WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=HKuFjgMfzaI

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: HKuFjgMfzaI):
- 00:01:16: Call to Order, Pledge, Roll Call, and Minute Approval
- 00:02:49: Reading of Quasi-Judicial Procedures and Disclosures
- 00:04:12: Public Comment: SNJ Oaks Fraudulent Survey Allegations
- 00:07:23: Introduction of New Business: Avanita Royale Right-of-Way Vacation
- 00:08:24: Staff Presentation: Avanita Royale Right-of-Way Vacation
- 00:12:34: Commission Discussion: M1 Zoning and Consistency Concerns
- 00:19:25: Discussion: Platting, Right-of-Way Vacation and Implications
- 00:24:33: Discussion: Potential Road Connections and Current Condition
- 00:26:30: Impacts on Surrounding Businesses and Public Hearing Opening
- 00:27:26: Applicant Presentation: Lawrence Graham, Avanita Royale Vacation
- 00:31:15: Commission Questions: Flooding, Drainage, Ownership Details
- 00:36:25: Commission Questions: Drainage Structure and Easements
- 00:40:05: Close Public Hearing, Back to the Commission for Discussion
- 00:40:23: Commission Questions to Staff: Wetland Inventory Map Accuracy
- 00:43:13: Resolution Format and Draft Recommendation Clarification
- 00:46:04: Additional Edits: Vacated Road and Small Scale Study Clarification
- 00:51:00: Comments and Potential Land Use
- 00:52:04: Member Rice makes motion to approve vacation request
- 00:53:44: Approval and City Staff Report: Non-Conforming Lots
- 00:55:38: Staff Asks: Remove Density from Zoning Districts Recommendation
- 01:01:18: Member Grod, makes a motion to Remove Density, Council Recommendation
- 01:04:33: Motion Approval, Other Reports, and Adjournment


Part: 1

1
00:01:16.240 --> 00:01:37.479
Good evening. Welcome to the May 6th meeting of the Titusville Planning and Zoning Commission. I'd like to uh call the meeting to order. And first order business is pledge of allegiance to

2
00:01:38.079 --> 00:02:01.840
the standy for all. Uh, next order of business is roll call, please. >> Chairman Eton >> here. >> Vice Chairman Scully >> here. >> Secretary FA >> here. >> Member Rice >> here. >> Member Grod

3
00:02:01.840 --> 00:02:17.280
>> here. >> Member Graham >> here. >> Member McDaniel >> here. >> Alternate member Sidler >> here. >> Alternate member Troutman >> here. >> All right. Uh, we have a quorum. Uh, next order of business is approval of

4
00:02:17.280 --> 00:02:33.200
the minutes of our April 8th meeting. Uh, does anyone have any comments, changes, or care to make a motion? >> Make a motion as written. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I.

5
00:02:33.200 --> 00:02:49.360
>> I. Any opposed? >> Minutes are approved. Uh, city attorney, would you read the quasi judicial procedures? Thanks. I just got my cue from Andy. Um,

6
00:02:49.360 --> 00:03:05.840
during the public hearing of the meeting, anyone wishing to speak on a quasi judicial in item must complete and sign a speaker card along with the corresponding oath. The cards are located on the table in chambers. City staff will make the initial presentation

7
00:03:05.840 --> 00:03:22.560
followed by the applicant's presentation and then the hearing will be open for public comments. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if desired. Witnesses may be cross-examined and all photographs, sketches or documents for the hearing must be submitted to the city clerk and will be retained by the

8
00:03:22.560 --> 00:03:42.879
city. Members shall disclose at this time any exarty communication or site visits. >> Um, your lights on. >> No. Oh, that's okay. >> Just for the record. Just for the record, uh, clerk, uh, city clerk, can you call each member to just disclose

9
00:03:42.879 --> 00:03:58.640
for the record if they have or have not had any exparty communication, please? >> Secretary FA, >> no. >> Member Rice, >> no. >> Member Graham, >> no. >> Alternate member Sidler, >> no.

10
00:03:58.640 --> 00:04:12.400
>> Member McDaniel, >> no. >> Member Troutman, >> no. >> Vice Chairman Scully, >> no. >> Member Grod, >> no. Chairman Eton. >> No. >> Thank you. Um, next item is petitions

11
00:04:12.400 --> 00:04:34.720
and requests from the public present. My name is Stan Johnston and uh uh I've got a project that uh I've went to the Supreme Court about and uh uh and other courts and uh the the uh it's been

12
00:04:34.720 --> 00:04:49.600
dismissed but it's has to do with SNJ Oaks and and I sent you an email today and the email is a horrible email. I didn't like to write it, but it said it's talking about

13
00:04:49.600 --> 00:05:05.919
a uh fraud fraudulent survey, a fraudulent um what you call a uh sketch plant, a fraudulent plans, and fraudulent preliminary plaque that you

14
00:05:05.919 --> 00:05:23.520
can see. And I've invited you many times to see to my knowledge. I've invited you. It's on Elizabeth Oaks and uh corner of Elizabeth Oaks and Whispering Hills Road. It's called SNJ Oaks. Here is a um

15
00:05:23.520 --> 00:05:40.960
a sign that I made back in 2022 that I've shown you. And what it was is it says new owner. So what this project was done, it was a fraudulent survey to gain more money or more property to put more units on and then uh to sell it to

16
00:05:40.960 --> 00:05:56.320
somebody. And that's exactly what they did. They sold to somebody some sucker. And this uh the survey and the uh plans and the preliminary plan are all fraud. So you can see it for yourself. You can

17
00:05:56.320 --> 00:06:14.400
go down there to uh uh what was what is known as Mockingbird Lane. It's the street sign is there. The stop sign is there, but it's not on the survey there. There was a cleared area there. You can see a good bit of it was was over 20 ft. I measured it be over 26 ft. and it was

18
00:06:14.400 --> 00:06:30.000
replaced fraudulently by uh the engineer and the surveyor who didn't show the width of the cleared area which I measured and I and other property I measured. So what I'm saying is we've got a situation

19
00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:46.560
that's that's I'm sending to the board and if you want to read about it there's over five pages here that I sent to you today. So, it's a matter of not just a survey, but it's a fraudulent survey. It's not just a sketch plant. It's a

20
00:06:46.560 --> 00:07:03.520
fraudulent sketch plant where they showed 8 foot the two-way traffic on Mocking Lane was is to be changed to 8 foot and it has been ongoing for over four years. So, um uh I'm asking you to get involved

21
00:07:03.520 --> 00:07:23.120
with it. Go take a look at it. It's called SNJ Oaks. There's not one oak tree left there. There's not one pine tree. All the trees are taken out. About 200 trees. I don't know how that happened. Any questions? >> Thank you. Um any other

22
00:07:23.120 --> 00:07:39.680
>> members of the public care to take advantage? Seeing none, we'll move on to have no old business. Uh new business. We um member Graham is the applicant so

23
00:07:39.680 --> 00:07:55.360
he is going to excuse himself and I would like to I think member Troutman you've I think we've trying to alternate but it's been a while since we've needed you guys but I think you're next up on the agenda if you'd like to come up uh

24
00:07:55.360 --> 00:08:24.160
we'll make you a voting member uh for this issue uh while member Graham excuses himself. Eddie, item 9A. >> Thank you, chairman, and good evening, commissioners. This is item 9A, right-of-way vacation number one, 2020

25
00:08:24.160 --> 00:08:39.919
2020, excuse me, 2026, Aanita Royale. Begins on page 10 of 37 of tonight's packet. The applicant is requesting to vacate a portion of the public ride ofway of Avanita Royale. The public rideway is

26
00:08:39.919 --> 00:08:56.399
located at the southern terminus of Cay Corto, generally generally located north of Cheney Highway or State Road 50, east of South Street, State Road 405, and south of Foley Road. Aanita Royale is currently unimproved and is not utilized

27
00:08:56.399 --> 00:09:12.959
for access by the adjacent properties to the south and east. The request to vacate the ride ofway includes an area 50 ft in width by 188.43 feet in length and totals approximately 9,421.5

28
00:09:12.959 --> 00:09:30.080
plus or minus square ft of area. On page 12 of your agenda packet towards the bottom is the aerial map included within the staff report to give you a bird's eye view overview of the uh subject rightway.

29
00:09:30.080 --> 00:09:46.640
You can see the Ford dealership is on the right hand side to the east and pep boys to the south. On page 14, just wanted to summarize that of the utility responses, the utility providers who reviewed the request, uh none of the utility

30
00:09:46.640 --> 00:10:02.640
providers had any concerns with the request. They all uh had no no objections. And then at the bottom of page 14, if you're still on page 14 with me, is uh I did want to add a comment about the South Street small area study. Um the

31
00:10:02.640 --> 00:10:20.720
South Street small area study was a an area study that was developed um at council's direction for the area the corridor along South Street north of 50 um generally south of Singleton. And during this study, the area where

32
00:10:20.720 --> 00:10:37.200
this public ride ofway uh is located was identified for future development to be within a category that they um named interstate commercial. So on the following page, page 15 is a matrix and on this matrix the interstate commercial

33
00:10:37.200 --> 00:10:54.800
area is the column second from the right and in that matrix it it identifies that there are three zoning districts that are appropriate for this interstate commercial area. That's the community commercial CC regional commercial RC and the tourist T zoning districts. Um so

34
00:10:54.800 --> 00:11:09.839
you'll see one of the findings where it says uh do not support. says the request will result in additional privately owned land area in a zoning district M1 which is not consistent with the interstate commercial area identified in the South Street small area plan. So

35
00:11:09.839 --> 00:11:24.560
that's just something to consider um tonight as you think about uh the request. But generally the other findings were that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the review criteria adopted by council and ordinance 49204 in reviewing

36
00:11:24.560 --> 00:11:41.240
rightaway vacates and that the none of the utility providers had any comments or objections to their request. Lastly, I'll just um give you a couple more page numbers. Page 27 is the future land use map.

37
00:11:42.959 --> 00:11:59.600
So you'll see that Avanita Royale is uh surrounded entirely by commercial highintensity and so if vacated uh that would close that gap and would fill in with commercial high intensity or it currently does as well as uh page 31 is the zoning map which shows that the

38
00:11:59.600 --> 00:12:16.079
properties to the north and south are both currently zoned M1 light industrial and warehousing and our zoning districts meet in the middle of rightways. And so if this uh public rightway is vacated, uh additional land will additional land will be in private ownership in the M1

39
00:12:16.079 --> 00:12:34.639
zoning district. So just wanted to point those um kind of specific points out. Um with that, I'll take any questions. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um member Gar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Eddie, a question regarding that caveat about u

40
00:12:34.639 --> 00:12:50.079
the M1 zoning district and additional private land in regard to the zoning district. The zoning districts in Titus will run to the center of platted roads or to the other side of the rideway if there would be some other reason for that. But typically zoning districts

41
00:12:50.079 --> 00:13:05.680
converge in the center of the road. So the property in the rightway is currently zoned M1. You're not adding any more M1 zoning. You're adding more privateowned M1 zoning. >> Correct. The zoning boundary currently

42
00:13:05.680 --> 00:13:21.040
uh well actually since both properties north and south are M1, the zoning district continues through the ride ofway. And the point being the ownership will change from being owned by the public uh public entity uh will be owned privately if vacated.

43
00:13:21.040 --> 00:13:37.519
But my kind of point would be I understand what that does, but in reality, if you're making use of that for purposes of access, if it was a road, you would do some type of improvement, the M1 zoning district supports. So, in other words, you already have the condition, in my

44
00:13:37.519 --> 00:13:54.880
opinion, that you have M1 zoning, albeit now it moves to private ownership, but if it remained public, improvements that might be born from that zoning district would be in concert with M1 zoning. So, it's not like you're really getting new land zoned M1. You're just expanding

45
00:13:54.880 --> 00:14:13.120
private ownership in what's otherwise already zoned M1. Yes, sir. That's correct. Thank you. >> I think member Rice is trying to push his button. There it is. It wasn't going you know to piggy back on him since it does goes through the s road because

46
00:14:13.120 --> 00:14:29.279
you're not gaining anything. The property is zoned in one. What provisions are there for I mean there's lots of M1. The FPNL lift station area is M1. GNU is M2. FPNL is M2. And then

47
00:14:29.279 --> 00:14:47.120
there's a vacant lot that's M1. Um and then the coffee shop is M1. Pep Boys is M1. And so because it was reszoned the area it was with the exception of

48
00:14:47.120 --> 00:15:02.320
these lots in here. How does this ever transition or is it always going to stay M1 unless someone comes in and request a resoning? >> So we use the South Street small area

49
00:15:02.320 --> 00:15:17.920
plan when we're analyzing requests for resonings or uh smallcale comprehensive plan amendment changes. um to guide what council adopted in that small small area plan to make sure that it's consistent. And so that's why we had to point out that comment because technically that

50
00:15:17.920 --> 00:15:34.160
zoning district M1 is inconsistent with the overlay the the district uh interstate commercial for that area. However, we do recognize that the zoning district that's on the property to the north and south is currently M1 and has been there. So um it was just something

51
00:15:34.160 --> 00:15:51.759
to point out. But how I mean what rights do the property owners have because they're in a category of M1 that's not allowed in that flu designation. Okay. >> I mean so what happens to those properties long term or or would they

52
00:15:51.759 --> 00:16:09.360
have to be administratively reszoned or are they only going to be reszoned as per an applicant may request? >> Well, that's a separate issue from whether the rightway should be vacated. So, I don't want to dis uh take away from that subject since we do have an applicant that is here tonight just to

53
00:16:09.360 --> 00:16:25.600
discuss the right-of-way vacate, but um typically what would happen is you'd have a a non-conforming use or a non-conforming structure and um that structure would no longer be able to expand. And so, if the business were to grow and need to locate somewhere else, then it would uh they would search for

54
00:16:25.600 --> 00:16:40.560
other property with an appropriate zoning district. However, that's not the case with this. This is a small area plan that was adopted. It's not a um a zoning district that's making it non-conforming. >> Okay. Um can you get a variance to to

55
00:16:40.560 --> 00:16:56.399
make it conforming in in in small area? >> Again, in this issue, it's it's not an issue of not that it's not conforming. It's just to guide future decision zoning changes and zoning decisions in the future. >> Okay. Just about guidance more than anything. Okay. um because I wanted to make sure I

56
00:16:56.399 --> 00:17:10.880
understood exactly because there's a lot of properties that are in that area that are not within that study area. Um, and I agree with me Gerard that, you know, the zoning goes to the center of the street, so you're really not creating

57
00:17:10.880 --> 00:17:26.880
any more, you know, M1. And whether if it was vacated and if the zoning on the applicant's property were to change, so would half the road change with that

58
00:17:26.880 --> 00:17:44.160
or or what no longer is the road, but that property would change and transition to whatever it may be resoneed to eventually. just like any property in Titusville would. Correct. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Member GR two questions and that intrigues me that

59
00:17:44.160 --> 00:18:00.720
your your comments in line with my question. The inconsistency with the area plans, not a nonconformity to zoning. Nonconformity zoning isn't limited to expansion. Non-conformity zoning can be limited can be ex uh can

60
00:18:00.720 --> 00:18:17.120
be implemented on existing structures where proposed redevelopment meaning restoration, repair or otherwise uh replacement may be limited or prohibited if you reach certain thresholds. So I think of nonconformity as a zoning matter. I think of inconsistencies as a

61
00:18:17.120 --> 00:18:32.880
comprehensive plan matter. >> This request is neither consistent or inconsistent or conforming or non-conforming. It's a vacation the rideway which I think is what your point is and they're also for other members purposes some of the city's zoning

62
00:18:32.880 --> 00:18:47.919
districts have uses within them that are allocated to multiple zoning districts. So you could have a use of the land consistent with M1 and that use be compliant with long range goals like a tourist use and in itself it may also be

63
00:18:47.919 --> 00:19:05.120
inconsistent with the zoning. That could be any combination of those things. That's why it's for me it's always important to separate the difference between a nonconformity visav zoning district rules and an inconsistency with long range comprehensive plans. And in the middle is this road vacation that

64
00:19:05.120 --> 00:19:25.039
seems pretty consistent with both. >> Member Seedler. >> Thank you. when I'm looking on page 25 where we have the um applicants red box there and I'm looking at um my question

65
00:19:25.039 --> 00:19:42.880
is when it's plotted so this is the the plots for this actual piece of land in in does it encompass the whole area vacated meaning like in past vacations requests the vacated property 50% went

66
00:19:42.880 --> 00:19:58.640
one direction, 50% went the other direction because it was split kind of in a plot. Is this included in the whole plot there? So, it would be 100% goes there. My next question is >> Well, I want to clarify that. >> Okay.

67
00:19:58.640 --> 00:20:15.120
>> The the area on page 25 that's highlighted in red is the entire right of way to be vacated. >> Yes. >> Um how that vacated right ofway gets split up between the different property owners uh is not something that's controlled by the city. It's controlled by Bvard County uh when it's recorded

68
00:20:15.120 --> 00:20:31.679
and so we don't have any control over if it's split 5050 or 100% goes to one property owner. So I can't definitively answer that question. >> So that okay so that is generally you have some sort of a comment regarding the the plots and so I was

69
00:20:31.679 --> 00:20:46.720
trying to figure out >> no you in fact if I may Mr. Chairman that brings up a point I made several meetings ago when we had a road closing vacation. It's illustrative and helpful. Even though it may be Bvard County's determination, it's really not the determination of Bvard County. It's a

70
00:20:46.720 --> 00:21:02.720
determination of the plat. And the record plat what you're speaking of in my experience says that if the subdivision subdivided dedicated the rightway therein, the vacation splits it to the in this case north and south side equally. However, as I've pointed out,

71
00:21:02.720 --> 00:21:20.400
you can have subdivisions in which a new subdivision, another plaid of a different day and a different time, comes from a road rideway that later in time when you look at it, you see a road, you see land here and land there or building here and building there. And the assumption's always been, as it was

72
00:21:20.400 --> 00:21:36.159
explained that night when I raised this question, the assumption is it splits down the middle. But that is not a proper assumption. The correct determination is where does this rideway come from in reference to the plat and the recordation of that plat whether it

73
00:21:36.159 --> 00:21:52.640
was a block that came as another phase or whether it was inclusive as one block to the next block and the rightways in the middle. So my point was what I would request staff do if you wouldn't mind it'd be helpful to me and maybe other members is along with the backup try to

74
00:21:52.640 --> 00:22:09.120
give us something that identifies the plat so you can determine by quickly examining it that the right of way is inclusive of the legal descriptions before us. In this case, you've got a block and a lot on the south of it or adjacent to it and a block and a lot on the other side of it. And the question

75
00:22:09.120 --> 00:22:25.520
is down the middle having the the explanation in the staff stumbry that it's um it's within the plat and some kind you you understand what I'm saying I'm sure as a an illustration of that when we see the backup material it would leave a lot of questions that didn't

76
00:22:25.520 --> 00:22:40.480
need to be asked answered just on that face value. >> Sure. and and with that um so the rightaway that's subject to the request appears to be within the plat. So more than likely it will be 5050. My point is that city staff is not involved in in

77
00:22:40.480 --> 00:22:55.919
that making that happen. And so I can't say 100% that that's how that's going to work just because I'm my hands don't make that happen. Um but that is for the most part what I've seen with rightway vacates is they are split 50/50 if the the vacated right ofway is internal to

78
00:22:55.919 --> 00:23:12.400
one plat. If the plat is shared, if the rightaway borders between two different platin on the border of entirely within one plat and not within not shared with a different plat um then it's not split

79
00:23:12.400 --> 00:23:30.000
50/50. 100% of the vacated area would go to the adjacent property owner that belongs to the same plat. And >> and you remember the the purpose of that was on the plat the road vacation was off garden street. And the question became one, does the property absorb that driveway that worked for his

80
00:23:30.000 --> 00:23:44.880
business? The vacation raised the question, what about the property's access on the south side? In this case, I guess it would be the south side. And that raised the whole discussion that I had about we should at least know if the road being vacated, the ride ofway being

81
00:23:44.880 --> 00:24:01.039
vacated is inclusive of the plat making that request as opposed to uh adjacent property that happens to have access to that same platted ride ofway. >> And I always said it's you don't get free land. So if you never dedicated the property away from your land, you can't

82
00:24:01.039 --> 00:24:17.840
get free land for $50 filing fee. you split it down the middle because the free land came from what you bought from the parent parcel, the subdivided interest in the rightway. I don't mean to be an attorney, but this is always opposing question for me about rightway vacations. Thank you.

83
00:24:17.840 --> 00:24:33.840
>> My guess is the applicant probably's done some research, so once we hear from him, we can see see what he has to say. Uh, do you have anything else, member? >> Yes. So on page 27 um is the

84
00:24:33.840 --> 00:24:50.240
pro it looks like an L. So when you go down Cali Cordo Road and then we turn right on the M whatever you say that in Venita Real Road. So this is

85
00:24:50.240 --> 00:25:06.880
so if we vacate it I'm looking here. Is this a an area where a potential road could be built to have access because with that and by vacating then we just have a deadend road here that is city-owned. Is that how I'm interpreting

86
00:25:06.880 --> 00:25:22.880
this? Is that correct? >> That's correct. It's currently a vacant uh undeveloped ride ofway. So there's no road there currently. And that's typically the intent of a public rideway is to serve for future roadway connections. In this instance, uh we have an applicant requesting that that

87
00:25:22.880 --> 00:25:39.600
ride ofway to be vacated. Um the surrounding property owners have been notified. Um the the right-of-way deadends to the uh Ford dealership. And so the the question is does it continue to serve a public

88
00:25:39.600 --> 00:25:56.080
interest or should uh council oblige the request and vacate the right of way and turn it into privately owned land? Correct. So, all right. So, by vacating this, then we basically have a dead end

89
00:25:56.080 --> 00:26:12.720
in the middle of some businesses. Should this be vacated? >> That's correct. It's currently a dead end where it dead ends at the dealership uh on the east side at uh the end the eastern terminus of Avanita Royale. Um if this is vacated, then Cayorto will

90
00:26:12.720 --> 00:26:30.559
terminate where Avanita Royale would have began. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Member McDaniel. >> Hi. So, my question is more um for the community. Um with this vacation, how does that affect the surrounding businesses, its customers or the

91
00:26:30.559 --> 00:26:47.919
residents in the area, if any? >> So, currently the ride ofway is not serving uh the properties to the south or the east. Um it dead end the Aanita Royale dead ends into the landscape buffer for the Ford dealership um along

92
00:26:47.919 --> 00:27:05.320
Cheney Highway and is along the rear of the Pep Boys um auto repair shop. Um I believe the applicant would like to speak some more about his intended purpose for uh if it if the request is granted and so I'll I'll leave that to him.

93
00:27:05.760 --> 00:27:26.559
All right, seeing no more questions, I will open the public hearing and we can hear from the applicant. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, >> want to state your name and address? >> The, uh, now we know who you are. >> My name is Lawrence Graham.

94
00:27:26.559 --> 00:27:41.679
Uh, I reside at 2661 Pristine Drive. Uh, I own a property to the north which is adjacent to this. This is a unimproved roadway uh that's been there. I've been there since 1988. I think I've owned it since

95
00:27:41.679 --> 00:27:57.440
91. Uh there used to be um adjacent roads before the Ford dealership was built. I think that was called Cali Largo and they did away with those. Again, all these roads are unimproved and the only person that uses this

96
00:27:57.440 --> 00:28:14.799
roadway or easement is myself to get into the backside of my property there. Um to answer um Mr. Gerard, uh these were all originally platted mobile home lots. Um the property at 4665, which is mine, I

97
00:28:14.799 --> 00:28:31.039
have four of them. And the one that is adjacent to mine to the N north is got three of them. Um, so that's how all the original plats they were all mobile home lots. Um, as you know with the uh thing of uh Pep Boys and then um I guess it's

98
00:28:31.039 --> 00:28:49.279
Cumberland and all that. Uh, significant changes have happened there. First of all, Pep Boys all their egress is from State Road 50. The only thing back there is a retention pond and behind it. Um but since 19 um probably about 1990 I've

99
00:28:49.279 --> 00:29:04.960
maintained all that because uh nobody from storm water for the city of Titusville. Multiple people knew exactly how all that drained. So every once in a while we would have a road grader and I I I uh cut a deal with him. He had to push it off a certain way and we always

100
00:29:04.960 --> 00:29:20.480
maintained it or I would flood out. Well, since that has happened, we it started with Pep Boys. same thing started uh we had to get uh together and um and put their minds together the way they were doing it.

101
00:29:20.480 --> 00:29:36.320
They were blocking the water off again. You know, Ford built that up to the east. Then pep boy started where our drainage was and then lo and behold, we get that done and Cumberland starts. Well, well, by the time I talked to the

102
00:29:36.320 --> 00:29:52.320
people from site and planning when Cumberland was done, it looked like they had a pretty good plan with a great there at the end of the Cali Cordo, right where she had indicated um where the city dead ends on Cali Cordo. Well,

103
00:29:52.320 --> 00:30:08.720
nobody took care of it. So, what happened? It grew up 8 n 10 foot. I started flooding out again. And so, we Yeah. I I went to the city. Uh luckily I knew a bunch of the people from Cumberland said, "Listen, we're going to take this over. We're going to start

104
00:30:08.720 --> 00:30:25.679
mowing it and keeping it." I said, "You're flooding me out. I don't want to have to to go and and see some other kind of legal venue of this." It's like you can't block the water. So, we've been maintaining it. This whole um abandonment is uh literally for two

105
00:30:25.679 --> 00:30:40.880
things. Number one, that's how we get into our lot. And number two, it's to allow me the right to keep that grade and clean because the city doesn't do it. Period. End of story. They haven't done one. So

106
00:30:40.880 --> 00:30:56.159
they it's like a forgotten about piece of property that they just let go. And unless I called somebody up from the city, nobody goes there. So that that's the reason for it. It's really to keep we're fixing to get into the rainy

107
00:30:56.159 --> 00:31:14.440
season again. And I figured, well, if I was going to do something, it's time to, you know, get it to where we can maintain it and not have to worry about relying on another the city or somebody else to do it. >> Any questions for the applicant?

108
00:31:15.679 --> 00:31:31.520
>> Member Seedler. >> Thank you. So, you're flooding and the city has not come out to maintain it for you. It's a little bit more convoluted than that because you have a little portion of that is maintained by the city and it

109
00:31:31.520 --> 00:31:48.000
goes into a DOT ditch. So DOT owns that ditch. My water drains to where Cumberland used to be. Now it drains into a collection box and it goes into a pipe that runs to the north side of

110
00:31:48.000 --> 00:32:03.120
Cumberland but travels west straight to the DOT ditch. And that is never maintained. So the only time it gets maintained is whenever I get a member of my crew and we go out there and we do it for them

111
00:32:03.120 --> 00:32:27.039
because it backs up. And because I'm the last of the Moheakans there and everything's been built up around it and we are the ones that eventually when we get a lot of rain in the back of the thing, it tends to flood out. Okay. Um, my is it Orange Plumbing? Is

112
00:32:27.039 --> 00:32:43.279
that you? >> Uh, I own Orange Plumbing. Yes, ma'am. But currently my business is not located there. I have another business that is in there. It's called Rush Facilities that I do not own. They're a tenant of mine and I'm doing this to keep my

113
00:32:43.279 --> 00:32:59.279
tenant happy because they use the back lot and they rent it. Uh, and they, you know, it's all enclosed. So people can't easily get to their stuff, you know, and they they keep trucks and that type thing back there, but whenever it floods

114
00:32:59.279 --> 00:33:15.600
out back there, it becomes a muddy mess. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Um, anyone else have any questions? Um, do so on the on the ownership piece,

115
00:33:15.600 --> 00:33:30.799
realize the city doesn't control that. Have you done research as to if it gets vacated does the for the entire property transfer to you? Does it get split and goes half to pep boys

116
00:33:30.799 --> 00:33:48.000
ownership and half to you or >> typically what my understanding is is if uh it gets split between both properties unless one of them doesn't want it. As you guys anybody familiar with pet boys all their egress is on the other side. The only thing that goes back there is a

117
00:33:48.000 --> 00:34:03.679
lawnmower. And I've reached out to Pep Boys. Pep Boys, all their buildings are owned corporately. And the corporate ones around the country, they have property managers that run whichever one in an area. And

118
00:34:03.679 --> 00:34:18.480
the property manager I was able to get to said, "Well, we have no interest in it, you know, because we don't use all that. All our stuff is the other way." How it's going to lay out, I don't know. um the drainage portion of it is closer

119
00:34:18.480 --> 00:34:34.639
to their side of it. Meaning if you took that 50 foot the the actual drainage probably runs about the 40 foot mark off the side of my building to the south of the building and then it runs uh east west. It actually runs west towards Cali

120
00:34:34.639 --> 00:34:49.839
Cordo into that pit that we're talk collection box rather. So, I don't know if they he speaks for them. That's, you know, it's my understanding they, you know, because they're a large corporation throughout the United States, they rely on the property

121
00:34:49.839 --> 00:35:04.720
managers. Um, they didn't give me anything in writing. He just said, "Well, if we get some, we we have no need for it because it would it we would have to take care of that." So, in other words, if I took 25 and let's say the

122
00:35:04.720 --> 00:35:20.640
grass grew up 8 n feet, now they would have to take care of it. But how that lays out, I don't know. I just got to be able to keep the the water flowing correctly. >> No, I I I get that. I I'm more curious

123
00:35:20.640 --> 00:35:35.520
about, you know, I I don't want to create more problems than we uh solve here. Um Eddie, do you have any sense? I'm assuming the county would probably need something in writing uh to to

124
00:35:35.520 --> 00:35:52.480
record the entire property to u Mr. Graham or instead of splitting it down the middle or do we have no idea because it's just it it doesn't happen here. All all you do or all we do is release recommend releasing the city's rights to

125
00:35:52.480 --> 00:36:08.560
it. >> That that the latter part that's correct. >> So So then does it still until the county records it? It's still property of the city. Is >> that's correct. >> Okay. So, we release it. Lets the county know they can reassign it, but it's

126
00:36:08.560 --> 00:36:25.760
really not reassigned until another procedure on their side. >> Okay. Member Rice, >> you brought up an interesting point. I sitting there thinking, is this drainage structure in that 50 foot right away?

127
00:36:25.760 --> 00:36:42.000
Now the drainage structure is if you were to to draw a plus intersection between Cal Cali Cordto and this is called Aanida reel >> right >> um it is if you continued south on Cali

128
00:36:42.000 --> 00:37:00.400
Corto it's roughly about 10 foot past uh where Evan Reel would be if it was to cross it. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, um, my surveyor, we stopped it right at my property line,

129
00:37:00.400 --> 00:37:17.760
um, to the, um, the west so I don't encroach into that plus portion of the intersection. Therefore, I affected no utilities. That's why all the utility people signed off on it. >> Well, I was thinking more on the line of, you know, drainage easements. You

130
00:37:17.760 --> 00:37:35.040
know, is there drainage that occurs along that 50 foot that a drainage easement would be required? And if that structure was inside that rideway and it served PEP, I think you said it serves pep boys or that drainage

131
00:37:35.040 --> 00:37:51.119
structure. Who's it serve? that drainage uh structure. It's my understanding as it was passed from um engineering here was to collect my place into that and then it goes into a pipe and then it

132
00:37:51.119 --> 00:38:07.520
runs on the south side or excuse me on the north side of Cumberland and goes straight to that ditch. So it doesn't serve Pet Boys. It doesn't serve Cumberland or the dental place or the other properties that are on Cali Corte.

133
00:38:07.520 --> 00:38:25.520
>> No, sir. It it if you um if you took uh an imaginary line on Cali Cordo, we have a dumpster there. So at the it would be my um northwest property corner. Calli's got a slight crest right there.

134
00:38:25.520 --> 00:38:42.599
So everything to the south of it drains towards that little collection box and everything to the to the uh north of it drains to Foley Road. And as a matter of fact, again,

135
00:38:42.800 --> 00:38:57.920
not to pick on the city, they don't take care of it. So, I recently went out there uh for my neighbor because they were flooding out and I straightened it out. What happens is all the cars that

136
00:38:57.920 --> 00:39:15.440
are from um the coffee shop, they back up the turn, it's tight in there and when it's wet, they go across the street and it gets all and they stir that mud up to builds up and then over time it just keeps the water from draining. So, I went out there and scratched it back.

137
00:39:15.440 --> 00:39:30.079
And then I told one of the site inspectors I did it just in case anybody knows Larry did it. But I've been doing this since I'm telling you about 1988 because nobody really understood how all that stuff drained out there. And then

138
00:39:30.079 --> 00:39:47.359
come to find out again, it's not part of this petition, but to the north there, they had just lack of maintenance on some pipes. They let them grow up. So, we had to clean them up and then there hasn't been an issue. Of course, it really hasn't rained a tremendous lot in the last say two months or so to speak

139
00:39:47.359 --> 00:40:05.520
of, but it's it's um it's real sensitive in that area on how that water drains or it will flood. I could show you pictures where that water is 6 8 in deep. >> Thank you. I don't see any other questions. Do we um have any cards,

140
00:40:05.520 --> 00:40:23.040
Lori? >> No more cards. >> All right. I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the deis for comments or motion. >> Member Ice. >> I have a couple questions for staff real

141
00:40:23.040 --> 00:40:43.440
quick on the wetland national wetland inventory page. Uh let's see what page let me see. I guess it's page 30. I don't think it's labeled or or if it is, I don't see it. Um, page 30, you know, that wetland and

142
00:40:43.440 --> 00:40:59.040
inventory map is pretty old and all that's been developed with Cumberland Farms, the Tire Store, Aspen Dental, Pep Boys, and that wetland doesn't exist anymore. But this map shows that there's a

143
00:40:59.040 --> 00:41:16.079
wetland there. someone that doesn't know the area wouldn't realize that none of that wetland, a good portion of that wetland is no longer there. Shouldn't we be updating those maps to to reflect when it goes to city council exactly

144
00:41:16.079 --> 00:41:33.040
what is there? Because this gives the impression for someone that doesn't know that all this wetland is still there. >> Well, we do include a variety a series of maps. So hopefully the aerial map included will help clarify that that wetland is not there. The National

145
00:41:33.040 --> 00:41:48.800
Wetlands Inventory map, um the date on it at the bottom, the source says it was accessed in 2023. So it's not the 1988 version that was previously used. Um this is a a nationalwide wetlands data

146
00:41:48.800 --> 00:42:06.079
set. It's not a city data set. We pulled the >> I realized that. But that's I saw those dates and I looked up and went to Google Earth and looked at the aerials of when Cumberland and all those things were built and they were all built started construction in

147
00:42:06.079 --> 00:42:23.760
21 finished construction in 22. So even the National Wetland Inventory map in 23 that got published was not correct. I mean, shouldn't we take the liberty to fix these maps before we send them out to the public for public consideration?

148
00:42:23.760 --> 00:42:39.839
>> Well, again, this isn't a data set that's maintained by the city. Um, in order for us to uh send additional data to the US Fish and Wildlife Service that maintains this data set, uh we'd have to update them anytime that there's

149
00:42:39.839 --> 00:42:56.240
development on a site. and I don't know that they are open to receiving updates from the city of Titusville every time there's a new site plan approved. Um my understanding is that the way that the data set works is that periodically they do their own analysis and update their maps. So these are just for

150
00:42:56.240 --> 00:43:13.359
umformational purposes only. They're not always 100% ground truth definitely not ground truth wetlands. This is a a big picture of where wetlands may be may be indicated on a site. Uh but your point is well taken. This site is has definitely been developed for several years and is not a wetland.

151
00:43:13.359 --> 00:43:37.520
>> Okay. And then um let me let me find the exhibit so I can get you to the right page. Um it's under it's the recommendation. U if you can help me find it.

152
00:43:37.520 --> 00:43:55.040
um what page that recommendation is on. Um you know it's the one that has the table is you know >> page 15. >> Okay. >> It the title recommendation there. It really doesn't give a recommendation. It just has it just it's not really a

153
00:43:55.040 --> 00:44:11.599
recommendation. just says, "Hey, if you if you think this, here's the small area plan that's not consistent with. If you think this, then here's, you know, basically the facts that you can use to approve that." Okay. So, there really isn't a recommendation.

154
00:44:11.599 --> 00:44:27.839
But when I go to page 34, okay, of the agenda where you have the resolution for vacation, the resolution's written as if we're approving this.

155
00:44:27.839 --> 00:44:42.640
It it's written as it was approved request and sent to city council. And even the city council says passed and adopted the 26th May of 2026, but yet the board hasn't acted and city council hasn't acted. Is that typically how you

156
00:44:42.640 --> 00:44:58.640
do these? I mean, you you So, is are you saying this really is your recommendation is is the adoption because you wrote the resolution that way? >> No. No. Member Rice, I think you might be reading a little too far into it. Uh that is typical for all of our applications. We include the ordinances

157
00:44:58.640 --> 00:45:14.640
to be considered by council as presented. If council were to adopt uh an ordinance with changes, uh then we would modify the ordinance before it's signed by the mayor. But we do present the ordinances or resolutions with the application um >> in draft form. >> In draft form, correct?

158
00:45:14.640 --> 00:45:31.599
>> So, so is the draft always a presumption that whatever is being considered going to be approved as written? >> Is that the assumption? That's how you write it and then you modify it based on what transpired on the actual >> correct. Yes, sir. Okay. If if council's

159
00:45:31.599 --> 00:45:47.520
uh leisure is not to approve it, then it just does not >> but they're all written consistently the same saying, "All right, this is in front of city council." >> Yes, sir. We weren't trying to hint at any any direction with a recommendation by including that in the package. >> I just was wondering if it was

160
00:45:47.520 --> 00:46:04.079
consistent that way because I I really have never noticed that before and I was like I'm curious. So, all right. Thank you, >> Member Gar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of things uh to to staff to Eddie. Um I answered my question by looking at the

161
00:46:04.079 --> 00:46:19.040
property appraisers and the vacated rideway to Pep Boys went to Pep Boys and the property. If you look at page 33, I think I think that was the page I saw that's on uh 31, excuse me. You'll see the M1 zoning district runs the center

162
00:46:19.040 --> 00:46:35.119
line of that Cali Cordo road and the legal description that they've got in the property appraisers show that they obtained half of the rideway. And the legal descriptions that are in the property appraiser for this parcel as well as the pep boys are both from the

163
00:46:35.119 --> 00:46:51.920
same subdivision plat book five page 70 which is some pronunciation I'm not going to try to pretend I can do but it's a funny looking word and it's like that street uh cordia. Um but point being that does look to me like it's

164
00:46:51.920 --> 00:47:07.680
going to be half and half. So, you might want to talk to your folks at Pep Boys about getting a quick claim deed to the other half of the rideway. They probably don't need it, but they do know what obtaining half a rideway is because they already went through the vacation when they did their pet boys. Just for

165
00:47:07.680 --> 00:47:25.520
background, um I know this is not necessary because I always didn't like it, but there is the world of the draft being embodied in your documents with the watercolor uh mark on it that says draft. So when you prepare those

166
00:47:25.520 --> 00:47:41.839
documents that look like they've already agreed to it, you might want to throw draft across it so everybody knows it's not the one that just didn't get signed. That way it might help Mr. Rice and others know that you're not de factoing saying it's the 26. It's already a done deal. I can understand your point.

167
00:47:41.839 --> 00:47:57.920
Somebody here would see that. So if it helps maybe along with the extra information, you could take your documents that are in draft form and just give a water mark to it says draft. >> Yeah. >> Although I personally did that and I hated it. So I thought it was galashes in a rainsuit. But anyway, thank you.

168
00:47:57.920 --> 00:48:14.880
>> On that same note, I think the uh the wetlands map, we could put a text notation on that. We I understand not modifying the map but putting a text notation that some to the effect that this you know city the map's no longer accurate based off of um you know the

169
00:48:14.880 --> 00:48:31.040
satellite photos or something like that just so if a public's reading it and not familiar um it we at least acknowledge that there's there's an error in the in that. >> Sure. I'll add that there is a comment at the bottom and it probably needs to

170
00:48:31.040 --> 00:48:46.000
be larger font because it's very hard to see but it does say um this data set represents the appro approximate location and type of wetlands and deep water habitats the primary intended uses for regional and watershed data display and analysis rather than specific

171
00:48:46.000 --> 00:49:00.720
project data analysis. So again trying to hint at this is much larger scale but it does give the impression that there are wetlands at the site when there are none. Member Seedler. >> Thank you. Um, so with the smallcale

172
00:49:00.720 --> 00:49:18.559
study, as I'm understanding it, the city the city's plan calls for higher value commercial kind of in that area even though we have M1 M1 M1 and then we have the the two um community commercial. is it or

173
00:49:18.559 --> 00:49:36.480
what would the city um consider or possibly use this for to meet their smallcale study instead of dedicating it and turning it to an M1. >> So I don't know that there's been any indication that the city has a a an

174
00:49:36.480 --> 00:49:52.720
interest a future interest in using Aanita Royale for any type of improvements. Um, as far as the small area plan, the small area plan was adopted after uh the zoning on these properties and so they were zoned M1 and the small area plan which was adopted by

175
00:49:52.720 --> 00:50:11.520
council was after the fact um adopting that designation of um uh what was it now? Highway interstate commercial area, sorry. Um and so

176
00:50:11.520 --> 00:50:29.119
the intent is for uh this area to be a commercial use which you see on the future land use map the future land use designation on the property is commercial. So the intent is that as this property gets used and developed over time it will um the intent by council has been that this area will be

177
00:50:29.119 --> 00:50:44.559
used for commercial uses. The zoning hasn't caught up yet and is still at the M1 stage. So, um that's what that that small area plan is intended to do is guide future development and future zoning change uh requests so that if someone were to request in this area an

178
00:50:44.559 --> 00:51:00.079
M1 zoning, we could say that that's uh very clearly inconsistent with the small area plan. It's one more um one more uh justification that council can use uh to when they're considering a request. >> Okay. And then I'd like to make a

179
00:51:00.079 --> 00:51:15.680
comment on the wetland map. I just to point out that that was a wet land and we've built over it. >> So, it is still there and I am not shocked that you're experiencing

180
00:51:15.680 --> 00:51:31.440
flooding um because it was a wet land and there that they just built on top of it. So, there is quite a bit of green space um opposite your property and it is M1 and there's a bunch of trees

181
00:51:31.440 --> 00:51:47.359
there. Is that higher or lower than your property? Um just for curiosity because again it the wetland is still there. They just built over it. >> Well, they built over it. Um that wet

182
00:51:47.359 --> 00:52:04.240
land is not exactly as you see now. As you know, they build a very, very large retainage area to incorporate what they displaced. So, they have that. And then DOT has a little ditch. This doesn't really show correctly. And I believe

183
00:52:04.240 --> 00:52:21.119
they even got a little bit of a thing that the ditch as it uh parallels State Road 405 and goes to Foley, that ditch kind of cuts it a little bit at a diagonal angle. And none of that is showing all that, but that's there. But

184
00:52:21.119 --> 00:52:38.160
that is that's actually to the west of the coffee shop. So it's it's that far uh north. It's almost a Foley that that whole ditch way through there. And they they've struggled with that for years. That whole intersection when we get a lot of

185
00:52:38.160 --> 00:52:57.440
water. >> Member Rice. Well, I'm ready to make a motion if you'll entertain. >> Have it. >> I'm going to um recommend approval of the request based on the following findings. The that we find that the request is consistent with the

186
00:52:57.440 --> 00:53:12.400
comprehensive plan. The request needs the re meets the re the review criteria established in ordinance number 492014 and none of the utility providers had objected to the request

187
00:53:12.400 --> 00:53:28.240
and finding that zoning goes to the center of the street. Therefore, it's not really creating any more M1. It's it's the same area. So, those are the findings of fact. I'll second.

188
00:53:28.240 --> 00:53:44.480
>> I have a motion and a second. Um, any comments before roll call? Uh, seeing none. Uh, roll call, please. Lori. >> Member Gar. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Scully. >> Yes. >> Member McDaniel. >> Yes. >> Member Rice. >> Yes. >> Member Troutman.

189
00:53:44.480 --> 00:54:02.640
>> Yes. >> Secretary Fa. >> Yes. >> Chairman Eton. >> Yes. >> Motion passes unanimously. Um that was our last item under new business. Uh second petitions and requests from the public present. Anyone

190
00:54:02.640 --> 00:54:19.200
care? Seeing none. Um city staff report. Thank you, sir. And I'll just uh real quick go back to that item um to remind everybody that that item will be heard by city council at the May 26th uh

191
00:54:19.200 --> 00:54:34.880
meeting. um on reports is the if you'll remember at the last meeting there was a reasonzoning in the Indian River City neighborhood. Uh the request was to go from Indian River City uh commercial to Indian River City residential. And as

192
00:54:34.880 --> 00:54:51.680
part of that discussion, there was a conversation about having to potentially go for before the board of just adjustment and appeals, the applicant having to go before the board of adjustment and appeals uh for a variance if um it was found that they didn't meet the density. So, I wanted to report back

193
00:54:51.680 --> 00:55:05.520
on that because uh as part of your recommendation on that resoning request, you also made a separate motion um to city council directing that staff look at the non-conforming lots section,

194
00:55:05.520 --> 00:55:22.319
section 34 347, and um if if that was what the intent of that section was, um to change that section so that density was no longer something that would uh require a variance. And so I just wanted to report back that after discussion further discussion with other staff

195
00:55:22.319 --> 00:55:38.559
including the building official um it was found that that the density standard is not what's making the lot non-conforming and so that would not be a requirement for a variance um for them to build that that one single family home and so uh the change is not not

196
00:55:38.559 --> 00:55:55.839
required at this time. Um, however, I did want to ask the board uh because as part of that conversation, there was a discussion also about potentially removing density from our zoning districts. Um, if you remember, the conversation was that in our future land

197
00:55:55.839 --> 00:56:11.200
use designations, we have a maximum density and in our zoning districts, we have a separate uh maximum density. And so, typically, we'll have a higher density cap in the future land use. uh let's say um for example in the medium

198
00:56:11.200 --> 00:56:28.319
density to residential it's 10 units per acre and in the R2 zoning district it's further regulated down to nine maximum of nine units per acre and so it further restricts in the zoning district and that can be confusing for some people. it appears to conflict. Um, and so we

199
00:56:28.319 --> 00:56:42.720
wanted to ask if that's a separate motion that you'd like to put forward to council at this time to uh recommend directing staff to consider removing density from the zoning districts and reming them in the future land use designations.

200
00:56:42.720 --> 00:56:59.760
Uh, one thing to consider is that um, in the past applicants have been able to get a quote unquote density bonus. It's not nec necessarily a density bonus, but it's um let's say again using the example of medium density residential

201
00:56:59.760 --> 00:57:15.520
and R2. If your medium density residential allows the 10 dwelling units per acre and your R2 allows nine, if you were to reszone the property to PD, a plan development, and you're going to put in the 35% minimum open space and all the things that are required to

202
00:57:15.520 --> 00:57:30.799
master plan with that plan development, um then obviously you've no you're no longer excuse me, no longer in the R2 zoning district. So that nine dwelling units uh max density does not apply. Uh however the 10 dwelling maximum 10

203
00:57:30.799 --> 00:57:45.680
dwelling units per acre applies and so you can get that extra one unit per acre by reszoning to PD and utilizing the density under the future land use designation as opposed to keeping the zoning on the property. And so that has been one way that we've seen that used.

204
00:57:45.680 --> 00:58:02.720
Is it helpful? It hasn't I wouldn't say necessarily that it's a a big reason to keep density within our zoning districts. I think the fact that it's conf uh can be seen as conflicting is a little confusing is more of a reason to get rid of it. But we just wanted to ask you all if that's a recommendation you're willing to put forth to council

205
00:58:02.720 --> 00:58:18.880
tonight and if not we can move it forward to a future discussion. Thank you. >> Member Gar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I I remember being part of the conversation that were there and for my purposes and for other members to recognize that comprehensive planning's been around a

206
00:58:18.880 --> 00:58:34.640
long time, but here in our community and other communities in Florida, for that matter, a lot of communities in the United States, comprehensive planning was not the end all to be all oversight management of communities. Zoning was. That's why densities were

207
00:58:34.640 --> 00:58:50.640
assigned to zoning districts because they worked in effect like comprehensive plans. They were a model that said this is what you do with your land and this is how you do what you want to do with your land in density, lot width, height. Those are all qualifiers. When you start regulating growth as Florida does, as

208
00:58:50.640 --> 00:59:07.119
Titus does, through an aggressive comprehensive plan that itself, sadly enough, starts to act like a zoning district. It starts to address things that are more better served through a zoning regulation than a long range comprehensive plan. for in fact you

209
00:59:07.119 --> 00:59:24.319
don't get a variance from a long range comprehensive plan through the board of adjustment. It's not variable. It's amendable. You can change a density through a comprehensive plan amendment but you can't go get a variance. So that's why I said that you probably should dismiss that from the zoning

210
00:59:24.319 --> 00:59:39.760
districts due in large part because we have a very comprehensive comprehensive plan and what Eddie said is a very good tool for staff to use that a proponent of development would be otherwise restricted artificially by a zoning district density but a comprehensive

211
00:59:39.760 --> 00:59:55.359
plan alludes to a higher improved density for good reasons. But you can't get that density because you have the zoning district that's square. So you negotiate going to a different zoning district that enables you to capture the

212
00:59:55.359 --> 01:00:11.040
long range comprehensive plan. That's a good tool. But on the other hand, what a cumbersome process and an expensive process because you're going to go through at least two public hearings and staff review of your proposed change. Not just that I don't want this zoning

213
01:00:11.040 --> 01:00:27.359
district, I want that zoning district. So the analysis becomes more in depth and it starts to create this huge bubble of over unnecessary regulations in my opinion and that's why I thought that it ought to be addressed and it's principally based on the fact that in

214
01:00:27.359 --> 01:00:43.839
Florida more particularly here in Titus you have a good comprehensive plan that really serves well to guide growth through such regulations as density caps. Conversely, bonuses that you can achieve through resonings that allow you to capture that maximum density. On the

215
01:00:43.839 --> 01:00:59.359
other hand, don't make someone jump over the moon to get that bonus if you can otherwise do it within the zoning district on the straight zoning and do it in the in the zoning district regulations, height, setback, building, all those other matters. So, that I think he should move forward with it, my

216
01:00:59.359 --> 01:01:18.400
opinion. Um, seeing no other comments, um, I guess you want a motion to send this to council or just direction or if >> if there's consensus, a motion to council recommending um, to that effect would be great.

217
01:01:18.400 --> 01:01:34.960
>> Okay, awesome. >> So, say that. >> Um, member Rice, >> I have one quickly. Is this model being used throughout Florida now to do this? Do it that way?

218
01:01:34.960 --> 01:01:51.520
>> In most other communities, land development regulations that I've seen, the zoning districts do not have a density maximum. >> Okay. >> U that's typically limited in the in the comprehensive plan in the future land use designations. >> So, are you saying if it was in the comprehensive plans, it would give staff

219
01:01:51.520 --> 01:02:07.119
more flexibility? >> Oh, it is in comprehensive plans. What we ran into is is is there were not in alignment. If they were always in alignment, >> there's a difference between what zoning says and what the comp plan is. So, it's it's a way of having it in only one

220
01:02:07.119 --> 01:02:23.680
place and not having to worry about it fixing >> the ordinance for every place it shows up. It's in one place. >> Correct. It's it's currently redundant and even more restrictive in the zoning districts. >> Is that true in all of them? There's none that have more than what

221
01:02:23.680 --> 01:02:40.400
the comp plan was. >> No. So that that we definitely do not have and that would be a violation of the comp plan. >> It would be okay. >> Right. Okay. >> Member, >> another footnote to the history. Part of the reason is Eddie reported that typically you don't see density addressed in zoning districts as opposed

222
01:02:40.400 --> 01:02:56.240
in the comprehensive plan is somewhat brought about by the regulation the state required all the communities to create a unified land development code. So zoning district rules that were ukitian and came from a hundred years ago where density was the only controlling device was a zoning rule.

223
01:02:56.240 --> 01:03:12.559
Today you have a land development regulation that integrates the comprehensive plan into it and that's why there's a redundancy between the zoning and the comprehensive plan that's unnecessary. They already made the decision 10 units an acre as the example given was what we want to see. So now you have to make someone jump over a

224
01:03:12.559 --> 01:03:29.280
hoop to get something. Ultimately, this should have been done when the comprehensive plan was put into Exactly. >> We just missed or we didn't miss it. It was a long time ago, but somebody did. >> All right. Uh, anyone care to make a motion? >> Remember, I thought he already made

225
01:03:29.280 --> 01:03:44.720
>> We didn't vote on the first one, did we? >> I think we said to move it forward. What I suggested if I >> Okay. But it put that in the form of I guess >> the form of the motion is to have staff move forward with removing density from the zoning districts and allow the

226
01:03:44.720 --> 01:04:01.280
comprehensive plan to regulate density as it would. >> Perfect. Now I second that. >> All right. Member Chman seconds. Uh roll call, please. Lori. >> Um my mic is on. I'm sorry. That's okay. Uh just to be clear on the motion, it's the recommendation to have to h have

227
01:04:01.280 --> 01:04:17.440
staff be directed to make the recommendation to council. Is that what I'm hearing >> that you're requesting, Eddie? I >> I didn't hear the motion, so we might have to clarify, but the re the motion should be a recommendation to council to direct staff to remove.

228
01:04:17.440 --> 01:04:33.440
>> Yeah, I would always use the word recommendation. So, yes, >> I don't think I heard recommen clarified. >> Humanity just words skip my brain. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. >> All right, I think we're good.

229
01:04:33.440 --> 01:04:49.520
Um, >> the seconder is okay with the right word. >> Yeah, I'm still okay with good. All right, Lori. >> Member Troutman. >> Yes. >> Secretary F. >> Yes. >> Member Rice. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Scully. >> Yes. >> Member Grod.

230
01:04:49.520 --> 01:05:07.760
>> Yes. >> Member McDaniel. >> Yes. >> Chairman Eton. >> Yes. >> All right. >> Always thought about saying no to the recommendation I just made just to see what happens. Well, we I think we almost ended up with that the other day, but uh um

231
01:05:07.760 --> 01:05:24.480
uh is that conclude your report? That's all. Thank you, >> city attorney. >> I'm done. Thank you. >> I have nothing. Any of the members have any report? Um I would just say that the APA uh meeting that we attended last week was

232
01:05:24.480 --> 01:05:39.720
very informative. Um, and appreciate the city uh letting us go down there and be a part of that. >> Thank you. All right. And seeing no other reports, we will adjourn.