Good evening. Welcome to the February 18th meeting of the Titusville Planning and Zoning Commission. Uh if you will rise for the pledge of >> allegiance. I aliance to the flag of America and to the republic for it
stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Roll call please. Lori. >> Chairman Eton >> here. >> Vice Chairman Childs >> here. >> Secretary FA >> here. Member Grod >> here.
>> Member Scully >> here. >> Member Gellen. Alternate member Sidler >> here. >> Alternate member Troutman. >> Okay, we have a quorum. Uh, next item is approval of the minutes of February 4th. Anyone have any additions or changes or
comments or a motion? >> Member FA. I move that we >> secretary facing excuse me >> something to get used to. I move that we approve the minutes as written. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Any opposed. Um motion passes. Minutes are approved. Quasi judicial procedures please. >> Good evening. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, anyone wishing to speak on a quasi judicial item must first sign a public hearing agenda card
and sign the oath contained thereon. These cards are located on the table at the front of the council chamber. Those speaking in favor of a request will be heard first. Those opposed will be heard second, and those who wish to make a public comment on the item will speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if necessary. Witnesses may be
cross-examined by the applicant, commission staff representatives, and such other representatives as authorized by the commission. If you have photographs, sketches, or documents for the planning and zoning commission to consider, they must be submitted into evidence and will be retained by the city. Please submit such such exhibits
to the city clerk. City clerk, have all persons wishing to speak before the planning and zoning commission signed an oath card? >> Yes. >> Is there anyone else present who has not signed an oath card who wishes to speak on a quasi judicial item? If so, please submit a card at this time. Have all agenda items been properly advertised?
>> Yes. In the event that a member has received exparte communication verbal or written, the identity of the person with whom the communication took place and the substance of the communication must be disclosed, including opinions and facts discussed. Have the commissioners received any written communication which must be made part of the record at this
time? >> No. >> Have the members visited any sites or spoken to any members of the public regarding any items be reviewed? >> No. >> That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Uh, this is our first petitions and requests from the
public present. Anyone care to speak? I don't think so. All right. We have no old business, new business. Item 9A. >> Good evening. Uh, Christy Anderson, senior planner. Um, this is the fifth
amendment to the Tranquility Development Agreement, DA number one- 2025. There's a lot of information here and I attempted to summarize it as best as possible. So, if you just bear with me, um I'm going to um attempt to provide
all of the uh bullet points to you. Um so, the Tranquility Development um is a mixeduse plan community with 24,4 residential units including single family, multifamily, commercial, preservation, and parklands. The planned
community will be developed in multiple phases on approximately 340 acres located between the inner Indian River Lagoon and US Highway 1 and Columbia Boulevard roadways. The property is designated uh with the city's comprehensive plan future land use of
regional mixeduse and conservation and is own regional mixeduse. Um the applicant is requesting the approval of the amendment to the development agreement for the Tranquility uh development formerly known as Antigua Bay. The applicant is requesting amendments to the existing
development agreement to increase building heights from 100 to 150 ft. Wave certain small-cale plaque qualification criteria. Reduce required landscape buffers. Allow accessory structures within the 50-foot road
rightway building setback and to allow phase clearing of land, stockpiling of fill and storm water and drainage improvements. The draft amendment is provided on page 24 of 126 of your packets. Um, please note that the attached uh alternate fill location plan
provided on page 31 was provided by the applicant forformational purposes only and is not intended to be part of the agreement. So the amendment to section 3.4 four of the agreement regarding maximum overall height is provided on page 11
under the city's height overlay uh section 29-126E buildings may reach 150 ft only if they include two phases are uh two uses mixed use and provide a waterfront walkway and amenities along the Indian River Lagoon.
It is unclear how interior buildings, those not located along the waterfront, would qualify for the 150 foot height allowance. The amendment does not explain how the buildings will meet the required mixeduse criteria. Based on the developer's interpretation, large portions of the Tranquility project
could construct 150 foot buildings without meeting the overlay requirements. The developer should comply with the existing height overlay provisions which already allows increased heights for qualifying buildings. The request should be clarified and exhibit should be
submitted identifying the number, location, and intended uses of the proposed 150 ft buildings. Amendment B um the amendment to section 3.6.8.1D 8.1d
related to the platting process to the variance and waiver section of the agreement is provided on page 11 of your packets. Staff has concerns about the developer request to use the city's small-scale plat process. This process allows subdivision of up to 10 lots without new
infrastructure and replaces the preliminary plat process, but the developer has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of section 34-143 143 A, B, C, E, and F. The key issues in
uh include uh utilities. So small-cale plat allow only uh service laterals no main extensions without details on the proposed development particularly given the request for taller buildings. It is unclear whether water and sewer main extensions would be required.
Um in relation to storm water each lot must have its own independent storm water system and legal positive outfall but the narrative proposes a joint managed system. uh environmental constraints. Uh there is no evidence demonstrating reasonable
building areas uh free of wetlands, endangered species or environmental impacts. Uh regarding access, only driveway connections are permitted with no public or private street extensions. No supporting documentation has been provided regarding the uh proposed
access. Um public dedications. The plat must uh not require dedications to the public. Yet items such as a lift station, tracks, or easements may be necessary. In all cases, no exhibit has been submitted to de demonstrate eligibility
for the small-scale plat process. Staff is recommending that the applicant submit an exhibit illustrating the proposed land division and supporting documentation to determine eligibility for the small-cale plat process. Alternatively, the developer may seek a variance from the board of adjustment
and appeals. Staff also recommends that they that the applicant clarify the proposed 125% landscape enhancement by specifically um by specifying exactly how it will be calculated. For example, quantity,
height, caliber or divine combination thereof. Regarding amendment C uh to the agreement section 3.6.8.1E 8.1E related to landscape yard buffers to the variance and waiver section of the
agreement is provided on page 13 of your packets. The city's landscape code section 34-394 requires 10 to 20 foot landscape buffers between commercial and residential uses where a 20 foot type B buffer is
required. The developer the developer proposes a type um type A 10-ft buffer enhancement to uh 125% of the required landscaping. The applicant has not addressed the se separate 50-oot buffer requirement
between the RMU 300 multifamily and the RMU 400 commercial tracks under section 33-44 of the regional mixeduse zoning standards. Staff recommends that the applicant clarify the proposed 125% landscape enhancement by specifically
defining how it will be calculated, plant quantity, height, caliber, or combination for staff to properly evaluate. Uh a amendment D uh the amendment to section 3.6.8.1F 8.1F related to accessory structures
within the re regional mixeduse perimeter 50-foot setbacks to the variance waiver section of the agreement provided on page 13. A 50-foot building setback is required along arterial collector roadways and phase three of the single family
subdivision parcel one of the north of the Addison Canal. 12 lots adjacent to US1 have rear yards that encroach 25 ft into the setback. Without a waiver, accessory structures would not be permitted in these rear yards. Because this issue affects only a small number
of lots, any waiver should be limited spec spec specifically to those lots. Otherwise, individual property owners could later request separate variances. Staff does not object to the waiver uh with the following conditions. revise
the agreement to allow accessory structures to encroach no more than 25 feet into the 50 foot primary setback along the arterial road. Uh to submit an exhibit clearly showing that the waiver applies only to phase 3 lots adjacent to US1 and the RMU 200 subd district parcel
one and to clarify the proposed 100 125% landscape enhancement amendment E. The proposed amendment is requesting to add section 3.69 to the agreement related to phase clearing and storm water drainage improvements is
provided on page 14 of your packets. Staff has identified multiple concerns with the proposed amendment and site development permit request regarding incorrect code reference. The amendment incorrectly cites section 24-214
instead of 34-214. Scope of the request. The developer appears to seek approval to clear up to clear 30% of parcels, excavated land, store large amounts of soil for an unknown duration, potentially construct shared storm water systems, and
subdivide land using the small-cale plat process without submitting a final development plan. Regarding the class one verse class two permit, the developer did not justify requesting a class one permit versus a class two permit under section 34-214.
Multiple class one activities or any small-cale plat automatically requires a class two permit. It is unclear clear how a class per class one permit would apply. Regarding land clearing, without parcel size exhibit, staff cannot determine the
impact of clearing up to 30% of each parcel, which could be substantial. Regarding tree preservation and clear cutting, the code and comprehensive plan prohibit clear cutting and require tree preservation plans tied to a final uh site development plan. Without a
submitted plan, staff cannot evaluate or negotiate tree removal, land alteration, and storage. Section 30-83 prohibits land alteration and long-term storage of materials without a valid development order and limits preconstruction storage to 30 days. The
amendment would effectively allow uh an indefinite soil storage contrary to the city council action under ordinance number 52-218 which addressed public safety concerns. Uh phasing and bonding. No, no phasing
plan was submitted. The amendment references bonding does but does not specify what work would be bonded. Permanency of the site plan site development permits authorize uh permanent improvements yet the request involves excavation and long-term soil
stockpiling with without clear storm water or grading plans. Zoning and comprehensive plan consistency outdoor storage is not a permitted use within the RMU district. Long-term soil stockpiling may conflict with zoning regulations and
comprehensive plan policies pro prohibiting commercial mining. A more appropriate process to allow the stockpiling of soil for several years as a final development order may be an may be an amendment to the comprehensive plan and an ordinance with special
clearance procedures. Staff is recommending that the applicant resubmit the amendment with clear justification for requesting a class one permit instead of class two. Provide exhibits illustrating the proposed development, parcel sizes, phasing plan,
tree removal and preservation plan, and specific bonded improvements. Establish a time frame for on-site sto so soil storage. clearly define what development the permit would authorize and demonstrate compliance with section 34-214.
And alternatively, the developer may appeal the class one permit qualification requirements to the board of adjustment and appeals for variance. Um staff's overall recommendation to this request is that the applicant resubmit the fifth amendment to the
tranquility development agreement with the supporting exhibits and changes recommended by staff. and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> Anyone have any questions before we hear from the applicant? Member Gar.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several questions as I read through your report and referencing the development um outline provided I presume by the applicant that begins with developer requests the fifth amendment to the development agreement.
In the second paragraph, the developer statement uh maintains that the U city of Titusville unilaterally placed a subject property into this overlay district. That's the contention by which later your report says but you don't
have a walkway along the river and some of the properties are not along the riverfront where the qualification goes. First question is is that a correct statement? Did the city categorically overlay this property with this designation that allows 150 foot building height?
>> That's correct. This property was already within that established overlay >> and and that was an independent process or was that as part of one of the development agreements that came prior to the fifth amendment? >> I'm not sure. And I know that this property is part of that overlay. It's
not the only property that is included in the overlay. So I don't think it was specifically related to this um pre a previous amendment. >> Okay. U in the case of the um sorry second page. Um,
in the case of the 150 ft being allowed in a much more expansive area, what's the city's reasoning for having an excessive building height and looking at Titusville as a template for what is the average height even if you went that
far with an overlook of Titusil's uh skyline with two exceptions maybe three, there aren't tall buildings except along the river wherein taller buildings exceeding 100 double 150 ft would be allowed transitioning towards US1 at the
end of the property boundary they can currently go to 100 ft in that area in the transition area. Correct. Correct. >> Correct. >> And the exaction that the city's code requires if you're going to do a taller building is additional landscaping and
building setbacks from your report. Is that how I understand it? To go to 150 ft, you have to perform certain things. >> Yes, there's a set of certain criteria. One being that it has to be located along the the Indian River Lagoon. Uh a
walkway must be provided. Uh I believe uh outdoor seating. Um and some other criteria is also required in order to receive that height. Uh, >> so not trying to be funny, but try to be an example. Central Park gives walkways
through a wooded area to compensate for a surrounding tall building skyline. That's the only thing I can read in the theory that a walkway along the river compensates for very tall buildings. Just asking. I don't have extensive knowledge of when that overlay was
established and what was utilized to come to those conclusions and how they're connected. So, >> and to the extent the fifth amendment, um I I I I remain concerned and this isn't the first example. So I've just categorically say I remain concerned
that in the analysis of an applicant's request and in this case a development agreement that frankly is a contractual negotiation between two parties the city the proponent you come to an agreement then you have an agreement >> well you come back and modify the
agreement I can understand modifying agreements in terms of events that change and the applicant made sure that that was part of the background that the market conditions should dictate what we do and this is a response to the market conditions that somehow 150 foot
buildings is part of that market analysis. We must want more of those. So we need more area for 150 foot buildings. What concerns me is the emphasis on but you could go get a variance. The reason I have that concern is because a variance is predicated on a
hardship. There's parts of the report you talk about bonafide and I remember several meetings back that that whole discussion of whether you qualified for asking for a variance had to be based on a bonafide need. But the variance by its
very nature is an exception to a rule. So it has to be based on something that's a hardship. And I can't understand why inference is made towards, well, if you can't if you don't do it this way, just ask for a variance.
To me, it's like, well, if you're asking for something and you're not being granted that, you shouldn't get to go ask mom if it's okay if I go because dad said no. And that that that's an underlying very concern I have that in this particular discussion, we're
agreeing to a rule that's different than other people's rule. honed and polished to this property for its purposes and if it reaches an agreement as you recommend, why don't you go back to staff and finish negotiation so we're in concert together with a specific set of
standards. It seems to me really unfair to even suggest certainly imply or moreover direct an applicant that what you would do is go get a variance. What what does that do to the system that we're trying to arrive at where you present this at a planning and zoning
meeting? You analyze it, you make a recommendation to city council, they approve it, and you have an agreement, but then you turn around and say, "But I'll go to the board of adjustment and get in variance. I'm not following that. I'm sorry. That's just my two bits for what it is."
>> I believe staff is attempting to uh provide the applicant an an available option to pursue. I I understand. I fully understand that's an option you're providing. My concern is at the instance you ask to negotiate a rule that is agreed upon a
contract. You infer that outside the boundary of the contract, you can go get a variance. That's like saying, why bother asking? Why not just go get a variance for the whole development agreement? >> And that's that's throughout this. It's the setback for the houses. They got
short lots, right? It's the 150 foot, but the theme remains the same. I I'm just >> I mean, I don't think staff was recommending that the applicant pursue a height variance specifically, but within that 50 foot setback build setback, I
believe that that variance could could potentially be an option. >> Again, it's I'm having a it's it's two languages and we're both speaking. I'm not in the same language because I just don't comprehend why there would be at at even best an inference that you would
seek a variance under a contracted agreement you're trying to arrive at. And we haven't even got there to agree to the agreement. >> Well, there are variances built into the development agreement to where the bonafide need is is required to be provided. This building height overlay
is is inserted as a new a new height requirement, not necessarily a variance. I I guess it's kind of like in the concept of the development later. Another question with the requirement for the prohibitation to accessory structures where they don't have the
setback from the arterial highway US1. Are those lots platted yet that won't fit? >> I I believe they are. >> They've been platted. >> I believe they have. >> Okay, that answers a question then. Uh and then the other part of this where
the very analytical description of the storm water and the retaining of storm water and the conversely speaking what if we do this it could allow you to do that generally speaking where uh unmitigated storm water might have an
outfall that wasn't controlled to be short with it. Storm water requirements aren't only specific to the city of Titusville. The storm water requirements would be a state agency oversight, St. John's Water
Management District. So, I'm kind of wondering how the concern would be there for what if you did this the way you're going to create a potential problem because you haven't addressed storm water in these initial phases. um wherein regardless of what the city
might or might not do, the water management district would come in and say you can't just have storm water run unmitigated to an outfall on adjacent properties or in the inter coastal Indian River or anything like that. That just kind of puzzled me where that
concern came from. Like there wouldn't be any police, so to speak at the state level that would come in and step in and say you can't continue the way you're going because this is impacting runoff in adjacent properties. Is there any any I mean is there any am I off base with
my concern that it might be overreaching in a concern that this could happen when it probably won't happen? >> Um no, I mean that's a valid point. Um I I believe that the um trying to
>> that's okay. >> Um I I believe that staff is uncomfortable at this point with the amount of information provided as to where typically we have a detailed set of plans in order to make those determinations. >> Sure. >> I understand. Last question and that
addresses this um tradeoff. In in mitigation to an increased building height, we're going to increase our landscaping buffers. And in mitigation to a reduced setback uh separation between buildings, we're going to increase our landscaping.
125%'s a number. What's 125%. To me, the question begs if a 100% was reached in the city's landscape code after the deliberations this board and others had, there's a whole schedule of planting that's part of that landscaping code
where you have a potential if you overplant something to lead to its deterioration. In a well suitable planted method, landscaping codes try to address that by considering the landscape's growth pattern. And in the terms, you have
trees that choke out trees, an understory that chokes out understory. So you give away the 125% because the over 25% isn't going to survive on a good day anyway. That'd be like saying, I'll give you a,000% more landscaping in that 10 feet,
>> then I'm required to do only a 100% in 20 feet. I don't know how math works, but if you consolidate that in a smaller area, the potential's a negative impact. the landscape dies at the end of the day. What good did that do? So I think
your analysis of the landscape buffer goes back to what I read throughout this is that this agreement that's a very important word. The agreement's not ripened yet. We're not in agreement with it. >> I I would believe I would concur with
that statement. Yes. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Thank you. That was a lot. Okay, I'm I have multiple questions as well. Um, as I'm reading all of these requests, we have an amendment request for the height
increase, a small scale plat variance, a buffer reduction, a setback waiverss, and a prior sidewalk variance. And I'm asking for the what is offered as the enhancement to justify all of these changes in every
single one of these is the 125% landscaping enhancement. So there we're asking being asked to increase from 100 to 150 but they'll give us landscaping. They're asking us to change and have smallcale plot
variances and they're going to give us the same landscaping as the reason they're going to ask for the buffer reduction and they're offering the landscaping as this as meeting those qualifications. So I'm wondering if the planning regulatory alignment if they
line landscaping is not a height overlay criteria as far as I know is it? >> Go ahead Cole >> if I may. Um on the height overlay district, we are already entitled to 150 ft on this site. We are not asking for an increase. If you read the fourth
amendment to the development agreement, it specifically states um all other parcels shall have a height limitation of 100 feet are the maximum height allowed under section 2962 of the code, which is 150 ft provided that they
put in the the mixeduse development requirements. And this is trying to clarify the purpose of this request is trying to clarify that there's an interpretation issue on what qualifies as mixeduse development. The staff is taking the position that you have to
have two uses within one building. Our position is a mixeduse development has more than one uses within the development that is being done. So that's the clarification. The 150 foot height, we're not asking for an increase in height. that's already there. This
property was put into the height overlay district by the city, not at the request of the developer and the code. The amendment has already been done and it's section 3.4 of the existing fourth amendment. That language is there. So, just clarifying, we're not asking for a
height increase at this point. We're asking for a clarification that we already meet mixed use determinations. >> I appreciate. Let's stay within procedure though. If if the members are okay with opening the public hearing, hearing from the applicant, then let's do that. But I if if you want to ask
your questions of staff before public hearing, we can do that. >> I would like that to continue. >> I appreciate it. But >> thank you. Thank you. So I'm asking if you could clarify how landscaping enhancements referenced in the amendment
relates to those qualifying criteria for for that. So you just mentioned that we we can he can go to the 150 foot but there are criteria that must be met in order to >> correct. I mean in essence landscaping
is is a form of buffering. Um however uh these were the um incentives that were offered by by the applicant. So staff has evaluated what they have offered and this is where we're at with the agreement. So um staff feels that we we
need more information in order to come to a determination >> and as I Okay. And then on the um the storm water component of the smallcale variance um since the development has already gone through several amendments.
What are the new factors leading to the request of reducing or changing those? >> I'm sorry. We're changing um based on lot level storm water independence. So we went from a single
own positive outfall and now we're asking to incorporate several instead of them being single. What has changed that? >> I'm sorry I don't think I understand the question. >> Okay.
So under the independent system that we have now that is plotted. So each lot functions autonomously. They have a its own legal positive outfall and they are asking now to change that to share them.
So the lots may become hydraulically interdependent. So they went from being independent to being potentially but we we don't have the information at this time to to make that determination. >> Okay. >> And that is one of staff's concerns.
>> Um I just want to clarify regarding the height. Um so the the change is to clarify the the mixeduse development qualifications but also to meet the criteria for being providing the walkway adjacent to the Indian River Lagoon um
and other requirements that um the criteria to to receive that height incentive >> and yeah >> is that for so what you're saying is the properties just along the lagoon are subject to qualify for the height
increase and not the ones back behind. So what we're asking for >> and in this are these are not on the lagoon and they are back and they do not qualify. >> Correct. >> So therefore they would not be >> and we we at this time do not have the information of where those buildings
would be located. >> Okay. All right. Um, I have an a question about the variance, the 25 foot variance on Highway One, the 50- foot setback to the variances
and waiverss there. And I guess um you did um I'm wondering the setbacks there, they protect the home from the roadway. So, we're being asked to
allow them to go 25 ft closer to the road in order to put a fence or perhaps a pool or something of that nature. >> Yes, it pertains to accessory structures. Fences are permitted within that building set back by right. Um,
however, if they were going to put any kind of shed, pool, things like that in their backyard, they would be severely limited. So, is that more um a limit to the lot and the design?
Because that those it's a four-way highway they're going 55 miles an hour and I'm assuming the setback is there for a very specific purpose and we're being asked to grant a variance. So somebody because of the way that they
developed and laid out the property now they need a variance and and the ability to to now move into that setback which is there for a reason. So it's been plotted but has not been built. Is there not a reason why we they this is not
new. That 50 foot setback was there to begin with. The roads not changed. they they developed it knowing that there is a 50-foot um barrier there. So even though it is um I think 11 or so that
we're asked to give them permission to do, I I find that hard to do when it is there for a purpose and it was known prior to the development and now we're being asked to give them a um pass on it.
>> I would agree with that statement. >> Okay. Sorry, >> I have a follow question. I'm glad you asked the ones you did. I also agree with your observation. Um, so the applicant
mentioned that there is a difference of opinion. What is mixed use? So when you use new urbanism and you do mixed use, admittedly there are two ways to do mixed use. One is more
uklitian zoning where you have red commercial and yellow residential over here, but you have them in a neighborhood or you have a convenience store in the neighborhood, the red commercial, and you have all those residential houses and it's mixed use because it's walkable. It provides goods
and services in a convenient way. It provides it without using automobile trips. The applicant mentioned that if we don't do something, there's going to be all these truck trips tearing the highways up because they're hauling dirt rather than keeping it on site. Same idea for mixed use. You do that to
reduce trips, not pile sand up, though. The idea of mixed use in an urban environment as this project appears to be would be at least fairly reasonably arguable that it should be buildings
with internal commercial because they're multiple family 150 foot tall skyscrapers as it must be uh best analyzed and that type of mixed use is equally mixed use and I don't think it's a lack of clarification as much as a
lack of design. If you just want tall buildings and you have mixed uses, commercial on the first floor of the buildings around 7th Avenue comes to mind. Uh that's mixed use. It's not it's not uklitian in the sense it's just
residential or just commercial. But to say now on the fifth amendment that we've just kind of come aware that we can't do 150 foot buildings limited to residential only use. We'll put a convenience store down the street mixed
use doesn't seem to be in keeping with the type of development the caliber of which this is. Then the caliber meaning that you've got warrants for buildings that are far in excess of what Titusville Skyline would typically see or has seen in the past. So I'm a little
bit in my own opinion agreeing with staff that it's not the clarification. I think the intention was mixed use in buildings that are excessively tall and integrating commercial into it and I think that's where staff comes from in your analysis.
>> Right. Um so section 2962 uh regarding that maximum building height within the height overlay. So um the mixeduse development uh is defined as includes buildings with a minimum of two uses such as multifamily and
commercial or hotel and commercial and then commercial uses shall serve the general public and then it provides a you know a list of examples. >> So I take it that you disagree with the comment made earlier that mixed use is not just a building with two uses. It
could be two uses within a pattern book of a lot of subdivisions, neighborhoods, like the example of a commercial convenience store in a neighborhood. Mixed. >> Yes. If I'm understanding that correctly. >> Yes. You don't agree with his comment that it would be arguable. It isn't
arguable. It is the case that buildings have to have uses, different uses in the same building as a tall skyscraper might. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. Is there any definition as to how much the split is? I mean, does a
400 foot coffee shop and everything else is residential make it mixed use or do we have any clarity on that? >> There there's I I believe the code remains mute on a percentage for qualification to meet a mixeduse
development. Okay. Any other questions before we open the public hearing? Seeing none, please state your name, Cole, for the record and I'll open the public >> for the audience here. Uh Cole Oliver,
for the applicant here first as a uh you know, real quick touch to your question. Section 37-1 of your code specifically defines mixed use. And I'll read it to you. It says the development of a tract of land or
building or structure with two or more different uses. So it uses the word are. It specifically addresses tracks of land and buildings. Those are considered mixed use. Um to you know the question on um specific amounts of percentage of
the building it doesn't. and the 29162 it says mixeduse developments may increase height to 150 ft provide the development meets the criteria below and then it lists two criteria which includes buildings with a minimum of two uses but you know we're interpreting it
as within the development not within the single building because that complies with the definition of mixed use in the definition sections of your code and then they have the public walkway that has to be provided with certain amenities and again we are in the overlay district. We're agreeing to meet
those requirements of the public walkway and amenities that are required there. We're just trying to clarify that this is a mixeduse development per code as the definition because we have a definitional interpretation issue with staff. We don't agree with them on it
having to be all within one building. Um so, you know, I reiterate the comments I made out of order earlier and apologies for that. um you know, just kind of been with this one for a long time. And I'm not um you know, she may not have as much history with it
as um we do, but I did want to point out at that time that this 150 foot is already in the development agreement. And so we're not asking to increase any landscaping or change any of the landscaping requirements to meet that uh um you know, your point on that
requested variance issue. The other of the issues that um we're seeking tonight is as again the height the clarification there. The next one is um I got the wrong page here. The next one would be
the smallcale flat amendment process. Um what we're really requesting there is to comply with your process with the exception of right now you can't bring it in by um mains and we want to be able
to utilize private mains to connect if it's necessary at the time we go through the process and we believe that is in concert with the intent as is set forth in the smallcale site plan process which is an administrative process. We do bring every plant in to the staff to
reviewed for code compliance on everything else. Where the variance request comes in is that we want to be able to utilize private mains in that process. So there's no extension of uh the public facility improvements which is the next sentence in the intent
section is the process provides the division of a limited number of lots with minimum need for public facility improvements and access provided by the existing public streets or wide rightways. So all of those public improvements and facilities will be in place at the time that we would come in
with this process. So the three main areas where we'd be looking to utilize is being able to use private mains. So the developer has to maintain those throughout you know the process of the life of this development. The second is to allow for joint storm water
improvements within those lots as we come through. And that's already allowed in your process that if there is a um existing storm water management facility can be provided by independent or any other created on an existing lot. Um we have to show we have legal outfall which
we have to do for the St. John's. Anyway, if the proposed lots to be created previously approved development with a storm water management system in compliance, this requirement may be waved. So, we will have a storm water system in compliance with the St. John's regulations and your all's regulations
when we come in for that application um through the staff process of the lot split. And the final is um we want to be able to utilize private driveways and cross access easements instead of tying into the public roads at every spot where it would be split. So it would
give people the option to cut down on the number of points of intersections onto the main spine road that runs there and allows the interconnectivity through the sites as it stands now. That smallcale plaque could disrupt it by forcing every single piece to go out
onto the main road, turn around and go, you know, 20 feet and take the next driveway into the next lot. We're trying to avoid that and build a community that is unified and keeps those roads off of or those vehicle trips off of the streets and internal to the sites.
Um, and within that we've requested that we would utilize the same significant enhancement of 125% minimum requirement land development regulations. That's a standard. I know in the staff report this time they say we don't know how to utilize that. That's a standard that's
been used in the other iterations of this development agreement through the different processes. I'd direct you to uh the fourth amendment again and that is the one that is contained in um the
uh the various waiverss and development section 3.6.8.1 8.1 sub A where it says the developer will enhance the landscape buffer around the sidewalks for that particular one by increasing the numbers and size of plants materials equal to 125% above the minimum required by the
land development regulations. So we mirrored that language again here for those areas where we were asking for the variance and the setbacks and the the setbacks that we're talking about within that and that I think bleeds into
the next one is when we have the two parcels within a larger parcel that's proposed to be subdivided. So for instance, if we have a apartment complex that's going to go next to a commercial shopping center or grocery store, we want to have the walking paths and not
be forced to put in double landscape barriers of 20 ft. We'd like the option if it works for the flow of both the people that would be purchasing these properties to do a 10-ft but enhance the landscaping between them. So that's what we're asking for there. We're not trying to get away from it. We're just trying
to utilize the space in a little smarter manner. Um, and that was the landscape buffer yards uh section. The we already touched on the 50- foot setback from the US1 for the residential
lots in that subsection. And we already have the enhanced 25% buffer that we're putting in along US1 to accommodate for the noise. And what we're asking for is for those lots to be able to utilize their backyards to put, you know, pool screen enclosures or swimming pools or the other accessory uses. So, we
specifically limited it or proposed to limit it as to what would need to be what we're requesting to be allowed to go within that 25 foot setback. Those lots already extend into there. It's just trying to give those potential homeowners the flexibility to do that in
the development agreement now. They can always come in and ask you guys independently later. that's their right if they buy these lots. Um so but we were just trying to do it upfront. Now the final section is the what you know
we call the phase clearing and storm water drainage improvement. And again that's the different interpretation with how the code is processed. The staff has taken the position that these can't be processed unless you have a full site plan approval. What we want
to try to do is utilize the development orders or permits which is how the tech manual defines um a permit is a development order and permit. It's defined as the same in the first page of our technical manual for the city is to go in and receive the permits which the
city can get for the clearing and grading of limited areas or the storm water improvements which are under site one class or class A. I forget the terminology, apologies, but I think they're site uh class one permits. And that's a lower standard of not having to map out everything that's going to go in
there because there are no utilities going in here at this point. This is simply moving the dirt within the process to try to one obiate the need to haul the dirt off and then haul it back in which with the resulting um traffic and dump trucks
that would be running everywhere around but also to develop the man the site in a uniform manner peace mill as it comes along. So we will be meeting our applications and permits with the St. John's. Those would be reviewed by you all as well at the time that those are
applied for. This is simply setting up the process so that as they dig the master storm water ponds, they can stage those that fill around the site for future site plans that come in and go through the full site plan approval process with the staff in the city. And
you know, we're not seeking commercial mining. This is not being sold. This is not being exported. We are not doing it indefinitely. There's a provision within the agreement whereby it's limited to two years and if that if they haven't come in with new site plans to put that fill where it needs to go to balance
sites, they would apply to the city for an extension or they have to put it back and remove it and put it return it back to its state that it was in at the time they put that dirt there. And um you know, we expect that if we can do this,
we'll be able to move these along faster and they're not going to be there long, but you know, we want to provide the city with a mechanism that if for some reason we can't do it timely, you guys have the opportunity to force our hand. The developer has stated that they're willing to put up a bond for that and
that bond would cover like any other bond that we put up the amount determined by the engineers necessary to return the property to the state it was in. there. We've agreed to meet your tree mitigation and tree preservation for any lands that would be cleared. Those clearings would be brought in into
plan at that time and the staff can review and comment on them. So, all of this would still be coming in to staff for review and approval. And um if you have any questions, you know, I'm happy to try to answer them to the best of my ability. Apologies, there's been a lot of coffee today and
sometimes I speak quickly when I get nervous. So >> me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me member face. >> Wow, there's a lot there's a lot going on. Um, so I do want to address your very first concern of the definitions and I
believe that when you spoke earlier, you spoke of the mixeduse definition in one category whereas this applies to the overlay and I believe there's a different definition that applies for the overlay. Would you agree?
>> Um, I haven't seen it if so. >> Okay. So, and that's what I want to ask staff. So are there two definitions for mixed use? One that he's stating and then one that governs the overlay. >> Yes. So the definition that I read previously was directly from the height
overlay section and as to where the definition that the applicant has read was from the main definition section of our entire code. >> And so on that one I would state that where she's saying includes the buildings with these different uses. That's the criteria that it meets, but
not that doesn't define a mixeduse development. And what we're saying is that we will meet the criteria. There will be more than two buildings of two different uses on this this development. And there will be the walkway provided along the the public walkway and associated
amenities that are the second criteria within the format here. >> So, how familiar are you with? So, if you're not familiar with the definition that she's quoting that governs the the overlay section because it has specific language that says the building should
have two uses and that was what the definition that that she quoted that governs the overlay section. >> Yes. And I'm I'm reading it here. What was in the staff report was not taken directly from your report here. Okay. Or from your your criteria. It specifically
says includes buildings with a minimum of two uses, not include a building with two uses. So that's the distinction we're making. >> And I I believe that that's where we're >> in conflict. >> And when we go look at the general definitions that cover mixeduse, it does
say a tract of land with more than two uses. It's it's an interesting pickle there. >> Okay. Um All right. I'm gonna I'm gonna ponder that one. Uh because in the world of of of legal jargon, I'm sure you've done this quite a bit,
right? It begins to drill down. And as it drills down, the one up above no longer applies. The one that drills down does. And so you're asking us to not take the one that we drill down to, but apply the one up above. And so,
so I'll give you an example. Okay? So, government documentation or or government books, right? So, the government will put out a regulation, okay? And that regulation will go out and let's say that the Department of Defense wants to add an amendment or change it. Well, which one now applies? Does the the federal regulation apply,
excuse me, does the overarching one apply or does the one that the Army itself applies? Def. Well, DFARS will will trump the FAR. Okay. And so, and I I do apologize. I have a background in government contracting, which is why I use that example.
Um and so that's what we've done here. So you so you you've quoted the general um application which is is correct which would apply every place else except for here inside the overlay area and and now we have to make sure that the overlay language is clear enough that it it it
kind of branches off from the one that that you're quoting. >> Right. And and I guess what I'm saying is is these are criteria. This isn't a definition of mixed use that they're saying, hey, your development has to meet these different things. And we're saying we do meet it. You know, it says includes buildings with a minimum two
uses such as multif family and commercial, our hotel and commercial. The development will have those two uses. And then the next is provide the public walkway and associated memories along the length of the property's waterfront and the Indian River Lagoon shoreline. That is being done. We're saying we meet
those two criteria as set forward. It's and you know it's not a definition section because the definition applies to the entire development and so I think maybe it's we're arguing you know how many angels can dance on the head of
a needle type thing. Um but you know so we're we're just trying to clarify that we do meet these criteria >> and that it does not even say in the criteria that the two uses need to be within one building.
in in the in the overlay district it does not say that and I can hand you the highlighted language if you know you want to review it while we're up here but um >> it's provided on page 32 of your packets that code section
>> okay I'll come back to that I'm I'm going to ponder that for just a moment um the next thing that I wanted to ask you if you don't mind Um you had explained I said can you explain again explain again that purpose of the
two parcels together having the um buffer and joining them you know explain that again and and why making it 10 foot versus 20 is >> so between some of the uh buffers you have type A buffer and type B buffers um and they're different widths. What we
want to try to be able to do is utilize the the more narrow one between the uses that would be I think we're looking really at multifamily and commercial and instead of doing that 20 foot we want to double the density or increase the density to 125% whatever it is with
either more mature trees or greater number of trees. That's why we utilize the language that we worked with the staff in the past on 125%. So meaning if because the math is easier if if you had acquired a 10inch tree we'd put a 12 and a half inch tree so you gain a couple of
years worth of maturity or if the code required 10 plants well that's a bad example if the code required 100 plants we put 125 plants because I don't want to put half a plant in there if we use the number of 10. So that was what we're trying to do is get some more mature density between these projects as they
come in. >> Okay. All right. Um, and thank you for that one. Uh, and I think I'm gonna relinquish my time here. Um, there's a lot going on here. There's
there's a lot >> because the last one deals with that moving of dirt for an area that you're not going to be doing any construction on for any period of time. And again, I I appreciate the bond. I really do appreciate the bond. In the event that it doesn't move, the bond can then kick in and we can remove it back, right? But
then there's this luxury area that's beautiful, right, with a big pile of dirt sitting there. >> Yeah. And we can work with staff with where those are placed, but we would leave the matured vegetation around those piles along the roads. >> Okay,
>> member Seedler. >> Thank you. I'm um I just want to piggyback off what was just said and when he was asking about the reduction of a 20 foot to a 10- foot buffer and the reason for it is because you want to
put in mature trees. Why don't you just put in mature trees in a 20ft buffer? >> It eats into the land for the development is one of the reasons and again this is the market is telling them that they want they don't want these hard breaks creating these total separations. They want to have some of
that visual ability to do it. And what we want is the flexibility of if the customers say that's what they want between them and these other districts to provide that. And not saying we're going to have to do it, but we'd like the option to provide that if that's what the customers that want.
>> Okay. And then I'm going to also follow up. you mentioned and you brought up the fourth amendment and how you also um offered the landscape enhancement as a reason to accept whatever those amendments were. Um, and I'm just
wondering every single one of these requests that you've asked for and one is infrastructure. There's a buffers. They're replacing setbacks. The you're offering to this 125%
landscape enhancement. How many times can we enhance the same 125% landscape buffer along Spine Road? or I it it just seems like landscape enhancement versus
um infrastructure changing. Um those to me don't seem to be equal. >> I'm wondering is is there anything else for because it's supposed to be for the benefit of the public. >> I would guess the question is is were the things that were enhanced in
amendment for the same Yes, sir. They're different different areas that are receiving the enhanced landscape, same criteria, but different. >> Yes, sir. >> Areas >> and that's been driven mostly by conversations with staff and council throughout this iterative process is
that's when speaking with them what we've been >> is that what we're missing here. We don't have you have not submitted a plan or drawings to show us what is that what staff is saying is all missing here. This is the first we've heard of that that's what that staff wanted on the
landscaping plans. You know, in the past if we've done this, they've wanted the language. So, it's okay. But that one was, you know, surprise to us coming in to tonight. And, you know, we would propose depending on, you know, how you
guys vote tonight or deny it. We can ask the city council if that's what they want and we can work to try to bring some illustrative um drawings on that. But what's happened in the prior versions of this is when a drawing gets attached and then something changes, whether it's market demands or not, then
they have to come back in for a full-blown development agreement change as opposed to utilizing the language that's in there. So if that drawing shows something and it moves, we have to come back in for a new development agreement. Or if the types of plants
used in that drawing change, they you know, it's come back in for a new development agreement. So, we're trying to provide staff with some flexibility with these goals and the developer with some flexibility and knowing what they have to meet to get the staff's approval in that process.
Okay. And my next one is stockpiling. Do you have any piles currently out there and by the um sales office by in in the development currently? >> Not not on their property. It's owned by another
has been there for many years. It's a big pile of rubble, but that's not by us. >> That's not by owned by you. And so these stock piles that you're referring to and they're quite significant, you have a two-year, you anticipate them being there for two years.
>> We hope not. You know, if if this process where we can come in with the the the small plat um administrative process, it speeds it up and we can get these the the land planned and ready for the third party users who will be going
vertical and at that point that those stock piles will be graded into the property in the appropriate manner where they need to be based upon where those new retention ponds would go. So this is temporarily keeping it there as the retention is being put in in a phase project. Very similar to what Vieiera
did as they were going through their process. And I I know they have slightly different codes, but it's the same process. >> Okay. And this might be to staff and yourself, but um I'm just this uh request for the smallcale plot variance. Does this
qualify for a smallcale plot? we wouldn't have enough information at this time to make that determination. And I believe that that's part of staff's concerns. >> And what we're saying is when they bring it in, if staff says this does not meet our qualifications for it, okay, we
understand that. We're just asking that within when they bring that plan to you, we're allowed to utilize private mains and be within that process. Meaning, we can't divide it too many times. can't do any of the other stuff that could happen with, you know, the dangers of not going
through a full-blown plat process, you know. So what again to reiterate that is the ability to utilize private mains, the ability to utilize the joint storm water retentions on those parcels provided they have the storm water permitting, you know, from the
applicable authorities and the right to have cross access into their neighboring parcels as opposed to going out onto the public rightways. >> Okay. Thank you. But otherwise, yes ma'am, we would meet all if we don't meet the criteria of the smallcale plat amendment, staff will say we don't meet
it and either we come before you guys on the the full plat review or they don't get to do the project. >> Member Gar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. to the applicant's representative. Uh when you speak about these private mains, you're
talking about force mains, uh the majority of the principal infrastructure for water and sewer service to the site. >> I have to get the engineer to speak on that part. That's a little above my pay grade, but yes, >> I probably have a question for him. So, is he here? >> Perfect.
>> Reluctantly, maybe. But yes, Rod's here. >> Reluctance is good. It's like interpretation. Um, >> so the answer to the question is >> told you I would be speak >> Rodney Hank at 3700 South Washington Avenue here in Titusville.
>> Good evening. >> Good evening. So, um, I was going to talk about that a little bit. And the next to the last page in this agenda packet is um a page from the development agreement amendment that shows the
development. If you look there and you see the spine roads and the main roads. So the the only road that's not complete and it's under review now is the the spine road between the two traffic
circles. And so once they're complete, there will be water and sewer. No lift stations required because they will there will be locations already provided for any lift
station on the spine road in a plat in a platted area. So any of these areas will not require sewer lift stations. And if you look at it, you have to look at to see it. But the reason I Well, I'll just I'll go over my
presentation. >> It's on page 76 of your >> there won't be any lift stations required. >> That answers part of the question. The next question that I would have regarding the idea that the infrastructure then not the lift stations as a component of the infrastructure, but the mains big pipes.
Correct. >> Uh 8 inch >> big pipes. So if this is a public system, the construction requirements for you to develop the public infrastructure requires I'm thinking a bonding effect for uh that
infrastructure, which means that you buy the 8 in pipe and you place it in the ground at cost. Then you go get a bond to assure that the 8 inch pipe's going to work in a long-term duration and then somewhere at the end of that duration you're going to return the money from the bond because it's been deemed
acceptable. Is that my understanding correctly? >> That's if it's public. >> Okay. >> It's kind of like that. Yeah. You do a bill of sale and a maintenance agreement. Yeah. If it's private, then it's the cost out of the developer to put the infrastructure in, maintain the infrastructure, replace the infrastructure, but there's no bond to
assure the developer will do that short of he says they say we trust it will work. Is that a fair difference between private mains and public mains? One bonded for assuring um not for well for
instances on one of these parcels there's is an apartment complex. And so they ex they extend the sewer to serve that that's always private >> to the apartment complex internal like private streets >> right just and it'll be it'll be exactly
like that. So your exception to have these private mains would be just like the private parking lot analogy to an apartment complex or apartment complexes private water lines under the private parking lot serving the residents the apartment the main that's at the road
where the connection is is a public main >> uh the connection in the street is public the public street and then the site it's private and private >> so in short a failure of the water system in apartment complexes, all the apartment dwellers have a problem and
the apartment management has to fix it and sometimes that doesn't quite go as smoothly as it should. And that was where my question came from is whether your application of private means was going to have an impact to the extent that folks would be left without any
responsibility or accountability short of lawsuits between parties. They wouldn't be able to go and say, "City, you have to fix this because it's yours. It was dedicated to the public." And I understand the private nature of designing the apartment complex. Is that private main going to only be limited to
that scenario or will it also apply to detached single family homes? >> Um detached single family homes >> are are not are not part of the small pl. But they're all public.
There's no private mains in any of the single family. They're all public. an apartment complex. Uh the way that that is handled is if there's no sewer and no water, then there won't be any renters either. >> And so, >> well, that's the situation to say, but
yeah, there are people >> and so I mean I I don't know of anything unless they're very very old around that that's a problem. >> Yeah, I won't be there when that happens. I hope not either, but it could happen. I have a question. I'm not sure who the applicant's representative is going to answer about the piles of dirt.
Um, the principle I have understanding your presentation is you want to be able to go into a a larger swath of area, clear it in preparation, work out the plans for the preparation, excavate
rudimentary areas for future retention that would be a recessed area and the stockpile remove piled over on the side and lays there for a while to be used spread out for elevating. building footprints, building pads, road infrastructure.
>> So I the engineer can probably correct me when I say it wrong, but the excavation that would be done would be done in accordance with the St. John's permit for the storm water is being put in. So the excavation would be to permit and that's the final that's not roughed
in that's done for that portion of the overall storm water system. >> Correct. And then as that fill comes out, we want to stage it around the site so that as those plans finalize, those areas can be moved without having to
move the fields on and off the public streets multiple times. as opposed to for example a master grading plan whereby you take on the improvements the excavation the back fill the elevation changes and the use of the dirt in a more expeditious manner that reduces
this concern that I think you mentioned in your presentation that would be guaranteed because you're going to bond it and if the dirt started blowing and the developer went south so to speak that someone would be able to come in there and recover that problem solution by removing the dirt
>> but that would also require where the clear cutting and masquerading of the entire site and not allowing the existing mature vegetation to stay there which we might be able to save in the future site plans once somebody who's developing a certain parcel knows exactly where their footprints going.
>> So in the 300 acres site thereabout you have and a master plan is submitted and approved by St. John's at this time you have a master plan approved for all storm water infrastructure design or not? No, that's in sub though, right?
>> Yeah, that's being reviewed now. And the areas and the areas that are low that need that will need fill when this develop will be the stockpile areas. >> Well, where I was going kind of like Mr. FAC mentioned about start at the top and at the bottom is another statement,
another question, another rule. So, if you choose not to do the improvements warranted by the master grading plan which has been submitted to become approved by St. John's in typical development thinking of 88 eight pieces
of the pie. The pie is 8 in and you know exactly the dimensions of the pie and the pan and the crust. You just choose to cut one piece out and get it ready to eat or sell. And then you move to the next piece of pie. What you're proposing
to do is to take the excavated material, put it somewhere else for storage so you don't have to move the trips and trucks on the road during the time that's going to mature and be used is frankly indefinite. There's no guarantee. You
mentioned that too by saying but if something went wrong, we'd bond it and the city could come in. >> We have a two-year time limit in the agreement that's before you. two years to pile this up, leave it there for two years and then move it >> to utilize it.
>> Okay, so two years the pile of sand is sitting there waiting to be used >> and then spread >> extension, >> right? But an extension, that's a good point. Like a variance, you just assume you have to get an extension if you need more time. The reason I'm concerned is I I other people have experienced this, I
am sure. Uh I'm witness to uh the improvements to the Titusville High School's baseball field and they're moving a lot of dirt around probably 40 acres of property. They've done an excellent job in both construction management. They've done an excellent
job with screening, but a six- foot high opaque screen doesn't really impede the blowing dirt. So, for at least the past month and a half during these windy season, uh, winds, um, it's it's pretty interesting just how much dirt
accumulates on everything I own, my house, my car, me if I stand out there for a few minutes. And the point being with a large pile of dirt unmaintained, there's nothing being provided. You're not sprinkling it. you don't have any schedule by which you would reduce that
potential blowing of sand except two years that everybody lives with that for two years >> which is one of the reasons we were proposing leaving the mature vegetation around it and >> I can see where that could be sure that that's that's that's good um thank you
for your answers >> member facing so in addition to piling the the dirt up in lowlying areas with mature vegetation around it. I'm kind of confused about the clear cutting and mature vegetation to
surround the piles of dirt. How do they coincide? How do they co coexist? >> Yeah. So, we're not proposing a clear cut. We were going to maximize it at 30%. Hopefully, it will be less, but we wanted to provide a clear rationale that we're not clearcutting the site. Clear cutting is 100% clearing of the site.
That's how it's defined. We're we're proposing to keep it below 30. 30 would be the max we would come to staff with the plan for approval for. So >> So that that 30% that we're talking about that you would max, right? So at some point in time I I
remember um in a previous meeting I believe 30% site utilage was what was said before was that the rest of would would remain wooded anyway. Right? So of the overall site, right? How much of the percentage would be used for building
>> percentwise? >> I'm not sure the answer. I know there's an open space requirement within the RMU district upon buildout and the developer will meet those RMU standards as they build the process out. >> I I guess what I guess what my question
is right is are we using numbers that kind of hide our true intent? meaning is that if we're going to use 30% of the overall property, for example, right, and leave 70% vegetation anyway, when we ask for 30% clearing, we're only asking
to clear what we're going to use anyway. Does that make sense? >> I'm not I'm not sure I'm understanding the question and part of it's my hearing, so apologies. Um, >> that's okay. I may be speaking kind of fast, so I'll say it this way. I remember previously, and I could be
wrong, that someone had briefed us and saying that we're not going to destroy all the vegetation on this site. We're only going to build on 30% of the overall acreage available. >> I'm not sure that was ever stated. I
know there's large conservation areas that are being maintained. those typically kind of coincide with the wetlands and some of the riverine structures that run through it. There >> in the I think the '08 agreement there
was a scrubj mitigation parcel that had been set aside. Um that there are no scrub js there. So the purpose of that was no longer there. That was amended by the city in I think 2021 or maybe 2022. but they're still meeting the overall
open space requirements that are set in the code. And I don't think there's ever been a statement that only 30% of the site would be developed. >> I I don't recall that at all. And apologies if I'm wrong. >> Okay. So I I I guess at the end of the day, right, what I'm
what I'm trying to see is is if that 30% that we're going to cut is the 30% that we're only going to use anyway, which would then be >> a workaround to still clear cutting. You know what I mean? So we're just using language to to get around clear cutting. Not saying we're clearcutting, but we're
clear cutting. So, no, I think that I think that where we're going to try to locate these piles are where the buildings are going to naturally be located as the development goes on. So, that's going to be cleared eventually anyway. And so, we wanted to do is position this dirt in those areas so
that it's cleared, the dirt stored there. As the final plan comes in, then it's spread around the site as needed. So, you know, we don't view it as clear-cutting at all. It's just the stages of the development as it's going through.
>> Okay. Okay. And then and then my only last question is is that as me member Grod here has has made clear there's no agreement currently in place. And so I I I don't know and and maybe it's just me to have the question is why
hasn't there been agreement made thus far and and why has this come before us to make these decisions when there's still some work that needs to be done between you and staff? We've worked with staff to the extent we
can. I think this is a distillation of that work and we're bringing it to the policy and decision makers of the city to kind of call balls and strikes as we go through the process. You know, we didn't that's the 125% language and the staff's comment that they don't know how
to work with that. We're happy to work with them as we move through the process to try to amend that language and we're happy to, you know, work through that with them as we go through the city council process on the readings. But I think it was Friday the agenda came out that that's the first time that we've
heard that hey we don't know how to apply this standard but it's the standard that's already in the development agreement. So to to the question on that we can work with them on that but we thought it was pretty straightforward again 10 in we'll do 12 and a half inches you know 100 plants
we'll do 125 plants. Um, you know, the other side of it, again, we've I think not going to say we've exhausted our ability, but real close. Everybody's very tired. >> Got it. Got it. Got it. Okay. Well, we appreciate you. Okay. >> Thank you. And uh if anyone else has any
questions, I'm happy to stumble about and try to answer them to the best of my abilities. >> One more so far. Member Steel. >> Thank you. And I know this is not part of your submitt, but on page 31 where you do have the drawings of the phases and you have I'm I'm looking at a
cleared area along the water there where you have in this particular photo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 nine homes built. Did this same 30% criteria of clearing fall within this phase? I see their trees
over to the right. How does this relate to how you're going to be clearing the next lots? There's >> I'm trying to get to um the agenda packet in which page uh could you repeat the page?
>> It's going to be page 31. >> 31. And and which pile are you looking at? I'm sorry. >> I am looking at as you're asking to clear and the 30% of clear cutting or whatever have you. Did that same
criteria apply to this area um where there aren't any trees and there are the roads and the 11 houses? And my question is, does that little grouping of trees to the right >> so >> qualify for that?
>> So the the clear areas where you see the houses, those are the already platted um sub single family subdivisions that have been under construction. So those were cleared and put in. Um the 30% criteria is what we're trying to get at is where
the piles are currently showing proposed on this site is where we got to that number. That's where we think the staging of them, which puts them as far away from the roads and the single family houses as we can get them without taking them off the property and close enough to where, you know, they're not
going to have to be blowing around a whole bunch again, you know, moving them other spots. So I I guess what I'm asking are are there tree preservation criteria that were applied to this grouping
>> the grouping where the housing is >> that I don't believe so. >> So I I think I understand and please correct me. >> Please help me is the only place they're asking for clear cutting. So the areas
you're referring to are pro are tracks that have gone through the plat process and whatever clearing was done was addressed in that area. I think what this section, the 30% we're talking about is they've got to clear some spots
to put the dirt. And that's all they're talking about is is that they're going to apply that 30% for areas that are not yet platted, final platted that would have a tree cutting area or or a whole
clearing plan. they are in advance of it need to clear some spots to put the dirt and that's what this is discussion is happening about. It's not the areas that they're getting ready to build out a project on. They're they're finding a
spot that they're not going to touch for this two years so they can put dirt there. >> We hope it's a lot less than two years. But >> but I I think there was a lot of confusion about the entire project versus >> unplatted areas
>> and on this page you can see um the blue lines that are in there and um I don't know if you have the color up there on it or not but that is where these proposed ponds would be being dug and that's the master retention a portion of the master retention system that will service the whole property under the St.
's storm water permits. And now there will be some other smaller ponds that are interconnected as the individual parcels go through their needs based upon how much impervious surface each of those individual parcels will have.
They will all have the legal positive outfall and retention as required under the small scale plat amendment process. >> So again I try catch me if I'm interpreting it right. you're you're almost ready to dig storm water ponds
because that's up for approval. That dirt that comes out of those ponds. The pre when when preparing for those rather than to take it off site somewhere and then bring it back when you need it, you're trying to find some
spots on the site to store it until you need it. Is that >> that's that's it. And much shorter and more eloquent than I can. So again, I blame the coffee. >> Yeah, I Okay, >> Gary pays me by the word.
>> It's understand printed versus descriptions. >> So that's that piece. And and yeah, we the we're not used to these multi-sectioned things. And that's uh I think normally we're we're we're a lot better with
bite-sized chunks than than a a whole whole meal here. Um but um yeah, so Uh, let's see. And then I think I I I it's just me speaking and
then uh um I I think I'm kind of where you are on on the height thing. Um I I do agree that as it relates to the 50 foot setback.
So there there's certainly a concern and I have the same concern that that 50-foot setback along the S1 was for a safety issue that you put a swimming pool full
of kids and a car goes through that buffer, you've got a safety issue. Is is there any safety restraint, concrete fence, anything along there that we're not
aware of that would uh eliminate or at least mitigate that safety concern or is that a real concern? >> I mean, I I would never say that concern on safety is not a real concern. It's always a valid concern. Um what I would
say is you know if as increased landscaping and density serves as a better catching net for any cars that would be coming through in the event that you know someone is um not being facitious but mature landscaping does you know stop vehicles as we probably
all have unfortunately witnessed throughout >> and there is going to be a wall at the um >> along the US one portion >> behind these the subject the 12 lots that we're talking So there will be and and what's that
wall is is that like a >> Okay. So if we put a condition in there that that the walls constructed before something could be put in that 25 foot setback. That might be a compromise.
Uh member Charles. >> Yeah. Um I'm a programmer so I like to like go through everything you know systematically. Um so a the multi or um let me get back to it
here. So the mixuse I always want to call it multi-use for some stupid reason. Um for one it's called the mixeduse development agreement and so it's a mixeduse but I think that's what's kind of confusing. Um, but I think every time I've been on the
commission for five years and I think every time we've ever talked about a mixeduse development, it's been a single I guess, you know, a single lot or something. We've been talking about like especially for like um live local, uh,
they've we've talked about that and it, you know, there's certain requirements for that for mixed use and it's always been about one one lot or whatever. Um, so I've kind of I kind of agree with staff on their interpretation of that, at least because that's how I've always
heard it, you know, described to us, but I also would go think we haven't really talked about in a big development like this either. So, um, but I'm always apt to kind of side on that, um, with staff as far as their interpretation of that
and what it shows in the in the, um, >> in the the, uh, overlay. >> I would just state that the down your your different mixed use codes don't require mixtures within one building. They anticipate and state that you can have two different uses with on the same
property. And that's the downtown mixed use, the urban mixed use, all urban village, they all allow for different uses within different buildings. >> Yeah. No, I get that. Yeah. Um I get that. And I think that's where I think
it's confusing for a lot of us too is that we use, you know, you have mixeduse zones and stuff and and areas and then but when we're talking about this specifically though, we're talk I I think it
um applying to a single at least a single building. it seems to make the most sense. At least that's how I've always like heard it referred to, but um I don't know. Anyway, well, that's a um and we can other people can weigh in on
it again, but um b um you uh as far as what staffs, sorry, because A was the um mixuse and then B is the platting process. um and to
uh for utilities. Um so there the staff's comments are um that it it has to be provided the utilities have to be provided and the storm water management facility can be provided
independently. And so I guess just summarize your argument again for this one for me. >> Yeah. And so if you go through uh the second page as it's talking about this item, you get the staff's comments and it, you know, it's the utilities, water, sewer, it's that the code, you know,
says that no mains can be extended. And that makes sense if it's a public main um because you don't necessarily want to have public mains having to be extended here and then, you know, essentially breaking off parcels of land that may not be able to be serviced by those public utilities. What and I think this
gets to the gentleman's point here is the public lines the public will own the lines up to the property line the private lines will be put in and maintained at no expense to the city um for those services and when we look at
the you know the intent of the why they have the smallcale plat process is to ensure that there's a minimum need for public facility improvements and that's what the code says and there will not be any public facility improvements those are private facility improvements that will be done and maintained.
>> So you're what you're saying your argument is that um your your proposal is really going towards the the the idea or the um intent behind the ordinance. That's what
your argument is though, right? >> We're trying to comply with the intent. Yes, sir. And allow And then in the the drafting that we did was to be tried to be very specific as to what we're doing. And that's the private mains um you know the joint storm waters
between the connecting lots to comply with that I believe it's subsection C that you know >> but I guess I yeah but you I just wanted to make sure that your your argument is you're trying to comply with the intent of it but they're like citing specific
reasons and codes and stuff but that's fine. I I don't I don't mind going towards the intent of something. Um as far and so see the land I I think we just discussed that one. That's a 50 foot buffer one, right? Uh that you just talked about with the doing the wall, right? That's that one, right? We just
talked about. Okay. >> Um D is the accessories that's actually wall section. Yes. >> What's the other? All right. The first C was >> the 20 to 10. C is the internal landscaping between the parcels within
the project. >> And your argument is uh because their argument uh the enhancement is confusing. Developers say a proposed 125% enhancement is based on quantity, height, caliber of some
combination thereof. revised the language to specifically state what the enhancement will be in order for staff to implement it. So they're just saying they need more information about it, right? And and your response is what to
>> that we've provided the calculation of the 125% and as the site plans come in for their approval, they will meet that 125% and show us what it is. >> Okay. All right. It's just been so hard to keep all of this straight here. Yeah, it's it's a lot of moving parts and
>> and All right. So then that was and then Okay. So then the E was the 50 foot or wait or oh E is the um the clearing that we're talking about storm water >> and and the staff was correct. There was a typo. I would blame my dyslexia. It
should be section 34214 not 24. So apologies. >> Okay. All right. I'm caught up. Thank you. >> Okay. So let let me I think going through it section by section's a good thing. So I'll I'll take a stab. So on a
my position is I I I kind of get that kind of like um vice chairman Charles said is is this is unique for Titusville and this board. It's it's it's bigger.
Uh, and and I I certainly just thinking about as a consumer if I'm if these are I'm assuming they're probably likely going to be condo residential buildings um that are going to be very nice, very upscale like the
rest of it. Is it really important to me that there's a shop in the ground floor versus it's all residential? I I I mean it doesn't I think that's a market thing. It's not necessarily something the city or or we need to dictate that, oh yeah, you really should
have, you know, a beauty shop on on the first floor in a condo building versus it being entirely residential. U my example before is a coffee shop. You know, it it might be a nice amenity and the market will dictate whether the amenity needs to be there. I don't know
that we need to dictate that. Um the plotting process I think certainly if we can craft some language that has which I think is the intent that the staff still has the approval. I see this as kind of an ability to cut some red
tape out and make things go quicker which I'm all for. Um um and then um the landscape buffer that the the staff does make a comment as it relates to residential.
So if there if this was crafted that the exception was this applies to everywhere except abudding any residential property. Is that acceptable? And was that the intent or because I I certainly can see you know something between a
commercial or multifamily and residential don't necessarily want it to reduce that buffer but I can see between you know commercial and multifamily maybe maybe it makes sense or even between two commercial sections that it
makes sense. So as to anything abuing the single family, those are already split off by the pond that's being put in and the the buffer. So there there's no ability to do it against the single family by design already. Um and we are
requesting to have the option the flexibility between multifamily and the commercial um to utilize that more dense instead of broader landscape buffering if that's what those customers want. At the end of the day, to your point, the market may say, "No, we want it
broader." And that's what comes in it. >> I'll let others >> and there is a staff comment about addressing the the 50- foot buffers between uh RMU 300 and RMU 400. Those are already in place. Those are the spine roads. So, there is no 300 and 400
abudding each other at this point in time. >> Okay. Um D I've already spoke spoke to that and then I think we also I also spoke to the
the dirt seems to make sense. Uh, but I I do definitely want something in there that would um prevent it from dragging on as well as ideally the, you
know, wind wind moving it when you didn't necessarily want it to be moved. And so, uh, anyone else? Member Gar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um staff, the applicant presented this a few minutes
ago as they're at an impass that they only learned about staff comments on Friday. And I'm surprised that that would be so late. I'm not condemning that, but it also equally surprising that the application process to my
knowledge takes much longer than just a few days. Second comment is what your recommendations appear to be is to perform an improvement to the proposed agreement to clarify unclear areas to
stipulate to design standards and to do so in harmony so that we have an agreement as opposed to the fifth disagreement agreement and I myself believe that's the prudent thing to do here for the commission to decide things
might be conditionally approved kind of countermans the idea an agreement. The contract is there. We agree to it. You sign it. It's in effect. To condition the approval always leaves the dangling participle of how does that condition weave itself into a document that's
presented for review all before next Tuesday or next week. I think the city council meets on this. >> Um I believe it's the 24th. >> Okay. Just kind of down the road a few days. Um, tonight we heard the applicant representative, someone say there was
going to be a wall. Well, saying there's going to be a wall and requiring a walls, two different statements, >> which is my point that it needs to be required, >> right? And so those types of infrastructure um um definitions, what's the main,
where does it apply? The example given again is from the representatives. It's going to be like an apartment complex. Well, in my opinion, the agreement would say something like that. It would not apply to anything except those private mains that would be on private property. Uh, I think offering a wall for
security, for safety, for sound insulation, uh, to enhance the backyard experience of a person swimming in a pool 25 ft from US1, uh, to me does kind of tend to lead itself to the development agreement aspect of it where
all those fine lines are drawn, comes back for final approval. You have staff recommendation, we're in agreement with this and agreement is a key word. and it moves forward to city council in a manner in which they receive a a compact
document that's been reviewed by staff stipulated to by the applicant and concurrence by the council sorry by the planning and zoning commission as a recommendation. And so in my opinion from all of this I'm kind of leading towards looking at staff's report as
being >> prudent. I I think I kind of heard Mr. Oliver say that in that they were at an impass with staff and they wanted to hear from our opinions as well as council's opinions on what it takes to
get past that impass which >> I can agree with that I found it interesting your presentation that the statement about buildings that because the you had it highlighted here I think mixed use developments
um may increase to 150 ft provided the development meets the criteria below a or one uh includes buildings with a minimum of two uses. So if that statement had said includes a
building with two uses, we wouldn't have a disagreement. But then again, you'd only have one building that would have mixed use, not buildings. You're saying I can have buildings and I can put them on land or I can put the commercial over here. I might put the
residential over here only. And so in an agreement sort of way, it seems like it's even confusing to deal with the very substance of the agreement because we're trying to read into a definition as you put it. You read the definition this way and staff reads the definition
that way or staff believes the definition applies this way. Mr. Fa's point. and you don't believe that it does apply that way. So, it's no agreement there. >> I think the distinction is between definition and criteria. We believe
we've met the definition of your code for mixeduse development. That's very specifically set forth. And then it says that mixeduse development shall meet certain criteria to qualify for the height enhancement. And it's the
definition within that criteria and the code is very specific on that. and it says buildings of two or more uses. Um, so >> yeah, I I I >> but I understand the position that, you know, there's a criteria to get access
to the overlay requirement for the development and that the development may contain buildings within the mixeduse that aren't necessarily mixed use, but you've got access to the 150. I understand the I I
understand the argument and you know I think that's why you're asking for a higher power to help interpret that and and I I get that because you're we're at an impass and and this is you know no different than
the court system that >> when there's disagreement it gets kicked upstairs and we're we're a step below fully upstairs but we're we're we're a step along the way. So, uh, member Faze, >> it it just hit me. So, I want to ask this question again. So it is your
stance that when it says including buildings plural with a minimum of two uses plural such as multifamily and commercial your stance is those two buildings can be one building
multifamily the second building commercial not multif family and commercial >> that's my position yes sir >> because it it does say devel the development shall Not the building shell. >> Got it. Attorney, how do you interpret
this? >> We're generally going to defer to staff on these unless it, you know, comes before us. >> That's the non council policy. >> He volied. I got it. Okay. All right. So, all right. So in my limited training
of 10 years of reading documents like this right to me it is clear that buildings here really I mean like it is a building should have two uses.
A building shall have two uses. Um I'm sorry that it says buildings here but it says a buildings plural with a minimum of two uses plural. So if you take out the pluralities of both of those words, it's building have two uses.
So do you see what I'm saying? >> Yeah. I should have two use. >> Now we're changing the language of it. >> No, no, we're not changing the language. I'm just saying to fit your narrative, right? The the double plurality in this
case can mean double buildings with two uses. And so you can stand on that and say, "Hey, this is how I read it. See what I'm saying? >> But but I I think you said earlier there are buildings in the development that do have two uses that effectively act as
qualifiers for the development to be a multi-use development. >> Got it. But but see but the other So now here's where the other layer comes into play, right? Is that that that uh I forgot the name of that layer again where it says that a building has to have two uses. But I'm not sure there's
anyone shown in the code where it says a building has to have two uses. >> The one that she read for the for the map overlay. >> Well, so it is it is includes buildings with a minimum of two uses such as multifamily and commercial or hotel and
commercial. Um and then I'll go ahead and just read the rest of it. Commercial uses shall serve the general public. Examples of commercial incluses include but not limited to restaurants and or retail uses. Commercial uses should be located with easy access to the public.
The use is intended to serve and in buildings which the lowest floor is parking commercial uses which are provided on the second floor shall be considered to meet this requirement. >> So there so even even when you go further in and that last sentence to me
is even more clarity that the building the buildings right shall have two uses. What is in the buildings in which the lower floor is parking commercial which is uses? So it it's saying that the building has to s serve the 150 foot building must serve the general public.
>> But parking so if it's condo building and you've got parking for the residents then that's two uses. >> Well the the general public it must serve the general public. But but I mean but I'm I'm saying to that yes >> well visit a visitor to the unit could
be a general I don't I mean that's the whole idea thing I think we're sitting here you know saying that it just needs clarification and somebody needs to agree and I I agree with member Grod that you know this this is is not for us
to draft it I think and that's why we're spending so much time giving our opinions council will give their opin opinions and then my guess is it will it staff then will have direction from
multiple people as to kind of as as will the applicant as to kind of where they need to meet in the middle to get past this step. >> And to uh the member's uh point on the wall, you know, if if the council chooses to vote to move it forward, we're happy to do it under the condition
that that wall would be included in that approval. Um and if the if the body decides to deny, you know, recommend denial, you know, we would obviously note and continue that agreement as we move forward to council that we would agree if the council decides to move
forward that we would put that wall in >> member. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um the central part of my point presenting my opinion here tonight is the word agreement. Now stipulating to further changes,
enhancements, deletions, underline, striketh through before city council or subsequent to city council really defeats the purpose of writing a contract, coming to an agreement. In the case of where we're at, to me, my opinion, we're at a disagreement about
definitions. We're in a disagreement about the application of a definition. We're in disagreement because it's not clear. I'm going to draw upon an experience I had. I'll leave the project nameless, but it will share with you what I believe you're at. The project
proposed an avenguard idea of multiple family development condominiums in which the first floor of the building was reserved for commercial use to enhance mixed use to create enhancements to walkability. people live up here. They go downstairs to such personal services
as hair cutting to nail salons to in fact it was a grocery store. Um and that's the way it was conceived and that's the way it was built. But the development agreement went further in light of the comment by the applicants
representative to let the market dictate as market should. That's that's a good way of getting things done. It provided in the agreement that at the choice of the developer notwithstanding that the units on the first floor, the
buildings, the occupied spaces were built to a more rigid commercial standard than the standard that applies to the floors above that residential standards. Overbuilt might be a simple way of putting it, but it reserved the right at the developers discretion to
convert that to residential if the market so dictated. Well, guess what happened? The grocery store is gone 20 years later and all the mixed uses that were there are gone because the market dictated residential occupancy. People got overbuilt so as to speak.
Commercialbuilt buildings steel this and steel that instead of wood this and wood that simple put. But they occupy those buildings to date based on the market based on an agreement that clearly stated what you could do. not an
interpretation that I come back to staff one day and say, "Well, the way I'm interpreting the development agreement is I don't have to just have commercial here. I'm going to make it residential." And it leaves staff in a juxosition always wondering what is it they really
meant to say. And that interpretive process is why a development agreement is so binding. It's a contract. It's it's not variable. It's black and it's white. But even tonight, we're debating the black and white of the former
development agreements. To me, it seems like if anything's the lesson, it should be let's make sure the fifth amendment may be the last amendment because it's clarified, it's specified, and it's in an agreement. So, I again stress my point tonight has been we don't have an
agreement, and that's a heck of a thing to recommend to city council. We're recommending a disagreement because the applicant's certainly disagreeing with the staff. So, as it relates to the height, we have an agreement that we will meet your criteria. What we're
saying is that we meet the mixeduse development criteria. It is a mixeduse development agreement to the point that was made and it will have to have two different uses in it to be mixed use. The whole regional mixeduse zoning district requires that in the regional mixeduse. We have to have a minimum of
different uses to build the site out. And what we're trying to do is clarify that agreement so staff doesn't have to come in and we cite to the specific code saying we're going to meet your requirements. Um so we're trying to clarify that to the point that uh Mr.
Eton made that we're at a disagreement on this point and the policy makers of the city were asking, you know, that you can provide y'all's input and then it can go to council on their input and we can have this to rest because this has been an issue that has been being kicked back
and forth between the staff and the applicant for over a year as we've discussed, you know, these this definitionary issue. We have we've wrestled it a lot and we're asking for clarity. >> I'm sorry. I thought you said you had
only got those comments on Friday. >> We received staff's comments as it related to the 125% landscaping being something they didn't understand on Friday, >> but not the allocation for mixed juice being uses in a building.
>> No, they that's what we're saying. We we've been trying to wrap this into one agreement. They've m consistently maintained that opinion. We've consistently held the other opinion and we're trying to bring it in into the development agreement and get clarity. You know, another option would be revise the ordinance, but you know, that's I
>> Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I don't want to interrupt, but I do have a question for staff and for council. So, at the last comment made by the representative was we're trying to get to an agreement and we've had a disagreement briefly put. Um
and this is a development agreement which has got certainly exceptional standards applied to it. Exceptional to standard zoning. I called it uklitian zoning earlier but standard zoning bill affair. And this allows flexibility such as mixtures of uses in buildings or a
building or on tracks of land. But the question is can this agreement codify the very standards the applicant seeks? the standards the staff may not agree with. Okay. You can have mixtures
of uses, but they don't have to only be in a building without disintegrating the comprehensive plan, which I think was staff's comment in your review was if you do this in the mixeduse overlay, we may be violating the comprehensive plans provision, not just the land development
code. I >> I believe that was in reference to the stockpiling of Phil. >> Okay. But point being is can this development agreement be a modification of all those other standards that would otherwise apply because it has been approved as an agreement. In my opinion, it needs to be
black and white, line by line, letter by letter. that if staff were to concede, stipulate and agree that your definition of mixed use is I could have independent uses limited to that use,
not a collective combination required of that building because I've exhibited a plan that perhaps shows that the walkability of the convenience store is 400 ft instead of the ground floor. So everybody says, "Yeah, that's a good mixed use in an urban environment." But
if they stipulate to this within the boundaries of that development agreement, can it be an exceptional set of standard rules that are unique and only apply to this project? So, I'm going to try and answer that succinctly. Um, you know, so long as
none of the ambiguities that might be on the face of the agreement that's reached violate the comp plan, the city is permitted to adopt uh an ambiguous agreement. It's not recommended, obviously. Um I from a legal standpoint fleshing those things out to avoid
litigation down the road is the recommendation. But per it would be allowed to agree to ambiguous things and argue about them later. But the recommendation is always to clear those things up on the front end.
>> And so if clarity was go to it's kind of like the fight go to neutral corners come back for the next round. They come back and staff agrees with the applicant's presentation of why this independent use of residential exclusively not forced in collective
use, mixed use, residential, commercial or like kind that they agree and then the development comes forward. We review a development agreement that says, "Oh, you're agreeing with this now and for good reasons. Each of us have our opinion. This may be better or worse, but we all recognize staff's
recommending this agreement." Agreement is the key word here. uh that would be preferred and certainly clearer and lead less confusion and less interpretation as you put it potential litigation. >> Well, and yeah, I I think where you're
going and and I I I see your point. I I think I agree with it is because this is a planned development agreement. We are discussing this because it's a previously granted overlay district
instead of had it been addressed as part of the development agreement that there could be buildings residential multi or you know condo buildings whatever or buildings that exceeded the 100 foot limit and and went to the 150 foot limit
and that was part of the development agreement not part of the overlay agreement. we wouldn't be having this discussion. >> I think that would be correct. And you can see the benefit if the overlay district was black and white. >> We wouldn't have that discussion >> because I think that's that's the part
that I wasn't thinking about that you did think about that this overlay district does apply to other properties as well and we we're creating some precedent here potentially. Whereas if we do incorporate as part of the development agreement independent of the
overlay district still give you what you want but do it a different way it it makes it eliminates that issue with the overlay. >> Absolutely. And I think staffs at least for my purpose if they've heard what I've been saying seems like they should go back to the neutral corner and come back with a maybe we give maybe we get
maybe we both give and get. >> Member Seedler. >> Thank you. who is speaking with that and I'm looking under staff comment and it says that a water front boardwalk with pedestrian enhancements are required to be built in order to allow a building height of 150 ft in the city's height
overlay and then buildings without the adjacent waterfront do not qualify for the 150 foot overlay. So, I'm wondering, we've already established these buildings aren't on the waterfront, so
they don't qualify for that max 150 foot. And I am confused why >> that's correct. That's another criteria that staff feels that that that this would not be able to meet. So, it would the requirement is to provide a public walkway and associated amenities along
the length of the property's waterfront on the Indian River shoreline. So that's an indication that that would be required to be have frontage on the waterfront for that specific >> and that's already part of the binding development agreement to provide that walkway along the um shoreway
>> and and so it seems like there's some confusion that the buildings that you're requesting the are or not on the waterfront. >> The property extends from the today extends from the water all the way around to US1 as one continuous parcel.
>> Okay. But are the buildings that you're proposing that will exceed the height limit located along the waterfront? >> They could be as the planning progresses. Yes, sir. >> But could be versus will be. It it So,
how can you have a a walkway that runs along the waterfront between the building if there's 18 other buildings between it and >> because the property the development has it >> there? Currently, there are homes all along there along the the waterfront. >> No, there's a whole another section
that's not developed yet along the waterfront. I think that's where the marina and and correct and condo buildings were going to go on the on the south side of the property before you get to the causeway in that corner there. >> Okay.
>> That that's the area we're talking. So, so >> and that's where the plan already has a public um walkway put into um I believe is public parks and amenities that tie into the park between the single family and where the um the other parcel.
>> So your position is that's criteria overlay but it's not necessarily that >> because then you're applying it to the entire overlay. Understand your position. I don't necessarily >> um
member FA >> staff could you read that definition again about the building and the water please >> regarding the walkway. Uh no. So the criteria as he's calling the criteria the building height you're saying that
it doesn't have waterfront and his position is well the property in general let's say a thousand acres it's not 1,000 acres. I get it but the thousand acres is on the water. So the propertyy's on the water. So the waterfront walkway is on the water but
the buildings are 500 feet away from the water or a thousand feet from the water. You know what I mean? Like they're way back from the water. So, but because we put that walkway in on the water, we can now have the building away from the water and that's his position if I'm not mistaken. So,
>> correct >> the definition. Can you read it again, please? >> So, so providing the public walkway associated I'm sorry, provides a public walkway and associated amenities along the length of the property's waterfront on the Indian River Lagoon shoreline.
And then there are specific standards for that public walkway to include a minimum maximum or minimum width. Outdoor seating, shade is provided, uh planting trees are provided, uh pedestrian scaled lighting is provided, >> but it does not specifically say that
the building itself must be on the wall on on the uh waterfront. >> It it references the property. >> That's that's our point. staff that staff believes that this maximum building height is applicable to individual buildings.
>> Um, so yes, that's >> the code of the development. >> Okay. So, so, so, so >> semantics is beautiful, guys. Semantics is beautiful. All righty. So, so here we have it. Um all the other buildings that
are nearing this height are actually located on the waterfront which I believe was the intent. So now at one point you were specific to say that you are trying to meet the intent of the um code. Now you're going
to go by the letter of the code. So I'm going to need you to pick which one you're going to do at which time. >> Yes sir. >> You going to do intent or you going to do letter? I'm just trying to go to the section and and read if there is an intent section
um in here and there is no intent section in the code. >> No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You earlier mentioned that you were trying to conform to the intent of the code. >> You said that in that section of the
code, it's section 34-141 intent is a a code provision. >> Okay. in section 29 um 160 through 164 which is the height overlay district there is no intent section setting out intent in the ordinances so I I don't
know what the intent of the height overlay district was because it's not in the code >> I I I'm sorry to interrupt um so there is a short title I don't know if it's going to be helpful to this discussion >> um but the purpose of the overly district is to provide regulations and rules that will allow for additional
height in a manner of which creates more opportunities ities for infill redevelopments and mixeduse development while considering impacts to the existing neighborhood by directing increased building heights and intensities to major transportation corridors. The provisions of this article are in addition to not in lie of
other provisions of this code. Okay. >> And so this is not a redevelopment and there are no existing um neighborhoods. This is brand new mixeduse development by code. >> So so so you mentioned purpose, right? Which was infill. when I hear when I hear the word infill that's this is
already done right so the purpose of this goal now is there an applicability as well so you mentioned purpose is there an applicability definition applicability >> well it would be the criteria that must be met in order for this to apply is
that what you're referring to or >> um good I'm going back some other some other time right so so there's always a purpose right and then well in government writing there's for for every law it says for every rule it has the purpose and then the applicability means
how it applies um and then you you read that as well um because what I just heard your purpose right when I when I heard you read the purpose I I don't know if that purpose filled it it it meets this particular
>> project and so if it doesn't meet this particular project how can we use it to justify what it's doing It does say for infill red predevelopments and mixeduse developments. So it's an and you could use either of them there. >> I need to start read I don't have it up
so I'm not understand I'm not reading I'm just listening. I'm trying to listen and apply. Okay. Um wow. >> Yeah. I I I do tend to agree though the interior because the the walkway does not run
across the entire piece of the property. It only runs in the section that I think everybody assumed was going to be the waterfront buildings. So going interior to the property, I I I think you you
potentially lose the whole because it it's not the whole waterway because there's homes along there. That's there is no water walkway that's open to the pedestrians or the general public along there. It's only in that section. So I
think buildings of that height were should only be allowed in that section. It's my opinion. >> Member Gar. >> I have one last question for staff and my memory was pricricked a little bit by Mr. Face's comment or perhaps your
comment on the fourth amendment. I believe I may have sat with members of this commission when the fourth amendment came through. Why I recall it was it was the first time I saw this evidence with the application to have a 150 foot building. That first blush I
was kind of shocked by that and I'm not sure I was real supportive of it. But that's where the hotel or condominium was going to be placed at the corner what best be described as overlooking the uh entrance to the Kennedy Space Center from the
causeway or across where the badge identification building used to be. if anybody's familiar with that. Uh, and that's where the walkway was and the whole debate of the fourth amendment that was concerning to me as I recall was the large building and stipulating
that the offset would be if you built this walkway. I think I recall even saying something to the extent like that seems like a weak tradeoff a path for another 50 feet of height of building and I think that was reviewed by us at some time.
>> Yeah. But I I think this this is actually part of the height overlay thing. I don't think it had anything to do with the fourth. >> What I'm getting to is at the presentation it was going to be this real tall building that would stipulate to put an improvement in as an offset was the walkway. It was in that corner what would be called the southeast
corner of the development or the southeast corner of the parcel etc. It was never the whole parcel or that the water touches the parcel all the way to US1. And that's a fact right now. I think that's a that's a fact. You
wouldn't argue with me that the land that remains undeveloped abuts the river and >> and US1 and the causeway referred to as the parcel or the development. Correct. Or do you agree with me?
>> I wasn't around when the height overlay district was. >> I wonder if you were listening. What I asked you was a question. The question I ask you is at this time is the parcel or the development consistent with the
statement the area in the south of the property's development site the development the parcel it abuts the Indian River US1 and the causeway at this time unsubdivided >> I believe that's correct >> and you're seeking that as an
unsubdivided parcel of development an area. I can use 150 ft anywhere in that described area between US1, the causeway and the river because I above the river. And if I do that, I get to build a a
walkway to offset that mitigating it, making it better. >> Well, it's to comply with the code. I'm not sure it's to offset or mitigate. It's to meet the criteria set for it. >> Well, that's why they have codes. They're not always just stipulations and agreements. It's also a codified because someone thought it's a good idea is an
offset connectivity walkability. So at this time what the whole disagreement is as opposed to an agreement is variable. It's what you interpret as opposed to staff's interpretation and this body has to decide whose interpretation is right.
Yeah. Staff's recommendation is let's go back and fix the misinterpretations, lack of clarity, clarification, stipulations, and bring a development agreement forward that we're in agreement with. That'd be a good word, agreement with a development agreement. >> And we feel we've done that. So, we
would ask for, you know, this body to either vote to approve or deny so that we can get the city council's input on that as well. And if they deny it, then, you know, we're back to the drawing board, of course. if they approve it then that you know was the decision that was made by the council. So I I I
understand you know we we have been working with staff we've been trying to I think we've come into as close to agreement as we can we've met multiple times on this issue and others and a lot of them you guys don't see do get worked out to compliment staff on that effect. We only come to you guys
>> well and and >> when we don't get there >> to the point that you guys have been working on this. I I think this is I remember at least one time recently this was on the agenda and you pulled it right before. So obviously that was for more discussion and to try to get things
worked out. So, >> um, you know, I I I get it and I and I think, you know, I I see where we're at that, you know, you can't just turn it back to staff and and you guys to work out because that's what you've been
trying to do for the last year and it hadn't worked out. So, um um but um okay. Uh any more questions for the applicant before we close the public hearing? I see none. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> With that, um, bring it back. And we have any more additional questions, discussions, or somebody care to make a motion? Member FA. >> All righty. Now, this is this this is the staff. Okay. So, thank you for
reading the short title. Um, I'm now going to read for us. Uh and then just just so that you know the commission you know understands on page 32 when she read the short title the last sentence is very important. All right which says
the provision of this article are in addition to not in lie of other provisions of this code. All right. And the reason why that's important is because as we talk about building heights, overlays uh and um
whatever else, right? We have to know what the other codes say and we kind of got to marry these two together because if we're going to be the decision, if we're going to kind of be the third party to help out in this this discussion, we have to know what we're really deciding, right? And that
the overlay is not the only part of the conversation when it comes to the height, right? The other part is what what does a mixeduse development say? And then how does the overlay play into that? Does that make sense?
Because the word is in addition to. All right. So So the word the word is is in addition to. So my my question for staff is what is the other definition that's being used for mixeduse development that
has the overlaying being applied to >> the criteria from the overlay section that describes >> not from overlay section because he was he was stating something else. He was reading from something that was not the overlay
>> section 37. >> Okay. Do you guys understand what I'm what I'm saying now is that since since the overlay is not the governing body, right? It's as it says in the purpose here, it says that this is uh the vision
of this article or in addition to um and not in lie of. So, we've been discussing something that's only to be used as addition to a policy and a provision and not the original policy provision uh that is originally written. Once we
understand that then we apply the overlay to it. >> Does that make sense Mr. Gro? >> What your Yes. So under the definitions under section 37-1 mixed use the development of a
tract of land or building or structure with two or more different uses such as but not limited to residential office manufacturing retail public or entertainment in a compact urban form.
>> Okay. So that's the definition for a mixeduse. Now, I don't because now when I when I apply that and I look at the overlay, I kind of don't I don't I don't understand what the city's point was when they did the overlay
and now we have to kind of talk about that. You know what I mean? So, now we have to apply the overlay to the original definition. >> Which goes back to my point. I think this is much better served as an amendment to the agreement that directly addresses
the building. They they tell us how high they want a building and where they want the building and then decide whether that's right or wrong independent of doing it under the guise of the overlay. I think it's it's a much cleaner way to
do it. I like that answer. >> And and that's kind of along where I was saying with this development agreement being able to exceed the minimum, exceed the standard that because it's an independent agreement affecting only this property, it won't become subject
to the next developer who comes in and says, "Well, at this hearing, uh, PNZ members, we agreed the developer interpretation of where this applied." And I'm going to use that interpretation to say I think the staff is reading their code wrong because you know that
you already agreed to it. Right? There's an old saying about negotiating price after we come to the agreement. And so again, I think staff's on the correct path which I will also conclude by saying just because you've offered a proposal in a proposed agreement doesn't
mean the staff is going to agree with you. It also conversely may mean that you have to agree with staff. But to tell you that the only other option is deny the request seems kind of costic to me. Understand, but we still need a mo we
still need to we still need a motion to to deal with this. And I >> I'm moving off the middle of the road here. Um I'm going to stay with I believe staff uh has heard a lot of debate tonight and because of that I
think red discussing the proposal so you iron out the wrinkles and bring a amended development agreement forward and that recommendation goes to city council which would mean to continue this and follow staff's recommendation to allow it to mature a bit longer and
then bring forward an agreement. So which I think has to be prefaced with we deny it >> with that with that recommendation. I I you I >> well the the the commission's motion second and support
is the motion of the commission not the applicant's inference. If the applicant would wish to withdraw the application because he pending sees a recommendation website he welcome to withdraw it serves the same purpose. Yeah, we we don't wish to withdraw. We'd
like to lead tonight with either uh a recommendation either direction, approval or denial and the reasons that you guys are recommending it so that we can take it to >> No matter what, we have to move it to council and and we have to either move it with a denial with the recommendation
of exactly what you said or an approval that doesn't have that. So, I think >> I I I'll change my motion since I was a motion maker and I'll make the motion that the application be denied. The merit reason is the application's agreement is not valid. They're not
agreeing to anything. So, I recommend denial. >> I second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion? Member Child, seems like you may want to say something. >> What to do with this? Because All right. So, if we if we deny it, we don't if I
feel like we've done all this talking and now we're not even going to give city council like our thoughts on well, we would we would recommend approval if you know you you consider that this isn't on, you know, covered under the
overlay and we it's just this agreement and all the other stuff that we've talked about. I feel like that we I don't want to say we wasted our time because it's not a complete waste, but we're wa we're not um you know cashing
in on all this discussion. >> So it would seem that you you could recommend an amendment to the motion that would address on a pointby-point basis so that it travels with the denial. I think that's your point is
that >> you know just a blanket denial >> with with >> because it's they they don't meet in the middle doesn't necessarily get across the council everything. We're hopeful that they would watch this and understand our comments, but unless we
put it in >> easier to summarize it. >> Yeah. Um so how about a friendly amendment of denial but with um recommendation to consider the
definition of the height to be considered under the agreement and not under the overlay definition. And no >> is there you have issues with well
>> if you have issues a friendly amendment you're asking my opinion I'll offer my opinion the >> No I'm just saying yeah I mean for >> I fully comprehend what that direction would take us in. It seems as ambiguous as we started two and a half hours ago.
The ambiguity is staff thinks black is black and the applicant thinks it's gray and the applicant is unwilling to make a concession that in this instance it's black. I agree with staff. Staff equally is not willing to concede. It's not really black. It's light black. It's almost gray. We'll go with what we agree
to. That's the basis of the agreement. But to send city council a recommendation of Nile and you need to define what you mean by overlay, I think plays into my concern that I become the applicant's representative and come in and talk about, well, I'm on the river when I'm in Titusville, but I really
live in Clearwater. As long as I have one parcel of land under ownership, I really qualify for that 150 foot building 140 miles away. Haven't heard anything tonight to dispute that. In fact, the applicant agreed with me. I believe that's correct.
>> Yes. Key note here is ambiguity, lack of clarification, and also the fact that this agreement allows it to step outside the box of rigid standards. that's why it's allowed to do this. But with ambiguity in an agreement, you're going to cast in the future interpretations of
what this does to the next project. I don't think it's going to help city council. It's probably going to confuse everybody again as to where are we when we get done. What does this agreement mean? This by interpretation. Therefore, it affects other development because I'm going to bring that interpretation to
focus. I think council mentioned that this could be to a degree a precedent used later. All I'm saying is let's be black and white if that's what we want to be. We don't want a continuence. We want a denial. >> But in order to get an agreement, I mean, I know you're saying that they don't have an agreement, but don't we
need to say, "Hey, I think we need to look at it. This is as far as the city's position gives staff the city council needs to give staff direction on what the staff's interpretation should be,
right? or how they should look at it or are you saying no that's not >> I think the applicants representative said it best when he said you might need to change your code so if the impetus to this is to reflect on the vagueness of a rule that creates a question an
ambiguity that's a huge hole to dive into my absurd example is a huge hole diving into it u then perhaps from this phoenix comes the fire from this is the phoenix that flies with an amended code that clarifies this confused point and
that's the way it usually works is that this development agreement sets outside the box so to speak and from that city council learns maybe we need to refine our code be more specific of what we mean and it says a building must have two uses as opposed to buildings or two
sentences buildings must have two uses or a building must have two uses that way you kind of got them all covered that's my thoughts on that >> and the and the last thing I like to point out Last thing I'll point out quite a bit, right? But um but if we go with the other definition and do not go
with the overlay, I believe that will also remove the requirements for the boardwalk along the the waterway because that is in the overlay section. So I think we kind of have to think about that as well, right?
Does it make sense? So if we if we go with the definition that we talked about before that kind of allows them to build 150 without really a lot of questions because it's in the mixed uh use development right but in the mixeduse development it doesn't speak about the
um what was it the the uh the walkway along the water. >> No I no I think it does. Does it say that inside the mixtures? >> No, because the the overlay district is only applies to waterfront and it has to
have it. I mean, my issue is is is like was brought up that we're trying to have it both ways. It's trying to qualify that it's it's it's it's overlay because there's a walkway the length of the property. >> Correct.
>> But it there's not because most of the property has residences backing up against the water. So, it is not the length of the property, but then we're trying to say we can put the building anywhere within the property because there's that there. My position would be
it needs to be right next to the walkway if I'm going to interpret it that way. But I think the bigger issue that's on the table right now is we're kicking it to council >> how much of our discussion travels with
when we kick it back. Yeah. Because >> Yeah. That's that's the next step is, you know, hopefully they'll they'll listen to what we said. We're the recommending body to to the council, but do we have to put
that all of our comments in the motion or or uh in the rejection or do we just reject it and say, "Listen, there's a lot. We're not used to having
five things crammed in. Would would staff be able to summarize at least or we kind of have a consensus up here of I think I mean I think have you heard a consensus at least on some of the subjects as far as the
as far as the height goes and um and maybe like the wall for the 50 foot any have you gotten any consensus from us or >> I mean I haven't seen any deviations from what staff has proposed that you guys have talked about I've seen the addition of the wall which was a new
that could be added to >> well council do you have any suggestions to get us >> not suggestions at that point but I just want to clarify one thing as far as definitions and precedent setting by this body is because eventually this is a contract that's entered between two
parties being the applicant and the commission any relevant interpretation in a dispute over meetings of the terms within the contract would only really look to what council understood the terms to be. So if you guys were to adopt and understand a definition tonight, that wouldn't necessarily play
into any future interpretations of litigation arose because you're not a contract to the party. >> So council gets us off the hook. So, do council, do you have any recommendations as as it relates to
our desire for the council to understand our comments on A through E traveling with the motion or do we just make them make the motion and and let it let it lie? may be helpful if you can agree on one
as a body what definition you think should be taken from the language that's in the contract recommend to council that they adopt that recommendation but that would be the the best I think at this stage
they could choose their own afterwards obviously >> may I ask a question to council >> sure >> so in light of the recommendation of denial and the proposed amended langage If the denial was
based on support of staff's definition of mixed use and the failure to provide for that in this development agreement which was mixed use within a building or buildings as opposed to the applicant's
interpretation which isn't supported. So the denial is based on the staff's interpretation of mixed use being mixture of use within one building or buildings but not separate and
difference with this interpretation by the applicant that definition he interprets I don't support. So I recommend denial. So I guess just to kind of clarify the question is whether or not that would be
a valid means for denial. >> A background a basis of my denial is in this instance principle the fact that the staff's interpretation of mixed use is correct and consistent with the comprehensive plan and I don't believe
it is being illustrated in this applicant's request. If the body's perceived definition as informed by staff's interpretation is if you apply that the agreement doesn't meet code requirements that would be a means
>> that's where I'm headed. Yes. So does that make sense? You wanted some clarification. Does that >> Yeah. Well, in thinking about it, the other thing that typically happens when we deny it is they ask each of us why we denied it. It's it's unusual that we
have five different sections that we need to comment on why we denied each section because I think the last hour we've talked primarily about A and and and not addressed B through E. Uh and
and I think realistically all of them kind of need to be addressed. So, um, >> well, that we can expand that and just say the denial is based on the staff's >> Well, I I think I think what >> where I was headed is is we just deny it
and then they ask each of us why we denied it. It's just up to us if we want to talk on each point independently. >> Do each item individually. >> I don't think we deny each item individually. That I don't think that's an option,
>> is it? I mean it would be all one action. So I would >> right >> per deny the whole thing and if council wants to address but I think in our explanation of why we as an individual
denied it it's up to us if we want to give five different address each of the five sections >> and I think that's on point when you said the basis of our denial each individual. >> Okay. So then but then I think staff normally is the one that asks the the
question um as to and then then that gets transmitted to council on the meetings that I've seen is is you know it was denied because so okay >> I think we're still on a motion to deny
and and then we'll provide our comments after >> we had a second >> we had a second >> any additional comments Four questions before we call them up. I see none. Lori, roll call, please. >> Member Grod. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Member Scully. >> Yes. >> Member Sidler. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Childs. >> Yes. >> Secretary FAC. >> Yes. >> Chairman Eton. >> Yes. >> All right.
>> Yes, sir. to your point if we could have the individual basis so we could go forward because hopefully there's some portions of this item that the PNZ board was okay with and maybe some that aren't and if all of it no one liked we understand okay but
>> so I I will go first if I don't know whether I should go first or last but I'll go first so on item A my position is I actually I I agree with the applicant.
It could be a single use in a building in the building that exceeds the height limit because the development is my thing I disagree with is that you can put the building anywhere in the development. I think the buildings that
exceed the height requirement need to be adjacent to the water and adjacent to the walkway. That is the qualifying. I think that was the intent of the height relief that the overlay district granted. And because and and it's a
unique case because this is such a large development that has so many different sections that we're trying to uh uh interpret applying something that was intended for a much smaller development, something like a single condo building uh and and we're applying it to an
entire development. So that's my position on um that one. Let me go get back to the section that has has them broken up by um so um
that was a b is the where'd it go? >> B is the platting. I think I I tend to agree that as long as staff has the control, if this helps cut through some
red tape, give staff the power to um review each of these proposals and if it makes sense that that they've got the ability to do it as part of the small scale, but with staff approval, not just at the discretion of the developer. Uh
sees the landscape uh buffers. Um, I think generally I'm probably okay with that. Um, let the market kind of dictate what it is there. Uh, D, as long as there's a a, you know, a wall um, you
know, um, that that acts as a safety barrier to protect uh, vehicular traffic from US1. um to restrict it coming into that area. Um generally I think if I own
the piece of property and there's a big wall back there and I want to put my swimming pool um and as a homeowner I'm okay with it. I think that one's okay but I think the safety wall is is critical to that item. And then uh e I
think generally uh again maybe there's some level of staff approval as it relates to the places they can place the dirt and some um you know guidance as to keeping the wind from blowing it into adjacent properties
and those kinds of things which I think can be worked out. Um, it seems to make sense that as they're digging those ponds, they can keep the dirt close by for future sections. Next, vice chair. >> I think I'll just agree with you. I
think on all of those, um, a uh, that seems correct. I like the Yeah, having it by the water. I think that does make the most sense when you're thinking about um why we the intent
behind um the height restriction. Um and uh B I think I agree completely with you is if if staff thinks that they can manage this, I think they're meeting I think what the developer wants to do um fits the uh
intent of the of the rules. Um, and uh, I'll just say I'll agree with the chairman on the rest as well. >> Somebody else want to take a step, have comments,
we'll just go down the line, members. >> Great. Thank you. Since I'm >> uh, yeah. Okay. Um, I I'm just going to go as I'm unclear as to the definition of what allows for the
height increase on the overlay and I agree with the walkway versus having the 150 ft back behind. I think that if it was stipulated and it was more defined as staff has asked throughout this whole thing is for more clarification. As I'm
going through each of these A B CDE E and I'm going to defer to staff is asking for more clarification and something where they can actually be tied to it instead of giving a general use where then we have to come back. Um,
so I recommend that they go back and submit something to us where there is definition more defined so we can take and measure off that. >> Member Gar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The
recommendation of denial on my behalf is predicated on three factors. The first I've extended a lot of conversation about which is this interpretation of mixed use. I do not agree with the applicant's uh definition of mixed use.
On the other hand, I agree that you can create a definition of mixed use within the development agreement. So further as staff recommends clarification is necessary to reach a maturity in this agreement. Second problem that I've had with this wasn't spoken to because some
of that overlaps other problems I don't agree with staff on. I commented earlier about the dirt blowing for one reason, but in reality, the explanation by staff, it makes sense to me how they're doing. I think it seemed to make sense to everybody for good reason. And
buffering with the existing vegetation was a response to a concern on dust. That's all good stuff. It's the underlying factor or the overarching factor I should say which is this subdivision deviation in which staff's report is that that's a little too
loosey and goosey to take a largecale project like this as you put it Mr. Chairman, this is probably the biggest thing Titus has going or will have for some time and that you want to treat it like you're doing in the reference by the applicant tonight shocked me the term lot split like I'm going to do a
survey and cut this piece and that piece and go on down the road. This is more complicated than that and that overarching issue of deviating from the subdivision process I don't agree with. So the second point of my recommendation to denial is I don't support the applicant's request in the development
agreement to have what's called a simple platter or I can't remember the terminology. >> Small scale plat >> yes smallcale plat. So uh those two and then the the the third reason is that I can't support a disagreement
where the answer on the applicant's behalf is I'm tired of waiting. We can't come to an agreement. That word keeps coming back in my mind. It's a recommendation of this body for an agreement, not a disagreement. And time
is not something that's set. I don't believe I I don't see people rushing to uh break the wall down and get another lot. If it was, I'd be seeing development on a on a on a scale Titus's never seen, where by now, in the two years I've dealt with it, that had been
built out in some communities. So time not necessarily so important to me. So but touring this with staff is the third reason I recommend an aisle. So I've I've wrestled with this definition and as I continue to read
over and over again the purpose um I too almost went with applicant's definition but when I read in the purpose here when it says that this is in addition to that means that it's adding not taking away from the original
uh definition. So when we're doing in addition to the overlay then it does restrict it. it it it does add that two into one building. Okay. So So with that, that's my answer for A, right? And then when we go down
to B, excuse me, sorry, I was just there. I went back up there. Yeah. And B is a small scale amendment. Um I have a problem with B. Uh the only other issue that I really had again, same thing with you with is with that dirt. um
removing all of the dirt to make the water to make those ponds. I get they want to go ahead and make that knock that out cuz it's up it's up for now. Um, I would only agree with placing of that dirt someplace else under strict
constraints that they only clear enough land to place that dirt to get the dirt in and out and then and then they do some other things to make sure that it doesn't spread like a water sprinkling system on it or something like that to keep that dust and debris down and that it can't be seen from any other way but
simply accessing it. So, it can't be seen from the roadway, from neighboring places. it's truly hidden away and there's a water system or something to keep that that dirt tampered down. That's the only way that I would I would agree with with with the um with with that whole dirt thing and that way it
gives them a way to move forward but prevents it from spreading. >> Last but not least, >> last but not least, I'm going to agree with our chairman and vice chairman. Uh, I think you guys put it the clearest for council's uh, easy read because we all know they're not going to watch this
multi-hour meeting, but I hope they do. U, thank you. >> All right. We good? >> Yes, sir. Thank you all. >> Thank you. We and you. It is a fantastic development. We appreciate you being here. We're trying trying to help help
things along as much as we can. We understand everybody's got to work around the codes there. Appreciate it. Thank you all for the long discussion. >> Chairman, >> we didn't we didn't vote yet. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Thank Thank you. Roll call, please. Or no, we did vote. Yeah,
we did. Yeah, we did. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I was gonna say I just >> Okay. There's no public present. So, we're uh good on second petitions and
requests. City staff, any report? >> No reports. >> City attorney? >> No reports at this time. I I have no report other than thanking everybody for uh the last two and a half hours or two hours and 40 minutes. Um good
discussion. U members member face >> March 3rd uh Orlando's having a small business expo. It's free to attend. Um it's one of our largest small business expos. So again, that's March 3rd in Orlando.
>> Anyone else? Yes, I'm pleased to say that um as we went through our process during the year, we had the presentation of the budget and remember we were discussion and during that there was a part of the presentation of public works that they were going to fund with the
new budget a new garbage truck and I saw the bright blue shiny new garbage truck go down my street this past week and I was very pleased to see that because the other ones are in bad shape. Well, I unfortunately I don't know what happened, but I assumed because
President's Day was a national holiday, there would be delayed trash like there usually is, and there wasn't. So, uh, I got a little grief over not having the trash out and missing the trash. Anyone else? Seeing none, we are
adjourned.