Deltona planning board debates overhaul of PUD rules; staff to take revisions to city commission

The Deltona Planning and Zoning Board debated Ordinance 05‑2025 on Jan. 15, a proposed amendment to section 110‑319 of the city code that would revise Planned Unit Development (PUD) application requirements, design standards and required public benefits.

Planning Director Jordan Smith told the board the changes implement a city commission directive and a prior declaration of zoning in progress: “On October 7, 2024, the city commission approved resolution number 202024 dash 54 to declare zoning in progress regarding section 110 dash 319 planned unit developments.” Smith said the draft language is intended to “raise the bar and establish criteria to achieve exceptional quality community designs” by requiring design standards for residential PUDs and enhanced landscaping, pedestrian orientation and architectural standards for commercial, industrial and mixed‑use PUDs.

The nut of the proposal is to require PUDs to provide public benefits and shared amenities (parks, trails, clubhouses), preserve natural features and improve pedestrian connectivity. Smith and staff showed photographic examples of desirable and undesirable PUD patterns and told the board that the changes would be applied to applications submitted after the zoning‑in‑progress declaration.

Board members pressed staff on specifics. Several said they received the ordinance packet only days earlier and asked for more time and clearer redline comparisons before making a formal recommendation. One board member recommended adding specific language on historical neighborhood flooding and how new development would fit into the city’s long‑term sidewalk and lighting plans; another asked that the PUD checklist require how a project would connect to an existing sidewalk master plan.

A board member with CPTED (crime‑prevention through environmental design) certification urged the board to consider adopting the state CPTED guidance, arguing the state’s standards would address lighting and design that can reduce crime and may be needed by insurers for some multifamily projects. Staff replied that the CPTED references appear in a tort‑reform statute and are not mandatory for cities, but the city commission had asked staff to review and raise standards.

Two members of the public spoke. Longtime resident Larry French supported stronger preservation of trees and natural landscape to improve on‑site absorption and reduce flooding, telling the board he had “been a resident here for over 40 years” and urging the board to “incorporate as much inclusion of preservation of foliage in all the development.” Attorney Kim Booker, representing Blackfin Investments, said her client had completed pre‑application work and then submitted an application on Nov. 27, 2024. Booker said the applicant had spent “several 100 of 1,000 of dollars” on studies and engineering and expressed concern that revisions could reclassify self‑storage uses as industrial and adversely affect projects that had relied on the earlier code. She said the pending project is “gonna be a $15,000,000 project” and asked the board and staff to consider equitable treatment for applicants who had incurred costs under the prior rules.

Staff responded that applicants were notified when the city declared zoning in progress in October and that pre‑application meetings do not constitute final approvals. Staff also said applications submitted after the Oct. 7 declaration remain subject to the updated regulations and that staff can work with individual applicants to address specific concerns.

After extended discussion about timing and notice, a board member moved that the board not recommend—or deny recommendation for—Ordinance 05‑2025. The motion was seconded. Transcript excerpts show several members recorded votes on that motion, and the exchange that followed contains inconsistent roll‑call references and an acknowledged confusion in the hearing record. Board members reiterated that, regardless of the board’s recommendation, the ordinance will go to the Deltona City Commission for final action. Staff said the item will be forwarded to the commission; staff previously indicated the item could return to the commission in February for further consideration.

The board’s discussion covered substantive policy points the ordinance would affect — use classification for self‑storage, how zoning‑in‑progress applies to pipeline projects, tree retention and stormwater impacts, sidewalk planning and potential incorporation of CPTED guidance — and included requests from several board members for clearer attachments and a longer review period before making a formal recommendation.

The measure will proceed to the Deltona City Commission for consideration and possible adoption, and staff told the planning board it will return to the commission at a later meeting for final action.