Good evening. I'd like to call to order the January 7th, 2026 meeting of the Titusville Planning and Zoning Commission. Please stand for the pledgece 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. Member FA >> here. >> Member Grod
>> here. Member Scully >> here. >> Member Gellen >> here. Alternate member Sidler >> here. Alternate member Troutman >> here. >> Okay, we have a quorum. Um, next item is approval of the minutes of December 3rd, 2025.
Does anyone have any additions, changes, or comments? If not, get a motion. >> Chairman, Vice Chairman Charles, >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as written. I'll second.
>> Second gallon. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Minutes are approved. Um, could we get the quasi judicial confirmation 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 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 exhibits to the city clerk or their representative. City clerk representative, 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. Any written communications must be made part of the record. Have the members visited any sites or spoken to any members of the public regarding an item to be reviewed? >> No. >> No.
>> That's all. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Uh this uh next item is um our first petitions and requests from the public present. Um you do not need to fill out a card and can speak on anything that's not on the agenda.
>> Good evening Vicky Conlin. So I have a procedural question and that's regarding Gemini Lakes. We were here December 3rd at your last meeting of 2025 and there was a unanimous vote for continuence of the Gemini Lakes project until the first meeting in January. January 7th was
stated as state certain. I don't see it on the agenda tonight. Perhaps it should have been under old business and maybe it got overlooked, but it probably might require some action on your part if it's not being held tonight, at least an acknowledgement or to move it forward to
when they do want to have it uh procedure. Thank you. >> City attorney, any comment on that? >> Uh, this time it's my understanding that the applicant requested >> closer. >> The applicant requested uh the continuance of the last meeting and has
not requested it be placed on this meeting. When they do um request it be placed on a meeting, it will be readvertised. >> But it was requested for January 7th specifically. This should be addressed tonight at least to for continuous.
>> I I I think the difference is and city attorney please correct me if I'm wrong. If they choose to pull it, then they have to go through and re pay for readvertising and everything versus if we do a date certain they don't have to
pay for the readvertisement I believe was the way it was explained to me. But it sounds like they pulled it completely. But please correct me if I'm >> if certain other specifications are met, that's correct. But as far as um pulling it before this, they have the ability to do that and it will have to be
readvertised uh for a future meeting. >> So you're may I ask so you are saying then that is that that application has been totally is that what you're saying? >> I guess the comparatable word we withdrawn.
So if the applicant withdraws something, there's nothing to be heard. they just have to reapply, readvertise, all of that takes place. >> I'll defer to staff. My understanding is that it wasn't pulled completely from application for the city just for this
hearing was not being heard. >> Okay. Yeah, because I'm looking in the uh minutes here and it says that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the January 7th meeting. So, I guess that's where the the question is. So they have the right to
change but didn't >> Yes. I mean they so they requested continuence to this meeting but then they requested further continuence and that was why it was pulled off. >> So for the public if it's not on the advertisement for this meeting it's not going to be heard. There's no way just
because they mentioned it at at a previous meeting that we approved it to be heard at this meeting. It still would have to show up on the advertisement. So you would if you watch the advertisements you you'll know when it's going to come before us because we can't
hear it unless it's been advertised for this for that particular meeting whatever meeting that might be >> I I Mr. I guess my question and you everybody's raising a good point. That's why I said the word that would come to my mind is
withdrawn. If an applicant >> I'm sorry if a in my experience if an applicant withdraws the request whether it's been continued or would be heard up until the point the withdrawal takes place. It's following the advertised
procedural date. If they walked in the meeting and say I'm withdrawing it and walked out, that'd be the end of the process. If you wanted to reapply the next day and start over at cost and expense and time, that's their prerogative. But if they've withdrawn
it, that's the question I've had. Did they withdraw it after the last meeting where it was continued? And if it's withdrawn, then you're going to get readvertisement, renotification of the next meeting to be heard at. So is the are the two the same that withdrawn or
or postponed or I that's the question I have. From what you're telling me, >> uh, I'll I'll, as I said, defer to staff on this. My understanding is that the application has not been withdrawn. It was just pulled from the agenda. So, the application is still pending before the city. It's just not up for discussion at
public hearing at this time. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, Vice Chairman. >> Yeah. So is there so for them doing the continuance do they have to pay another fee if it goes past a certain time or
have to reapply or anything like that? >> So so they were requesting a continuence outside of the um date certain um so I think things arised and they decided that they weren't going to be ready in time for this meeting so they uh were
requesting a continuence to another meeting which would require a readvertising. So, >> so when we did the continuence last time, we didn't do date certain. Is that what you're saying? Because we just >> Well, I I believe it was a date to this to this meeting date. However, I think
since since that happened, I think the applicant realized they weren't going to be ready for this date. >> So, they requested an additional continuence which will require additional advertising to be done for those meeting dates. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other petitions or
requests from the public? President. >> Sure. >> I know we read this petition and request from the public. Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. Uh my name is Stan Johnston. Uh and I'm wearing a shirt. Uh
this shirt has to do with uh some dirty politicians that happened happened uh the last election. It's the worst I've ever seen in my life. worst I've ever seen. And that has to do with uh someone who was running for
mayor. And they prepared this sign, a picture of uh it happened to be this lady here, Vicky Conklin. And on the on the on the on this picture, big big picture of this of her. It showed that she was a uh
a Democrat. He won the election by if you take take the votes the difference in the votes divided by two. He won this by election by over little over 100 people. That's the dirtiest I've ever seen. I've been here for 53 years. Never seen
anything worse than this. So that's why I said it says here fire city mayor. That's Mr. Conklin. No, not Mr. Mr. Connors, Mr. Connors, and and I think it's it's such a dirty thing that
we need to have something done about it. Like again, I said, I've been here for 53 years. Worst thing I've ever seen happen in election. Worst dirty politician. So, uh I just want you all take it take that note. And uh I'm very
much against him continuing being mayor and whatever I can do that is legal, that is that is truthful, that is uh how can you say it? Uh uh I'll do
whatever I can to get him out that is that is going to be truthful and legal. I think there's some people here that would agree with that. you she she probably would. Okay. Thank you very much for listening to this and
uh uh I'd like you to join me and to to get him out of out of office. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh anyone else care to speak? >> Okay. Uh next item is uh we have no old
business. So moving on to new business. Uh, item 9A. I know we received an email that said that one was with whatever the proper term is. >> Yes, this will be continued and
revertised. >> Okay. So, we have no action on that tonight. Uh, item 9B. Um so that would be the uh semianual report from July to December 2025 and we would just be requesting a recommendation of approval.
>> Okay. Does anyone on the day have any comments? Have you had a chance to look it over? Uh I believe we just uh approve it to um be forwarded to council is my recollection. So I think I need a motion
to approve. I'd make a motion to approve uh the semianual report. Um >> as presented >> as presented. >> Second. >> Seconded by member Scully. Uh roll call
vote please. Lori. >> Member Grod. >> Yes. >> Member Scully. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Childs. >> Yes. >> Member Gellen. >> Yes. >> Member Troutman. >> Yes. >> Member FA. >> Yes. >> Chairman Eton. >> Yes. >> Okay. That's approved unanimously. Uh
moving on to 9C. Right. Um good evening. Uh my name is Christy Anderson. I'm senior planner. Um this is a smallcale amendment SSA uh 7-2025 for 1400 Elizabeth Avenue. The applicant is requesting a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment with a resoning on
approximately 3.61 61 acres of land located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Elizabeth Avenue and Queen Street for the construction of 32 multifamily units contained within eight quadruple buildings. The request intends to change the current future land use
designation from lowdensity residential to highdensity residential and reszone the property from single family medium density R1B to multifamily highdensity residential R3 to support the intended multifamily development. The property is part of the Druid Hill subdivision
platted in 1927 and has since remained vacant. Queen Street provides direct access from the development to two collector roadways, South Deon, which is approximately 850 ft to the east and Barnett Avenue, which is 760 ft to the west. A concept plan has not been
provided with the request. Therefore, the analysis of the report has reviewed the request at the maximum potential buildout scenario. If the request is approved, the maximum potential buildout of the property would increase from 18 single family residential units to a maximum of 54 multifamily residential
units. The subject property is located within an area consisting of a mixture of residential zoning categories and land uses. The existing and proposed future land use and zoning maps have been provided for your reference on page 166 and 167 of your packets. The single
family medium density R1B with low density residential land use is located to the north and to the west and has a maximum density of five dwelling units per acre. The single family highdensity R1C zoning with medium density residential land use is located to the
southeast and has a maximum of 6.7 dwelling units per acre. The multif family highdensity residential zoning district with highdensity residential land use is located uh to the east and has a maximum of 15 units per acre. As an alternative
to the applicant's proposed request, staff is recommending the multifamily medium density residential R2 zoning with a medium density residential land use designation permitting a maximum of nine multifamily dwelling units per acre and would provide a transition between
the existing low density residential and highdensity residential. An application has also been submitted um subsequent with this request uh to vacate the rights away. Um Zerith Avenue and Yale Street are two unimproved
rights away. Zerith Avenue is located to the north of the property and runs east to west. Yale Street is located through the center of the property and runs north to south. The vacation of the proposed rightsway would potentially add approximately 085 acres to the site.
Page 135 of your packets provides a chart summarizing the buildout potential of the site with and without the rideways under the existing pres proposed and alternative land use and zoning. The proposed highdensity residential future land use map
amendment and multifamily highdensity residential R3 zoning is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and land development regulations. However, staff found that the alternative multifamily density residential future land use with multifamily medium density residential
R2 would be a more appropriate as it would provide a transitional buffer between the existing low and uh the existing low residential density to the west and the high density residential to the east. The proposed R3 would permit a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre,
providing a maximum of 54 multifamily dwelling units, exceeding the applicant's proposed density of 32 units by approximately 22 additional units. The alternative R2 zoning would permit a maximum of nine dwelling units per acre, which would provide a maximum of 32
multifamily dwelling units meeting the project's proposed density. And I'd be happy to take any questions that you have from staff at this time. my German child >> um the vacation of the the road I didn't see it on is it is there an image of it
anywhere because I I even looked like on the satellite view and I couldn't find >> like 166 >> 167 you'll see the land uses and you'll see the road >> correct yes those maps will indicate and then >> page 187
>> oh is it Oh, >> so the roads go north to south parallel. >> Correct. >> Oh, so but because which one is it? The >> Yale Yale Street is running through the middle of the the subject property. And
>> I'm still not seeing that. >> Oh, let's see. >> Do you see the >> Yeah, you want to look at the the land use. display. >> See the two red blocks? So that's >> Oh, so sorry. Okay, I see what you're
saying. I see. So that that is the screen. I don't know why I didn't even think that that was because there are two separate boxes, right? So it's that right through the middle. >> Also the block to the north as well. >> Yeah. And then yeah, 164 is the property survey as well, which will indicate
those those areas for you. >> I see. >> I see. I guess I in the description it said east to west but this is this oriented >> north to south. >> Yeah, it is orient. >> It's basically a T. Okay. >> That runs through.
>> Oh, I Okay, I see it now. All right. Thank you. >> Um member F. >> Chairman, I will be abstaining from tonight's vote. um the previous owner of this property. I was partners with him
and trying to develop this beforehand. So, uh I'm very familiar with what they're doing there and what they're asking. And so, I will not be voting tonight on this, but I will speak on it, but I will not be voting. >> Okay. And I'm assuming there's a form I think you have to fill out.
>> Um Okay. I don't know. I don't know why my display just says alternate member, but >> um you want to go ahead. >> Well, no, it's got you got me. >> So, you can go next. Member >> Chman,
>> my uh my question about the rightway is uh >> Oh, okay. Sorry. >> Is is who owns that right away right now? The the property owners. >> So, that's a public rightway currently, but it's unimproved. So, there was no road ever built within those areas.
>> Sure. But the So, the city owns that right now. Correct. >> Correct. So, uh, vacating that is that something that they buy, they purchase, they give, how is that property? >> No, through the the like, um, rightway
vacation process. Um, there is no sale. It's it's for basically if the if the rightway is not being utilized for public access, then then we are required to release it if requested >> because usually it was part of the original property.
>> Correct. >> Okay. So that's that's why I was trying to understand the the rights on the >> um alternate member. >> Thank you. It's it's my understanding that the right of way vacancy is at a later time. Right.
>> That's correct. You will be hearing that request at a future meeting. >> Okay. So today we're being asked to vote on a potential buildout of for high density or and then staff recommended medium density. that is without the right of way. So it is my understanding
even without the right of way being granted being asis if we approved a medium density that the project could go forward. >> That's correct. >> That is correct. So there is no need to to do the right of way. It's it's not
we're not listening to that today. and the high density because they didn't give us a plot map. If we approve high density, then they could do a maximum buildout with a right of way of 66 units. Um, max density without the right
of way, they could have 54 units. The medium density, which staff has said that they can build without the rightway, and that would meet their request for 32 units. If we do grant them right away in the future, they can
do 40 units. So, at this point in time, they're asking for us to vote on something with a future where we don't have a right of way at that time. That's a that's a later
future thing. So currently if we vote medium density without the right of way that project can go forward as they presented at 32 units. Correct. >> That is correct. Okay. Thank you. >> And
um member Gar, sorry. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh staff, I have a couple of questions, but I want to footnote that you mentioned you were going to speak on this as a representative. >> No, no, no. Just questions in general. Okay. Not as >> So, lacking a representative, I have to direct my questions to you. I don't
believe anybody in the room is a representative of this request. >> I I don't believe the applicant is here tonight. >> That's too bad. So, for staff, uh there's a couple of things that I noticed in the staff report throughout the pages, and I would hopefully be able
to give you the pages, but I'm not sure I can do that. Um so, I'll just generalize my comments. One of them and the most important I think is in the latter part which would be I did see the pages one um 138 um
uh 138 of 187 and then again at um I'm sorry to be that way. I had it called up before. Um, oh, I hate when I have those happen. So to begin with the question, generally
speaking, your staff report analyzes that Elizabeth Street separates land use designations from high density from low density residential with a difference when you go south of this proposed site where medium density residentials west
of Elizabeth Street. The reason I find that important is because you're transitioning as you refer to in the staff report that as the comprehensive plan prefers to do stepping down from one density or increasing respectfully from one density to another without a
huge gap overwhelming in terms of visual impact, traffic considerations, homogyny of a neighborhood, other matters. So what you generally have in the spatial look of this in neighborhood is an area that's transitioning from existing
developed single family home subdivision homes that have been there for quite few decades and as things change and this being vacant land something has to happen. Your staff report was very well written about the need for housing and we've spoken about that many times. So
the the premise is you're going to have a change in use inevitably from older neighborhoods to newer ones, especially if vacant undeveloped land available. But the transition in the page I can't find and maybe you'll remember where it was written since I think maybe you made
the staff report um speaks about that both the request by the applicant for high density as well as the staff recommendation of medium density are consistent with the comprehensive plan. There's a page I read that um um on and
I'm sorry I can't just grab it up here real quick. However, in the report you also focus on this transitional density, the step down as I refer to it, whereby you would create an impact potentially that is disproportionate to the existing
neighborhood. taking vacant land and turning into highdensity uh town homes or highdensity apartments takes place at a higher volume of homes there and being a differential. So on one side of the comprehensive plan you report that you
need to look at transitional changes when you mingle uh land uses especially if you're changing them even though the density per se is consistent with the comprehensive plan which is what the statement in the report says. I think that's a quote. Um
I find it to be inconsistent for the very reasoned in this in the report that the transition is going not as a step down from medium density as it is across the street to medium density facing one another. Transitioning from medium
density down to the existing uh land use of low density existing single family homes that are probably not subject to redevelopment not in the context this vacant land is. So my point to make for the commission is that me I don't find
this request consistent with the plan in whole. It may be consistent with the plan for a specific matter like density allocated in this area based on a road access but it's inconsistent with the plan who prefers to see transitional
land uses occur and not the step down being so so uh I lost the word of the day. Stark, that's a good word. Um, and so I just wanted to put on the record my opinion reading your report and seeing the
future land use elements uh defining these. I myself find it to be inconsistent to make such a drastic change between land uses abuing one another. The second question I've got in terms of staff board is talking about collector roads. There's been several
public meetings we've had where this issue of the future land use plan uh allocates a land use preferred or required. It's preferred in some sections of the of the land development code. We've had discussions about what's
the word mean interpretations. This acts like that. We talked about several times. And then required. So in this instance, this land use requires access onto a collector road. But the analysis says the collector road is in Elizabeth
Street or Queen Street. It's Bara. So I wanted a little clarification on how a collector road is by accessing over non-collector roads or local streets. um staff felt that because of the large
swath of R3 um multifamily high density is directly next to this subject property albeit it's separated by a roadway that that could be considered an extension of that existing R3 area which
is directly adjacent to South Delion which is a collector roadway. But that that the first question I can understand you you kind of have two you have two chapters of the same book. One alludes
to compatibility based on adjacency and the other alludes to or specifies or suggests perhaps would be the better word that transitionally this would be a kind of a big leap going from a change from low density to high density that transitions from low density across the
changed in land use. recommended by staff of medium density across the street a thorough way thoroughare excuse me into high density a high density that is a redevelopment potential it's not existing as high density so myself I
would kind of say I think chapter one is more important than chapter 2 given that we have no development of a highdensity multiple family dwellings east of the site and across the street literally and we have exist existing development
homesteads homesteaded for decades impacted potentially whether impacted negatively or positively is a matter of question. It's an impact because it's not single family homes on detached single family lots. It's multiple family buildings. So
I'm going to pick the chapter two not chapter one for my belief in what's consistent with the plan. The second question goes back to the theme of getting increased traffic volumes on local streets. The density is the measure by which you know the impacts.
You take a analysis of something and you're going to throw into the analysis machine how many dwellings is it and how many trips that generates. The reason you have collector road necessitates uh access into multiple family is usually because you have higher traffic
volumes. And with apartments and dwellings that are consistent with rental income, you have a different type of apartment dwelling density traffic volume than you have for detached single family homes. So the question I beg is
there is no collector road serving this site. It goes through a local street. the neighborhoods that are adjacent that are existing and lived with the type of traffic a five decade old subdivision would be typically witnessing and then
all of a sudden you're going to come in with multiple family in a matter that's going to increase those traffic volumes and Elizabeth Street if I'm correct please correct me if I'm incorrect is a local street it is not a collector road >> that's correct >> but because Elizabeth gets out to Bara
Bara being the collector road then it's consistent with the Um well staff feels that the existing area within it it it basically the the existing R3 and as well as the existing medium density
residential to the south are extensions. So albeit all of those are val very very you know valid observations um it's it's very difficult when we have areas that are >> infill
>> infill and then this this location is a definitely a mixture. Um, so your your point to being a budding single family residential, does that have more weight than the uh, you know, across the the roadway to the existing R3? Um, I think
those are all valid observations. Um I think staff felt that within this area and um just trying to um you know infill with a variety of different um land use types which is
something that we you know strive for. Um it it was just kind of a hard sure >> a hard um uh determination to make. >> And I'm not trying to grill you on it. trying to predicate what my opinion is and to speak out to the commission members so they know where I'm going to
be coming from. Mhm. >> So in the um um uh latter question of the and it's a more technical one so if you don't if you can't answer it I understand in the uh description this
will be preferred to be subdivided and the development type that becomes subdivided when you have attached housing typically becomes could be one story but it becomes uh town homes or one-story buildings that are subdivided down a common wall. However, a
subdivision of multiple family buildings may also otherwise be a subdivision around the land of which contains a building. If I use terminology, it makes sense, a forplex, a sixplex or a duplex.
You can subdivide the common wall and you can describe that building as a lot and the block it sits in is the grass, the the yard. You can multiply that by four, six. You can do two stories and that's a subdivision. The discussion is
what type of subdivision is the applicant proposing? Is it a subdivision of fee simple ownership of the unit or is it a collective ownership of land with buildings there on? So I would own a block and in my block of ownership I
own four lots or two lots, a duplex. Now the subdivision isn't going to let somebody own my building. one of two duplexes. It won't let me fe simply title my town home wall to- wall, ceiling to ground
unless I subdivide the land with it. And that's where it gets dicey. You can do that kind of subdivision. It's just not exactly common that you subdivide a building on common walls inside of a block of land. It's more typical to
subdivide it into tracks, blocks containing buildings that are subdivided or that are not subdivided. And the whole essence of this for me is it alludes to ownership in one regard, but my experience teaches me to say it
sounds to me more like it's a subdivision that results in an ownership of rental properties. There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing I'm opposed to it. I just would like and prefer to understand better what the applicant intends by the word subdivision. >> Yeah. I don't have that level of detail.
Nor Yeah. Nor did they they uh choose to submit the concept plan. So at this time that's my point. The applicant's not here. So I didn't want you to think I'm throwing the the baby out with the bath work. >> So So those are my questions that I have for right now. Thank you very much.
>> Member FA. I know the owner is not here. Um, and again, the gentleman that I knew before, he was part owner of this of this parcel. I was very familiar with what they wanted to do with the with the property. Um, but from what I understand, he sold his interest in the
property um, two years ago. Okay. And but during that time, I saw what the plans were. And so part of to your question about the about the uh the rightway was that without them having that that vacated rightway, they have no
access to their property. So they can build on it unless they put a road down the center of that that larger piece. They have no way of getting to the backside. So So if you see those two small there's a red block, right? And that's supposed to be a road there. And so that's why they needed to vacate that so they can
build a road so they can get to those parcels. Otherwise, they'd have to build a road on in in that larger space on that larger space and it' be smaller lots. >> So, they bought property knowing that that road that property is owned by the city and they're depending on the
rideway being approved basically what you're saying if their plans what they proposed they can't do because they need that rightway for a road. >> I can't tell you their their motives. I can only tell you that without the rightway >> two years ago that's what they were planning for. >> No. So, they've owned the property for a
while, but what I'm saying is with the vacation of the rightway, it allowed them to put a road there is what I'm saying. >> Okay. And if it's not vacated, staff still has said they can do the 32 homes and that is not necessarily um it doesn't need to be vacated in
order for them to do what they've proposed. >> Is that correct? Well, um that that could alter the layout of the property, which would prevent them from getting to that number of units just based on how the property is laid out existing with a
50ft roadway running through the middle of the property. >> I get that. But they're not here and they've not provided any information to us. So, we get a go on basically what we're we're guessing at. >> No, what I I was just explaining to you why they were asking for the vacation. And but I'm not I'm not getting to motives. I'm just saying that's why
they're asking so they can build what they want to build. But again, >> but you're saying that but they're not here and they've not said that. You're saying it for them. >> No, I'm not saying it for them. I'll just explain to you why they did it. I'm not speaking for them. >> Okay. >> There's a difference. Um Okay. I I think rightaway vacations,
especially unimproved vacations for property, is is typical for new development because the the initial uh you know development that where the roads were laid out is no longer feasible. So
>> yeah, I I think this area was was was plotted like in the 20s or 30s. >> Yeah, 1927, I believe, was when this plat was done. >> Yeah. And since then, that area has changed names and and a lot of things have gone unimproved. So, um, so that
that's again that's that >> member Chapman. >> Yeah, I have a question. when it comes to the um units per acre when you have property that is separated like this um
I know that before that there's there's been situations where property's been approved for say the total properties five acres but only buildable like what they can build on is only like three and so when you come up
with your numbers of 10 or five or 15 per acre I guess from my knowledge, I'm I'm curious on how do you look at buildable land as that acreage or just total land? >> No, that's based on the acreage and the allowable density. So that does not
account for uh lot coverage, building setbacks, landscaping requirements, things like that. So that will further reduce the available area for development. >> Okay? Because I've seen in the past where I've seen numbers five acres. Okay. They can build up to 30 something
properties for that five acres but two of it's a water drain as area. >> Correct. >> But they use five acres as a number >> but but technically it's three, >> you know. So I'm trying to understand that a little bit where with this property here where it's separated seems like we're doing the cart before the
horse here. seems like they need to ask for the the roads to be um conjoined to their property and then then we come and then >> I I don't think that was the intent. I believe that these applications were submitted basically concurrently and it's just how how the applications have
been processed. So ideally we would have liked to take these simultaneously but for advertising reasons things like that that didn't work out that way. So I believe it will be coming up on one of your upcoming agendas. Okay. So, that leads me to that we're we're trying to vote on
something that the road's still there. Hasn't been approved for yet, given to them yet or anything with the hopes of that they get it and everything, right? That's >> I mean, that's that's based on the layout of their development. So they're
not they're not relying on that additional density um that's going to come from the rightway for for I mean they're not allow uh you know requiring that additional acreage from the rightway for their density calculations. Basically staff just wanted to point that out. Basically um if we have a
maximum of 32 units and that rightway gets vacated increased up to 40 units based on just the acreage. >> So and I don't believe that that was the intent. Um it's just something we wanted to note that that could change and without the concept plan again that you
know >> opens that up. >> I have I have one more question or uh observation that I've I've noticed uh in on your map at 166 out of 187. Um to the left you you got the property
highlighted in red there in Queen. If you go down to King Street you have LDR and you have MDR, a little sliver of MDR down there. Um I'm not sure if you remember but uh that was uh Royal Manor Town Homes came across us last year. >> Um asking for the same thing, high
density, things like that. Um I believe that we we kept at medium density for the you know same reasons and but but they came back with a a concept plan that reduced it reduced the uh >> properties along the property of that
single family low density. They reduced that down to be a less buffer to that side of the single family, but then was like came around the corner of their culde-sac, then they came back up to like the twotory buildings. Is this something that we could suggest as far
as part of this is like if they're going to move forward with something like that to have some kind of a reduced down buffer because I I understand that you have high density up here across the street, but looking at the aerial images, I don't see any, you know, apartment
complexes or or or anything like that. And I understand the zoning is that. >> Um, but all I see is a couple of possibly single family homes, a vacant vacant lots based off of the imaging you provided. I >> I mean, I believe there are
two or three apartment buildings within that block that's currently zoned R3. >> Okay. I haven't drove over there, so I don't I don't know. I'm based off of the >> But yeah, it's definitely a mixture. Um and then there's vacant residential lots kind of throughout um the area. Um
the yeah, the main difference with the Royal Manor is that they did submit a concept plan. So that provided us the ability to analyze that concept plan and add conditions to that. So >> yeah, I I would be very >> The minimum landscape buffer for multifamily residential is a 20 foot
landscape buffer. So >> Right. >> All right. Yeah. I'd be kind of hardressed to go to the high density as well. We already have other things in the area that are staying medium density and trying to buffer this the single family. I'd like to
>> when we have an available zoning district and land use that will provide them with the units that they're looking for rather than above and beyond um find that uh you know to where they have reasonable use to to uh develop their
project as they wish. So >> Sure. Member Gar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, kind of a followup in the discussion just taking place requiring subdivisions and also providing for vacations of
rights of way. Over time, I've wi witnessed that there was a point and having a surveyor in the audience may be of some assistance, but there was a potential that during a discussion like this where you would have a proposed plan, it would be presented as a subdivision plan in which going through
the process of replplat of an old plat can vacate existing underlying quote unquote paper streets for that matter can vacate an existing pave road if the city so approves it. When that happens, however, usually they defer and more
recently deference has been to provide two processes. One for vacation of the rightway, making it clean. There's no question it's gone. And then a plat comes in for review where you'd see the road networking that would serve the subdivision. That was why I said as a
followup, that's why I was so concerned about the generalization. They want to subdivide it. How that subdivision is done can be drastically different looking in terms of accessibility in terms of public accessibility or a
private accessible subdivision. Private road subdivisions exist. People refer to them as gated communities. That's why I wanted to key in on without seeing a subdivision, without seeing a plan to just say throw it to the wind and let's see where it sticks is difficult for me
especially in a transitional use between this high density on one side of a street, the other side of a thoroughfare, not just a common boundary, not some woods or trees, an open road right away and the adjacent contiguous existing constructed single
family homes. So, in my opinion, where it's going is I can't see this being a very good transition if it goes as the applicant requested. And I think staff supports the notion that on the other hand, you can still develop your project based on the number of units you seek to
develop. All we need to do is see a plan of how it's going to work, preferably. And then in terms of the vacation, you'd have to have the vacation if you're going to do something different. The way that land's configured, it's just one skinny piece and one bigger piece
divided in two. So I would imagine the uh the vacation of a paper streets not too difficult to anticipate coming to us uh in that manner. Um and I I'm trying to explain this because it's it's a little bit unusual not to have somebody
be able to address each of these questions. So u when we get time for the motions we'll see how we go with where the applicant is. >> Member FA. >> All right. So, well, one, I think we have somebody here to speak on this on this motion now as well. Number one.
Number two, I had a question about the the the infill. I believe we went over some infill about scattered lots in already developed areas that if they were a certain size that we had some latitude and what we can do with those and I don't remember the particulars,
but I do remember that we that we did discuss that here. Um, also just again another thing about the road. Um when I was with my previous partner with this, one of the issues was about the road. The city wasn't going to willing to build the road there. And so in that vacant area where there is a vacated
road there, um whoever builds that road has to maintain that road. And so that was the other issue. Um the other issue was getting utilities to those um to those lots that are farther in, right? Uh without a road, without utilities in it. Um how do you get those utilities
and where you tapping that off of? Um, and so there's a lot of additional monies that cost into developing this land. It wasn't just simply vacate the land, it's good to go. It's not. It's it's it's real expensive because they got to put in a road. They got to put in utilities to feed those properties that are on the back side back there. Um, and
so there's it's it's a lot more than than just than just that. Um, but I wanted to just ask about the infill. Um, >> I know that it was certain lot size, certain dimensions, and so what what was that again? >> It was two acres. So, this project is a little bit over
that. Um, but I do believe that it, you know, is consistent with the notion of infill development. Um, it just doesn't quite meet the the particulars of our our code that we had developed. >> Yeah. I'd like to hear from this young man if um if we could if you guys would
allow that. >> Yeah. I have I have one more question and then uh I think that's the last of the the day's questions and we'll open a public hearing. Um I you made the comment that the
perhaps the vacation associated items and this were submitted at the same time but somewhere along the process they got separated. >> I I believe that that was the case. >> So I want to make sure we're not
penalizing the applicant for some bureaucracy on our side. >> No. No. Yeah. That's why I wanted to make that statement because I I believe that they were either, you know, submitted concurrently or within that same process. It's just how how applications were allocated. It that's
>> the general consensus would have been this would have been a lot easier if that would all come through as a single package like it was submitted. So that said, I you know, I I don't know the reasoning and and we'll get it maybe
from the applicant that as to why we still want to go ahead and and try to get this done and and do the other one separately or do we table this and they all come through together. But um uh if nobody's else has anything, I'll open a
public hearing. And you're speaking on behalf of the applicant or you are the applicant. >> Yes. Hello, my name is Joshua Wilson. >> And you filled out a card? >> Yes, sir. >> Awesome. >> All right. >> Um, so yes, as I said, I'm Joshua Wilson. My partner, Jeremiah Ofory, uh,
has been before you guys. Previously, we've built about 20 single family homes in the area in Phil lots. Uh, we've also had some variances and what have you. Um, this is our attempt at doing a larger project as you can very well see. Um, to the question of why the packet
wasn't submitted together, it was. There was no bureaucratic red tape on you guys' end. The building department has been phenomenal in supporting us through our development efforts. Uh we had a very challenging time with the utilities. Um communicating with FPNL
specifically uh Spectrum was pretty straightforward AT&T. Um but getting those letters, getting those guys responsive was very very challenging. So that's why we ended up getting pushed and things got separated. Um to your question also with respect to uh
respecting the existing density um of the single family residence to the west of the property. We have no intention of developing the western piece except for using it as a retention pond to support the stormwater uh criteria for uh the
quadruplexes that we're developing. So we are aware of the need to have a buffer in that transition zone. Um so our site plan it was not submitted with this. Uh we did go over in pre-planning with the building department. Uh we just did not submit um because of some
potential um of whether or not we would have to create let's say a CDD or some an HOA or something um in in terms of meeting the financial obligations to as we said maintain some of the aspects of the property. So, we wanted to have some
flexibility to um potentially change uh what we were going to do moving forward um to meet some of those costs. And as terms of the roadway, we do want to vacate uh Queen and um excuse me, not Queen Yale and Zer Avenue um to allow us
to make the eastern portion of the parcel um as you usable as possible. Were there any other questions that I missed, guys? Member Face. >> Good afternoon, sir. So, so Mr. Williams
was my partner from before. Okay. >> All right. And so we were working on this proc this parcel before. And so now I'm glad that you're here so we can talk about that. Okay. So So you've seen his original plan, right? >> Correct. >> Which had 10 homes, 10 single family homes along Elizabeth and then down that road would have been a couple quadruplex
on that larger side. And so uh his plan was that but the city would have to had agreed to 50 foot lots and they weren't willing to do that. And so he sold his half, I guess he sold his partial to you guys. So, thank you guys for purchasing it and moving in. Um, how large are these quadriplex that you're looking at
building? And then how would they be situated along will it be along along Elizabeth the the quadruplexes? >> Correct. So, >> conceptually, >> yes. I don't know if you guys are familiar with the Fox Hollow um quadruplex builds that are north of or
excuse me, west closer to uh 95. Um, we are going to use a very similar plan to what they have. We're going to have three twos and two twos in our building. Um, what we're going to do is we're not doing a communal parking. You can't do that. So, each structure will have its
own parking. And we plan to have them uh recessed a little bit and then have each individual parking lot in front of each building. We'll meet the foliage and the landscape requirements. Um, and we hope to be able to maintain as many of the trees to the eastern portion again to
create that barrier, excuse me, the western portion, if you will, to create that barrier between the structures and the existing single family on the back side. >> And and how many of these? >> Uh, our our goal is for eight of them. >> Eight quads. Yes, sir. >> All right. Thank you. >> And do you have any expectation of the
width of that buffer uh where you're going to leave the trees between the single family homes? I don't presently um given the density that we are seeking uh and the span of the parcel we should be able to maintain a significant amount
uh given the storm water requirements that we initially calculated. We did it very conservatively because we understand the significance of you know the retention in the aquafer and you know not flooding partners excuse me neighboring properties downstream. So um
we overbuilt in the uh preliminary design the storm water system. Uh so we do think that we'll be able to maintain a very visibly appealing um amount of trees to like I said provide that sighteline breakup um for those single
family residents. >> Member Kar. >> Thank you Mr. Churn. A question for you since I appreciate you being able to represent the applicant and answer some questions rather than grilling staff. the um statement you made was relevant
to the staff report. You 8 time 4 is 32. I didn't do well in math, but I think that's correct. >> And that's your statement of what you want to do. And the future land use you request provides for excessive density beyond your scope or your statement.
staff's recommendation following the line that I've been trying to point out about transitional land uses is that the lower density provided by medium density changed from low density in transition to what's across the street. High
density provides for 32 units. So there'd be no benefit to your plan to have high density that medium density if that becomes what the recommendation and followup to that approval or disapproval uh provides for. Yeah.
>> The the vacating the rideway to me that's all sunundry. It's adding a little more square feet. It gives you a calculable thing. You come up with a net density. Uh but your density you seek four time 8 32 can be provided for in this land mass and be provided for based
on the comprehensive plan's future land use designation medium density residential and it would act in a better transitional manner between these opposing land uses high density on one end of the spectrum and drastically different low density on the other end of the spectrum which would occur if
high density is approved. So it seems to me that unless I misunderstood you, you would you seek to build something as a construction frame mind. Uh but to do so you have to deal it in a conceptual frame mind. In this case, a color on a
map, a land use designation that lasts well beyond what you may not do or what you may do. The land use remains. Whoever comes next uses that land use for what they want to do. Not to discourage you, but that does happen. As you mentioned, Mr. Fasin, there was a
project and then there wasn't a project. It's kind of like Cinderella goes back to the homely Cinderella as opposed to the Frances. So, um, do you see any real difficulty if the medium density that staff supports both in terms of the
future land use and the comparable zoning district were to be what's recommended that provides for 32 dwellings, your four quadriplexes? No, >> that's an easy answer. I make sure the question is clear for the record. I apologize. Thank you.
>> Member child. >> Um, so is there a reason I I'm sure there is good reason there's not a concept plan already. Are you still developing that or is that also you're waiting for the rightway to be vacated
or because like if if the reszoning happens and it's all high density even though you're saying well we don't want to develop you know the west side regardless if it's if it's reszoned that way you'd still have the right to to build there even you know even though
like you're you're saying your intention is that you wouldn't build on there but if you sold the property then they there's no binding concept plan to say hey we need this you know buffer over here they're like well it's already zone that way so is there a concept plan that
you were planning on um or you're still developing that or >> so very great question thank you for asking we do have a concept plan and it has the a quadripus situated across the eastern portion of the road coming down
um Elizabeth and there is one that is off of Queen on the south side but it's more to the southeastern side. Um the reason that we did not submit that concept plan as a part of the application but we did include it in our pre-application discussion with the
building department was because as I said um when it comes to various costs in terms of whether you guys are going to require let's say a traffic study of us and and other things um down the line we wanted to have some flexibility in okay if we wanted to go from say a
quadriplex to um having a town home and be able to sell the individual homes off individually. That could uh be something that would allow us that flexibility. >> I mean, I can see I mean, I can understand now needing a flexibility, I
guess. Um uh but so mostly it's because you weren't sure what city council or what, you know, would would want to require of you. So, and then you would have to resubmit if it was too drastic of a
change or something. Exactly. Um, so I've been a part of several city council meetings with some of the initiatives that we've had in the past. This is my first time meeting with you guys here at planning and zoing. >> Um, and thank you for having me. Um, but to to your point, yes, we wanted to have some of that flexibility. We wanted to
have we didn't want to be locked into that concept plan should any um unforeseen hurdles come up that would make it too high a bar for us. uh currently because as the gentleman stated, you know, the road in its
current um setup that's about a $600,000 $750,000 investment that we have to maintain. And when you talk about single family homes and uh you can only have I think it was a maximum of 15 to 16 units on that parcel um there's no way we can
build an affordable product uh that would justify the afterbuild values in the area. Um it would it it just the math didn't pencil out. >> Thank you. >> Yes, alternate member. >> Thank you. Hi, thank you for coming this
evening. My question is you did mention briefly um the potential for an HOA or a CDD for this development. Are you is that going? >> That is not our intent. Again, that was just a we wanted to be able to um have
the flexibility to um pro have something of that nature to meet any of the potential financial requirements of servicing the community. Um so ongoing in in our dialogue with the building department and going through this
planning and zoning and city council process. Um we have what we would like to do but should any additional requirements be placed on us that you know push the feasibility of the project uh beyond um the financing that we had
in place. We wanted to have an option to be able to roll some of that cost. Um, I don't want to say down the line, but >> isn't that what happens with the CDD? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, if the costs exceed your
expectations, then you want the association or the the the people who purchase it to pay it back. >> That could be an option. Yes, >> that could be an option. Okay. Thank you, >> Emra.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. the your comment on CDDs and HOAs. Um, community development districts by and large are for larger scale projects. I can't say I've seen very many CDDs on that small of a parcel of land by the complexities
of a CDD. Uh, you were raising some questions just a few minutes ago about how CDDs mature and responsibility. It's really an economy of scale in my experience. you get a CDD would be Port St. John, not a neighborhood. A
homeowners association can do many of the same things but a different way. So, I'm not sure CDD is really going to end up being an avenue for that that you could explore, but it'd be interested to know if I'm remembering correctly u or not depending on where we get. But
that's my recall on how CDDs work. I've seen CDDs come up in several of our homeowner association packets that we have been reading. I think it is becoming more common of a option for
developers to to potentially look at when the costs are exceeding what you want to put out of pocket and you're they're looking for reimbursement. And I'm seeing that this is kind of a trend. So, I'm just
wondering, as you said, there is there isn't a road. It is expensive and you're putting 32 town homes or something on on the one side. Um, but you're looking for high density just in case to make up for
some of the financial stuff to give you some leeway. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you. And if I may, uh, yes, typically CDs are for larger projects, but, um, again, I just want to hearken back to the
relationship that we're trying to build with the city of Titusville and the prior initiatives that we've had with the variances that we've requested and um, we've done the things that we said we're going to do and we intend to continue to do the things that we say we're going to
do. And I understand the climate of, you know, public opinion and trying to uh invest in our communities individually and collectively so that way they represent, you know, uh what we want to have here. Um, and as a resident of
Orlando, as someone who has refereed basketball at Eastern Florida State College and every college in the state of Florida, um, and has lived here for, you know, 20 plus years, I, uh, can appreciate the and respect the desire to, you know, uphold the character of
our communities. Um, and I know words are dime, but, um, I hope that you guys take that into consideration. >> Robert Tman. Yeah, I have one question for staff. At what level does a
development meet requirements for HOA or something of that nature? I'm not familiar with does it have to be classified as a subdivision, then it's HOA cuz like I know Royal uh Manor Town Homes, I believe that uh they were going to have
to become an HOA because they were going to sell each individual town home. Um you can clarity on that. I don't really have an answer for that. I don't have that knowledge. Um uh I mean typically
if you're going to create a condos association that's going to come handinand but that's out of the scope of my knowledge. So >> Okay. So there's out of your scope of knowledge but I guess at the end of it there's there's something that says all right you you meet this requirement you
have to have an HOA I would assume right? I don't recall that being a city requirement, but like I said, I >> or a state requirement or something. I >> possibly I Okay. >> I don't know. >> I thought there was something that stated that you did something at a certain level. It' be >> I could definitely look into that, but I
I at this time I'm I'm don't have a good answer for you. >> Okay. Thank you. One question for you, sir. uh on the uh west side of the property there. Um I believe for medium density it's 20 foot buffer of unnatural or of a natural you can't uh disturb
that area. I think it's 20 ft I believe. Um uh without the uh concept plan I assume that after the 20 ft that's where you're hoping to build the retention pond correct so to speak. Um and then how
sorry how how wide of this >> on the concept plan you see the storm water pond spans from north to south probably 60 to 70% of the entire length of the
property width east to west >> yeah east to west >> east to west of >> I don't have the the foot measurement um but it It's pretty large. It takes up a majority of that western parcel.
>> So between the setback or the buffer, >> it's and the retention pond, you're getting close to that eastern red line of the west parcel or where the vacation line is. >> Uh do you know depth by by chance?
>> I do not. Um and that we'll get into that with our uh engineer, but I don't have that presently. Then I guess the only other thing that I would be concerned about is this a retention pond that actually retains water all the time or is it something that is like a dry pond? It catches as needed because I
know that we have a couple different ones right in in in our city like we have a retention pond that holds water all the time and then some that are dry. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. Um typically in the ACC the wet ponds are not permitted. So that's typically why you see those dry
ponds, but this property is not located within uh an ACC area. >> Okay. So it could be a wet pond there. >> Correct. >> Okay. So then uh yeah, then my only other concern on that is if it could be a wet pond uh that area being fenced off or something, you know, we're in a
neighborhood, you know, small kids and and things of that nature. That would be my only other concern on that. If that is going to be a retention pond. >> Yeah. So those safety measures are something that we will you know have conversations with the city about about what is required. I don't have the
particulars in terms of which tile pond. Our thinking was more so just meeting the requirements of the drainage and the runoff. Um so you know whatever in conjunction with conversations with the building department is communicated as a preference uh we'll gladly oblige and
you know put forth the necessary uh safety protocols around that area. >> I appreciate that. Thanks. Yes sir. Member Grot. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is for staff in terms of what land uses requested, what land uses approved, and
the discussion about what we're going to do and the point staff made about having a plan, a site plan or a subdivision plan with the land use designation and the zoning sought by the applicant. Will a site plan be subject to review
recommendation by the PNZ and the city council or is it a staff review based on the land development code? >> Um it it depends. So if they're planning on platting the property, then yes, you will be seeing a preliminary plat and a
final plat that will have to come before you. If it's going to be a nons subdivided development, >> it it would be administratively reviewed and approved by city staff >> and that would mean comments about retention ponds and fencing and those matters of concern tonight won't be
visible to recommend that in the future. Just as a footnote, um the question that you've posed about CDDs and I don't want to speak out of out of education. U so I'll qualify it by saying I believe I'm
correct. Community development districts allow for a funding source. Principally and extens an extension of public uh development. Roads would be a good example. In a traditional subdivision,
you would see a road and I'm sure you've seen every road in Titusville in your life. And they all look the same, right? Asphalt, curb and gutter, maybe a sidewalk, maybe not a sidewalk. I'll take you to a fancy land and call it celebration. Now, if you've ever been to
Celebration, you see different roads. You see roads with little benches on them, and you see little marquees in there and signs and flowers and plants, and they are within the road right away, and they are publicly maintained. However, the maintenance cost is
deferred to the payments made in assessments to the CDD, which are collected as a tax as opposed to an HOA. If you have an HOA, you can have fancy flowers in a private road and the HOA pays for it and benches and little
marquees and things like that. However, if an HOA doesn't get paid, it litigates to collect. And in an HOA, if the litigation doesn't go as planned, where someone coughs up the money, it defaults. And there are HOAs where
defaulting on that ends up with nothing in the bank and nothing gets maintained. And what's not being maintained are critical elements like pavement on roads. And you might perhaps have seen that going through subdivisions that are subdivided in a sense, but the roads are
private and they're broken up and they call the city, but the city can't fix it because it's private. That's my summary of the difference of an HOA and a CDD. And that's why I said unless this was going to be Wonderland and it's really
exclusive in its architectural and and public facility improvements, I can't see a CDD being a viable a viable direction myself. That's why I wanted to explain it long suit since you had some questions. And if I'm incorrect, I apologize for misspeaking.
I apologize if I'm speaking out of my uh my educational level, but that's what I know about CDDs and led me to my comment earlier about the economy of scale. >> Ted, your education is far beyond mine. I just want the record to show. I I only
presented those items again as a potential tool that we could use should unfortunately the goal um become cost prohibitive in terms of requirements of if we have to put in a
road or what have you. So it it is not our intention. Um and I don't want us to focus too much on that because we don't we do not desire as as as poorly as HOAs um are viewed in the state of Florida when you look at some of the legislation
that has just passed in terms of changing the government's rules, what have you, we do not desire to implement one whatsoever. But should we have to as a result of um processes in our discussions with the
building department then we will explore that. >> Thank you. >> Member face. >> All right. So I just hope they want I I like to make some things clear. Okay. um the road that they're looking to vacate. Um first,
can you put all eight of your town homes in the current size of that slither along Elizabeth? >> No. Uh only >> so you need more space. >> Yes. So that is where there's the one that is going to be on the south eastern
side of Queen and Elizabeth and then the seven will be on along Elizabeth. All right. And so the depth of that lot right now, right? If you want to set it back, you need that road to be vacated so they can sit back a little bit. >> Correct. >> All right. And then so we talked about
roads. Roads are very expensive to to put in. All right. Are you guys going to be putting in any roads? >> No. >> No. Because they're very expensive to put in. >> Very >> very expensive. And they're very expensive to maintain. >> Extremely. >> All right. So all these parcels that you that you're going to be putting on will be either along Elizabeth or along
Queen. >> Correct. >> All right. So then that just takes care of the road. That allows you with the vacation of the road to put your your your quads back off of Elizabeth a little bit, back off of Queen a little bit. And then with that road being vacated, the rest of that land back
there that's not being used, you're turn that into a retention pond. >> Correct. >> All right. So I did that slow walk so people can visualize what you're doing. Um, and so when you talk about potentially using HOAs, that's only to pay for said improvements such as cable.
>> Correct. >> Or lawn service or maintaining if if there was a park near that lake. >> Exactly. >> To maintain that. to to the gentleman's point about, you know, uh whether it was going to be a full lake or or or an empty retention pond, you know, we had
discussed potentially having some bench seating or some other things in in in that. >> All right. So, so that's what it So, if there was an HOA, which by the way, developers are the ones that determine whether it's going to be HOA or not, not anybody else. They determine that, right? And because it's part of the
deeding process. Um, so if you guys were to do an HOA, it would be a minimal one to take care of the property that they're all participating in. >> That's correct. >> Okay. But we don't really want that if we can avoid it. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. So, so then what we're looking for are eight parcels that are
built facing the road. >> That it reduces your requirement for paying for utilities because that tapping on utilities are extremely expensive. >> So, that reduces that that that that cost there. And then we have seven on Elizabeth, one on Queen. There are your
eight parcels. All right. And you're asking for again it at that medium density would work. And you've already said that you do the medium density. >> That's correct. We just, you know, as they say, aim for the stars, you'll end up on the moon. >> Got it was there. Uh there is precedent
for extending existing zoning use across the street. So that is why we decided to ask for And just so that you know, sir, did you guys try to buy the parcel across the street? >> We did not as of yet. Um, >> no, we >> Okay. No, no worries. No worries. Um,
because again with the medium density, if you take Queen, excuse me, Elizabeth going south on the other side of Queen. Um, there's been some new development over there. A lot of single lot scattered lots have built a lot of small homes along in that neighborhood of Lincoln Heights Heights there. So um so
there has been some new development in that area um of scattered lots single family scattered lots in that area and as well as um Mr. stand here talks a lot about the other development that's being on the north side of Elizabeth. Um and uh
>> I remember the uh the gentleman it's I think >> he's right there behind you. Okay. >> That guy right there Stan talks about a lot and and that's a high is it high density that that on that corner there? >> Yes. >> Okay. And that so that's high density. So there is some development going going on along Elizabeth. You guys are just
trying to build there as well. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Uh any other Do you have anything else for the >> No, I I appreciate you guys. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other cards for you?
>> Yes. Stan Johnston. Uh, my name is my name is Stan Johnston and uh I have some some concerns about this because we've been talking about this for about over half an hour and the
problem is is is that uh I see because I'm I'm the engineer of record of at least a dozen subdivisions around here and I'm a registered engineer and a registered plan. I've been with LA Melvin, uh, Loy Warden Company, TWWA
services. So for those three companies were here in town and I'm also I'm continuing practicing right now. But, uh, some things concerned me about what was mentioned by Mr. Face and he he mentioned that that they would ma that
you're required to maintain the streets. That's not true. That's not true. If you if you build streets, you can have them dedicated to the public. that would be the normal way to do it. So the there was that's not and I'm concerned about the choices we have
uh whether it's going to be R3, R2 or some other kind of uh let's see am I supposed to give my opinion on three different things? Uh and then the um vacation of the uh of the Gail Street,
Gail Gail Avenue, that's uh straightforward. I'd say that would be the first thing to do. Now, Mr. U Bill or whoever it is, and he mentioned that that uh um they that they decided to do this first. Well, that is back
backwards. It's really backwards. And I I he said he mentioned it about an engineer. No engineer would recommend that you do it this way because it's backwards. You go ahead and vacate the street first, then you ask for the the U or do it simultaneously. You just don't
do it that way. So for those reasons, it also uh I've heard it said uh 18 to 54 units, not 40 units. It can be 54 units at least. So, so I'm I'm I'm concerned
about what staff is doing and why staff would even allow it to to go this way when I'm going backwards. I mean, staff would have should have enough common sense to say this is not the way to do it. You do the vacation first then you go for the for the reason or you do it
or you do it simultaneously. This is backwards completely backwards. That's why I can't I can't approve of this. Uh I'm just guess it's like speculative reszoning. Uh you you need to know what you what you got before you reszone it.
You should you should do the u vacation first. No no no question about it. Vacation first. So I'm against it for that that very reason. I think it'd be easy for him to go ahead correct it or withdraw it do the resoning first because that's the way it should should
go. I have no uh um any questions anybody has on this because I'm an expert on this actually. >> Thank you. Any other cards? >> Yes. Kathleen O.
>> Hello there. Dr. Kathleen O. I actually had a question earlier that got answered, but I just wanted to make a comment as I'm listening as a homeowner in Titusville. and this plan could have the best intentions, but I can't tell you how many things have been reszoned and then
sold, flipped, and something else happens. And I'm very concerned about that. And I would really strongly encourage you not to leave that kind of opening for potential problems for the homeowners. Thank you. >> Anything else,
>> Vicky Conklin? Thank you, Conklin. I'd like to kind of second what Kathleen said, even though we didn't talk about it together, but the gentleman certainly has good intentions and I applaud him for thinking ahead and what he wants to do for the community, but it seems to be
pretty poor planning, not well thought out yet. So, he's not ready for prime time yet before you all. Sounds like he needs to get his plan together a little bit better, get his financing together, his concept plan together. Exactly. the road is situation. There's too many
things that are up in the air. Um the street issue, what impact would it have on the single family next door? Uh I think counselor um Mr. Gar has some really good comments with that. U if we transition from single family and then
all of a sudden we're into maybe 32 units, maybe 54 units, maybe 66 units. There seems to be a lot of things up in the air. If there's not a definite plan that people present when they want to do plans before, I think the city deserves
better and the citizens deserve better rather than approve my zoning now and I'll figure it out later and then I'll just submit it to staff. I think we deserve a little bit better than that. >> Thank you. Any more?
>> No more cards. >> Okay. Um I'll close the public hearing. Oh, do you have an opportunity for rebuttal if if you choose? >> You have Yeah, you need to do a card. >> Hello, I'm Jeremiah Fory. I guess I'm
the principal of the second owner for the property in the development. And um I guess yes, we did choose not to submit right now to give us a little bit of leniency. Our plan is not to build a road is to utilize the road, the facilities and the utilities that's already there on Elizabeth. So that's
one of the reasons why we did that. Um so yes, our our plan was a question was asked about uh the width of the pond. So it's 145 ft wide. It's about 400 ft deep. So we we did calculate and call and then kind of hold off a lot for the
storm water. um that may change when we get into the engineering. Uh I don't think it was just poor planning or uh low financial means of the project. It was more of just uh the road needs to be vacated. We know that. But if the road wasn't vacated and we do get the
resoning, we can still as well put the same amount of facilities on here just leaving that slot of land out front that we tal that we that we seen and utilize the the rightway that's there. So, it's not the cart before the horse, it's just the way we submitted it. Um, we we did
get pushed from November to December to now. So, a lot of things played a factor on why we're here before the rightway got vacated. So, just want to bring that up. >> So, can just clarify. >> Yep. Can you because I I think it was
asked before and and it was that the project couldn't move forward if the vacation didn't take place, but you seem to indicate that even without the vacation, you could >> it it'll be challenging, but the vacate
is is is wanted and needed. It's right now it's a paper road. Um we don't really want to put in our goal is to make this uh affordable housing. Uh so it is affordable. the more we spend on putting in facilities, roads, uh it becomes not so affordable. And so based
on the neighborhood, we want to make it affordable. We've built over 37, I believe, homes in the neighborhood now. We made them all affordable. We do that with, you know, efficient building practices. And so this is just part of that, just trying to do it as efficient as possible. Um, same thing, paying the
engineer to pre-esign something, coming into P&Z, and having to change it again. Um, big builders do it all the time, but we want to make it affordable and we did not want to do that. We very well can, but it's just it's just wasting money that at the end of the day, our end
buyers are paying for that. >> Thank you. >> Uh, I'm sorry, Member Grant. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I think I want to address staff with a question and maybe it'll frame up my concern of the direction the discussion goes about
cart before the horse. There is a land use designation that was assigned to this property at some point in time and a paper street exists. Could the development of the property based on the current land use and zoning
be accomplished without opening that street? Let's just be facitious and say one home on the red box to the west of the road and one home on the red box to the east of the road. I think your answer would have to be yes.
>> It it would be yes. I don't know if that would be financially feasible. >> I'm not I'm not into finances. I'm into colors on the map. >> We're looking at colors on the map and the applicants wanting a different color on the map. >> Yes. >> Whether it's the zoning color or the comparable future land use or vice
versa. It's a color on the map. regardless of a paper street, regardless of a platted rideway, and regardless if it was an improved road. If it was, I want to build one home on the big box to the west, and I want to build one home on the box to the right,
and the land use and zoning provide for that. The applicant would present a building permit and construct it. There'd be no public hearing amongst us and no discussion of anything. It would just meet the building code. Am I assuming that's correct, too? >> That's correct. And if I wanted to open
the street, and I think that was spoken of earlier, that if I wanted to open the street and consulted with the city, they would say, "We have no interest in open the street, but if you build it to the city standard, and we test it, make sure it's good, and when we accept it, it'll
become our public street, and you can take access to the sideyard of the one home on the box to the right and the one home on the box to the left." That sound plausible? That's correct. >> So in this instance, there is no cart before the horse in my opinion because
we're just coloring the map. A potential density and an allocation for how many you could get on a zoning standard based on side setbacks and height limits and all the sunundry matters that are zoning related. The applicant seeks to change land use and zoning. What happens next
happens next. Vacating the road based on what your plan is. More than one home on the big box to the west. more than one home with a big box to the right, many homes, maybe quadruplexes, whatever the code allows. So, if we approve the color
change on the map as requested, or we accept that we can get the number of boxes I want to get based on a less intense land use and a less intense zoning, we still at this point tonight would only be recommending the colors on
the map so as to speak. Does that sound correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. Just to make sure everybody's following me here, getting into the weeds with potentiality isn't really what's the discussion. It's a color on a map, one color or the other color. So, I
just thought I'd add that to the fray and I'll quit. >> Thank you. >> And thank you question. >> Um I'm ready to make a motion there. >> Thank you. Okay. So, number one, uh
first steps close public hearing. I did have one question um related to the colors on the map is since this isn't vacated but if we move forward and change the colors on the map are we changing also
changing the color on the vac the portion the right the rightway portion >> that's correct so typically the properties would be divided down the middle and then allocated to the adjacent properties >> and and they'll assume whatever land use
is is on since they're both the same or would be both the same. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> Member Cher. >> Yeah. I'd like to make a motion uh to approve uh medium density residential uh with the multif family medium density
R2. Um, I guess this is for >> Well, do do you need the land use first or the does it matter what order we >> Yes, separate or >> Yeah, we would just for consistency, we would request two motions. One for the future land use and one for the zoning.
>> Does it matter what order he does? >> Okay. >> Okay. I'll I'll make a motion >> the zoning. >> Okay. Yeah, I'll make for that one for SSA number 7-2025 1400 Elizabeth Avenue quadriplex build. Does anyone care to second that?
>> Second. >> Okay. And any discussion before we take a vote? Member Charles, >> are we So, um, so I member Gar mentioned earlier about
the um the street and the traffic, you know, uh, it not being a collector road. Are we concerned about that at all or are you still concerned about that? Actually, I appreciate you asking the question. I was kind of focusing on what we've had before us before about
connectivity. I think there was a discussion about Rock Pit Road once about how it connects these two roads, so it qualified. You may recall the old school site and it was coming out on the local street, but it collected to the big road. So, I just wanted to reiterate
that ambiguity that remains a problem that someday maybe we can address to kind of remove that question that keeps arising about am I on a collector road or do I drive five miles through the neighborhood to get there? That was the point of my discussion.
>> I remember us trying to clarify that and we got a lot of push back trying to just talk about that. >> But yeah, um >> yeah. Okay. Okay. And then uh the other Yeah, I get my my biggest hang-up is the is
the not you know having that buffer between the single family home and the you know and then transitioning to the medium or the high density right there um or
medium density. But um I I mean I think I think he's a very genuine person when Mr. Williams, right? I think he's a very genuine person and I I totally believe what his intentions are. Um I guess uh
but if we reszone it, it will still, you know, even if he, you know, if they sell it or something, then >> it doesn't really matter. >> Is it coming offers part of the ordinance? >> Is it part of the Is so is it is it part of the the uh
ordinance that between if you have a single family home zoning or land use over here and then right next to it you have this zoning that there has to be a good buffer between them. >> I mean the required buffer between multifamily and single family in the
code is a minimum of 20 feet in width. So they have to So if we resone this, there's a 20 foot buffer that has to be correct. >> That's how Royal Manor Town Homes was. >> Well, the the other nice thing about it that I like is it's a mature buffer. So
he's just going to leave the trees and Yeah. instead of a bunch of little sticks that are going to grow into. >> So for the code it has to be an un like they can't touch it, right? So it has to be what's there already. They can clean it up, I guess, right? if it's, you
know, brush under brush, but the trees, the foliage under the coat that that like uh Royal Manor had, they had to do a 20 foot buffer, but they said it was natural that they couldn't touch that 20 foot. >> That makes sense. And then they still have to have the the if you're if you're
building so many units, you still have to have that retention pond or whatever for >> And then you have to have so many feet in to anyway to the house. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'm good. I'm good. Um, seeing no others, um, roll call
vote, please. >> For clarity, u, Mr. FA said he wanted to abstain, but according to this form, you only abstain if there's a financial gain or loss. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, you'll vote.
>> I'll vote. >> Okay. >> Member Troutman. Yes, >> member FA. >> Yes, >> vice chairman Childs. >> Yes, >> member Scully. >> Yes, >> member Grod. >> Yes, >> member Gillan. >> Yes, >> Chairman Eton.
>> Yes. >> Uh, passes unanimously on the zoning. Um, you want to go on a roll and get the uh land use motion? I'll uh make a motion for the future land uh use motion for medium density residential
um for let me pull it up here sorry for SSA number 7-2025400 Elizabeth Avenue quadro quadriplex build uh second >> I will second member
>> Kellan seconds uh any discussion on the land Please. >> Uh, seeing none, uh, roll call, please. Sorry. >> Member FA, >> yes. >> Member Gellen, >> yes. >> Member Grod, >> yes. >> Member Troutman, >> yes. >> Member Scully, >> yes.
>> Vice Chairman Childs, >> yes. >> Chairman Eton, >> yes. >> All right. And and just for clarification, that is the R2 medium density zoning. We approved not the original request, but the applicant uh agreed that they were fine with the
medium density residential. >> And chairman, just again, just for the record, I've never spoken to these gentlemen before. I've never met them before. So, who I spoke with was a previous owner of this parcel. Okay. Just be clear, the previous owner, not these gentlemen. Okay. >> Okay.
>> You're good. Your your questions were great tonight, by the way. So, and and your background. Uh I think we're ready for 9D. All right. Uh 9D is uh the Christian Court Town Homes preliminary plat. So Christian Court Town Homes, formerly
known as Mercedes Town Homes, is a proposed 72 unit town home subdivision on approximately 7 acres located north of Garden Street behind McDonald's in O'Reilly Auto Parts. Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat for consistency with the comprehensive plan and land
development regulations and is making a recommendation of approval. >> There's finally going to be something in that circle. >> The circle to nowhere >> and I'd be happy to take any questions you have from staff. >> Uh let's see. Alternate member.
>> Thank you. Um, when I was reading this, it says that the uh former property developer who owns it now. >> Um, the I mean since the original plan was
built, it has been sold. Um, I I don't have >> let's see. I don't have the name of the current owner at this time. Who's the >> I believe I believe the applicant is here >> to address questions.
>> Okay. >> Uh >> Kim, >> hi. >> All right. I I'll open a public hearing then for the applicant. >> Um good Yeah. Good evening. for the record, Kim Fischer. I'm the engineer of record for the project. I was just
texting the owner. He's out of the country right now because I can't remember the name of the LLC, but he just closed. It did just close, I think either two or three weeks ago. So, um the current the current, but when paperwork was done, it was the former
owner. So, and I'm just blanking on the LLC name that he formed it under. >> Your client owns the >> My client now owns it. Yes. as of I think three weeks now. Two or three weeks, he's probably enjoying his time in the
Caribbean and not texting me back quickly. >> Member Gar, >> one one question, Mr. Chairman, for the representative. the site plan, the preliminary plat shows your uh Alicia Lane terminating southward and I'm
looking at the aerial photographs that are provided in the package and I'm not seeing a ride of way coming in there. Where does that road go to? >> Um on the aerial it doesn't it ends right there and that's how it currently exists. So, I don't know if there's a
tree covering or not, but it does dead end right behind is it O'Reilly's? >> O O'Reilly's. Um, I think I understand. So, if I reference this on staff will help me with this on page 186 or 187, you see the FEMA map. That's the best
depiction I can say. I see. And in the FEMA map, you'll see it depicts a track of land. It says city of Titusville, and it shows a culde-sac. And then you see a green line running through it. Is that like a undeveloped but perhaps improved
street? >> So the culde-sac is the public rightway portion which is there and then there's a loop road that goes around that's actually there and was built. >> A loop road as in a traveled way a a >> a two-way road. >> A paved road is a public street.
>> Private. >> It's a private street and it terminates end of pavement at the property boundary. Yes. >> And your proposal is to have a two-lane section road terminate at the end of the property boundary. >> Well, it's a dead end. There's there's a
dead end that meets fire regulations. >> Fully understand. That's what surprises me is staff's analysis doesn't provide for either a hammerhead or a temporary hold, a turnaround. It dead ends. And for fire apparatus to do that in a 50-ft rideway is not possible. So, what did
the fire folks say about a terminal road that dead ends in a 50- foot rideaway with no turnaround? >> Can I answer? I actually Okay. Um, the requirement for fire is 150 ft. If you extend 150 ft, you have to do a turnaround. If you don't ex exceed 150
ft, you don't have to have a turnaround. And that's the NFPA rule. >> Your whole Alicia lane is only 150 ft or less. >> No. And maybe we're talking about two different things. the road loops all the way around. >> I know. I wish you could point with your
finger. >> You're saying that the dead in Okay, so you're saying the fire marshall's office has determined that if from the center access of that curve where Alicia Lane meets Alicia Lane. Sorry you don't have that plan in front of you. I thought you
might. Um, you're you're saying the less than 150 ft allows you to have a dead-end two-lane section road with no no potential for turnaround. >> They back out of that. >> They back out. >> That'd be Yes. >> I don't really know where you're
speaking of the >> Do you want to see my >> I I know. I know. Can you point? >> Sure. >> Yep. I got that. I got that. And what that is showing me exactly what your plat So, you're familiar with your plat proposed, right? In the proposed plat, we'll give you reference lots 37 through
40T 42. And on the west side, it would be what is tracked L through lot 43. The road terminates within a 50-ft rideway with no turnaround. No provision for that. >> I'm getting there. >> That's that is the section that does not
exceed the 150 ft. So, it meets fire. And how far is it that it doesn't exceed 150 ft? >> I don't know what the exact dimension is, but that's the NFPA rule is the 150 ft. So that means we're within we're less than 150 ft, >> right? It's 148.
>> Yeah. So, and potentially staff, as we recommend this, even though we do have a standard which is public safety, life safety, doesn't it mean that by recommendation we can have an enhanced and improved public safety consideration? Not that I'm a fireman. I
always wanted to be, but I'm not. Um, but I am experienced to say that dead-end roads at a cusp difference of two feet doesn't mean much to a fireman when he's trying to back a truck up with cars parked in the street in a town home development where the bottleneck
prohibits that and they have to back up because they meant to go to lot uh 46, not 42. So, in consideration, you have tracks K and L. Are those water management areas? dry retention or wet retention.
Sorry. Um, may may I address the commission wall where they're looking for the answer? The reason I'm I just mentioned my reason of concern that two-foot difference. But more importantly is that when you have a code, the code implementers have to do what the code
says. That doesn't mean that that's the best best process. It's the best safest process, but you could be safer. And I'm thinking two feet may be warranting a little safer consideration. So what was your response to that? >> They're open space. And I want to back
up for a minute. This project is already built. You guys are probably It's had a lot of homeless. So, the infrastructure is in, the water services are in, the sewer services are in, the road is in. We're just trying to pick up the pieces, get the homeless out, and move forward.
So, this is something we've kind of inherited. You may not like it that you may not like it. Um, but other than to say that, you know, we do meet the code. We do meet NFPA. um there hasn't been an issue is I I would completely agree with you if it
was hey let's add two more feet this is a little bit different because this is >> quite frankly it's not adding two more feet and may I ask what can be developed on this existing project you say homeless people I assume it's not in vacant land >> excuse me >> it's vacant land or or their homes
occupied either >> no no no homeless I there was homeless in >> camp it's a homeless camp as they may refer to it okay germaine to that Can they build on this property based on the approved subdivision that doesn't exist but somewhat exist? This street to
nowhere. >> What can be built on this land without a preliminary plat before us? >> It's our our R3 multifamily. So it would be multifamily development, town homes, apartments, things like that. >> But the code that's in effect could allow that to be built. Whatever that
is. >> That's correct. >> And the road is a public road. It's a private road >> that other than the Christian court, the rest of the roadway is a private roadway. >> So, alternatively, you can build what the code allows you to build now. You're proposing an alternative design. So, all
in intent and purposes, I view this as day one. and whether the NFPA requires a maximum of 150 ft. It certainly seems to me that when you responded and affirmed that we don't have an impedance for you to do a hammerhead turnaround, which is
most common when you have that kind of architecture and design, you could do a culde-sac, but the radius is going to be greater because then the NFPA is going to tell you it's going to have to be an 80 foot radius and you're going to lose three of those lots. A hammerhead design perpendicular to the street allows a
turnaround and is an alternate to the NFPA code for an 80 foot uh turnaround ramp culde-sac. Um so would you consider in the preliminary and you have to go through the final engineering plans on this before the final plat's presented
>> kind of sort of. This one's a little bit different because the infrastructure is already there. So, we're not really building anything. We're going to correct some things. Like, for instance, the asphalt's been sitting dormant for 20 years. And asphalt, believe it or
not, if it's not being used, it deteriorates faster than if it is being used. So, we'll like do an overlay on the asphalt, then we'll have >> a little bit more than that in my opinion, if it's been 20 years in remission. But my point still remains the same. If a recommendation comes from
this body to the city council that this preliminary plat enhance the turnaround for emergency vehicles with a hammerhead design. As an engineer, you're familiar with what that reference is. A hammerhead design, >> of course. >> Okay. So, does the commission understand what I'm speaking about? Good. So, that
would mean that you would have to re-engineer probably a minor engineering change to show what asphalt's being in improved. And I'm sure that the minor amount of asphalt that emergency turn would do would be inconsequential to the current water management design. Just my
opinion if it wasn't any alteration that would occur, which you're altering the proposal by these subdivision lines you're showing. So something's altering from the original design. >> No, we're we're not. We're we're following the same format of what was
previously presented and approved by the city and what was previously built. Hopefully it didn't succeed because they didn't have the hammerhead. And I'm going to make the project more successful by suggesting that an emergency turn regardless of the recommendation of the fire marshal based
on the minimum NFPA code. I think we can get there and I think it would be beneficial. Certainly it would be helpful in an emergency situation. That's all I have to ask your question. So thank you >> alternate member. >> Thank you. So the first um proposal
which became null and void is my understanding. So this is so that it's done over with as I'm trying to understand this and now we're presenting with this. Is this a new proposal or are
you using the prior proposal and going off of that which is no longer exists according to what was given to us? >> Are you referring to the prior proposal 20 years ago? >> The one? >> Yes, that's the that's the same plan we're using.
>> That's the same plan we're using. So you're going So basically it was null and void and you're coming before now to get it approved. So is what I'm hearing is you're saying it's >> No, I don't believe so. I believe the
question is is there a recorded subdivision that this depiction of your preliminary plat is of record? >> So what happened? Yes and no. So what happened is they got approved final construction plans and then they went through construction did construction.
The economy happened 2007208 and they never platted. So the answer is no. >> So well there was an approved construction set out of plans. That's >> the legal description is properties by meats and bounds. >> Correct. Because it was never platted. >> You answered my question firmly. Thank you. So your answer is there is no card
on the table. It's a it's a piece of land. It's got improvements and there's a time here to reflect on that unless and I'll qualify myself. >> It's not meats and bounds by the way. There it's part of a plat but it's the same thing. We get to the same place. >> Okay. Same place. It's not these little
on the road. >> Correct. >> The question then I would have if and we get to a recommendation that concerns this and considerations given favorably. I certainly am not going to be the fire marshal. So staff goes back to the fire marshal and he says absolutely not. We
can't do that. It's no good. Then that would be reported to city council and I wouldn't be ashamed to say at least gave it a shot. But to make an alteration of the minor consequence I'm speaking of on the end of that road would be inconsequential I believe and very gerine to what happens if and we all
have to think about what happens if >> we do I I appreciate your feedback just know that we are abiding by code and so we are just moving forward with the way it was designed the way it was originally built and just trying to move forward. Would you fairly consider that
uh in response to it's per code, is it favorable that the commission can make recommendations that exceed code? >> You guys are allowed to make whatever recommendations behoove you. >> Can I ask our attorney if a recommendation this board were to come forward because of concerns like I'm
sure you're following where I'm going to or where I'm coming from. If so, is it prohibitive for the council or the commission, the members here to concern something like this? As it concerns me as a member to make a recommendation that it have an improvement that goes a
step beyond code, assuming that's not excessive and unwarranted. >> You're permitted to make that recommendation. Yes. >> Thank you. So, anyway, as I said, but what I would hope that everybody would consider, it's an opportunity to fix a 20-year-old problem. I think the
applicant's representative is trying to fix a 20-year-old problem of a defunct proposed subdivision that's not occupied with taxpayer um beneficial dwellings. >> Yes, we're we're just going to differ in our opinion on if this dead end is a
problem or not. That's all. >> We'll have to see. But you didn't have the answer about the fire marshal. The report says that he was part of the staff's review. I don't see >> the fire marshall is part of this review and has approved >> and he said it meets code >> correct >> and my concern is at two foot I'm not
sure I'm satisfied that the code is the code and we can't make a minor alteration and my concern thank you very much for the delay in me speaking member child >> um I only know this because my son used
to live had a house um on the east side of this property and it was sometime I think it Last year, uh, this property got a variance for that east side. Is that still in effect? I'm just curious. There was like a variance because of the
burn that was back there or something. >> Yeah, it was part of it. Part of the variance was um I think we with landscaping because of the old code versus the new code. And then we're still uncovering some stuff as they'll start to clear it
up because it was overgrown and part of it is high and part of it is low. So we know most of the infrastructure that's been put in, but once we do some more clearing, we'll probably have to put in like another swale along that east side as well, which was one of the
things we tackled with the variance was some drainage right there. So there is a a utility um and drainage easement. Actually, I think that easement might exist already. Um because this was a part of a previous plat already. This is like I think maybe lot one of the
overall development that was McDonald's and um the auto parts store. But but yeah. >> Okay. Because was it was it like um I was just I was even at the very I was at the meeting and stuff but it was something like a a 10 foot or 10 foot
addition or reduction of a 10 foot. It was is because because there's a utility and drainage easement along the property line. We couldn't do the buffer there because that's Thank you. It was over it was like over a year ago. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But that was what it was is because of that utility.
>> Take that into consideration, I guess. I I assume so. Right. Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Member FA. >> So, thank you for coming. >> Thank you. >> Question along the lines of this young man here. Um, and again, I I know that that numbers are tight and construction
costs are high. >> Could you take it back to the owners to possibly in good faith and goodwill consider the hammerhead? >> I can ask them, but I also already know how many lots they would use would lose by doing something. It sounds simple on paper, but the reality is is they're
going to lose several lots from that. >> And so I think at this stage and the cost they have into it, I don't I well I represent them. I'm not them, but I don't think they will. And you know, we've we've been at this for
over a year, so they've been paying a lot of money in interest. They just closed, but don't think interest started. He's been paying interest to the previous owner for over a year. >> Yeah. I mean, I've seen this property. >> It's it's it's gone through some hands. It's gone through some some tough times. >> Yeah, for sure.
>> Um and and and there's a lot of work to do to get it even >> to a buildable state. I completely understand that. But again, just again, just asking for our our our first responders that um if they'd be willing to do that. That's my only question. >> I'll ask.
>> Thank you, >> Alen member. >> Thank you. Um my one question, uh you said that all the utilities and um there is an internal roadway that is not in good shape. Um, but will all the uh
existing utilities, internal roadways and site improvements be in that were installed by the former developer, will they be evaluated, tested, and brought into compliance? >> Yes. >> With the current city engineering standards and land development that we have now?
>> Yes, that's one of our requirements. >> Okay. >> You're welcome. >> Member Gar of question for the applicant's representative. When you say that as an engineer, you know that can't work. That's because there's 25 plus feet remaining, which would represent in
a paved surface area a residential street standard. Pavement versus right of way. I'm not positive that it can't be done. I'm not an engineer and I wouldn't want to be an engineer looking at that so quickly to know that. But in my mind, what I see going down there is
either 25 feet of pavement and marked as a temporary site. Again, referencing a hammerhead and alternatives where improvements may have to complicate engineering plans. Impervious but rigid improvements can be done which are
subsurface pavers are what people see, but they have a gritted batter which are resilient to the weight 80,000 pounds of a fire apparat. >> Thank you. So either of those satisfy my concern that something is there other
than soft sand that gets a truck stuck and that somehow in the plan it becomes improved to a recognizable degree that the driver of an emergency vehicle knows they can hang a right back up and hang a right out within 25 ft of pavement which
would be a residential street. Again, it's not a rideway so it doesn't warrant 50 feet of width. >> I understand. >> Okay. So that's where I'm headed when you brought >> or 24 feet of width. We don't need if we're talking a hammerhead, not a culde-sac. But in order for me to get a full hammerhead in there, I would have
to lose units on the end because I still have to maintain my landscaping buffer. Since the landscaping buffer goes up to the edge of the town home unit to put a true hammerhead, I have to lose units. That's again why I suggest an alternative which would provide the weightbearing surface needed for
emergency vehicle and not compromise the landscape buffer because landscaping can be provided in light of that area but it would provide that turnaround without being a formal road rideway. As I said an 80 foot radius is what the fire apparatus needs. >> So you want to put the the hammerhead in
the landscaping buffer and get rid of the landscaping buffer. It's it's not about weight. It's not about more impervious area. It's it's negligible, but I would have to get rid of the landscaping buffer in order to put the hammerhead. So that's why >> Well, don't sound so holistic. It's not the landscaping buffer. It would be a
portion of whatever landscaping buffer would be required along track K and track L on the southern boundary of your property. Would that be more correctly said? some >> I don't know if it's K or L, but whatever is south of those two buildings, those two town home buildings, which if I remember
correctly, that is the landscaping buffer. >> And it sounds as if what I'm asking to do isn't a 100 foot distance of pavement. It's usually the length of the truck. And in some instances, it may even be >> 40t plus, but
>> correct. So that would be roughly onethird of the length of the lot, 43, where a landscape buffer would be. It's not about the length of of it's where do I put that turnaround. We came in here for a variance and the variance was specific that we followed the landscaping plan that we came in front
of the board in front of. Now that would affect that because I would have to put that turnaround I have to put that turnaround somewhere. So >> how many variance I wasn't here when that happened. What's the >> there was a a variance for the landscaping that we just spoke about and so we had to do an alternative
landscaping and so we had to the landscaping that would normally be on the east there was a drainage and utility easement that already existed. >> Am I right? This landscaping buffer is to the commercial development the >> No, it's to the east to the residential.
>> Am I looking at this? >> Well, north is usually to the top. So, am I incorrect? on the >> So, it's actually southeast, I guess, would be more correct. I'm talking about the boundary that's uh against >> the southern boundary. Yeah, I'm not
wrong. It's southern boundary. >> O'Reilly's right. So, in order to put a hammerhead there, I have to have a minimum of 20 feet width is required for NFPA. That 20 feet, if I'm going to go towards the east and to the west, I would have to take it from the landscaping buffer or I have to lose
units. >> I'm with you. What I'm asking is in terms of geographic descriptions, the southern boundary is the terminus of the paved road. I'm asking to consider putting a hammerhead perpendicular to that paved surface within the 25 ft of
what's called track K and what's part of track L for a distance as you reported would be 40T and it would be 20 feet of pavement. So for 40t by 20 feet, it would compromise some degree of the landscaping buffer that was required. Is that my understanding?
>> That's part of it. And then the other part of it is how close that pavement would be to the actual town home unit itself. I don't want to have to pavement 2 feet from the foundation of a town home. And if I remember correctly, there's probably only
if it's 20, it could be 20t there, but it may be less. So I have to have 20 feet. I have to have a return to grade on the other side. So I would have to lose units in order to get a hammerhead in there. >> A return to grade based on asphalt
improvements, impervious asphalt as opposed to an alternative. We discussed >> grass I can go four to one. Asphalt I can't >> grass is susceptible to wear and tear and obviously getting stuck is the concern I have. So you mentioned the word I'm sorry I don't recall.
>> I'm sorry. a a geo but a a geog grid. But um with a fire it I believe NFPA >> it is a hard surface and but I would imagine your fire marshall would probably want
it to be paved. I can't imagine your fire he could it's got to be stabilized but I'm going to guess but I'm >> I'm pretty sure that geog grids do comply with NFPA. I've seen them used a number of times. So >> again, I can't have a slope. I hear what
you're saying. I'll I'll I'll ask. But right now, right now, I don't know that the owner is going to want to do that. There's going to be unintended consequences to doing that. And I'm not going to be able to have some kind of a stabilized surface that close to a road. Could you imagine if your house if
literally >> 6 in there all the time? >> I'm sorry. >> The truck's not going to be there all the time, frankly. And secondly, >> well, if this is our concern, let's address it as a concern. So, I could also say that the truck's not going to be there all the time and for them to
back up 150 ft's not not that's what the NFPA is for, >> right? And when cars are parked in the streets, as they often times do in multiple family dwellings notwithstanding their town homes, therein is the impedance. >> That's a code enforcement issue. >> Yeah. Well, you can't call a code
enforcement officer during an emergency situation to ask people to take 30 days to make. >> I quite quite frankly I'm not satisfied with your answers, >> but I'm I'm I'll go with where I am right now. I'm just not satisfied with your answer. >> And I'm sorry. I'm just trying to let you know that there's not room without
losing one to two units per side. I I can attest to that. I'm confident in that. We would have to lose units. >> Would you do me a courtesy? Sure. >> And staff can help me with this. >> I've voiced my opinion. I think it's a valid
opinion. All opinions are valid, right? >> Yes. But my concern is valid because potential can be there. So for that and also to respond to your concern losing lots or what the fire marshall do, my suggestion is how this goes on the
approvals where it goes. But between now and the city council meeting, go back and see if you can't hardline the answer to be more u u analytical and perhaps if analytically speaking it can be done and it doesn't suffer grade change problems
or impact the foundations and the fire marshall will accept the geo grids as a substantially improved area supporting 80,000 pounds of truck weight and that it is in fact an alternative to the NFPA. If all that works out to say yes, we not only can do it, we will do it,
then I feel a lot better tonight than I would be otherwise. >> I will commit to that. >> Thank you very much. Member Child, >> I just want to make sure the fire marshal, so when they when the fire marshall reviews this, is his opinion
based solely on the code or would the fire marshall possibly give an opinion that you know, oh well that's the code, but I mean because really we have we have codes because that's what it I mean I think I think probably a fire marshall
probably said hey we need at least 100 feet and then someone's like well let's make it at least 150 ft. I don't know. Like, so that's why we have the code and that's why they have it already is because they decided on 150 ft. So if it's anything less than 150 ft, then you
know they've already said, "Hey, that would that would you know be be fine because that's how they codified it." just just to speak about uh experiencing codes. You may recall in Florida they used to use uh uh uh three tab shingles
and you could staple them to the stapled um uh tar paper on particle board housing and then this hurricane blew through Miami, ripped all the houses apart and all these people got together and they rewrote the code. The code today is different. >> Another example of code changes.
>> I live in a home built in the 50s and the home's front door opens outward. I owned a home in the uh late 70s and the code required the door to open inward and you buy a home today and it can open outward and fire codes used to have 60 foot radi for a culde-sac and then they
had a problem so they increased it to 80 codes usually respond to problems >> and they are subject to problem I haven't heard that we have we had a problem with this I guess is that >> well if the culdeac >> I guess that's why I want to know would the fire marshall possibly say you know
the code does say 150, but right here um this would be a problem. I So I mean I I do you know if the fire marshall would actually give an opinion other than hey this meets code or not? >> I can't really speak. >> I mean I would think so. I would think
that a fire marshal who is who, >> you know, they're responsible for safety of the citizens would see it and then say, you know what, I it meets code, but I'm just going to give my recommendation that they do this, too, because I don't want to send, you know, my men down here
and women down here to, you know, uh, to address a fire emergency and there's a problem. And so, I would think that the fire marshall would say something. I don't I mean I'm not trying to discount or chain. I'm just saying that >> and typically review I mean staff
regardless of fire utilities I mean we often off offer uh you know suggestions or recommendations but those are just that so typically those are >> to at least explore this >> I understand willing to explore I think it's a worthy exploration and to um
>> I think maybe just talk to the fire marshal and see what you really >> we did we've gone over this extensively with >> what did he say they're fine with it but I mean we went over doing a 13R system versus regular fire hydrant. So, this has been looked at and I think we've
gone through two fire marshals since we started this project, but um yes, so the fire marshall was very much involved in this. >> Okay. >> Well, I would appreciate it if you do explore this and know what what is the outcome to that if I can, how our staff projects, just my interest in whether
it's worthy or not. That'd be my just my helpful opinion if it's of any help. One thing I would add is something the experiences I've had lead to my questions. I apologize, but these kinds of projects also lead the fire marshall to the problem of on street parking and
all the good codes in the world don't prohibit the parking in the street that impedes the the vehicles and the response is always the same. Well, call code enforcement and they go to write parking tickets or if they put a no park, it just lends itself into a
problem. So, doesn't mean you could have this improvement I'm looking at not have cars parked in the street. The fire truck can't go the first foot of the >> They'll use it as parking spaces, >> right? But appreciate you're looking into it. That's what I think it's important. >> Alternative member.
>> Thank you. I'd like to say thank you for bringing this up because what I'm hearing is you have a concern for the citizens, the neighborhood, the potential, and looking out for the community.
And what I hear on this side is the builder doesn't want to lose two spots or two town homes or two building sites and we're willing to overlook the potential safety issues of the
community. So I'm I would like to look at the safety of the community even though that they do say it is within code. We have a reality. The reality is people will be parking on that street. You cannot
bring EMS, 911 to an emergency. Your mother's at the last lot and they can't get in because there are cars there. Even though the fire marshall said this this, the reality is what we're looking at in our job is to look at what the
community impact is and if we can protect the community and if the developer is please be willing to listen to that because if we just go for the developer and not the community that is my concern
here. I would really like you to present it with such I think two lots in order to make a turnaround to make it safe for everybody just a little bit is worthy to be considered and I would we would really appreciate that in looking at the
community's best interest. >> Thank you. >> Member Faith. >> Well, you mentioned HOAs question. Um, right now currently, how much do you guys plan on selling each unit?
>> I'm sorry, I didn't hear the whole >> How much do you guys plan on selling each unit? >> Oh, I have no idea. They don't tell me that stuff. >> Oh, >> man. I wish then I might realize I'm in the wrong profession. >> Well, no, no, no, no, no. I think you're doing quite well. All right. So, the
reason why I said question, all right, is again the median income for the city of Titusville, um there's been a lot of development here, um that isn't for the residents that live here, it's for those who are coming. Um so, for the gentleman over there, thank you guys for building affordable homes. Um I've seen some of
your >> I call them attainable homes. >> Attainable. >> Attainable homes. >> I I attainable for whom? >> Well, affordable sounds it's got that stigma, doesn't it? >> Sounds like it's attainable. Attainable.
Well, again, so on this panel, I'm probably like the biggest stickler for the price of homes and for the residents who live here. Um, and so I was just asking that question just, you know, because you had mentioned HOA and we hadn't talked about >> who these homes are being built for. Um,
the lots themselves are 20 foot wide. Uh, it's not very, you know, these are these are town homes. So, >> these are town homes. Yes. >> And um, twotory, one story, >> twotory, >> twotory. So, by 1900 >> garage. But um I'm sorry, what was your question? >> Oh, so um how big are they approximately?
>> I think they're about 14,500. I think they're about >> I'm going to go with 12 to400. I believe they might have different sizes, but I haven't seen the architectural renderings or building footprints yet. So, I'm guessing I don't want to be on record that I said something
definitively because I really haven't seen that. >> No, it's okay. >> But we have a minimum. We have a minimum that is required, but it's pretty low. >> Okay. Well, I would I would love it if you if the owners could make these in the price range of those who are from
here, uh, not those who are coming. >> I think it kind of has to. I think it I think that's kind of the market in the area is going to be I'm sorry. And I'm from the Orlando side, so the price here is a little bit different than the price
over there. So, um, and I don't want to pretend like I'm an expert on what your prices are here in Titusville versus what they might be in Mims or versus what they might be in Rocklage, but, um, I I'm usually that usually they put them at some kind of a market rate and not
something elevated where this one's located. I personally would love to live right behind a McDonald's, but >> And O'Reilly. All right. So, you know, >> I will be heading there in a few minutes. >> So, again, I I I I don't want to um uh
insult your intelligence. You you are a very bright woman. Um but when we look at the median income for the city of Titusville, which is about 70,000 now, when it used to be around 56,000 and so when we do between 80 to 120% of that, um that's not the median income of those
who live here, of those who are coming. Um and so for house for those individuals are roughly, I think at this point, $350,000. And when we're looking at town homes, I'm looking at probably in that ballpark between 280 to 320 each.
>> I would probably because I think I heard the rule of thumb that a town home's going to be usually 50 grand lower than the houses it's surrounded by is what I heard once upon a time. I'm not really on that side, but I I I've heard that. I
don't know if it's true or not, but I would imagine they would have to be I don't in my opinion, but again, I I just dirt girl, but I I wouldn't think something like a 400,000 town home would work here. >> I mean, I kind of exaggerated it, but
>> Well, no. So, my my my dumb math, and I'm I'm not very smart. So, I said 280 to 320 is about what the going price of those are going to be approximately if I just had to kind of just spitball something out of my mouth. Um, >> but okay. All right. Anyways, I was just asking a question about affordability or
attainability of of of our of our current residents, not those who are coming. That's >> Yeah, I got you. Thank you for that. >> Member Tra, >> I just wanted to add uh I believe we're at 53,000 for population right now. >> Oh, median income. I thought you said
population. I apologize. >> All right. Um, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any cards, Lord? >> Uh, Stan Johnston. >> Stan Stan Johnston. And I'd like our
clerk to make some notes on this is that uh I have some objections to this project and I would like especially the plan to take SP take special attention to what I have to share with you. Uh the present plan has has no survey
with pre no survey, no plans, no sketch plat, no approval of constructed utilities, no St. John's permit, no variance is approved. They're all all all expired. All the permits have expired.
No other permits completed. Um the um um and there's no PE approved plants. I know a little bit about this project. Why? Because I reviewed it.
It was done by Lloyd Warden Associates who I used to work with. The grading plan need a grading plan with this to to go with the with the U building that she's she's going to propose which is not shown here.
The grading plan is very complicated. Very complicated. That needs to be done. We don't have a grading plan for them to build. We don't have a grading plan for to to ex examine. There's no plans. This shouldn't even be before you at
all. This is a mistake by planning department. Should never have a a preliminary plat without a survey, without all these other things. We have nothing. Everything's expired. That was 20 years ago. Codes have
changed. This is absolute nonsense. I'm saying our planning department is full of nonsense. I'm speaking from you as a professional engineer who's done numerous subdivisions here in the Tisville and numerous site plans.
I don't see what what the heck's going on here. That just doesn't make sense. Uh I've had problems with Mrs. Fiser. I went to the Supreme Court regarding the suit, Mrs. Mrs. Fischer, and she's she's she has lost that suit. And uh I've had
I'm going to send you an email tonight regarding serious problems with Mrs. Fischer's work on Elizabeth Oaks. I'll send that to you tonight. So, uh I'm very much against this project. I just think it's it's just
absolutely ridiculous for you to consider this. It should be you can if you're going to thinking about approve it, you ought to at least what do you call it? Um you're not wait do it table it table it. That's what I
was trying to think. So, because uh it's just not it's just complete complete nonsense and and I'm here to answer any of your questions >> as an expert. >> Thank you. Any more cards, Lori?
>> No more cards. >> All right. You have any rebuttal from the applicant? I don't I don't think I need to rebuttal that, but um if anybody's got any question, kind of curious what Supreme Court I lost, but um that's okay. It's
irrelevant. Um but if you guys have any other questions, >> um yeah, my my questions for staff as it relates to um Mr. Johnston's uh comments is what is
required So I don't know if this is possibly due to the state law change to where basically we had to amend our code to eliminate the sketch class process to where the preliminary plat basically took the place of the sketch plat. Um
but there are minimum submitt requirements for the preliminary plat um which staff has reviewed and they've had have met those requirements. So, the grading plan, is that not required anymore by state law?
>> Um, I would have to go into our land development code. I mean, there's about 25 items here that are required. Um, location map survey tracked with the following informations. um boundary tracks, existing contours,
location of jurisdictional wetlands, surveys of trees and sampling and understory vegetation. Um so all of those items have to be done after this process or before >> that is required as part of the preliminary plat submitt.
But staff has reviewed those plans and you you're only seeing the the cover sheet and the preliminary plat. So there are site plans that are associated with this >> and the survey has been completed and you've reviewed it. >> I personally have not reviewed it, but I
do know that that is a submitt requirement and staff has reviewed the preliminary plat and has stated that that does meet all of land development requirements. >> Mr. uh the the surveys and all supporting documents aren't typically provided at
this stage to to the board. So, >> but they they're a requirement that they be completed before it gets to this stage. >> I believe that they have been reviewed as part of this submitt. Yes, that they have been submitted.
>> Mr. Johnston, >> they don't have they don't have she doesn't have a contour map. She doesn't have a plan by Mrs. Fisher. As far as far as variances, you've got all kinds
of variances that >> variances run with the land. So, typically variances do not expire unless you know there's substantial changes made on the property. >> The variances, but the thing is you supposed to have some plans that youth
like that. Uh, no. You have to come up to the podium if if you're going to speak. >> Um, >> excuse me. In other words, uh, like I just said before was is you need to have plans that that are reviewed by Mrs.
Fiser. She hasn't done the plans. She hasn't done the contour plans. She doesn't she for, for example, for the buildings and so forth. She she doesn't she doesn't have it. We don't have it. >> Thanks. Thanks for your comments, but
we've I've got to rely on what staff has said. So, member Gar >> the question for staff and I think I understand it's a little clear um in the staff analysis review recommendation. This is dovetailing and I think uh Mrs.
Fiser, sorry. Um, commented to that that this is dovetailing this preliminary plat over existing approved plans from 20 years ago and that staff's review of that was those standards still in effect
today are satisfactory and this can move forward as a preliminary plan for review and recommendation. >> I believe that's correct. >> And what staff mentioned, you may recall we had a presentation uh Mr. Parish gave us on the statutory changes that
affected the subdivision process. And the short of that which I gleaned was the new state law says faster faster faster with less less less. I recall it very clearly that way. So >> it's kind of like the world changed and
it wasn't to favor delaying or requiring extraneous information. >> Alter member. So it's my understanding that the as it says here that the final plot was not recorded and the approval subsequently became null and void. So
when things become null and void and then 20 years later it's resurrected again. And so then you the laws and the rules and the standards and what is required. We don't have to
do an updated version. We just get to and assume because staff is saying well they think it's looks okay. But we haven't seen any of it. We're just on the assumption that that is st that's what you're saying but what you gave us
was it became null and void. So it became null and void. Now, how is it now acceptable? >> So, the it's based on the layout of the original submitt, but all of the the uh current code requirements will still
have to be met with the with the updated plan. And we've already closed the public hearing. Um, member GR, >> what it's odd to me that it's kind of swirling around. I have these development rights
that exist and I'm proposing a preliminary plat which took me a little aside during the original discussion the staff review and I know that's perplexing because there haven't been a lot of preliminary subdivision plans
before us since the statute changed. >> This is the very first one. So that's why I'm assuming that there are these issues. >> And I'm glad you further enhanced my point. This is the first what we've seen since the state changed the subdivision laws
essentially as a lot of statutes did took away local government's design of rules and how they implemented those rules. When I came here back to Titusville, I was kind of a little confused because they termed things a
preliminary sketch. And I what's a sketch? A sketch in my experience based on surveying is a rudimentary drawing without a lot of detail. It's a drawing. When you get into surveys, that's a whole ball of wax.
Representatives spoke about the ball of wax and how detailed it is. And then now the first one up is this particular subdivision that's come to us not as a preliminary sketch but as a preliminary plat and the schedule of what's in front
of it, what's in behind it. Like it's a napkin drawing you did at home to say I want four lots or it's very detailed. This is very detailed but it's not detailed to the limit. You could build it because you have to engineer it. But the engineers said I've got an ace in
the hole. I have my old approved subdivision engineering plans and the staff has said that satisfied. It's almost like my fire marshall. I'm arguing with my fire marshal argument with myself. This one's a very puzzling circumstance to me and it's glad I'm glad you said this is the first one out
of the box that we've seen under the new rules. Thank you. All right, we've closed the public hearing and the um I see no further questions. Um what is the pleasure of
the commission? >> We might have to wait because I don't think Lori said okay >> we'll we'll take a quick pause and wait on that. >> Oh, she's gonna Well,
>> all right. Member CHS. >> Um, I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for 90 Christian Court Town Homes. >> We have a second. >> In the spirit of my inquiry, I would
like to second the motion and note that the applicant's representative is going to explore my concerns about the hammerhead. Thank you. >> All right, we have a motion, a second. Any other discussion? >> Roll call vote, please. Lori, >> member Gellen, >> yes.
>> Member Grod, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Childs, >> yes. >> Member FAC, >> yes. >> Member Troutman, >> yes. >> Member Scully, >> yes. >> Chairman Hon, >> yes. >> All right, that item passes unanimously. Uh second opportunity for petitions and
requests from the public present on items. Not on the agenda. Okay. Seeing none. Uh any reports. City staff. >> No reports. >> City attorney. No report.
>> I have nothing. Uh other than hope everybody had a nice holiday. We're a little rusty after coming back. uh and uh garage >> just as as a member of the commission I I've been noticing really and it shocked me today when I looked at a video play
that here I was in 2023 and I went it's 2026 where did time go >> over the years I've noticed something in the procedure of the staff's reports categorically speaking that all of them begin with boodles of information and
sometimes I'm a layman because I don't know where these places are or I I'm not familiar uh maybe with the with the area. They're newer places than when I grew up here and when I came back here. So, I'm puzzled. And what I invariably find myself doing a 100% of the time is
I have to scroll through the multiple pages to find where's the picture of where this is which is time consuming and gets confusing because then I find the picture and I get to scroll back through 400 pages of a lot of literature.
I myself would like to ask staff and maybe seek support for others like kind that if you could look at reformatting the way at least the P&Z sees their agenda. I'm not speaking for city council at all that we could maybe begin
with this is the agenda item. Here's where it is picture so I can familiarize myself when I start reading reports about Queen Street or Hopkins Avenue or US1. would really help me feel tra feel truth where I'm at.
>> Are you referring to the staff report or the agenda? >> Uh just using any one example here. >> I I think where he's going and I I kind of agree that there certainly I don't know you probably find an example. It's probably page >> Yeah, I think Tranquility Night was the
best best one I had, >> you know, 400 pages. Um >> yeah, if if I can, you know, one, what is this page 186 is prettyformational.
Shows you where it is in the cities, where it is in the map. If that page was either duplicated up toward the beginning about where the adjacent properties and all that information, that table is >> um would be helpful just to give give
you a bearing. I can I can definitely >> bounce around. >> See, I have to tell my wife that she can actually take the Tesla screen and blow it up and see where the intersection I'm trying to turn on instead of telling me, "Honey, I don't see where that road is." >> So anyway,
>> yeah, I'll definitely take that back to the staff for consideration. >> I don't know. You may want to ask her after she watches this whether you're making fun of her or not. >> All right. Seeing no other reports, we'll stand adjourned.