Good evening. We're going to start the uh June 17th planning and zoning meeting. Called order. Um if you would please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for it stands nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> We get a roll call please. >> Chairman Eton Vice Chairman Scully >> here. >> Secretary F >> here. >> Member Rice. Member Gar. Member Graham
>> here. >> Member McDaniel, alternate member Sidler >> here, alternate member Troutman >> here. >> Awesome. So, we have a quorum. Um, do we have a motion or any discussion on the minutes? >> I move that we accept the minutes as
written. >> All right. Thank you. Any second? >> A second. >> Thank you. Um, all in favor? >> I I >> Thank you. Um, we're going to pass it over to the attorney for [snorts] quasi judicial. >> Thank you. Good evening. During the public hearing portion of the meeting,
anyone wishing to speak on a quasi judicial item must complete and sign the speaker card along with the corresponding oath on the card. The cards are located on the front on the table in the front of chambers. City staff will make the initial presentation and then the applicant will present. Then the hearing will be open for public comments and those who wish to make a public comment on the item will speak
third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if they desire. 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 city. Members, please disclose any exparte communications or site visits at this time.
>> Seeing none, >> thank you. >> All right. Uh we're going to go to petitions and requests from the public present. Pass it out, please. I think I should wait for you to receive it. [sighs] Good evening. My name is Stan Johnson
and I'm a a professional engineer and also a surveyor. Uh, and I'm I sent an email to uh to uh Tomati, Kevin Cook, and Brad Parish. And it's the title of this. Let me read it
to you. It says, "Reszoning of planned development 56 town homes at the northeast corner of Singleton and State Road 405, drainage concerns from city's storm water management plan dash. Request for stormwater review by one of city's pees." So uh uh that's May the
20th. Now what's going to happen is July the 8th is it this issue is going to come before you and it's come before you before also in in many for in different forms. So [snorts] uh uh the letter I I've written to Brad Tom and Kevin says
please see plate 5-1B of the city's stormwater master plan. That's a portion what you what I sanded out is just a portion of that plate 5-1B and I put some notes on it about where the project is and uh also proposed canals or
ditches which is across the street and that's just a short section there. I say short section it's I don't know whether it's over 400 ft long or something like that but it shows also on that same on that same exhibit it shows proposed and existing canals not maintained. And then
my last note, it says legal positive outfall not not maintained. That's to the St. John's River. So the question is is what effect does this have on the resoning? The the reason I'm especially going ahead of this and I'm doing it like
about a month ahead of time is because uh well actually it's more than a month May the 20th is that I want to get I'm giving the city community development especially to have it to have it reviewed for drainage purposes because there's a concern about whether it's
going to be affecting other people's drainage especially because of what because of the numerous canals and ditches that are supposed to be maintained by the city that aren't maintained
and the legal the legal positive outfall to St. John's River has been compromised because the city doesn't inspect it. City doesn't maintain it. So, it's a big it's going to be a big issue for them to to handle. And so I I went ahead and
copied this because the city uh community development has been remiss upon uh [sighs] reviewing for drainage. I they d they review for sewer water but they also need a review for drainage. Any
questions? >> I do have a question for you. Do we have the maintenance records for these canals or ditches? Well, uh, I own one of the I own over a thousand feet of the ditches, which I I've asked city to go ahead and I'd give
them to them free. I'd give them easements, whatever they need to put the ditches through my property that's over 1,000 ft long. And they haven't. Uh, the last time they've been maintained, I don't know. I've been here since 1971,
and since 1971, I I can say that they haven't been maintained. and other people are going to testify that when they come before you on July the 8th. >> So is are these on the responsibility of the cities to maintain or what is the
thousand feet that you are giving to this city as an easement? >> Okay. >> Why is that necessary? >> Well, uh this is from what what what is called a storm water management plan. >> I didn't bring it with me, but it's a book about about that thick. eight and a
half by 11 pages plus 11 by 17 foldouts and so so forth. So uh the question was uh uh question again was is what >> the question was is the city to maintain these canals or
why is it that you're giving 1,000 ft and asking for an easement? >> Yes. And the the storm water management plan says that these are for the city of Titusville to maintain. Yes. These all these canals and ditches are for them to be maintained and for them to obtain
easements for uh access and for the the the uh improved ditches and canals. Improved ditches and canals. In fact is uh not far from this project is the uh or are
um existing canals that are unmaintained. and you will have people here testify about them because some of them go through their property. >> I am just curious to see if you can get the maintenance records >> over the past
>> I'm sorry for not answer I'm sorry for not answering your question. >> No, that's okay. >> Okay. Uh uh I I've been uh I've been here all this time and uh and looking at the aerials
and so forth, I can say from at least 1971 that that they haven't been maintained. But as far as records goes, I'd we'd have that's a good question for uh um Eddie and and um Brad and Kevin Cook to
look into. >> Okay. because that would be my my assumption that there's a record somewhere indicating the schedule that they were to be maintained and if they were maintained there would be some sort of a record for you. >> What these uh when here's what's
supposed to happen is I'm a surveyor and when I do a survey and I have a drainage ditch or anything going through my property, I'm supposed to put it on that survey. Not all surveyors do that, but they're supposed to. So, I'm saying that
especially because we've got uh property appraiser and so forth showing that these existing canals have been existing for uh before 1966. So, that that answers I think some of
your question. Maybe not all but some. Okay. Thank you. Any anything else? >> Mr. >> Yes, sir. >> Mr. Johnson, from this map here, it's hard to tell the exact locations. You know, obviously, if we don't have a
larger one with roadways and stuff, are you taking into consideration the series of ditches that are owned by other government agencies, AE, DOT, and Bvard County? Because a lot of our ditches drain into those. Um, I have property
that drains into these DOT ditches as well, and they eventually cross 95. And it's my understanding the DOT acknowledges that there's blockages, but those blockages have been created by Brevar County and that come directly
from Camp Road DOT. Have Have you investigated? Um, again, I don't know exactly where these It looks like they come down 405 is what I'm looking at, but I do know that there's some uh there's some issues going across
95 on the west side that no matter what you do to several of these ditches, they won't continue the flow because there's some blockages on that side. And DOT, um, the last conversation that I remember hearing from them is they said it's a county issue right now. were they
were waiting for the county to react. >> Very good question, Mr. Graham. So, I can say that I have approached the county and other people have approached me about this uh storm water management plan that is outside of city limits and
also what DOT is is is doing. So, DOT has has I95 drain structures and it has um State Road uh South Street drain structures. Uh so um uh I have been on
site on on I95 a number of times when we had hurricanes after after the hurricanes and uh there are six there's six large uh drains under I95 from Fox
Lake Road to State Road 50. That's about two and a half miles. And um uh so what I did and also my son was on one of the times so is that we would look at the drainage and probe down for uh
any uh silk buildup and so forth. And then we also were uh checking the the flow through the pipes. And we are having flow through the pipes only on two of the six. And these were
so there's like for example there's seven foot by three foot and four foot by six foot box cover culberts that we find no silt in them and there's almost no drainage. And so I took pictures on the other side of I 95 of of them
flowing. So we're only having from from our observations only two of the six are um operational. I would say likely because the uh um
the ditches uh have not been maintained to um beyond west of I95. uh the question you said about FDOT. When I've talked to FDOT, I have I have not no one has told me that they're for
sure that that any of these coverts that I'm I'm now speaking to you about have have u are are problems as far as obstructions in them. I know of no obstructions in them. One of the things uh that was relayed to me was that there is a series of
billboards on the west side of I95. And in order to access and maintain those billboards, the owners have made little drive paths to them and they have blocked the the water flow that goes north south
>> um along to catch all these that you're talking about. >> Yes. And there lies where they said it's the county's issue because the county owns that area land where they allowed that to happen. Now, I'm not saying that there's not other issues with DOT going
through, but I do know that is a very large problem >> and where they're at with it, I do not know. Well, the question you asked is a a very serious question and that is for example is that what I'm saying to you is to my knowledge that the Bvard County
has also accepted this document that is called stormwater master plan of greater Titusville because it includes a good bit of MIMS and it includes uh to toward the Ellis Canal and it's uh on the other side of u state road 50. So, uh, it's
it's it's a plan that I have seen a letter from the county saying, "Hey, we ought to go ahead and we ought to go ahead and do what we're supposed to do on this, cleaning the uh cleaning the ditches, and they should also obtain the uh easements for cleaning of the
ditches, but it hasn't been done." And I I can't find that letter. So, uh, I I'm I guess I'm asking my question. Did I answer your questions? you did. I just wanted to state the fact
that everybody knows that most municipalities are behind uh ditch clearing in throughout the state of Florida. Titusville is not the only one. >> But no matter what we do in Titusville in that corridor, if that's what I saw, it will not effectively flow no matter
how great our ditches are. Not that we don't have room for improvement. That's true. And I wonder if maybe this argument needs to be taken up another level with DOT and the county or somehow get into the right room with a group of
them and see if they're what their plan is. Are they going to address it? Cuz these conversations I've had with DOT has been over the last two years. I just cleaned a DOT thing out for them. >> Wonderful. And it it it just seems like
maybe the argument so to speak or the concern should be brought up to um the county and do at the same time. Well, interestingly is is that the last time I went on the west side of of I 95 from
Fox Lake Road to uh to State Road 50 is that the si that the FDOT has cleared an area from the roadway to the to the uh edge of clearing um it looks like at least 50 feet. So they they they've done
something here and um uh to my knowledge I have also contact FDOT but the only section I've I've contacted them about is that 2 and a half miles from State Road 50 to Fox Lake Road and they've denied they as far as I know they've
denied to me that that there's a blockage problem. >> Okay. >> And that's the way it was relayed to me. It's a blockage part uh problem and some other people that I know in site development have pointed out the simple fact a lot of it has been because of
those little drive paths to be able to work and maintain on these uh billboards and they block that north south flow. >> So again I again I appreciate all your input. You obviously know a bunch about
it. I just wonder sometimes if these concerns should also be brought to a I don't say a higher authority, a different authority with FDOT and the county because if FDOT has done something but they can't do nothing else and it's now the county, you know, the
squeaky wheel gets the grease a little bit with the county. >> Okay. I should mention also that uh uh regarding the Hogan landfill, are you familiar with that? The big landfill that we had um just
uh south of Fox Lake Road. It's a large area. >> That's a delt the old Delta plant. It was Delta. They called it a Delta land. I said, >> I didn't know that, but anyhow, I knew it was known by John Hogan. But anyhow, what they did is they they built it
right across where the the uh uh ditch was and they relocated the ditch around there. But as far as I know, I don't know of any permit that they got to reroute the ditch. And I doubt that it is it was dedicated. For example, it should have been dedicated for easement
and so forth when they did their landfill. So, um, that's one of them, but I missed something. I was supposed to tell you something else. What did I miss? I can't remember. I I guess I'm saying the same thing. I
guess I'm repeating the same thing is that um I've I've contacted FDOT also about that section only. >> So I don't know if I missed the question. >> We have another question member FC.
>> Well, no. So my questions goes to um to staff and to the attorney. Uh first to staff, um has the topic of the storm water master plan been addressed and is it being addressed for future developments?
>> I believe that Mr. Johnston has communicated his concerns with the current uh master drainage study with u the city manager and Brad Parish. Um, public works is working on a new project that would create a new uh master storm
water uh drainage study for the city and it's a it's a massive ordeal. It's going to take about 18 months. >> Yeah. Okay. And then for for for the attorney um I know that we've been talking about it, but is this something that we can talk prior to ahead of
something coming before us? >> In what sense? >> Like this conversation here? Is this something that we can actually have at this time knowing that um this will be seen before this board? >> I believe it would be appropriate to um
advertise as a separate agenda item if that's something you would like to do, but it's permitted by the um code for you guys to undertake studies of of planning related topics. >> No, no, I'm I'm just saying just this conversation right now. So, as as as Stan has said that he knows this is coming before the board in July, which I
didn't know that, but he knows it's coming before the board July, but he's just kind of preempting us. And I don't know if that would violate the sunshine law having that discussion now. That that's what my question is. >> If it's um not adequately noticed, that could be an issue if you get into specifics about actions you may be taking.
>> Okay, that that was it. >> Thank you very much. Thank you for very much for listening and sharing and asking questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Stan. Any other petitions in request from the public? Seeing none, we're going to move into old business. Item 8A.
Thank you, chairman. Item 8A begins on page seven of 210 of tonight's packet, [snorts] conditional use permit number 9, 2025 at partial ID number 21352800279. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to establish a
convenience store with fuel pumps on a 2.64 acre portion of a 14.7 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Dair Road and North US Highway 1 within the community commercial zoning district. The proposed convenience store is
approximately 4,853 square feet in size and includes 14 fueling stations. Convenience stores located within the community commercial zoning district are required to obtain a conditional use permit. The property was reszoned from industrial M2 to community
commercial by ordinance number 18 2017. This segment of the US Highway 1 corridor reflects a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. The site also fronts the Coast to Coast Trail, a paved multi-use trail that parallels US
Highway 1 and serves as a significant regional connector for bicyclists and pedestrians. The additional frontage on Dair Road, a designated collector roadway, provides additional access opportunities and links the site to nearby residential neighborhoods and supporting uses.
The planning and zoning commission reviewed the request at its January 21st, 2026 meeting and recommended denial because it is a critical driveway both from the commerce side of the element but also from the concern the impact it adversely has on pedestrians and bicyclists.
Um at the time the concept plan showed a new access point on US Highway 1 to the site. The application was scheduled for city council review on February 24th, 2026, but the applicant withdrew it from the agenda to revise the concept plan.
The applicant has since revised the concept plan to address the concerns. The revised concept plan removes the previously proposed driveway crossing over the Coast to Coast Trail along US Highway 1 and instead proposes access through an existing shared driveway connection to the adjacent parcel to the
south. The revised access configuration includes two access points on Dair Road and avoids the creation of an additional trail conflict point along the regional trail connector. Staff recommends approval of CUP number 9, 2025 as submitted. As presented, the
proposed convenience store use and site layout are compatible with the surrounding area and applicable comp plan policies. The applicant has also provided information addressing the operational standards for convenience stores contained in section 28112C1 of the land development regulations
including hours of operations, security measures, visibility requirements, and confirmation that no coin operated amusement devices are proposed. Um, on page 13, line three, I'll read the compliance with all elements of the
comp plan. The application is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The convenience store with fuel pumps and the proposal to share and improve an existing driveway crossing over the trail are consistent with the future land use transportation and open space and recreation elements of the comprehensive plan. The retail use is
consistent with the commercial land use category. The applicant will not create additional conflicts than is necessary by using an existing shared driveway consistent with the access management policies. Finally, the improvement of an existing driveway is consistent with the
conservation and recreation policies. On page 15, there are special requirements set out in section 28112 C1 for convenience stores to meet the uh A, B, and C. first shall be free of all obstructions of
view from the adjacent street to the main store windows, giving a clear and unobstructed view of the cashier station, including obstructions of landscaping and gasoline service islands. The applicant has indicated that the cashier's view will be unobstructed and that the development will comply with the visibility
requirements. Based on the information provided, staff finds that the applicant has indicated compliance with this standard. B shall have appropriate security systems to include but not limited to the following. Convenience store shall be equipped with cameras with video retrievable retrieval
capabilities. This requirement shall be exempted if the convenience store employs two or more employees at the same time between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or if the convenience store closes on a permanent basis by uh 11 p.m.
[clears throat] The applicant has indicated that the facility will be equipped with interior and exterior security cameras with video retrieval capabilities and that overnight staffing is commonly two employees as determined by the franchisee. Based on the information provided, staff finds that
the applicant has indicated compliance with that requirement. And last lastly, C shall not have as a part of its operation coin operational amusement devices. Again, the applicant has confirmed that no coin operated amusement devices are proposed as part of the project.
Page 23 of your agenda packet is the future land use map. And so, uh, the portion the the prop the subject property is a portion of the larger red parcel outlined in the commercial highintensity future land use designation. Um, the property to the
souththeast is in the industrial future land use designation. A uh, abuing the property to the north is Dair Road and the property abudding uh, Dair Road to the north is in the medium density residential future land
use category. Page 26 is the zoning [clears throat] map. The current zoning on the property is community commercial and um uh convenience stores require a
conditional use permit in the CC zoning district. Uh you'll see the property to the southeast is zoned M2 and the property to the north planned development. And lastly, page 16 is the concept plan. Just calling that out in case you wanted to reference it during your discussions
tonight. Um the shared access is to the south with a property currently known as Bvard Lumber. Um and that is the main change from the last time you reviewed this application. With that, I'll take any questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Eddie. Any questions? Member Sidler. >> Thank you. Um I my question is this is a 2.64 acre portion of a 14.7 acre plot
is and it is a one um community commercial company that is going on here that leaves 12 roughly 12 acres left. My question is how how does this work when we take a portion of the
14 plus acres and then develop one one entity that falls under the community the commercial building? How what does that leave for the additional the rest of the property? Can they portion it out at three acres and stick another uh
commercial entity there and another three acres another commercial entity there? What does it mean for this property now? Are they all out? They get one CC unit on this. How does that work? >> Sure. The city has a process, a non-residential uh division process to
split up land uh that's not a a typical single family home subdivision. Um and so this would be it would be under one common site plan. Uh and this would just be one portion of that site plan. So similar properties um that have gone
through that process are the wedge which is the northeast corner of 50 and US1 where there's a Cland farms dental and tire store. Uh similarly on the south side of 50 across from the current uh
the existing Publix uh there's a several developments proposed within that have one master site plan. And so they have a master site plan that shows the landscaping for the overall site and then the individual parcels break it out. Um but that's a city process.
>> Member Graham. >> My question is on uh the use of the existing driveway that um currently feeds Bard Lumber. Um that's somewhat of an unimproved entrance way. And I know I read on this where they were going to
approve it. Do do the uh Bvard Lumber actually own that driveway or do they have a crossuse agreement that goes along with this? How does that shared driveway work in this case? >> A portion of the proposed driveway is shown on the property, the private
property owned by Bvard Lumber. I believe there's been discussions with that and I'll let the applicant uh touch on that a little bit more. But if you'll notice on the uh access point on Derry Road, furthest to the uh west, so to the left side of the of the drawing on page
16, uh the access point is shown in green coming down from Derry, wrapping around the bottom left portion of the site and connecting to that access point. Um, and so I my understanding is that there's an existing access easement and that that
will be re-recorded to follow that uh that path, but I'll let the applicant explain that a little bit more. Any further questions for staff? All right, seeing none, if the applicant wants to come up. >> Good evening board. My name is Kyle
Shassin with Bowman. Bowman is the uh engineer of record for the project. Um, so as Eddie explained, we were here in January uh presented to the board a site plan. Um, the reason we're back is we've made a pretty significant revision to the site plan. Um, the biggest revision
being, um, not only did we take the 7-Eleven off of the hard corner, which is where, you know, most convenience stores typically like to be, um, but we also eliminated that dedicated right in, right out driveway that was on US one that was going to cross the trail. Um, as Eddie said, we are going to share a
driveway with the lumber yard. There is an existing cross access easement across the property um from Dair Road to the lumber yard that's shown on the survey that I believe is in the packet there that will have to be uh revised to follow the new path. Um but there there
have been discussions with the lumber yard to do that. Um we've had meetings with both FD um and FDOT over the last week. They're both um we're very pleased to see that we reduced the number of access points across the trail that we're going to be
sharing an existing access that is there and um improving it to current standards. Um so I'm here for any questions you guys may have uh specifically about the new site plan. >> Any questions? >> Seeing none.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Good evening, chairman, members of uh the planning and zoning commission. It's commission, right? Uh my name is Kim Rosena. I'm the attorney for the applicant um which is uh the developer
with permission from the owner uh Shaola Shalva LLC. The CUP that we're requesting has changed in size a bit as well. It's a little bit smaller smaller, but but it only applies to this property. So, it's
not going to apply the whole 14 acres. So, it'll show up on the map with this special little designation. And this ultimately will be cut out as a parcel of its own once the the sale is completed. So, so my purpose here is just to uh go a little bit through the
staff report that we are improving it. That's a condition you'll impose if you agree to approve it. The staff has recommended approval that we've met all the criteria of the specific and general standards for the CU. Also, we have the developer here if you have any questions for him. And with that, we would just
ask approval of the CUP. >> Any questions? >> Oh, I apologize. One more thing. There will be a cross access agreement with the lumber store to use the access. There doesn't currently exist, but there will be one. They've already agreed to it. Thank you, Member Sidler.
>> Thank you. Um, with this, I see that a traffic study has not been done, um, yet. So, um, I guess these really aren't questions. I these are kind of comments. Um,
a cross access easement. Are you you will be granted an easement? Are you speaking with them regarding the easement? >> Yes, they've already agreed to it. >> They've agreed to the easement. >> Okay. Okay. And then um I realize as uh and I do recall the last meeting where
the it was voted down because of the driveway going over the trail um because and that was the safety concerns for the pedestrians and the bicyclists. Um I um appreciate that the there is not another driveway being placed upon it and I do
appreciate that we are now sharing a driveway. Um the concern still lies in the safety of the pedestrians and the bicyclists. So with that my I would like to ask you what sort of things are going do do you propose be done in terms of
the trail because now we have in a an increase in traffic. is going to be quite significant coming off one. And when individuals are turning and with their vehicles, just knowing as a driver that you're more looking at the traffic
coming at you or not at you, but and turning in and you're not necessarily looking at for bikers or walkers or things of that nature. So I am looking to see what you would suggest in terms of enhancing the public safety and
enhancing perhaps the trail to indicate that there is a a caution or an increased hazard there. Right. >> I know the FDOT has some standards as does the the city and the county because it's the county road and the city has their own ideas. So I know that there
were ones that were proposed for the access we're proposing. I know that there was um striping, there were signage. I don't know all of them. It's a site plan issue. Kyle may know more than I do, but there are requirements. It will be much better than it is now. Um I think there's going to be yellow
striping. There's going to be signs. There may even be flashing lights. I don't know. But whatever the city wants us to do during site plan and what our FDOT requires and the county requires will be done. But it's whatever their requirements are. So I don't Kyle, do you know more about
>> you have to come up here because I know that they were hatching and yellow marks and there were wider sidewalks and things like that, but I don't know all the requirements. >> So there's going to be signage, there's going to be high emphasis uh crosswalks. Um there will be realignment of the
sidewalk um if necessary to provide clear sight triangles for both the pedestrians and the drivers. Um, and again like Kim said, any requirements from FDOT, from FD, from the city that are required there, um, they will be
there and it will be a significant improvement from the current driveway that's there now. >> Yeah, >> sure. >> Member Troutman. >> Um, yes, this is for um Eddie. Hey. Um,
when we're looking over packages like this, um, this particular one I'm looking at, uh, [sighs] let's see here. I'm sorry. I just lost the number here. Um, [snorts]
[clears throat] I apologize. I've lost where I was at. Uh there was actually um I guess a code within our our um documents that state that we need to take in you know uh traffic and things of that nature when
we look over cups and things of that nature. Um I'm sorry that I' I've lost track on the actual verbiage here. So, I think I can maybe add a little to that is that the the organization of the staff report uh beginning on page 12 of
210 lays out the criteria that you're supposed to be basing your decision off of for the CUP. And so each section after that, like the first section is compliance with the comprehensive plan. Second is ingress and egress. So that relates to access. Um so they are
considerations. Yes. And I'm sorry that I've lost track here. I guess the version that I had printed out before had some information, but it had a particular code um that it was relating um and and it had numbers and I apologize, but but what I was getting at
mainly though is that uh part of our uh comprehensive plan that that we have to take into those considerations and and I think that you know the last meeting that we had uh that was something that was brought up wanting to see something about the traffic study. Um, and uh,
personally I I understand that that is not a requirement for the CUP, but I guess indirectly it kind of is a requirement that we take into those safety requirements. Um, and I guess that's why maybe we tabled this last
time was because we were wanting to see that that traffic study so we can take it all in, right? And all the safety issues and anything like that. Um, and I guess that's where I was trying to get at with with what I was trying to find here. But so to clarify, the last time
this was reviewed by planning and zoning, a decision was made, it was denied uh because of the access issue. It wasn't tabled. >> So this is I apologize. >> This is a because the application wasn't brought to council. Uh it was withdrawn by the applicant in order to make revisions. It's being brought back to
you since there have been significant changes. >> Right. All right. And I guess where I'm at now be, you know, because of the traffic study, we do have traffic that's going to come across that existing corridor that's already there and that y'all are going to improve. And yes, I
would definitely be a part of something that has a lot of visibility for that area. And of course, you know, whatever we agree on here. Um, but I guess I to Mr. regard's uh uh comments from when the last meeting about the traffic study and I think that
might be where he was trying to go down was yes we're we're improving this area but there's still going to be flow there and then I guess they don't know what that flow will be there right they I guess that's why they Mr. regard or anybody had asked for that traffic study. I'm just bringing that up as as
comments of possibly why that was brought up that we could take into consideration for the safety. Thank you. If I could just address that briefly, there was a traffic study done and it was based upon the way the access points were at the time with that use. Uh the code doesn't
require a traffic study, but before the site plan and building construction plans are going to be approved, the city will look at it, provide county will look at it, FT will look at it, FT will look at it, and they're going to require that review. We would have done a new one, but school is out. We couldn't do
the count. So that's why we're here without a new traffic study because we already had one previously because they wanted to make sure everything worked right. So, but there are three other agencies, four agencies that will look at this before anything else is approved. >> Right. and I am uh in the understanding that this does come before city council
and they're the ones that really have to hone in on those things and and whatnot. But yes, thank you. >> Thank you, >> member Graham. Uh Eddie, from what I read here, it looks like that was addressed in your staff analysis on page uh 12 basically
from line item 23 to 29 that the uh site has recognized and will be able to uh according to this they've revised their plan in
recognition of this issue. At least that's the way I read what you got down here between 23 and 29. Is that correct? >> Yes, sir. So, that section does describe the change in access configuration to the site.
>> There's conflicts along the trail. Um, this trail actually goes all the way out to Ostein and there's several conflicts with the trail and each conflict, you know, that's why DOT
uh, FDOT has those guidelines that they got to comply with to be able to u to have the trail exist to begin with because a lot of these conflicts were in place long before the trail started. But the design that you guys come back
with looks pretty good. >> Member Syler. >> Thank you. So, I I appreciate the new design. Um I realize that a traffic study is not um necess or able to be done at this time and that you did
provide one prior to um there are a few things that you know with this conditional use um that I would like to possibly see um if we are inclined to approve this and I would support a recommendation for the conditional
approval subject to a traffic study and the traffic study be submitted with the site plan application. Um, I would also like a verification of record on the cross access easement and the development of safety enhancements at the shared driveway at the coast to
coast crossing. So, um, and I think you did address these to somewhat, but I think that as part of the conditions of approval, I think that I would like to maybe see a traffic study submitted with the site plan. the recorded cross
easement required prior to the site plan approval and that the trail crossing a safety plan be submitted um with the site plan application and implemented prior to certificate of occupancy. And you did mention that um FDA and FD have
very specific requirements that you must do. And I know we have some crossings um with other businesses that have crossed the trail where they have put in um fencing or other plantings. And I do believe FDOT and they do have to approve
that thing, but I would like to see those as part of um what we're looking at today that these improvements be included. I you you going to do them anyways, but I think the more information >> acceptable.
>> Thank you. Thank you so much, >> member Tropman. >> Yeah, real quick, Eddie. Uh, just I found what I was looking for. It was the conditional the land development regulations section 34 through76. That's that's what I was trying to get at as far as the ingress and egress to the
property proposed. I'm not going to take it any further, but I wanted to tell you that that was the number I was looking at. Thanks. >> Any other further questions, comments? Okay. Um, I think being there's no one
in the public. I assume there's no cards and any rebuttal from the applicant. Okay. So, we're going to close public comment and pull it back to the board. Is there any uh motion? >> Member Graham. >> I'd like to make a motion to accept the
CO cup as submitted by staff. >> Member Silent. I would like to add that it is also condition of approval regarding the traffic study the recorded cross access easement and a trail
crossing safety plan also be part of that. >> So to clarify member Sidler is asking [clears throat] for a friendly amendment on that motion uh contingent for the second on the motion. Uh so it's up to the motion maker to decide if that's
agreeable or if your motion stands as it was made. >> Can I uh ask a direct question? The that's a requirement in the site approval period. Correct.
They have to do that on site approval to have those studies in place in order for them to achieve site approval. Is that correct? with or without us amending this. >> Your question is about the traffic study being required
>> uh or the other safety items. They are part of the site development process and they are required for that for them to final their site application if my memory serves. >> But the applicant acquiesed and said that she has no problem doing it.
>> I I didn't hear you. >> The applicant acquiesced and said she has no problem complying with the request. The statement was only they have to do it anyway. Whether we put it in our motion or we do not if we accept the cup
as is, they still have to do it anyway as part of the site application. That's the question. >> Sure. So to answer the question, a traffic study is not required in every case. uh for a site like this with a uh intended use of a convenience store, I
would say it's very likely that it would trip the threshold for trips uh that the community development engineer would require a traffic study. But if you wanted that additional assurance that it is provided um at site plan, you can make that a condition of your um approval.
Then I'd like to amend my um motion to accept this as written and add um the steps of them having a traffic study and a clear view of how their uh safety procedure will be going across or
crossing the trail. [snorts] >> So do I understand that the uh proposed friendly amendment has been accepted? >> Thank you. Do we have a second? >> I second. >> All right. Um, can we get a roll call
vote? >> Vice Chairman Scully? >> Yes. >> Member Sidler? >> Yes. >> Member Graham? >> Yes. >> Member Troutman? >> Yes. >> Secretary FAC? >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> All right. We're going to move on to uh new business. I believe the next item was pulled by staff. Is that correct? >> Yes, sir. That is correct. Item 9A, small scale amendment number 1, 2026 Canaveral Avenue. Uh, our staff identified an error in the legal
advertisement that requires it to be readvertised. It will not affect the date that it goes to city council on August 11th, but it will be moved to PNZ uh July 8th. So, we'll bring this back to you on July 8th. >> Wonderful. And there's no motion, anything you need from us? >> Nothing at all. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Then we'll move on to um 9B. Thank you. Item 9B begins on page 44 of 210 and this is the comprehensive plan evaluation report, the year evaluation [clears throat] and appraisal report.
At least every seven years, pursuant to rule chapter 73 C49, Florida Administrative Code, the city is required to determine whether the need exists to amend the comprehensive plan to reflect changes in state requirements. Since the last evaluation
of the comprehensive plan, the staff determined that several changes are necessary to bring the comprehensive plan into compliance with state requirements. In October of last year, city council approved the transmitt of the year based amendments to the city's comprehensive plan to the state's land
planning agency, Florida Commerce, for review. Florida Commerce completed its review in January 2026 and subsequently determined that the proposed comprehensive plan amendments conflict with the application of chapter 2025 190 section 28 Laws of Florida, also known
as Senate Bill 180, uh rendering the amendment null and void. Planning staff will provide an update and present revised policy language for transmitt to Florida Commerce. The presentation of this report is a community engagement opportunity associated with the current
evaluation period. Enclosed is a presentation that was given to city council on March of this year. And the presentation summarizes the state's response to our initial earbased amendments. So, the majority of this agenda item, pages 46 through 169, are the proposed
earbased amendments and they are almost identical to what was previously proposed and approved by council to send to the state um with some minor tweaks and that's what the handout is help going to help us guide through. If you'll turn to page 170, page 170 of the agenda packet starts the presentation
that was given to council earlier this year. And I'll just run through that uh briefly. The next slide on 171, uh, some background information. So, some public meetings were held June and July of last year on these amendments and city council approved them to be transmitted
uh, in October of last year. State completed their review in January. On the next slide, uh, the state found that the proposed amendments conflict with chapter 202519, finding that they were more several of the policies were more restrictive or
burdensome, which they call R&B. And because at least one of the policies was flagged as being more R&B, the entire amendment was marked as null and void. And so we have to start all over again. Next slide. The ear status. This is an excerpt from the letter that we received
from the state. And it reads, "Each county listed in the federal disaster declaration for Hurricane Debbie, Hurricane Helen, or Hurricane Milton uh may not propose or adopt any moratorum uh or construction. may not propose or
adopt a more restrictive or burdensome amendments to its comprehensive plan or land development regulations uh before October 1 of 2027. So that's when the law sunsets October 1 of next year. [snorts] Uh for the reasons outlined herein, the city of Titusville's proposed amendment is more
restrictive or burdensome making it nolan void abonio start from the beginning. Uh so on the next slide, these are the three policies or groups of policies that were flagged by Florida Commerce as being more restrictive. Um and then on
the following slide, we're on page 175. These are policies that were marked as potentially more R&B. Uh and so the way that we had a conversation with the staff at the state and they helped us understand that this is kind of a a red light and a yellow
light scenario. So these policies on 175, page 175 that [snorts] are potentially more R&B are at yellow light. We can move forward with adopting these policies, but the adoption of these policies may result in the adoption of future regulations which are
more R&B. So, at this time, we're proposing to keep those policies because the state says we can uh with the caution that if we um move too far in those in those u I'll get into what those policies are, u that we may run a
foul of that that state law and have to um wait until the sunset of that law. So on page uh let's see here 180. Page 180 is conservation policy 1.2.6. Uh this was one of the the policies that was marked as a yellow light. Uh it says
the city shall develop and maintain an urban forest management plan to support the expansion of the city's urban tree canopy. So what they described is adoption of this policy in itself is not more restrictive and burdensome. But if we if the city adopts this policy and
implements a new urban forest management plan that includes new regulations that is more R&B um and so it would run a foul with the law. And similarly on page 181, page 181 is capital improvement policy
1.3.6 which says the city shall consider adopting a mobility plan and fee to fund multimodal transportation projects. So again adopting the plan in itself is not more restrictive and burdensome but could lead down that path. [snorts] On
page 176 um this slide is to show that there were some proposed changes to that law which would have made the sunset date earlier. would have made it in two weeks actually June 30th of this year and it passed in Florida Senate but did not pass in the Florida House and so we are still bound
by the original sunset date of October 1st for um being prohibited from adopting any new more restrictive and burdensome policy any new policies that are more restrictive and burdensome. [clears throat] If you'll turn to page 174,
these are the policies or policy groups that were flagged. And so that's what this handout is is to help us walk through. Um if you look at the handout, the first column on the left is the policy number. The first uh the column
after that is our current comprehensive plan. What the the language in our current comprehensive plan says. The column after that um which is stricken through shows the language that we had proposed to the state which was flagged as more restrictive and
burdensome. And then the last column which has some strike through and underline is to soften that language so that it is um from required to encourage uh prohibit to discourage in order to us to move forward with adopting these policies without running a foul of state
law. And so that first one um it says the the new proposed amendment says encourage Florida friendly plant materials for all new development and discourage the planting of invasive exotic plants and incentivize the use of
native vegetation as the primary design element in new landscaping. Promote boulevard native plant species and the use of plantings appropriate to the unique climatic conditions of Titusville and appropriate for the specific planting conditions to minimize maintenance and encourage plant health.
The following set objective 1.10 and the policies 1.10.1 through 1.10.5 were related to access management very propo given the CUP9 tonight which had some uh access questions. Uh these policies are proposed to be um removed
from the amendment moving forward. Um, at this time we will hold on to those policies so that as soon as state law will allow us to move forward with making these changes. The city can make changes to the uh city's comprehensive plan at any time. Um, we just can't adopt anything more restrictive and
burdensome until that law sunsets. And so we'll hold on to these policies until we're able to adopt them. And then on the last page is strategy 1.2.1.2. The current language in our comp plan says landscape plans and plant materials
required of new development shall promote the use of Florida friendly plant species and avoid the plantings of exotic plants known to create nuisances and the new language would change the word prohibit to avoid in order to run a foul of state law. One of the conversations we had with with the state
staff is that they are looking for those key words prohibit, require, anything that is a new regulation. Um it immediately sends up the red flag that this is running a foul of state law. on. So, we are changing those keywords just to uh be in compliance with state law.
Um last, I'll just say that we are uh looking for a motion to recommend approval to transmit the proposed amendments to the state so that hopefully we can get our comprehensive plan back in compliance. Thank you. >> Thank you, Eddie. Any questions from the
board? >> Member Troutman? I would just make a motion to submit the year as presented. >> All right, we have a motion. We have a second. >> I second. >> We have a motion second. Uh, can we get a roll call?
>> Member Graham? >> Yes. >> Member Troutman? >> Yes. >> Member Secretary Fen? >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Scully? >> Yes. >> Member Sidler? >> Yes. >> Wonderful. So then I guess we're going to move into
petitions and requests from the public present. Being there's no public present, we'll close that. Um, any reports from city staff? >> No report, sir. >> City attorney? >> No report. >> I have no report. Do any of the members have any reports?
>> Seeing none, we are adjourned. >> Thank you.