48 and uh Renee, would you call the role please >> Susan Denny >> here? Nancy Jennore >> here. >> Dr. Miller >> here. >> Steven Straoud >> here.
>> John Price and Chairman Russell >> here. >> Okay. And you have the before you the uh minutes of uh last meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those
minutes? >> Hearing nine. I'd like to have a motion to approve as submitted. >> I wasn't here. >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the 23rd of April. And >> I will second that motion.
>> And thank you, Susan. Call or call a roll. Renee, call a roll, please. >> Susan Denny >> for >> Nancy Jennore >> for the motion. >> Dr. Miller >> for the motion. >> Steven Strad >> for the motion.
>> And Mr. Russell >> four. >> Okay. over here. And our uh first order of business tonight is to enter a new applicant is
Michael Hartman here. >> Hi, Mr. Hartman. You come forward to the microphone and make sure you can log in. We can hear you. >> Yes. >> Enough. >> Okay.
uh you're have applied to serve on the PNZ board, looked at your qualifications and they look uh as good as I've ever seen and I wonder if uh anybody else and I'll
start with Nancy if you have any questions to uh for Mr. uh Hartman. >> Oh, I really don't. I think Everything is here and you certainly look like >> Thank you.
>> Thank you for doing this, >> Steve. I'm interested in hearing your story. So, uh I will sit back and uh and when you get your opportunity, I'll listen. >> Okay. Um it's really quite simple. We've lived here since 2019 in the city, but
our involvement with Cape Canaveral goes back to 1989. Uh my in-laws retired and moved to 116 Jefferson Avenue in 1989 and they lived there until 2017. I came down as the outside CPA for one
of our clients whose office was next to Portide Galley in early 93 and they made me a job offer. And so I went back home and said to my wife, I said, "Do you want to live in Cape Canaveral?" And she was not as thrilled as I was cuz I was definitely sold on it. And I told her, I
said, "Well, one way or the other, I'm moving." So, she came along for the ride. So, we've been in Bvard County since 1993. Um, even though we didn't move to Cape Canaveral originally. Uh, I mean, I I've
uh been involved with the businesses here since ' 89 through my in-laws. um you know worked all over the five and a half years uh four over four years as president and just felt that it
was time for to give it up to somebody else after that amount of time. It's always good to have new blood on the board I think and I saw that there was an opening here um and it fits right in with what I've been doing for the last
32 years. So, I love to just bring my, you know, my knowledge to what we have here. I love the fact I grew up in Baltimore. We were 90,000 people in a 1 acre, 14t wide row houses. And I love
the small town feel of Cape Canaveral. I've always loved it since we've been coming down here. And so, I'm not in any hurry to make any rash judgments on anything in terms of development or, you know, I'm not against development. I'm not for development. I just look at it
and see does it make sense to me? And that's how I've always judged development my 32 years. I have no formal training as a developer. I learned it on the fly by doing it. That's me in a nutshell basically.
>> Yeah, that's good. >> How about you, Susan? Well, it sounds like you have a lot of experience that will be utilized on this board. And uh >> which did you like better, Merit Island or Rockidge or Cape Canaveral?
>> I like Cape Canaveral. I always wanted to live here. But I I have to admit we were always Boers, so we were on a canal in Diana Shore. So that was pretty nice having our boat right behind our house. So, >> but uh >> you know, boating got a little old and
you get a little older, it's hard to take care of a boat and after 34 years we said enough's enough and sold our last boat in December of 2018 and started looking over in Cape Canaveral. >> Sure. Well, uh if you come aboard,
welcome aboard. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh Michael Miller, uh I don't have any questions, but I say welcome aboard. Thank you. >> We can use the help. >> Thank you. >> Well, thank you for uh applying and
bringing your talent. I've got a voice problem today. I've got some kind of something that's happening to my vocal cords, making me sound like I'm singing tenor, but uh do the best you can. Um,
okay. Then, uh, if there are no further questions for, uh, the applicant, then we need to, uh, have a motion to recommend his, uh, appointment to the city council.
May I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion to recommend Mike for the planning and zoning board. Okay. Is there a second? >> I will second that motion. >> Thank you. Uh, would you please call the
role? Renee. >> Susan Denny >> for the motion. >> Nancy Jennore >> for the motion. >> Dr. Miller >> for the motion. >> Steven Straoud >> for the motion. Lamar Russell >> four.
Okay. We have recommended you to the council and uh what's the next move? He has to go for the inquisition in front of the council to uh for the final appointment. >> Yes. Yes.
>> Later this month. >> Okay. >> October 21st is the date of that council meeting and we already have it on the tenative agenda. >> Very good. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, good luck in front of the council and uh >> thank you very much and I look forward to working with all of you.
>> All right. Uh you're invited to ask questions or take part in the discussion this evening. >> I'm just going to watch and learn right there. >> Well, we're all learning all the time and today is going to be I think a
learning experience. uh we're going to talk about our next item on on the agenda. But before we do that, I'm supposed to ask for public participation.
If there's any member of the public that wants to bring something forward to the PNZ board, uh now's the time to do so. And I don't see any clamor in the audience. So we'll move past that.
And uh then we'll go into considerate number three on the agenda. Consideration of a lot split application. It's at 909 Astronaut Boulevard,
approximately 7.19 acres, identified as tax parcel 343715 double zero 252
and another tax parcel 243715267. seven. I wonder where they get those numbers. At any rate, we're moving past that and we're going to ask Connor to take us through the
data packet and highlight the pertinent points. >> Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Russell. So, this is a lot split that you'd be recommending approval
uh temp, you know, you might be recommending approval to have this go before the council and the council would pass a resolution to make this lot split official. It is at 99 Astronaut Boulevard. There are currently two
hotels on this lot. And the reason why there are two different tax parcels for this property is that the applicant requested the Bvard County Property Appraisers Office to split into two different tax parcels. It used to just
end in 252, but now we have a 267 and a 252. At the time the tax parcels were requested, the LA T parcel split was not approved by the city. uh but they currently remain under the same
ownership and both structures on the lot currently have CO and are two fully operational hotels. So the city of Cape Canaveral COD ordinances section 9866
allows for lot splits um if they're approved by resolution following a review by planning and zoning board and then final approval by the city council. I included some information about uh what lots are required to have to comply
with our code area and dimensions setbacks. But long story short, the proposed lot split was reviewed by city staff, including the community and economic development department and the city engineer and has been found to be compliant with the applicable city code
requirements and comprehensive plan guidance. Uh the request is recommended for approval based on the findings and the city engineers compliance letter is also attached to the agenda item. You can note that the C certificate of
occupancy for Country End Suites, which is the hotel on the rear end farthest from A1A, was approved on September 11th, 2006. And more recently, in April of 2025, the Hyatt Place Hotel was provided a co and has been in operation
since then. So the track of land is potentially eligible for approval of a lot split if they comply with the criteria outlined in section 98664 which is the review criteria analysis and I won't go through all of them but
it mentions zoning it mentions consistency with the comprehensive plan uh conformance to code in terms of creating lots and tracks of land ingress and egress which both properties have the ability to exit it and enter the
site. Um that it's in harmony with the surrounding neighborhoods, that it will not create burdensome congestion, orderly layout of land, uh all of these things. And keep in mind that both of these structures are currently in
existence and in operation and that the lot split is more of a mechanism for splitting the land rather than approving any development as the structures are already in place. So after all of that, city staff found that the proposed lots
split did satisfy criteria outlined in 9866 and they recommend that the board uh recommend approval of the lotslit application to the city council in which they would approve a resolution. Thank you.
>> Okay. So, did you say the original request to split the parcels was turned down by the council? >> It wasn't necessarily that it was turned down. It was never heard before the boards. Uh they ended up going to the
county before they went through the city process. So, that's why it shows as two different tax parcels through Bard County, but it was never heard before boards as a lot split application here in the city. So now we're looking to officiate that.
>> Okay. So the council just wasn't uh conf wasn't ready to >> typically the process is that they go to the city and then go to the county, but they ended up going to the county first. >> Yep. Okay. Okay.
>> We keep running into that. Is is that uh laid out or explained? I didn't look it up. I should have, but I had a lot going on and I didn't do that homework. Is that part of the process explained that
uh should go? >> Anthony, do you want to address that? >> Yeah. Unfortunately, that's that's kind of the way it operates. The property appraiser and the tax collector, um, they do their thing. One of the things that they don't review for is compliance
with subdivision regulations. That's a city issue. So, we've had situations in the past where property owners would just go down to the county and and record a deed and uh subdivide the property without coming to the city for
review under the subdivision regulations. This one is a slightly a little bit different. The property owner, Port uh Port View, um they still own the entire property, the 7.19 acres.
What they did is they just went down to the county and had uh the tax collector issue two tax par an additional tax parcel ID for um um for another lot. Right.
>> So that's not a lot split. That's just >> divally. They they they just went and got the tax parcel. Then they realize, oh, we're supposed to come to the city for um you know, subdivision of land approval. Um so what they they came to the city after
that and applied for um a lot split um because under our code um you can take one lot of record and you can uh split it up into no more than two parcels um without going through the full platting process. So they came to the
city seeking um a lot split that is basically the same dimensions of the two tax parcels that the tax collector recognized. Now, this is also a classic example of
why property owners need to come to the city for subdivision approvals because they did not address whatsoever the issues regarding um access, utility easements and drainage
which will be shared by um both uh both parcels of land, both lots. Um so there is a condition of approval um and you'll see the document in your package for the the declaration of the reciprocal easements.
um that that it took months to get that from the applicant and a lot of city engineer planning and my review to work with the applicant to try to figure out well if the city recognizes these two lots as separate lots for development
purposes. The city needed to ensure that there would be reciprocal access that's guaranteed for both lots, reciprocal utility easements that serve both lots and then the shared drainage facility that needed to be um recognized um by an
easement. So that's a condition of condition of approval with respect to this uh this proposed lot split. Now, of course, when and I think Connor alluded to it, they've constructed two hotels
on the 7.19 acres. Both those hotels were approved after planning and zoning board review, but under at the time um under the presumption it's going to remain um just on one two hotels on one lot. They've decided now after the Hyatt
Place was uh issued a certificate of occupancy that they prefer to have each of the hotels on a separate lot and that's why they're here before you. They're not here, but their application is
>> the owner here or applicant here. >> I don't see it. >> Okay. Uh well, I guess I was a little puzzled about what's the rationale for the split other than just having each hotel on its own parcel.
Uh that's an odd split. And by the way, 7 point Yep. 7 acres and change. >> Mhm. >> Is not 10 acres required for two hotels. There's no minimum lot size requirement
under under the city code regarding um hotels. The property is located in the EOD district, the economic overlay opportunity district. There's a provision in that section of the code that says there are no minimum lot size requirements for hotels
>> for for C1 property within that within the EOD district. >> I asked that question for the public record. I already knew that. >> Yeah, I knew you did. Uh, so two hotels, two lots. It's really is a
an odd split the way that worked and the shared easements if the easements are so tied together forever, why split them in the first place? Is there any rationale for that? I suspect
that they're going to to um put one of the sell one of the hotels or put one of the hotels maybe in a in a separate LLC perhaps. So, they want the they want the two uh the two lots.
That's not uncommon. >> Okay. Uh question, >> Mr. chairman, did they make a comment that maybe they were doing it because of two separate lenders on the two properties cuz lenders like their assets to be discreet,
>> right? Currently, based on the title report, if you don't mind if I don't answer the question, we're kind of informal at the moment, but um based on the title report that they submitted in conjunction with their application, there's only one lender. >> Okay. >> Um for um for the on that has a mortgage
on the property. One of the other conditions of approval in the resolution will be the joiner of the mortgage E. All right. So the mortgage E the lender has to sign off and consent to the lot lot split as well. >> Okay.
>> You can stay up there if you want to. Uh Mr. Hartman, just plant yourself there near the mic and we'll include you in as needed. >> Good question. >> Okay. Uh, he's covered the overlay rag.
See if I have any other notes. I had one other note that I was going to ask about before we move too far along, but I think it's way over not substance, not substantial. Well,
a lot of data here. It took me a while to lead read through it and think about it and used up my uh couple of days to sit there with some hot coffee nearby and enjoy this beautiful reading. Good
job, Connor, by the way. Good ride up. And well, Anthony always puts the right stamp on it. We we take that for granted and probably shouldn't. Okay. Uh beginning with you Nancy. Do you have
any uh any additional questions? >> Actually, you asked the question that I just kind of jumps out at you where it says one was done in 23 and then it goes down and says was not approved by the
city and um and I and I had the same thing. Did they apply and why wasn't it approved? But I think we've we've gone through all that. I'm okay if if you are >> if everybody else is. So, uh, anything else?
>> No, that was it. I It's a great package. Thank you. >> Thank you, Nancy. Uh, Steve, >> Mr. Chairman, I've reviewed the package and, uh, I see no need for any questions at this point. It's pretty, uh, pretty straightforward.
>> Okay. How about you, Susan? It does look pretty straightforward, but um how do we guarantee the conditions for them sharing the easements and so forth if they do end up selling >> one hotel? No,
>> that's a that's a great question. What you don't have in the package is is the actual resolution that the city council is required um to approve. One of the conditions of course is going to be that um that reciprocal um easement is a it's
a condition of the approval and there's language in the resolution that makes it um you know it's perpetual and that the city has the right to enforce it and the resolution states that in the event they
seek an a technical amendment to that document then they have to come back to the city. So the city can review and approve if necessary the technical amendment to ensure the reciprocal access the reciprocal
easements, public utility easements and the reciprocal storm water um drainage system that they share. So the resolution is going to tie all of this up. It gets recorded against the land and then it's a binding covenant against
the land for both lots. That's how we make sure that you know it stays as a night nice neat package. >> Question. If one of if the lots are sold, do they have to assume that? How does that responsibility? >> Yeah, it runs with the resolution once
it's recorded. Um then it runs with the land. They call it run with the land and it's binding um against the land um and subsequent owners of the land will take title to that land subject to the resolution. That makes sense.
>> Thank you, >> Michael. >> I remember when we approved both of these and we talked about two owners on the same parial and that there could be a time when we would split that. So, this is what we talked about. both times.
>> Yep. Looking ahead. Anything else, Michael? >> And what's not noted? Connor, you can probably speak to this too. I mean, staff spent a lot of time with the city engineer to make sure that the lot
dimensions and the existing structures are in compliance with the code. meaning for example adequate setbacks right you know lot coverage so the dimen
fortunately for them the dimensions of their two tax parcels didn't have to be adjusted because of those you know the city verified that they meet those uh city code requirements
>> yeah I look for those uh setback dimensions and and and some of the other minutia and M it was there. It was all there. Very complete. >> I was happy to uh to see that. I kept thinking this is going to be a bear to
get through. And after reading through it, it's laid out so well that I couldn't find anything to pick at. >> Yes. Connor did a good job of laying it all out, but I'm sure he'll attest it was a bear to get to this point.
>> Oh, yes. I think it's been months in the making. probably the beginning of this year that this started. So, it's taken some time. >> I'm sure. I'm sure. Well, we thank you for that effort. It's a good effort and uh and we have good staff. We you
you do what we expect. Live up to our expectations every time. We appreciate that. Good staff work. Uh I can't think of any other intelligent comments.
Uh unless anyone else had anything to add to this, we'll uh ask for a motion to recommend this approve approval to the council. >> May I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve the lot
split from applicant port in Suites LLC and at 9009 Astronaut Boulevard. >> Thank you. and a second. >> I second it. >> Thank you. Okay, Renee, please call the
record. Call the role. >> Susan Denny >> for the motion. >> Nancy Jennore >> for the motion. >> Dr. Miller >> for the motion. >> Steven Strad >> for the motion. >> Mr. Russell >> Now, see that all seemed rather sudden,
but you know my way about these things. The best way to prolong a meeting is to have all the discussion we just had pass the motion on the floor and then ask if there's any more discussion and uh that'll do it every time. Add
another half hour. So anyway, we got through that. We're done with that one. We're going to move to uh item four. It's a consideration of an ordinance to amend chapter 110 and it's the U code relating to
residential plan unit developments. And I'm going to be curious to see where we arrive at. I guess my question is going to be and I'll throw it out there and we can not answer it now. Are we going to have to go change all the
zoning maps to put in RPUDs? Because right now we don't. It's just residential. At any rate, keep that question in the back of your mind. Just uh if if we got to do it, we'll do it. And uh with that said, I'll ask Honor if
he wants to lead us through the uh package. >> Yes, certainly. Thank you. Um, so yes, this is considering a ordinance that would amend chapter 110, the section on residential planned use developments.
And a point of clarification to make at the beginning is that while this is listed in the recommendation as resolution 20250, it will actually be an ordinance and it
will be ordinance 07205. That was a staff error. So Renee, when we do make the official record, if we could change the recommendation from resolution number 20250 to instead read
uh recommend ordinance number 072025 to city council for approval or denial. Um so now that I've cleared that up, uh I will just briefly talk about these changes.
It comes mostly from the fact that our PUB procedures have been a part of the city code since at least 1981 and no properties have ever officially been designated as our PUD. Uh Mr. Russell kind of referred to that in the
fact that we don't have any of them on our zoning map. We do have one PUD on our zoning map, but we do not have any RPUDs. And so that PUB is currently on our existing zoning map. And if there were
to ever be a property that was an RPU in the city, yes, it would also be included within the zoning map and it would require updates to the map. Um, but there are more than just uh it's it's a number of changes and I hope that
you guys took the time to read through the ordinance. Um, one of them is changing changing the minimum acreage since we think that that was a big reason why this ordinance was not ever utilized. Uh, it as it stands is 10
acres. I don't really know of any 10 acre lots in the city that are currently developable. Um the ordinance as amended would adjust that down from 10 acres to 4 acres, but there are also a number of
other changes uh speaking things speaking to things about um you know neighborhood scale, removing some outdated language on density. But the big thing that I noticed is that it manages to support both smallcale and
larger scale residential designs while still preserving that requirement for a minimum for that says a minimum of 15 dwelling acres per project, but I believe that it would actually be a minimum of 15 per project,
but they would still be uh restricted in terms of the density that they could do on the site as a maximum. Uh so there are a number of changes that are made. I think the bullets encapsulate some of them. Another one is
that uh there are some discussions on open space uh community benefits and incentivizing you know community open space along the Banana River and Atlantic Ocean where applicable and really just trying to clean up this RPUD ordinance to make it to where something
that might actually get implemented and encourage a highquality residential product in the city. Of course, with these projects, they are still, you know, under board review. Our PD projects would still go before the planning and zoning board. They'd still
go before the city council. The boards would still have uh a lot of control and almost creative freedom or flexibility to work with the developer to request certain things through the PUD process uh so that we can create some high
quality outcomes for the city. So at the end of the day, the staff recommendation was to recommend ordinance number 7, 2025 to the city council for approval and we can have as much discussion as we
want. Thank you. So right now we don't have an RPU on our zoning map. So what is the inherent
advantage of not using the RPUD regulations and just simply laying out your development and going into the residential zoning and and and that's what's been happening. There must be something
that's valuable or easier or attractive. >> Sure. >> What is that? >> There there could be a number of those things. I think that one of them may have been that that's the process as it was was a little bit clunky and
bureaucratic. Uh we removed the procedural duplication and now it would allow developers to combine their preliminary and final development plan steps. It would still go before the boards of course, but I think that it's a rather lengthy process. So the amount
of time that it would take to do it as compared to something that's allowed by code, uh, combined with the fact that there aren't many large developable parcels in the city. Um, and I think that those two things together kind of,
in my opinion, created it, but you have been around for a lot longer in the city than I have. So definitely curious if you have any ideas as to why it's not been implemented. >> Well, we we all I can say is we set the table.
Uh we can't make the customers eat. So we laid out a way to have an RPUD and within an RPUD you can move things around not as you want without having to do individual site plans. That's the beauty
of it and I often wondered why it wasn't used more but uh didn't seem to didn't seem to hold the developers back. They they came in with their uh I guess they moved all that stuff around on their checkerboard before they came
before the city and started getting it into codification or or into official documentation. uh this, you know, we may do this
and according to history, it may still not take. Anyway, that's just a comment. It's an aside. Oh, we we set the table and uh >> let the customers come. >> Yes. Yeah. You can't you can't force
anyone to do a certain setup. I do think that removing the the acreage from 10 down to four may encourage more people to use it because we do have some parcels that are 4 acres as opposed to 10. And um with those with those smaller
parcels, there may be an instance in which people are able to utilize the site and have more creative solutions whether that's with storm water retention, flooding, you know, clustering the development, more community open space. So that is the
intent of the ordinance, but definitely happy to talk it through. >> Okay, Nancy, you have any questions? >> I I just wondered about the need for it. Um I was wondering, you know, have you
had people come and say, "Hey, can we make some changes here and and do this type of development or is it something that you're kind of cleaning up yourself?" We have had some people in the pre-application phases that have come tenatively to the city talking about,
you know, I may own this parcel or this one and I I don't think that this directly comes as a result of that, but we we did kind of see that there was nobody coming forward with 10 acre parcels and um >> yeah, there's no big parcels left.
>> No. >> What about the existing uh PUDS? Would they be then reszoned to be RPUDs? >> So the one >> I might >> Ocean Woods I know is what? >> So technically Ocean Woods is not listed
as a PUD or an RPUD according to our code. The PUD is actually that uh storage place along A1A on the right side where there's some parking. It's a right it's a rather large parking lot, some storage and some other spaces. um
that is the one PUB in the city and those are kind of intended to be commercial mixed use in nature. The RPU is the one that allows for residential creativity. So there would be no change to the PUD code as it's completely separate from the RPUD.
>> Just going to continue you got a question. >> I was just I was going to um if you have other questions you can go ahead. I mean, I would suggest ask them, but I I want to circle back and just
kind of give you my perspective on this. >> Yeah, we we'll do that. Uh how about you, Steve? >> Uh go to page 25 and look at section 110-442,
off streetet parking. There is a reference in here that says, and I'll read it, each space must contain at least 180 square ft of area and shall conform to off streetet parking dimensional requirements as set
forth in section 110494. Um could you bring up that other item and put it Okay. If you will look at a document uh there was a ordinance done by the city.
Let me get it pulled up here. And it is dated 1215 of 2020. Uh and it sections 110494 is dimensions. This was changed in 2020 and approved by
council that the parking requirement would be uh 162 square ft and not 180 >> square feet as as stated in 110 uh um excuse me stated in the other prior
document on 110 442 All street parking. So I'm just pointing that out. That appears to be an error. Uh that might need to be corrected. 180 square feet. It should read 162 feet in accordance with the ordinance.
>> What does that equate to in the width of the >> uh 9 by I want to say 9 by 18. >> Uh yeah, 10 10 by 18 is 180. So 9 by 18 is uh 162. >> Yep. And I will say that's accurate that
we've been having >> 9 foot wide parking spots. >> As I was reading through this, I went back and referenced uh the 110494 >> and for a little bit of clarity and that's where I saw the error. So that might be something that request a change
on. >> Anthony, would that work is just a >> Yeah. No, I think that's a good catch. That ordinance 110 494 was changed in 2020. >> Yep. >> So we just need to make the two sections consistent.
>> Approved December the 15th, 2020. >> Anything else? >> That's it for this >> for this iteration. >> That's it for this iteration. >> Come back. >> Yeah. Susan. >> Well, I think you kind of answered it or
not. I was just wondering what brought this up to the to the board and why we're doing it if if there's no interest in the RF in this. >> Yeah, I I I do believe that there would be interest. Obviously, like Mr. Russell
said, you can't force anyone to use any sort of procedure, but I do think that it would allow for some creativity in the way that we manage our storm water and the way that we cluster development. Um, you know, we want to make sure that products are highquality products. It
wouldn't mean that any product would get pushed through the door. It would still go through a very, you know, high level staff and very detailed uh board review. But I think that it's just providing more flexibility for the city to be able
to ask for things that might benefit uh the property and benefit all residents as well. So when they come in with their preliminary meeting >> Mhm. >> gives you a chance to point out in BUD RPU or not >> correct
>> and talk about the >> Yes. It it gives them two paths almost in which they say yeah you either have to follow our code or maybe you get an exception on this one thing in exchange for something that we get out of it. >> No further questions.
Michael. >> So basically it just gives the city sorry >> it just gives the city more leeway more options. >> Correct. It would give the city more options and pursuing the RPUD with the developer if the developer were to move
forward with you know having interest in making an RPUD. So it would be a collaborative process in which the city would work with the developer. Um but we can only do it once someone expressed interest in doing it. But as anyone
comes forward, it would give the city flexibility to say, "Hey, we might want to request this additional thing in your development." It's a it's a path forward. It's almost like two different train tracks doing something by right or through the RPD process. And they both
can yield high quality results, but it just gives both of us more options. >> Okay. I don't have any uh add-on comments. Uh, Anthony. >> Oh, finished. >> Mr. Chair, >> I'm Go ahead, Mr. Hartman.
>> Sorry about that. Um, can you just clarify? I I wasn't quite sure if I understood. Is there a maximum density per acre in terms of number of units? >> Anthony, do you recall as you wrote it? >> Yeah. the comprehensive plan of the city
and it would apply to the RPUD, it's a maximum residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. >> Okay, >> so that's set forth in the comprehensive plan. Um, in addition, the way the the proposed revisions also require an RPU
to have a minimum of 15 dwelling units. >> Okay. All right. That was I was just wondering what the maximum density was. Um, if I could make one more comment, it might not be pertinent to this one, but just something looking at the the revision the size of the parking spaces.
We have a problem at Port of Del Rio sometimes because we don't have bumper stops on our older buildings. They weren't required evidently. Well, when people pull all the way into the parking space, they block the sidewalk. So if
somebody's in a wheelchair in some places they can't get by. So I don't know if our code requires bumper stuffs but something to think about because it it sometimes it's a problem in our buildings. We've had to notify a lot of
residents to say hey you're pulling in too far and people can't get by in a wheelchair and it makes it tough. So, >> so how about the residential uh organization? What do you call it?
>> Our condo association. >> The association. >> And >> we we put out what's called, do you know? And we we've kind of laid it out for everybody. Please don't have your bumpers going over the sidewalk. But
>> but but the association can take it uh a step further. >> We could we could. It's it's a fairly expensive proposition for all we have a lot of spaces in our we have 172 units so >> we'd have like 300 bumper stops to put in
which would >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, >> I'm just saying just something to think about. I don't know if it's in our code or not, but just something to think about in the future. >> And that may be totally not gerine to this particular ordinance, but >> Well, it's an interesting
>> something to think about. It's an interesting uh path thought path. You maybe come up with a plan and your association can go and talk to the city manager about some kind of cost sharing in the
uh interest of safety. >> Okay. >> So, you know, just a thought path. It doesn't cost anything to talk about it. >> No, I was just thinking of it for developments going forward. something that we might think about >> well for development going forward probably ought to require
>> and do do we require bumper stops in our parking stops in developments >> not not that I'm aware of I haven't seen that specific provision but you know Mr. Hartman's on the board. We can dive into it deeper and then he might end up
bringing an ordinance forward. >> Well, it's not a problem we need to solve today. >> Not correct. >> Just something for future consider. >> Good. Good thought. Um Okay, where were we? We were talking about um
>> Yeah, I think Anthony was >> Yeah, we that's where I was going with that. We're going to circle back and let Anthony uh make some comments about the total process. Okay. So, as as Connor indicated, you know, there there's been
some pre-application uh inquiries and interest in and doing flex flexible residential development projects at a rather larger scale rather than um what we have seen with duplexes, triplexes, quadlexes and stuff like that. So um
that that resulted in kind of taking a look at you know the city's existing RPUD um zoning code. So first and foremost the RPUD um is a zoning district. It's not not just a regulation right
with standards. It's a zoning district. It's intended to go through a resoning process just like if somebody requested a C1 zoning district for their property and wanted to change, right, the C1 zoning. So, >> but right now we don't have one.
>> Right now, we have none even though this ordinance has been on the books since the 1980s. So when you look at the purpose and intent of the RPUD, it'so it's supposed to recognize res
these residential development projects only through ingenuity, imagination, and flexibility in keeping with the intent of the RPUD process. The RPUD regulations currently on the books are anything but flexible.
So that's that's problem number one. There are too many hardcoded requirements to afford any flexibility. For example, minimum 10 acres and then there are minimum this that and the
other thing regarding setbacks and and all. And so it's very hardcoded as as you must do this and you must do that. The PUD process again is a is a zoning designation that has to go through a
resoning process and it's intended to provide flexibility. The proposed changes are intended to provide that flexibility. Um, so as Connor indicated, the first major change would be given this the the
size of Cape Canaveral and fact that it's practically built out and you know the you know the lots are smaller um is to reduce the minimum um acreage for an RPU to from 10 to four to pro you
know to provide an opportunity for somebody to utilize this and present a more flexible development project. So that that's first and foremost. So as the as Mr. Hartman in question um
alluded to, there's doesn't change the maximum density um requirement in the city in the city comprehensive plan. The maximum density stays at 15 dwelling units per acre, but this ordinance also requires a minimum of 15 dwelling units.
And the the purpose for that is to make sure that when you have we go through this resoning process, it's a it's a it's a residential development project of at least a minimum size. It's not your oneoff 1 2 3 four units. It's got
to have a minimum of 15 dwelling units um for for the project to go through this process. In in addition, um I would say that procedurally this RPUD ordinance is
flawed by modern standards. It it's it's it's doesn't really do what it needs to do. Um so we went ahead and made some clarifications and changes to the procedure to get an RPUD zoning
district. In conjunction with making those changes, we we made a very important clarification as when you go through this process, it's a multi-stage it could be a multi-stage process where a developer
submits a preliminary development plan for review. It's sort of like a concept plan and you kind of you get that you get that approval and then you have to move through the process and and do a final development plan um to get the final reszoning of the
property. The more detailed engineering and site plan. This ordinance would allow a consolidation of of of preliminary and final at the you know at at at times at at the option of the developer. but it also consolidates
all of the other permits and reviews that may be necessary to do an RPUD like a plat right under chapter 98 the site plan approval
those are all consolidated in the final development plan process. So when the council eventually makes a final decision on the reszoning to RPUD,
it will have before it, if required, the plat, the site plan um and any variance requests that may be requested.
sightsp specific um bulk regulations like setbacks and and and all of that will all be consolidated for a final approval which would be a condition of the RPUD
zoning district for that particular property only which opens up the door to flexibility and creativity based on the site in question. Right. the developer can design, of course, with the approval of
the city, a more flexible project that the city council ultimately finds worthy of reszoning the land to RPUD. Um, so that's kind of the the the objective of a lot of these changes. You
will see throughout the ordinance a lot of um striketh through because like for example the site plan language that's currently in the RPU. We're proposing to strike all of that because
we have a more comprehensive site plan um ordinance um that would apply right to any site plan. We're we're removing the redundancy and the you know and and the potential conflicts to try to streamline
um the process so developers know what the rules of the game are rather than have well this says this on site plans but the site plan ordinance says something else. We're trying to trying to streamline and avoid any you know
misunderstandings on on the code. So um the bottom line I guess is at the end of the day um these revisions are extremely far more flexible uh for a a proposed RPU applica
applicant um than currently exists. There's some technical minutiae, but the objective is is to foster some create creative residential um development.
Um again, we've had some in preliminary inquiries. Um we we think are pretty probably pretty pretty serious. um you know th this would make um you know the that potential development um at least a
possibility for review and consideration. So if uh I decide to pro uh proceed with an RO rpud and I want to use the uh ultimate freedom regarding setbacks
or uh e yeah distance between buildings. So you're given a density. What if I elected to put all my buildings in one corner
of the what is it? Six acres we're talking about. >> Minimum four. >> Four. Put all my units in one corner and declare the rest of the four acres a an open playground.
Well, that would be a freedom granted under an RPUD, right? you would be able to cluster >> the units um and use the remainder of the property
for for other um attributes like open space and >> in recreational areas you know one of the other aspects of of of of this I didn't touch upon I think Connie you might have touched on it a little bit is that um um and under the right
circumstances is given the location of the property. It also incentivizes access to the to the river and access to the ocean as an amenity for the for the um
proposed dwelling units for open space consideration. >> Mhm. >> Well, okay. So you get you get a you you would get credit to the open space requirements by
affording um a genuine uh you know level of access to the river or the ocean as an amenity for the residents of this prop of a proposed RPU. Anything else?
All right. Okay. So, we're at the point now we're just uh we either amend what we've got in front of us or we recommend it to the council. We going to drive it around for a while and see how it works and if it needs to be tweaked, we can come back and do
that. So that we're we're talking about I'm getting into the book bookkeeping my bookkeeping. We're on item four or five. Which one? >> Which one? >> Four. >> Yeah.
Okay. So our next step then is to recommend this package to the council for approvement. Right. >> Yes. And if you were to, it would be recommending ordinance 072025 rather than what's written.
One point of clarification, Anthony, would we be able to make that change on the parking without any sort of motion because it was approved previously? >> Um, no. I mean, the board would um if they if they're inclined to recommend
approval, it would be as amended. um to um correct the um 180 square ft area reference in 110-442. >> Okay. >> Okay.
Recommended as amended. Uh, anything else? All right. Then, uh, let's have a motion to, uh, put this in front of the council for their approval. I make the motion to put forth ordinance
07-2025 with the clarification of changing 180 square ft of area to 162 square ft of area for off streetet parking in alignment with our other ordinances.
>> Thank you. Is there a second? >> U Mr. Chairman, I'd like to second that motion. >> Okay. Thank you. All right, we got a motion and a second. Um, Renee, call the role, please. >> Susan Denny, >> for the motion.
>> Nancy Jennore, >> for the motion. >> Dr. Miller, >> for the motion. >> Steven Stroud, >> for the motion. >> Lamar Russell, >> four. >> All right, we move now to item five, recommend recommendation for continuing.
>> Yes. And Mr. Russell, if I may explain these two. So, the first of the two is related to the comprehensive plan evaluation and appraisal review. Um, that is something that was brought to staff's attention as something that
needs to get updated, but at this time it is not ready to be presented. We've been having communications with Florida Commerce to work through that process. Um and as for the second one that's recommended for continuence that is so
that we can get in compliance with a state Senate bill Senate Bill 784 and uh rather than presenting that as an individual um amendment we are going to wrap that into another larger amendment
that we're working on and we'll present both of those at a later date. >> Okay. So, uh, we now we have no action to take on tonight. >> Correct. But I would like to just
mention, you know, while we're here and now that we've closed out, uh, on all the action items that this is going to be, you know, the last meeting for our chair, Mr. Lamar Russell, uh, John Price, who couldn't be with us, and then
also Dr. or Michael Miller. Uh, as you know, the term has hit and I just want to say that we are super appreciative of all the great work that you guys do. Every member of the board, um, you really do help make the community a
better place. We hope that you continue to stay engaged with the community. We're always happy to talk to you at city hall, but I know that you guys have served on these boards for a great number of years and you really have made a large impact. You can tell from the ordinances we write to the knowledge
that you have. So thank you all very much. >> Thank you. So that means tonight is the last meeting for myself, John Prior Price and uh Michael Miller.
Now you got a big bunch of vacancies and also in the next meeting there will be without chairman or vice chairman so they'll have to have a quick election at the beginning of the meeting. Right. >> Yes indeed.
>> Yes. So we you know we're looking to bring on Mr. department and we also have a few other applicants that are in the queue that we have to get processed in terms of trying to figure out what board they'd fit best on. >> Well, I'd like to say that this has been
the best the best board. I've been on a lot of boards. This has been the best board PNZ board that we've ever had. And so, thank each of you for being here and putting up with me and and making
your contribution. >> It's our pleasure. Thank you. >> Good job, guys. I'll be around. I uh be sitting out there in the audience maybe and helping out with maybe whispering in Connor's ear or something like that. So, it's
been a pleasure and I'm around if you need me. Um, and that's all I have. been a good ride. >> Chairman Russell, it's uh I have to say it's just been an absolute honor to serve under your tutelage. Uh learning
process has been unbelievably fantastic. Uh for those that might be watching and for those that don't know, Lamar wrote uh lessons learned in planning and zoning. So he is planning and zoning and
has been the planning and zoning. And I want I want to tell you it's very humbling to be able to serve with you on this board. And >> well, it needn't be. You should uh enjoy the honor and the ride and uh take pride
in your your own contribution. Uh a caveat with that little green book, the references for the uh ordin the ordinance reference numbers are out of date, but the lessons are still the
lessons. So pay attention to the lessons and I think they've stood in us in goodstead. Uh in fact I went back and read the book
with this uh subject tonight hotels. >> I went back and read the hotel or write up and that was fun to remember. We had some very heated hot meetings about hotels and how many units and what kind
of acreage and there was a lot of money involved. And it took a lot of courage for those board members to withstand the sheer weight of the of the money that these developers could bring
forward as as hotel developers. But, uh, they did it and, uh, we have a good ordinance, better ordinance for it. We did not want a whole bunch of old uh,
hotels, 10-unit hotels that later turned into condos that later turned into uh, not so attractive apartments and then it went down from there. So, I believe that uh
I wrote that ordinance. I sat down and wrote it with uh Anthony, were you with us at the time or was it Joe? Who was the uh city attorney at the time? What was his last name? Joe >> was Khan, maybe. >> Who? >> Khan. >> Khan.
>> Khan Bennett. >> Khan Bennett. >> Khan Bennett. >> Oh, yeah. I was the assistant at that time. I believe that the hotel ordinance has been the uh my best contribution. We sat down and we wrote it and we decided the
minimum there are three magic numbers for hotel 150 units, five acres, 30 units per uh per per acre. So anyway, we have a pretty attractive
lineup of large buildings along the uh business pathway of the town. And so uh good work PNZ board and that's my farewell address. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Anything else? >> Mr. Miller, do you have any closing comments or Dr. Miller? >> I keep for getting turned back down there. Uh, I just want to say it's been an honor to serve on this board and I have learned so much in the years that
I've been here and I hope that um, this board moves on and bigger and better things. >> Good luck. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Miller. It's been a pleasure sitting next to you and also um, your input the short time that I've been on this board.
And I will say this who's not present tonight, but uh, Mr. Price uh was the one that got me to apply for this board here. And uh uh it is just been always great the mix of people we've had since
in the I'll keep saying this the short time I've been on this board and it's uh the balance has just been fantastic. uh thoughts that come from John, thoughts that come from yourself.
I'm humbled. I'm humbled. Thank you. Well, let's see. There's one more. Oh, one more compliment I wanted to give. John Price, his value to our board has been beyond
rubies and diamonds. and John shout out salute. See you around town. And with that, let us be adjourned. >> Right. Thank you.
>> You need to be thinking about