 feet of any structure per the fire code standard restrict the fact that if that distance is 30 feet then it's probably closer directly lateral um that was just the kind of like uh just a graphic yeah the graphic yeah Okay. Thank you.

Vice Mayor Avila-Vasquez.

Thank you, Mayor. We're going to have a problem because our current homes are not going to measure the 30 feet. I mean, as it is right now, if you drive around my district, they're parked in the front of the house, next to the house, but in the front, in the front lawn. And if you see them parked in the back, they just squeezing in on the side of the house. So it's something that we need to look at real close because unless you own half an acre, that's not gonna happen.

Right. And I think that's why we were like, well, yeah, we agree with you. Like, just looking at your map, Vice Mayor, we noted that, like, many homes lack that side of rear yard space for these vehicles right there. So we realize it's an issue. We also realize that it is ultimately a policy decision that the commission has to come back to staff and be like, Do we want to prioritize the space separation based on fire safety because it can be a very real item, or do we want to see where we can bridge the gap a little differently? I think there's no easy answer to this. We can only provide our recommendation based on if you want to go with fire safety, 30 feet is what we've been researching code. If that's the case, then we will suggest and recommend to the commission, hey, look at how you can get those commercial parking in place, maybe have a grace period in the meantime so that until those get set in place so that you're not putting unnecessary hardship on some of the residents, but then to just transition that gradually over time so that you reduce that risk.

Currently, I can think of only one place in Deltona that rents parkings to RVs, which is right off exit 111 on Saxon behind the plaza. I don't know of any other ones.

Right.

Vice Mayor, we have at least two others coming into the city of Deltona, one on Howland Boulevard. Or two on Helen Boulevard, one by Pine Ridge High School, one by I-4.

Commissioner Santiago, then Commissioner Carwell, then Commissioner Herriot.

Thank you, Mayor. I agree with Vice Mayor. You know, we have to take a better look at this 30, and I understand it's a recommendation, but we also have to look at, is it a fire safety from the fire department? You know, do you feel it's a fire safety, right? Have we had issues before? When you drive around here, all you see is campers and boats, and to now tell them that they need a 30-foot separation, I think that's gonna, and tell me, just give us some information, staff, if you have, I mean, do you think that's an issue that we have to look into?

Your button's not on.

From the Vice Mayor, I'm looking at Vice Mayor's area. It's majority of the older properties that were developed early. Eight to 10 feet is what I can see, the distance from the house to the property line on the side of the house. Very difficult, I mean, they have a hard time trying to come to compliance with the parking because we do allow up to 3 vehicles behind the front face of the house. Very limited very tough to even get the vehicles back there. Um, this 30 fee, it will be a drastic. Um, measure for the residents to come, you know, use that as compliance. There's not much. I don't even think there's 30 feet, maybe from the back of the house to the property line to the rear either. Or other easement, but yeah, we wouldn't have to look at that. I know was I think it was a Commissioner now because that brought that up to our attention at the last meeting that hey It's a chain reaction house fire Vehicle the next-door house is going to catch on fire But yeah, they're very difficult for the residents to come to compliance with that 30 feet I

Just out of curiosity, it says per the fire code standards, 30 feet. Where did you get that information? I'm just curious.

Jeb? Come up here. I'm talking to Mike. Jeb, one of my planners, he's working on a project along with me. He's in Alkiddle.

This is one of Volusia County's fire manuals. I believe.

Okay, so not out of the. I would have to double check, but yeah. Okay, not from the Florida Fire Prevention Code? No. It was a Volusia County standard? Yeah, I believe so, yeah. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Caldwell?

Yeah, I'm going to keep Danny on the spot here. I'm going to go back to the parking in the row. Being the average lot is 50 to 75 foot wide and we're going to put a 15 foot buffer from driveway to driveway. That doesn't allow much space. What's the enforcement look like? What do you visualize enforcement on that? If we're doing, you know, down the road, you got five parking spots. How do you enforce that?

I mean, once the owner's in place, we'll enforce it. Right now it's currently suspended. We have 6616, which is any parking in the right-of-way when it comes to vehicles. It's currently suspended. I think the residents know that. So will it be difficult? Yes, but once it's on paper, we can enforce it.

Commissioner Harriot and then Commissioner Novick.

If you've got a response to that, I'd

You know, just a thought for our mayor and commissioners. The way I'm looking at this is, you know, the middle ground could be you restrict certain types of vehicles, and then for the rest, you use code enforcement to say, you know, have to keep clean up debris, and you severely fine them. So you use a lower standard. You keep that 10 foot separation, but you have to maintain these things a very certain way. You have to be clear of those pine needles. You can't let them accumulate, that sort of thing. You can't park there in vehicles like a food truck that might have propane tanks and things inside. So that reduced reduction of risk otherwise, otherwise your standard would be that distance. So, you know, something to think about.

Yeah, it's definitely something to think about. I thought where you were going to go with that was to a little bit more towards Commissioner Caldwell's point about street parking, where we reduce or we don't allow commercial vehicle parking in the street or in the right of way. Since those are gonna be your larger, more oversized vehicles, that makes a lot of sense to me. I think I'm with everybody else here that the 30-foot separation from the property, from the house just doesn't, that's not functional. You're creating a problem that doesn't have a solution. When it comes to the commercial vehicle parking, I want to make sure I've got a couple of residents in my district that work for some of our public utilities. I've got a couple of residents that work for some of the large machinery companies, Caterpillar and whatnot, and have service vehicles and they have very well kept yards, very nice driveways. Everything's very well maintained. I want to make sure that we're not preventing them from doing their job and taking their take home vehicle home. I don't think we should be preventing anybody from having vehicles that have ladder racks or print on the side of their vehicles. At the end of the day, we're a working class community and that's not gonna change. No ordinance, you can't legislate that out. Nor would I want to. I do think that we could use some restrictions to like your point about If somebody's got a food truck that has flammables on it, then that specifically needs to have its own set of parameters. And then, again, back to no commercial vehicles parked on the right of way. And outside of service vehicle parking, I don't know what else. I'm not a big fan of the right of way parking. period, if we're gonna have to come to some middle ground, then I think I can get there, but I'd like to hear what everybody else has to say on the right-of-way parking.

Commissioner Novick.

Okay, so the 30 feet comes out of U.S. NFPA's code specifically dealing with a program called Firewise. Firewise is a recommendation. It's not a code. Some communities have adopted Firewise principles, but that defensible space language is in the document called Firewise. It talks about all kinds of combustible material, pruning trees, gravel versus wood chips and things of that nature. So there's a lot of components to this. We can't adopt a code that addresses one thing fits all. Gotta break it up into a couple of different parts. The most difficult one is adopting new land development standards because the Senate Bill 180, I think we're limited on being able to do that. So as development goes forward, our hands are tied with recreating the same problems that already exist with these subdivisions, and we've got to find a way to fix that. If it's a planned unit subdivision, then obviously that can be negotiated into that. that document, but if it's a straight up zoning, they're not changing anything, they're just coming into the building department, getting their building permits, and developing, we're kind of stuck with what we have to live by. Our hands are tied with that. So, moving forward, I think we need to have some guiding principles, if you will, for the development department on roads and the width of the, the roads and creating offsite parking. Because the reality is, when Deltona was originally created, it was a retirement community. And now you have multi-generational residences where you have grandparents, you have the working family, you have the kids that are there. You might have four or five vehicles parked there. What are we gonna do, tell them they can't park their vehicles there? They're gonna have to park in the swale. In 1967, my grandparents bought a house over on Falmouth, and to this day, cars have parked year after year, day after day, on that swale, and that swale is just fine. It's got grass, it drains, the rain comes, it fills up with water. 20 minutes later, the water's all gone. The swale's just fine. Then you have other houses. I can think of one that we dealt with over on Piedmont. where they've got five or six four-wheel drive vehicles, and they just tore the hell out of the swale. So we need to have something in place that we can make them restore the swale because they damaged it. Last Friday, the subdivision, Fernanda Place there over by Pine Ridge High School, I got several phone calls that the trash wasn't picked up. Well, the reason their trash wasn't picked up was because cars were parked on both sides of the street and the waste pro truck couldn't get down there to pick the trash up. So the trash didn't get picked up. So the first thing I would propose is that we go out for an RFP to a tow truck company and that RFP would include at least three parts. One would be that they would get the contract for towing city vehicles for maintenance. Fire truck breaks down, public works truck breaks down, maintenance guy called tow truck. They've got company A on the list. That's who they go ahead and call. That'd be part of the contract. Second part of it would be for Danny and his crew. They get a magistrate order to tow a vehicle. Tow truck company is on contract with the city, and they go tow the vehicle. The third part of it, dealing with the subdivisions, is we say we pass an ordinance, and Zach would obviously have to work out all the legalities, but for the RFP, we'd be looking at tow and go. Tow truck company comes in at 8 o'clock on Friday night into a subdivision. We've got no parking signs on the even side numbers of the street. If there's a vehicle parked on that side of the street, the tow truck hooks them and takes them. Because if Danny comes out there and writes him a ticket, it doesn't solve the problem. waste pro still can't get down the street fire truck can't get down the street you go to orlando you park re not supposed to park guess what your cars at the impound and you gotta pay to get it out it takes the city out of the picture somebody somebody wants wants to call and complain that there's a vehicle park to truck company comes and gets it their phone numbers on the sign but we have to decide you know which side of the street which subdivisions that that can be addressed that's that's That's a part we can choose to implement very quickly and get one component of this problem off of our plate. Another one is simply deciding on the size of a vehicle, meaning the weight and the length of the vehicle, and if it's over that, it goes. It's not allowed in the residential neighborhood. That's another easy part to go ahead and pass. But the part about Residential vehicles, the sedan, the minivan, the pickup truck, no parking in the street. They don't need to be parked on our other streets, not the subdivision streets, the Mackle streets, we'll call them for a little bit of ease of description maybe. Parking on Piedmont, parking on Catalina, wherever. No parking in the street there.

They're going to have to park on a swale.

Now, we can provide guidelines maybe if we have a problem where the swale has been identified and it's being eaten up. On a case-by-case basis, we come in and at the commission's pleasure, we decide whether the city's going to do it or the homeowner's going to do it. But you come in and you rock it. You go over to the transfer station. You get the crushed rock. You come in. You put it down. It does a very nice job. It drains very well. and it gives you a good parking surface to park on that's going to be stable and not get torn up. Those things can be done relatively easily and quickly to resolve probably half of the parking problem that we have. And then if we so decide, the motorhome parking, unless you have more than an acre, you're going to have to go put it in a storage facility someplace and pay to put it there. a boat over a certain size. We're going to decide, is it going to be a John boat? It's going to be okay, but if somebody's got a 24-foot center console, that's going to have to go to a storage facility. One just opened up in Orange City. It's full. Just opened up a couple months ago. It's completely full. Went by there yesterday. Completely full. Semis, no parking in the city. They have to park in an approved storage facility. They don't belong parked on a city street. They're too heavy to be on these residential streets, and when they do park, they're tearing up the shoulder. They can't park on the swale. They're too heavy. So some of the components of this problem we can address immediately. Some of the more intricate stuff is going to take a little bit more time. We're not going to be able to eat the elephant all at one time, but we can take several bites out of it very easily. Okay.

All right. Here's some of the concerns I have. Did we look within what we asked you to look for? Did we look at the possibility of making some of these streets one-ways?

Well, outside the confines of the study, this is a general look at, yes, this is something the city can do, Mayor. You would want to establish studies for specific pairs at that time because you go out one way and then you want to make sure you flow the other way within the grid. So you would have to do that on a case-by-case basis within the city, but yes, it is one way you can think about it because When you have that one-way, you need that lane and then you need a bypass on that. And then you can allow the rest of that right-of-way to be parking, as long as you have the initial travel path and the bypass. That's an important aspect that people forget about.

Because what I'm looking at is if, and I'm gonna pick on District 3, it's nothing personal, it's just the roads are a lot smaller, right? Even in Fernando Point in District 6, the roads are not that wide. Making those one ways kind of creates somewhat of, it avoids that parking on both sides situation. And even then, I believe the city manager had a great suggestion about maybe some percolating asphalt with some of the piping that also is able to receive some of that water so cars can actually park on it and when it does rain or whatever, it doesn't affect really the swells in that area. So you have on-street parking on one side of the road and having it a one-way street Helps in that aspect. I'm what I'm trying to avoid is I don't want the city to become a huge HOA, right? That's that's not what we're about I think Davidson said it best. We are a working class community. We don't want to add another bill to somebody's pocket of now they got to go out and run a storage facility for a parking lot. But at the same time, I understand that If you have a small Mackle house, you really can't stick a big RV in there and let it take from the parking lot all the way to the end of the property. There's legitimate safety concerns there, right? I just want us to be mindful of that. And also we have these utility company vehicles. Florida Utilities is one of them, just to name one. They are usually on call and they can't just park in a specific way. It could be a company policy or whatever it is, but they need to be able to have the ability. Actually, even some of our staff members that take their cars home, they're on call for whatever emergency. They need to be able to get in their cars and go. So we need to take all that stuff into account. I just don't want to see this becoming a huge HOA because we're not an HOA. That is my biggest concern and why I didn't support the last go around was because we're implementing way too many rules and it started to feel like we should just have a gated community at the entrances and just call it an HOA. That's not what I want to see. So I know I'm one of seven, but Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor. Speaking of HOAs, the parking rules of an HOA, that's not on the city, is it? I mean, do HOAs make their own rules on how they park inside their subdivision?

so um yes madam vice mayor the hoa communities do set their own rules however the city's code of ordinances applies generally throughout the city limits so anywhere where there is a public road the city ordinance code of ordinances apply the HOA may have additional rules on their own parking rules or guest registration, etc. But the code of ordinances applies on any public road.

Any public road, not those private HOAs?

Correct. Any private road would have their own private rules.

Okay. We have a road Danny that you know, it's one of the biggest headaches The welcome what is it called the welcome something over by of Deltona Boulevard where trailers have

It's called Welcome Center Road.

Exactly, they have adopted that road to park overnight, which is so dangerous because it's pitch dark. Now, it's privately owned, that area, right?

It's actually a private road, correct. It's a private owner.

How do we handle that one?

We address it with the property owner if we can get a hold of him sometimes. He's not always available.

Exactly. That's my point. I mean, you know the emails that we get from a specific resident who's always complaining about that specific road. So I think we need to look into that as well. You know, private roads that we have no control of. It's not a gated. It's not a subdivision. It's just a road.

Sometimes, Commissioner, I mean, Madam Vice Mayor, with the private road, the model of control also is rooted in how a development was, agreement was structured. So if there are certain provisions that are part of approval, such as emergency vehicle access and things like that, those are enforceable as part of general city rules. And so even though it's a private road, part of the development was to prove that you have to allow fire service, you have to allow police service to adequately service those areas, and they're blocking that. Then you also have the city has the right to cite them for a violation of the protocol. I know often we run into, it's a private road, we can't do anything about it. There are some things that you can do about it, yet they can't allow parking, but they can't allow parking in a way that violates those public service, emergency service principles that were part of the agreement to allow that development in the first place.

Okay, thank you. And just another comment. And I understand, you know, we don't want to be an HOA, but, you know, it's a 50-50 because you have residents who need it, but then you have residents who don't want it in their neighborhood. You know, I have a resident who sent me a picture they had like seven cars parked on the side of their house. How do we handle that one? Because this is, we're saying it's okay, you have the space, you can park it there, but then the people that cross the street say, no, I don't want it there. Every time I come out, I have to see all these things on stilts and the bricks. So how do we handle that?

I totally understand the feeling when I go home to see my dad. The neighbors always park right across from his driveway, and we don't have a narrow street, and so when I'm going down his little hill of a driveway, I'm like, am I going to hit the other car? And my dad's a terrible driver, so I'm afraid that he's going to hit the neighbor, and I'll be embarrassed. So I can understand where the neighbor's sentiments are. How about this? There's a lot of really great comments from our mayor and commissioners, and they actually relate to some of the things that we have in subsequent slides. If it's all right with the mayor and commission, maybe let's go through some of these other things that we have considered in our recommendation. I'll cover a couple more points as well. I think this next one will probably also resonate with some of the things that the mayor said, because one thing that we are really concerned about is guest parking. We are a community where, you know, we know historic Deltona and we say it during the first workshop day, you know, we don't actually have so much driveways. You know, with the retirement community and it changed to a family oriented community where you would expect more than two vehicles, especially for a working class family. And so these driveways were not really designed for more than one and a half, two vehicles at a time. So what are the recommendations then? Well, part of it is relaxing certain rules about having that pavement of swale, having those gravel pavement swales and instituting programs either from the city side where the city pays to do that conversion or allowing a program where you loosen the rules and let an individual property owner say, you know what, I need extra parking in front of my house. I'm willing to put down the gravel myself and show an agreement with the city that absolves the city of liability, because liability can be a concern. It has been in other cities, but they do allow it, and it's a program. Sometimes you do it as an individual property, or sometimes you loosen the rules and you allow the folks in the neighborhood block to come together and say, we want to do this for ourselves. We, as a neighborhood, are in agreement that we want to do so. BUILD IN THAT PROCESS TO LOOSEN THE RULES SO THAT THEY CAN CONVERT THESE SWELLS. OBVIOUSLY THERE WILL BE SOME INTERACTION WITH PUBLIC WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO REMOVE THE SWELLS BUT CREATE A DRAINAGE AND FLOODING PROBLEM. SO THERE'S A BALANCE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOU DON'T ALWAYS ALLOW SWELL PARKING BECAUSE IT COMPACTS THE SOIL AND CREATES A FLOODING ISSUE. AND I KNOW WE'RE SENSITIVE TO THAT HERE IN DELTONA. But, you know, part of that then is thinking about relaxing perviousness standards, too, to allow for those driveway extensions so that you could get those extra vehicles, understanding that, you know, our folks here in Deltona need that extra vehicle to get to work or they have a kid and, you know, and they have the extra vehicle. It's about finding that balance within the policy by loosening the rules.

We do note that without on-street parking, older neighbors cannot- Just for the commission, we're gonna get through a few more slides and then I'll call you guys each.

And we can't meet off-street and get parking minimums. um there are other aspects we would recommend you loosen up the rules on on short-term parking uh we talked about service vehicle parking overnight you might address that through the weight uh the aspect that commissioner brought up was in line with what we have in the slide But beyond that, even if you don't go with the weight aspect, we can't currently park things like landscaping when someone is actively servicing the property. That's a pretty big issue because we want our property well maintained, and sometimes you need to call the pool person, you need to call a Roto-Rooter, you need to call the landscaping person. So there should be some, we would recommend that you loosen the rule to include service vehicles on active calls and allow them to park in the street for the duration of call. You can tie certain things to it like having the operator must be on site and active on the call because you're knocking doors like, hey, you have a landscape vehicle out front, are they servicing the property? or if, you know, it's blocking the roadway to a certain degree and you need emergency vehicles to go through, at least they're on site and you can move the vehicle immediately so it's not that much of a hassle. We would suggest that, you know, some of the rules could include on-street parking permitted only when no other option is available because, say, you know, someone coming in to fix your drain, the Roto-Rooter fits in your driveway right now. Don't have them park on the road. Park in the driveway first. and then there's no other option park on the street but definitely your rules don't allow for that right now and that's operationally you know not something that you necessarily need to prohibit particularly uh with um you know a need for servicing for your properties Long-term city programs, really, you definitely have to think about, if you allow parking as well, there will be a cost. You will have to think about going in and putting on RFP, because you don't have a vendor that will be able to come in and aerate those, because once the soil compacts, it's not going to drain well, and it's going to compound your drainage issues. And that's a pretty serious issue here for most of the city, and that's a consideration to consider here. I want to consider while you figure out the rules and put them in piecemeal amnesty program so that you're scaling it in but letting people react and giving more of a time frame to implement some of these concepts and that way it easens the burden on your residents um it's something that other cities have thought about when they're implementing or revising the rules so that you're scaling it and something that we didn't necessarily see in the first round, but something that we would recommend here because it allows folks time to react, allows businesses to react as well if they need to private side. It will help you also with the time needed to study one-way pairs to consider how much you relax with the rural. Can you put aside money through your public works and direct staff to put in the paving for that item? Um, mostly there's aspects of recommendation where you could acquire dedicated system facility for long term commercial vehicle parking that includes city owned properties as well. That is something that other cities have done. Um, that could be on a temporary basis while you implement other policies. It doesn't have to be long term, but it is something that we've seen in other cities here. And then, as an aside, Commissioner Knapp brought it up, when it comes to SB 180, yes, you might not be able to put more restrictive policies, but parking on the street isn't necessarily a development policy. And so you can't toy with that a little bit. What the commission could say is we have a set standard for whether you can park on the street. If you want your development because you need to meet parking standards and you want to have the on-street parking, well, rules across the city is you have to have a certain width. if you design to that you can park to on the street if you don't design to that you can't park in the street you're not making it more onerous for them from a development standpoint you're giving them the option and that's where sb 180 in my personal opinion does not apply i'll defer to your city attorney on the legal advice from the city attorney's office But because it's not a development standard, it's something that you could implement, in my professional opinion, and be able to work with that a little bit differently. Now, what's a little bit more difficult is if you need to revise your guest parking standards, right? Because your guest parking standards for the newer development considering your existing pattern might be a little bit low. And so if the window opportunity opens where SB 180 doesn't apply, I would go ahead and sell staff um, go ahead and up that guest parking, uh, amount until that point, you know, maybe you design based and let them design to it because they're going to have to meet it through the purposes of sellability for their, uh, for their, uh, uh, uh, properties anyway. So hopefully that part of the market based approach will carry you to at least a little bit until SB 180 doesn't tie your hands anymore. Um, that's a consideration.

Are you good?

Yeah. Thank you, Mayor.

Commissioner Harriot, then Commissioner Caldwell.

Thank you, Mayor. To kind of to that last point that you had, but also tying back to a couple slides. Mr. Good, would there be, do we have the ability to require within a developer's agreement for our PUDs that The covenants must, the HOA must have a on-call tow service in place within the covenants.

That could potentially be one of the conditions of approval. Normally, if we're going to require the perpetual existence of an HOA, we get to see those declarations and restrictions and have comment on those. So that, in a PUD context, yes, would be possible as part of that negotiation.

because one of the challenges that I see with increasing these standards is the developers are going to push back and say that they don't want to they don't have to they aren't required to per se but if we can require that if they don't follow their own covenants that they have a tow company that's on board that's going to enforce them for everybody then

it's not going to take but a couple developments for them to realize that it's probably best that they just create a development that's livable yeah certainly and the i think the actual and the enforcement mechanism on that may be a bit more complicated of course always is but yeah it's it's possible okay the um

I had one other comment, but I can't remember what it was at this moment. I will come back.

Commissioner Caldwell, and then we're going to start wrapping it up to go to public comment.

I know we've passed an ordinance where we allowed a pathway to parking, additional parking on your residential lots, which is a driveway extension. And I don't believe we're charging for that. Is that correct?

Yes, if it's concrete, yes, they need to apply and there is a fee for it. But as for driver expansions, there is no fee.

So to Mr. Novick's point, we do have several multifamily generations living in a single-family residence. Unfortunately, they're converting their garages into bedrooms to allow that space to do it, so they're having to park somewhere else. I can't reasonably put it on all the taxpayers and the city's responsibility to keep redoing these rows, having them aerated every year, putting rock down. So that this can be allowed we've already gave them a pathway to have additional parking in their properties So I'm not sure why we're discussing how long has the ordinance been for parking in the roads? Was that was that when the city was formed?

There was no parking in the roads Yeah, so I can look back at the full history I will say the recent change that was made several times yeah the most recent change that was made prior to the suspension of enforcement was to completely ban parking in the right-of-way previous to that parking in the right-of-way was permitted if your vehicle was not stationary for 72 hours or more correct Before that I would need to look further into the code of ordinances and see that previous ordinance history What is our legal stance on if there is an accident in a row?

Somebody comes around a corner and hits a driveway as far as the city's responsibility because technically it's a row. It's a right-of-way Owned by the city so to speak Is there any legal stance to our responsibility if there's an accident in the room?

so the The city has a responsibility to, once it has accepted maintenance, has a responsibility to maintain infrastructure. However, the city is not responsible for the acts of private parties within the right of way. So just as the city would not be responsible for a fender bender at a stop sign, city would not necessarily be responsible for a Someone hitting a parked car in the right-of-way.

I know it'd be hard to estimate But do we have a ballpark figure what it cost the taxpayers to maintain all these right-of-ways by aerating them annually? Putting rock down so what people could be parked there.

I'm assuming that was a question that come up We can definitely get a report together for the Commission. Give me an idea for such an important subject.

I

Commissioner, in that report, can you add how much it also costs us to continuously maintain these swells? Because that's what's happening. That was the whole reason why that was brought up about possibly doing percolating asphalt with percolating piping for those swell areas is because people are still going to park on that.

The discussion was that we were going to pay for it.

have the city come in and rock them or whatever you know that's on the taxpayers dollars when we've already created a pathway for them to park in their yards put additional cars by a driveway extension that's all i have commissioner harriet thank you mayor sorry for my forgetfulness at the end of the day a um two two uh two comments actually the first one is i would like us to add the driveway concrete driveway extensions to that no permit cost um component i would like to i understand people that do do the rock nothing against that but if somebody's willing to do concrete i'd i'd like to make it as absolutely easy as possible for them to do that and then second of all to commissioner caldwell's point it shouldn't be on the rest of the taxpayers to pay to rock or pave over somebody's swale that wants to park there and i'm going to give you the same line that was given to me when i wanted to do more with street lighting and that's let's put in a process for them to come up come together and create an mstu or how whatever mechanism it be and they can they can come together and do it themselves that's uh and it needs to be done on a like a block by block basis not just one house here and one house there. It should be done in a way that has some consistency and some organization to it.

But according to what he says, the swells from parking on them all the time would have to be maintained, and that would be on the responsibility of the city, would it not? As far as air ratings for percolation and stuff, we're not in a flood zone right now, or in a flood time right now, we're in a dry spell, but they, you know, in Deltona, they cycle every so many years, so...

there's definitely challenges there i've got areas in district one that are parked on consistently and don't have a problem i've also got areas in district one where they park on them consistently and every single time it rains that swale in front of their house holds water for hours if not days where their neighbors percolate in 20 or 30 minutes I think there's a lot of inconsistencies within each property, each group of properties that it would be hard to put an overall cost on, it would just be disingenuous if we came through and said that it's gonna cost us, you know, $4 million a year to send somebody out and aerate all the swales, not all the swales needed. And I don't know that we could identify realistically which swales needed it and which swales didn't.

I wonder whether it's a dime or 100,000, it's still on the taxpayer. Yeah. Zach, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I did just want to clarify. The obligation for the city to maintain is once the city has accepted maintenance. So through the permitting process, the city can disclaim maintenance. So a good example of that is already with the process to install a driveway approach. The city does not accept maintenance. The city is permitting the installation of

Structure within its right-of-way, which is maintained by the adjoining property owner So that is something that could be accomplished if the Commission so directs Responsibility does let's say the guys up here a little higher than me parking five cars in a row They're compacts it his water runs off his property runs into mine. I'm in a little swell. He's pushing all that water down to my swell How do we handle that situation? It seems to me that, you know, a broad no parking in a row would be the best option. Not that I'm trying to be an HOA, but, you know, because you're going to have somebody say, well, he's allowed to park in a row over there. Why am I not?

So that's gonna, if you can answer that, and then we have two people that wanna come up and do public comments. At the end of the day, whatever we come up with, somebody's not gonna be happy. I just want this commission to not be wish-washy like in the past, not necessarily talking about us or anybody in particular, just whatever we end up coming up with, whatever agreement we do, we have to stick to it because, I mean, understand our residents. We come up with an ordinance and then somehow it inconveniences somebody, whoever it is, and then we come back and we try to change it again. Whatever we do, let's stick to it and stop driving our residents crazy. That's what we really gotta focus on. Can you please answer Commissioner Caldwell and then we'll go to our public comments.

And I would just say the city has the ability to conduct code enforcement actions for destruction of the right-of-way. So if someone is causing damage to city property, to the city right-of-way, there are code enforcement actions that can be brought to recoup those costs and to recoup the abatement. Your other question about liability of flooding, it's a more complicated and nuanced issue, but there are remedies available to the city to recoup the cost associated with abatement of destruction to its property.

Thank you. City Clerk?

Kathy Bryan.

Mr. Bryan, if you can just put the request to speak.

There we go, okay. Good evening. Please leave it on as well. Compromise, the word of the night. When it comes to parking on the road versus the right-of-way, because some of the roads are so narrow, there's a lot of roads, we keep talking about curbs, there's a lot of roads that don't have curbs. A lot of your major thoroughfares do. But what about considering something like I think the ordinance now says something about they have they have to park like They have to be within a foot of the curb or the side of the road Well, that's a long distance when you have a narrow road Why don't you consider allowing them to park at least a foot on the right-of-way? You still have you can still have your line of sight and especially again when those curves are if you've got some areas to Especially on your higher levels traffic streets where maybe put no parking on curve Um, so far as your lawn maintenance and your guys to come and do your pool and stuff like that. My neighbors, we have an empty lot. They used to always park right, right there. And it never made a difference to me, but you know, when, when it comes to parking in the street like that, we've also had people. DO, DOUBLE PARK. THEY HAVE WORKERS COME AND THEY'RE PARKED ON BOTH SIDES. SO I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE EDUCATION IS IF YOU HAVE WORKERS THAT ARE DOING THAT, YOU NEED TO GO TALK TO THEM AND TELL THEM YOU CAN ONLY PARK ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET. WE'VE HAD THAT HAPPEN MORE THAN ONCE. I know you guys are limited, but I think we really need to talk and work with developers. I know they may not have to, but when it comes to the size of our roads and the way the driveways are set and whatnot. I mean, I see people that are driving. I have a house where the cars park parallel to the house. They drive into the yard and then park in the driveway parallel so they can fix them. The other thing is, how many people came from a place where they had sewer and now they have septic tank? Do they know what that's going to do to their septic tank? The large parking, large vehicle parking, consider too that if they have something over it, a cover, especially one that domes up at the top so that your debris, I agree they need maintenance, but your debris, your leaf debris and whatnot falls off and doesn't collect like let's say within a boat. Take that into some consideration too and maybe allow, if you have a cover, you can keep a certain size here. You know, people want goods and services, but they don't want trucks. That's how it gets here. That's how our goods get here, semis, but people don't want to give them anywhere to park. So I think that's really, really important. Nobody wants it in their backyard, but we need to find places that are going to do that. So far as the recreation... recreation vehicles any of them yes i agree i'm glad the two new ones are coming in because you're right we're going to need them um maritza if you're seeing cars the part seven at a time on the side of the house but they're on blocks or stilts then they're doing mechanical work which they're only supposed to be doing for a short amount of time and and that's that's covered so far as i know um education to our residents. Especially the guys with the recreation vehicles that are gonna have to do the offsite parking. Give them plenty of time. Tim Blodgett.

Good evening. As usual, I'm here to ruin somebody's day. Okay, I really wasn't gonna say anything about this except that I hear you don't want Deltona turning into an HOA, but you don't seem to mind turning it into a Bedford-Stuyvesant. That's disturbing. I heard a quote that WARE agreed that a fire truck needs 20 feet wide in order to operate. And the fire truck is about nine foot four inches wide. And then we have a ladder truck that has stabilizers that come out of each side, nine feet on each side. Well, that's closer to 30 feet than 20. Something you might want to consider. As for the swales that everybody is so sure it's just parking and waiting, I don't think so. I've seen Lowe's trucks make deliveries for a roadside, and they're making the side on one end of the block. 10 houses down, the water pipes come popping out of the ground. Why? Because we live on a sandbar, folks. It's like, I got construction going on next door. They're tearing up the floors for plumbing, I guess. And all my wife's knickknacks are falling on the floor. As far as aeration is concerned, I'm sorry, I came from the north. One of the first things I wanted to do for my lawn was aerate it. You can't find an aerator in Deltona. Short and simple, good luck. Aside from that, we've gone from front yards that used to park two cars heading to now, if you've got a large SUV, it's hanging over the sidewalk permanently. I don't know why you want to lay all this on the residents. I really think that you ought to consider starting with putting the codes back, you're worried about something being within 30 feet of a burning house. How about the 10 feet away to the house next door because you don't have, you don't have easements in between houses anymore. I mean, man, use a little common sense. Anyway, I'm sure this is gonna be coming up a whole lot more. The swale should be out. Years ago, there was, what's his name? Big John, whatever his name was. I only remember one quote that the guy ever said, and it was this, don't touch my swales. Have a good night.

That ends public comment, Mayor.

City Manager? Give me one minute, go ahead, Jordan.

Mayor, before you continue, can I just request that the commission, we go through each option real fast, five, seven minutes. Just get a yes and no on each option so we know what to bring back to the commission. I will have Edward bring it back up. Is that okay, Mayor?

Yeah, go ahead.

Okay.

First. option is whether or not we want to Really regulate on the basis of a design standard saying Do you want to park on the street? you know, based on the width of the road. Because we can, you know, we can kind of try to regulate on that basis. And then that also then allows you to consider, you know, there are different standards for one-way and two-way streets, right? So having the design basis be the basis for your parking regulation.

All right, all those in favor for option one, just raise your hand to make it visually easier.

So Mr. Mayor, the direction we're looking for is that if you would like us to continue to explore this and bring back a more fully.

So you want us to give you recommendations based on those three options?

That's what I understood. Well, whether or not we should continue to.

Yeah, whether or not you are interested in having staff bring back this as a more fully developed. So we can pick all three options if we wanted to? You could.

Okay, so just so the rest of the commission knows. I got it.

This particular option.

Yeah, based on the width of the road and the design, the design of the road.

We get that part. We're trying to figure out if you want us to give you a yes or no on each of the options, right?

So this is option one with option two. We're gonna vote on each one. Right. Yes. Option, another yes or no.

All right, stop. So, let me do this slowly. We have three options. We're gonna vote on option one. If we vote yes, you're gonna continue looking towards that one as well. We're gonna get option two. If we vote yes, you continue to look at that one as well. If we get option three, you continue to go at that one as well if we vote yes. Or we can vote no on all of them and then you'll figure out a different route. Does the commission have that clear? Yes? All right, can we please start from the beginning, option one.

Option one, do we want to look at parking regulation on the basis of roadway widths and design?

So if you're in favor of looking further into that, please raise your hand. Both existing and new.

Pardon?

For both existing and new.

Yeah, existing and new.

There you go. Okay, yes.

Okay, let's check. OPTION TWO, DO WE WANT TO REGULATE ON THE BASIS OF CURVATURE OF THE ROAD?

THOSE THAT WANT TO LOOK INTO THAT MORE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. SO THAT WOULD BE A NO OR A YES? I SAW TWO. COMMISSIONER? NO. SO THAT ONE'S A NO. OKAY, NOT A NO.

Option three, do we want to, well, Mayor, can we make it a two-parter so I can get better direction? First option is do you want to regulate on the basis of? Size of the lot? Yeah, the fire, the dirty feet.

All right, raise your hand if you want to regulate the size of the lot. Raise your hand, one person.

And the second follow-up is, do you want us to regulate on the basis of what I presented earlier, which was keeping things clear of fire debris and any flammable hazards?

Yeah. Okay. You're a yes on that one. Yep. So you have two yeses. Yep. Perfect. Okay. City Manager? You're in comments. That was your third option, right?

How many questions do we have?

That was third option.

Well, I got two more.

I was told three, not five. Go ahead.

Sorry. Do you want to, sorry Mayor, do you want to pursue the basis of creating a private site program for swells and creating that set of regulations for swells to parking conversion?

Those in favor, just raise your hand.

We can present to you the different options for further discussion whether what it is from a public side or what it is from a private side, MDSU.

Okay. Those in favor?

Okay.

So you have, that one's three and three, so it fails.

Okay, no mail conversions. Okay, and then I think the last thing that we really need is revising rules for service vehicles in terms of allowing for them to park during service calls.

Okay, those in favor of that, please raise your hand. Okay.

Can I add one thing real quick to this? We really need to wrap it up. It has to be clear and concise so that it can't be used, abused, or otherwise taken advantage of. It has to be very black and white.

Okay. Are we sure that was it? We're good? Yep. City Manager, please.

Thank you.

You're good? All right. So this specific workshop is adjourned. Staff, how much? Let's give them three minutes so they can switch over. and the PNZ board can start coming in.