City Commission - workshop

Okay. Thank you. Okay, everyone. Sorry for the little confusion here, but we are going to now start the joint meeting with the PNZ board. Can we have the call to order, please? Roll call.

Okay, we're all good. Can we all please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? Okay, we're going to go to the discussion items. The joint workshop city commission and planning and zoning board comprehensive plan amendment workshop seven. So this is my first time running a PNZ joint meeting, so I'm just gonna hand it over to you guys.

I also have a question Do you want if somebody has an end question in the middle of a presentation or would you like them to wait till? The presentation is completed

Thank you. So what exactly is the missing middle housing since we had a survey done and we are not lacking in housing options in the city of Deltona?

So is that where the nine-floor buildings come in?

Did we ever expand to look at if that was safe from a fire perspective because we don't have fire trucks that can handle nine story buildings? I have concerns about when we put people living in the middle of floods and we put people living in housing that can't be sustained by fire safety.

Yeah, once you get past a three-story building from a fire safety standpoint, you're not looking at apparatus being able to reach over three stories because of the angle of the ladder and the setback that you have to create. So a 110-foot aerial is going to reach the top of a three-story building. That's it. Beyond that, you're dealing with systems. So you put a fire sprinkler system in. You put early detection systems in. You create areas of refuge within the building. The code provides for multi-story protection for life safety and for the protection of the building itself through systems no

So it'll still have to, sorry, it still has to go by city policies and regulations.

Not on my, I guess somebody else has any kind of question.

Protection of environmentally sensitive lands or sensitive areas, where is that defined and who makes that decision in terms of what is considered to be environmentally sensitive and who, if I'm assuming there is a definition somewhere, who makes the decision that it meets that criteria?

Is there any, do we have any leeway outside of the state statutes that ALLOW US TO TAILOR THAT TO OUR COMMUNITY?

And if I remember correctly, as long as we don't get a hurricane within the next year and a half or declare disaster, we should be out of that umbrella for a little bit at least.

We, while we do have some wetland areas, our predominantly sensitive ecosystem is the upland. And that happens to also be some of the best, most buildable land. So the state's done a okay job of protecting wetlands, but we haven't, we don't see any protections for uplands. Is there a way to address that in the comp plan?

Kind of overlapping that same time that SB 180 may expire.

I'd like to keep that on the front burner so that if we do get an opportunity to amend our code, if SB 180 does lapse, we can jump on that and make those amendments.

an opportunity with some of those density bonuses that if somebody is willing to set aside land for conservation and put a perpetual conservation easement over it, then they could be eligible for some of these bonuses, correct?

Thank you. I just have a question. You said that you have identified some of these historical information. Do you have a paper or something you can share with us at the next meeting?

Yeah, we would like to see, I mean, I would like to see that. Okay. Thank you. We can certainly provide them. Thank you. Commissioner Harriet?

Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to just real quick make a note, not for necessarily discussion, since I think the answer is going to just be that it falls under SB 180, but I'd like to make a note that... If we have the opportunity to adjust, I'd like to look at 1-5.6 again, where the language talks about development within a floodplain that cannot avoid a floodplain or other flood hazard area shall minimize the disturbance of natural floodplain functions. I'd like to strengthen that if we can so that we've had a couple developments, one specifically that was voted down two years ago at the ba

Is there any way when we do the clustering or allow for the clustering, is there something other than it just being written into the development order that would solidify the surrounding area as conservation and and what i'm thinking of is you know is a land put under a conservation easement or something to that effect that's more permanent you want to take that

Logging's a tool for conservation, though.

Well, if we're going to encourage them to be flexible with site design techniques and concentrate development within suitable areas, then we have the ability to say yes or no to that policy. that plan, and if we're not gonna say, if we're gonna say yes to giving them more, then we should also be able to say yes to the land around it has to be held into perpetuity and never developed.

And I understand that, but can we include in here that it must be preserved into perpetuity by some mechanism that can be established in the future?

Would that preclude any other types of accessibility if we're just focused on requiring ADA accessibility?

I just don't want to preclude any other type.

Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Dorby, can you turn off your mic?

I have a question. This might be for city staff as opposed to yourself. On the accessory dwelling units, 18-6 on page 19, I notice that we've been allowing some accessory structures in the city already, metal buildings and such as. Are we required to put an approach to those buildings? I notice a lot of them are used as garages and things.

It depends on how they apply then. Correct. If they apply it as just a storage shed and it's got a four-car garage in it, then we don't require them to put a driveway in?

a separate structure structure but the access is pedestrian well i mean i have one in particular that i'm talking about and in my district where there was a two-car garage putting them back with a carport off the side and they're parking boats campers and everything and they're driving across the sidewalks with no approach so how are we allowing this to happen is there any way to control that through this so that is all covered in the land of alma code and we can get with you afterwards and take a closer look at that All right, thank you.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. In 1-8.4 at the bottom of page 18, do we or should we include in that list the recovery houses?

Just thinking ahead a little bit, will we be incorporating that in our land development code as a requirement?

Which way would better protect the residents in the comprehensive plan or through the land development code?

and their conservation elements to form the basis of their comprehensive plan but by not putting it in a comprehensive plan it leaves it open to change through the land development code it's easier to change it through the land development code to allow them at that point your comprehensive plan is

I think we should definitely look into it.

I think we're better off in addressing it ourselves and including it in the plan because if it's not there, another entity, a court, will decide what will be done with it rather than us. So if we include it in the plan, the comp plan, and then we address those regulations through the land development code, we're probably less likely to have a challenge that will be decided by somebody other than us.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. And just to expound on that point of the courts, we all know that if the courts decide that somebody can do something, then they're going to let them do a lot more than we had the opportunity to negotiate and we're gonna have to pay for them. But I'd like to look at 1-10.3. The original language, they both use the term may, but it seems like in the original language, jurisdictional wetlands, floodplains, public well fields and primary wellhead protection zones and habitat management areas were a little bit more protected in the sense that they weren't, there was a little

If we could change the may to a shall, that would be more concrete for me.

To build on that same point though, land use number one is for public private charter schools and educational facilities specifically. So if it's already pulled out and identified separately, I don't know if we could just take a look at that and see if that works.

Yes, and you're on the, and I was just gonna ask her if she's okay. Yeah.

All right. Thank you. Are you okay? Yes, ma'am. All right, thank you. Commissioner Cole, you were on the line and you got Okay, so I had Commissioner Harriot and then Commissioner Howington.

I'm sorry? Commissioner Howington go first. Okay, so thinking out loud, dangerous, but thinking out loud. Since conservation has been an underlying priority for myself throughout this entire series of workshops, Would this be an opportunity where we could even maybe reduce the height, the stories by right to say five stories or four stories and then add an additional bonus for some conservation features or setting aside conservation land maybe even if they have it adjacent to a different project something to that effect, we can incentivize more conservation.

I would actually like it to be. more spelled out specifically for conservation. And I actually object to the idea that we should get rid of the eco-centers, especially considering we have Lyonia Preserve and the area right along Lyonia, around Lyonia is designated as a main street. I would like to see that designated as an eco-center along with the Lakeshore area that's already identified as an eco-center and the area around D Ranch is, I believe, identified as an eco center. So I think we should. Right.

Well, that specific property was, but the area around it.

Okay, I will challenge you then to Find a way to meet that goal of the eco centers that we had talked about previously by reducing the overall height by right with a specific spelled out conservation density bonus or height bonus. I'll leave that to you to kind of tailor, but I would like to see it specific for conservation, whether it's floor area ratio, height, stories, however it may lay. But I would like to see that specific to conservation and then allowable to be, it doesn't have to be specific to that project, right? Because I don't think there's really an opportunity for conservation.

Okay, we have another Commissioner Howington on the board.

Thank you. Going back to the six stories by right, as it stands today, live local applies to by right. However, this comprehensive plan is supposed to cover 25 years, correct? How do we know that in five years they're not gonna come back and say, if there's a 10-story building next door, it doesn't matter if you have the right or not. you can have that 10-story building. I think it's probably going to behoove us to build something into our comprehensive plan to protect ourselves from future legislation like SB 180 that came back and said if it wasn't on your books as of two years ago, then you

I want to talk about everybody's concerns here about going over the six stories here. And my concern as well, you know, if we expand that to a mile at the uptown center that we're proposing, then live local can expand it another mile beyond that.

But under live local, they can change the zoning and build with.

No. I'd like to know, I keep hearing we have a concern about the height. What is the concern? Is it... Okay, what aspect of that does not fit? I need to understand what... Is it the aesthetics of that high of a building? The visibility. Is that... Okay, can we turn on our mics because people are not being able to hear at home No, no, I want to hear what because everybody keeps saying I have a concern about a nine-story building I need to understand what that concern is I have issues with traffic as well exactly

So I think that there's a little bit more to it. So I'd like to put it forward to a vote.

Okay, can we have a consensus vote to take it up at another meeting?

I'd like to just have a consensus vote for the six stories.

Okay. City Clerk, can we call the consensus, please, individually?

I need to have the, I guess, motion for the consensus restated. What exactly are we saying that we're going to keep it at six stories?

Across the city. The entire city, no density bonuses, no bonuses whatsoever? No. I vote no.

Okay, are we going to reschedule, Doc, as you suggested, or are we going to continue? Because I would like to give the residents a chance to speak as well.

So you want to end it here at this point?

Okay, I have Commissioner Harriot who wanted to speak, but let's keep it short, because I want to give the residents a chance to speak as well. Commissioner Harriot.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. Jordan or Zach, how tall is Halifax, the hospital?

I remember correctly it's six or seven and then it's they're allowed to go up another one or two on top of what they've already got so so What we're doing by essentially saying no to anything more than six stories at this point is We're taking away our bargaining chip to gain conservation somewhere else to gain to really incentivize unfortunately the way that it has to be done based off of, you know, state law, but we have to incentivize the developers to do what we want them to do. And we're taking that completely off the table.

So we're not... I'm just disappointed in this commission because, you know, I think at the end of the day we want some of the same things, but we're... we're taking away our ability to bargain and achieve those things.

Well, I don't think this was a final decision. I think it was just a consensus to... Continue on with the plan as six stories rather than... And maybe come back with some other ideas.

Well, but you told them six stories max, so they're not going to go and look at additional ideas when you have told them that their goal is to max it all out.

They already have a developer's agreement to go to nine. Halifax has a developer's agreement.

I was just thinking about Halifax as a reference for what height looks like within our community.

And I think what some commissioners are considering is the areas that these developments are going to be built, maybe in one section right now where Halifax is, if they continue with 4506 in one section, it doesn't look bad. I think the concern is having... the way Deltona is built right now is having houses here and a building in the middle and then a store here and another building. I think that's what my concern is mix, being all these different heights being mixed in the development.

But that's not what was articulated. What was articulated was a six-story max across the entire city, period. If we want to limit it to the activity center and the uptown, I got no problems with that. I can agree with that 100%. I don't think that we necessarily need to go any higher than six stories. And I think, quite frankly, six stories is pretty damn tall if you're talking about, you know, El Cam and Howland or Fort Smith and Cortland. I agree with that. But to say that we're going to just take our bargaining chip away within the activity center and the uptown, I think we're shooting ours

Okay, I would like to hear from the residents and then I will.

I'd like to hear from the residents as well to get their input.

Thank you. So my question is going back to the consensus. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT ONE OF THE RESIDENTS BROUGHT UP, WHICH IS THAT AREA HAS BEEN PRONE FROM SINK HOLES. AND THIS IS JUST ONE LEVEL BUILDING. THE HIGH SCHOOL, THE HOUSE THAT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HIGH SCHOOL, HOWLEM BOULEVARD, CHRIS, YOU REMEMBER? THAT HUGE SINK HOLE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF HOWLEM BOULEVARD. Would that be a concern going forward if you were to build higher buildings in that area, considering what's been happening in other cities?

Right, considering that it's gonna be kept in one area of the city of Deltona, I'll retract my vote.

Since you explained it that it's restricted to that section of just Deltona and it's not gonna be all over Deltona, then I'll retract my vote to no.

I don't have the picture anymore of who's getting in to speak, so.

Yeah, you're not on the winning side. Oh, that's true.

To anybody? Okay, I make the motion to make the motion to reconsider. Okay. Can we call a vote, City Clerk?

Well, I'd like to put a motion forward since that was just recalled.

Yes, then. Let's move this forward. Yes.

So I would like to make the motion that we retain our existing requirements set at six feet and, or sorry, six stories and seven within the activity center. Is that what it currently is?

So at this point, unless there's a second, the motion would die. Okay.

City Clerk, can you call the vote please? Um, we're trying to wrap this up as soon as possible so you can make it short.

Yeah, I think that by handcuffing us to the current, the current plan or the current allowment of allowable heights were completely taking off the table the ability for us to negotiate. with density bonuses or height bonuses. And again, it's not actually achieving the goal for these two very specific areas. I would really like to see us continue and see what they can do in terms of the language for conservation and provide a plan to allow for bonuses within these two very specific areas with conservation Other parts of the city.

I have a question for possibly Jordan or legal as far as the development of the multi use being residential and commercial. How does the impact he's applied as applied as all commercial?

Okay, because my concern is we just reduced the impact fees on commercial development by quite a bit. So the impact would be on the residents at that point.

If it's a multi-use development and there's six stories of residential above a story of commercial, how is that applied in the impact? Is that all commercial?

Okay, let's also not forget we could dial it back later before this is formally adopted and we could let them continue with what they're researching and proposing and looking into. No, they're not going to go for that. It's too late for them to go back and develop language at that point.

Okay, city clerk, can we call the vote please?

For planning purposes, I think that that's acceptable for discussion and consideration of what the possibilities may be in terms of bonuses and whatnot.

I don't have, The piece that tells me who's logging in went somewhere that way. So just chip in, just chime in.

I'll just go next then. My concern is in the uptown area, we're gonna have a six story building sticking out on top of that hill. And in your words, you said there's no residential affected by that. I believe all the residential to the south side, all the residential to the north side is five acre residential parcels, is it not? Or one acre to five acre residential parcels?

I'm looking at the map. I think it's a good distance away.

What is a good distance to look at a six-story building?

Apple Maps doesn't have a scale on it. Hold on.

So, Vice Mayor, if I could, please. This is too important to rush through in the next 10 minutes, folks. Let's end this conversation tonight. We need some maps. We need some drawings. We need some pictures to look at that's to scale. so that we can make an informed decision, not have somebody looking at an iPad and trying to measure something out. No disrespect, Commissioner, but we need a lot more information at this point. And if it's gonna take a couple more meetings to get this done, then that's what we need to do and not try and rush through it this evening. Are we in agreement on that?

I do have a question. So if this is coming back before the commission in December, If the commission decides to make changes, how difficult will that be to make changes at that time?

and make sure that when we do those maps we address those one mile radiuses visually so we can see with road names on the map not just a squiggly line that's we're trying to figure out what road it is specifically having the the names of the roads on there so we can identify specific neighborhoods and areas that there seems to be concern for yes okay

Thank you. Any other questions from the floor? If not, I mean, we did bring up new ideas, and I just want to give the residents a chance to, if anybody else wants to make a comment or come up to speak.

Okay, well, this workshop is closed. Thank you.