Welcome to the meeting of the planning Titusville meeting of the planning and zoning commission. Uh, first order businesses, stand for the pledge, please. >> To the flag of the United States of
America and to the standy for all. >> Roll call, please. Chairman Eton >> here. >> Vice Chairman Childs >> here. >> Member FC. >> Member Gerard >> here. >> Member Scully >> here.
>> Member Gellen >> here. >> Alternate member Troutman >> here. >> We do have a quorum. Uh, next order of business is approval of the minutes of January 7th. Does any member of the commission have any comments or changes
uh to the minutes? I'm just going to make one comment that um speaking with the attorney uh bringing up about the Christian Court Town Homes from last meeting. Uh we're going to have a conversation about navigating uh a
decision that I had made previously uh with a yes vote to a no vote reclaiming that. So, it's just a bring up that we're going to discuss this on the next >> um we're going to uh so based off of the
uh minutes from the last meeting uh talking about Christian Court Town Homes preliminary plat. I spoke with the attorney uh from the city here and we're going to discuss on our next meeting um of my vote on that. >> Thank you. Uh, anyone else have
anything? >> Otherwise, could I get a motion? >> Motion to approve the minutes as written. >> Second. >> Uh, moved and seconded. All in favor say I. >> Anyone opposed?
>> Thank you. All right. Uh, next item business, uh, quasi judicial proceedings, uh, procedures, uh, city attorney Good evening. During the public hearing portion of this meeting, anyone wishing to speak on a quasi judicial item must first sign a public hearing agenda card
and sign the oath contained thereon. These cards are located on the table in the front of the council chamber. 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 an item will speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if necessary. Witnesses may be
cross-examined by the applicant, commission staff representatives, or such other representatives as authorized by the commission. If you have photographs, sketches, or documents for the planning and zoning commission to consider, they must be submitted into evidence and will be retained by the city, please submit such exhibits to the city clerk. City clerk, of all persons
wishing to speak before the planning and zoning commission signed an oath card. >> Yes, sir. >> Is there anyone else present who has not signed an oath card who wishes to speak on a quasi judicial item? If so, please submit a card at this time. City clerk, have all agenda items been
properly advertised? >> Have all agenda items been properly advertised? >> In the event that a member has received exparte communication, verbal or written, the identity of the person with whom the communication took place and the substance of the communication must be disclosed, including opinions and facts discussed. Any written
communication must be part made part of the record. Have the members visited any sites or spoken to any members of the public regarding an item to be reviewed? Yeah. Yes. >> We've got lights from member Chman.
>> You go first. >> Is can you provide more? >> Yes, I can. Um detail than that. >> So on January 16th uh this past Friday um I w was walking down a project at address 1860 Knox McCrae uh Fairways
Royal Oak. The discussion of Royal Oak community had come up. I did not make an opinion off of that uh subject matter that they were talking about relating to the projects that I was walking down. >> Member Charles.
>> Yeah, I've I've seen plenty of social media posts. I've talked to people have asked or um you know told me about their opinions on the Royal Oak um uh issue or whatever. And uh I think we had some emails that I forwarded on and I think
some of us were all included on that, but I forwarded on to Lori who then I think forwarded on the staff. So you should have everything that I've gotten. >> And member Grod, >> uh the same I received several emails. >> That's it. Thank you all.
>> All right. Thank you. Um, next item is uh our first session of petitions and requests from the public present. Um, since we have a large crowd, uh, this is an opportunity to speak on items that aren't on the agenda. Uh, and you do not
have to have filled out a card if anyone cares to speak. >> Good evening, Vicky Conklin, Titusville. So I wanted to ask what is the protocol regarding notification to planning and zoning members? How many days in advance do you all get your information? Is
there a certain standard with that? >> I think we typically get the agenda on Friday. >> You get the agenda >> Friday proceeding >> with the supporting documents? >> Yes. >> Okay. So I have a little question because it seemed that you all got a page a 220 page stormwater report about
one of the plans for tonight's meeting today. maybe 10:00 a.m. And I'm just wondering how can you have read 220 pages says this morning unless you're speed readers but also to absorb and many of you are still working. So just a point in protocol that information came
in today. So I think that needs to be noted. Uh the other thing is I want to thank the city and you all for being so supportive of the work the workshop on storm water and it's tonight and or I mean tomorrow night and I think that's really speaks well for the city realizing storm water is a big issue
around here especially after flooding last October and so they see the need to have a storm water workshop which we all tend to plan to attend because you're working off of a storm water plan from 1966 and that's been pointed out and council has agreed that's not sufficient. We
need to go back and they have actually retained people to be doing a new study. And so we're kind of thinking maybe it makes sense to hold off some of major decisions about housing and so forth that be could be impacted because of the storm water decisions. So again, thank
you for your support of the citizens. Just wanted to point that out about that late late things being submitted to you all. It's really not fair to expect you all to read 220 pages when you get it on the morning of the meeting. Thank you. >> Thank you. That's for you, Stan.
>> That clapping wasn't for me. >> Keep your shirt off. >> Okay. I'm Stan Johnson and I'm here to uh go over an issue that you don't want to talk about and that is uh that is I made a request for termination of Chief Lau for cause and I've sent a number of
emails out. So, I just want to talk a little bit about some things that have happened to me. And it's uh it's disturbing is that um uh it was over a year ago is that I was approached by one of the elders of uh Park Avenue Baptist
Church and uh he said that uh um the church is considering uh removing me from membership. membership. My family's been there for uh over 55 about 55 years uh maybe 53.
And uh I was concerned so I so I thought I'd go to the pastor and that was pastor Steve UK. He he was the pastor at that time and he uh he agreed with that. Uh so uh I was concerned. So what what
happened? Well, he said that that the city manager, that's uh Mr. Bice and the chief of police have come to an elder or elders and spoke of some bad things that I've been involved in going back to
1985. Well, of course, I'm interested in what those are. And so I said, "Uh, well, Mr. UK, so what have I done?" And at that moment that was zip.
The the meeting ended. No discussion. Although I know of some rumors that are kind of strange. Like one of the rumors is that is that uh uh at a Sunday school meeting is that uh the teacher said uh you know what uh Stan Johnston has done
is that and he thought every that I knew all about it is that I I what do you call it? I She stalked some lady down to Vieier and tried to make her lose her job. Well, my wife and I were both surprised at that. And of
asked the question, well, who was this lady? No answer. And where'd you get the information? Some elder, I believe. So, anyhow, that was embarrassing to me uh in front of a number of other people in the church is that there's rumor about
me. And uh so it it continues and it continues. Uh why in the world would the I called I called the Chief Lau. He said, "Oh no, I didn't do it. Didn't happen to me." And I called uh Scott Larice and he doesn't answer. He doesn't
respond. So the the it goes on and on and on about uh the the police department entering my church and uh spreading rumors. I don't think that's right. I don't appreciate it. So, now you all know one of the
reasons that I'm asking for his termination. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else? >> K Maryland Avenue. My neighborhood was one of those neighborhoods that got flooded by that huge rain event in October. And I'm very thankful that the
city's going to have this storm water workshop tomorrow night at 5:30. And I want to reiterate to all these people here, this meeting is only about storm water and and the and the flooding that we had and it if your houses were
flooded or you had any damage from your vehicle or such like then you can come to this meeting and speak. It won't be city council. It will be staff that will be there and we can talk to them about the problems that we had because of this flooding and that our homes were
destroyed to the tune of $200,000. Some of them on my street. I mean, and the the um elderly people living there have been unable to live in their house since October because of the construction that they're having to pay for themselves. The city needs to know how extensive
this damage and how it impacted our residents here and and why could what could the city have done and what should they do now rather than wait until a new storm water plan gets done. And so we know that ditches have not been cleaned
and because of the um reduction in funding for such like that was said at the city council meeting last week that the that they had reduced the budget for storm water ditch cleaning. Well, the ditch in that goes by Maryland goes by Shady Oaks goes out to Singleton had not
been cleaned for over two years and it's still clogged today. So we I'm asking that those people hear in my voice tonight on TV on on the internet or here in person come to this storm water workshop tomorrow night and and tell
what happened to you and and try to help hold our officials, our staff um and let them know how important it is. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Uh anyone else?
All right. I'm >> Elizabeth Parker, Tina Circle. I wanted to speak on a matter that is not particular to the agenda tonight, but it does affect the agenda tonight. And what I wanted to speak to, sorry I ran up the stairs,
is that in order for us to be hearing a planning and zoning motion, as you probably well know, certain checklists must be met by anybody who's trying to change the
future land use map. One of the requirements is community outreach. in those community outreach meetings are supposed to address the changes to the future land use map.
They're supposed to educate the public about the current zoning, discuss what the current zoning is, and then it's supposed to educate the community about what the proposed new zoning is and how
that zoning affects the community. We as a community are entitled to have that meeting and later tonight we will discuss the meetings the community actually was provided by the developer.
I just wanted to bring it to your attention that the checklist has not been met for the future. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else?
All right, we have um no old business, so moving to new business. Item 9A. Staff, >> can you speak up? It's real impossible to hear. Pull the mic closer to >> item 9A.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, chair. Beginning on page 12 of your agenda packet, conditional use permit number 9-2025 for property located at parcel ID2-35-28--00-279. The applicant has submitted a request to
establish a 4,853 square foot convenience store with 14 fueling stations on a portion of a 14.7 acre parcel located at the northeast northeast corner of Dair Road and North US Highway 1 within the community commercial zoning district. In the CC
zoning district, convenience stores are identified as a use that requires a conditional use permit subject to the specific standards outlined in LDR section 28-112. In addition, the proposal includes retail gasoline sales which are permitted with limitations under LDR
section 28-168 and carry their own site layout setback and operational standards. While each component is addressed in separate sections of the LDRs, staff's interpretation is the convenience store use must be reviewed and applied to ensure the applicable standards are
addressed in a comprehensive manner. The site itself is located along the US Highway 1 corridor which reflects a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. The property has frontage along both US Highway 1 and Dair Road with Dair Road functioning as
a designated collector roadway that provides access to nearby residential neighborhoods and supporting commu commercial and institutional uses. A defining feature of this site is its direct frontage on the East Central Regional Rail Trail, also referred to as part of the Coast to Coast Trail
Network. This is a paved multi-use regional facility that serves pedestrians and bicyclists and functions as a continuous multimmoal corridor parallel to US Highway 1. The city's comprehensive plan emphasizes that on-site circulation and access design
should account for all user types, including vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and encourages the consolidation of access points to limit conflict along major roadways, sideways, sidewalks, and bikeways. found on page 23 of your agenda packet. The concept
plan submitted by the applicant in identifies an excess of three points of access to the site. Two of these are proposed along dair road and a third driveway is proposed along US highway 1. The US highway 1 access point would require a vehicular crossing of the
coast to coast trail which is the potential to increase conflicts and safety risk for pedestrians and bicyclists using that trail. While the overall use and scale of the proposed convenience store is consistent with the commercial standards of the code, however, I will address certain errors in the concept plan later. Staff's
analysis prim focused primarily on the location and design of the proposed access, specifically the impacts associated with introducing a new vehicular crossing over an established regional trail. In reviewing the proposed access configuration, staff utilize not only
the Titusville comprehensive plan, but also applicable state and transportation standards to guide the evaluation of how the project interfaces with the regional trail and surrounding transportation network. Rule 18-2.018 018 of the Florida Administrative Code establishes
the proposed non-trail uses of state upland owned uplands must be evaluated in the public interest, including consideration of whether reasonable alternative locations exists and whether the proposed use would have an adverse impact on the public recreational uses.
As part of that process, applicants are required to demonstrate that no reasonable alternative exists prior to the approval of a non-trail use of state-owned uplands. In addition to the state upland requirements, staff also considered recognized transportation design guidance. The Florida Department
of Transportation Design Manual Section 224.1.4 states that special attention should be paid to minimizing and managing conflict points along shared use paths. In light of these standards and considerations, staff finds that the vehicular access to the site can be fully accommodated from
Dair Road without the need for a crossing of the regional trail. The proposed driveway across the Coast to Coast Trail, as shown on the concept plan, would introduce an additional conflict point between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. For these reasons, staff find that the proposed access configuration is not consistent
with the city's comprehensive plan, which prioritizes safe and efficient multimodal circulation and the protection of regional trail infrastructure and that the location and design of the US Highway One driveway crossing the trail presents a primary point of inconsistency. And then I do want to touch quickly on
the upgraded report that you guys should all have been provided. Any new information um from the agenda packet to the new one has been added in bold. And to just recap, subsequent to the publication of the planning and zoning board agenda, the applicant had responded to staff regarding the
conditional use standards and has now indicated compliance with dispensial conditions for convenience stores. Now, while these operational items relate to the applicable standards for the use, they do not access they do not address the access and circulation concern associated with the proposed driveway
crossing of the trail. And then furthermore, staff has identified inconsistencies in the submitted concept plan with respect to the land development regulations and city's technical manual. To list a few, the concept plan lists a building height of 52 feet 6 in and references a 40ft
variance. This has been amended in continued site plan reviews but not updated in regard to the CUP submitt. The concept plan also shows three proposed driveways access points while the land development regulations limits the number of access points per lot to no more than two. And for commercial or
industrial uses, driveway widths of the property line are also limited to a maximum of 30 feet. These items, among others provided to the applicant in a site plan comment letter, will need to be revised on the concept plan to bring the proposal into compliance with the land development regular regulations and
city's technical manual. And so with that, based on the analysis in the staff report, staff are recommending denial of CUP number 9-2025 as submitted. The concept plan should be revised to eliminate the proposed driveway crossing over the coast to coast trail along US
Highway 1 and a site plan at this location as proposed in the concept plan cannot be approved due to the inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. Alternative access points are available without impeding on the regional trail. If the cup were to be approved, it should include a condition
explicitly prohibiting a driveway crossing over the trail. In addition, certain errors on the concept plan will need to be revived to be consistent with the code. And I do believe Brad has some more. >> There's some additional information I'd like to provide to you in relation to the concept plan and the proposed
driveway over the state's or the state's regional trail. Allowing a private or commercial driveway to cross a regional bicycle trail undermines the core purpose of the trail and introduces significant safety, operational, and precedent setting concerns. Regional bicycle trails are designed to provide continuous low
stress travel cyclists, pedestrians, families, and commuters. A driveway crossing introduces vehicle vehicle conflicts at a location where trail users do not expect motor traffic. Drivers entering or exiting a driveway are often focusing on merging with roadway traffic rather than watching for
fastmoving cyclists or children on the on the trail. This increases the risk of collisions particularly at night at or during poor weather. The value of the regional trail lies in its continuity, predictability, and separation from motor vehicles. A driveway crossing
interrupts this continuity, forcing trail users to slow, stop, or yield. Over time, multiple such crossings degrade the trail into a series of conflict points, reducing its attractiveness for commuting, recreation, and tourism. Modern transportation and trail design
standards emphasize minimizing atgrade crossings between motor vehicle and active transportation facilities. Where crossings are unavoidable, they are typically limited to public roads with clear sight lines, signage, and priority given to trail users. Introducing a private driveway crossing contradicts
these principles and represents a step backward in active transportation planning. Approving one driveway crossing makes it difficult to deny future requests. Over time, this could lead to multiple crossings along the trail, compounding safety risk and fundamentally altering the character of
a regional asset intended for public use. In most cases, alternative access point options exist, such as relocating the driveway, using shared access points, or connecting to existing roadways, in this case, Dair Road. They can use these
alternatives alternatives preserve trail safety and function while still allowing property access, making a trail crossing unnecessary. Regional trails represent substantial public investment. This is a state trail and the intent is to create uh the means
of being able to bicycle from here from Titusville all the way to Penllis County and it'll connect to several other regional trails in the state as well. Introducing avoidable vehicle conflict points increases maintenance costs, liability exposure, and the likelihood of injury claims
costs ultimately borne by the public. The property is zoned commercial and several listed uses in the zoning district can be accommodated without crossing the regional trail. The 7-Eleven is requested to driveway so drivers will have a second chance to enter the site if they see the business
sign and miss the turn at Derry Road. The driveway will benefit drivers at the expense of bicyclists. The driveway is consistent with the with the city's goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. specifically section uh transportation
policy 1.1.7 and objective 1.7 and subsequent policies. Those policies state standards for safe and convenient on-site traffic flow are contained in the city's land regulations. On-site circulation standards should account for all users
types including motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The city shall promote access to transportation related facilities and ensure that they are coordinated with circulation system shown in the city's adopted plan. Convenient movement between the various transportation facilities within the
city shall be facilitated through the following strategies. Where feasible, intermodal terminals should be located adjacent to two or more transportation modes. Access to and between modes and terminals shall be designed to minimize operational conflicts. Participation among the various
transportation service providers is crucial to terminal sighting construction and operation. The city assumed responsibility for maintaining certain segments of this trail in coordination with the county and the state. In addition, the city recently adopted future land use element or
objective 1.24 gateway quarters which applies to US1. Specifically, strategies 1.24.63 6 three and four state access to development areas with from gateway roads should be consolidated including
using existing streets where existing intersections are frequent to limit the number of access points on major roadways and to limit sidewalk and bikeway conflicts where feasible. New development shall provide cross access to existing or undeveloped parcels and existing streets
to mitigate the impact of new development on traffic operations of the major road. The driveway undermines the city and county's commitment to maintain and preserve the trail as part of its application process for new cross cross access easements. The state requires the
applicant to ask the city for its opinion as to whether there is an alternative access point and for consistency with a local comprehensive plan. The staff previously replied that an alternative exists, Dair Road, and the request to impede what the state calls an upland conservation area as
unnecessary. It also conflicts with this intent of the city's mobility plan. The plan envisions a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network parallel to the automobile network. Multiple and unnecessary crossings or over regional trails contradict with with this
important capital improvement plan. Finally, the commission should not consider who the owner or business is in regards to zoning. These are irrelevant to zoning. Rather, the commission should only consider whether the proposed use, a convenience store, will create any
nuisance issue, determine if it meets the special conditions of the use, and whether certain mitigating performance conditions should be applied. The driveway will impact what the state considers again to be an upland conservation land by undermining the core function and purpose of this important recreational asset to the city
and to the region at large. The regional bicycle trail should remain safe, continuous, and vehicle free. A vehicle-free quarter. Allowing a driveway to crossing compromises safety, diminishes the trails purpose, and sets a harmful precedent. For these reasons, the proposed driveway crossing should not be approved. Trying to answer any
questions you have. >> Member Charles that um just a small silly um housekeeping uh technical question. Um, when when I was reading this, I was kind of confused because it says northeast corner of Dair Road in US1 and then it
mentions the bike trail and I was thinking the bike trails on the west side. So when I was, you know, um, when I was envisioning this, when I was reading it and not until I looked at the map that I was like, oh, this is the same property that I was thinking of at
first when I saw this. It's the one really on the south southwest corner of that, right? I'm not I'm like it's not like a a different terminology, right? Is it just a typo that it's northeast, right? Because I
was like maybe it's a different tech, you know, terminology and I'm like because I was thinking that it's the northeast corner of that, you know, lot or whatever, but I was all right. So, I'm correct. It's It is really >> I I had the map upside down. I'm sorry. >> Is it okay? Oh, I started looking at it
weird, too. I was like, "All right, let me look at the picture." Okay, that's that's all I Yeah, that's all I had about that. >> Member Gar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. U staff corrected the note which appears on page 23 on building data where it gives the
maximum building height and on the record you said it was going to be a 35 foot height as opposed to what this stated 52. the second um the second site plan submitt that does have those um updates not the concept plan submitted
here um listed as a 24 >> and the second question I have the parenthetical to variance 21 1 >> that is an error there is not a variance that exists >> thank you >> all right I don't see any other
questions from the U commission uh open the public hearing. Do we have any cards on this item? >> Cameron Zinca Thank you. Good evening, chairman, members of the planning and zoning commission. My name is Kim Rosena with the law firm of Lacy
Rosena in Melbourne, Florida. I'm here with the developer Black Fin Partners. Uh represented by Nathan Landers and Steve Le I never asked how to pronounce your last name. Leavowski. Also, Bowman Consulting Group. uh Kyle Chastine, the
professional engineer with um over 10 years of experience. We are here for a CUP. Uh but I've never seen so much uh comment on a access road onto US1, a commercial corridor. Um
I disagree with everything they've said. I disagree with everything that's in the staff report. We don't even believe we should be here for a CUP. And that's what I'm going to talk about tonight. Uh this is a 2.0 02 acres. I don't know why they couldn't specify that. That's in the the application. It's not 14 acres.
Um, your code lacks definition and clarity. There is no definition for convenience store in your code, nor in the Florida statutes anymore. So, we don't meet the definition of convenience store because there isn't one. Uh, the staff report is conclusory and without facts to support. I'm going to ask Mr.
Paris later where he read that from because I think that's all speculation. Maybe in a manual, but if it wasn't, hasn't been provided. And none of that was in the staff report. That's all new to me and I believe it's all his opinion or staff's opinion. Um the staff is dictating a site plan. I've never seen
staff go so far to say you can't have a cross access easement that will benefit 14 acres. And that's what this is. If we have made mistakes in the site plan, we're actually in site plan for months before they even told us a CUP was needed. If that is to be changed, we
will take an access off Derry Road. The reason for that access is safety for pedestrians and secondary accent onto a second road and for the gas tankers. And Mr. Chastine will explain that to you. It's in the packet I provided to you. Uh
the only way to move forward for the site plan was come to the CUP. I spoke with staff and tried to explain to them why we didn't think a CUP was necessary, but we still have the site plan. The site plan is where these issues are addressed, not at a CUP, which is based
upon very simple criteria in your code, which we have met all of them. Even though we don't need a CUP, the statements in the staff report are all speculative. I can go through each one of the things that they s said support there, and they don't. They're
general principles. What is worst is Mr. Paris has cited to you a comprehensive policy that was rejected by the Department of Commerce. That has been rejected. That entire 1.24 has been rejected as being too restrictive and violate state law. So that is not to be considered.
Uh the convenience store with gas sales needs access on two roads as part of the 7-Eleven business model is for the safety as I've mentioned. And the key issue is the ingress and egress. And frankly, that's not a city issue at all. is an FDOT and FT and county
maintenance. The city doesn't maintain any of this area right here. So, um the fact that they are now making statements to state agencies really doesn't matter because we can work around them. Uh but I really did want to show you this is a 7-Eleven. This is a it's a brand new
7-Eleven. It's going to be beautiful. It's going to be in a great spot. I'm going to give these to the clerks. Um but I do want to let you know that it is for a 7-Eleven. Um before I go into my full presentation, uh Mr. Landers is going to talk about his experience, Blackfin Partners
experience and the 7-Eleven concept and Kyle Shassane is going to talk about the site plan, the access and auto turn plan. Um why the access is safe based upon the design. There's not been a transportation engineer here to discuss this. This is all staff's opinion. It's not safe and that the joint access this
is a joint access. So, um, with that, I'm gonna ask Mr. Landers to come up and speak, and then Kyle Shastine will come up and, um, Kyle will be talking to the foldouts on the last two pages of the packet I gave you, page 24 and page 25. >> Good evening. Uh, Nathan Landers, uh,
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, um, with Black Fin Partners, the developer of the project, an applicant. Um, just want to come up here. I've been in uh the commercial development business for uh retail in particular for the past uh 25 years and uh we've uh developed
multitude of uh convenience stores uh public shopping centers um QSRs but you know again in particular uh gas station convenience stores obviously in the name of it you can you know kind of assume they need convenience so convenience is
100% uh for them being a gas station which is automotive is access. Uh they have to have two points of access. If you look at every basically convenience store out there that you guys drive by all the time, uh it's located at a very
convenient location on the corner of a traffic signal with good uh ingress and egress. Uh again, this is what this is and is absolute a must for their business model. Um again um for this particular roadway, US1 is the primary
roadway and that is the most quintessential that they have access there. Derry is a secondary road. Um again if we had to uh give up an access point obviously would be over there because again uh without the US one this project will not move forward. It's also part of a larger uh commercial
development that was actually reszoned to retail commercial or the current um community commercial zoning uh recently. So again that was reszoned for this particular type of use. Retail needs this uh additional access point on the primary roadway and again the other
factors are is that u you know for that particular access point again the city has really no bearing over that um the um uh requirements we're working through with uh FDP and FDOT. So again the safety factors uh all their particular
requirements will be addressed with those or you know again we won't be here but again we are moving forward those agencies and addressing those uh any types of concerns as it relates to that and we've and we've down the road and are on uh at least the uh the second uh
round of comments with uh those different agencies. So again um we've gotten their uh general support to this point. So again uh the without that access uh there is no project. Thank you
>> Kyle. >> Good evening board. My name is Kyle Shastine with Bowman 4450 uh West Ogalli Boulevard. Um Bowman is the engineer of record uh responsible for the site plan and the traffic engineering on this project. Um as M as Miss Rosena um said,
this site is only 2 acres of the entire uh 14.7 acre parcel. Um there's three access points shown on this site plan, but two of those, including the one on US1, are proposed to be cross
um driveways with the remaining parent parcel. Uh Nathan and the property owner have already negotiated cross access easements. Those will be executed uh at the appropriate time. Um so really this this project specifically has one dedicated access and that's the rightout
access on Dair Road. Um there are significant off-site improvements that are occurring um to both US1 and Dair Road on this project. Those are a result of the traffic study that's been completed in coordination with both uh
Bvard County and FDOT on US1. Um there are safety measures that have been um evaluated and implemented into the design with a consideration of a crossing of the rail to trail. I think everyone has the site
plan. Miss Mena provided that. Do you guys all have that in front of you there? So, uh, the first thing I want to discuss is the deceleration lane that's proposed on US1. This is a 405 ft deceleration lane. And, uh, just to put
that into perspective, that's longer than a football field. That's what that's going to do is allow vehicles traveling on US1 to go into that lane, decelerate before they enter the access point into the property. Um, another thing that you'll notice what we did
here is the trail itself. We bended it. You you kind of see how it goes at a 45 degree angle there. That's a reconfiguration of the trail. Uh what that does is it puts uh any pedestrians, walking, cyclists, what have you,
they're now in the sighteline of any vehicle using that driveway or any vehicle accessing the site from US1. What it also does is anybody on a bike, you know, they're coming to that turn, it's going to give them an opportunity to slow down. It's going to signal to them that they're approaching uh an
access point. Uh similarly on site you see that there's a 90 degree bends exiting the site. Uh same thing will happen with vehicles exiting the site. They'll approach that bend. It'll cause them to slow down, become more aware and have a a clear sight triangle um of any
pedestrians on the trail. Um we will speak with FDOT as both Nathan and and Mr. Rosenia have mentioned. it's there right ofway along with the state um to provide any additional signage and striping that you know similar to what's
seen in other locations along the trail. Ultimately they maintain that right of way. So it's going to be up to them what they allow um to be placed there but we will have those conversations and provide um what we can. So again, I just want to reiterate that um two of these
driveways are shared driveways which are are ultimately consolidating the number of conflict points that could potentially be located on this property. Thank you. >> Um we Excuse me. I have a question from one of the members, member Chapman.
>> Yes. Uh, by chance has an application to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection been submitted yet for this uh, piece of land for the uh, >> Yes, sir. >> for the trail? >> Yes. >> And is that just in ongoing right now?
Any feedback on this? >> That's pending response. Um, this is part of the process. Um, but they have reviewed it >> and they're pending our review or just pending their >> They're pending feedback from the city.
>> And it's their land, but they need feedback from us. >> I'm sorry. >> It's their land, but they need feedback from us. >> That was a comment that was received uh from FDP. Yes. >> Member Gar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few questions
for both the current representatives. Um I'm I'm a little puzzled. You're representing your client for a conditional use. You you determined isn't necessary. >> So why are you doing this? >> Because they won't let us go forward without it. >> Well, then that would sound like it's necessary.
>> Well, it's a determination for city council whether it's necessary and whether the criterias are met or we can challenge it in court. >> Go through the process to explain why it's not necessary because your code is unclear. And as you know, if it's interrogation of private property rights, it goes towards the property owner, not the
>> Sure, I understand. So, I think the commission members should consider what we're evaluating here and making a recommendation that this is a conditional use we're reviewing and would summarize it to say if it goes to city council, it's pending the recommendation that we view it as a
conditional use. That may be helpful for city council and deliberation later. On the attorney's point, one is it necessary. Second question, you introduced this about the turning movement for the fuel trucks. >> You also introduced this as a necessity
by design. You introduced the photographs rendering a very nice looking 7-Eleven building and that faces US1. Um, and you mentioned the two acres and this isn't an application and took Elmbridge with the staff report about 17 acres.
>> Well, they're mistaken, sir. The application says 2.02 acres, >> right? Your your application is one portion of ownership under control of the Black Fin group as they introduce themselves. >> Yes, sir. >> So, you have a 17 acre potential development site.
>> No, sir. We have a 2acre potential development site. >> Your ownership of property that has the zoning in place for the development would summarize to me that you have 17 acres of potential development site. >> Wouldn't you agree? >> No, I would not agree. The application for 2.02 O2 conditional use with a
survey attached to it. >> Okay. So, if the expansion of property's development area within overall ownership was considered to be uh recommended because it can spread out the development footprint, it can eliminate the compression of some of
your driveways and allow reconfiguration of your fuel truck loading area. It just seems to me that the problem is you only want to present two acres for development as opposed to trying to work within the parameters that have been reported. At least we have to consider
those parameters. I believe staff's reports their report. We're privileged to read it. So in short, my point to question your introduction is there is ample property to develop under the current zoning a convenience store.
whatever the definition of what you do selling convenience items and gasoline sales u would be given a name to I don't know what other name it would be given I don't know what you call a convenience store other than a convenience store because it provides convenience items
>> right but your code doesn't have a definition for convenience store >> I I guess that's true but however I guess lay people would think of a 7-Eleven and you mentioned that on the record this will be a 7-Eleven and 7-Eleven's pretty marketably a convenience store. So, I don't see why we're quibling over it's a convenience
store. >> Oh, I'm I'm not I'm I'm equivalent over the city code and I haven't even done my presentation. I just didn't >> I just wanted to clarify those questions. Thank you. >> Did you talk about the access to second page? >> Did you talk about this? This is the
second page. >> Talk about the fuel truck. >> I mean, you're >> Yeah, I would say something about the fuel truck also. Again, as what what we're stating here, we're under contract for two acres. Uh we don't own the rest of it. Um and again that what if I just
want to >> You don't own the rest of it. >> We don't own the rest of it. No. No. We're under a contract for the two acres. That's why she's saying that this is what we're talking about. And so again, that would require us to have some sort of um agreement with the the
owner to to do the rest of that. That would obviously they'd be a financial factor for us to, you know, add additional driveways and try to figure out that whole trucking. and he's got plans for his uh overall project and whether or not I fit in there. So again, what we're focusing on here is the two acres and that's you know generally what we're doing. U but the other thing as
far as the convenience thing she's just talking about the definition there's a lot of things we can go into that because it also says on about the retail and >> that's that's all part of my presentation. >> Okay. >> So >> did you did you want to talk about this? I mean this is your plan.
I think what's important about the the truck route that you guys have in your packet, the last page, is um 7-Eleven's preference is that they um they dispense the fuel tankers from the passenger side of the vehicle. Entering from US1 allows
the fuel truck to do so and they would then leave on Dair Road. accessing from Dair Road with the twoacre parcel. There's not the ability for it to circulate the current site plan and make that delivery of fuel on the passenger side.
So, back to the packet on page one. And the reason I did provide this is because it shows it's only a 2.02 acre site and it's under contract for 2.02 acres. was submitted um to the city in July of this year, but the site plan application
started in September of last year. If you look at page three of the packet, this is the standards for convenience store without retail gas sales. Obviously, that's not us because we have retail gas sales. Your code doesn't have something like that in there which is the why the staff has extrapolated that
we have to go to convenience store. However, convenience store divine defined by section 500.03 of the Florida statutes does not exist. However, staff has admitted in the staff report we meet all the conditions for a conditional use. If you look at section
500.03, which is page 45, five, and six of your packet, it's missing. There is no convenience store definition. Turning to the use table of the city code section 28-54. Um, starting with the commercial section
on page seven, there is on 8, the condition convenience store without gasoline sales, but again, no definition. On page nine, there's a grocery store definition. There's a grocery store listed and that is a permitted use. Page 10, there's retail sales and services section 28-51. And
that is what we are based upon your code. The section 28-51 is the intent of these definitions and it talks about the more general uses applicable to commercial zoning districts intended to allow regional
shopping centers to serve more than a specific neighborhood. Your community commercial definition 28-314 does talk about general commercial activity requires larger areas lands located on arterial thorough affairs and major street intersections. So this is
the proper location and this is a retail sales as opposed to a convenience store without retail gasoline sales. Uh use table key 28-533. I know you all know that P means permitted and C means conditional, but
this is just for the record. Section 28-169, page 13, retail sales and services. There is a definition. Retail sales and services are permitted use in the CC zoning. Those business activities that customarily provide retail convenience
goods. Convenience store. Retail convenience store or a grocery store. Section 28-129 on page 14. Uh no definition, but it does have um in certain zones you can have gas pumps at at uh grocery stores. Um, I provided
also the conditional use permit requirements. Um, and under section 34-74, an applicant for conditional permit may voluntarily submit a concept plan and that exceeds the minimum requirements and that has been done here because we were already in site plan. At no time
has anyone told them they couldn't have three driveways or their driveway was too long. If that's the case, then the site plan will need to be revised. uh review criteria compliance with all elements of the comprehensive plan um ingress and eress to the property adequate served to proposed use and
built to city standards. The city has no standards, no land development code that says you can't access US1 over the rails to trails. Doesn't say that. If it did, they'd have put it in the staff report. It doesn't exist. Uh the rest of all the criteria have been met for conditional
use. they have bootstrapped this access issue into a conditional use requirement when it is not. Um I did provide the um questions that were asked page 19 and 20 uh of the city about the conditional use. Those were submitted late but yes
submitted. Um page 21 this is a onem area of US1 where it shows 10 accesses over the rails to trails. I've heard nothing that the city's trying to limit that other than the comprehensive plan that was rejected by the state. So, this is nothing new. If you look just to the
south of this site, there are two accesses um to that property. I believe that's a church. And I have heard nothing about trying to limit that either. They're just trying to stop this use for unknown reasons. Um again, I disagree with what FT what was stated.
FTP FT has asked for the party that has the maintenance obligation over the rails to trails to pine and that is Bvard County. Bvard County has already given their okay back in 2019. FD has asked for an updated
uh an updated letter but again they are the maintenance obligation entity not the city and it's up to the county to make that decision. not the city unless you reject the CUP based upon a condition that's not in your code.
The uh application to FDOP asked for a letter from the maintenance organization or a traffic report or both. Uh there's some confusion about what it's the city and what is the county, but it is actually the county's responsibility to
opine on this. Yes, staff did send a letter to FTE and um we are working through that issue. Also, I did look through the 28 pages of definitions in your code section 37-1
and nowhere is convenience store in there either or retail sales or gasoline sales or anything because they're in the other portions of the code. I did want to also read from Florida Municip Strative Code 18-2-2.018
um that uh Miss Armstrong cited from and these are criteria for FTE not for the city. However, it does say there's a public interest evaluation and it determines determination requires an evaluation of the probable impacts of proposed
activity on the uplands. All direct and indirect impacts related to the pros activity as well as the cumulative effect of those impacts shall be taken into consideration and that is for FT to take into consideration not the city.
Um, finally, I have um several sections that they have cited that support what they've asserted and opined, and I'd like to present them to them and ask them to explain how they support it
because when I asked them, they told me they wouldn't tell me. So, I'm asking them to tell you because what's in the staff report is conclusorary and what Brad read from whatever it was, as nice as it was, it's nowhere in your code and it's nowhere in the staff report and it's all speculative.
Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. I >> I had a question while she's passing out the additional information for the applicant. I believe it was the civil engineer if he's still available. >> Thanks. I didn't see in this package any
transportation analysis. Um, it's a lot of information that's been presented, but I didn't see a traffic study. >> The traffic study has been submitted as part of the site plan. >> Okay. But when you submitted the traffic study, and I think it's the 11th edition of the IT trip generation manual. What
What did you use for your classification? I >> I have my traffic engineer. >> That's who I asked for. I'm sorry. Ask her the the question. Yes. >> Could she appear, please? She has it. >> Good afternoon. This is with Bowman.
Um, we use land use 945 >> and that is >> convenience store with last station. >> Thank you. I just want to I I kind of imagine that the typical convenience store 7-Eleven represents is best digested based on traffic volumes generated in the 11th. It is the 11th
edition now, right? >> Uh currently it's the 12th edition. >> 12th edition. Time flies. Thank you. >> Um Miss Armstrong, have you looked at the application for use of stateowned uplands that was provided to FT by uh Black? Are these
questions for the planning and zoning commission? >> No, these are for you who testified on behalf of this application. >> So, we're being cross-examined. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> City attorney. >> Under the quasi judicial language, witnesses may be cross-examined by the applicant.
Your question was if I reviewed the application packet for state own uplands >> for the one submitted to the FT by Blackpin. Yes. >> The one you just provided. >> Yes. >> I glanced and then provided Brad a copy as well. So he has that. >> Did you review it before tonight?
>> No. >> Okay. Then where did you get the information that you had in the staff report that it required those things that it doesn't require? because in talking with FDP about the processes, I requested to see a copy of the application. So, I do have a copy of a blank application.
>> Okay. Well, looking at the description narrative, which is on page five. Do you have the documents? I I gave her one set of documents and gave you guys a full set. >> What page? Um, it's identified I've
written on page five. It's about three pages in. >> You state in your report that this requires the applicants to demonstrate that no reasonable alternative exists prior to approval of the proposed use of the state land.
The only place that that possibly would be in the narrative. Did did you did you get that just from someone you spoke to and not from the application? >> Given the fact that there are three access points provided, there is
additional um alternatives for the use other than the use of the state lands. >> Okay. But where did you get those criteria that you cite in your staff report? Because it's nowhere in this application. uh descriptive narrative be the need for
the proposed use of state lands and written evidence that all other alternatives to the use of state lands have been denied. >> Right. Will the use of the state >> and also quotes from the Florida administrative code. Is that in this part? >> Is that >> No, I've already read that to them,
>> which is not in there either. >> I'm going to go ahead and object to any continued questioning of city staff as they didn't serve as witnesses for this application. They're simply providing feedback for the commissioners. They've recommended denial. They are a party that will be subject to any
lawsuit and subject to cross-examination. I I don't understand how you can do that. >> That doesn't make them witnesses in this proceeding. >> They're serving as experts for the city. It does make them witnesses in this proceeding. >> All right. Well, I'm going to leave my objection standing. Feel free to continue questioning.
So, Miss Armstrong, you're saying that narrative number B is what you meant to say in your staff report. >> No. So, we in the item, let me pull through. So, in rule 182.08 08018
of the Florida Administrative Code is talks about whether um the propos the consideration of whether reasonable alternative locations exist. >> And and could you actually cite the section that says that because I couldn't find it in there. >> Okay. >> You'll have to give me a moment to pull
that back up from previous >> I'm going to withdraw that question because I've already read from it and submitted it into the record. >> Okay. Um would you agree that the FDOT design manual is for the FDOT to review? It's not the city standard
>> staff use guidance from all of planning agencies >> in our review. >> Right. Um the next document that I provided to you is the transportation element specifically the one-sided 1.17.
How does that support your recommendation of denial of this cup? >> Standards for safe and convenient on-site traffic flow are contained in the city's land development regulations. On-site circulation standards should account for all user types including motor vehicles, bicycles, and
pedestrians. So given um the various items discussed in the staff report and in the summary provided earlier um all user accounts are being um accounted for as provided in the policy. >> Okay. for the comprehensive plan, >> but yet you heard the traffic engineer
here state that it was going to be safe and they've made it safe by using all the requirements of FDOT and FT >> in the city's opinion with the or the staff's opinion with the certain um policies and standards and guidelines provided from other um transportations
like FDOT uh find otherwise. >> Okay. Regarding >> recommendation >> regarding the FDOT design manual, the shared use pass. Do you agree that that is for the design of shared use pass and not crossovers for shared use paths?
>> Kim, are you asking her to be an opin an expert on shared use paths? >> Well, she's cited in her report, so she's putting herself out as an expert that she's relied upon this. So I'm asking her if she agrees that this is for design of shared use paths and not
for roadways over shared use paths. >> It is a shared use path as well as she can pretty much answer or email here on the staff here can answer. It is a shared use path. >> Okay. I'm talking about the design manual that's been cited in support of your recommendation of denial >> in your packet.
>> Yes. Page 10. This is information that was provided to us by the state as part of their review. >> And how are they using this to review? >> You'd have to ask the state.
>> That's what I figured. All right. Page 16. Recreational and open space. What policies, objectives, or goals support this denial of this cup, open space and recreation element. This is what was cited. Recreational
element of the comprehensive plan is one of the reasons for denial of compliance with the elements of the comprehensive plan. Can you point that out to us in our staff report? >> It's on page three of seven, line 43 of the old one. I don't know where it is in the new one. >> Page three. You said
>> it's page three of the old one, Mr. Paris. I I don't know exactly what it is on the new one. It's probably on page four. >> Yeah, it's on page four, line three. >> Believe that's referring to the transportation element, >> not not the uh recreation open space
element. >> That's on page 14 of your packet. Commissioners It says the position is sorted by the transportation element and subsequent policies colon goals and objectives of the recreational comp element comp plan
and the goals and prioritizations of the mobility transportation plan. >> I see. >> So, >> so you're asking which specific policies out of the recreation element are we citing here? >> Yes, sir. >> I believe we're referring to the entire element. How does a 711 interfere with the
ability to provide open space and recreation on a very small portion of US1? >> The argument we were making earlier was that the it's not just the the one particular access point or crossing as the issue. It is the fact that we are
allowing we would be allowing access points that are unnecessary over an upland conservation area which is a recreational amenity, a regional recreational amenity. And if there was no alternative, then of course we would
have no option but to support what is being requested. But because this property has the appropriate frontage, there is unnecessary for us to support the recreation or sorry the cross access over a recreational
use amenity that our comprehensive plan strives to try to protect. >> That's what I'm trying to figure out because your current comp plan does not strive to protect that. And I'm trying to find out where in your land development code. It allows you to
design someone's site plan and tell them where they can access a road. >> So we see it as the the comprehensive plan as stated of goals, objectives, and policies. I think what Mr. Mena is looking for is that one particular word in our comprehensive plan that calls out this particular area in the situation. I
think what you need to do is look at the comprehensive plan as a holistic document that it is trying to encourage us and promote the preservation of recreational amenities and the creation of recreational amenities. This is a major recreational amenity. And so there's several policies that we tried
to site which I stated to you too including I do want to respond to the objective 1.24 in a future land use that wasn't part of the year that you were stating earlier that was already in our comprehensive plan. So, we do believe that uh the comprehensive plan supports
our position that it is unnecessary to have this cross access over an open space recreational amenity such as this trail. >> That that was in your ear. I got it in your public records. It was denied. It's not in your current comp plan on your website. >> You that this you're referring to a
policy that was proposed in our ear, which I never mentioned tonight. >> 1.24 >> 1.24 is currently in our comprehensive plan. It was there before. No, I disagree and it wasn't even cited in your staff report. Um, Mr. Parish, since you have taken
over the answering, can you tell me from what you read about this access would undermine the purpose of the trail from where did you pull that information? >> So, I cited various documents. I've cited our comprehensive plan, our
mobility element and just general understanding of prof and our my professional experience with zoning and our my professional experience in transportation planning and planning in general. >> Recreational amenities should be protected as much as possible. This is a
major asset and that's what I my um stated in my opinion to you. >> Okay. So that was your opinion. It wasn't written anywhere in any document. >> Yeah. U again I would state that the entire staff report is speculative that we do
not need a cup that this issue should be addressed at the site plan stage as to the issues that were raised. This is not the city's trail. The city has allowed dozens and dozens of access roads over this. There's nothing in your code that allows them to say where the access is
going to be. They're overreaching and it's wrong. uh the comprehensive citations, the comp plan citations that they've listed do not support what they've said. They can't even point to the phraseology or the words. They didn't read these
documents they cited to. They got the information from FDOT. Neither FDOT nor FD has denied this. And we would one suggest that you recommend that a CUP is not necessary or two recommend approval of the CUP as we have indeed met all of
the criterias of your code and met your comprehensive plan. Thank you. >> Thank you. Member Grod, do you have a question? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question um reflect on the transportation engineer again if you could address my question.
I Yes, thank you. I should say questions. So, um, as the young lady reported, you've submitted a transportation analysis based on the IT trip generation considered a convenience store with gas pumps. Yes. Thank you. I just want to
make sure we're talking about the same thing. um with traffic volumes. We're not pleased to see. I'm sorry, but I'm going to take a just a guess. I'm going to say that the traffic volumes on US1 southbound far exceed traffic volumes on westbound Dair Road where you have a
driveway entrance off Dair Road. That fair for me to guess? >> Sorry, can you repeat that question? It's my guess that traffic volume southbound US1 far exceeds traffic volume westbound Dair Road that would be
anticipated to turn left into your convenience store's western driveway. Is that a fair guess? >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. The applicant has already pointed out that the configuration of this building is to face US1. And I believe the applicant stated on the
record that without frontage on US1 and without a driveway, the the project doesn't work. to paraphrase it. So, it would be my opinion that the traffic volumes anticipated southbound traffic would enter the site from this driveway over the trail in greater volumes than
anticipated to enter from either of the two other driveways on Derry Road. Would that be a fair guess? >> So, if the if the volumes are uh deviated to the driveway onto Dair Road, they will access through the left turn
lane on Dairy Road. Uh in this case any volumes that are uh traveling southbound on US1 would enter through the deceleration lane that is provided on US1. >> Correct. So if you were a driver and the way it anticipates based on modeling
that's exercised across the country traffic movement as well as volumetric numbers are identified in those manuals. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Right turn, left turn, enter, exit. So it would be my guess, just my educated
guess perhaps, that the majority of traffic traveling southbound US1, the design based on the commercial side of this argument, the applicant who's testified how many 7-Elevens and other types of convenience stores and retail sales and Publix as a name brand he's
developed, they've developed as experience and the statement the building must face US1 because traffic volumes would be able to easily enter the site going southbound. where the majority of traffic volumes exist, one would kind of conclude most people would just go on through Derry Road and turn
into the del lane your testimony gave regarding the design and turn into the site in the most convenient manner and exit the same way. Why bother going through a traffic light twice? Why bother turning right to turn left immediately? Why bother stacking in a left turn lane to get into a convenience
store that's entrances are typically, if it's successful, busy? So, it seems the general analysis would be the transportation route over the trail puts the majority of conflict on that driveway as opposed to the conflicts
that would exist for pedestrians on sidewalks on Dair Road. Is that kind of fair for me to guess? Volutric turning movements into the site. would they exceed the two on dairy road or at least exceed one of the two because one's a
right turnout. >> So we will have to do the analysis again. >> Thank you. >> So if you if you compare um two site generations one access one of the things from the it is that we
also have to consider the ADT of the adjacent street. uh a possibility is to consider the ADT of the adjacent street for the trip generation. So when you don't have access into one of the major roads, you would still have a reduction on the trip generation is possible to get a reduction in the troop generation
of the site. Yes. So we'll have to analyze that part too. >> And I imagine you will, but I imagine all along the the um transportation modeling will be based on the IT convenience store with gas sales. So again, I'm just trying to project's
development is contingent on what it is and what it is for a transportation analysis, which seems to be a very critical concern of staff about having that access point over the uh multimotal trail, over the rails to trails. um just seems to kind of blend in with their
concerns that the majority of turning movements in conflict are going to be in and out at that southernmost driveway onto an arterial highway carrying the largest volumes of traffic in comparison to the local collector road, Dair Road. That's just my guess. I don't need a
response. I did have a second question that may be >> I'd like to answer that also help you out a little bit. >> I was just trying to get the transportation. >> No, but you were talking about like uh saying about my history and things like that. Well, actually, you know, cuz your your heavier traffic is on US1, so most of the people going northbound would
actually take a left and enter the site on Dair Road. So, technically, you'd split kind of that and then so really the only access uh the primary traffic would be going southbound on US1 uh because everybody else would get they would take a a left turn in there and then come down road, take a left in
there, and then all the other uh traffic would come behind the site. So saying that all that traffic is going to come from that one uh access point off US1 is inaccurate. This really just primarily the southbound traffic is what you're getting. >> I appreciate that, but you're kind of a lay person about transportation planning.
>> Well, I kind of developed these things so we I have a lot of experience with it. But absolutely. Yeah. I'm just want to make sure that she understands where you're trying to lead her down and I think that's inaccurate. So I want to make sure I I clarified that. >> I understand what you're saying. It's okay. I'm just trying to make sure I also as a lay person say my opinions
too. So >> certainly Certainly. Uh I did have another question. >> I >> not for the transportation engineer. You answered my questions. Thank you very much. I I believe u there was a comment made by the attorney and I may need to ask her the question if I could. Where
you go. Thank you. And in your presentation, you commented repeatedly at least two times about all the driveways across this trail that the city has granted. Can you tell me how many of the driveways that you cited numerous
examples of existed before the trail was developed when it was a railroad? >> My point was is that they exist. I don't see them trying to pass I don't see them trying to pull them back. No, Sure. Some of them have been there a long time. Some are grandfathered. I just think that's important to clarify that you
don't know which were existing and that there may be no way for you to testify which were done in particularly conflict is what the concern is with the trail. Have any been cut across that trail recently or in the past year since the
trail developed? But you don't know that. I >> I don't know how long the trail has been there. I don't know. But but FDOT would look at that as the FDOT obligation account with the maintenance obligation. All I'm saying is there are conflicts. So this is just an erroneous statement that oh we can't have any more because
there's a ton of them already. >> Well, you said Titus will granted these driveways in numerous values. I don't think that's too accurate because you don't know how many were granted before it was a trail. >> I I if I said that I made a mistake. All I meant is that there are numerous ones tried.
>> Yes, sir. >> Member Childs. Um I was looking up that statute 500.03 and I think this is something that we've done a lot. It's more for staff but I think um where we will quote the state
statute and then it gets changed in this case they took out convenience stores for some reason after but when this um statute was uh enacted here in Titusville was 2017. If you look at that state statute in 2017, convenience
stores is there. So I think um that is something I think going forward we need to be more careful about when we're writing ordinances and we're considering them up here is like and I think we've done we did that recently I think last year where we're like maybe we should
spell this out but I think it was our own code actually but instead of referencing do you think that's appropriate Brad is that we consider that going forward? >> Going forward. Yes. >> Yeah. Right. Thank you. >> I was going to actually add on to that. Um, so looking uh just a quick Google search for uh convenience store as far
as Florida State Code or or Titusville. Um, so Titusville does not have anything in as Florida uh for convenience store, but the definition for convenience b uh convenience business is in the state
statute. And maybe we might need to look at our definition or verbiage being in line with that. A convenient business. And then there's definition here for convenience business as well from Florida. Uh statute uh looks like
chapter 812 is the one that came up predominantly here. All I wanted to point out is there is a definition of retail sales. First, this isn't a convenience store without gasoline sales. It's a
convenience store with gasoline sales. So probably a snafu in your code, but since that's defined, you do have does not require a conditional use and does fit the definition of what's being done here with convenience items. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yeah, my question was were my
statement was just to staff to for something for us in the future. >> Member Gar. >> Uh question, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The transportation engineer again. I have another question for you. Probably should have sat in the front
row. And Mr. Paris, real quick, sorry to that would be 8112.171. >> Thank you again. The question I have for you and you're the professional engineer on this matter and I asked you earlier about what IT trip generation manual we talked about that. What was your
determination of the use based on it? When you submit concurrency review, if you're submitting for impact fee analysis, what your what it trip generation manual uh land use classifications are for. In your professional capacity, would you call
this a retail sales selling gasoline or would you call it a convenience store with gasoline sales? In this case, we call it a convenience. So, we've got six. >> Thank you. >> Do we have any other cards? Clerk >> Laurely Thompson.
Lori Thompson, um, Mims, Florida. So, talk about cuts across the trail. First, well, first of all, I want to thank staff for trying to protect the integrity of this trail. We worked on this thing for more than 20 years before
it became a reality. This this was not something that just happened overnight. A lot of people worked on this trail to get it going. And I appreciate staff's efforts to try to to maintain the vision of of our trail. Those cuts
that um Mr. Rosena was talking about, they were all existing when the trail was built. I I know of no new cuts that have happened over the trail once it has been built. You know, we've been able to divert traffic to existing cuts across
the trail. There have been no new cuts across the trail since it was built. In my opinion, this is a horrible place to put a gas station convenience store. This is a very, very dangerous intersection. I see really bad wrecks
here all the time and there's a lot of traffic that comes out of the Chain of Lakes Park, especially when there are soccer games and events going on at Chain of Lakes Park. Um, you've got two schools that are further up a Dair Road.
Um, and and this just seems like a really terrible place to put a a a convenience gas store that's going to generate a lot of traffic. Um, there are intersections further north of this on
the east side of US1 where the um proprietor could have access to a side road and northbound US1 without having to cross the trail. I think there's other locations that would be more appropriate for this kind of of
business. Um, that's all I got to say. I think this is not the right place to have this type of operation in the first place, but I appreciate the attempt to keep our trail in intact. Thank you,
>> member. Laur Thompson, Miss Thompson, I have a question for you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, you were able to shed some historical perspective. I came and went and came back again. So, I don't have that. Do you think it's fair in that
historical perspective to state or should I say, do you think it's fair to estimate that the driveways that existed before the trail was developed were in the unincorporated jurisdiction of Bard County, not the city of Titusville?
Since the comment was made, the city's granted all these driveways across the trail. >> Well, yeah, but I think um >> Well, I'm going >> the city limits has crept north a little bit, you know, since the trail's been built. Um, you know, theoretically with
the the city's jurisdiction, we've has been discussed it is would eventually end at Parish Road. Um but you know so when the trail was built uh the city
limits probably went you know as far as dairy road you know >> and I wanted to dovetail that perspective historically speaking that the city didn't authorize these driveways as reported presented at least for argument purposes and moreover now
that the city has jurisdiction because of incorporation a request is made in which the integrity of the comprehensive plan is cited by staff. The overall aspect of the trails protective nature to reduce conflict points is within the city's
jurisdiction. Finally, and therein is dovetailing with the idea we don't want to permit driveways over the trail. It would almost seem as if the argument made about how many driveways the city misrepresentedly
d granted over the driveway is to cement the idea that now the city is going to do the right job by not allowing driveways across the trail. >> You kind of agree with me. Good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> What else? >> You're good. I think
any more cards. >> K. K St. Maryland Avenue. I live very close to this intersection and I also appreciate city staff is trying to protect the safety of cyclists and pedestrians on the coast to coast trail
with this their recommendation. And for your information, staff also declined to accommodate another driveway over the trail from the Titusville assisted living facility currently being built. They restricted it its access onto
Silverstar Road and not directly onto US1 because of the coast to coast trail. Um the Dair Road US1 intersection is already extremely dangerous for pedestrian cyclists and drivers. My husband was riding his bike north on the
coast to coast trail necessity necessitating crossing Dair Road and fell in the crosswalk across Dair Road. He lay bloodied and disoriented in the crosswalk while traffic continued to move around him. Nobody stopped to help
him, underscoring how unsafe this location already is. This intersection is a primary route for emergency vehicles traveling to Parish Medical Center. A 138 unit apartment complex is slated to be built on the north west
side of of this corner. and an assisted living facility is lo is being built just one mile to the south. All which will significantly increase pedestrian, bicycle, and turning vehicle traffic. And of course, Chain of Lakes Park, the the apartment dwellers will be wanting
to walk across there to get to the park. Titusville area consistently ranks among the most dangerous in the nation for pedestrians. Approving a high turn commercial use at this intersection ignores both documented safety risk and the experience of residents already
harmed here. Adding a gas station with 14 fueling station at this location would further intensify traffic conflicts, making serious accidents not just possible but inevitable. Both staff and the state do not support the
driveway over the coast to coast trail to US1 as presented in this concept plan. And I expect you to go even beyond this, even if redesigned without a driveway over the trail. The proposed 7-Eleven's convenience store gas station would increase the danger to bicyclists
and pedestrians on the coast to coast trail when crossing Dair Road or when people are trying to get to the park. Recommend denial of this CUP and any design for a convenience store, gas station on this site at this dangerous
intersection. If 7-Eleven's business model requires access onto US1 and the city and the state and we the citizens are asking that not to happen, they can find another site to build it on. Thank you very much.
>> Any more cards? >> Richard Odarity. Um, >> we'll give a second in case he's done. >> Kim, can you say that out louder, please? >> Richard Odair. >> Yeah,
>> he's on his way. Good evening all. Good evening all. I rise to speak in opposition to the royal. >> Can you give your name and address for the record, please? >> Ah, my name is Richard Lordy. I live at 1637 Lema Drive. >> Thank you.
>> Uh I am a lifetime resident of Florida. I grew up in Lee County. I have watched developers all of my life. My concern is that the real estate economy in
Florida, it's tanking. And I have seen many developers come in, make promises, make commitments, and when the economy goes bad, they
vanish. This is my concern. Things are getting bad in the real estate market. And if it gets bad enough, the developers are going to walk away and they're going to leave you with a really
big mess. And that's all I really have to say. >> Thank you. >> Next card. Stan Johnston. >> Stan Johnston. Uh, is this a quasi judicial item? >> It is, I believe.
>> Okay. I I I wish it would have been advertised that way. I mean, we talked about, but Okay, this is quasi judicial. I am not here as an expert on this item. In fact, is I I put in a a card that says neither. I'm neither for nor
against and I'm uh I'm not going to try to go either way on this. However, um Laura Lee uh go took my thunder away because uh I
know of no access over this trail that the city has granted. What I'm saying is that this was a railroad and that railroad had very limited access to it. And as far as I know is that all the ones that that we have in Titusville
were already there before and in the county part of before uh as as the railroad had had allowed, for example, at at Temple Temple Baptist Church. those were those were those have
already been there before uh when when they had the railroad there. But u I'm sympathetic with both parties for and against and I'm not going to give a um preference to either either of them.
Um and um I appreciate Mr. Gerard for his input. I thought was very uh very special and well done. And I think both both have parties that represent himself very well. So that's all I have to say.
Thank you. And uh it's been over an hour, an hour and five minutes now. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any more cards? >> That's the last one on this item. >> Thank you. Um
do do you have any rebuttal to the witnesses? Thank you, uh, chairman, members of the commission. I know this has been an unusual hearing. U, CUPs are usually simple. You meet the code, you're entitled to, you get it. This is zone commercial. This is the appropriate
zoning for a 7-Eleven, for a retail, sales, and gas station. Your code has some holes. I understand the staff and and citizens are very passionate about this trail. that access is up to the state and up to the county. Um the city
does not have anything in this conditional use process or in their code that says we shall not allow this or we'll only allow it if there's alter if there's no alternative. That's not in your code. They've put it in their code as I said by kind of finding all of these reasons they think support their
denial but they don't and the code does not allow this as a condition of the conditional use. If that is the intent, the city should do that. That's not in this conditional use permit uh request.
Uh with that, um again, we would ask that you uh recommend approval of the CUP, even if it's with the conditions stated, and we'll take that up with city council or that you recognize that there is not a CUP necessary. Thank you.
>> Thank you. that I'll close the public hearing and open it up to or I'm sorry, member Grod, did you have something for >> just one question for the attorney if you wouldn't >> prompted my question from your rebuttal? Thank you. Um earlier we had dialogue
about ownership and you clarified and said your applicant is contracting for the purchase. >> Yes, sir. The 17 acres is under uniform ownership at this time subject to the contract's implementation. >> Yes.
>> Question for you is did your client go to the over and asked to buy two acres of land or did the owner only offer to sell two acres of land? >> I I have no idea. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I do not know. >> Member Charles, was yours for the was
yours for the applicant or just No. >> Okay. uh that'll close the public hearing and bring it back to commission member childs. >> Yeah. So, I just want to share my story, too. I I've ridden on this trail and um and I was right there. I was going to go
across, you know, uh north on uh cross Dair Road and then cross over to go to the park to ride around the park and this car almost hit me. I mean, I I had to speed up just so they wouldn't hit me. I pro almost hit my back tire, my bike, and I could just see my life flash
before me. And now looking at this, you know, I I you know, I've been up there a lot just like many of us here. And that is a really dangerous intersection even for cars. And I can't imagine like I mean when I was coming up to that you know the rest of the trail is so so nice
and then you get up there you're like all right this is the dangerous part you know like and um and you slow down and you know you know that you're a target there as a you know riding a bike. So I I think it's really dangerous to put something. So, when I was thinking about
when I was looking at the CUP and saying, "Yeah, putting a a driveway there." I'm like, "The rest of the driveways that are already there, a lot of them are very slow. There's hardly any traffic through it. I can't imagine a a busy gas station. There's that one gas station that's down the road. That
little little thing that and they they park cars on the trail sometimes, which is annoying." And um but you know, even that that's not like a busy not it's not like a regular gas station, you know. So, um I think having a gas station and having a driveway that goes to the US1
is insane because it's already so dangerous there. Even with the curving of that, I I can't imagine that helping that much um to save save people from getting hit on bikes there. And I and I I agree with um the interpretation of
our comp plan that our the intention because every time that we discuss it, I think our intention is to to save stuff like that to have you know walkability to have um bike ability. Um we put a lot of effort into making that trail uh you
know to making it um advertising it and to try to draw people in uh with that trail. So, I think it's something we do have to consider when we're um approving anything like this. So, thank you, >> Member Chapman. >> Um so, yeah, after listening to
everything and and looking over everything right now, like what I see is that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection needs to make a decision on their piece of property. As far as the site plan that's presented, it's showing a driveway across, you
know, the bike path that we don't have any information on yet from Florida Department of Environmental Protection. We don't know if that's even allowed there. It if they're saying that they're okay with it, you know, so as far as as it's presented,
we're we're still waiting on on their decision is how I see it. That's my thought on that. Thank you, member Gar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I I want to make a comment, but I also want to ask a question to staff. And
one thing that's missing in this whole picture to me is 17 acres and a subdivision. Subdividing land is regulated by the city's land development code. Correct. >> Yes. So peacemeal
project sales that constitute independency of site review not subject to subdivisions is very difficult always because you don't get a collective view for such important matters as driveway accessibility where movements can be
lengthened stacking movements can be considered. Derry Road everybody's familiar with is a pretty busy road, not as busy as US one. And I'm sure the stacking movements will have to be engineered, but they would be more formally engineered if you were looking
at an overall site. So what puzzles me is what happens when you buy two something acres of property. Where does the subdivision come from? I don't have a response on it because the the uh site plan is still in review and we are considering all the
requirements of the code including that question. >> Okay. Thank you. Um my thoughts for sharing with the other members here is you've heard my questions and one of those redundant questions was what does the IT trip generation manual call this?
You heard the testimony of the transportation engineer licensed professional. She, I believe, took great length to consider what Beth was. And without any question, we're looking at a convenience store with gas sales. And I think that some of the testimony that
was provided in feedback to what I was asking amplifies personal experience everybody has by driving US1 at Derry Road and knowing there are high traffic volumes at peak periods and a lot of traffic is going to cross that southern driveway which is the principle behind
the staff's concern. Not just a errant monthly delivery of gasoline has testified this was designed to provide the turning movement. It's testified that it was allowed to be designed according to which side of the car you get out of. U so I think you've got a
case without that driveway. You've got a very difficult 2acre site to feel to field fuel trucks in and out of under the current design. You also heard that I discussed where is the subdivision when you have 17 acres of property to work with yet we're only looking at a
thumbnail right now debating the merits of something that could be and should be examined on a larger scale. And then the last comment I can have is as another example of that when I looked at the site plan I'm just going to throw it out there as a generalization. I don't see a
lot of tree protection taking place on this plan given elevation changes that'll occur. Uh I doubt any tree protection or even preservation of what when I looked at the tree survey there are numerous uh specimensized trees within this development footprint that
again the bigger picture is if you spread the equation out you would be able to probably work around these all but impassible issues in a better manner than presented. That's my opinion. Thank you. So, um
I guess my question is for staff and city attorney. Uh, I just want to make a comment that I think as planning and zoning commission and a and a citizens board, we're here to look out for the safety of
the community and I think the cross of the trail is is an absolute uh hindrance to the safety of the community. So, in in that I'm opposed to this. My question is, because I've been on the board for a while, it seems a little unique that
this is a CUP and the site plan with it and we're discussing the interest and the exits of it in relationship to the CUP and the applicant is challenged that there doesn't even need to be a CUP. So,
as it relates to us, is direction is that handled independently outside of this? Uh, cuz I'm not sure we're in in a position to say whether is or
isn't supposed to be a cup. Uh, we're getting that we're getting feedback from you that it should be and we're getting feedback from the applicant that it's not. Um, I don't know that we're necessarily skilled in opining on whether it is or it isn't, but I think
we can have an opinion as to what you presented and and the project's impact on the safety of of the citizens of Titusville. >> Did you want me to answer that, sir? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. So, the Mr. Rosenka is correct. There are
several uses listed in our zoning code for this particular zone uh zoning district, community commercial. Um there is convenience store with parenthesis without gasoline. There is there are gas pumps to separate use. There is retail. There is also grocery store which I
thought saw her highlight in her um submitt to you. So each of those uses may not have a definition. Grocery store does not even define in the code. This is a grocery store but it's a listed use or permitted use in certain zoning districts including this one. Retail use is defined as a very broad definition in
there when you look at it. and it identifies what zoning districts it would be allowed, including this particular one in question. Um, the application that was submitted to us clearly states convenience store. In fact, it says it on page 20 of your
packet. So, we took that for face value. So, they're submitting to us a convenience store. The way the code is written has separates the pumps and the convenience store as two separate uses. They're not mut they're mutually exclusive. And so, we treat them separately according to the zoning code.
So the pumps are the gas fuel pumps for retail sales of gasoline is a separate use called out in this zoning district as a permitted use with limitations. So in other words, it's by right as long as you meet the limitations identified under use. The convenience store is
called out in this zoning district as a conditional use permit. Miss Rosen is correct when she referred to the statute because when you look at the definition or code for convenience store it says refer back to the statute and going back to the statute in 2017 2023 the law was
amended to remove the definition out of the statute of what's convenient store but it doesn't amend our code the list the the term convenience store is still stated in our code we have not changed that it's listed permitted use further application that's what
requested we reviewed as such and based on our interpretation, we believe it required a conditional use permit and that's why we're here today. So when we look at the application, there are conditions that are applicable to that particular use.
That's just one part of the analysis. The staff report that was provided to you analyzed um consistency with the comprehensive plan, consistency with the zoning code, consistency with the special conditions of that particular use, which we have determined based on information that was given to us. Um
they adhere to except we also look at other things that are mitigating factors based on what we believe might be a nuisance and that is part of the conditional use process. We believe that this concept
plan cannot be adopted the way it's illustrated with this driveway over this trail for the various reasons we've already stated tonight. If the conditional use permit is approved or recommended for approval short by you, we would recommend that it have a condition that that driveway not
be included and that any other errors that are stated that we've mentioned earlier would be corrected as mentioned in our comments in our during our staff plan review. So that I hope that answers your question. >> So one point of clarification and and I
this is was certainly confusing to me but so convenience store without gas pumps. You're treating it like
don't consider the gas pumps as part of the convenience store application because you treat those separately. Don't say that. Don't pay any attention to this at all because whether it has gas pumps or not, if there's a
convenience store there, this part applies. And then you treat you have stacking requirements I guess if if it also has gas pumps. >> You're asking about your analysis how you would analyze this. >> Yeah. How how that applies because I
it's it's odd to me that there's a call out for convenience store without fuel, but there's not a corresponding convenience store with fuel. Well, so it you could put them both of them together according to the way it's been applied
here in our code. Um that's what's being suggested here with this particular use that's being proposed to you. So the requirement for the public hearing is because of the fact that it's convenience store for our code. Everything else associated with it can be analyzed as part of that concept plan. The concept plan was submitted to
us by the applicant. This is what we're proposing. So you can analyze all of that together. Um, other than ba based on what you've heard tonight, um, and Miss Rosen's u
comments, other than the trail crossing, if we were to approve the cup subject to no crossing of the trail, is is it generally in compliance with a cup otherwise? >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. Member Gar, I guess the question may have to go to the applicant later and that is um Mr. Parish's explanation kind of makes sense. I suppose you could have a conditional use existing with a
convenience store that was approved and somewhere retrofittingly you came back with gas service and that would be permitted with limitations. you wouldn't file amendment to your conditional use that was establishing the convenience store first if phase two was gas stations.
>> That is possible. >> That's right. So, the the question really is if you're not going to give the applicant a driveway in the most critical driveway the applicant presented. I think the statement paraphrasing it was without that I don't have it so to speak. Just putting it out
there that you know you may you may have to look at this in a different light. >> Yeah. I I'm just more concerned about us as a commission, you know, if if a conditional use permit's been presented and we can offer a stipulation but
approve it, whether the >> that that stipulation is acceptable or, you know, to the applicant or not, should we proceed that way? >> Um, that that was my point. Uh, anyone else have a
comment or care to make a motion? >> I'm just uh com uh question actually. So, with the Florida Department of Environmental, how does that come into play with this? I mean, do we really need to get their say? I mean, they're they're saying that
it's up to us. Like, I explain that a little bit to me. >> I'm sorry. We can't approve a permit or issue a permit based on another jurisdiction. So my conversation with D was that the application that the blank application that was mentioned stated
that one of the criteria that the applicant or the U has to pro get information from the city as to its consistency with the comprehensive plan. We looked at that. We provided a response and that's why we're here today.
Okay, member Gar, >> I think your last comment was if it questions are they're ready for a recommendation of a member. >> So after all the analysis and comments I've made and I go back to probably the
three critical and most concerning to me is that we're looking at a small site within an overall ownership that constitutes a subdivision of land. that's not before us and I believe as the cart doesn't want to leave the horse the horse would be the subdivision and
that gives staff a larger piece of land to look at for all the critical elements of driveway access. Second comment is that the configuration that's here now in my opinion from what's been testified is attracting the principal element of
transportation routes and turning movements onto the US1 entrance. the US1 entrance. That's the concern because it crosses the trail. So the peril that exists is more imperiling, not less imperiling. It's not an emergency access
route with a breakaway gate. You've seen projects do that. I think one of the citizens pointed out the deliberations over an access point over the same trail wasn't approved. And there was a lot of talk about how to do that. We're not looking at that. What I'm looking at, my
opinion and my recommendation to deny the request is that that is a critical driveway both from the commerce side of the element, but also from the concern of the impact adversely it has to pedestrians and bicyclists on that trail
and that with no new driveways existing, all the ones historically speaking were there before the trail. I think this is a watershed event for decision-making and my recommendation is deny the CUP. You want to put that in the form of a motion? >> Yes, that's a motion in that form.
>> Second. >> A second. >> We have a motion, a second. Any discussion before we call for a vote? >> Seeing none, roll call vote, please. >> Vice Chairman Childs, >> yes. >> Member Galan, Galen,
>> Gallen, and yes. Thank Sorry. Member Troutman. >> Yes. >> Member Scully. >> Yes. >> Member Gerard. >> Yes. Chairman Eton. >> Yes. So the motion for denial of the cup is passed unanimously.
Moving on. Item 9B, please. >> Thank you, chairman. Good evening, commissioners. This is item 9B for those following along on the agenda tonight. It's the annual update to the 5-year capital improvement schedule from 2026 to 2030 relating to the capital improvements
element of the comprehensive plan. Begins on page 34 of the agenda packet tonight. And I promise not to take 20 two hours on this item. Hopefully, >> you never know. Section 163 31773B
of Florida statutes requires the city's 5-year capital improvements program of the capital improvements element CIE to be updated annually. All local governments are required to include a CIE in the comprehensive plan that considers the need for and location of public facilities and provides a
component that outlines principles for construction, extension or increase in capacity of public facilities as well as a component that outlines principles for correcting existing public facility deficiencies which are necessary to implement the comprehensive plan. The planning period for this element is five
years. If you'll turn to page 36, read the background. Each year, the city amends the Titusville Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element, CIE, tables A1 through A6, the 5-year schedule of capital improvements to include projects needed to maintain the city's adopted
level of service standards for various public facilities. This amendment must be consistent with the city's capital improvements program CIP, the Bvard County Capital Improvements Program, Florida Department of Transportation's 5-year work program, and the Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization's
5-year transportation improvement program TIP. The city is also required to adopt the Bvard Public Schools 5-year facilities work plan. On page 38, we have some project updates. The city's resiliency study continues to
be updated. In 2026, the community development department submitted a grant to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection requesting funding for an updated vulnerability assessment to be consistent with the new Noah requirements per Florida statutes. The city continues to implement projects
related to the North Basin Management Area, North Basin Management Action Plan, the BMAP. Several water quality projects are currently under construction or in various planning stages with funding from the American Rescue Plan Act, ARPA, state grants, and the Bvard Save Our Indian River Lagoon
sorrel halfsent sales certex. During the 2023 legislative session, the Florida legislature passed House Bill 1379, Laws of Florida, chapter 2023 169, which describes areas where enhanced nutrient reducing on-site sewage
treatment and disposal systems, septic tanks, are now required instead of conventional septic systems. Property owners in specific regions of the state, including the IRL basin, may be required to apply for a new septic septic system permit. Specifically, people applying
for a new septic system construction permit on a lot of 1 acre or less and within an impacted area will not be allowed to install a conventional septic system. Instead, they must install a special system referred to as an enhanced nutrient reducing on-site sewage treatment and disposal system.
The bill also created new funding programs including grants and loans for connecting OSTDS to sewage systems. Uh that's septic to sewer and a wastewater grant program. The public works department is evaluating the impact to the city and making resources available through new funding programs. And last,
the city's low impact development ordinance, which was adopted in 2021, encourages developers to include best management practices into their site plans. LI is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach that reduces runoff and utilizes infiltration techniques before runoff
reaches a storm water facility. staff continues to use the various incentives included in the ordinance to encourage adoption of LI BMPs and local projects. Next, if you'll turn to page 42, read the summary that based on the above
review, the projects and timing of proposed projects in the 2026 through 2030 CIE will maintain our adopted level of service standards and therefore the proposed CIE is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.
On page 45 is the beginning of the 40 um excuse me the 5-year schedule and this is broken out into the different public facilities, portable water, sewer. Um we did receive comment from public works that there is a correction to be made. So I wanted to point that out to
you all and that's beginning on um page 46. On page 46 under the sanitary sewer list of projects, there's a a specific project listed as building improvements. And um
that that is listed as a combined total under sanitary sewer. And what we were advised is that that total should have been split in half and half of it so what's listed for fiscal year 26 is showing 400,000 should instead show 200,000 and the other 200,000 should be
listed under portable water. So right now it's listed the full amount is listed under sanitary and it should have been split out half in sanitary and half in portable. We'll correct that uh when it um when it's presented to city council. And the last correction is on page 47.
Page 47 lists a water service for Hood Avenue and that's listed under sanitary sewer and again that should have been listed under portable water that's providing water along Hood Avenue. So, that's a correction that we'll also make and advise uh correct all of the totals in these tables. With that, I'll answer
any questions. Thank you. >> Any questions? Mura Childs >> um with the substantial improvements to that we're doing to the um morning dove water treatment plant. I have has staff
evaluated whether um these upgrades extend the useful life of the facility or do we need or is there a full replacement that's needed? Have they evaluated that? >> I can't speak for uh public works. I'd have to get specific uh project
information and get back to you on that. Uh my understanding is that it provides additional capacity, but I don't want to say that for sure because I I just don't know. It's not in a different department. >> So, we just Okay. All right. Thank you, >> member GR. >> Thank you, Mr. I wanted to thank planning staff. They responded to some
questions I had earlier and resolved some of those. Just spoke about one of those or one of them at last, not the other one. I didn't catch that. But I I wanted to take a moment to to last year we were here doing the same thing. And you do this every year because five
years rolls on and so do those numbers. they can roll on to the next five and next five and never accomplish the goal. Um, I noticed how many of the funding sources don't recognize grants. Most of it comes from fees and I don't know and
I couldn't I don't think I can tell you other than just wild guess for the current number of users on sewer rates in Titusville if $10 million in building improvements are going to come down the pike some rates are probably
subject to increasing and the reason I bring this up last year I brought it up and I reiterated Titus's at a point where it's now at 51,000 I think I was preaching about it was going to 50,000 before and it did it exceeded it. Percentage went up to a percent and a
half of growth. Um that it's very much necessary that Titusle takes a proactive approach on grants administration. I asked that about does Titus have
dedicated folks that are seeking grants to offset those costs to the taxpayers or the rateayers when you have these huge not that 10 million's huge it is to me and if I'm a rateayer I would like to not pay any more rate than I had to. Uh
so grants may offset that. My point is that as we evaluate this as city council evaluates it. I think city council's got to look more aggressively at getting a grants administrative program here that can actively pursue offset cost
increments on a lot of these numbers that together do represent a pretty good chunk of change in five years of time for a smaller city. We are city because we're 51,000. Thank you. >> Well put member Chapman. >> Yes. I had a question actually uh
regarding 4.0 the val the E. Uh I saw in here that the Florida Commerce had completed its review. They had found some uh amendment conflicts. I was curious if you could elaborate on what those conflicts are and what are we doing to mitigate them or are we
>> Sure. That's related to Senate Bill 180 um not allowing additional restrictions uh more restrictive regulations. And so uh what the state found was that some of the proposed language was more restrictive and so it could not be adopted.
So currently right now our language I guess for the city is more restrictive and they're saying that they don't approve to adopt this because of the restrict uh that were more restrictive or >> uh the language in the ear is unrelated
to the CIE. Uh that was just provided as an update in related to planning in general. But um every seven years the city is required to pro to provide the state an ear an evaluation and appraisal report on how the city's comprehensive plan is doing and compare that to the
city's population. Uh we we transmitted to the state are proposed changes to the comp plan and several of the policies that were included the state found that were uh in violation of Senate Bill 180 that were too restrictive or were more restrictive
than what is currently adopted in the comprehensive plan. and so therefore could not be adopted at this time. And that's just a reminder the Senate Bill 180 is related to the hurricanes. Um and so it grants some additional time for uh communities to rebuild before any new addition uh more restrictive standards
are adopted. So with that uh I guess trying to understand so they're saying we're restricted but are we doing anything about that? Is that something within our ordinance that we're we're redoing because of Senate Bill 180?
>> At this time, those policies cannot be adopted and so we can move forward with adopting any of the other policies that were included in the year that were not deemed more restrictive. >> Okay. So, nothing that we're doing right now is going to be deemed more restrictive, I guess, compared to what was presented in their report.
>> There there were some policies that were not considered more restrictive. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, don't see any additional comments. Any, uh, cards on this? >> Stan Johnston. I'll open a public hearing for
>> My name is Stan Johnston and I've opposed this repeatedly the uh city budgeting because it is based on a false rest a false sustainability uh report that the city delivered. When I say a false report, I'm talking about
fraud. So what happened is is that uh um I went to department of human and I I'd like to have at least two two more minutes on this. This involves millions of dollars. This the city is is misspending millions
of dollars. So what happened is that uh I took this issue to uh uh department of human resources and uh um Brad admit admitted his guilt to this uh false report of sustainability. The
the report is called resilient 2019 and they admitted much information about storm water. And so, uh, I I, uh, gave to, uh, your clerk over here, uh, an email that I sent today to you guys.
I didn't get to you because I don't have your, um, email address, but, it's it say it's it's a request for the Department of Human Resources to to provide public records of disciplinary action on Brad and Edy Ed's false report on storm water. That's the
sustainability reports. And this is in parenthesis. I have cost you millions of dollars. Our city is out of control and dishonest. So what I'm saying is that what you have is is a budgeting that's based on false information. This is a big serious information and what I'm
doing is I'm I'm I'm uh approaching you as an expert witness. And uh uh what was added to it and delete then deleted again is this affidavit. This is done in 2018 by me. aid of gross negligence by some city
officials and city council on refusal by the city of Titusville to have ditches and floodways inspected and maintained for over 40 years. That has to do with this document here. This is the storm water management plan. The city hasn't been following it forever. And this was
in my uh so it's been 59 years and they're not following it. They're not spending the money that they're supposed to be on storm water and flooding. Flooding prevention. That's what this is. So what the city has is is we have a budget that ignores flooding, that
ignores storm water demands, that violates FDOT drainage design, that violates uh uh FEMA requirements, that violates our own storm water management plan. That's what you have. I don't approve it. It
should not be approved. I'm asking for two more minutes because this is a serious issue that I'd like to read a little bit of this to you. Anyone care to make a motion for two additional minutes? >> You should. No, >> you should let me have two minutes. >> No.
>> No. No. Thank you. Okay. Millions of dollars in this and you're not going to ignore it. So, anyhow, affid this is affidavit that uh gross negligence with some city officials and city council on refusal by the city of Tyville to have ditches and floodways inspected and maintained for over 40 years. It's now
up to 40 59 years. And this it says act have acted with gross neg negligence and so forth. >> So it shows that you don't want to have know about what's going on. It's a serious matter. Millions millions of dollars. >> Any additional cards? >> Misappropriated.
>> No sir. >> All right. With that I'll close the public hearing and bring it back. Um member child's >> I do have a question. So we're having that storm water thing tomorrow since he brought it up. Um,
is there um is there a possibility that we would change this based on, you know, feedback or input and from from the people and from city council because of the flooding that happened in October last year that we would update this and maybe throw a couple more million in
certain areas, you know? I mean, really, >> it's a good idea. Um the projects that are listed in the CIE in the attachment are projects from this fiscal year's budget which was approved last year. So anything that comes out of this workshop tomorrow evening would play into the
working into the next fiscal year's budget. >> I get it. So this is just from the approved budget from last year. This is how you're going to allocate it basically. >> Correct. This is demonstrating how the projects either maintain or increase our level of service for public facilities
to make sure that there's portable water, sanitary sewer, excuse me. Um how that there is uh adequate public facilities for continued development. >> And then if the city council wanted to um say we if they needed to throw some more money at it, say this year, they
would do a amended budget, whatever they call that. Um okay, correct. Thank you. Thank you. Um, seeing no additional questions, anyone care to make a motion, >> member child. >> Make a motion that we recommend approval
of the updated 5-year plan. >> Need a second. >> Second. >> Seconded by member Scully. Um, roll call vote, please. >> Member Gerard. >> Yes. >> Member Scully. Yes. >> Vice Chairman Childs. >> Yes.
>> Member Gellen. >> Yes. Member Troutman. >> Yes. >> Chairman Eton. >> Yes. >> That is unanimously approved. Um, does anybody need a break before we go on to
9C? >> I I say your piece now based on the fact that we're hour or two hours and 12 minutes in. Uh let's take a five minute break and uh we will come back to item 9C. Thank you.
All right. Um, for the video we are resuming after our break, which ended up being more than five minutes. So with that, um, we will move on to item 9 C on the agenda. Staff.
>> Thank you, chairman. Item 9 C, comprehensive plan amendment CPA number 2, 2025, Gemini Lakes, Royal Oak. >> Let the record stand on that last item. I kept my promise under two hours. >> You >> um Okay. The applicant, this is on page
54 of 456. The applicant, Robert Wolf, on behalf of the property owner, Royal Oaks, Florida LLC, formerly known as Tulon Apartments, is requesting to amend the city of Titusville comprehensive plan by changing the future land use designation of a 150 acre parcel known as the Royal
Oak Golf Course located at Country Club Drive, south of Harrison Street and north of Knox McRay Drive. The applicant is requesting to change the future land use map designation from the recreational and conservation designations to the lowdensity res
residential designation. The state of Florida requires that any comprehensive plan amendment request which is larger than what would be allowed to be considered as a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment first must be transmitted to the state for review by any relevant state agencies. If transmitt of the request is
approved, the state will will review the request and provide a report with any objections, recommendations, and comments to the city within 60 days. Once the state response has been received and addressed, new hearing dates will be scheduled to consider the adoption of the request with both the
planning and zoning commission and the city council. The the application includes a request to reszone the property from the general use GU and open space and recreation O zoning districts to the plan development PD with a master plan. It is anticipated
adoption hearings for the comprehensive plan amendment and resoning will be scheduled in the spring of 2026. If if adopted then the PD zoning district and master plan will govern the development of the property. The applicant is proposing to develop a
residential subdivision with 511 detached single family and townhouse townhouse, excuse me, townhouse lots, open space and recreation, and a redesigned storm water system. The applicant provided a revised concept plan on January 15th, 2026 with changes
to address comments received from the public during their most recent community engagement meeting. The revised plan retains the layout of the previous plan, but reduces the number of town home units and adds a large central lake next to the central park and clubhouse. With this latest concept
plan, the total number of proposed residential units has been reduced from 547 to 511, a residential density of 3.47 dwelling units per acre. The staff's report does not address the changes received on January 15th.
The city council will hold the transmitt public hearing on February 10th, 2026. Enclosed for the commission's review are the applications, a narrative, maps, including the comprehensive plan, land use map amendment, the master plan, and environmental concurrency and traffic reports. The deed, title report, and
operating agreements are on file. Uh, I'll begin by pointing you to page 58. 58 is property information. So we'll just cover the existing use of the property. It was formerly a golf course which is not currently in operation. The
future land use designations on the property are recreational and conservation. Generally the conservation is where the ponds are and the recreational is the uplands. The zoning on the property uh where the future land use designation is recreational. The
zoning to match that is general use GU which allows a density of one dwelling unit per three acres. and the conservation the zoning is open space and recreation o which allows it a density of one dwelling unit per five acre. So that's the current entitlement
on the property. What the applicant proposes is the future land use designation change to lowdensity residential which allows a maximum of five dwelling units per acre. Although that would be tied with the zoning, the plan development, the PD master plan and conditions which would limit it to the
511 residential lots. On the next page, it's the surrounding property information. And you can see that the uses are generally um the uses surrounding the subject property are generally single family, residential, detached homes as well as condominiums
and town homes. The future land use designations that are surrounding the subject property, lowdensity residential, highdensity residential, and there is some commercial high intensity. and the zoning surrounding the subject property generally single family medium density R1B multif family
medium density R3 and there is some community commercial CC on page 60 is some general information that I'll read the applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment and resoning to a plan development with master plan to develop approximately
147 acres of vacant property which previously served as a Royal Golf Course The requested plan development proposes a maximum of 500 511 dwelling units, which equates to a residential density of 3.8 units per acre. In comparison, the most common single family
residential zoning district adjacent to the subject property is the medium density residential R1B zoning district, which allows a greater maximum residential density at five units per acre. The housing typologies proposed include single family residences,
detached town homes, and villas. The estimated population from the development as proposed on the master plan is 1,229 residents. Land use. The city adopted its f first land use map in 1988. At that time, the entirety of the
subject property was assigned to the recreational land use designation. In 1992, the land use designation on the property was amended to add the conservation land use to the golf course ponds throughout the site and to replace the recreational land use designation on the portion of the site of the former
clubhouse amenity and their surrounding property generally located northwest of Country Club Drive with the residential land use designation. The city could study the issue, determine its options, and develop a small area or neighborhood community plan consistent with comprehensive plan
future land use element objective 1.1 and policies 1.1.2 through 1.1.4. A typical plan could identify the issues and proposed remedies that align with the city's goals. These may include ways to preserve the status quo or provide allowances for redevelopment within
established parameters. Zoning. The site first appears as incorporated within the city limits in the city's zoning map dated December 12th, 1968. At the time, the property was primarily zoned general use, GU. While the site of the former clubhouse amenity and the
surrounding property, generally located northwest of Country Club Drive, was zoned tourist T. In 1993, with the citywide reszoning of ordinance 5193, most of the property remained in the GU zoning district. However, the open space and recreation zoning district was
applied to the golf course ponds throughout the site and the property along Country Club Drive, previously zoned tourist, was reszoned to highdensity multif family R3. The city completed a brief study of the golf course in 2017. The city adopted a
moratorum to research the issue and better understand the conditions of the Royal Oak Golf Course. The result was a draft ordinance to establish a golf course overlay. The overlay required a master plan with specific conditions in the event a permit was submitted for redevelopment or to subdivide the
property. The ordinance was ultimately not adopted. Master plan. The city will need to consider issues related to drainage, traffic, access management, recreational amenities, and the scale and compatibility with the surrounding built development. The master plan includes
single family lots, town home lots, and villas. On page 61 under future land use map amendment sprawl criteria number three, the extent to which adequate infrastructure to accommodate the
proposed amendment exists or is programmed and funded through an adopted capital improvement schedule or will be privately financed through a binding executed agreement or will otherwise be provided at the time of development impacts as required by law. And the
staff comment reads, "Roads, reclaimed water, portable water, and sewer infrastructure are present throughout the Royal Oak subdivision and will have to be extended into the current golf course in order to support the proposed development. The preliminary concurrency evaluation provided by the Bvard County
School Board states that currently there is adequate capacity available at Apollo and Coina Elementary School, Jackson Middle, and Titusville High School. As with all preliminary concurrency reviews, a final evaluation will be completed prior to construction of any
development of the site. The traffic analysis completed by Kimley Horn included a school operational analysis in response to concerns expressed by the community. The analysis concluded that the intersection of Park Avenue and Country Club Drive operates with acceptable
levels of service with volume to capa capacity ratios of less than one buildout in 2027 morning and afternoon peak hour conditions. On page 63 describes a consistency with the comprehensive plan.
There are several policies. Future land use element policy 1.1.3 says the city shall promote single family development and redevelopment by restricting the proliferation of multif family dwellings within neighborhoods such as the Indian River City subdivision area which have developed
primarily with traditional detached lowdensity single family dwelling units on individual lots. The staff comment reads, "The future land use designations on the surrounding properties are primarily lowdensity residential and highdensity residential. The proposed master plan only includes single family
residential housing typologies, single family detached, town home and villas, and the master plan is binding unless amended through the public hearing process. Future land use policy 175 says the city shall encourage the establishment of residential, retail, office, and civic uses within a quarter
mile of neighborhood centers as an effective way to reduce vehicular trips and promote transit, walking, and bicycling. The staff comment reads, "The proposed subdivision does not include a variety of uses and will create a large swath of residential land use. However, the subject property is bounded by commercial nodes at two adjacent
collector intersections, Barna Avenue and Harrison Street to the north and Barna Avenue and Knox Mcray Drive to the south. The proposed trail and roadway network will provide additional connectivity between the existing surrounding neighborhood and these commercial nodes. Future land use
element policy 178 says a development must be readily accessible to infrastructure services and public facilities to be designated as infill development. Staff comment reads as noted above the subject properties are readily readily available to existing infrastructure serving the Royal Oak development.
Future land use element uh objective 114 residential land use says the city of Titusville shall provide for appropriate and adequate land for residential land use through the designation of residential one, residential 2, lowdensity residential, medium density residential, and highdensity residential
on the future land use map to provide for a variety of housing opportunities and locations. The staff comment reads, "The requested land use will provide for a variety of housing opportunities and locations. It will allow for the single family housing typologies proposed in the binding master plan and plan
development in the current request. And lastly, future land use element policy 1141 states sites for residential de development shall be located throughout the city in a variety of res residential zoning classifications which provide for a variety of lot sizes, floor areas,
setbacks, and residential densities. The staff comment reads, "The request is to apply the lowdensity residential to a portion of the future land use map which is currently recreational and is generally surrounded by lowdensity residential and highdensity residential. In general, there are more areas in the
lowdensity residential, future land use designation throughout the city and approval of the request would would increase this mix. On page 66, there's a future land use element strategy. I wanted to point out
1162.1 which says when conservation land use is present on a specific site, a property owner shall submit a preliminary environmental assessment including a wetland delineation when wetlands are present prior to any future development. If the environmental assessment indicates that only wetlands are present
and the wetlands are to be preserved rather than mitigated, the city shall accept the wetland delineation and amend the future land use map to align the conservation land use with that delineation. The staff comment reads, "The environmental study submitted by the applicant does not identify any jurisdictional wetlands on the site. The
areas designated as conservation are storm water retention that are exempt from the wetland and natural surface water criteria in Florida administrative code. Specifically, this grants an exemption from the application of state water quality standards set forth in Florida administrative code to works, empoundments, reservoirs, and other
water courses and use of for storm water constructed before a permit was required as is the case for the on-site ponds. Further, based on the lack of wetlands and permanent downstream hydraological connections, waters of the United States are not present on site. As well, the
following strategy 11622 says, "When conservation land use is present on a specific site, a property owner shall submit a preliminary environmental assessment, including a wetland delineation while wetlands are present, prior to any future development. If the environmental assessment states that any state or
federal listed wildlife are present within the areas of the site that are designated as conservation land use, the city shall not amend the conservation land use until the property owner submits an environmental study which confirms the presence and potential locations of the state and or federalist wildlife species. If the study
identifies a location or locations on the site for suitable habitat for preservation and these areas are accepted by the permitting agencies as preservation for the identified species, then the city shall amend the conservation land use to include these areas. The environmental study submitted by the applicant does not identify any
jurisdictional wetlands on the site. The areas designated as conservation are storm water retentions that are exempt from the wetlands and natural surface water criteria and for administrative code specifically exempting the works empoundments reservoirs and other water courses and use for storm water treatment downstream as is the case
further based on the lack of wetlands permanent downstream hydraological connections waters of the United States are not present on site permitted uses within the conservation land use shall be limited to residential uses for of one unit per five acres conservation, recreation, open space and
storm water management systems consistent with the policies of the conservation element and the land development regulations. The subject properties are internal to an approved subdivision and the areas designated as conservation were developed and utilized for storm water management as permitted by this policy.
And last on page 68, the staff recommendation uh is two options. The first is to transmit the amendment to the state land planning agency which is currently Florida Commerce as proposed to replace the recreational conservation future land use designations with the lowdensity
residential future land use designation or two do not transmit the amendment and direct staff to initiate a small area study to guide the redevelopment of this area. So I'd like to take a second to describe the process in a big stroke big picture. Um because this is not a small
scale amendment which is the application that we more we see more often because it's for smaller properties. Um this requires state review if it were to be adopted. So for a full scale or a regular comprehensive plan amendment.
The process is um once staff has completed a staff review for transmitted planning and zoning commission for a recommendation. And just a reminder to those who are participating in this process for maybe the first time or not familiar with it, tonight's decision is not a binding decision. It's a recommendation to city council who will
ultimately make the decision on whether to transmit this application forward to the state for review. And even at that stage, that is not a a final decision on whether um the land use gets changed. that is should we send this application to the state to provide comments on
whether to move forward um addressing any concerns that the state may have that's FDA FD all the state agencies FDOT being uh the Florida Department of Transportation or the Florida Department of Environmental Protection they all get a chance to review this application and
provide their feedback. So, at tonight's uh meeting, what we're asking for you is to provide a recommendation. Should the should city council approve sending this to the state or should city council instead deny the request and move forward with a small area study
examining uh the neighborhood and trying to come up with something um prescriptive that would be adopted in our code for future applicants. uh as what was done in similarly what was done in 2017 but ultimately not adopted. Um, if
council approves moving forward with transmitting to the state, the state will have 60 days to provide their comments and then we will schedule new hearing dates where the planning and zoning commission will hear an adopt we'll have an adoption hearing and we'll review in greater detail um the the
master plan and the recommendation at that point will be whether or not to adopt that land use change. no longer just whether to transmit to the state and and get some feedback from the state and then city council will make that ultimate decision. And again, at this time, if that were to move forward, we'd
expect that in the spring of 2026. Um, with that, I have a couple page references in case you'd like to follow along. Uh we have the concept plan, the most current concept plan because we did receive a new one uh last week on page
95. And the biggest change was the addition of a large central storm pond um just east of the uh clubhouse amenity along country club.
And then the traffic study is available on page 314 and the environmental report available on page 260 and the pesticide report available on page 297. I know the applicant has a presentation
prepared for you as well and um many public members of the public would like to speak. So with that I I'll end my presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um before I open the public hearing and we have any comments or questions? Member Grod,
>> one question for Steph. Eddie, when you were overviewing this, you mentioned the alternatives we have to doing a small area study and you mentioned that they had done similar was not finally approved. Um, in the case of your
comment too that you had a prescription of development criteria that would be developed hopefully from this small area study that would in turn not be a comprehensive plan amendment. It would be a study that would then be integrated into whatever future comprehensive plan
amendment and reasonzoning request would come from lacking that template. For example, using your flu policy 175 on page 63. You speak about encouraging establishment of retail office civic
uses within a quarter mile. I kind of look quickly at a map and I kind of came to the conclusion if you were walking from using a point of reference the old clubhouse since most of it's been raised um that's more than a quarter of a mile to the nearest any commercial whatsoever
convenience store on on Knox McGra or no Park Avenue at Royal Oak if you were to try to walk to the uh Wind Dixie it would be far greater than the quarter mile. So the idea would be that a template of design criteria would be adopted and then an applicant for a
comprehensive plan amendment, a reasonzoning for a planned community would then model that plan based on those criteria. For example, incorporating what you reported is not in this plan, that type of neighborhood commercial that enhances walkability. So
it's like a glove you fit the hand into, so to speak. >> Yes, sir. That's right. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else have any questions? Otherwise, all right, I'll open the public hearing and uh hear from the applicant, please.
Thank you. Good evening, chairman, members of the planning and zoning commission. My name is Kim Rosena with the law firm of Lacian Reszena. I'm here tonight on behalf of both the owner of the property and the applicant um who is the applicant and the potential buyer,
Culture Homes. I'm here on behalf of both of them. This is, as you know, a comprehensive plan amendment for 147 acres. What I provided to you is just the PowerPoint that will be presented that the audience will see, but you have the opportunity to write on the PowerPoints and we weren't sure if you have would have laptops and I've also
provided to you the resumeumés of the professionals that have been working on this project so they can answer questions or present as necessary and they've also signed cards. But the uh main presenter tonight will be Josh Long. He is an AICP planner with 25
years of experience. He is the uh first one in the um packet that I provided to you. Also here is uh Bruce Moya with MBV Engineering, the engineer of record, James Taylor, the traffic engineer, and
Tim Maslin, the environmental consultant, uh the landscape design, we did not bring along because this is a comp plan amendment only. and uh Jeff Robinson who is a commercial and residential appraiser. We did not bring him for this because again this is
asking for low density residential. And with that I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Long. Thank you. Uh, good evening. While they put the presentation up, I'm Josh Long. Um, as Kim mentioned, I'm ASAP planner. I'm with Culture 105 Northeast First, Delray
Beach, Florida is our corporate address. >> I will speak much closer. Sorry about that. Uh, once again, for the record, Josh Long with Culture. Um so let's get this working here. So as Kim mentioned, you know, here's a slide that just shows um our development
team in the years of experience. Um as you can see from the uh the cumulative years, this team has a cumulative total of 180 years of experience. And we put that up there because you're going to hear um certain testimony um or comments
from the public later about the um the questionability and the and the quality of the reports that have come from this team. And just want to let you know that this is a very seasoned team with um literally dozens if not hundreds of uh developments under their belt um over
the decades. The other important thing to mention is that you know we filed three applications um with the city. Uh the only application that is on the agenda tonight is the comprehensive plan map amendment. Eddie did a good job of explaining the process. Um but we are
not talking about the plan development um or the resoning with the master plan or the sketch plat that we um submitted. So just a a quick overview of the history of Gemini um lakes. Uh the Royal Oak Golf Course closed approximately in
uh 2012 and then Reed Property Group, also known as Tuland Apartments um purchased the property in 20122. Um Reed Property then filed a pre-application um to the city for 1,037
units um back on um March or April 11th of 2023. Um after that was uh not received very well, uh they decided that they needed to find um a developer in Florida with experience. And so they reached out for
one of the the top developers in Florida and they found Culture. And then uh Culture entered into a um PSA with them in October of 23. And then um in November of 23 is when um I got brought
in and uh right from the beginning I I reached out to um the neighborhood leaders um to hear what the issues were and told them that we were going to essentially start over. Um, Culture was going to do a series of neighborhood outreach meetings um to understand what
the issues with the neighborhood were um and what we could do to design a plan that could you know work um for this very difficult situation of of removing a u a defunct golf course. So we started with um our first meeting at Lita Golf
Course on January 11th, 2024. Um, this was anformational gather meeting, meaning we had all of our consultants there. We had our traffic engineer, civil, environmental expert. Um, everybody was there at their own table simply gathering information. Um, and we
had 159 attendees um, attend that meeting. Um, gathered dozens of comments. Um, we then went to the drawing board and tried to come up with the best plan that we could that could be built. um and also provide as many
public benefits and services to the neighborhood as possible. Um we then unveiled that plan at a um a typical theater type presentation at the Grove Church um on April 29th, 2024 where we had 152 attendees. Um we gave a formal
presentation, a PowerPoint presentation where we identified um the key issues from the survey that we handed out. um essentially trying to address every single comment that was received back in December. Uh we had all of our
development consultants there, all of our engineers, traffic experts, they were all there to provide their expert testimony as to why um certain issues had been resolved or certain issues were not an issue based on their own professional opinion or studies or
reports that they had done. Um, so we had that meeting in April um of 24. Um, we then had to go back and um work on some things contractually with the property owner um and were able to finally um uh submit the actual
applications, the three applications that I mentioned earlier um on March of 25. Um we then started in through the process um you know discussing with staff hearing comments um on issues from the uh the submittal that we had making
more tweaks going back and forth. Um and then uh eventually we had our third neighborhood meeting which just occurred on January 8th of 2026. Um this was another type of the meeting where we had all of our consultants at different tables to uh answer questions particular
to uh whatever specific um trade or issue that um the neighbors had. And at that meeting we had 80 attendees. Um so over the course of the you know year and a half of the outreach meetings because we've been keeping um signin sheets um
we've had over we've had 289 unique neighbors attend meaning the unique um person there are several that have come to all three some have come to just two of them. Uh this number is higher because some came and didn't want to give us their name which is fine but you know the people that were able to sign
in we had 289 unique neighbors. So that's the outreach that we have uh employed for this particular project. Just wanted to give a little history on the outreach. Um and this doesn't account for the the dozens of personal meetings that I've had with neighbors,
with business owners, with staff, you know, always constantly working and trying to tweak the plan. So the request before you today, a large scale future land use map amendment. It's 147.13 acres. from the existing land use as recreation conservation and proposed
land use is a low density with a maximum five density units an acre. So here's a little slide about the neighborhood data just some raw data to in an overview of the actual area. Um on the on the left you have our project um
highlighted in red with the um surrounding neighborhood um just an aerial kind of showing the existing development pattern for the neighborhood. And then over on the right there's two different tables. Um the the first table is the Royal Oak neighborhood which we're calling
essentially the the area. Um, it's comprised of 264.92 acres um for 1,153 units at a density of 4.35 density units an acre. Um, they do have 11.39 acres of
lakes. Um, they do not have any public parks. Um, and so that 264 acres, that's the 14 um residential subdivisions, the Royal Oak subdivisions 1 2 3 4 5 and there's been several of them. Um and then there are 32 individual either town
home or condo buildings that were built that are adjacent to the golf course. So that collectively is the Royal Lope neighborhood. Um and then you have our project adjacent to it which shows a little bit of comparison. Um our project is 147 acres. Um we're offering 511
units which is a 3.47 density units an acre. Um we have 26.69 acres of lake. Um, currently on site it's only 17.23. So, we're adding an additional nine and a half acres of lake to deal with drainage and storage issues. Uh, and we
have multiple parks which I'm going to go into detail during the public benefit section in a second. So, here's just a a quick shot of the existing land use. U Eddie did a really good job of going through um all of these. So, I'll go through quickly on these slides because I don't want to,
you know, waste everybody's time. Um, so here's the proposed land use of five density units an acre. This is a side by side of the two. Um, and then also I I uh was not aware that Eddie was going to go through all of the um urban sprawl in the comp plan policies. He did a great
job of that. So I I will just kind of, you know, reiterate that um city staff did not find that the application would encourage sprawl. That's a very key item here. And then with the actual policies, you know, staff had positive findings for our policies which are listed below
which listed on the screen. But once again, Eddie did cover those. We do agree with staff's findings. So I can just skip through those and then we get to the conceptual master plan. And you know with a large-scale map amendment um because we did submit a
conceptual master plan it is considered um and what that means uh is the 511 units and the configuration the interconnectivity all the general big picture type items are are binding to the land use even though we're we're
asking for five units an acre um because we're we're we we submitted a conceptual master plan um the 511 the 3.47 47 density units an acre is actually what we're we're asking for. Um if we wanted to come in and do four or four and a
half or five, we would have to come back and go through the process again. That's how the the city's comp plan um large scale process is um is outlined. So just to kind of go through this and highlight some of the key issues, um you know, once again, we have 147 acres at a 3.47
density units an acre. Those 511 units, they're diverse because that's encouraged in the code. So we have 251 of them are single family and we also have diversity in that. We have 50 foot wide lots and we have 60 foot wide lots. We then have 154 town homes which are 20
foot wide lot and then 160 160 or I'm sorry 106 villas. Um and a villa is a one-story product 37 1/2 ft lot but they share one common wall. So it's it's only one story tall. It essentially has a profile of a ranch house is what it
looks like. So, um, also key important parts of this, and this goes to the, uh, the outreach meetings that we had in trying to provide public benefits to the neighborhood, is that, you know, we were providing six different vehicular, um,
access points at the project for vehicular traffic. And we have eight pedestrian access points for interconnectivity to the existing um residential neighborhoods because that's an important part of what we're offering here is we we've designed an interior
park system that will be open to the public through prescriptive easements that we'll work out through the um the PD ordinance. So, we're going to invite and always allow the adjacent public that the neighbors next to us to come in to use our green trail system, which is
about three and a half miles of sidewalks um interconnected to our park system. And we'll provide public easement through the the PD process to ensure that those adjacent neighborhoods have access. And if you remember the
previous slide, there are no existing um public parks in any of those neighborhoods. So this is providing a public benefit that is is missing in the area. So the the park system that we've outlined um it it's centered around essentially the the heart of the project
right in the middle. Um, one comment that came from the the meetings that we had that was a surprise to us and this is why we went through the process um was people didn't miss the golf, they missed the clubhouse. They they had fond memories of years at the clubhouse, people coming, you know, their kids
going swimming, having parties, playing cards, doing all those things. And so we made a decision at at Culture is like, let's bring back the clubhouse and we'll make it a semi-private clubhouse. And how we will regulate that is through the master POA. And because I already
identified the 14 platted subdivisions and the 32 town home and condominium buildings, we'll have it in our documents that if you own a own a house in any of those, you have the ability to join at your own discretion. It won't be a forced membership. You have it the ability to join um the club. So, you can
come use the pool and the other amenities. Um, and directly adjacent to the club that you see right in the center is is what we're calling the central park. It it's a an open space that was left open on purpose. It's it's a multi-programming space where you
could have a Fourth of July celebration. You could have an Easter egg hop. You could have all kinds of different uses there because it was open. You'll have gazeos around in there. But it's allowed it's allowed for people to come in and to be able to use that space, fly kites,
do other things. And a new feature that we have is we added a um a two a 2 and a half acre lake right there adjacent to the central park. So that's right there in country club drive. And then as you go through the community um remember you have the interconnected points. We have
you know one large playground which is a larger where you'll have the typical larger playground equipment. Um, we have two dog parks, one on the north side and one on the south side because we know people love their dogs and this there are no dog parks in the area. So, these would be the fence dog parks where you'd have little, you know, ramps and and
things for the dogs to do for the neighbors to sit to to talk with each other. Again, uh we have two tots, one tot lot on the north and one tot lot on the south. Once again, for those young families that want to have little kids in a controlled environment where their children can play. Um, and then we have
passive parks. So, we because we added so many more lakes and because we're for the first time allowing the public onto the property because right now, you remember it was a golf course which is a private use. You had to pay to go play. Um it and so now we're allowing we're
bringing the public in through the prescriptive easements that we're going to provide. And we're going to have passive parks um scattered throughout where we'll have benches where people can look over the lakes, they can walk along the lakes. All of this open. none of this provided currently um in in the
current situation. Um also another important feature which is hard at this scale but because we were sensitive um that those residents that um bought a property adjacent to the golf course which is now going has gone away um they
have a view of green. So what we we um provided is a a specific 20 foot wide landscape buffer that's separate from the lots. it's not part of the lot. So the 20 foot landscape buffer is directly behind those lots averaging, you know,
between three to four hardwood trees, you know, as it's scattered along with a a shrub as well. Then you get into the actual platted lots. So you have um a 20ft landscape buffer and that is maintained by the POA is completely separate to provide more additional green behind those those houses that um
were adjacent to the golf course. That's another public benefit that we provided. Um, and so with that, um, you know, we will go ahead and, um, you know, sit and wait for questions. Our, like, uh, Kim said, the rest of our team is here, so
um, we're happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. >> Any questions for the applicant from um, I had one question as it related to trees. Has there been any calculations as far as net trees as far
as are you taking out trees, adding trees? What's kind of the net of pluses and >> so we as part of the the plan development, the reasonzoning application, we submitted a a tree survey and a a landscape plan. uh the
the number has been calculated and if you have in your packet there's you know it identifies the trees that are going to be taken out. Um it also identifies the number of tree I know it's 1.9 million or square feet of of new canopy that
we're providing with all the new trees. So the the total canopy is going to be greater than what's there today at the >> hold comments please. >> Yeah. Um, and then as it relates to the uh
landscape buffers that you mentioned, um, who maintains those long term? >> The POA, the master POA. Yes. >> Member Gar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, staff, a question for you, Eddie. The transmitt
of the comprehensive plan amendment, as Mr. long introduced this. This is only a comprehensive plan amendment for seeking transmitt as opposed to examining the PUD or examining the site plan or examining the details. In the transmitt assumes that the state's going to
evaluate it based on the city's comprehensive plan and the state's comprehensive plan and if it's acceptable, they approve it. There is no plan per se that they're approving. They're approving densities, intensities, and other matters. that the
plan could modify itself after that comprehensive plan was approved by the state. >> The state is only going to respond with if they have any objections to a state interest as far as this amendment. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um first card, please. Uh, Cody Spar. >> Hey, how's everybody doing tonight? I'm Cody Spar. So, just come up here to say a couple things real quick. Um, so
obviously we know golf courses are kind of going downhill rapid rate. They're not making any money. So, what's the best option? We have enough parks here. Well, actually, I sold this property originally probably five years ago. I actually reached out to the city and the county.
Neither party wanted to purchase it. They said they had too many parks already. Um, so really the next best thing is development. Um, everybody wants new restaurants, shopping, all of the above. So, got to bring in new
revenue, new homes, new people. So that's pretty much it. But I I think it's a beautiful plan. And everybody here ain't going to agree with me, but >> it's a beautiful plan.
>> They all probably said the same thing when people developed out Royal Oak back in the day. Everybody was probably mad about that. So >> thank you. That's it. >> Next card. Please, >> please hold your comments.
Next card, please. >> Kathleen Oor. >> All right. >> Dr. Kathleen O, Tatisville resident. You're all experts in planning and zoning. I'm not, or at least I wasn't in
before this process began, but I am an epidemiologist. I'm trained to evaluate complex systems, assess risk, and weigh costs and benefit at the population level. Over the past several months, I've spent many hours learning how planning and zoning decisions affect
communities. From that perspective, I want to offer clear and disciplined assessment of this request. First, the president presentation by this applicant this evening was essentially a waste of our time. The he spoke at length about
what he intends to build and how he claims to respond to community feedback. This is the type of presentation you make when you're seeking approval for a specific plan. That is not what is before you tonight. The applicant has said they wanted community input. You
received it and that input is clear. The community does not support reszoning of this property. You can see that for yourself by just looking around this room and the fact that we're already moved back downstairs. The applicant is asking for a transmitt
to forward a request for a comprehensive plan amendment, a legislature action that permanently authorizes development intensity. Once transmitted, the city signals that this change is appropriate to advance. This is not a neutral act
and it creates reliance interests and legal risks if the city later attempts to reverse the course. Although not illegal, this proposal in my mind has the process backwards. A responsible development begins with a specific
well-defined plan that's presented to the community for meaningful input, refined as needed, and only then brought forward for a land use change. Here, the city is being asked to change land use first and rely on trust. Given that the
applicant's marketing materials did not match the only plan actually submitted, trust has not been earned and trust is not a sufficient basis for this decision. Unless you are comfortable recommending a change that allows the removal of every single oak tree,
permits buildings up to 50 feet tall with minimal sendbacks and authorizes density far greater than this community can absorb. You should reject this request. asked the applicant to return with a real plan first, not a blank check that could cause irre reversible
harm to the Royal Oak community and to our city. Thank you. >> Next card, please. >> K St. Orange K St. Anil Avenue. First to answer Mr. Anton's question, as this is a
residential subdivision, it would be required to have 25% of the developable area in tree canopy per the tree protection ordinance of 2021. In staff's report on page 57 of your packet, as mentioned previously, staff provides two
actions for your consideration as alternatives to transmitting this application to the state. The second alternative action you might recommend to council reads, quote, "Do not transmit the amendment and direct staff
to initiate a small area study to guide the redevelopment of this area." On page 60, staff again suggests, quote, "The city could study the issue, determine its options, and develop a small area or neighborhood community
plan consistent with the comp plan future land use element objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.2 through 1.1.4. A typical plan, staff says, could identify the issue and propose remedies that align with city's goals. These may
include ways to preserve the status quo or provide allowances for redevelopment within established parameters. End quote. Recommend staff suggested alternative action. Recommend to council the development of a neighborhood plan
for these 150 acres that aligns with the city's goals. For instance, a stormwater park like Chain of Lakes Park, which would reduce flooding and benefit the lagoon. As council member Moscoso stated in a news article in 111125,
quote, Titusville is growing, but that growth cannot come at the expense of the people who already live here. When we evaluate new developments, we have to look at the entire picture and the real world consequences for residents.
Responsible growth means protecting our community, not overwhelming it. End quote. Our community is already overwhelmed with 6,000 units being built. Clogged ditches, flood homes, portable water is inadequate. Traffic
issues mount. Gemini Lakes 511 units will tip the scales. recommend denial of change in future land use and recommend denial of transmitt to the state. Develop a neighborhood plan aligned with the city's goals as per the
comprehensive plan. Thank you. >> Next card, please. >> Elizabeth Baker. Elizabeth Parker Trevino Circle again. Hello. Thank you for being here and listening to all of us. Uh quick point counterpoint to the developer. This is
not infill. There is no infrastructure on this property. Infill requires existing infrastructure. Further the tree canopy gone. This is the developer's plan. nothing left. Uh moving on from that,
they also said there are no wetlands. I would say that uh the Fish and Wildlife Service map, which is a official map, would argue that every one of these lakes is a wetland. Anybody can go online, find it. It's
there. Uh going forward from that uh this is a discussion of whether we are going to send a future land usage map change to the state and I obviously
object to that. I don't think we should because as Kathleen said we're looking at the maximum development potential available once that comes back as residential. All it takes is one more small step change and we're looking at a
live local act property. This property uh first of all this this action is not even properly noticed. Should have been a 7-day notice. It was not. Should have been 10 days advertised. It was not. So, we shouldn't even be standing here
discussing this tonight because it's not been properly met. And additionally, the developers meetings as per their own evidence never discussed the change to the future land use map, which is the entire purpose of those meetings. So,
they failed to meet the requirements to even be here tonight. Moving on from that, residential zoning. Uh, they're saying this is single family low density. Single family low density. minimum lot size according to our standards is
10,000 square feet. Not one of their lots is going to be 10,000 square feet. We're looking at three homes as a minimum behind every single family home. And what they're calling single family homes are duplexes from my understanding. Regardless, we're not talking about their plan. If we were,
we'd have to talk about net density, which omits wetlands, omits um habitat and uh considers FEMA flood zones of which there are a number of AE flood zones, approximately 40% of this property, which I believe the city is
deed that property anyway. Bringing me to the next point, which is the public already has access. We own the conservation area and the public is already accessing it. It does not belong to Tuon as far as I know. Finally, we have an area of critical concern to the
south and in order for anybody to develop this property, they have to protect our aquifer. That entails addressing um sorry, could I just state the chapters? >> How long will that take?
>> Um maybe another minute and a half. >> Does anyone make a motion for an additional minute and a half? Sure. I'll make a motion. >> You have a second. >> Thank you. >> Um, according to what I've understand, um, chapter 30, article 3, division 6,
aquifer prediction, subdivision 2, areas of critical critical concerns, sections 30-261 to 30-266, impervious system excavation restrictions, storm water facilities, basins, boundaries. uh chapter 30
article 2 sections 30-31 and 30-4 230-40 tree and vegetation protection requires canopy preservation chapter 30 article 3 division 5 erosion control and natural topography protection prohibits excessive grading.
Chapter 30 article five flood damage prevention overlaps for flood plane aquifer integration. Chapter 33, plan development allows flexibility but has to protect a the area of critical concern. Chapter 35, environmental
protection proposed or historical. All right, I'm done. But there are still two more. Um, development review procedures and storm water management manual. >> Thank you for listening. >> Next card, please. >> Jill Dobson.
Speak louder. We can't hear you. >> Good evening, >> chair and members of planning and zoning commission. My name is Jill Dobson and I'm a Titusville resident. My concern is this misleading density calculations and some of which you've just heard tonight.
Again, the request hinges on whether the development intensity being proposed is truly considered a low density residential designation. The Royal Oak property owner is requesting a transmittal change the to the future
land use designation to low density residential which allows a maximum of five dwelling units per acre. However, even the developer's revised plan of 511 units, the development exceeds that
threshold and when calculated using standards density methodology at that scale, this is functionally a medium density development inconsistent and uncharacteristic with the surrounding predominantly R-1B
community and is inconsistent with the lowdensity residential designation being requested. The density figures provide that provided by the developer so far rely on dividing the total number of units by nearly the entire 146 or 47
acre golf course footprint. That approach is misleading. Current standards require non-buildable areas including storm water retention areas, easements, streets, and required infrastructure to be excluded from that
density calculation. When preliminary data is this misleading, it raises serious questions about the u reliability of the analysis being res presented. At this transmitt stage, your role is to advise the city of whether
this permanent permanent conser comprehensive plan amendment is is reasonable, lawful, and supported by adequate data and analysis under Florida statute 163.3177 6H1.B
be unresolved density infrastructure, storm water easement, and worstcase development issues should be addressed before transmitt. This is not the appropriate time to advance this request. The request should
be denied. There are issues in this room obviously that have not been resolved tonight. Thank you. >> Next card, please. Elizabeth Parker. >> That was Elizabeth Barker before. >> Elizabeth Baker.
>> Making sure you got the right person. >> Good evening, members of the commission here. My name is Elizabeth and I'm a Titusville resident. I want to be very clear tonight and I think you guys are too about the decision before you and that is because
the future land use changes are often described as modest, flexible or something that can just be adjusted later and that framing is inaccurate. You've seen the developer present a vision for the Royal Oak property and while it may look detailed, it is not
what you're being asked to decide. Your recommendation tonight is not about what the applicant says they intend to build. It's about what becomes legally permissible if this future land use is changed and approved. The applicant is requesting a future
land use amendment which mo is mo the most permanent land use decision the city can make. Once adopted establishes the maximum development intensity allowed on this property. The authorization does not expire and is not limited by conceptual plans, marketing
materials, or verbal assurances. The commission is required to evaluate this request based on worstcase development potential allowed under the proposed designation, not bested intentions. Once a future land use change is
approved, all future zoning and site plan decisions must be evaluated against what against the designation permits. You may hear details that can be worked out later during zoning or site plan review, but those later processes do not undo or reduce development rights
permanently granted by a future land use amendment. For that reason, the critical question before you is whether the full development potential allowed under the requested designation would be acceptable on this site given the existing conditions and the surrounding
neighborhood. If the answer to that question is no, even if the applicant does not currently intend to build that m to the maximum, then the responsible and legally sound course is to recommend against approval of this future land use amendment. Thank
you very much for your time and for your service. >> Thank you. Next card, please. >> Seth Adams. All right. Thank you uh for letting me speak
tonight. Um my name is Seth Adams. I live in the Royal Oak neighborhood. Uh this is a very similar uh thing that Elizabeth just uh said. When considering a future land use change, the city's required to evaluate not just the concept shown tonight, but the full
development potential that the that the designation would legally allow. This is not an approval of a site plan or a design concept. It is an approval of legal entitlement. If the applicant wanted to to the city to to evaluate a specific development proposal, the
proper first step would have been to submit an application tied to an actual site plan. Instead, the request before you is a future land use change which must be evaluated based on what it allows and not what is being described. A future land used exation authorizes
what is permitted on the land, not what is promised. That authorization runs with the land. It is not tied to this develop or this proposal or the asurances offered today. Under the current designation, this property functions as an open space. It
has no residential buildout, no vertical massing, no development pattern comparable to the surrounding neighborhoods. The Royal Oak area is characterized by single family homes, one to two stories in height with larger lots, meaningful setbacks, private yards, and a mature tree canopy. Under
the requested future land use change, that frame framework changes entirely. The designation will allow a mix of attached single family units, town homes, multiple family buildings, including condominiums and smaller lots. Rear setbacks could be significantly reduced. Building heights could be
increased substantially and building spaces could be much tighter. Taken together, these chance taken together, these changes would alter the scale, privacy, and visual character of the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, once the designation is changed, there is no requirement that
the existing open space or tree canopy can be deser preserved. The site could be fully cleared and open land could be replaced with roads, building, parking, storm water infrastructure across the property. For these reasons, planning and zoning must evaluate the this
request based on the worst case scenario development scenario allowed under the proposed designation, not on the concept being presented tonight. And if that worst case scenario buildout would be incompatible with the existing conditions or surrounding neighborhoods,
then recommending approval for the future land use would not be appropriate. Thank you for your concern. Next card. >> Kathleen Flynn. >> Good evening. I'm Kathleen Flynn. I own
and occupy my ranchstyle home at 2805 Player Court, which abuts the golf course property at what was the eighth fairway. As the lowdensity culter plan concept stands now,
I will have three to three and a half twostory shotgun homes, onecar garage behind my home on my property line. of the five houses on my street, player court, that abut the golf course,
there will be 13 in their um plan, 13 shotgun homes that could be two stories high. But in addition to that, the property will be at least elevated. They told us three more feet. So, we definitely won't even have a view of the
sky. So today, I'd like to talk to you about storm water. Storm water, not as a future engineering issue, but as an existing condition that already protects this community and one
that would be permanently lost if this amendment is approved. For decades, the former Royal Oak Golf Course has functioned as a regional storm water buffer. It absorbs rainfall, slows runoff, and stores water across a large
area of open land. This is not theoretical. It is a working system today, and it provides protection to homes well beyond the property line. The difficulty with evaluating this request is that the
process has been reversed. As Kathleen said, if the applicant wanted the city to consider how storm water impacts would be managed or mitigated, the proper first step would have been to submit a specific development plan for review. Instead, the city is being asked
to change the future land use design for open space before any binding storm water plan has been submitted. Without an approved plan, there is no way for this commission to evaluate whether the loss of this existing storm water function could be adequately
replaced or whether surrounding neighborhoods would be protected at all. What you are left to evaluate is not a solution, but the permanent removal of a system that already works. Once this land is developed, that protection is
gone. Roofs, roads, and compacted soils shed water rather than absorb it. Even well-designed storm water systems are intended to manage runoff generated by the new development itself, not to replace the broader buffering functions
that this site currently provides to surrounding neighborhoods. May I have another minute, please? >> Anyone care to make a motion? >> Pardon me? >> I'll make a motion for another minute. I'll second. >> Thank you.
>> The developer has stated that a community development district or CDD would be created. However, a CDD can fund and maintain infrastructure only for the benefit of the development within its boundaries, not for the surrounding community that currently
relies on this land for storm water protection. This is not an issue that can be resolved later. Once the future land use designation is changed, the loss of this stormwater function is unavoidable. Planning and zoting must consider not only what is proposed, but what is lost
and whether it is appropriate to approve a land use change that removes a functioning piece of storm water infrastructure without a plan in place to replace it. If that outcome would be unacceptable, then the recommending approval of this amendment would not be appropriate. Thank you for your time and
consideration. >> Thank you. Next card, >> Jill Sterling. Good evening, chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm Jill Sterling and I live on Nelson Place in Royal Oak. I want to focus on a narrow
but critical issue. city-owned storm water easements on the Royal Oak Golf Course that are not part of the two lawnowned property and should not be included in this request in any way. The original developers of Royal Oak Golf and Country Club, Royal Oak Development
Company, deeded six storm water easements to the city of Titusville and the city accepted them in in fe simple forever for the benefit of the platted Royal Oak properties. These easements are recorded in the official records of
Bvard County, book 659, pages 536 through 538. A copy of that deed obtained through a public records request is here for the record. These easements are permanent, public, and not discretionary. In addition, every Royal Oak Plat includes a formal dedication
that expressly dedicates streets, canals, and drainage easements to the perpetual use of the public. The plats themselves depict the storm water infrastructure that serves the surrounding neighborhoods. These are not conceptual features. They are legally binding components of the subdivision.
And I have an example for the record. Further, a city prepared document titled Royal Oaks easements and storm study also obtained through a records request depicts multiple storm water easements on the golf course along with the interconnected storm pipes and conveyance systems that rely on those
easements to function. And I have a copy for the record. The lakes within the golf course are zoned O. This district, and I quote, is to provide for the protection of sensitive lands within the city. It is intended that this district
will not function as a holding designation for land, but rather a permanent classification in order to ensure that the present and future residents of the city are able to enjoy the benefits of the natural environment of the city. Including or altering these
city-owned easements as part of a private development request raises a serious legal concern. Arbitrarily handing over or impairing public easements dedicated to the Royal Oak community constitutes inverse condemnation. In Florida, inverse
condemnation occurs when government action effectively takes or damages private property rights without formal eminent domain proceedings or just compensation. If these easements are interrupted during development through filling, regrading, compaction, altered
ponds, or disconnected conveyance, or if they are insufficient afterward, existing homeowners face foreseeable risk of flooding, potentially worse than what many experienced last October. For these reasons, city-owned storm water easements dedicated to the Royal Oak
community must be excluded from this request entirely and preserved as they exist today. I hope you'll vote no on the transmitt and thank you for your time. >> Next card, please. >> Earl Johnston,
>> Earl Johnson, uh, Titusville, Florida. Um, I'm a Royal Oak resident. Um I've um would like to speak with you a little bit on u CDDs, but before I jump into that, I just want to mention the fact that um I'm a longtime resident of Royal
Oak. I bought my property uh on the golf course. I did my due diligence prior to buying it and found out that I was all the property I bought was backed up to O and O was supposed to be permanent. So I took that to the bank assuming that was
going to be the case. and not ever expecting to be standing here in front of you guys tonight thinking that that might be uh removed. Um so I'm obviously very much against this transmitt. Um
back so let me re back up a little bit on the CDD. Um I don't know how familiar uh some of you are with the CDD, but the CDD at least as proposed in Royal Oak um could be a definitely a potential
problem. CDD is a way for um developers to it it's chartered by the developers and it's a means to to basically fund uh capital outlay programs in the future for like all the u capital outlays
required for amenities and everything else. It turns out that developers actually get paid back through the CDD by that. That's not it. They make it appear as if these are great amenities that they're providing, but they actually aren't. Once they once the CDD
gets established, the residents that buy these properties now are, whether they want to or not, are members of the CDD. The way the CDD gets funded is they get funded through municipal bonds. And each owner of a house and property on this
site owns has to pay back part of that initial um muni bond that they're that they have to take undertake. This is the case for all CDDs. The problem with Royal Oak CDD is even far worse than that because this
the Royal Oak CDD it stipulates that the CDD is going to own wholly and completely all of the storm water infrastructure. That means they would the CDD would own all of the surrounding the storm water responsibilities for all of the surrounding community as well as
their own. And so these folks are going to be willing to pay for that really. Um I kind of question that. And so the problem is once you do that, once you have a CDD that's established that type of responsibility, typically with CDDs, the city says,
"Well, we don't have any responsibility. Now the developer's gone. So any issues that the surrounding community might have with flood water, they would have to take it up with a CDD. That's a private CDD that only exists for this new development. Their boundaries are
the property boundaries of the new development. This is a recipe for disaster. The surrounding residents would have no recourse to appeal to the city. So I this is a a bad thing. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Next card, please. >> Vicky Conklin. >> Good evening again, Vicky Conklin. You've heard a great deal tonight. >> Come on. >> That went that went quick, right? >> Go ahead. Sorry.
>> So, these issues tonight come down to responsibility, risk, and permanence. This decision is not about whether development should ever occur. It's about whether this future land use change can be responsibly recommended
based on the record before you. You have heard that a future land use amendment permanently authorizes development intensity and cannot be undone. You've heard that concepts, promises, and marketing materials. They're circulating, but they're not in sync
with the plan that they submitted, and they're not binding. The only concrete plan in the record is a 547. Now we're hearing 511 unit proposal. Moving forward without a clear and enforcable plan creates legal and procedural risk.
You've heard that plan developments do not lock in protections. They're frequently amended and they occur only after the city's already granted them development entitlement. You've heard that the former Royal Golf Course currently serves as a storm water
infrastructure for surrounding homes. It's essentially served as a stormwater golf course for 60 years. And changing that land use would permanently remove that protection. You've also heard that a proposed community development district, a CDD, would serve only the
new development and would not protect existing residents. You've heard that development rights run with the land, not the developer. And once those rights are granted, they may be exercised by future land owners who are not bound by today's asurances.
It's a fact that this land owner is entitled to build 79 dwelling units. What they bought, what they bought, when they bought is what they bought. The city has no obligation to change the future land use. Taken together, these
facts lead to a clear conclusion. Approving this amendment would permanently change the development potential of the site, remove protections that existing residents rely on, expose the city to risks it would have limited ability to manage or correct. Denial preserves the existing
land use designation, maintaining current protections, keeping storm water buffering in place, and preserving the city's ability to fully evaluate any future proposal with complete information and enforceable limits. The details you've been provided are inadequate for making such a major
decision. About 150 acres in the middle of Titusville and completely surrounded by existing homes. It's a rather unique opportunity for the city leaders to analyze options for the betterment of the entire future of Titusville. For these reasons, the responsible legally
sound course is to recommend denial of this future land amendment. In addition, given the applicant's claims regarding fiscal benefits to the city, the commission would be better to recommend an independent fiscal impact analysis before any future land use change. Thank
you for serving the citizens. >> Thank you. >> Next card, please. >> Dan Lewis. >> Oh, there it is. Hi, I'm Dan Lewis and I'm a Titusville resident live at 3525
Palmer Drive. And if you've even been to my house, in any case, you know, I've I'm real proud of these people because I'll tell you what, they have studied so hard to come up with all the quote of this and quote of that, number of this, number of that. I'm kind of more of a
big picture sort of guy, you know, and I I was thinking, you know, we got all wrapped up in all these details and we kind of lose sight of the whole concept. So, I want you to imagine for just a moment that I have a car dealership down
on Hopkins and you come onto my lot because you need a new car. you need a used car. And I happen to have used cars. So you come on, you tell me, I want this, I want that, I want the other thing. And unfortunately, I don't have that. But
I'll tell you what, I'm going to paint for you a beautiful picture. I'm going to tell you about this car I have with wonderful chrome and that paint would just blow your doors off. It's got a huge engine, a fantastic transmission.
You're going to make your neighbors so jealous that they're going to just about die. All it costs is $40,000. But here's the catch. You got to give me the 40,000 today. Right now in cash.
It's not refundable, but as soon as I get that car on the lot, you'll be the first call that I'll make. Now, would any of you take that deal?
>> If you would, I got one for you. So, that's kind of what Cter's asking us to do. They got, wow, this beautiful house. They got all the roads. They got these trees. They got the amenities. They got all these experts who are telling you that everything's going to
just be great. But you know what? If I were Coulter and I found an engineer that told me it was a dumb idea, I'd fire him, get another one. If I found a traffic guy who said, "Well, this ain't going to work." I'd get another one. If I found a lawyer that said, "I can't
take this case," I'd get Kim Roseno. So, the deal is, you know, you can come in here with all the facts, the figures, everything seems to add up. You put it all on paper, but by God, the rubber doesn't just always hit the road like
that. So, you got to ask yourself, are you willing to buy a pig and a poke? Because that's what these guys are offering. It's all I got to say. Thanks. >> Next card, please. >> Alone.
>> David Brandt. My name is David Brandt. I'm a property manager for Villa Escados at 3680 Barn Avenue. I'm also an owner. Uh my concern is the the forever chemicals that are in the old golf course. Uh the p pesticides
and other chemicals that were used back there, it's obviously in the soil. If you begin to excavate and you dig and uh for the infrastructure and development, you're going to take them out of the a deeper safer soil and you're going to expose them to residents in the area. So
on January 8th, I went to the community meeting uh and I asked Coulter uh they had an environmental guy about that and the response I got was pretty interesting. He goes, "Well, the only thing we saw was arsenic and a few other
things in the soil." Uh I I didn't I I that really shook me uh because I'm like uh uh any excavation back there bringing up those uh chemicals is puts the residents in the area at risk and uh you
as a commission uh have a responsibility for the safety of the people there. I've seen other developments around the country that this has happened and chemicals have come up and there's been damage done. I'm a retired farmer agent, federal agent. So, I I've seen a lot of
this. So, uh I'm just asking you to take that into consideration for the safety of the people here. And that if there is there we know there's forever chemicals in that soil, that's just consistent with an old golf course. Okay? It's a
brown field. Uh but if that is the case uh that uh the uh state environmental agency is at least addressing the issue and providing the oversight and the supervision that's going to be required to plan to mitigate those chemicals.
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next card, please. >> Tony Shifelo. Tony Shippol, the historic Norwood House. I finally got to come up from exile in the lobby where I sat with over 50 people
wearing red shirts like these people. I do not live in the Royal Oak neighborhood. Therefore, I am but I'm a very concerned citizen. So, I'm wearing red and white checked. Okay. The men in my dad's family were avid
golfers. I married into a golfing family twice. My first husband said, "When and if I made contact with the ball, I would be a formidable golfer."
I never got to be formidable, but I learned a lot about golf courses and the toxic and poisonous chemicals and compounds and things used to keep them golfable. Left alone like this course since 2012,
the earth will heal itself slowly, but it happens. I'm also a member of the Titusville tree team. Therefore, I love that old abandoned golf course for the natural native place that it has
become. And so I'm here tonight to ask you that if you must do anything other than commit to leaving it as an open space and a recreational area and a natural storm water solution to actually consider one of the options
that staff presented like option number two to meet with the community to develop a neighborhood plan. So you see, even though I want to save and conserve the trees and the wild um wildlife
inhabitants of this area and see it as part of a chain that comes down the east coast, there's a trail on the west coast that's a wildlife and and green and there's even a cross country. I've never gotten to take it across Florida um
green space and there's a proposed trail coming down the east coast that comes right through Titusville and we've already got the chain of lakes and and this would be such a wonderful component to that. So you see I'm not against development. And I say yes, development
is okay, but planned by and for the community that exists, not for some phantom 511 future residents. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Next card, please. >> Natasha Kelly. Hello, good evening. Thank you for your time. My name is Natasha Kelly. I'm here to speak in the name of myself and my husband and my fellow residents. I'm at the marriage drive bing the golf course.
Um, as a resident of the Royal Oaks community, I'm here today to respectfully but firmly oppose the proposed resoning of the former Royal Oak Golf Course. This property is currently designated recreation and convers conservation
in the city of Titusville comprehensive plan. That designation is intentional and is supported by policy 145 which reserves this land for open space, environmental protection and storm water function. Florida law requires that all
zoning decisions be consistent with the comprehensive plan. If a resoning conflicts with the plan, the city has both the authority and the obligation to deny it. This land is not vacant or unused.
It is active storm water infrastructure for the city of Titusville. >> There are 15 drainage structures that feed directly into the lakes on this property. These lakes provide flood control, nutrient filtration, and water
quality protection for the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy 145 exists specifically to protect land with this type of environmental and storm water importance. Developer is calling this proposal of
density, but the plan clearly shows small lots and 900 square foot homes packed tightly together. that is a highdensity infill and it's completely incompatible with existing single family character of Royal Oaks. The comprehensive plan requires that new
development be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and that growth be directed to suitable areas. This proposal fails both standards. Developer has mentioned amenities such as clubhouse and walking paths. While those may sound appealing on the
surface, amenities do not change the underlying facts. A clubhouse does not fix a comprehensive plan conflict. Walking paths do not solve storm water risks. Cosmetic features cannot compensate for a project that is
fundamentally inconsistent with the city's long-term vision for this land. I also want to highlight a relevant example from Seino County. A very similar situation occurred at a rolling hills golf course near Alultimon
Springs. The property was zoned planned development, a flexible zoning category that actually allowed the owner to request residential redevelopment. Despite that, the county denied the redevelopment and ultimately preserved
the land because of its environmental and storm water importance. Actually, the county bought it and it's making into a park. I'm cut out. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. >> Next card.
>> Uh David Rous. >> Oh, Rogers. >> Rogers. In the interest of time, I will just echo the rest of the folks that spoke against I think you guys. >> Thank you. Next card, please. >> William Blanet.
>> Well, thank you folks for u sticking with us this long. Appreciate it. My name is William Ballot. I live at 2756 Demerit. Before making your recommendation to city council regarding current land use
of the former Royal Oak Golf Course, I'm asking you to place the highest priority for your decision on those of us in the Royal Oak community who will be most affected. Your recommendation to maintain current
land use it would help ensure the continued protection and conservation of the natural environment as well as promote the maximum health and well-being of the citizens of
Titusville. Your recommendation to maintain current land use would also help the city to avoid so many of the disastrous unintended consequences that inevitably
follow in the wake of overdevelopment. I am asking you to please help us make a stand against the pitfalls of greed and take the moral high ground by prioritizing people
over profit. By making this important decision, you'll be demonstrating your commitment to representing the best interests of your constituents. Thank you. Thank you. Next card.
>> Brian Jarnell. >> Who was that? copy of that. All right. May I begin? Good evening and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. My name is Brian Yarnell. I'm the attorney with the
law firm of Gray Robinson. I'm here to represent the Association of Fairways at Royal Oak, which is opposing the changes that the applicant desires to have made to the comprehensive plan. Although I will present my client's position today, those position are
raised in greater detail in my communications with Mr. Parish, who to my dismay has been offering a legal opinion to this commission as to the city's ownership of the so-called easements through which all drainage flows. There is a 1964 fee simple deed,
which is at tab six, and that grants an ownership of the so-called easements. If you look at the deed, at the top of it, it says fe simple deed. If you look at the language of the deed, it says grants, conveys,
and transfers. It is not an easement. Whoever wrote the deed used the word easement to describe the various properties, but the city owns the quote unquote easements through which all this drainage flows. The city is duty bound
to maintain those easements. It has not. And therefore you have a surfage drainage problem. A problem that needs to be addressed before any plan amendments. How can you address a plan amendment when you don't even know the
scope of what you have to do to bring the current drainage up to snuff? >> I'm sorry. Uh with respect to the legal requirements, section 163.3184 at subsection 3B1 provides that the city
should transmit the application to the state quote only if it should be adopted. Therefore, this is not a prefunct review. You have to determine if the plan should be adopted. In this case, you should not adopt the amendment until those drainage issues are
addressed. Secondly, there are statutes and administrative codes that govern plan amendments. Specifically, section 373.416 of the Florida statutes provides that the state agency can promulgate administrative codes and rules for
surface water management. In this instance, the agency has adopted section 62-330.060 of the Florida Administrative Code. It provides that quote the applicant must certify that it has sufficient real property interest over the land upon which the activities subject to the
application will be conducted as required in section A of form 62-330.0601 and section 4.2.3D of the applicant's handbook volume one. So they have to have a real property interest in the activities they're going
to engage in. One of the activities they're going to engage in is shedding water into the storm water management system. If I could have another two minutes. We have a motion. Madam motion second. >> Second. Second. >> Okay. >> Here. The Aland cannot meet these requirements because it intends to
direct surface water onto the property of an adjacent land owner which is the association of fairways at Royal Oak. They want to use a pond owned by the association for surface water drainage. It cannot do so because not have a sufficient real property interest in the
pond. Moreover, pond a Barna pond is a functioning retention pond and will be negatively impacted by a road that is intended to go along the perimeter of the existing pond. The proposed roadway would materially impair the functionality of this existing retention
facility and compromise its ability to safely store and convey storm water. Uh, additionally, the change to the comprehensive plan would overburden the already existing storm water management system. I would like to mention that um,
in November, I sent a letter to Mr. Parish denoting that the city owned several several inaccurately named easements that run through all of the ponds at issue, including pond A, Bara, and Pond H, Knox McCrae. Florida common law has long provided
additional legal conraint legal constraints on developers who are directing surface water onto adjacent property. In a case called Gus Machado Buick, the Florida 3rd District Court of Appeals established that quote the owner of higher elevation land has an easement
on lower elev elevation land for the natural flow of surface water. But quote, "The rule does not extend, however, to permitting the upper elevation owner to increase the natural flow of the surface water onto the lower elevations land. And that's what we believe is
exactly happening here is that they are attempting to push their water onto their neighbors and they can't be allowed to do that." And furthermore, the city um it has maintained these easements, so-called easements over the
years. And under case law, if it takes on the responsibility to maintain the easements, it has to maintain them. Thank you. >> Next card, please. >> Laura Thompson. Lorley Thompson. Um, Mims,
we got a problem here in Titusville that became painfully obvious with the flooding that occurred during the rain bomb event last October. We've been using wetlands around town to dump storm water into. They can only hold so much
water before it spills into surrounding neighborhoods. We also have a problem with putting too much fresh water into the Indian River through our ditches and our storm water conveyances. We've been draining wetlands on the western side of town that are in the St. John's River
basin into the Indian River for decades. That is just wrong. St. John's River Water Management District says that the solution to Titusville's flooding issues and too much freshwater going into the Indian River Lagoon is to build a
collection of storm water parks throughout the city. What a wonderful vision that is. Parks throughout the city that will improve our residents quality of life and address issues with flooding and too much fresh water going into the Indian River Lagoon. Royal Oak
could be the crown jewel of the stormwater park system for the southwestern portion of the city. Converting abandoned golf courses into storm water parks and recreational amenities is not a new concept. It's being done all over the state. Bobby
Jones Golf Club and Nature Park in Sarasota, Baypoint Golf Course in Penllis County, Pinerest Golf Course in Largo, the Old Golf Course Transformation Project in Cape Coral. Rolling Hills in Longwood and Deer Run in Castlebury are just a few. So, I've
given you a couple of concepts to look at so you can get an idea of the possibilities. Per our planning staff, an alternative to transmitt for Gemini Lakes is to study the issue, determine options, and develop a small area or
neighborhood community plan that's consistent with our comprehensive plan. Our community deserves an opportunity to achieve goals to reduce flooding and sending freshwater to the Indian River. Those could include development at Royal
Oaks that is different than what is currently being proposed. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next card, please. >> Brienne Robinson. Robertson. Good evening, council. My name is Dr.
Brienne Robertson. I'm a president of the Royal Oak Community Alliance. I'm a property owner of Royal Oak and a resident of Titusville whose family has been here for over 50 years. I stand before you as one who holds a similar vision as a historic leader. His name
was Ezra. He continued to do the work of good for his people and to speak up for the welfare of all their descendants. Myself along with members of ROA, the Royal Oak neighbors and all the residents of the Royal Oak community. We're here to speak up for the welfare of our descendants. What is the legacy
that is going to be left with the decision and the recommendation that is going to be made by this council tonight? Will our descendants look back with gratefulness and the courage that it took to make the hard but wise decisions? For example, in 1853, New York City was faced with a similar
decision. 1.32 um square miles of land was used to create Central Park. The intention behind that historic act was to transform rock outcrops, swamps, and marshlands into a public place that would provide a beautiful and democratic
space for all New Yorkers. Interestingly, only 14 years later, the city of Titusville was incorporated. In 1840, New York was the most populous city in the Western Hemisphere. And doesn't that economic growth sound like what's happening here in Bvard County
and specifically Titusville with the explosion of the space industry on our doorstep? To date, Central Park receives 42 million visitors a year. Could you imagine what our city would look like with that type of commerce? In contrast, Paris faced a similar decision after
World War II when France decimated what was and France was left in ruins. Redevelopment was meant for opportunity and growth, adding buildings, commerce, businesses, highways, and the desire was to build something completely new for the next generation by building a modern
neighborhood catering to the generation of white collared businessmen. At first, there was excitement over the prospect, but public opinion quickly turned against the plan. The Monas, sorry, I can't say it correctly, tower. The locals criticized its height
centered in a neighborhood of much shorter buildings that was out of place. It ruined the landscape of beautiful Paris and it was nicknamed the middle finger of Paris. Certainly not the legacy they were looking for. So it is essential for the well-being of our city
and our residents to have outdoor and open space where families can enjoy the outdoors without being surrounded by concrete walls and traffic. you know and you've heard many many times tonight that is currently zoned open space and recreation which is in our city's land development regulation. It is not a
suggestion. It is not a guideline. It's a provision that is a permanent to our future generation. So what are the special circumstances that we are to look at tonight to change this? An extreme request that we would seek to challenge the provision set out forth in
our comprehensive plan. This undermines the purpose of our city's comprehensive plan. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Next card, please. >> Michael Mjack. Hard to pass on that. Wow. Michael Mek,
Beachwood Court. and a Royal Oak neighbor. Um, I was going through our criteria of section 3440 on zoning uh whether an application is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan and associated
elements. We've identified several um public criteria, community needs, public facilities, public streets. These are all available. But the problem is that the existing zoning is deemed consistent with the comprehensive plan. But for
that to happen, the changes that our community needs show that they should align with the character of the surrounding area and not disrupt the community.
I think our community is disrupted. the public benefit highlighting how to change and how to serve the public interest such as improving the safety and environmental conditions. I haven't seen much. Um, we have an area right now that does a fairly good job of absorbing
the rainwater because it's it's open space and open space has a impact of about 0.9 on all of the rain water it receives. In other words, 90% of the rain water that falls out there stays there. The imperous surface from development is
0.1 10%. 10% of the water that falls on sod actually permeates the ground. So that means 90% of the sod and all of the hardscape, the buildings, the roadways, the sidewalks, all of that is extra storm water that now has to have a place
to go. And apparently the neighbor's pond is one of the places they wanted to go. The other thing that amazed me from staff is that these puddles of water are not considered wet. or wet land. I mean, maybe they're underwater land that you can build on.
Maybe if you fill them in like they did with the Pope property there on the US1 and Garden Street. Two acres of the IRL was filled in for that one. If we raise the elevation of that property, that's even more storm water that's running off
into neighbors lands. If you dig into that land, you're going to be pulling up the Agent Orange and the Arsenic and everything else that's in there. Their plan is to cap and cover, just cover it over, which means you're raising it up even more. Plus, they want to fill in some of the ponds, so that reservoir for
storm water is not there. The simple thing is that with zoning, we have a plan. We've had a plan for years. All you have to do is go with the plan.
You don't have to change it. They have given us no compelling reason that this would benefit our community in any way over say a stormwater park for example. Thank you. Next card please.
Kyle Bradfield. a Bradfield. >> Okay. >> Joey Myers. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, chair and members of the planning zone zoning board. Uh my name
is Joey Meyers. I live at 1965 Country Club Drive uh adjacent to the old Country Club and uh driving range. I had a lot of points to talk about tonight that were well covered. you know, if the comprehensive plan is amended, the
policy protection on this land, yeah, it's permanently removed. Permanently removed and then regardless of what a future site plan may show, the land it it can't revert to its current protected status. So, well covered. Uh,
one thing I will point out, you know, the applicant is pursuing a specific development model, a specific business model with defined return objectives and timelines. If you look at their portfolio of what they develop, you
know, what they want to do here fits right within. They're not proposing to do what they can do because what they can do doesn't fit their model. And that's fine, right? like any business wants to stick with what they're comfort with and what they do. Um, but the
comprehensive plan, it exists to guide land use over generations, which is, you know, what's been talked about. So, just critical item and element to factor in. It's going to be here for hopefully
hundreds of years to come. So let's not conform to a particular business model or a schedule and persuasion points and picking out in our comprehensive plan to use again as per
persuasion points like oh yeah this is why it works because your comprehensive plan shows this and that's what we're giving you. Well that's not what this land is zoned for. So, a couple of quick points we talked about uh was mentioned October 2025 extra extraordinary
rainfall event more than 15 inches in a short period resulting in widespread flooding. City declared state of emergency shutdowns of the I95 on and off Fram at Garden Street. Submitted exhibits A through C showing observed conditions on this property during that event compared to normal conditions
along with emergency flood alerts issued to residents. Exhibit D summarizes multiple historic rainfall and flooding events using official sources. A large open tracks like this property play an important role during extreme rainfall events. As mentioned, raising land and
converting it to residential use changes. How water moves and can shift flood risk onto existing neighborhoods. Even if the flood maps don't immediately change, what happens if they do change when this development comes in or if it
did come in? The other point is there's a big issue of long-term water resources. City of Titusville doesn't supply all this water independently and increasing residential density through comprehensive plan amendments has long-term implications. You have a
minute. >> Sure. I'll make a motion for additional time. Diane, >> thanks. All right. So u comprehensive plan amendments has long-term implications for water availability and infrastructure capacity that should be evaluated at the policy level. These
material these materials raise a fundamental planning question. Is it prudent to permanently increase density and development intensity on this site before independent objective evaluation of storm water cumulative impacts and long-term water resources is completed.
If you're a lean into considering to recommend this amendment, I highly recommend and respectfully suggest requiring an independent third-party peer review funded by the applicant by a nationally recognized storm water and infrastructure expert for further consideration of further consideration
of this project. In closing, I ask that you recommend a denial of this amendment or at a minimum a continuence to allow for further independent review. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next card,
>> Brad Lidle. >> Thank you for uh for hearing me. Uh my name is Brad Lidle. I I live on 3631 Royal Oak Drive. It's directly adjacent to the Royal Oak Golf Course. My home um
is adjacent to what used to be the 16th Fairway. I've lived in this house for 15 years, but I've lived in Royal Oak since 1965. I'm here to share serious concerns about chemicals used on the former golf course
property. Fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides have been used on this golf course since the 1960s. And some of these chemicals still persist today, including long- lasting contaminants, sometimes called forever chemicals. Some of these substance can
be toxic, and some can potentially cause cancer. These chemicals may be buried under the greens or trapped in lake sediments. Some lakes are landlocked, meaning contaminants could accumulate there with nowhere to go. Right now, we do not know
what's in the soil and what's in the lakes. If this property is developed, it will require large amounts of soil to be um to be uh to be moved. uh reshaping the lakes and roads for building lots that
could expose construction workers, nearby residents, and future homeowners to contaminated soil sediments. I raised this issue with the developer, environmental consultants during the community meetings in 2024. I was told
this is a big deal and the extensive sampling is and that extensive sampling is required. Possibly over a thousand soil and water samples will be covered with oversight from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
But the resoning documents and environmental reports submitted to the city by Coulter did not address this issue. Not one word. At the most recent community open house on January 8th, 2026, I again discussed
this issue with the environmental consultant. He stated the planning and testing work would be completed after the resoning is approved, not before. He also stated that testing is required by law and that the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection will be involved. They indicated that this extensive sampling and analysis is typical for redevelopment of a former golf course and properties in Florida and that the department of um the FD
will determine what testing and remediation is necessary at this point. Um, the city needs to be aware of this and ensure that all required environmental
testing and any necessary remediation are completed in accordance with the law before construction occurs. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for the public. Next card, >> Mike Dwire. Next card,
>> Feldman. Okay. Good evening. Um, Ilia Feldman, Palmer Drive. I'm thinking that I'm here representing younger generation and those who going to inherit the consequences of decisions and the city.
On the second day of owning my home, I found the developer land flag placed in the middle of my back of my backyard. That was how I learned that land that land long treated as part of our
property use is not ours anymore. In 1975, this city decided that my fence and the border of my property is not to be moved. This project places construction in my backyard, not behind it, in the middle
of it. And I'm concerned about health, safety, and environmental impact of this construction. The air that my family and my future children will breathe should not depend on assumptions that being claimed today and before. I asked them
about chemical samples on the mission on January 8th and they said that they don't know the exact perimeter of the chemical coverage because not enough samples were done. More will be done after approval.
If this is excavated, we we will breathe this air resident and I will carry the risk. There are more issues of course you heard today traffic. The traffic survey was done over a single day and of course
we all know about the train and of course on that day no train was present. Flooding property values again we we are going to carry the risk. If approved there is no way to undo its effects on
my daily life, daily life of the city, health and security of my family and this community. For these reasons, I do not support this future use plan. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next card,
Connie Milton. >> Hi, I'm Connie Milton. I live I've lived in Titusville since 1964. was on Casper Place in Royal Oak was on the 18th hole.
Her parents later, as life goes on, they bought a house in Spanish Oaks, a condo right on the golf course. Now they live on Nelson Place. I am the beneficiary and the executive
of once they pass away of that property. My parents are 93 and 91 years old. Have lived in Royal Oak all these years. That property on Nelson. First, I want to say these folks have done a wonderful
job identifying the issues. It's very obvious to me, as it should be to you, that this future land use should not be approved. But one thing I wanted to point out how it affects me and my family on Nelson
Place where my parents house is my future home. There are eight homes right along the golf course today. This so-called conceptual master plan that can change.
It's changed multiple times. It's probably going to change multiple times even if this gets land use gets approved or whatever. It's going to change. But right now, whatever they showed today, they're showing 18 homes, 18 lots backed
up to existing eight lots. This is not an R1B. The existing land or property lots within Royal Oak are not R1B. They're not five homes on one acre.
They're they're somewhere between RE and R1A. They're not even R1A. They're between RE and R1A. Two homes per acre. Maybe maybe three homes per acre. Their calculations
take in the entire 147 acres. They're trying to make you think, "Oh, we're only going to put 3 point something homes per acre." That's not happening. There are three lots backing up to my one lot on Nelson Place with this
current proposed proposed conceptual plan. So I believe you should deny this. It needs further review internal to Titusville, not sent
up to Tallahassee for their sake. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next card, >> Elena Coward. >> Hi, my name is Lena Coward and I just
recently bought the condo at Spanish Oaks November 20th, right where these apartments are supposed to be. that condo that I bought. I feel at home. It's the first time in
seven houses I've owned that I feel at home. I sit on my back porch. I look out at the land. I pretend that it's a safari. You got I'm on the second floor.
So, the lion is over here. The giraffe is over there. About that time, those birds fly over in the V. It's relaxing. It's peaceful. Um, my mother, I've been raised in Port
St. John since 1966. Mom still owns the childhood home. She has a huge back porch. But where does she choose to come? My condo. Sit on my back porch. Look out over the land.
My mother is my Energizer Bunny and my Timex watch. She takes a lick and keeps on ticking. She's 81 years old. Climbs those stairs one at a time. Back in 1986,
she lit gas leaves on fire. Blew just about blew herself up. Third and fourth degree burns. This woman has been through bilateral cancer, breast cancer twice, three massive heart attacks in 2004, in between each and every one of those
hurricanes. Um, did I say she had bilateral breast cancer twice? Okay. So, she has a back porch that extends her whole back of her
house, but she chooses my porch to come not to visit me, but to sit out and look at that land because it's peaceful and that's where she feels more comfortable.
Um, I am opposed to building anything back there. It's calming. It's peaceful. And I want it to stay that way. This is where I feel comfortable.
I don't want to be around all these apartments, condos, town homes, people. I just want to live my life and be relaxed and peaceful. Thank you.
Next card, >> Stan Johnston. Stan Stan Johnston. Uh, I noticed that today you're not listening to me at all. And you didn't listen to me uh back uh when when this
was this was for sale. This is for sale. And and at the Baptist church, one of the first meetings, Royal Oak, I I said and I mentioned to to Jim Tully repeatedly saying, "Well, why doesn't the city just buy this property for about $2 million?" And he thought that
was ridiculous. Ridiculous. I don't think you would think it was ridiculous today. So, this is where we are. I'm not going to go a lot into uh what other people said, but I'm going to say something else. And this is not neither neither
for nor against, but it's about the city of Tyville, what they're doing. So, I sent you this email today, and here's the title of it. flooding of Royal Oaks part of Hickory Hills east of bar another FEMA should know of city's failure of operation of city's 45 foot
wide dam on state road 50 this operation of the system of this dam did not work for 500year storm of 2025 because all levels were not removed for a 500 year storm I don't think any of it was removed it's adjustable dam does
FEMA have this information that affects the firm map the operation schedule is doomed is doomed to fail and it did fail for our 500year storm this past October. So I'm talking about the city the city what the city's doing that that PNZ
should take attention to. Please pay attention this time. This this begs the question how can any engineer calculate the height of the 100red-year storm for the firm map with a below faulty or nonworkable operation schedule? In other words, they were
supposed to remove the boards. They didn't. How can you do it? So, I'm trying to send this to FEMA because you guys don't listen to one one word I say on this matter. You don't listen to what it was about about this the water that's going into the city
city instead of out of the city. So, it's on Facebook and so forth like that. You don't listen. I don't have any pity for you. I have I don't see that there should be any mercy for you because you just don't listen. So, uh,
uh, this is this is what I sent to you today, and I don't think you listen to me this tonight, but those those, uh, culverts that they that the city has in Royal Oaks are corrugated metal pipe. They are not they should have been
replaced long time ago and they're a problem. You're probably not listening to that either. In fact, a lot of this is right here. Right here in your storm water management plan about the what the pipes are and so forth in World Hope. You don't listen to that either, do you? No,
you don't listen. No, thank you. Next card. >> That was the last one. >> Uh, last card. Uh, rebuttal from the applicant. Good evening again, uh, chairman,
members of the planning and zoning commission. Thank you, uh, for the opportunity to, uh, speak to some of these concerns. Um, I do want to point out that this is comprehensive plan amendment. It's not zoning. We're not looking at apartments. We're not looking at size of lots. We're not looking at any of the compatibility issues with
zoning. I do want to talk um here let you hear first and answer qu ask questions of Mr. Bruce Moya, the engineer of record. And I do want to state that engineers, professional engineers, basically sign their license every time they permit something. So
there are Yeah. So there there are uh there there are very strong requirements for professional engineers. Uh there are boards that look at them and they do things wrong. Um but Bruce is a professional engineer, has 40 years of experience, worked at the county for
quite a bit bit of time before went into professional world. So, I'd like uh Bruce to address a few of the storm water issues that were brought up. Even though this is not zoning, it's still an issue that you all are concerned about. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning and zoning commission. My
name is Bruce Moya. I'm the president of MBB Engineering. Uh we practice out of Melbourne, Florida. Uh been front of this board before a few times. Um, so I'm here to speak about storm water. So when we got engaged on this, I know there was some talk about uh getting
engineers and if that engineer doesn't like what the client don't like what that engineer says, you get another engineer. Well, we've been on this project since the start, since uh 2019 uh on the original owner, we're still here and we've done a lot of research on this. We've researched every single
permitted set of plans. We've all the county, all the city files, St. John's FEMA USGS topo maps LAR and um surveys that we've had done as well as field visits. So we feel we have
a real good pulse on the drainage in this area. As a matter of fact, based on information we've gathered from some of our meetings with some of the neighbors where they say the water levels have came in October which was a 100red-year storm according to Noah
13.1 ines in 24 hours which is and the city of Titusville is 100year storm is 13 in of rainfall in 24 hours. So we've modeled that in a conceptual model and our model pretty much reflects what
we're seeing in what we've heard from the neighbors of what we've seen the field as a result of the October storm. So we feel that we know what's going to happen. And one you know another thing that Stan said that of all the things Stan says
he got this one right. Those pipes are about 60 years old. Corrugated metal pipes lifespan's 25 years. We've gone out there and we've looked at some of the conditions of some of those pipes and they're not working and they're going to continue to get worse
if nothing's done. We're offering to replace those pipes when we do our development on our property. Well, they come from the offsite. All the off-site pipes that come to our site, we will replace with new pipe. and the pipes
that we can't see that connect the lakes. Who knows what kind of condition those pipes are in? It could be why it's flooding now. So, >> I don't Anyway, um so
of the 11 existing lakes, only nine are even are connected. Two of the lakes aren't even connected. All they do is constantly fill up. They have no outfall. They don't grow anywhere except rise when the rainfall comes from the runoff. We were proposing to
interconnect all those lakes. So there was some information about how much how many more acres of lakes we're providing. We also know that right now on a golf course which is probably one of the most
polluting uses in a land use category is has zero treatment of outfall. All that pollution goes straight into the receiving water bodies. That's not going to happen in the in the post condition. If we develop this, we will not only
have to meet the standards of what you see today, but they passed all new standards on December 28th to increase the level of pollutant loading reduction that we'll have to meet. Um, so
not only, you know, replacing others in particular, there's there's some locations that I feel are real problems and one of them is on Nelson Place. Actually, there's three locations on Nelson Place where the water comes from the road to our property. Oh, I'm sorry. One in
particular. The I'm getting to two. I'm getting ahead of myself. So, there's there's a pipe that comes out. If you go look at the pipe, you can see the opening. If you look down at it because the grade that it runs into is about a foot over the top
of the pipe. So that pipe fills up with water and has to overcome another foot of grade over the top of the pipe to even start flowing to the lake it's supposed to go to. We will extend that pipe to go directly to the lake. So when
one drop of water falls on that road off of our property to go through that pipe, it'll go directly to the lake. It won't have to stage up in order to flow. On Finster Wall Drive, there's two locations that the the water comes off the road, goes into the inlet, goes
through a pipe, comes back up through the top of an inlet, and then spreads out. One of them, it took me a while to find it because it's buried and it's full according to survey, full of dirt. Probably doesn't work. It's covered up with debris. I had to dig it out to even
find it. And so we would take that inlet out, run the pipe directly to the lake. So the first drop of water that goes on Fitzgerald drive would go directly to the lake. So in our conceptual design that we've done, looking at the entire basin that we
developed, which is 300 acres, we're only 147 of that. The water levels in that 100-year storm are lower in the postdevelopment condition than are in the pre. So, I think that if you want to fix the drainage problem,
do something. Let us do something for it. Because if you do nothing, >> it's going to flood like it does now. >> Excuse me. >> Your comments talking. I didn't talk while you were talking >> or it'll just stay like it is now and get flood and get worse and the pipes will fall apart
>> and it'll just keep flooding and they'll get more and more clogged. So, let us fix your drainage problems. Thank you. >> Take our chances. Just a few points to make. Uh, this is not a public park. It's private property. It's not intended to be a public park. It was a for-profit golf
course that couldn't make it. It's not being used for anything except as people see fit tor. >> Well, it is whether it's storm water. You just heard the condition of the storm water. Hold your comments, please. >> So, uh, so there are public drainage
easements. Those public drainage easements will remain. Um, O is not permanent. Never was intended to be permanent because this is not sensitive land as they have stated. Uh, the wetlands were based upon the old 1988 map. They've been ground truth. Now,
your comp plan and land development code provides for exactly uh this type of redevelopment. Again, we're not even there yet. where the future land use and you have a staff report that sets forth the criteria and your criteria is well stated. It's
in section 40 34 23 and it has the justification that must be provided. There's a b cde e f and g and those have all been addressed by uh Mr. Long, the planner and by your city
staff. Again, these are in your code. This application meets your code, meets your comprehensive plan. Um, this is not an area of critical concern. The comprehensive plan amendment is
actually limited by the concept plan. So, it would be limited to 511 units. Your city code states required information 34-22C. An applicant for change of land use may voluntarily submit a conceptual plan to
support the request. Such plan if presented at a public hearing at PNZ or city council shall be deemed to have been relied upon and it will be deemed binding on the applicant assigns heirs and successors and titles or possessions
of the lot tract or parcel. So this 511 if approved later on would be binding is binding if the land development changes. Uh which goes uh to the issue of who owns those drainage easements. A title
commitment was obtained to do the survey that's in your packet. That title commitment and survey shows the ownership. That's what's been relied on by your city. No one's come forward with anything to say else otherwise. uh Mr. Jarnell who who I do respect and and
believe he believes he's right, but this is not a fe simple deed. It's a deed to easements and it is in the ownership of the golf course or whoever, but there are public easements that can be used for public purposes. When Mr. Jarnell
sent that letter, I sent a letter to the city attorney, Miss um Trent, and to Mr. Paris, and I said, "Hey, we want to meet about this. We need to understand these easements." And Mr. repair said in an email dated December 4th, which I'll submit to the clerk, the city does not
maintain those easements. Those are easements, not property ownership. The easement documents give the city the right to drain through the golf course and enter upon the easements if necessary. Any new development would have to maintain the drainage flow through the property, which this
development will do if approved. There's been some concern about this process that we're doing it backwards. This is the way it's always done. You start with the comprehensive plan which the overall guidelines. Then the land development code which has very specific terms that must be met. Then you get
into the site plan and it's regulated by state law and city law and um if it impacts county FT FDOT whatever those agencies get involved in will this is the process just giving the future land use doesn't give development rights it
gives what could be a policy an overview uh everything else stems from there. If you look at whether or not the requested medium density, excuse me, low density residential is consistent, the staff report details what the
surrounding future lane use map shows. Low density, high density, high density, medium density, commercial, high intensity, low density, high density, low density, high density, high density, more high density than low density. Condos are high density. We're asking
for low density. So it is compatible with what's around it. It's not liked. We understand that there are public benefits to the storm water. But again, we're not there. We're just looking at compatibility of what's there. And that is low density
residential. >> Uh also regarding the statements about how density excludes houses and storm water, that's just flatout wrong. don't know where they're getting that information. Density is spread over property. That's the way it's always been done. That's the way
your code does it. That's the way your staff does it. That's the way all attorneys do it. That's how land developers do it. You spread density. You don't take out roads. You don't take out storm water. You don't take out easements. Is all property owned for development and it's averaged over the property.
I believe if you asked Mr. Parish, he would agree with that statement. We do have the environmental engineer here, Mr. Maslin, if you want to ask him questions, we have the traffic engineer if you want to ask questions. Again, that wasn't really raised. It's not
really an issue for future land use changes, but they are here if you would like them to. And uh with that we would request you recommend approval to the city council of this change of 147 hour 147 acres
feels like 147 hours to uh low density residential from the uh current O and conservation. >> Vice chairman John. >> Thank you. >> Um I have a question. So you said the the fee simple deed. You said that he said it's a fee simple deed but it's not
a fee simple deed. But you're you're an attorney and I I had to look this up because I I saw this and I I had to look it up. But um the my understanding of the definition of fee simple deed is that it conveys real estate. So it it
describes real estate and it's a transfer of real estate to another person or another entity. So are you saying that because I thought you just said it's not a feasible deed but it says so even though it says at the top it's feasible you can call your laundry
list a will but it doesn't make a so how >> it's >> so if if something's written and filed with the government and it says something that it's not I mean why would someone put that on there if it's not a fe simple deed? >> Well we don't know who wrote this deed.
It doesn't say it was written a long time ago. laws were different back then perhaps, but the the contents show it's not a fe simple deed. So it's a form over substance type of thing. It's a principle of law. Just because a title says something, it doesn't necessarily
mean it's binding and that's what it is. So, so um since all the lawyers in the room have different opinions, um you know, we'll we'll ask them that. But your city attorney hasn't raised any issues. I tried to raise it with her. There's no concern. the title company doesn't have. >> Did you get anything from the city
attorney of an opinion? >> Uh, no. But she hasn't raised an issue. So, I think that's an opinion in itself. >> I think she likes to not >> Well, but this was >> any liability issues, but >> but the survey shows the property ownership based upon an Atlas an ATLA
title commitment and if they don't own it, they can't build it. >> I would say though at >> this has a stamp from the state on it. Correct. So with the comment of we don't know who wrote this. Somebody approved this with a stamp.
>> No, they don't approve it. They just record it. They don't approve. You can record your laundry list. You can record anything in Bvard County. >> Well, it's recorded. >> Yeah. >> It doesn't mean it's approved. >> Any other questions
>> before I close the public hearing? Seeing none, thank you. I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the deis for comment. Member Gar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um the
conversation tonight's um informative to everybody. Uh there's been a lot of information that's been discussed and commented on and points of view that differ. Uh, but I would like for something I think would benefit the
members. Um, and and in my experience, I've got a little different experience than other members, so I might be familiar with some things, but it may help everybody at this point. There's been these discussions about zoning and commitment to a plan and submitt of a plan. And early on, I asked Mr. parish
about the relationship between the transmitt and the amendment to the plan and what exactly that does and what it exactly does not do. So the decision that gets reached tonight is a decision that is a
legislative decision and that sounds like a word and everybody knows the word and you're used to the word legislators and they get together and they vote on things and some strange things can come from legislation because they don't make any sense. They just want to have something.
So they legislate matters that may not necessarily be specific, be exact, what it needs to be, but they can do that. They don't have to necessarily have a reason for legislating. So in a legislative review,
this board needs to consider things, data, plans, comments, lots of information, pages upon pages upon pages on behalf of the proponent. But the legislative decision that this board makes is legislative. It's not
judicial. It's not quasi judicial. So I thought it would perhaps help the audience and the members if just a real brief summary of a legislative decision tonight is based on for example my opinion. I have an opinion.
Whatever that opinion is I don't necessarily have to explain my opinion. I can it'll elucidate on my opinion, but it's my opinion. I make a motion and let's just say the motion passes. That legislative act doesn't have to be based on primapacia facts and numbers and
quantitative data. It's a legislative decision. So, can I ask you to maybe summarize what factors can be taken into consideration for a legislative action? So legislative actions are generally
reviewed for under the rational basis standard. So anything that could rationally lead you to reach the decision may be considered. But there's also um the factors that our ordinance requires for review under this um type of comp plan amendment. And the key part
of that where I'm trying to uh suggest my opinion is that together with that data and analysis and information and professional uh discussions on areas I'm not by far nothing more than layman on
that can be based on what comes out of this meeting. The eb and the flow of the comments the community's feelings perhaps the representation of the community's feelings. >> That's correct. Thank you. Anyone else? Member Travel.
>> Yeah, I have a few questions here. What What can con constitute load density as far as uh single family home? I I heard a comment say 10,000 square feet. Can you what what con uh our drawing I think our permit drawing, right? It shows a low density single family home
and it'll say like a certain square feet. Could you help me uh remind me on what that square footage is for our city? >> For clarification, are you asking about the low density residential future land use designation or the lowdensity zoning districts?
>> Uh the future land use designation like what would that square footage on a map if you were to give somebody say you're going to build a single family here's your footprint that you have to have these easements you have to have at least this much square footage. So square footage typically square footage is some is a standard
>> a building standard which is going to be more pertinent to a zoning district than something that's more um conceptual like a future land use designation. Uh future land use designation is going to be more policy based. Um it might have a density tied to it but then the zoning further
explains uh how you develop within that that district and within that that designation. So, I can give you, for example, um the R1B zoning district was mentioned a couple times tonight. Um R1B
standards. This is section 28-304 of our land development code. Um it has a minimum lot area. So, if you're going to if you're going to build a single family home, for example, you the the lot size must be at least 7,500 square
feet, 7,500 square feet. Um, anything under that would be undersized, excuse me, unders sized, um, and wouldn't meet the minimum standards for the district. Um, >> that's medium density, not low density, >> correct? I'm sorry, that's that's a
single family medium density R1B. So, R1B was mentioned a couple times tonight. the what's being requested tonight or not sorry not what's being requested tonight but what's being requested as part of the applicant's proposal um is the PD and that was also mentioned a couple times tonight is the plan
development and that's a different district that's a tailor made zoning district where the applicant is allowed to design their own standards council still has to approve it so it's it's up to council's discretion but there's some like was mentioned earlier there's some flexibility to create your own standards
and then ultimately council decides whether that's appropriate and That's to allow some flexibility for maybe some unique designs in um housing typologies and things like that. Um so did that answer your question? >> Uh not really. I guess uh what I'm
trying to get at is the the low density on the map that they have. All right. That that we're talking about right now. We're changing we're being asked to change to to low density, right? From recreational. um for them to build on that low density,
which I only saw uh from all this information we got uh two circles. Is that what we're talking about? Just two circles on out of this whole golf course that's low density or we talking everything recreational, everything o is what they're asking for.
Low density. >> Let me point you to uh our maps on page I think it's n 90. Let me see real quick. 70. >> Thank you. >> Trying to figure out which one of these
packets had the circle on it that >> Yeah, I'm not sure which the circles are. If you can point me to a page, but um for the commission's benefit, uh on page 70 is the existing future land use on the lefth hand side. The yellow color is the recreational future land use
designation and that covers most of the property. And then the conservation is the green slivers and that covers uh generally the areas where the ponds are located on the right hand side is the proposed uh if the request were to be approved and you see that it changes to
all gray the low density residential. >> Okay. Yes, I do see that now. Thank you. >> Let's try to think it was in it was in this packet that we were presented. Um So, it would have been the presentation
packet that we were presented. And let me see, there's no page numbers on this one here, but on this proposed land use right here, there's I don't know if you can see that one, but it's just I guess it's circles saying
that that whole area is LDR. Okay. Because I was looking at those circles like just those two spots. >> Gotcha. No, to clarify, the circles are circling the uh the the label LDR to identify that the entire property is is proposed to change to lowdensity
residential. Those little circles are just to help with labeling >> cuz I looked at that map and I was like, there's two ponds there. So, we just worried about two ponds here. >> Very perfect circle ponds. >> Thank you. Um I did have a couple other questions as well. Um let's see here.
All right. So, uh, someone was discussed about a CDD. I know, um, a little bit about these, um, as far as just information that's been given out and and that's all I really do know. But um from my understanding, this is something that the citizens that will if this is
proposed and this is built out that they will this will be an additional fee to their mortgage or whatever that they would have to pay back to the developer no matter what they ask to be on this property. We want this. We want that. We want that. Sure. Sure. This is all going
to a CDD would make it to where they pay that those things back. Correct. Is am I understanding a CDD correctly? That's correct. It's similar to an HOA in that except that they can request for um to pay for infrastructure in advance and have the future homeowners pay for it in
return. >> And do they I guess that's something in their binding contracts when they buy a house that they know that they they see that part of signing. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Uh let's see here.
And then yes, the the ponds, the easements, help me understand that a little bit. So they're public easements, but we don't maintain them. Is that correct? >> Uh I'll defer to staff on maintenance. As far as whether they're easements or
whether that document conveyed fee simple, our office is still analyzing that issue. >> So we don't know 100% about that those areas right now. We're still analyzing that. Correct. >> That's correct.
>> So, not knowing what that land is or or what we are allowed to do with that, we're still wanting to make a decision tonight on on that. >> The practice the public works has um applied to the Royal Oaks golf course.
Uh give you an example. A few years ago, there was a pipe that was not functioning and it's on private property and we used the easement in order to go onto that property in order to fix that
particular pipe. So that's basically what the easements have been have given the city the right to do is to make sure that those are working properly when if they are not being maintained and in that particular instance that's what happened. So the information I provided
um that was um revealed in that records request that Mr. Fzener stated is how we've applied those easements historically. >> Thank you member Gar. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Although I think that my comment earlier regarding the
legislative decision by this membership group tonight, it's what really we should be focusing on, the conversation and presentation about the CDD and the comments from the public. Um the briefest of all questions, who what
governmental body authorizes a CDD's establishment? We've the city would have to be the one to authorize it. >> The city council has to approve a request to establish a CDD. >> Correct. >> Which is essentially a a unique taxing
structure. >> That's right. >> It's been discussed. So that's why I would maybe analogize the conversation about the CDDs to that of a lot size. This is really 10,000 ft in the air. It's I think earlier it was seven. What
is it? 511. Was that the adjusted number? >> That's what you're hearing. 511 residents on 167 acres. >> I don't believe you really listen to any other. All of it's kind of cannon fodder.
>> CDD is a concept, but it's not ripened at this time. And if it was, it still has to be approved by city council. It's not something they have an inherent right to have. And there's a lot of stuff with CDEs that have to be considered. It's pretty complex to be
honest. So again, my point is 10,000 feet in the air. It's 511 on 167 acres. Whatever the number is the applicant asked for in an adjusted plan. >> Point being, it's houses. It's it's
residential units on acreage. That's what's being discussed. Is that accurate? I >> believe you're referring to the question about the density. >> The comprehensive plan amendment before us is a density issue. Correct. It's
reported in different manners. It's reported as this many units on that many acres as opposed to 3.4 dwelling units or 5.7 or 6.7. But it's density airgo dwellings on acreage. But it's not the picture. It's not the roads. It's not
the retention. It's not the pipe you're going to dig up. It's not the pipe you don't dig up. It's not the pipe you can't dig up ownership. It's just the density question tonight and whether that's consistent compatible with the community. You've seen the staff's report and they've given you what they
would like one of two alternatives and you've heard several people in the audience prefer an alternative, but that's all the input that all of us can take into consideration on this legislative decision. Thank you, >> Amber Childs.
>> I would um make a motion then to not approve the transmittal and direct staff to conduct a small area study to guide redevelopment of the area. >> I would second that. Member Chman, I've got a motion and a second. Um any
discussion as it relates to the motion? Uh I'll have chime in that um I based on what I hear and the um
nature of this especially with the storm water um issues that that we're kind of addressing. It seems like that may be the most prudent way is is more factf finding and um and and more involvement
in the city staff as to what the kind of highest and best use of this is. Um any other comments before we call the role? >> Roll call, please. >> Member Chopman, >> yes.
>> Vice Chairman Childs, >> yes. Member Scully, >> yes. >> Member Gerard, >> yes. >> Member Gellen, >> yes. >> Chairman Eton, >> yes. So, um, we unanimously approve the motion
to, um, forward to council the our suggestion or direction that, um, the city enter into a study of the area and not transmit the um, current document to
Tallahassee. Eddie, >> thank you, chairman. Uh, thank you, chairman. And just a reminder, this is a recommendation, not a final decision. And so, this recommendation will be forwarded to city council, which will be heard on February 10th. >> February 10th. >> I tried to make that clear. I'm not sure
I did, but yes. All right. Um, we've still got a little bit on the agenda. So, um, in the in the interest of time, uh, please, uh, be as quiet as you can as
you exit so we can continue. >> Please take it outside. You did your comments. Not as we all um in case anyone's here for petitions
and requests for the public present. We have a second version of that. Anyone? Okay. Moving on. City staff report. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Just want to remind you as part of our city staff report
that tomorrow night, January 22nd, is our storm water management workshop with both public works and community development. So, um please spread the word if you can. Tomorrow night here at city hall and then also just wanted to make a quick plug for Saturday, March
7th. Saturday, March 7th is going to be our community conference at the senior center. Uh reservations are required in advance just because we need a headcount for um snacks in case that gets you excited. But >> there will be food. >> Yeah, there there will be food and it's it's an exciting uh first first time
we're hosting this event. It's a chance to meet with city staff from other departments to get to learn u what we do and and ask questions. And so that's March 7th. >> Eddie, what uh what time was it for tomorrow night? >> I'm on it. Um I don't have the time. >> I'll bring it I'll bring that to the next meeting. I don't have the time on it
>> for tomorrow night for the water. Tomorrow night is >> is it 6 or >> I think they said it was 5:30. Eddie >> 5:30, >> Eddie. I think they said it was 5:30. >> 5:30. Okay. I'm sorry. 5:30. >> All right. >> According to Kim,
>> city attorney, any report? >> City attorney, any report? >> No report at this time. >> Thank you. Uh, I have nothing. I have We're almost done here. >> Uh I have nothing. Any of the members have a report? >> No.
>> Okay. >> No, >> we will stand adjourned. Make