Deltona planning board backs citywide commercial design standards, recommends commission approval

The City of Deltona Planning and Zoning Board on June 18 voted to recommend that the City Commission approve Ordinance 24‑2025, creating Chapter 111 of the Land Development Code to establish architectural and building design standards for non‑residential development.

The amendment, presented by Alexis Crespo of RVI Planning and Landscape Architecture, applies only to non‑residential buildings — commercial, office, government and light industrial — citing a state law that prevents local governments from adopting local design standards for residential uses. "This amendment will only apply to non residential buildings," Crespo said. She told the board the standards are intended to improve visual quality without pricing out development: "This is a balancing act though where we don't wanna go overboard with these standards and limit or stop good development or redevelopment from happening by making it too costly to do so."

Board members and staff described how the draft code would work in practice. Key provisions include defining a primary façade (the side facing a public street) and higher standards for primary façades than for secondary façades; limiting the use and percentage of bold, brand colors on primary façades; requiring façade modulation or textured elements at specified intervals to avoid long, blank walls; restricting low‑quality cladding materials on primary façades; adopting a set of vernacular architectural styles (Florida/Old Florida, Mediterranean, Modern, Traditional) with minimum style components; and modest site placement standards intended to reduce the visibility of large parking expanses. The draft excludes the city’s Enterprise Commercial Overlay, which already has design standards, and applies to non‑residential portions of planned unit developments and to redevelopment that triggers the code thresholds.

The draft also sets a menu of low‑cost site enhancements for change‑of‑use cases so modest interior remodels will not trigger full architectural upgrades. Crespo described that approach as a way to allow reuses with "very minimal requirements, such as having an additional few ornamental trees or some planters or some decorative pavers" when a building's footprint does not change. Nonconforming buildings built under earlier rules would remain legal nonconforming and only come into conformance as they redevelop.

An administrative alternative review process would allow staff to evaluate exceptions based on the ordinance’s intent; staff decisions could be appealed to the City Commission. Crespo said staff would evaluate compliance during site‑plan and building‑permit review, not as an extra application step.

Board members pressed on several implementation details. Members asked how murals would be treated; Crespo said murals would trigger the administrative alternative review but supported a local mural program and recommended considering placing mural rules in the forthcoming sign‑code rewrite. Member Stewart said he and others "would be supportive" of incorporating a mural program. The board also discussed tree species and landscaping standards; staff noted the city’s landscape code already lists preferred plantings (natives and Florida‑friendly species) and that landscape plans would be reviewed against that code. Member Northey asked whether green building or low‑impact development options could be incentivized; Crespo suggested LID measures could be integrated on the site‑design menu.

Public‑safety and crime‑prevention impacts came up. Member Trojanowski, referencing crime‑prevention‑through‑environmental‑design principles, said design elements such as glazing and active frontages can reduce crime by increasing natural surveillance. "So it's a great opportunity to introduce that," Trojanowski said, urging inclusion of safety considerations.

Other concerns included pedestrian and multimodal internal connectivity, the potential need to clarify buffer/hedge specifications where parking fronts a street, and the treatment of corner lots (where feature elements or public art could be required). The Planning and Zoning Board suggested clarifications on buffer language (for example, specifying planting heights and opacity goals rather than requiring earth berms) and recommended that staff consider multimodal (bike + pedestrian) internal circulation standards.

After questions and amendments suggested by the board, a motion to recommend approval was made and seconded; the board then voted unanimously in favor. The board recorded its vote and the recommendation will be forwarded to the City Commission for consideration.

The code change references a shelved 02/2008 pattern book used for background ideas and implements direction the City Commission provided earlier this year and in a January workshop. The ordinance text shown to the board describes conflicts, codification, severability and an effective date.