Okay, at this time I will call to order the May 27th, 2026 uh regular meeting of the board of adjustments and appeals. Um so we'll call it to order. Would you
please rise as we uh pledge allegiance to the flag? >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and
justice for all. >> All right. May we have a roll call, please? >> Chairman Taylor, >> here. Vice Chairwoman Van Deven >> here. >> Member Beckles, member Green >> here, >> member Willis >> here. >> All right. At this time, we do have four
members. Uh for those in the audience, we can proceed, but um I will give this disclaimer at this time. In order for an uh amendment to pass here, it does take a four vote. So, we are one short. As in
the past, we've always offered this uh out to any applicant if they wish to delay because we don't have a full quorum to wait for five of us or are you ready to go ahead and proceed tonight? So that will be your decisions
>> and if it's helpful, the next BA meeting will be on June 24th. >> Okay. So we will leave that option. Do we have thoughts on that? Would you wish to continue or
you have a question or anything? Please >> do come up to them. >> No, you can ask staff a question if you'd like. >> My question is >> at what point do we have to do or
>> you could request the table after presented but then there would be additional members who heard your full presentation. >> Understood. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh you so you gave a thumbs up. Is that correct? You proceed. And sir, are you
on the other one? You have a two. So both uh items I do see an agreement there. All right. Uh going on to number four, approval for the minutes of April 29th, 2026. Does anyone have any uh amendments or
corrections to add to the minutes? I physically wasn't here so I can't say just what I read. No. Right. So do uh don't see any additions or attractions. Do I have a motion to accept the minutes? >> Motion to accept the minutes.
>> And a second. >> Second. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> All right. Passes unanimously. All right. Uh have a little speech to read here. All persons who anticipate speaking on
any public hearing item must fill out an oath card to be heard on that agenda item and sign the oath obtained their own. These cards are located on the table near the entrance to the chamber council council chamber and may be obtained for the recording secretary.
This meeting will be conducted in accordance with procedures adopted in resolution 24-1997. Those speaking in favor of 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 consire for this commission to consider, they must be submitted as evidence and will retained by the city. Please submit such evidence exhibits to the recording secretary. Have both everyone filled out a card?
Yes and yes. Great. All right. So, that part is over. Uh staff, can you confirm that the uh agenda items for tonight's meeting have been properly advertised? >> Yes, sir. They have.
>> Very good. And members here, do have any of us visited or spoken to any members of the public regarding any of the items on tonight's to be reviewed tonight? >> No. >> No. But I have driven by these sites as I do on a daily basis.
>> Oh, okay. Just on your route. Thank you. You didn't speak to anybody. Just flew by. >> Correct. >> And to clarify, has driving by the site, any of the sites, has that made you form an opinion one way or the other before hearing any of the
evidence? No. Okay. Thank you. >> Just know where it is. All right. We have no consent agenda. We have no old business. So, first item up is variance number 12-26.
The address is 1915 Cheney Highway. So staff, would you enlighten us, please? And what page do we go to? >> Thank you, chairman. Sure. This is page seven of 63 is the uh cover sheet. Item 8A, variance 12, 2026.
>> Um I'll read the powers of BAA. That's on page 10. LDR section 34226 states that the board shall grant a variance request when in the opinion of the board of adjustment and appeals owing to special conditions. The literal enforcement of such ordinance or
regulations would do manifest injustice to or impose an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant. In order to authorize any variance to the provisions of such ordinance, the board must consider the following criteria. A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning. B. Special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. C. Granting the variance requested, excuse me, requested will not confer upon the
applicant any special privilege that is denied by the ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. D. 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. E. The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. F. The granting of the variance will preserve the spirit of the ordinance and remain in harmony with its
general purpose and intent. G. In granting the variance, the public safety and welfare must be assured. H. In no case shall the granting of a variance result in a change of use which would not be permitted in that zone. Next on page 11 is the analysis and
recommendation. I'll read that. The applicant is requesting a variance from chapter 32 section 3210 A2 to allow an additional wall sign for a building having only one street frontage. The subject area is located within the
community commercial CC zoning district and consists of approximately 0.75 acres. The subject area is part of the larger 8.33 acre tract that was divided into five separate parcels under the approved Titusville Commons site plan
which will continue to function as a unified development. The applicant is requesting approval to install two additional wall signs. And I believe that that's an error that needs to be corrected. Um, one one wall sign is allowed and the request is for one additional wall sign.
Uh, section 3210 A2 provides that buildings having more than one street frontage may be permitted one additional wall sign located on the secondary frontage. However, regardless how uh, excuse me, however, regardless of the number of street frontages, no more than
two wall signs shall be permitted. The subject building has only one street frontage and has already received permit approval for one wall sign identified as S1 on the submitted concept plan measuring approximately 69.67 square ft.
The applicant is proposing one additional wall sign identified as S2 on the submitted concept plan measuring approximately 69.67 square ft. The request does not demonstrate the presence of special conditions or circumstances unique to the property that would prevent compliance with the
signed 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 per buildings with a single
street frontage. The recommendation staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow an additional wall sign. There are no special conditions or circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, 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 classification. And last, I'll just point the board to page 19.
19 of the agenda packet is the site plan. The legend includes uh sign S1 which as previously mentioned is already permitted on the north elevation of the building facing Cheney Highway. And the request is to allow a variance is for a
variance to allow an additional uh wall sign on the west elevation shown as S2 on that uh on that site plan. And with that, happy to take any questions. Thank you. As per our previous meeting on another
property there, are we still restricting the standup sign to just one for the whole complex? Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, they're not asking for one for both
sides of the building, just one side from the south side, which is clear. Is that correct? >> Are you still talking about wall signs or wall >> signs? Wall sign. wall signs. So, one they they've already received a permit approval for S1, which is one wall sign,
and they're requesting an additional wall sign on the west elevation. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions of staff? Yes. So, we'll open it up now for the public. Do we have a card, please? >> No, sir.
>> No cards. >> Not for this item. >> Oh, okay. Nobody's here. All right, then. Anybody wish to speak on this subject? No. Okay, then we will close the public hearing.
and bring it back to the board to make a decision or ask questions. Um, the reason I asked staff, I know like in our last discussion with the other property, we were assured that there would be only one quote unquote,
what do you call that? U stand up pylon sign, >> one pylon for the whole complex. Correct. And uh this I can see in their mind why they would want a side one because that's where
their entrance is into the building uh instead of just one. Uh if they'd asked for a third one on the other side where the trees are, nobody would see that anywhere. I personally have no problem with that. I don't know if anyone else wants to
express an opinion. On page 20, it shows um says Shuttle View Dental Care. >> Correct. >> Is that the front of the building where the entrance is? >> And that's the sign that's already
>> Yeah, that's that's the one that's approved. Yeah, there's only one. >> Yes, ma'am. That's the north elevation. Um the easiest way to tell is by looking at the orientation of the the vehicles. Uh that's the easiest way for me anyways. uh because there is an access road in front of uh I guess I should say north of the building and so you can see
the the vehicle on page 20 is um you can see the side view of the vehicle so that's if you were looking from Cheney Highway at the north elevation >> right and they want the sign >> that's so on page 20 that's the sign that's already permitted and the additional sign that's being requested is on page 21 which then you can see the
vehicle driving away from you that's if you were west of the building looking east >> and what street is That >> that's their internal road within the development. >> Okay. >> Or driveway. >> Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> That's right there by the Chase Bank. >> Got it.
>> This is one of those four units to be in that one complex. >> Any other questions or comments? The permitted sign um faces Cheney Highway. The additional sign would be internal to the
development. >> So, or as you're going >> as you're coming in, it'll it'll be Cheny Highway wall sign facing the parking lot. So, I personally don't have a problem with the additional sign. It's uh it's not
intrusive. It's relatively discreet. So, it's well made. So, >> I have one question just amongst us. Um, there have been other tenants that have come in and requested basically kind of
the same thing and those have been denied. >> No. Did we grant it? Okay. Senior moment. >> You may not. >> I'm I'm not sure. I'd have to look in the minutes for that.
>> I believe that was where we had a a ground sign that was limited in an exposure. So, If you think about the U tire tire lubrication place on um
it's on Cheney Highway on 405. Yeah, 405 at the intersection there. That's where we approved the second wall sign because of the orientation of the building within the development similar to this. I'm a I'm a frequent flyer by this site and I think a second sign is needed in
order to advertise the best looking dental office we will have in this town. So >> staff have anything else to add or >> uh on the chase one we were just referencing um you're correct. You approved the additional wall sign and
denied the additional ground sign. Thank you. Well, there's no more discussion. Um, look for a motion on this item, please. Okay. Motion to approve variance number 12-2026 to allow one additional wall sign for property
located at 1915 Cheney Highway, Titusville. >> Do we have a second? >> I'll second the motion. >> Any further discussion? Seeing none, may we have roll call, please? >> Chairman Taylor, >> yes.
>> Vice Chairwoman Van Deven, >> yes. >> Member Green, >> yes. >> Member Wheelis, >> yes. >> All right. So, that motion has been approved. Uh, next we'll go to variance number 14, 20, 26,
uh, which is a partial land on 405 and US1 South. Uh since there's not an address at this time and we pop down a couple of more pages eventually. There it is. >> Yes, staff. Uh would you enlighten us
please? >> Absolutely. So this is uh item 8B variance 14 2026 uh which begins on page 27 of the packet. We'll skip the B um powers of the BAA since we read that in the first application. We'll skip straight to the
analysis which begins on page 30. The applicant is requesting a variance to eliminate the requirement to construct sidewalks along the north and west portions of the parcel abudding state road 405 and US Highway 1. LDR section 3238A
requires sidewalks to be constructed along any lot or parcel abuing a public or private street when new construction is is proposed unless specifically waved. The property is located within the planned industrial development PID zoning district and is currently under site plan review for construction of a
distribution warehouse. The proposed development includes frontage along Horizon Drive, Vector Space Boulevard, State Road 405, and US Highway 1. Sidewalks are proposed along the internal roadways of Horizon Drive and Vector Space Boulevard. The variance
request applies to the frontage along State Road 405 and US Highway 1. The applicant's narrative and exhibits identify grading impacts within the ride ofway and impacts to existing trees associated with construction of the required sidewalks. The applicant also
states the sidewalks along the higher speed roadway corridors would have limited pedestrian use compared to the proposed internal sidewalk network. The submitted plans demonstrate the sidewalks can be constructed and include grading details associated with installation of the required improvements. The request appears to be
based primarily on site design preference rather than an inability to comply with the requirements of LDR section 30238. While the proposed development includes internal pedestrian connections and efforts to preserve existing vegetation,
those factors do not eliminate the requirement for sidewalks along public roadway frontages. The request would remove required pedestrian infrastructure without sufficient justification, demonstrating a unique hardship associated with the property. Section 30-328A
of the land development regulation states, "Sidewalks shall be constructed along any lot or parcel of ground abuing any public or private street on which a permit for new construction is granted except as provided herein. Suchi sidewalks shall be of concrete and shall
be inspected by the city. No building permits shall be issued by the administrator, nor shall a certificate of occupancy be issued unless such sidewalks are shown with elevations on the plans for construction unless the requirement for sidewalks is specifically waved by the administrator
based upon the following criteria. One, the ladder parcel is located on a local street as defined by the trans transportation technical manual where over 75% of the lots on the local streets are 400 ft from the subject lot or parcel and are developed and no
sidewalks exist adjoining the developed lots. two, when the construction of the required sidewalk is programmed within the proposed city capital improvements program and funds have been appropriated for its construction through an assessment program or other funding
mechanism. A request to wave the sidewalk was denied because it did not meet the two criteria. The street is not a local road and there are no plans in a 5-year schedule to construct one. The request for a variant should therefore be solely based so should be should therefore be
solely on the basis of a hardship due to the constraints on the land that prevent the applicant from meeting the letter of the law. It is the staff's opinion that a sidewalk can be constructed at the site and provide safety for pedestrians away from the street. A sidewalk on an arterial roadway is necessary to provide
pedestrian safety. The city's code addresses this issues by specifically denying the option for a waiver on arterial and collector roads. Sidewalks are required to be installed by property owners as development occurs. The purpose is to put the burden on the property owner when the opportunity
arises with a proposed development. Plans then come into fruition by local agencies to fill in the remaining gaps through the capital budget process. The lack of a surrounding pedestrian network does not apply to the variance criteria. The city's 2019 multimmoal pedestrian
and bicycle plan recommended areas where sidewalks are appropriate, including the east side of US1. Uh the impacts of sidewalk construction is an expected outcome of any development. This may include the removal of trees, topography changes, etc. There are these are also not
unreasonable. The applicant can demonstrate alternative locations to construct the sidewalk with minimal disturbance, including the relocation of certain features of the overall development. Regarding the waiver policy, the multimmoal plan states, "While this waiver policy may be appropriate for
areas that will never need sidewalks, the policy likely inadvertently increases the future cost of adding sidewalks and makes it more difficult to add sidewalks at a later time. Many of the factors such as a lack of connectivity are temporary and don't address the future need for a sidewalk.
Reconstruction or retrofitting of a site to add sidewalk to a future date is significantly more difficult and expensive than it is to incorporate a sidewalk in the initial initial design of the site. The plan further recommended that the city's sidewalk policy be modified to better incentivize
the construction of sidewalks. This was completed in 2025 with the adoption of ordinance 20-2025 and the current waiver policy. In conclusion, the request strictly should be evaluated on the basis of the hardship criteria described in section
34-226 of the code. The recommendation staff recommends denial of the requested variance to eliminate the required sidewalks along State Road 405 and US Highway 1 frontages. There are no special conditions or circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. A literal interpretation of the provisions of the land development regulations would not deprive the owner of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners within the same zoning classification.
Granting the variance would confer upon the applicant a special privilege that is denied to other lands. The variance is not the minimum necessary. No alternatives were suggested, including a reconfiguration of the proposed development. Finally, granting the variance does not preserve the spirit of
the ordinance and is not in harmony with its general purpose. Um, I'll also wrap up by pointing the board to page 45. >> What page? >> Uh, 45 and 46. We'll start with 45. So,
these are exhibits provided by the applicant to demonstrate which sidewalks are uh being requested for relief as part of the variance request. That's on page 45, the blue line. And the following page on page uh 46 is the
internal sidewalk shown in yellow and um orange, which are the sidewalks the applicant is proposing to uh to provide that are not subject to the variance request. Uh I do believe the applicant has prepared a presentation tonight. So, um, I'll let them answer some some questions for you after their
presentation as well. Thank you. >> Okay, staff. Thank you. Um, are there any sidewalks at this point on US1 South
of Highway 50? I guess there are a few right there where the uh Steven Center is and the park, but it doesn't go all the way up 50. >> There are sidewalks in front of the
Hyatt building to the south. >> Okay. >> And Boeing further south, although they don't connect, it doesn't appear to connect from the aerial from property appraisers uh further south to Horizon Drive. So
there are some but not a full sidewalk network. >> Okay. And we haven't heard of any plans from uh DOT with state of Florida to make crossing over this Columbia
Boulevard or 405 a feasible project at this time. Have we? >> No sir. We have not heard of any additional sidewalk gap fills um from FDOT. >> I perceive if that were to happen, it'd be a bridge over the top, but you wouldn't want people walking across that
road. >> All right. Any other questions of staff? Anyone would have or comments. All right. Seeing no more questions, we'll open it up to the public. May we have the first card, please? >> Uh Kelly De Monaco.
All right, ma'am. If you would please come up and give us your full name and your address for our record, please. >> Oh, okay. Good evening. My name is Kelly Del Monaco. I'm a planning consultant um for
my um excuse me, for my client who has this property under contract for purchase. Um and if I could see Oh, perfect. Okay. So again, I'm Kelly Del Monaco and I'm joined tonight by both Aaron Troger, who is our civil engineer, as well as Jack Sweeney with Stoton
Industrial, who is proposing to develop two of the properties in the vector space subdivision. So, I will present today, but we can bring anybody up to answer questions or better help clarify our position on why we strongly believe we're faced with a unique circumstance
and interesting hardships um where we're attempting to meet the intent of code um and provide connectivity for pedestrians through this corridor in a way that makes sense and is safe. So this is the vector space industrial subdivision here. Um you can see the
west side we call that Stoton West outlined in the red. That is our western parcel for development of about a 214,000 square foot industrial warehouse building. And then in yellow you'll see Stoen East. That's just a slightly
different size project. The same type of development though. Um, we're working through our site plan review with the city now. Um, and have really worked to respect the natural contour and grades of this site, which are pretty significant, especially at the northwest corner, which I will show you shortly.
Um, we've added buffers and we're really working on not having any impacts to the wetland on that west side. Um, so in this interchange, I want to talk a little bit about the rights of way that surround it. So that red outline there of this property, so it's about a 20
acre property and of this interesting shaped property, only about 500 ft of it, aren't touching a ride ofway. So you have State Road 405 on the north, which kind of wraps around that ramp down to
US1 on the westand side, and then you have Riverfront Center Boulevard. And there's a little discrepancy in the road name. I don't actually know what it is. The street names say Riverfront Center Boulevard, but the everything else is saying vector space. So, they're kind of
interchangeable, I guess, in those purposes. So, Riverfront Center Boulevard um is the frontage that it's on that already has a sidewalk, and you'll kind of see that in the first page of the exhibit that I gave you. And then Horizon, we would work on connecting through there, which I'll
bring up on the screen shortly. So these rights of ways, the things that go inside of these rights of ways. So the state owns and operates US1 and SR 405. There's utilities that run in there. There's a sidewalk segment kind of to
the south of um riverfront center. So there's a segment that exists and then it doesn't exist. But the sidewalks go in the rights of way here, not on the private property. So then when we're looking at the local side of things, if we're looking at Horizon Drive and
Riverfront Center Boulevard, those are all locally maintained rights of way. So the sidewalks would go in there to make the connections. Um the required sidewalks are placed in their respective rights of way and dedicated to whoever owns and maintains
that. We've been working with staff through the site plan review process within keeping of the industrial zoning designation and we are proposing these code compliant sidewalks along Riverfront Center Boulevard and Horizon Drive which are both local streets to
connect to the existing pedestrian network safely and appropriately. So what you're seeing here is our request centers around the segment of sidewalk that city code requires along US1 and the SR 405 overch um excuse me
interchange. So what's important to point out here is that sidewalks aren't generally anticipated in interchanges. Um, sure you see sidewalks along US1 and on certain sections of other limited access highways, but this is a section
of sidewalk that extends about 04 miles over 2,000 ft along this section and then would dead end. So, city code requires new sidewalks for all new construction and provides criteria,
as Eddie said, for administrative waiverss under certain conditions. However, the conditions to wave the sidewalks are just limited to local roads. So, this is not a local road um which is not typically controlled by the city. This is controlled by FDOT. Um and
in this case, we do have plans into FDOT that do not show this sidewalk. So, what we would like to do is leave this decision on the sidewalk and FDOT rideofway up to DOT if we're able to adequately show that we're providing
safe pedestrian connectivity that meets the intent of the Titusville code. City staff determined that because these are not local roads, the city cannot issue an administrative waiver for this sidewalk. Um, which brings us to the board of adjustment um for relief.
So that solid blue line that you see there is 2,177 ft or about 04 miles. The red oval area right there along with that red dashed line. Um so this is part of our unique situation that we find ourselves in.
We've had preliminary discussions with Florida Department of Transportation and they've indicated that there are no plans by FDOT to either construct any type of pedestrian connection north, east or west um over or under that
overpass there. So, there is a sidewalk on the east side of US1 that stops right before Riverview Center Boulevard um that connects into this industrial subdivision. So there's no plans right now from FDOT
to go north, east, or west. The site plan that's under review by the city is also under review by FDOT. And like I said, our plans into FDOT right now do not indicate this blue sidewalk. So it's important to understand the
existing and proposed conditions of the pedestrian network when assessing our variance request. This is the first sheet you have in front of you as well. Um, while there is no sidewalk on the east side of US1 that connects north of Riverfront Center Boulevard, the yellow
lines show all the existing sidewalks through that neighborhood up to 405. When Stoton East and West, these two industrial warehouses are constructed, they will add in all of the orange sidewalk that you see on the screen
there, which would then create two full connectivity options for pedestrians trying to connect between the eastern side of 405 and the southern side of US1. So, this would be the path of least resistance, the path that these
pedestrians would take. So they're not coming up on a high-speed limited access highway ramp through this intersection. We aren't seeking a variance from constructing the sidewalks within this subdivision on the local roads, just the
point4 mile sidewalk indicated by the blue line. Um we will be providing multiple pedestrian options and a significant length of new sidewalks here to meet the intent of code which is to have that interconnectivity. Um it was mentioned a mobility plan was completed
by the city. We've looked at that and you know we are providing two points of connection to different sides of this interchange. There is nothing going north. DOT is not proposing anything to go north. So, we have two separate ways
for them to get to that point up there without adding this third way dead end. So, if you imagine yourself on this sidewalk headed north on US1, you know, you pass Riverfront Center Boulevard,
you see that there's an option to go north and you don't really realize right now that you can just go east maybe to get to where you want to be on 405. I don't know where people are walking to on 405, but so let's say you head north on that blue line. It's a very long
stretch of sidewalk. It goes around a curve. It's up a hill on the side. So you walk or you bike that 4 miles and you get around that curve and you realize that it stops at the top of a hill that is not mowed and there is a a
drainage ditch at the bottom. So, you either have to walk through the wet drainage ditch to get to walk on the side of 405 or you walk an additional 900 ft to get to the sidewalk that exists on Riverview um Riverfront Center
Boulevard by the old um Police Hall of Fame. So, it's it's basically a sidewalk that goes to nowhere while there's two other options that will be available for people to safely and quietly get to where they need to go.
And just to highlight this a little bit more, um, this is showing the trees that are along that heavily vegetated portion of that ramp that are located in the ride ofway. So these are offsite impacts. So again, the sidewalk would go
in the DOT rideway. Um, so our landscape architect went through this plan and estimates about 27 to 37 rightway trees would need to be removed to do do the regrading that's required to install the sidewalk there. Um, so there's about 15
to 17 horizontal feet of regrading within the ride ofway that would have to occur to put the sidewalk in. Um, again, here's an aerial image of just kind of that curve to show what we're talking about. The blue line is kind of where that sidewalk would be
located. So up right near that blue line is where the sidewalk would go with the regrading. And there's a few things I want to point out. I I some of these are up on the screen here and some that you have in front of you. Um, so if you go to the
second page of what my handout, it's this one here that shows that intersection of US1 at Riverfront Center Boulevard facing north. So let's say you're walking up US1 like I had you imagine. And you see, okay, there's this sidewalk in blue that kind of goes off
yonder. I can follow that sidewalk. So you're headed north and then you get to this picture that's on the screen in front of you. So on your packet, I added the blue line in there so you could see where that would be located. There's about a 10-ft elevation difference
between that blue line and the bottom of the conveyance swale um next to this high-speed limited access highway. So again, we're regrading and having to remove the vegetation that's there to put in this sidewalk. And then if you
flip to the last page, this is the US1 ramp to SR 405 facing east. Um, on my computer screen I could see it. It's hard to tell here, but this is wet at the bottom of this embankment. Um, it goes up and the sidewalk would just end
kind of by that power pole. And whoever has accidentally made their way down this sidewalk is going to end up again, like I said, at the top of a small hill that's not really mowed very well. and they either have to walk through wetness to get to the road or another 900 feet
through unmaintained vegetation um to get anywhere else that there's a sidewalk. We anticipate the tree loss not just due to direct impacts to the trees, but these are different pines that don't do well with changes of vegetation. So, we would expect direct loss of trees and
indirect loss of trees. Um, we want to maximize the number of trees we can save in this area and having no sidewalk here and allowing the two other paths gives us the best chance to not impact the trees. So, even without this sidewalk, we are still providing safe and
continuous additions to the pedestrian network within the vector space subdivision um over to S SR 405 as an alternate and more useful way to get pedestrians from one place to the other. Again, this section of blue sidewalk
doesn't get anyone north. There's no underpass. There's no overpass. If we ever need to reference this, this is just a snippet of the site plan. Notice I did change the orientation of north to the right so I could fit it on the screen. Um, the blue line is what
we're looking for the sidewalk variance for. The yellow line is the existing sidewalk into the subdivision. The orange line is what we would be installing as this Stoen West project. Stoen East would install a whole whole bunch more as well.
I'll skip through these. These are just the zoomed in sections unless we need to reference them. So, we are seeking a variance to wave the requirement to construct a sidewalk along a portion of US1 and SR 405. We intend to still meet the intent of code
by providing safe pedestrian travelways along the roll roads within the subdivision and we would love for FDOT to be able to make the decision on whether or not this goes in if we are able to be granted a variance. Um Eddie went through all of the
variance criteria. Um in the application what they have done is they kind of take all the variance criteria and they put it into these four questions that they ask us to answer. And that's what I'm going to go through really quickly. So the first is why are you unable to
comply? What hardship or injustice are you claiming? So the section of code we are seeking a variance for does not contemplate a unique situation like this involving a limited access high-speed ro roadway or interchange where there is a
ramp and there are alternate pathways um such as this. Our compliance is limited by a combination of physical and contextual hardships which include extensive grade variations um along that western frontage. It's at least 10 ft in that area um which would require us to
regrade the FDOT rideway out horizontally about 14 to 17 ft. Um the presence of mature trees and buffer vegetation within the rideway is also a hardship which results in environmental impacts if disturbed. Um, we are located on a high-speed
roadway with conditions that exceed 55 miles an hour, which create an unsafe pedestrian environment, especially when there's other options available to help them go east. Um, we also are dealing with the fact that we are almost completely surrounded on all sides by
rights of way and have the ability to provide alternates. Variance application question two is what is special about your property that would justify treating it differently than most other properties. So it's this combination of several factors. It's the
four roadway frontages with different different functional classifications. We will provide sidewalks on the local side, but we're also dealing with the two high-speed regional corridors of US1 and 405 along with a ramp. Um the
project's located on a curve of an on-ramp off-ramp and then the topographic variability along the western frontage creates steep slopes towards the FDOT rideway without regrading impacts. The established vegetative buffers and tree canopy
within the ride ofway would be disturbed and the resulting sidewalk would be a point4 mile deadend that would unknowingly leave potential pedestrians at the end of a sidewalk to nowhere. The third question is, is your variance
the minimum change for the requirements that you need to overcome your hardship? The answer to that is yes. We are not looking for a variance for the extensive sidewalks we would put in inside the vector space subdivision and we're just requesting a variance for this blue
section of a sidewalk that would be placed in an FDOT right ofway. Question four is, explain why approval of your variance request would not likely result in harm to your neighbors properties or to the general public. So, approval of this variance will not
negatively impact adjacent properties or the public. Um, a complete internal sidewalk network within the subdivision is being provided with two separate ways um on two separate roadways that start at US1 and end at 405. The pedestrian
routes will be located along low-speed local routes designed for safety use. The sidewalks and lengthy deadends along a high-speed corridor will be avoided, providing for a safer situation, and existing vegetative buffers can be better preserved, maintaining visual
screening and environmental quality for everyone driving down US1 or 405. So, it is our opinion that granting of this variance would be in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the public and would not harm our neighbors or the public. And with that, I'm happy
to answer any questions or bring up any members of our team. >> And looking at your drawings here that you had, so this is just going to be one long building. Is that correct? On this property? >> Yes, sir. >> Over here. Um,
but you said the way it's written, code, the if our state, if they had a sidewalk, it would be on the state's property, not on your property. I can't see the state being very happy about having all their trees cut down
and leveled myself. Any other questions? Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Do we have anyone else that wishes to speak?
>> Mr. Sweeney, was he going to speak? Welcome. Name and address for the record, please, sir. >> Uh, yeah. Jack Sweeney. Uh, and we are um with Stoton Industrial. So, we're the property owners of the lot in question. Okay. >> Um, just wanted to very quickly uh
introduce myself, say hi. Um, with Stoton Industrial, we're a industrial real estate development company. Uh, we develop across the country. Um but we're um very excited for this project here in Titusville on the Space Coast. We see it as a you know a flourishing part of the
country. Um we think there's a lot of uh tenant activity and businesses want to be here in Titusville u adjacent to um the spaceport. And so just wanted to introduce myself um relay kind of our our appreciation of working with the
city throughout uh this process um with permitting and applications has been has been great and appreciate your time here tonight um entertaining uh this request. >> Uh both these projects site one and site two they are your own properties. Yes.
>> Yes. Uh yeah we did close on the land um last week. Um, so as of last week, Stone Industrial does own both uh parcels. >> Okay. Any other questions, comments? Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you for coming. And our last card. >> Uh, Aaron Tranger, are you going to speak? >> I'm here to answer questions. >> Okay. Just so I'm not shouting across the room, Erin Chroger, Trogger Consulting Engineers. I was really here in support
of the project tonight just to answer any questions that you guys might have. It seemed like she really hit it out of the park with all the information. So if unless you have questions, I'm happy to take my seat.
>> Uh, one question. She'd mentioned wetlands. Where would there be wetlands on this property? >> It's surprising, isn't it? There is a pocket of wetlands if you are reviewing the site plan. Basically, as you're
wrapping around the corner onto 405, the the one short property line that's not right of way is a low area. Um, and that has a pocket of wetlands. >> Got it. So, we're we've, you know,
pulled our ponds and we've provided the buffer and we've worked through our approvals with St. John's to preserve um the the wetland in its entirety. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, that map where the where it shows the retention that's outside of
that area that's wet, >> the the retention is pulled out of the wetland. >> Correct. It's not correct. It's not part of it. >> It's not. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. No problem. Any other questions? Thank you for coming up. >> Thank you. >> All right. We have no other cards to
speak. >> No, sir. >> All right. At this point, we'll close the public hearing uh part of the meeting. Uh do we anyone have any more other questions or comments about this with staff? U >> I have one question for staff.
>> Yes. Eddie, we if we were to approve this variance tonight, could DOT come behind us and insist that they install a sidewalk system? >> Yes. So, the variance would grant them relief
from the city's code requiring sidewalks as far as the city's review. But if FDOT were to provide a comment that said that they are going to require sidewalks, DOT would not release their permit until they provided sidewalks and that would not preclude them from providing sidewalks here at the local level.
>> Got it. Thank you. >> Takes the pressure off the city making it require. >> I mean, okay, that's a good question. Anyone else have a question or comment? All right. Well,
my comment is I would we know they're going to put fences because this will be a secure area and I can't see really wanting to have people walking with near I don't know it's just safety issues I see especially when it
it dumps out to the end and goes nowhere. So I personally have no problems in meeting this request. If no one else has a comment, I will be looking for a motion, please.
I'd like to have a motion on variance number 14, 2026, parcel ID 23350125A to approve the motion. Do we >> that's sufficient for me if it is for Eddie.
>> I would just want a clarification on the motion that you're um approving the variance. Is that Did I hear you say that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. And this only pertains to the property on the US one >> for the sidewalk from the sidewalk >> state property.
>> Correct. along US1 and the uh the loop for the interchange. >> This does not affect at all the >> local roads, >> internal local roads, right? >> Internal. >> Okay. All right. So, I have a motion. Do I have a second to the motion, please? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further
discussion? Seeing none, may we have roll call, please? >> Member Green, >> yes. >> Member Wheelis, >> yes. >> Chairman Taylor, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Van Deven, >> yes. Congratulations. Our part is done. Now you have to work
on the state. >> You're welcome. Thank you. All right. Uh well, I see no public now, so I don't guess we'll have any petitions or requests from the public. Reports. What do we have going on for
next month? >> Well, I've got to find a way to extend the meeting by 30 minutes because I told Kim this would take an hour and a half. Oh sh. So, let me see what I can fill you in on. No, I'm just kidding. Um, we do have a couple variances uh variance
applications. Um, u nothing really that I'm going to report on just yet, but um just so you know, we we'll like very likely have a meeting uh next month. >> That is the 24th you said. Is that the way you looked at it or that's the date?
>> That sounds right. Let me confirm that. June 24th. >> June 24th. I'll be in town that time. Imagine that. All right. Well, thank you, sir. >> Council, do you have anything to report? >> No report.
>> No report. Well, I personally I enjoyed my time off on the cruise, so glad you handled everything last meeting and uh look forward to continuing on.
Uh, anybody else have a comment? >> Glad to be back. >> You're glad to be back, too. >> I overheard we lost an alternate to that board. >> So, we will be looking for another alternate. >> Yes. So, anybody listening or watching
us? Applications will be available city hall for an alternate member of this board. All right. Seeing no other business or no other mentions, I'll call this meeting adjourned. Thank you.