Good evening. I'd like to call this regular meeting of the Titusville Planning and Zoning Commission for May 7th, 2025 to order. Uh stand for the pledge, please. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call, please. Chairman Eton, here. Vice Chairman Childs here. Secretary Grant here. Member FA here. Member Grod
here. Member Scully here. Member Gellen here. Alternate member Finler. Alternate member Rogers. Uh, we have a quorum. Uh, next up is approval of the minutes of April 16th,
2025. Does anyone have any comments or additions or adjustments? If not, does anybody care to make a motion? Make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. Second.
All right. Moved and second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Minutes are approved. Uh Chelsea, would you like to read the quasi judicial confirmation procedures? Yes, sir. Tonight's agenda
provides that all persons who anticipate speaking on any public hearing item must fill out an oath card to be heard on that agenda item and sign the oath contained thereon. These cards are located on the table near the entrance to the council chamber or may be obtained from the recording secretary.
This meeting will be conducted in accordance to the procedures adopted in resolution number 24-1997. 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. A representative from either side, for or against, may cross-examine a witness. Anyone who speaks is considered a witness. If you have photographs, sketches or documents that you desire for the commission to consider, they must be submitted into evidence and will
be retained by the city. Please submit such exhibits to the recording secretary. Thank you. Thank you. Um I'm assuming we have no petitions and requests from the public present since we have no public present. Um and I see
no old business. Uh first item in new business is item 9A. Great. Thank you, chairman. Um, we have a relatively light schedule for you all tonight being that we have two ordinance changes. Um, and we don't have any applications. We don't have anything
with an applicant tonight. Um, the first is a change that is required by state law. So, that's pretty straightforward. And the the uh sidewalk waiver, the second one, is something that we think is going to improve the code. Um, pro provide some clarity and simplify things. So, um, we'll start with item
9A, the expedited residential building permits in subdivisions ordinance. And again, this is a change in state law. Um, I'll read the summary on page 10. In 2024, the Florida legislature adopted chapter 2010 2024, laws of
Florida, requiring that local governments establish a program to allow residential permits approved by a preliminary plat if certain conditions are met prior to approval of the final plat. The legislate legislation provided that the program allow up to 50% of the
residential permits after October 1st, 2024 and up to 75% of permits to be approved uh shall be in place after December 31st, 2027. The ordinance creates an expedited permitting process to issue residential building permits
within subdivisions prior to the approval of a final plat consistent with with Florida statutes by changing terms, modifying existing procedures, and creating new procedures related to the review and approval of the plat process. Enclosed for the commission's review is
chapter 2010 2024. The bill analysis from the legislature and a diagram illustrating the changes to the city's plat process. On July 9th, 2024, the city council approved advisability directing the staff to draft an ordinance consistent with this uh with this chapter. Member
Stokal requested staff make notes of issues and concerns as they are drafting the ordinance that can be provided to the Florida League of Cities. The most significant issue was the potential lack of infrastructure necessary to serve the residential homes. The ordinance clarifies that an approved site plan
will be required prior to approval of the master building plan by city council if the expedited permitting process is utilized. And I'll point the commission to page 12. On page 12 is a summary of Senate Bill
812, which uh adopt, see if I can zoom out, which passed um which created this uh new law that now we are responding to by adopting this ordinance. And so the
big picture is this is a way to get building permits before the final plat is approved and recorded. And so it helps speed things along as far as home building. Um page 21 subsection it's section
34-174 subsection B is the new proposed language that kind of summarizes the change and it says the general outline of this procedure is the simultaneous submittal of the preliminary plat site plan and master building plan to the city after administrative ative approval
of the preliminary plat site plan and master building plan. The preliminary plat and master building plan will be submitted to PNZ for recommendation and city council for approval. After completion of the required site improvements, building permit applications may be issued after
determination that the applications meet all code requirements. Certificates of occupancy will not be issued prior to approval and recordation of the final plat. And I just wanted to clarify also for the U commission that there's a difference between getting a building permit and getting a certificate of
occupancy. Certificate of occupancy is the birth certificate of a structure that allows someone to occupy the home. The building permit is what's required to start constructing the home. So those are two different things. And um I think that's it for the summary, but happy to answer any
questions. Thank you. Thank you, Addie. Uh anyone have any questions? Vice Chairman Childs. So, so the really the only thing that's changing is that um they have to submit the the plat for
approval and um the preliminary plat. And after the preliminary plat goes through administrative approval, then they can get a building permit. Is that it? Because it's not the final plat, right? Is that what it says? Right. It's not
the final plat. Um, effectively what our current process, we require the sketch plat to come before PNZ and city council. That's the first step in subdividing land. Um, this eliminates the sketch plat and instead requires the preliminary plat to be to come before PNZ and get approved by city council.
So, you're going to end up getting more information up front. Okay. So, because before we just got the sketch plat and then Well, and also the final Oh, did we do the final plat too? Right. That's right. Yeah. Um, so we're cutting out the sketch plat and just replacing it
with the preliminary plat. But I guess what's the ju just over big high level, what's the difference between a preliminary plat and a sketch plat? Uh, the level of detail. So the sketch plat can be a lot simpler because there in the current process the sketch plat is
supposed to be a napkin drawing a little more sophisticated than that but just a concept of what the subdivision layout will look like. In practicality what we've been seeing is that a lot of um engineers will go ahead and do some of the engineering work required for the later steps the site plan and the
preliminary plat because they don't want to propose a sketch plat design that won't end up working out engineering wise. And so they do some of the work ahead of time. And what we've been seeing is a lot of the sketch plats that come forward have already been a little more designed than uh just a napkin
drawing. So there's not going to be a whole lot of change, but it will still require to come before PNZ and city council twice. Okay. Thank you. Member FA. Are the utilities put in during the preliminary plan?
At that stage, no. Um that would be during the site plan. Once the site plan is approved, then construction could begin and that would be after the uh preliminary plat is approved. So they can have the approval to to build homes. So the so the approval for
homes will be before the utilities go in. Is that what this is saying? So this is saying that they are allowed to submit for the building permits before the utilities are put in. If I'm not mistaken, Because if during the preliminary plant the utilities aren't in, you know, you
you know what I'm saying? If if they can submit for building permits before the final. So in the non-expedited process, they would have to wait to get their building permit until after uh submitt of the final plat. So in that case, no. In the
expedited process, the building permit is issued after site construction after preliminary plat approval. And the master building plan, the master building plan is what's going to require the utilities be provided to
those select homes that have been identified for um the early u building permits. Okay. And that is on page 40 of your agenda packet. Thank you. Member Garan, excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of technical
questions along the same line as as Mr. Folson was just talking about. Um, and then to kind of go backwards on it, I wanted to bring your attention to a question I had on page 16. the the removal underline strikethrough of sketch plat. However, on page 17, uh
there's a predominance of sketch plat sketch plat sketch plat following section 344. And I just wonder if that's just something that got overlooked, not to cross it out and change the word to site plan. You strike out sketch plat strike
out preliminary plat interject site plan and then throughout those subsections the words sketch plat repeat themselves. So is it sketch plat preliminary plat site plan they become to me confusing. So in that whatever
that is if it's correct I understand that if it's needs to be struck through it should be struck through because it doesn't seem like it ought to refer to something that's not used in the uh are you talking about 34-144A AB C D sketch plats redundantly used in
every section on page 17 mine looks like it says ab document it says section 7 section 34144 approval ABC D and and for example
D if a sketch plat is denied right so we'll look at making sure that the it's just a word wording thing so onto the bigger question u and and if I ask the question by trying to make myself understand it'll help me maybe it'll
help others so you have the napkin drawing concept plans the familiar words I used as opposed to sketch plan and there's no engineering in it. You kind of move this and the road goes there and there's so many lots that's being removed in lie of that. you're going to
a plan which is engineered to the extent it's probably more survey data than engineering. Bearings and distances, elevations, those are all taken into consideration. tree surveys, all that is accumulated as data and then the engineer designs it and presents it to
staff, the administrator and that review meets a a cursory review or staff review for further processing processing planning and zoning commission and then final approval by the city council. No dirt would turn, nothing would be
constructed. A detailed engineered type plan surveying data is available. The engineer record then is released to take it hard design it very specific engineering data. You've heard meetings here where they're complaining about I'd have to
re-engineer the retention pond if you make me move it. All that eb and flow takes place. The engineering allows construction to take place in the course of processes before the final goes through. The final to me is the document which illustrates a recordable
instrument. That's where you're not seeing bearings and distances in all the engineering criteria. You're seeing a plat which has got a value based on that recordation. You then have a new description of property. That's the net result of that. During that with the new statute, what they were wanting to do is
jump the construction to concurrency. I mentioned that at some meeting some time past. How do you allow concurrent con? In fact, it was when the statute was being proposed and I asked the binding question twofold and that's where I'm going. An experience in Tampa led to a fire
code that was enacted that impeded, prohibited, and put the controlling discrimination in the administrator's point, the fire marshal, under the local government's authority. You have to have fire protection services online in place
and available for use. They can be stand pipes in some instances where portable water systems aren't connected, but you actually have firefighting water available. You can do it with stationary trucks. I've seen that technique used where due to circumstances they can't
connect portable water fire flow. Uh it could be they have to redo pipes down or upstream that require enlargements. So all that bigger process takes place especially when you're dealing with the caliber of development Tranquility represents. That isn't necessarily
common, but it's not uncommon. And so during that time where you're trying to reach concurrent development like the statute provides for, you build houses at the same time you're doing infrastructure and the model center opens and everybody runs and buys a house. It doesn't have a CO while they're constructing it, but
you can't and that was a discussion we had. You can't market the home. You can't jump the CO. You can't get a temporary CO. And a lot of that's contingent on making sure you got protection to the public, firefighting, water. So in this rush to get houses built at the same time infrastructurees
improved so you can do quick marketing and the idea of master building permits also f follows the same same suit. Has the fire marshall reviewed this proposed change and will those fire protection improvements be required before the
building permits are issued? You actually need the fire protection water and fire protection services on site when you're doing horizontal development, not just vertical construction. It's not limited to just the home. It's the infrastructure. If somebody gets hurt during the
construction phase, there has to be something there. If the asphalt truck starts on fire while they're paving the road, there has to be a protection there. And I'm not seeing in this particular rule where that interface is. Has that been provided for? Are the NFPA
codes in compliance with early construction, concurrent construction, and the provision to move from a preliminary plan through the engineering to construction before you get the final. In other words, what really happens is the whole thing's built and
you record the instrument. I brought that up recently with the idea of jumping the gun on improved property values as a way to circumvent having to pay taxes on improvements. If you don't have a CO, you're not on the record book if you don't have a plat recorded. So,
the hesitantly record the instruments sometimes born from protecting the value increase that happens when you record the instrument. The individual lots then taxed as an individual lot, not a collective hold and development. So I'm just looking for comfort comfort that
within this proposal and that I mentioned some months ago has the fire marshall evaluated this and conidered it and said yes you can start horizontal and vertical construction in the new sequence of events concurrent with master homebuilder
plans. Is that going to occur before fire protection waters available on site which to my knowledge is a code? Yes. So the interface with the interface with the uh fire official is uh they're implementing the NFPA code with through
the preliminary plat review. So that's the first step and it's going to go through a staff review before it comes to PNZ and council. Um so they're the fire is one of the staff reviewers and they're going to uh review consistency and make sure that they've got water trucks on site or um whatever is called
the authority having jurisdiction. Right. They have alternatives. Yes. Exactly. And so for infrastructure improvements in bonds which are being laid down to govern the uh completion of the task if for some reason as can happen with economic downturns
somebody's left holding the bag so as to speak that those bonds are available to finish the job. when do or when does the bond uh uh value get assigned and the bon the bond presented during those three steps the preliminary the
engineering plan and the final yeah the the bonds um that's more the site development side I do know that bonds are required just for that that purpose in case the developer walks away from the project there's funds to either revert the the property back to its original condition or to complete the
the improvements and so it's required I believe at the site plan stage once they prior to issuing the site plan so that we have the site plan is like an engineering plan right correct correct thank you so protections are remaining for a
subdivision that would occur in which a plan is reviewed and approved through the commissions the engineering is done the improvements are being installed the bonds are being provided for the current construction of homes homes is done.
Notwithstanding there's no recorded instrument. That all gets done and magically at some point poof, you record the final plat and then you have houses being sold with certificates of occupancy. That's the short step. Thank you and thank you for that sketch
comment. I think that's just needs to be struck through on some of them. Thank you, Ember Gallen. All right. Hi. Hi. Um so just just a quick question with the new process will the applicants get a get an option between the expedited and the
non-expedited process or is it yes and how do we how are we making that determinate I guess what makes that determination the applicant elects for the u expedited process and by doing so they understand that they have additional requirements they have to
submit the master building plan which identifies which homes are going to be given the building permits ahead of and um that the they are doing so at their own risk. So if during the site plan review if the uh review were to find
some some issues with the plan to where um something one of the homes that's being constructed now has to um I'm not sure what what what condition might happen but they're doing so at their own risk by using the expedited process. So that's something that we capture in in
the u the documents when they elect that option. Okay. Thank you. Uh member cran. One one more one more question if I can. There was a lengthy discussion about the request for temporary cos a few weeks ago at one of
our PNZ meetings and the the idea of having temporary cos is not an idea that's either supported as I recall and it really is an exception. You can't get a variance for a temporary co. It's either occupiable or not. The model
center is where the occupancy discussion was is to whether as a model home, can the public come through and tour it and look at it? And the answer is not without a CO. The construction crew is authorized to do work, but public accessibility, marketing accessibility
shouldn't be being done unless the home has been given a CO. My question for you is in the building officials world with the international building code congress over site rule the building's completed
and has performed all of its inspections. It's met the building code. Is it potential that circumventing the temporary CO is not a temporary CO at all? It's a CO issued to the model homes because they completed construction. the
building officials deem them as habitable and they get a co but you don't have a recorded plat yet. Is that potential or does the model center model homes being built by the master builder
plan providing for accelerated construction restrict the model c center's occupancy until and unless the plat is recorded? I'm not sure that that's addressed in in the ordinance. Uh I'm not familiar enough with the TCOs, the temporary COS.
My understanding is that we don't issue those. On page 22 of the ordinance under the procedure for issuance of building permits prior to approval of final plat page 10 of the ordinance on the
first couple of lines last sentence of section 34-174 certificate the answer. Thank you. Certificates of occupancy will not be issued prior to approval and recordation of the final plat and for the commission. So that won't seem like I'm out there on the left
field again waiting for the high five. Stay close to your mic, sir. I'm sorry. To try to explain the circumstance in an event in which a builder is able to do that kind of process, the builder is able to withhold
the improved property value on the model home although it's completed. And that improved property value is your tax dollars not getting in the coffers that offset the cost of improvements demand fire, police, medical, all those things responders. So you don't have the money
but you have the response demand. And if the builder builds homes without cos or temporary cos, what occurs is then the transaction for selling the model center occurs and the transactions all provided for and closing set about next Friday and about Thursday afternoon they go
record the plat and then the property owner had a proration of their values estimated on unimproved property value finds out an adjustments made by the tax collector when they said, "Oh no, that prrated cost for your mortgage isn't going to be $1,000 a
It's going to have to be 1,250 because we didn't catch the improved property value increase. And also, by the way, you owe it for backward whatever time period occurred between your bar your purchase in the recordordation and the failure to have the improved property value, a week, a month, or in particular
case I'm familiar with, it was two years of time. The house was unimproved in the eyes of the tax collector. it was improved when I bought it and it was all facilitated by the fact there were no cos even though people were touring it occupying it all those things. So I
experiences that's why my concern is that doesn't it isn't provided for I'd like to bring the board's attention to a couple of other provisions that are included in this ordinance. If you go to page 23, the next page, this is under the
required submitts and exhibits. Um, subsection B2 describes the home hold harmless agreement to indemnify the city for certain activities that occur prior
to the issuance of a of a certificate of occupancy. That's what that entire paragraph is about. on page 24. Um that is under the procedure for the issuance of building permits prior to approval of the final plat
A8. An applicant may not obtain a temporary or final certificate of occupancy for each building until the final plot is approved and recorded. That would that suffices to and again the whole the whole deal is whether you let somebody
occupy a model home without a co that's and then on page 25 under the recording of the final plat required subsection or subletter D that administrator should not issue a certificate of occupancy until all drainage street and utility improvements
have been installed and accepted by the city and then letter G no certificates of occupancy shall be issued by the administrator until final PR plat at approval, endorsement, and recordation of all fees, etc. Hope that answers all your questions. Was behind the ball having the ball land
on your head. So, thank you. All right. Anyone have anything else? I guess there is no reason to open a public hearing when there is no public. I would do it. Okay. uh open the public hearing, close the public
hearing, and bring it back to the board. Anyone else have any other issues now that we've heard the public hearing or should we uh anyone have a motion? Vice Chairman JS. Uh, go ahead. I'll make a motion that we recommend approval
of the expedited residential building permits and subdivisions ordinance number 15-2025. We have a second. Second. Member Grant second. Uh, roll call, please.
Member Grod, yes. Member Scully, yes. Vice Chairman Childs, yes. Member Gellen, yes. Secretary Grant. Yes. Member FA. Yes. Chairman Eton. Yes. All right. Adding 9B.
9B is our sidewalk waiver ordinance. And I'm going to pass out a revised version. There was a small revision and I'll explain that um after I read the summary. Thank you, sir. Okay, back to the summary on page 61. On August 27th, 2024, the city council
approved advisability directing staff to propose amendments to the sidewalk waiver criteria, specifically clarifying how a sidewalk is determined to be not practical and standards on the calculation of the fee and use of the sidewalk trust fund. Enclosed is a draft ordinance for review. The draft
ordinance strengthens the waiver criteria and removes the not practical option. Requests to wave the construction of a sidewalk may only be approved if a sidewalk is scheduled in a 5-year capital 5-year capital plan or if the lot or parcel is located on a local
street where over 75% of the lots on the local street are within 400 ft from the lot or parcel with removal of the not practical option. The sidewalk trust fund will be eliminated. Requests that do not meet the waiver criteria may seek a variance from the board of adjustment and
appeals. Additional background, on March 26, 2024, staff gave city council lost my page. Sorry about that. Um staff gave city council an update on the mobility plan on trails, bicycle lanes, and
sidewalks. Council discussed the sidewalks on Hopkins Avenue, grants and matching funds, sidewalk trust fund, developer installed sidewalks, bike trails, etc. Enclosed are the minutes. In 2019, the mobility plan was adopted with recommendations to amend the city
sidewalk waiver criteria. Section 30-238 of the land development code requires new development to construct sidewalks along the portion of the parcel that abuts a street. This requirement can be waved by the city administrator if stated criteria are met
or if it is deemed to be not practical. If not practical, a payment can be made into the sidewalk trust fund based on the city's average cost of sidewalks per linear foot. While this policy may be appropriate for areas that will never need sidewalks, the policy likely inadvertently increases the future cost
of adding sidewalks and makes it more difficult to add sidewalks at a later time. Many of the factors such as lack of connectivity are temporary and don't address the future need for a sidewalk. Reconstruction or the retrofitting of a site to add sidewalks at a future date is
significantly more difficult and expensive than it is to incorporate a sidewalk in the initial design of the site. It is recommended that this policy be modified to better incentivize the construction of sidewalks. Um we'll start
with on page 204 of the handout uh subsection A1. You'll see that the existing language in the code talks about the five years. So, if a sidewalk is in a five-year plan um for where
widening or an improvement of a road right away is planned, um that's one of the criterion that can be used to justify not providing a sidewalk. And that's been removed with the idea that uh a sidewalk should be required for development and that um it makes the
sidewalk more expensive because costs go up every year. And so if you wait five years out, that's now the burden's on the city and the sidewalk is now more expensive. Um so that removes the waiver uh for properties where there's a future planned
sidewalk. A2 um it's stricken out as two and underlined as number one. Says the ladder parcel is located on a local street and the added language um talks about on a local street within 400 feet. So that gives it a little bit
more um less subjectivity about what the area is that that's defining where the sidewalks are to be considered. Um C1. So this is the language that
established the sidewalk trust fund and this is being stricken to remove the sidewalk trust fund as an option to pay into in lie of providing a sidewalk. Instead, the applicant could request a variance if there's some type of hardship that uh necessitates um or
justifies why no sidewalk should be provided. Um and then outlines that the remaining funds can be can still be used for the purposes that they were collected for to provide infill or repair of sidewalks. And
um I think that's about it. So again, the the the start of this ordinance uh was based on the or the the reason for it really was that some of the language in here is confusing. Um there's one example specifically where the criterion seems
to conflict on page the top of page three of four subsection B and C. The B says there is no connectivity for the required sidewalk as one of the justifications and C says the required sidewalk will provide functional pedestrian access when connectivity is
created. So on the one hand it talks about how useless this sidewalk could be and then on the other hand talks about how great the sidewalk would be. And so it may have led to some um inconsistent applications of this code. So we'd like
to simplify it by um removing the the two options, the waiver versus the uh not practical option and simplify it to where it's required unless you get a variance uh through the B board of adjustment and appeals. Um and so we
think that would be helpful. then also defining that 400 ft to help decide whether sidewalks are within the area of the property. Thank you. Thank you. Uh any comments, questions? Member Gar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One question
would you just mention about the board of adjustments? So the the process um in which you seek not to build a sidewalk because of circumstances. Um I'm sorry. the the you the process by which a
developer seeks an exception to building a sidewalk meeting the threshold criteria that has to be approved by the board of adjustment or is it an administrative approval? I got lost with that comment. So the language in sub in section 30-238
on the top of page 204 um subsection A is intended to remain and it says unless the requirement for sidewalks is specifically waved by the administrator based upon the following criteria. So the criteria still can be
applied by the administrator um to wave a sidewalk in these more narrow um situations. And then outside of that, there's no option to pay into a sidewalk trust fund. It's just straight to a variance. Sure. A and the secondary
question, I had the opportunity today to speak with Kevin Cook and with Brad Parish with questions about this particular rule. And one of the things I came away from understanding was as sometimes the case can be that trust
funds that are established with good meaning that you shouldn't have to if it doesn't make sense sidewalk to nowhere from nowhere. You provide contributions and then the city takes a contributed funds and build sidewalks. But if
there's excessive gaps and and impracticalities, you may never do that. And if the incidents of doing that are so remote as to not generate a lot of dollars, you never have enough money to ever even consider fulfilling the obligation. That was what was explained
to me today and it it it's something that's kind of common that's difficult to peacemeal construction of larger programs. What I came away with, however, kind of resonates back to me that if you don't have a lot of events that warrant the exception where you
would hear to for deposit money in a trust fund, if there isn't really a lot of money in the trust fund, you conclude there aren't a lot of exceptions, there aren't a lot of events that warranted collecting the money. That seems if that's the case, it
it's insignificant. On the other hand, if it is significant, if there are a number of cases, it would seem there ought to be some type of annual or maybe even like an earbased amendment type of program where you report back to city
council. How many times have we waved this sidewalk for good reason now it's been given objective standards within outside 400 ft. uh that you're making the the elected body aware that these
are areas that don't have connectivity. The attempt is to inform the council if there are events occurring where sidewalks are being accepted exempted, excuse me. That may be an area to target for sidewalk construction. If new
development is warranting sidewalks, residential homes, people can't walk on the main road out to go to the grocery store. they have to jump in their car. That should be brought into awareness on some type of reporting factor as opposed to you just get a waiver based on the
the objective standard and it's just put in the file. No one knows how many waiverss were granted. Nobody knows how many miles aren't constructed, how many events occurred in this this area. That conversely should be focused for sidewalk construction, redevelopment,
connectivity, programmatic issues. That was my whole purpose of my meeting today is to discuss what is the city's programmatic uh policy for sidewalk development, redevelopment, refurbishment, and connectivity. And you see that I do. I'm a citizen. I see it
driving around. I walk the sidewalks and see gaps and holes and and you can see why. But therein it doesn't change the fact you should have them. And I'm just kind of concerned that when an ordinance removes u a bad rule, it may in fact
install another rule that's not so good. And I'd like to somehow ask the question, is there any thing like this? We're reporting events. That's why I said earbased amendment that the administrator is going to annually say we had three variances for sidewalks in this
neighborhood and each one of them have met the thresholds. That's why they were approved cuz the city council is not aware this is happening. It's an administrative deter determination. Correct. That was my read on it.
The current process or the proposed process? The proposed process. City council doesn't intervene. The administrator sees the objective criteria fulfilled and sets aside the sidewalk. Correct. under the proposed process, it
can be waved by the administrator administratively unless uh they're going to be seeking a variance, then that would not be administrative. And I've been aware that titles gets annual reports. There's the litany of information staff presented. We did this many things this year and that many
things this year and it's kind of as you called it earlier, it's way up in the sky looking down. But more importantly, the attribute of this being, let's say four developments come online on some street in Titusville that doesn't have a sidewalk and sidewalks are waved because
there's no sidewalk for 400 feet, but there's a sidewalk 800 feet away. Walking distance is usually determined to be walkability is a quarter mile and I think 400 feet is a lot less than a quarter mile. So if on one hand like you said the contradiction of rules if
walkability is determined to be within a quarter mile walking shop stores if you're waving sidewalks when they're beyond 400 ft you're saying well you really don't have to walk very far and so I think those infill potentials
should be in some type of annual reporting about the waiverss granted by this in the same context that the money went into the trust fund but there wasn't enough to ever compe complete peacemeal construction. I'm a big sidewalk proponent. I walk a lot. It's good for you. I think other citizens
walk a lot. The gaps and open spaces between them. The condition in some cases where there isn't a budget to fix them are all attributes of what I'm concerned is on a comprehensive plan level. Everybody's agreed, approved, and loves the aspect of mobility. It's all
throughout the comprehensive plan. Walkability. uh some of the advertisement capacity that's on Titus's website eludes to the bikeway and the connectivity on the one hand and on the other hand we don't have enough money in the trust fund to ever make the connectivity and we don't really have a
budget for sidewalks so you can't have your cake and eat it too if you're going to have a policy to want walkability then you have to have a commitment to build sidewalks and I think maybe inerating that on an annual basis or a waiver basis or a report this many
approved D no build sidewalks focus is we need to look at this neighborhood and get connectivity because where do you draw the line 100 homes 200 homes 400 homes and everybody's standing up saying well I don't need to connect because the fi sidewalk's 500 ft away when's the
sidewalk get close enough does that make sense to what I'm trying to express I think that somehow there ought to be annual reporting on exceptions and variances for this particularly needed improvement sidewall connectivity That's my two bits. I don't know if
that's something that can be provided for. Hopefully, it could be. It's administerial in a nature, but it it might help city council recognize that rather than just they never knew that it happened that these sidewalks weren't developed on this road until somebody ends up calling the elected official and
saying, "How come I can't walk down the sidewalk?" Thank you for my um I had one question with striking the um 30- 238A1 the 5-year um if the sidewalk is
is within five years of of a road construction or or more importantly widening. Um what happens? Do you build a sidewalk right away and you plow it up whenever you widen the road or do you push them
to build the sidewalk where when they eventually build the road will be in the right place? What happens there? Ideally, the thought is that it would be connected to the existing sidewalk that's constructed at the time of the development. The um
new con the new sidewalk construction would connect to that existing sidewalk piece. But like you said in a widening that may not be feasible and so then it would be torn up uh to provide connectivity on the outer side the new widths of the of the lanes.
Okay. Um and that's I assume just the administrator deals with those kind of decisions as to you know we know there's a widening coming next year how to handle I I think that based on conversations with the administrator
that one of his issues with this whole code is that these criteria for the waiverss were very subjective and difficult to implement. And I think that the five years in number one was part of the issue because how do you know if it is actually going to happen within 5
years? What if it's six? What if you maybe it's four, you know, and so that just adds to the difficulty in interpreting that. Yeah. And I and I'm fine as long as the administrators got the, you know, ability to wave. I mean, it's it's I I hate to say, you know,
okay, I saw him pouring concrete and then in 3 months we know it's going to get plowed up because the road's getting widened and and it was kind of a foregone conclusion, but we didn't have any flexibil. The administrator didn't have any flexibility. As long as the
flexibility is there, I'm I I think it's fine. Um, so in this case, that would remove that that consideration from the administrator's ability to wave the sidewalk. So it it takes away that flexibility, but the option still remains to apply for a variance and that
maybe could be used as a justification. Okay, anyone else? Uh, I will open the public hearing, close the public hearing, uh, come back to the board. Anyone care to make a motion?
Roll. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I' I'd make a recommendation we approve the proposed ordinance amendment as presented by staff. Anyone care to second? Second. Okay. Member FA. He beat you.
Second by member FA. Roll call vote, please. Secretary Grant, yes. Member FA, yes. Sherman Childs, yes. Member Scully, yes. Member Grod, yes. Member Gallen, yes. Chairman Eton, yes.
Okay, that passes unanimously as well. Um, again, I see no petitions and requests from the public present. And, uh, moving on to reports. City staff, just one quick announcement. Um, so as
you know, as you may know, the city is currently working through the EAR process, the evaluation and appraisal report, which is, uh, the state's required process every at least every seven years, we have to evaluate the comp plan to see if, uh, we're still consistent with any changes that have been made at the state level. And so,
uh, we're going to be having our workshop for the year before the June 4th P&Z meeting. That'll be at 5:00 p.m. just before your 6:00 meeting. Um it'll be a public workshop open to the public. Um and the consultant will be uh preparing any amendments. We'll present
those um and look forward to any feedback. We're going to have flyers um update the website, try to get as much public participation as possible, see if there's any other comments that need to be included in this. And then uh potentially the um uh environmental
policies that was a separate project. um looking to see if if any of those can be incorporated at the same time as well. So I just wanted to make that announcement for June 4th at 5:00 PM the uh ear workshop. Thank you. Member Grant, do you have a question? Eddie,
what's the transmitt projected date? Are you considering not absolute but just currently uh hoping for August? End of August. We s we have some time. I'm still working on the transportation questions I had for you. Thank you. Okay, city attorney. I have no update.
Thank you. All right. Um, I guess I'm next. Uh, I will be out of town on the 21st, so I will be passing the gamble to Vice Chairman Childs.
No, this one's this one's business. Uh and any members have any reports? Uh okay, seeing none, I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you.