At this time, I'm going to call to order our January 25th, 2026 regular meeting for the city of Titul Board of Adjustments and Appeals. To start off with, will you please join me as we pledge allegiance to our flag?
I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you.
Uh at this time we may we have roll call please. >> Chairman Taylor >> here. >> Vice Chairwoman Ben Deven >> here. Member Beckles >> here. >> Member Green >> here. >> Member Willis >> here. Okay, we have a full quorum here tonight. We even have a backup on the
side there. So, thank you for being here. Um, the first order of business is the approval of the minutes from the January 28th meeting. Uh, has everyone had a chance uh previously to look at the minutes and are there any corrections or additions that need to be
made? >> Seeing none, may I have a motion for the minutes, please? I make a motion that we approve the minutes from the previous meeting. >> Very good. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion, a minute, and a second. Uh may we have uh everyone
in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> None. Okay. Uh talk time. All persons who anticipate speaking on any public item to be held must fill out
an oath card to be held on that agenda item and sign the oath card their own. These cards are located on the table near the entrance to the council chamber and will may be obtained or they may be obtained from the recording secretary.
This meeting will be conducted in accordance with procedures adopted in resolution number 24-1997. Those speaking in favor of a request will be heard first. Those opposed will be heard second. And those who wish to make a public comment on the item will
speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if necessary. A representative for either side for or against may cross-examine a witness. Anyone who speaks is considered a witness. If you have photographs, sketches, or documents that you desire
for the commission to consider, they must be submitted into evidence and be retained by the city. Please submit such exhibits to the recording secretary. So, everybody that's an applicant, all you you filled out one of the little cards over there. All right, I see heads
nodding. That's a good thing. All right. Uh staff, have the agenda items on tonight's agenda been properly advertised? >> Yes, chair. >> Very well. Do any of our members have a statement
that they have visited or spoken to anyone in the public regarding the items tonight being reviewed? >> No. All right. All the way across. We have no consent agenda and we have no old business. So we will go to new business and that would be variance
number 3-20 26 uh 1400 North Washington Avenue. Staff, would you enlighten us, please? >> Thank you, chair. And to start, I'd like to read the powers of the BAA and variance criteria into the record. So,
LDR section 34-226 states that the board shall grant a variance request when in the opinion of the board of adjustments and appeals owing to special conditions, the literal enforcement of such ordinance or regulations would do manifest injustice to or impose unnecessary hardship upon
the applicant. In order to authorize any variance to the provisions of such ordinance, the boards must consider the following criteria. special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other land, structures or
buildings in the same zoning. That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied by ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. that the literal interpretation of the
provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the ordinance. The var the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land building or structure. The granting of the variance will preserve the spirit of
the ordinance remain in harmony with its general purpose and intent. in granting the variance the public safety and welfare must be assured. And in no case shall granting of a variance result in a change of use which would not be permitted in that zone. And with that, we'll start with variance
number 3-2026 for 1400 North Washington Avenue. This begins on page um 11 of your packet. The applicant is requesting a variance from chapter 32 section 32-9A of the land development regulations to allow a
ground sign to exceed the maximum permitted surface area. The subject property is located at 1400 North Washington Avenue within the general use zoning district and consists of approximately 18.94 acres on which an existing church is located. Section 32-9
of the LDR establish that the total aggregate area of all ground or monument signs for a development shall not exceed 32 square feet per acre with sites exceeding 1 acre permitted additional signage surface area calculated at the same rate up to a maximum of 150 square
feet per sign based on the acreage of the subject property. The maximum permitted surface area for an individual ground or monument sign is 150 square feet. The applicant proposes the installation of a monument style ground sign with an overall height of
approximately 19 feet 11 in and a width of 17 ft 6 in. Monument signs are calculated in accordance with section 32-8F3B, which measures the entire surface area of the monument sign minus an 18inch border along the top and sides and a
24-in border along the bottom to determine the copy area. Based on the submitted plans, this proposed site plan does include a copy area of 150 square feet with an overall structural surface area of approximately 350 square feet. The proposed sign is situ theo proposed
sign location is situated more than 100 ft from the right ofway and approximately 10 ft from the property line. The east central Florida regional rail trail is located between the rightway and the subject property resulting in an increased setback distance from the roadway.
However, the request does not dis demonstrate the presence of special conditions or circumstances unique to the property that would prevent reasonable use of the site under the existing sign regulations. The property sign config size size configuration and frontage do not appear to present spite sight specific conditions that limit the
ability to comply with the maximum permitted sign area. Alternative design approaches including adjustment to sign configuration, lettering or internal layout may be utilized to achieve visibility objectives while remaining within the permitted sign surface area. So with that staff are recommending
denial of the requested variance to allow a ground sign of 350 square ft to exceed the maximum surface area of 150 square ft. The request does not demonstrate the existence of special conditions or circumstances that are peculiar to the land structure or building and that are not applicable to
other properties within the same zoning district. The variance request is not the minimum necessary for reasonable use of the property as a ground sign meeting the maximum permitted surface area of 150 square ft may be installed in compliance with the existing regulations and alternative design configurations
are available to achieve visibility while remaining within the permitted sign surface area. And then for your reference for this one, the sign location, the area will begin on page 18. And if you'd like to see the sign images and mockups, that will be on page 19.
And that's all staff has. I'm open for any questions. No questions of staff at this time. >> All right. Well, then we have >> Do we have a card, ma'am? >> Yes. Marshall Stanton. >> All right. Mr. Stamps, welcome. If you'd
please come up and give your name and address for the record. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. My name is Marshall Stanton. My residence is 2415 Washington Street and that's in Melbourne, Florida. I'm
here on behalf representing Temple Baptist Church who occupies the property that the variance is being requested for. And I am the sign contractor, the project manager for the project Kindle Signs in Rocklage, Florida.
So the sign that we are proposing uh the if you look at the sign sketch that was provided in our variance application the sign area or the sorry the copy area of the sign does meet the code requirement of 150 square ft. The variance request
that the church is making is for additional sign area that will be utilized for the architectural features of the sign to beautify the property and the sign itself. Uh, as staff pointed out, there is the possibility that a 150 foot sign could
be installed at this location, but the way the code reads, it would permit such a sign at 150 ft without the architectural embellishments that we've added, the columns and the stone base, the arch top. So the goal of this
variance is not to give the church any additional signed copy area to give them a benefit over another uh property in the equal zoning. It is only to be able to additional have additional sign service area for the architectural
features. Uh the basis of this was also due to their increased setback. Typical sign code setback is 10 feet which we are meeting from the property line. The difference in this property is that it is located about a 100 ft off of US1 due
to the rails the stateowned rails to trails property. So if the uh if the church was asking for the same surface area 150 square feet and just a plain box sign on a single pole, imagine a
lollipop. It actually would be would be permitted up to 35 feet tall. The goal of the church is not to put up a large sign. The goal is to put up a attractive sign. Uh the church is located at the north end of the city limits. Uh so the
idea is to have a nice attractive sign as you have residents and visitors entering into our city, your city to have the impact of it of a beautiful sign. Uh we have looked at other signs in the area that are at the same size or
larger. I would point out the Titus Landing Mall monument sign that it's used for advertising for uh the multi-tenant signs there. I do not have that in front of me, but it is going to be this size or larger than what we're
proposing here. Any questions? >> Mr. Chairman, if I may. There are no other signs on the property. >> That is correct. There's a wall sign on the building which is calculated separately than the freestanding sign code. >> So, as I'm reading this description
here, it says uh they're metal poles, but you're encasing those with the architectural uh stone look >> stone column and and base. >> Correct. And I agree that it's a much nicer view than
having some poles stuck up there myself. >> Yeah. that and and of course we would have to speak with staff in the city on this, but it's from my understanding of the code reading that if we took this same size sign that we're proposing and we removed the stonework, the
architectural columns and base and we could by code by our zoning and size of property, we could do that same 150 foot sign on a 35- foot steel pole up in the air, which is not our and and I would point out, you know, it's our desire as a sign
to install attractive signs. We don't want to just put up ugly box signs in my it's my opinion that they're ugly, but and I would point out, you know, the designs we've done for the city themselves, the sign located right here in front of city hall across the street at the fire department. Our goal is to beautify the city and the signs that we
do, not just to put up something that's large and gotty. >> Are there any other questions with this witness? Seeing none. Thank you very much, sir. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate you coming up. Do we have another card?
>> Edward Kersy, if you want. >> Very good. All right. Is there anyone else? >> Shad Porter. Okay. >> Another P. >> That's the last one. >> All right. Well, if there's no one else
wants to speak, we'll bring it back to the uh commission for discussion or questions of staff. Um I personally have just not going up to look at once I read this was on the agenda, but just grabbing up and down US1
and seeing other buildings 50 square that that number is I don't think I can see it. over there on the other side of where the trail is. Uh I think it's a great idea. They're trying to stick to that
150, but in casing it looking like this over as poles to a one pole or two poles exposed. I I don't think that meets our beautifification needs for the city. U I kind of disagree
with this part of the code, shall we say. So that's my opinion. If anybody else has an opinion or wishes Yes, sir. >> Mr. Taylor, I agree 100 100% that to penalize people for trying to
dress up the sign and while the sign face still say stays in compliance with the code, it's at odds with each other. There's if if you could put up the same sign on a poll, which is far less attractive than this,
it's there there's an issue here that needs to be addressed, which I believe I've pointed out numerous times over the years. So, that's my opinion. So, uh, being set back
on the other side of the, um, of the bicycle trail actually is a special condition. So, um, do you know where I stand? >> I'll jump in. Mr. Taylor, I drive by this place frequently at 55 miles an
hour sometimes and uh sometimes >> and the hardship is indeed the 96 ft off of US1 traveling at speed glancing over and seeing this and the beautifification efforts that they're putting into this is a uh is a good step. >> All right, head comments. Do I have a
motion on this particular item? And if it helps at all, on page nine, >> if it if it helps at all, on page nine, um I've included some draft language um under the alternatives um to assist if needed.
>> Oh, okay. >> Okay. There's the word verbiage right there. >> I'll take a stab at it. All right. I want to make a um a motion to approve variance number 3-20 to 26 to allow a gr a ground sign to exceed the maximum
surface area of 150 square ft for a property located at 1,400 North Washington Avenue, Titusville, Florida. Do we need to reference the request of >> Yes, you can reference the um the p the sign >> the display
>> listed on page 19. I believe the mockup. >> Yeah. >> Or as presented. >> Um as presented in the um in the mockup on page 19. >> Very well. We have a motion. Do I have a second? >> I second it.
>> Very good. Any further discussion? Seeing none, may we have roll call, please. >> Chairman Taylor, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Van Deven, >> yes. >> Member Beckles, >> yes. >> Member Green, >> yes. >> Member Wheelis, >> yes. >> Very well. Your signage has been
approved. Congratulations. Look forward to seeing it. It'll be nice. All right. So, jumping ahead a bunch of pages. page 32 of your packet. >> 32. Here we go.
>> All right. Our next item up is uh item number 4-2026 for 30 2032 Cheney Highway. So would you please enlighten us staff? >> Thank you chair. That's 4-2026 for 2035
Cheney Highway. The applicant is requesting a variance from chapter 32 section 32-9E of the land development regulations to allow more than one ground sign for a development and from chapter 32- section 32-10A2
to allow additional wall signs for a building having only one street frontage. The subject area is located within the community commercial zoning district and consists of approximately.99 acres. The parcel is currently undergoing the minor division review process but has not yet been finalized.
The subject area the.99 acres is part of the larger 5.93 acre tract that is being divided into five separate parcels under the approved Titus Titusville Commons site plan which will continue to function as a unified development.
Section 32-9E of the LDR provides that except as otherwise authorized, no development, no development may have more than one ground sign. The subject property does not meet the exception for multiple ground signs as the development does not contain more than one street frontage. And as part of the Titusville
Commons development, the permitted ground signage is intended to function as a multi-tenant sign serving the overall development rather than allowing individual grind sign ground signs for each parcel or business. The applicant proposes the installation of an additional ground sign with an
approximately height of 13 feet 7 and 38 in and a width of 2 feet 8 and 38 in. The use of the single t the use of a single multi-tenant ground sign is intended to reduce sign clutter and maintain a coordinated signage plan for
the development. Allowing individual ground signs for each parcel or tenant would increase the visual impacts and would be inconsistent with comprehensive plan. Future land use element policy 1.9.5 which requires that commercial land use designations and accompanying proposals
consider compatibility with surrounding land uses including the minimization of visual impacts. The applicant is also requesting approval to install two additional wall signs. Section 32-10A2 provides that buildings having more than
one street frontage may be permitted one additional wall sign located on the secondary frontage. However, regardless of the number of street frontages, no more than two wall signs shall be permitted. The subject building only h has only one street frontage and has already received permit approval for the
one wall sign identified as BO1 on the submitted concept plan on uh page 45 measuring approximately 36.9 square ft. The applicant proposes two additional wall signs identified as BO2 and BO3 on
the submitted concept plan, each measuring approximately 36.9 square ft. The requ this the request does not demonstrate the presence of special conditions or circumstances unique to the property that would prevent compliance with the sign regulations applicable to the development. The
parcel's configuration and location within the Titusville Commons development does not create a hardship associated with compliance with the limitation of one ground sign per development or the permitted number of wall signs for buildings within a single street frontage. Staff are recommending
denial of the requested variance to allow one additional ground sign and to allow an additional two wall signs. There are no special conditions or circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings within the same zoning
district. A literal interpretation of the provisions of the land development regulations would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties within the same zoning classifications. So just real quick because I know that was a lot. This property opted to go through the minor division process where
they're taking the one large development and coordinating the parcels out as a whole. So they're sharing storm water, sharing parking, sharing landscaping buffers, and with that minor division, we intend it as the one ground sign per development being the multi-tenant sign
to further serve all of those properties. Um you guys are in Titusville so you might be familiar with um the Cumberland Farms, Aspen Dental and Discount Tire on South Street and Cheney. I believe they have the same where it is a multi-tenant sign even
though they are three separate parcels. They went through the minor division process and the development was built out in that way. Another one is the Culver's location. While the color the other parcels for Culver's are not built out just yet, you may notice that there is a multi-tenant sign ready just with
some blanked areas for when those future items develop. But just as kind of to familiarize with how it's been applied um throughout the city and in reference to how this project is going. And that's all I have. You have the sign locations
um outlined on page 44 if you'd like an aerial to see where the sign is proposed. and then um the images of the sign mockups on page 45. >> So s uh staff has not doesn't have a problem with that is it go sign as for
the complex. >> No the ground sign that they so there has not been a multi-tenant sign submitted for this property. I did receive a call this week from a signed company asking for the parameters for that, but no permit has been filed for the multi-tenant. This would be an
additional ground sign, the GO1. Um would be an additional ground sign for the specific chase parcel. Um the permit that was approved was the BO1 for the wall sign that's facing um Cheney Highway.
So that one is approved and set. The variance request is for GO1 for the additional ground sign and then for BO2 and BO3 the two additional wall signs is the variance request. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification. >> So is your understanding possibly that
there would be a multi-ign on top of that besides this ground plan that Chase is asking for? So, there would be a a multi-tenant sign. Um, it's not I don't know where exactly it would be on the property. It would be, you know, set back to 10 feet within the applicable
landscaping area. Um, but that would be some a multi-tenant sign to serve the property. I do not have a permit for that, so I'm not sure where it is intended to go. This would be an additional ground sign along Cheney for the Chase Banket specifically. So, Chase
Bank would be included in the multi-tenant sign and then it would be an additional ground sign for the Chase Bank is the request. >> Okay. Anybody else? Yes. >> For for staff, um is that multi-tenant sign, is that a mandatory thing or is
that more up to the landlord of the property? >> So, the wording on the um the code is one ground sign per development. So the way that it has been interpreted and applied consistently throughout is that when you go through this minor division
process and you are incorporating shared storm water shared there's an overall site plan for how all of these individual parcels are going to function. Um with that you also get the multi-tenant one ground sign rather than
I mean this property is developing into five different parcels with four businesses. So rather than having four signs, they would have the one. But if they were doing 10 individual parcels, they wouldn't have 10 ground signs, they would have the one multi-tenant. So the sign language as it says per
development, um that's when it's applied if they had gone through individual site plans and not the minor division and done their own storm water and such and parking and all of that, then they would have had the each individual ground sign. But as such, because they go through the minor division development
process, then it's the one for the development. Thank you. >> Can can they be assured that there is actually going to be a directory sign? That's I guess that's >> so the minor division the minor division has not been um finalized and the recent
round of um comments did relate to a master sign plan and getting that and then it's been I've had multiple conversations this week with the original property owner that's going through the minor division. um sign permit companies about the multi-tenant
sign and so that will be like there's nothing in our language I guess to say they >> yeah but that was that is what is permitted by code is the multi-tenant >> anyone else have a question of staff >> but you said you'd had conversations with them about it but they have not
submitted anything about putting up the multi-tenant sign >> just the conversation with the um sign company asking about the parameters for the multi-tenant sign where I provided the square footage, the location and what the sign could you know look like
as they but no application at this time. >> I have had um other requests from the other parcels um regarding the ground sign because they've been submitting permits for the individual ground signs which have been denied because of the multi-tenant. So there could be
potential var other variances for more other tenants if a ground sign's not a multi-tenant is not put in. >> So the denial for the individual ground signs is based on
the fact that you're assuming there's going to be a directory or a multi- tenant sign. >> That's how we apply and push the code during the minor division process. That is how that is. So the minor division signs are not usually reviewed on the site plan. So it's there are but it is
through our minor division and especially because of the you know conversations that we're having with all of the different parcels and their signs. Um pushing the master sign plan as part of the minor division is what where the comments currently are. >> Thank you.
Well, that would apply also right across the street with the Publix where it has a multi >> they also have a multi different >> with no additional ground signs for those other towns. >> All right. Any other questions of staff right now? Seeing none, we'll open it up for public discussion. Do we have a card
for this? >> Uh Jim Hudson. >> Welcome, sir. If you'd please give your name and address for the record, we appreciate it. >> Jim Hudson, 3960 Bobby uh Ramy Acres Drive in Titusville. I was asked to attend this meeting by the
uh permit go permit. Uh they were scammed today. They got a letter saying permit was approved. Send $3,500. They spoke to somebody and they said no, they have no way of getting here that
fast after this was found out. And um am I wrong or am I >> You're correct. Yes. >> So I'm kind of slightly off topic. There has been a prevalence here probably almost a year now that as soon as the agenda goes out, there is some company
pulling the public record information and contacting um applicants directly um using city information variance specifics about their request and um stating that they are either the chair
or me or Mr. Parish um that that they're onslated for recommendation. please wire $3,900 to res to for your approval. Um, generally we people are like, I thought I paid for this. Like, what do I do? And I'm like, this is fraudulent. Please.
We've been forwarding that information to the police department, but as you can imagine, it's really hard to kind of track these things. Um, and we've had some security bulletins out, but from my understanding for this, we talked to um Samantha uh with Go Permit. They received the information, thought that,
you know, something had changed, um, and that they did not start their truck here, and when they realized it, they were at a point where it was too not enough time to get here in time. And so rather than, we discussed postponing, rather than postponing, they asked Mr. Hud Hudson, sorry, to um, join us
tonight. >> And I can just tell you that the hardship they're telling me is the visual. they can't see when driving down Cheney, you won't be able to see the Chase Bank. Uh they also had about the um
the monument sign. They said they asked the landlord and they gave him permission to put up a monument sign. They're not going to put a permit out for a multi-tenant sign. It's going to be that one sign. So, they're asking for that variance as well. So, that's what
they asked me to do. Now, I don't know what else to tell you. I'm trying my best here. I mean, I just got this call at five minutes to five and I was just doing a favor for another sign company and another permitting agency. I know what it's like to and they wanted representation because they
just didn't want to be denied without any. And that's why I started off by saying they were legitimately scammed, you know, and they were almost ready to wire the check and they said, "Let's make a phone call." And that's when they made the phone call and they said, "Hey, we can't no way we can get there in time
to make this meeting. Can you just go represent us? And I said, "Sure." So, >> can we continue this case? >> I'm sorry. >> Can we continue this case? >> You you can choose to make that um if
you would like. Um right now we don't have any items for the March meeting. So, but this would be pushed to to March um to be recurred if the but that the applicant did consider that because we talked about that and then they said instead of that to have Mr. Hudson here.
>> Don't you guys feel wouldn't you feel more comfortable talking directly to the um to the applicant? >> My my opinion will will stay the same. I'll explain it later, but >> okay, >> at this point asking for continuence is
probably a little early. >> Ready for us tonight? I guess we'll talk about it and see what we got discussions going here. Thank you very much for coming up and explaining what was going on. >> What's that? >> Thank you for being here and explaining
what happened. Reason for the note show. Uh do we have any other cards? >> No, sir. >> All right. So, we'll close the public discussion. All right. Uh you had a comment to make, sir? >> Um this is a familiar scenario. We ran
into it with, as uh Miss Armstrong pointed out, uh out at um where the tire center is and we come Cumberland and Farms. Yeah. So, they had a directory sign. They asked for additional wall
signs, which is a reasonable request because of the how enclosed they are within the development. Um, I don't think that I would consider an additional ground sign under any circumstances. Uh, unless um, the rights to put up a ground sign
were directed from the owner of the property. That would be the only way that I could see that. But the code's very clear. We you only get one for development when it's one parcel. So that's uh so I would I would
look at putting up the additional wall signs and deny the aspect of the additional ground sign. >> What if the owner never puts up the the multi-tenant sign? I'll be stuck without a sign.
Th >> that's something that would have to be addressed at a later date. Okay, >> I just have a comment kind of question comment >> regarding um since this is happening a lot >> and since they're not getting any
answers >> just for this development when I meant when I meant a lot I just meant with regarding the parcels in this singular development >> there's no action that staff could take to
>> I mean when it comes to the minor division the way the code is applied with the one per development the multi-tenant to reduce that visual clutter with all of these additional items. I mean there's not necessarily I don't know if that would be a civil matter between the >> parcel businesses against the I don't
know like that's not that's out kind of out of our wheelhouse. Um but we have had discussions clarifying why the multi-tenant is with the property owner. >> Yeah. So, so there was an expectation of
it even probably before I would assume >> on our end. Yes. I don't know if that was >> developers end. >> It it does not seem so. There was a talk of a first come first serve which means just one of the businesses would get a ground sign, but we don't look at it in that way. That's not >> right.
>> How we apply the code. We apply the code for the multi. >> Set some precedence for put one up, they're all going to want them, >> right? >> Yeah. Okay. Thank and and I have had um conversations with other about variance applicants and potentially expecting more.
>> I agree that it's should be just one sign myself for the four properties. Um but now as far as the wall signs, yes. Yes. The speed limit right there changes
to 50 miles an hour and was 45 up to that point. It would be hard to I mean just the other week I was in Port Orange. They have such a limited sign agreement up there. I
couldn't find the business because it's this size buried in trees and bushes. So it's I think it's uh and you nothing on the building. So I my opinion that's very restrictive and very hurtful for
the businesses that are going in there reason they got this property on a busy road to be have access and to be seen. So, I would agree with you that multiple signs would be very confusing
uh as opposed to one side. And I can't I can't speak for the developer or the other businesses, but I can't see that they would not consider going this route, seeing how we've gone other businesses like that up and down. So, I would I too would be in favor of just
the signs on the building, but not for the ground sign at the road. Any other discussion or comments? All right. Well, we have no uh other comments to be made or questions of staff. So, we'll bring it back for the
commission. Is there a motion to be made on this item? I don't I don't see a staff as >> I do I do have some draft um language for this one as well on page 30 under the alternatives. They are >> with both variances together. So if you
were to take one and not the other, you would have to amend that slightly. But it did provide you some >> page 30 under the alternatives. Oh, >> alternative. There it is. Okay, it is there.
Mr. Chairman, I have a motion with respect to variance number 4 226. Don't forget the address in front of me. 2035 Cheney Highway. I move to approve a portion of the
variance as it relates to two additional wall signs and uh to deny the variance request for the one additional ground sign. Is that clear? And it just CR one of the
criteria for denial of >> it it would grant uh rights to the property owner that others are not available. Thank you. >> And just to be clear that the two additional you've already got the one on
the front is approved. This is just for two uh two more. So >> that is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Kim, is that motion Oh, I'm sorry. >> Good for the break up for your order. Okay. >> Okay. >> Do you want to do two roll calls or do
you want to do one? >> One's approval and one's a denial. >> It was a thing. So, one is fine. >> One is fine. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Do I have a second? >> I second it. >> Very well. No further discussion.
Anybody understand what we're voting on? We have roll call, please. >> Member. >> Yes. >> Excuse me. Member Beckles. >> Yes. >> Member Green. >> Yes. >> Member Willis. >> Yes. >> Chairman Taylor. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Van Deven. >> Yes.
>> Very good. So, we got part of it going. Just got the other part. You'll have to let them know they need to address with their I guess multi-tenants to get the grounds at. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. So, now
we're moving on to >> page 63. >> 53. >> 63. >> What can I hear? I got your age. >> I was supposed to y'all have a good evening. >> All right. All right. Staff, we're
looking at variance number five- 2026. uh with a parcel ID number of 22-35-26-00-504.1. Please enlighten us. >> Thank you, chair. The applicant is requesting a variance from chapter 28
section 28-21D1G 214D1G of the land development regulations to allow a mini warehouse facility to provide parking at a rate less than the conditional use permit standard requirement of one space for each 25
storage cubicles and two spaces for the manager's quarters. The subject prop property is located within the light industrial services and warehousing zoning district where many warehouses facilities are permitted subject to conditional use permit approval. The applicant is currently in the process of
seeking a conditional use permit with hearing dates anticipated in March. Pursuant to section 28-214D1G, the proposed development is required to provide 41 parking spaces based on the number of storage cubicles and the required parking for the manager's
quarters. The applicant proposes to provide 14 parking spaces, including one ADA accessible space, and is requesting a variance to allow the reduced parking supply. The requested reduction in parking may also be evaluated in relation to the city's low impact
development provisions. Section 11.1 of the technical manual states that the city encourages the use of LID best management practices in site design to better protect water quality and reduce flooding risks. Section 11.6 table 11.2
identifies LI practices that may qualify developments for parking count flexibility incentives when incorporated into the project design. BMPs associated with parking cl flexibility include measures that reduce pave surface area and improve on-site storm water
performance such as minimizing total imperous surface area, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, reducing curb cuts, installing rainfall interceptor trees, utilizing pvious pavement systems, and incorporating distributed infiltration or storm water
harvesting practices. Qualifying BMPPS must be documented through submission of an LIID plan and associated operations and maintenance documentation in accordance with sections 11.3 and 11.4. So with that, staff are recommending approval of the requested variance to
allow 14 parking spaces, including one ADA accessible space with the condition that the qualifying low impact development best management practices be incorporated into the site design consistent with section 11 of the city of Titusville tech manuals, including
preparation of an LID plan and associated operations and maintenance documentation in accordance with sections 11.3 and 11.4. And if you'd like, the site plan is shown on page 72. Yeah, I can imagine nothing like this
was envisioned when our code was written years ago. Uh all these storage facilities that are now coming online. Uh anybody else have a question of staff what they see or heard? Seeing none, at this time we'll open up
for public discussion. Do we have a card? >> Cole Oliver. >> All right, sir. >> I think I'm the last man standing. So, uh, good evening, Cole Oliver with the Loun Law Firm representing the applicant. U, Mrs. Armstrong and I got a chance to speak tonight. We do agree
with the condition of complying with the LI components of your code and we've already designed that in here. the issue that we have two different plans that could go, but the south side of this property has some wetlands and some
mature vegetation that we're trying to protect. And if we have to expand the parking field out to meet this criteria, those get unnecessarily um impacted. And so what we're asking is to utilize the
components that the city has incentivized, the reductions in parking by going with the low impact development standards, which as um as your staff has pointed out, um there's a number of them in the code and we've committed to meeting, you know, various ones of those
that are in the plan that have been submitted. Um, we are going to be utilizing some portion of the imperous uh or not the impervious, excuse me, the pvious pavers and asphalt systems. Um, we're maintaining the existing wetlands on site so as not to protect them.
Maintaining and protecting the mature vegetation till we can reducing the number of curb cuts that would be permitted from two down to one. And um we did in anticipation of this as the low impact development guidelines
provide we conducted a parking study that I believe is included in your packet to show that there's no concern of not having enough parking to to to supply the demand that is out there. Um,
you know, traditionally these that I've done with applicants in Bvard County, the county only would require four to six spots uh for a facility of this size. Um, I'm not sure where the code came from as it stands now, but again, we're trying to come before you all and
ask that we can comply with the LI standards and the incentives that were set forth there um here for to ask any or to answer any questions that you all might have. Well, I've driven by there. I know it's it's a wooded area right now.
And of course, it would be a complete clearing of this property. Correct. >> Not complete. We're if we are able to get the variance with the southern portion of the property, there'll be a good chunk of the trees that are protected in that. Okay. Okay. And then along the railroad track where the
taller I believe they're pine trees. Don't I'm not an arborist so um but there's taller trees that are up against the uh railroad I believe those are staying. And then the aspects of the ones that are between US1 and the proposed building the ones that we can
save will save. And then you know obviously there'll be landscaping requirements under both the LI provisions and the city's code where we'll maximize the the foliage there for the capture of the nutrients and the retention of the storm water runoff.
>> What what is the height of this particular building? >> I believe it's four stories which these are typically lower. Um they're not your 10 12 foot floors. They tend to run about 8 to nine feet. Um, but it'll be within the height limitations as set by
the zoning district that they're in. For sure. >> Okay. >> Have any other questions of the applicant? >> All right. In looking at the um site plan, could you identify the entrance to
the building? I It's not clear to me. the I'm not sure which one you're looking at on um yours, but if you're if you're at the street, the entrance to the building is there's two different ones. You have your office, which is on the it would be
the southeast corner of the building. And there's where the handicap parking spots are. And then there is a loading bay behind the gate there where the vehicles would be pulling in underneath that to be out of the weather as
they're, you know, loading and unloading and minimizes the noise associated with the >> My question had to do with the ADA parking space and the >> Yeah. So that's that's in front of the office proximity to the interested building. That's Thank you. >> That's good.
>> Any other questions? this applicant. >> Thank you very much, sir. Yes, >> sir. Thank you. >> So, at this time, we will close the public hearing part of this uh procedure. Uh do we have any questions for staff or discussions among ourselves? I'm glad staff is agreeing with this.
So, there's all right. Well, we'll bring it back. Is do I have a motion on this item, please? There is language on page 61 under alternatives. There is a section for the staff recommended condition where it is written out, but you if you are to
utilize that, you may just say as staff recommended rather than reading the whole if you'd like. >> I'll take a shot at it again. Okay. >> Okay. I'd like to make a motion to approve variance number 5-2026
to allow 14 parking spaces including one ADA accessible space for property located at parcel ID number 22-35-26-0000-504.1 um and that they must comp um comply with the low impact development recommend. Um,
>> you can just say as staff recommend. >> As staff is recommended if you'd like. >> Sounds good to me. As staff is recommended. >> All right. I have a motion. Do I have a second, please? >> I'll second the motion. >> Very well. We have a motion and a second.
>> May we have a roll call, please? >> Member Willis? >> Yes. >> Chairman Taylor? >> Yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Van Deven? >> Yes. >> Member Beckles? >> Yes. >> Member Green? >> Yes. Very well. We have a winner.
>> Thank you. Daughter's lacrosse game to get to. So, I'm okay. Uh, how do I get back to the beginning? Thank besides hitting all those buttons. I'll just hit the buttons.
get there. >> While he's doing that, um has have you guys implemented any type of policy now like when someone is applying maybe to go ahead and tell them um that they might get a scam email at um immediately
and to ignore it. >> Yes. I mean like to emphasize it when they're actually putting in their application. >> Yes. And then we also once the agenda goes out and we know those scam emails are coming, we also re reiterate that >> with them. Thank you. >> Good recommendation. Thank you. All
right. Uh well, it's time for petitions and requests from the public, but they don't seem to be any public here. Uh so reports staff you say we at this moment we don't have anything on line for next month. >> Correct. The um application deadline
passed on the 20th. Um sorry >> there were some but not fully completed applications. So we do not have anything scheduled for the March meeting and we should see you in April. If anything changes we will email you but I do not anticipate a March meeting. And then
just another thing to add, um the community conference for um the city is on March 7th. Um if you guys are interested, registration is required. You can find that information on the website, but it really invited to anyone you might know that might be interested in how the city works and the different departments and everything that
functions. Um trying to do some more public outreach and items um with the community to kind of help understand things. Um it's all posted on the website and just sharing with you guys to share with uh others. All right. Just to confirm, the April date would be the 22nd. Can you confirm
that? >> I do believe April is actually the 29th. >> Yes. I think it's actually the 5th Wednesday because >> so I do believe it is the 29th because of the Yes. >> All right. Then I will notify you that I will not be available for that meeting
on the 29th. I will be out in the middle of the ocean somewhere. Uh so I will not be available for that meeting. Uh do we have anything for >> with with apologies to staff. I also will not be available for that meeting. >> Okay.
>> All right. >> You you're in charge. Anything this direction? All right. Uh oh, I'm sorry. Council, do you have anything to add? >> No report. >> No report. Very well. Well, then we will
call this meeting to five minutes ahead, not even an hour. So, we'll call this meeting ajourned. Thank you.