Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Planning and Zoning Commission. If everyone will stand for the pledge. Roll call please.

Chairman Natan. Here.

Vice Chairman Scully.

Here.

Secretary Faison.

Here.

Member Rice.

Here.

Member Garrard.

Here.

Member Graham.

Here.

Member McDaniel. Alternate Member Seidler. Alternate Member Troutman.

Here.

All right. We have a quorum. Next order of business is approval of the minutes of September 2nd, 2026. Does anyone have any comments on the minutes or care to make a motion?

I have a comment. Member Chapman? In the minutes, I believe that Mr. Dunlap had asked if there was any precise kind of conditions that he was asking about that he could address. I believe that I said some about the entranceway aprons, the 50-foot barrier, the property to the north, and then just the number of animals. So if that can be added in there as some of my thoughts were to it.

Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion with changes or make a motion as written either way?

I'll make a motion adding Mr. Troutman's adjustments.

Thank you. We have a second? I second. Member Faison seconds. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Minutes are approved. City Attorney.

Good evening. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, anyone wishing to speak on a quasi-judicial item must complete and sign a speaker card along with the corresponding oath on the card. Cards are located on the table in the front of chambers. City staff will make the initial presentation and then the applicant will present. Then the hearing will be open for public comments and those who wish to make a public comment on the item will speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if they desire. Witnesses may be cross-examined and all photographs, sketches, or documents for the hearing must be submitted to the city clerk and will be retained by the city. Members, please disclose any ex parte communications or site visits at this time.

Thank you. Next order of business is petitions and requests from the public present. Anyone here wishing to speak? You don't have to fill out a card if you care to speak. Anyone? If you care to speak on any item that's not on the agenda now is one of two opportunities to do that during the meeting. And you don't have to fill out a card. Seeing none. We have no old business. First item for new business is item 9A.

Good evening. Christy Anderson, senior planner. This is a comprehensive plan amendment, CPA number 1-2026, CPA number 2-2026 for the Space Coast Innovation Park phase 3 adoption hearing. These were presented to you back in July for the transmittal hearings. We did forward those to the state and we did receive a letter of no objection and no comments from the state. The applicant on behalf of the Titusville Cocoa Airport Authority is requesting a large scale comprehensive plan land use map amendment with a corresponding text amendment for property located south of Shepherd Drive, east of State Road 407. and west of Grissom Parkway to change the future land use designations from planned industrial park, industrial, low density residential, conservation, and commercial high intensity to planned industrial park. And to also change the zoning districts from planned industrial development, PID, industrial M2, single family medium density R1B, Open Space and Recreation OR and Community Commercial CC to plan industrial development with master plan. The existing and proposed zoning and land use maps are provided on page 132 of your packets. The existing planned industrial development zoning and planned industrial park land use along State Road 407 was placed on the property in 2010 in which a technology development and public demonstration facility known as Four Frontiers was proposed with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.32. However, the project was never developed and the land has since remained vacant. Future land use element policy 1.8.14 requires that all requests for planned industrial park land use include a master development plan, and if the project intends to limit the maximum intensity allowed, then the requested maximum intensity threshold shall be established and listed within the comprehensive plan. The applicant is proposing a text amendment to revise policy 1.8.14 to remove the Old Fort THE OLD FOUR FRONTIERS DEVELOPMENT AND REPLACE WITH A NEW MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS SPACE COAST INNOVATION PHASE 3. THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT IS PROVIDED ON PAGE 48 OF YOUR PACKETS. The subject request proposes an approximately 350-acre planned industrial park, which includes approximately 205 acres of industrial development space. The master plan designates approximately 97.62 acres, 27.6% as open space, which consists of green belts, landscape buffers, and wetlands. The property does contain two wetlands greater than five acres. The first is approximately 15.59 acres, and the second is a contiguous 120.78 acre wetland, which is proposed as a conservation easement as part of the master plan development. The original proposed master plan is provided on page 74 of your packets. However, a revised master plan was provided by the applicant yesterday afternoon, which is provided on your laptops, I believe, in a separate tab. so you're able to access that revised plan. The applicant is proposing a revised wetland mitigation strategy, which is part of the revisions, which includes a reduction of the onsite conservation easement by removing the upland areas from the easement, and is also proposing to add the following condition, additional condition of approval. Keep in mind that this just came in to us yesterday. So we have not had time to review this with legal But they have proposed the following language be added as a condition of approval The applicant is required to submit mitigation calculation showing the proposed off-site wetland conservation area is greater than 15.5 acres and that the proposed mitigation wetland is at least eleven point four four functional units based on the uniform mitigation assessment method scoring and The calculations will be submitted and approved by staff as part of a site plan application package. And that is the language proposed by the applicant. They'll be here to explain the amendment further. The project is proposed as a phase development. The plan industrial park land use allows a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 and the applicant is requesting a maximum intensity threshold of 0.23 floor area ratio which will be used to determine concurrency and impact of the overall project. The property is within the city's urban service area and utilities are available to serve the property. The city's preliminary concurrency assessment was analyzed for phase one and found adequate capacity. The full build out of the proposed land use will require further planning to meet the needs of the phase master plan. Concurrency will be evaluated with each phase and site plan as they are submitted. Staff has found that the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment and Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning is consistent with the proposed land use amendments, City's Comprehensive Plan and the land development regulations including PID and rezoning criteria described in section 34-40 of the code. The master plan is consistent with the proposed land use amendments, the city's comprehensive plan land development regulations, and the master plan requirements described in Chapter 33, Article 2, Section 33-23 of the code. Staff is recommending approval of the amendment for the comprehensive plan future land map amendment by changing the industrial low-density residential conservation amendment Commercial high intensity and planned industrial park future land use to planned industrial park. Approval to amend the comprehensive plan future land use element policy 1.8.14. And approval to rezone the property from industrial M2, single family R1B, open space and recreation OR. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CC AND THE PLAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PID TO PLAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PID WITH MASTER PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. CONDITION NUMBER ONE, SIDEWALK SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH EACH PHASE AS SITE PLANS ARE SUBMITTED. NUMBER TWO, CONCURRENCY FOR TRANSPORTATION UTILITIES, SOLID WEIGHTS, ET CETERA, WILL BE EVALUATED WITH EACH PHASE AND SITE PLAN AS THEY ARE SUBMITTED. Number three, the Titusville Cocoa Airport Authority retain ownership, control, and maintenance and administer all common open space as specified in Chapter 30, Article 1, Division 3, Section 30-5A2C of the Land Development Regulations. Number four, any future commerce component shall remain ancillary to the primary industrial use and may comprise up to 25% of the development within each phase. And staff is respectfully requesting that you provide your recommendations to council for the future land map amendment, the future land use element text amendment, and the rezoning with master plan. And this is slated for first reading by city council on September 22nd and second reading on October 13th. And I will be happy to take any questions from staff that you have at this time.

I missed something. You want to reread all that? Nice work.

Member Garan. Just a brief question. Christy, what did you say the applicant's reasoning to the late submittal of the environmental change on the wetlands?

I believe it's part of their wetland mitigation strategy. The email stating the change was provided within the attachments. However, I believe that the applicant will need to elaborate on the background as to why. Thank you.

Any other members have any questions for staff before I open the public hearing? Seeing none, open the public hearing. And our first card, Lori, assumes the applicant. Keenan. Keenan.

Good evening, Planning and Zoning Commission members. Kenan Hussaini, 7341 Office Park Place, Melbourne, Florida, with Kimley Orton Associates representing the airport on this project. Thank you for your time tonight. Quickly, I do have printouts of this revised concept plan, master plan that was sent to you. If anyone would like a printout to be able to look at it as opposed to on your laptops. So thank you for taking the time to listen to our project tonight. Quickly, I'm going to run through the presentation again. I think it's pretty much the same presentation as the Planning Zone Commission saw last time at the Transmittal Hearing, but it'll help us re-familiarize ourselves with the project and generate any additional questions and discussions from Commission. So it's Space Coast Innovation Park Phase 3. As staff stated, it's a comprehensive plan amendment, text amendment, and map amendment, along with a rezoning request with master plan. Okay. Yeah, in the meantime, I'll address the question about why the late submittal for the master plan. So we've been for the past three or four weeks attempting to meet with the different council members on one on ones to address concerns that came about during our transmittal hearing at city council. There was a lot of people out of town. There were some concerns with meeting with us at different junctures. Finally, we met with two council members in one-on-ones on Friday of this week, and so Monday we made the changes suggested into the plan and got that submitted to staff on Tuesday. That was the delay in getting that submitted. It wasn't to give you guys late information. We really wanted to get to you last week, but that's the reasoning for it, just to address council's concerns. So here's our project team. It's the Titusville Cocoa Airport Authority development teams, the Key Group and Heinz, civil engineers, Kimley Horn, traffic engineers, NV5, and our environmental consultants, Oneida. So as previously stated by staff and myself, it's a comprehensive plan amendment, a map and text amendment. It's a proposed rezoning of 350 acres to PID. The location map, it's off State Road 407 in Grissom, right on the edge of I-95, as shown on the screen. Existing land use map, yeah, as discussed previously, there was a previous project that was PID. There's residential zoning. There's M2 industrial zoning. There's general commercial zoning. So it's kind of patchwork zoning specific to an old project that no longer exists. Here's our conceptual plan. This is the revised conceptual plan. As staff indicated, the only changes on the conceptual master plan that you guys have in front of you or on your laptops is the reduction of those two upland areas associated with the wetlands. It's not any additional wetland impact. It's purely just those two uplands. And I'll go into detail when we describe the wetland mitigation strategy further. Future land use map, yeah, it's all sorts of colors. The idea there is that instead of having patchwork zoning and patchwork land use, it'll be consistent PID land use and zoning throughout for plant industrial. Open space requirements, staff touched on this. It's a minimum 20% open space requirement. We're committed to have well over that requirement. We show the 129 acres of conservation, all the buffers that are required for PID, and then additionally, we'll be amenitizing on-site stormwater ponds and different elements throughout the development with the site plan approval package. wetland conservation. So here's the change in the strategy. When we went in front of council for the transmittal hearing, we proposed 100% of the mitigation to be done on site. And it would be done through UMAM scoring and an acre to acre analysis. And we showed originally that we were providing more functional gain than functional loss with the impacts of the wetlands. We are 1.33 functional units above the minimum required by Saint John's during the Council hearing. Council members and various members of the public stated that they wanted to see additional measures done locally in the city of Titusville. Other projects, when they impact wetlands, they pay into a mitigation fund or a mitigation bank that directly benefits other communities. The closest one's Farmton, which is in Volusia County. Working with Council and working with our team, we've identified parcels within the city of Titusville that we can provide wetland mitigation. They'll also help with drainage in certain aspects of those sites. So the challenge we have is we don't have time to close on those properties and go through proper due diligence. So what we're proposing is that we get what staff said, the condition of approval that in order to impact that 15.59 acre wetland that we need to provide a parcel with a conservation easement in favor of the city and St. John's of a minimum 15.59 acres in size and that per the UMAM scoring that it provides the same functional benefit which is 11.44 functional units. Currently, we have a partial identified, but we're not close to closing on that parcel is that we're going through due diligence on that parcel to make sure that there's nothing from a legal perspective or an altar perspective that keeps us from closing on it. So by providing that condition of approval and also, you know, a note can be added to the master plan. We wouldn't be allowed to get around this requirement without coming back in front of you and coming back in front of council. So this is like. Commitment we're making but we're putting it as part of the approval that we can't back out of what this would do is it would provide Council with what they're requesting is that we're providing mitigation within the city of Titusville on a parcel that is an environmentally sensitive parcel that has wetlands on it, but also aids in different aspects of drainage and other parts of the city and The traffic analysis, once again, NV5 did a traffic analysis. They did counts in May of this year along 407 Grissom and the intersections that were identified in the significance analysis. The traffic on 407 currently is operating at a level of service C. In order to... We'll have to submit our traffic study to FDOT once FDOT reviews and approves it. If it goes beyond a level of service of D or E, depending on the roadway classification that FDOT assigns to that road, then that roadway will have to be widened. We'll know that through the permitting process with FDOT. Same thing, just a slide on traffic here. Specific questions for traffic, I'm happy to answer those as well. Again, another slide to show the subject site. When you look at, you know, everyone throws around the term like good growth versus bad growth, but when you look at the term good growth for cities, it's... jobs and job creation on the edges of cities that don't impact the residents and don't impact the daily functions of your residents. And so we look at the location of the site on 407 right on the edge of 95. It's ideal site for industrial growth and light manufacturing growth adjacent to the airport, adjacent to the railway, and also adjacent to 95 where The majority of the trips go straight down 407 to 95. They're not weaving their way through the city roads and into into some of the higher congested areas. Yeah. And so there you can barely see it on the screen, but it's that little red box all the way on the south end of the city of Titusville. It's right up against the border to Brevard County. And yeah, it's just convenient access directly to 95. Community outreach, we had our community outreach meeting on June 24th, 2026 at the Courtyard Marriott from 6 to 8 p.m. Mailers were sent to everybody within the required radius. And that's it. I'll try to go quick because I know everyone has heard this project before. I want to answer questions. I know there were some questions emailed to us before the meeting by Mr. Garrard, and so I'm happy to answer some of those questions as well.

Mr. Chairman, I sent an email to staff earlier, and as the introduction was, this came to us before for a transmittal, and as it reported, the state had no objections to it. At the original meeting, I raised concerns I had about the section of roadway, 3,000 feet, I think, or more. In the segment this is in, it's also interesting because it's south. If we use that direction, I guess it's southwest of the main entrance into the industrial park and the roadway section has a continuous right turn lane and a straight through lane on the northbound or northeast bound lane as a single lane going towards I-95. My concerns then are just an observation. When you drive on that road about six or 630 in the morning, the traffic volumes coming into Titusville to go to the space center or probably the industrial park are pretty excessive. The peak volume is the problem. Whether you can drive a service C at 9 o'clock at night is kind of irrelevant to what happens when somebody is trying to go to Orlando or conversely trying to go to work. And the bottleneck happens because of the constraint on that roadway. That was my concern then. That's my concern now. right-of-way section I tried to establish, but I wasn't able to get an answer, which I was able to scale off the property appraiser's map. You have a 300 or more foot right-of-way for Challenger Boulevard, which means the right-of-way is obviously more than adequate to do roadway improvements that would lend itself to a more controlled intersection. That's another problem I had when I mentioned that, that the current design is a non-controlled intersection. So right and left turn out of the main intersection, Entrance into the industrial park is going to suffer waiting for traffic volumes to allow you to enter. In your proposal, you're putting four driveways, I think, or maybe five driveways on Challenger, which then presumes in the current roadway section, you're going to interface with the roadway traffic turning left to go southwest towards Orlando or I-95 against the grain of traffic with no lights. and I don't see any designation you're planning for right turn, right turn out, left turn only, controlled by that design. All that goes to DOT as the first blushing answer I got. It's DOT's concern, but it is not. It's Titusville's concern. I did have the response that came back from the city engineer that said that when my question is how much influence does Titusville as a governing body have over the DOT, which is obviously a stronger governing body, Sometimes communities have good interaction. Sometimes, uh, F dot in my experience can actually have informal and formal recognition of that relationship where city council votes to have an improvement that they deem warrants, whether it technically warrants or warrants because it's good for the community is the decision left to the local government. And so from what I read from Mr, um, um, Kevin, I'll say Kevin, was that Tidasol can interface with DOT and ask for improvements that may be warranted in the Tidasol's opinion. The timing of the warrants, that was another concern I had then I have now. I wasn't here to know the history of the industrial project that led to that roadway network that I've gone in and looked around and drove around in. my experience you can go there pretty easy traffic movements most of the time except when the peak volume happens and what makes driving people upset is when they can't get to where they're going when peak volume traffic impedance occurs there's nothing in your plan that addresses that there's nothing in the project background that addresses what are the improvements that would have been required conditions of approval like we heard you agreed you would want to do tonight Were there conditions of approval? Are there outstanding improvements that are warranted by the background traffic that exists today? Are those going to be mitigated by the applicant's request, or is the applicant going to get saddled with all the roadway improvements? I'm sure in Kimberly Horne's experience, you know what I'm talking about. I don't want to see it be unfair to the applicant for roadway improvements that may not be all on you. nor do I want to see the roadway improvements postponed because all that shouldn't be on you. And somewhere between those two polarized views lies this project. 300 acres. It's a huge project. This is a big deal and a big deal for Titus. So it's a big improvement for Titus. All of this is good. Your wetland mitigation is good traffic volumes in that roadway section and how it slips through your fingers when it starts going to the state. before Titusville has a reasonable responsibility to imply that there is a traffic problem forthcoming and it should be addressed or and is there any background on the existing projects, road transportation improvements that haven't come to us yet that would be coming based on some threshold that this is additional traffic in your phasing It could be the first phase of 100 acres of your 300 acres, but that triggers the improvements, and then they're the requirement. But as I got this memo from, I can't pronounce his name. I'm very sorry. KB. KB. That's why I can't. I'm a nice gentleman, but he wrote back some things here, and I'll share this with you just verbally since I couldn't send it to you. I apologize. But this came to me today, and it's indicating, and you mentioned some of them. Please disagree or concur either way. It indicates that currently the level of traffic on 407 is... 11,000 trips per day currently. The volume of the roadways existing level of service, which assumes it goes to level of service F is 14,000 trips. Two lane roads can carry about 10,000 in my experience, and that's pretty congested on air, especially. Peak periods a.m. and p.m. In this case, you have a 6000 trip generation between your build up. Just I think you flash something up there that the three and a half million square feet would generate 7000 plus trips. And so obviously, at face value, your trip generation shuts the road down somewhere between three and a half million completion. And construction roadway improvements will be warranted. So my question and my long windedness is I want to be fair to you as the applicant for a project that's beneficial to the community. But I do not want to see the city be handed the kind of review that DOT may be capable of doing to postpone those improvements because you didn't generate the trips. They were already there, the background traffic. In the memo, it mentions that. It says future traffic projections are computed from existing volume, background growth, trip generation from current project, distribution of trips through the entire roadway network, and vested trips from approved projects. And there has to be a number of invested trips inside that industrial park that turn left and turn right from an uncontrolled intersection with 300 acres coming online with two or three driveway intersections that compound the traffic movement. And I don't see that being improved anywhere short of controlled intersection and four lane, especially for 14,000 trips per day. And that's for the roadway section. If it goes to four lanes, it's going to go up 25, 30,000 trips per day. And that's my two bits for the discussion to have the applicant try to address those. It's almost like the wetlands. I believe this is a good project. It's a great opportunity. But what's the guarantee?

Yeah, absolutely. I try to note down some of your points and try to hit on them. You're absolutely correct. It is a 300-foot section of roadway, so there is right-of-way for expansion. A 300-foot cross-section would fit a six-lane divided highway, so right-of-way is not a concern as far as expansion goes. Second thing you noted was signalization. Yeah, at this juncture, at a comp plan amendment and master plan with the rezoning, we wouldn't identify signalization at this time because we're not approving the site plan. We're approving just the land use and really it's the change in land use that we're really looking at. We're looking at the difference of the existing trips based on your PID zoning that's already on site, your into your general commercial and all that and then what we're changing it to. The difference in those trips is reduced when we apply that .23 Florida area ratio to the project, and we're restricting it to 3.5 million. It's further reduced when we don't have connectivity and access from the east side of our site to the west side of our site. If you look back to that master plan, we got, you know, 40 plus or minus acres on the east side of the site that only accesses Grissom and it doesn't access directly to 407. So that total number, At this stage, we're looking at existing trips based on the land use and zoning and then proposed trips based on the land using zoning. That's a great question.

I have for you a follow-up, if I may, and I apologize for jumping in. So the idea would be this section of your project that's on the internal roadway network. They wouldn't drive from Orlando to work. No, they very well could. So the interest into that's really moot to my concern. My concern is the intensity of development along Challenger Parkway, where those existing roadway sections I described, you can't really argue that in its current section, it could not handle traffic volumes generated if you had a build out. My question is, when is your build out going to warrant improvements? What will those improvements be and what would you commit to in those required improvements that Titusville may warrant in addition to what FDOT warrants? Not to leave Titusville's engineering department to be the backseat, not to make a decision what would benefit the citizens of Titusville. But in lieu of that, just to defer to FDOT, now that I know that there can be input acceptable to FDOT where it's a polishing wheel, so to speak, and that's good. And Kimberly Horne understands that. I know you do. My concerns aren't eliminated, though. It still asks the question, how are you addressing that? And I understand better than some, perhaps, but not fully, A comprehensive plan is a change in land use, but it's a pattern book by which everything else falls. Once you have the land use, you really can't deny the zoning. Once you have the zoning, you really can't deny the construction permit. Once you have the construction plan, you can't really design it because it has to go to FDOT. So down the road, the can is kicked until somebody says, but that didn't work. Now the question begs from a comprehensive plan amendment. How committed are you for your applicant to working with the city through the city to F dot to examine those roadway needs now? Do you know what your bill that is? That's what the comp plan is going to guarantee your your your Given to a maximum, but you may never achieve it, oftentimes do not. But between zero and where you achieve it, the impacts will require improvements. And to be fair, to understand what those improvements are, I think it's reasonably important right now. For example, do you envision as a transportation professional that the current intersection, I forget the road that goes internal to the project, I get it confused. Challenger Parkway 407 that main intersection that's not controlled now. Um, do you see that as a requirement with if nothing else happened in the industrial park, but your project, we hope that happens. You're the only playing down if that happens. Do you see that roadway section improvement? Because your property doesn't abut it.

Yeah. Is your question specific to do I see the need to signalize that main access? Is that the question? Yes. Yeah. Early numbers, we anticipate that being signalized. And yeah, I can touch on that.

And the follow-up question. So your property doesn't... But that intersection, you'll probably take some access from the internal roadway that intersection begins and ends with, that curved road that goes into the park. And you mentioned your parcel of land along that's going to have access points. So you do have some impact on that. But where would you see your project requiring that improvement?

Are you speaking to Shepherd Drive? Shepherd Drive. Thank you.

I couldn't remember the name.

Thank you.

And that's what I'm saying. Are you committed that your project numbers warrant an intersection improvement? You would be willing to do that.

Absolutely. No one likes everything to be put back on DOT. Absolutely not. As part of the city site plan approval process, we have to submit detailed traffic analysis and intersection analysis. And prior to those, we have to submit a methodology. And that methodology is submitted to staff, and then staff sometimes gets external consultants to review it or internal staff to review it. The methodology determines what intersections are impacted in a significance analysis. So you mean staff and city staff? City staff. This is for a city process. So city staff will tell us methodology is approved. Yes, you do need to analyze these seven different intersections because your project is big enough that it generates that big of an impact. a significance of the impact that citywide. And so if we have to analyze that through the methodology process, we get counts at all those different intersections. We look at turning movements. We look at operational analysis of the signal and determine What needs to be improved? What doesn't need to be improved?

I understand. I'm familiar with that. That's down the road, and that's kind of where I'm coming from. In your aspect, what I see right now is multiple right and left turn driveways, just simplicity. That's what you show. You show the driveways. You show the roadways. We show access points. You show access points. Correct. Now, those access points may be controlled. They may be required for lighting. They may be right turn only, directional. But at face value right now, it's got multiple driveways on this road that's at least 75% of capacity, and your project tips the bucket.

Yeah, but none of them can be constructed, none of them can be approved unless we satisfy City of Titusville staff's comments regarding those driveways and those intersections. That's part of the process. They have to meet two different processes. We have to get full approval from FDOT for build out conditions. It's not, we don't piece the puzzle to DOT. We send full build out to DOT and say, hey, our site's 2.7 million square feet of industrial. It's going to be this many trips, this many trips going south, this many trips going north, and we get an approval based off of that. Same thing with the driveways. We have to go through an access management committee to get driveway approval, but it's based off of analysis at each of the driveway components. That is one process. The other process is through the city and site plan approval. We submit a detailed traffic analysis that gets reviewed by the city. So there are two different governing bodies that we have to get approval from. If we got approval from FDOT, we couldn't just give it to the city and say, hey, FDOT approves it. We don't need you to review our traffic. That's not part of the site plan approval process.

And I respect that. And hopefully what I'm trying to get to is the commitment that you're going to make or the condition of approval that What the city staff warrants, needs, recommends, requires, whatever word we can come up with, that you're going to follow and heed that advice and not be in the capacity to say, well, no, I'm sorry, you can only go to FDOT because the law says FDOT is the controlling factor, not the city.

That is my concern. We have to be careful with that because FDOT owns and regulates and governs that road, and I can't agree to something that FDOT won't allow. We have to have... equal ability to make the state of Florida right and the city of Titusville right. So I can't say simply if the city of Titusville wants me to signalize an intersection that doesn't warrant it, we can do that. That wasn't my implication. No, I understand. I'm just saying as we're trying to layer on conditions of approval, we're happy to say today we will meet the requirements that the city upholds within the site plan approval process. And we also will have to meet the requirements of FDOT when we go through access management committee and we go through our detailed traffic analysis.

Let me give you the face value of my concern. If any other members have seen this in roadway sections, please raise your hand. I don't believe there won't be somebody that has seen this. The current right-of-way exceeds the roadway needs. It's excessive. 300 feet. There's probably 100 feet of pavement even in the widest section out there where the left turn lane is, the straight-through lane, the constant right-turn lane, and the straight-through lane. Just guessing. Okay. The type of traffic intersection you would place if it warranted at that current roadway could suffice to move traffic. But what you get is the type of roadway intersection you see with a cable hung across the road, a couple of poles. It's really not what should be there. What should be there should respect what goes in a 300 ft right away that carries 30,000 trips per day going in and out of work at this place in the space center and in and out of Titusville, whereby you have more like 180 ft of pavement and you have multiple lanes turning left or multiple lanes turning right and that type of yard mast arm configuration is extremely expensive. So my experience finds the examples where one day you ask yourself, why haven't they improved that roadway? That turning movement's just not right. And it all spins into this, well, we're going to have five year plan to four lane the road from 407 to I-95. So we don't want you to do the improvement. Motorist. On the other hand, the citizens sit there and wait in traffic volumes that are excessive because the roadway can't handle it and the lighted intersection is a temporary patch over what would be a permanent improvement. I've seen that. I don't know if other folks have ever seen that occur, but it occurs. Maybe I'm lucky and the only guy in the world has ever seen that piecemeal approach to improvements required of a developer that get mitigated by events. funding situations where it just never gets fixed.

That's my big concern. And I think size helps with this project.

Morgan and Morgan.

The size of this project, the significance of the project helps to alleviate that. If you have a bunch of small retail sites come in and you're only looking at that small retail site, that small retail site, that small retail site, the idea of the traffic analysis is that you are including background growth, you are including all the vested trips, but sometimes some get missed. With a development of this size and the significance on State Road 407, you're going to see the big picture. We have to model the build-out condition. We can't just say, well, just phase one's this and then phase one A's this and phase one C is this and slowly pick away at our density. We'll have to show the full development footprint to FDOT so that we actually know what's going on. It's not, like I said, it's not a bunch of different developers submitting smaller site plans that kind of get lost in the math, in the modeling. And I appreciate that answer.

I'm done with all my questions, but one last follow-up, and I didn't hear a response, so I'm going to assume there isn't one. I appreciate economies of scale, and I appreciate your response. You're a big developer, and you obviously can be trusted to do the right thing. My question earlier was, why is there not a controlled intersection at Grissom Parkway? That's what you said it was called? Shepard Parkway and Challenger Parkway. Or is there going to be one someday? And was that a requirement of the current project that one time, sometime way back when, was a big master plan development, I presume. It had all kinds of benefits to the community. It's gotten a lot of improvements in it. It warrants taxable value and jobs, and that's great. But the roadway network, to me, looks really insignificant for such a big project. And I kind of wondered... Is there something that didn't get implemented? Did something get overlooked in time? Was there a threshold? Has it been tripped? I don't know that.

You don't know that.

But you're telling me tonight, don't worry about it because we're a big project, and if it's a requirement, it surely will be done.

Yeah, no, during site plan approval, we will have to analyze the intersection of Shepard and 407. And we'll find out with traffic counts and through modeling and through trip distribution whether or not that access right now is operating at an acceptable level of service or not. So off the bat, we'll know that prior to our project hitting it as part of site plan approval. Sure.

I don't want to alarm everybody that report I got from KB is that it operates at a level of service right now. It's contingent on any further improvements. Right. increase those volumes would be where the warrants are going to be identified. And I understand it, but my principal concern still remains projects of scale don't necessarily not slip through. They don't necessarily like water in your hand, get between your fingers and it's not in your hand anymore. It gets overlooked in time. It gets mitigated by factors that are beyond us. I mean, anything's possible. At the end of the day, I don't want to vote for a project that isn't going to have some safety net that's guaranteed that doesn't impact travelers on that road with this big of a project, an admirably big project. But what happens when it starts to develop could become catastrophically bad. And then you have the problem of what we're going to get to it in the next five year plan from FDOT because we don't want to do this now. We want to four lane the whole thing from I-95. And you're shaking your head like I'm telling you a story you might be familiar with. And that is where I'm concerned with as a representative of the city, that we don't allow the citizens and those may be the workers to be impacted adversely, circumstantially. If you're a big project and these warrants are a requirement, they have to be done or you don't keep going. That's the hook we don't want to have happen. We don't want you to get in the corner. At least I do not want you to get somewhere where you can't build out because you can't do the improvement. Yes. So my whole concern in vocaling this was the problem of merging FDOT, a two-lane road, and Titus Hill's review process over FDOT's authority governing that roadway improvement. So I spoke my mind. I still admire your project. I was in favor of the transmittal thing, so I'll leave you with that. I think you've answered my questions as well as can be answered, but I'm still remaining concerned. Thank you, sir.

All right. I don't see any other questions. Anyone else have any questions for the applicant? Member Chapman.

I have a question. The wetlands that you were talking about and that you're talking about putting that possibly to a property, are you at liberty to say what property you're looking at?

Not at this time, because I don't want anything in record that we can't commit to. We have looked at properties that have been brought up by different council members as being ideal properties. But at this time, I can't commit to anything, unfortunately.

Sure, that's fine.

But the hope is that... Not the hope. The commitment is that it'll be a minimum of 15.59 acres. Some of the parcels we're looking at are much, much bigger than 15.59 acres. And if it's more than that, it'll be a surplus that the airport can use as part of future development so that in the future they're not paying into a wetland mitigation bank in Volusia County, that they're applying it to the city and it benefits the city residents.

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure that we are very happy for that, for sure. Yeah, I was just curious on that and then how that goes about. Is that something that I guess gets put into the request that...

Hold to that or how so it would be a condition of approval and and with staff support and with the city attorney support We would add a note to the master plan that gets approved by planning and zoning and then two readings of City Council And so once it's approved by City Council if we didn't honor that commitment or one to remove that commitment We'd have to go back through the process to modify an entitlement document Thank you for explaining that.

Yeah member Graham

This question's for Eddie. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you are dealing with a right-of-way or a roadway such as FDOT, before they're able to obtain their building permit, FDOT has to approve their plan for that, and it has to be their specifications, and you defer to FDOT at that point. And then when they get that approval from FDOT, as long as they met the rest of the city of Titusville guidelines, then the applicant would actually get a permit, correct?

Yes, sir. That's right. So FDOT maintained roadways. An applicant would need to apply for an FDOT right of way permit to modify any access. And at that point, FDOT could require left turns or right turn only certain restrictions.

So yes, sir, that's correct Member ice You're the only thing that I saw in the master plan I'd like for you to touch and more thorough on is your stormwater because it really doesn't address a lot of that where your discharge Points are and always that could be handled internal.

Yeah, absolutely and we submitted a stormwater statement as part of the application documents, but to speak to speak more clearly about it. So this site, the discharge for this site is into this big wetland system, the same wetland system that the KB Homes discharges to. It discharges south and then goes west under I-95 and then over towards the St. Johns River.

Where does it go across 95 at?

There's box culverts. I don't have a map that shows. I can send a graphic that shows exactly where it goes, but it goes under 95 through box culverts.

Okay. And you say all the KD home stuff is going in there.

Yeah, the KB homes. Yeah.

Okay, KB. Yeah. All the development is going to end up going to that major wetland system? Correct. Okay, each phase. And you'll do the pre-post on each phase? So you're really not changing the hydro period of the wetland at all?

Exactly right. We'll be required for wetlands that are maintained in that conservation easement, we'll be required to maintain the hydro period through... wetland control structures that add water to the wetlands when they're dry, and then they reduce what water from the wetlands when they're oversaturated. So will be included that in the design, but yeah. Yeah, it'll be a pre versus post methodology required to meet the new statewide water quality rules for nutrient loading prior to it going into the wetland. And you'll be doing that for each phase. The stormwater controls will all be through per phase.

Correct.

On a project of this size, I anticipate submitting a conceptual ERP, and then we'll have to do a construction permit for each individual phase that shows consistency with a phase-by-phase approach, but it'll be a conceptual to start.

So are you going to do a master plan for stormwater and then permit individually each phase?

Exactly right.

Yes, sir. Okay.

Amber Grant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One question you mentioned you were going to follow the lead, so to speak, with wetland mitigations locally as opposed to regionally through the Water Management District?

Yes, sir.

Is there a potential the Water Management District won't allow that since they're the decision maker on wetland mitigation?

Yes, there is. And if that's the case, then we'll have to buy credits at an offsite bank and do the commitment that we're saying tonight. We don't think it's going to be. Our environmental consultant feels confident that we can mitigate onsite and offsite, and that'll be enough. But you're right. If the parcel we found didn't meet the criteria, didn't meet what St. John's wanted to. There may be an issue where we have to buy off-site credits too, but our commitment tonight in the condition of approval would be that we have to meet that requirement regardless of St. John's.

So you're going plus up if that happens?

Yes, there is no plus down, unfortunately.

What are your lights on? Good. Any, I think we're good. I see no additional questions. And Lori, do you have any cards?

Yeah, one more. Okay. Tom Craft.

Good evening. Tom Kraft, I'm a long-time resident. For over 10 years, I drove from Titusville to Orlando daily on 407. And typically, I would leave there and travel past Shepherd at about 6 to 6.30 in the morning. And I saw some backups going into that area. My main concern was as I was traveling home, typically around 4 o'clock, 4.30, people that were traveling westbound out of Shepherd were backed up. It was a very bad situation at the time that I was doing this as I was driving, and something had to be done about it then. And it never happened. I mean, I saw a lot of frustrated drivers leaving there trying to travel west. If something isn't done with this type of thing, it's just going to be a disaster. I just wanted to put some personal input into it from what I saw over 10 years of driving that section.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think we all have that concern. Very much. Spent a lot of time on it. That's the last card, Lori?

Yes, sir.

All right. You have a rebuttal if you want it, but all right. I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the members. Anyone have any additional comments, care to make a motion? Your pleasure. Member Rice.

City Attorney, are we doing each, the comp plan amendment, the rezoning, and the master plan individually, or can we do them all together?

Reference would be one by one.

One by one.

He said one by one.

Yeah, not all one.

Yeah. And then, sorry, just to add on to that, and if you were going to recommend the inclusion of additional conditions such as the one that the applicants brought forth, make sure that that's specific to the motion on whichever, the master plan one in this case, I believe.

Okay.

Member Rice. The conditions that you have in our packet,

we're doing one by one these conditions are part of the zoning the master plan or the comp plan they're tied to the rezoning and master plan rezoning and master yes okay and that would be included in one ordinance so there's an ordinance for the map amendment for the comp plan an ordinance for the text amendment and then ordinance for the rezoning and master plan okay

And so for staff, is the way it's written in our packet, does the late submission affect the verbiage at all if we're going from the verbiage that's in the packet?

That specific language is not included in your packets. I did provide the email attachment from the applicant. That's part of the tabs, I think, where the master plan was. But I can read this language into the record if you like, again.

The motioner can ask, but I would think that's a good idea. Go for it.

Okay. I'll start the ball rolling here and make a recommendation for approval, motion for approval of the comprehensive plan amendment. The findings are the comprehensive plan future land use map attachment, CPA 1-2026, and comprehensive plan text amendment CPA 2-2026 are consistent with the city comprehensive plan. I recommend approval as written.

And does the additional contingency apply to that one too or not?

So the conditions are going to be tied to the rezoning.

Okay, even this additional related to the wetlands?

that will be tied to the rezoning and master plan approval. Yes. Great.

Thank you. Um, we have a second, second, I'm a garage seconds. Uh, roll call, please.

Lori conversation.

Uh, yeah.

Remember before the roll call. So I just have a question. Um, at what point in time do we, as a commission and a board begin to consider future flooding from our, what, from what we do here? Um, as we, as he's just sit right here, we have flooding, not flooding, but potential water going off site into the ST Johns. Um, because we continue to build impervious structures in wetlands. So at what point and what manner do we start to look at our wetlands as a precious resource and stop allowing water to flow off site into the St. John's, which just simply contributes to more flooding throughout the entire area. So when, when do we look at flooding? Yeah, so that's the problem that we have. We continue to say yes to our wetland development. Um, that doesn't apply now. That doesn't apply now. This is for future. future, okay? But just at some point in time, we have to consider the ramification of our actions and how it impacts our environment. So he mentioned flooding. He mentioned water leaving his site, going underneath 95, and going into the St. John's. Great. And we know that when we have these mass rains, the more and more that we build in our communities, wetlands area, the more that we're contributing to future flooding. So I'm just asking, just as we begin to continue, when we continue to do what we're doing, at what point do we consider flooding? So that's just my question before we vote on this. I just want to just kind of put that in our ears. Thank you.

Roll call please Laurie member garage. Yes by Sherman Scully. Yes member Graham Yes member McDaniel Yes member rice. Yes secretary Faison. No chairman a ton.

Yes Remember facing you on a little bit knowing it last time as well for this very same reason I Brought this up last time and I'll break it up again I if we are not going to consider flooding, I mean, um, it's, it's, it's, we are, we are creating a problem that future generations are going to have to deal with and water doesn't just go away by itself.

So, uh, second part, uh, one question staff real quick on the wetland. I mean, I don't want to tie their hands, but, They're agreeing to try to mitigate within city limits of the city, but if that doesn't float with St. John's and the other permitting agencies, how do we handle that requirement that city council wants? What's the recommendation there?

I believe if that happens, they would have to come back before you for a master plan amendment.

So we should add it, and if it doesn't work, then they have to come back through PNC and city council.

I believe that that was, is how it would work. Yes.

Okay. And do we actually come out and say, um, 15.59 acres with the functional value of 11.44? Is that part of, of what we're agreeing to?

That's what the staff is preparing. The applicant is proposing, like I said, this, this specific language, specific language.

Yes. Okay. That ties their hands. Okay.

So, like I said, the city attorney's office hasn't specifically reviewed this language, so it may change between now and approval from council. But I believe that this would provide the intent of the condition.

I will make a motion for the rezoning. The finding is that the rezoning is consistent with the proposed land use amendments. city comprehensive plan the land development regulations including the pid and rezoning criteria described in section 34-40 of the code with the following conditions sidewalks shall be installed with each phase of the site site plans are submitted with section 33 23-e concurrency for transportation utilities salt waste will be evaluated with each phase with the site plan as they are submitted. The Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority retain ownership, control of the maintenance and administer of the common open space as specified in Chapter 30, Article 1, Division 3, Section 30-5A2C of the Land Development Regulations. And any future commerce components shall remain ancillary to the primary industrial use and may comprise up to 25% of the development within each phase. And number five is that the wetland mitigation will be in the city of Titus for 15.59 acres with a functional value of 11.44. 15, not 15 million.

You said 15 million. 15. 15. We have a second member ground I had a question for the motion two things as I verbosity wise explained transportation concerns and and the comment earlier about F dot being the deciding factor and my rhetorical comment about lawyers arguing later about F dots authority in the city's non-jurisdictional authority on roadway improvements and And I mentioned that city engineers said they do work with FDOT. And the applicant mentioned he's willing to make sure city staff is a component of this roadway improvement. And if warrants are there and when those warrants implement is really the negotiated situation, can you also consider adding that the applicant has agreed to work with city staff on the transportation improvements that may be warranted in addition to FDOT only?

Well, my take, well, first of all, I guess we have to have a second before we can have a discussion.

I believe that's the, I think you can second for discussion. That was what I meant to say. Okay.

You know, I sort of agree with his approach and the fact that I have never found that the city is more difficult than Defti. And wards, they're not going to do something without the wards. They're just not going to do it. And everything is going to drive each development as they come with each phase. It's going to drive what lanes need to be expanded, what capacities need to be improved, all those things. So I get your long-term picture is what you're looking at. But I think the other thing about this development It's large. It's not going to happen overnight. So these warrants and these traffic studies and everything are going to be done over years. We're not talking six months. We're talking years before the build-out happens. And a lot of those transportation feeds, as the community agrees, it'll get tripped in future phases as those phases come online because they're not going to happen overnight.

And that's a good point. I think that's an excellent point because this is something that runs with plans. So timing the long-range is the thing, not short-term.

But may I also address your other concern?

Here's where the rubber hits the road. Public citizen just explained, the chairman concurred that, yes, it's a problem. You can't turn left. How many years was it? You mentioned 10 years? So when the FDOT's going to run down that road and put that full traffic intersection in, it could be a long time down the road for sure. And it can be a long time of aggravation during that long time down the road that F dot finally finds the need warranting roadway improvement. They do it. I asked the question of staff, but we don't know. Is there a left? Is there some leftover condition? on the project before the applicant came here tonight that hasn't either been overlooked, wasn't implemented because, in my experience on the record, is FDOT's going to look at that roadway for four-laning someday. No question. Their five-year project plans get affected by income. And we're getting ready to go to a big income question coming up real quick. And when that income drives up, the five-year plans, whether they're warranted or not, simply don't get implemented. They just get postponed, kicked down the road. This road, to me, has all the earmarks of representing that event. And the applicant is not the majority of the development site. You're 300 acres. There must be 1,000 acres in that overall project. So as I mentioned in the beginning, I'm in favor of it. I'm just not in favor of working there and having to wait 15 minutes to turn left or risking my life to turn left because FDOT's not going to want the roadway improved. piecemeal, they're going to want the roadway improved from one road intersection to the next. And that's a very difficult manipulation of events. It really is. It's not something that just is natural. So my second, my concern, my hope that the condition will represent that the applicant is going to work with staff, that it could very well be, and this is for instance, it could very well be that the staff says, no, we need a traffic light at that intersection now. And the background traffic is reasonable to expect that to be done. But the problem with that is that if it doesn't meet the warrants, DOT is not going to approve a traffic light at that intersection. They're just not going to do it. And therein is the warrants. The warrants could be based on 24 or it can be based on AMP peak, and that's where the problem exists. It's only existing when people are coming and going to work. And therein is why I said the scenario I've seen, my experience, and I'm not making the story up, is we can't do the roadway improvement because we want to do the whole roadway. And I don't have to do my intersection improvement because the city doesn't make that requirement that DOT does.

Well, I think the best way to proceed with that is I think the applicant is aware that there's an intersection problem. I think the best thing for the city to do with the city staff is direct them to look at the current situation with left and right turns coming out of that intersection and analyze it now. Is there really a problem?

At peak times. I'm led to understand the city does that. That's the way to handle it. I'm led to understand the city does that. So my question, again, rhetorically, is why is there no traffic light intersection at that turn at this time? I'm not an engineer by any measure, stretch of the imagination. I couldn't add and subtract. But I can see volumes of traffic that are impeded for left turn movements at a.m. and p.m. periods on that roadway. And I don't think that's going to go away. It's only going to get worse. You might finally reject the warrants. I'm wondering if the warrants already aren't there. I saw the report. I think the analysis will tell us that. Yeah, it will, but who's going to do the improvement when they warrant it? That's my concern. Let me use that example again to clarify my point of view. The city engineer wrote back and answered my question that they do work cooperatively with FDOT and have a amicable relationship where improvements that the city believes are necessary may be required at FDOT, and the FDOT permit that's issued is issued by FDOT there in jurisdiction. I'm good with that. But, however, that is not the case of FDOT's jurisdiction. They're the ones that decide. So I'm just trying to make sure that the applicant representing this development is able to communicate through staff and is accepting staff's analysis if that's what they say. We need this now, not then. That may very well be the one subject that comes up to mind right there. As soon as he comes up, I'm sorry, he, they, the developer, they come in with... Master plan, more detailed, all that stuff. At some point, somebody's going to say, you know, people can't turn left out of that project. The backup's so bad, they're turning around and going the other way and coming around the bend. You heard somebody say that, unsolicited. So if staff says, we need you to fund this cable link light for a while because it's bad, I need the applicant to say, I understand that's going to be a requirement. I accept staff's analysis, and I'm going to go with that recommendation. I don't want to see it become the displeasure of FDOT to just say, we're in jurisdiction. We don't need the city's assistance. We don't warrant the light now. We're all saying hopefully the same thing.

It's a DOT road. Therefore, the city really has no jurisdiction on what improvements there are.

The city has a jurisdiction on the applicant's request right now. You can put a condition as you just wanted, a condition for flooding. That's St. John's Water Management District's criteria. Why is the city worried about flooding wetlands? The applicant said he'll mitigate it. His state would require it somewhere in Farmington. That's deferring to the state repeatedly. And that's my concern. My experience teaches me to be concerned for this reason. If I was told there's an interlocal agreement between FDOT and DOT, I mean, between FDOT and the City of Titusville that stipulates that the City of Titusville makes the decision on roadway improvements within the city limits, I wouldn't be talking. But there isn't such a document, I believe. There's just an amicable agreement that they work together. So I won't push the button any longer, but I don't have to turn left out of that roadway. I just go on straight through. I don't mean to bore people, but one day when it's a problem and it comes back to you and you're looking at it going, why did this get this way? And therein is the question, why isn't there a light there already? I mean, that industrial park's been there at least 10 years. I would imagine more like 25 or 30. And there's really piecemeal improvements on 407. but nothing that's going to be able to contain the extra build-out that what I reported, what I was given evidence of is the roadway section in its capacity right now is 11,000 trips of a 14,000 ADT, and that doesn't seem a lot, 7,000 more trips, but 4,000, actually 3,000 more trips, less than 4,000 more trips takes it to failure. It wasn't level of service C becomes D. It wasn't level of service D makes you wait as AM and PM peaks. The answer is 14,000 in the current roadway section, and there's 11,000 there now. If you're the engineer, I'm not. But it seems like you could develop those extra trips pretty readily. Mr. Gardner. I'll save my second for the aggravation point. The City Council has to make this decision. Hopefully the applicant will understand my pleadings and maybe come with a stipulation that will remove the concerns that others may have as well. And with that, I'll just leave it as a second to the motion maker's second.

Okay, I have a lot more lights. Member Graham.

Yeah, as an example, when Culver's was developed, for those couple of parcels, which they're not totally done with it. There was never a light there coming out of Hickory Hills. For years and years and years, never light. If you got caught in rush hour traffic and you had to come out of Hickory Hills and take a left and go east, you know, buyer beware. As a condition... For them to use State Road 50, FDOT told them, you're gonna put a light there. And the developer put a light there, whether the light was warranted for just the culvers or if it was warranted for the total build out. FDOT told them straight up and the developer put the light in. It's been my experience when it comes game time and they start applying for permits and putting all this in, FDOT will look at this and if they say they need three lights, they're gonna put three lights in. And that's just the way it is. Whether we agree with, Their numbers all the time are their traffic counts. We're talking about FDOT. We can all agree going up State Road 405 that it shouldn't be 55 mile an hour in a two-lane road with no turning lane. But somehow FDOT says it's okay. I can't change it. You can't change it. And the city of Titusville can't change it. FDOT has to change it. So in this right here where these people are trying to position themselves to go forward with this project, these particular comments, they are a concern of mine, just like yours. I think everybody on this board has those concerns. But the reality is FDOT makes that determination. And if they say three or five lights, they may tell him that he's got to put four lanes in for a quarter mile, and you're going to put it in.

Member Chapman. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think the last time that this came before us, there wasn't a traffic study because of school being let out and everything, and they couldn't get real numbers, and we're waiting for all that to come back around anyways, I believe, just to kind of put that in the mindset. Member Faison.

So we're talking about roads right now, and you so far I've heard a lot of conversation about the current existing road. And I'm just asking this question. Does this wrap into also the road they're looking at putting in that's closer to the on-ramp or the off-ramp from 95? Because that adds a little bit danger to those making left-hand turns coming out of that development area. So if you look on page 127, you'll see that they have a road coming off of their development. And that road is more south, if you will, which is closer to the ramp coming off of 95. And as you know, as people are coming off of 95, they're kind of flying around there, right? And then there you have a road where folks may be trying to turn left. And that's before the existing road that's there now. So, again... looking at the totality of things, looking at things to come, the conversation about traffic control devices probably is a very important one when we are considering that they're, according to this document, they are also looking at putting a road closer to the off-ramp, the on-ramp, whatever you want to call it, coming off of 95.

Member Graham?

On this Challenger Road where it dumps out on 407, because you still have that whole subdivision to the south of you, you're still pretty good ways from 95. I mean, you're over a mile away from 95, aren't you, at that point? You're not quite a mile away?

Public comments closed. I'm not supposed to answer questions.

I'd love to answer some of these questions and provide feedback, but public comments closed.

It's up to the members. You want me to reopen it to answer the questions? Sure. All right. I'll reopen for rebuttal or whatever we want to call it. Answer your question.

Give me two minutes and let me measure the exact distance. Okay. Use the property appraiser. So it's just above a half a mile from where that off ramp from 95 connects to 407. And to quickly answer some of the other questions, there's a lot going on. I try to keep up with all of them. Drainage. Yes, drainage is a big concern. Drainage will be, we will discharge less water post-development than we will currently. There's a big misunderstanding that these sites vacant don't discharge water. Well, they do. And we have to model that. And we have to understand what's being discharged today. And then when we develop the site, we discharge less. So... we're making the situation better.

And again, so when I made that comment, it wasn't directly to this development. This is to the commission going forward. Um, because as we continue to build more impervious, uh, surfaces that can't always hold true. Certainly. You know what I mean? Absolutely. There's just no way for that to hold true. So again, so that's what that was said. So back to the distance from the off-ramp to the proposed development road, you're saying it's only about a half a mile from where the off-ramp joins 407 to development road. Okay. Thank you for that.

Any other questions? I think we're good. Oh, Amber Graham. Yeah, is that from this Challenger Road, or is it from the southwest corner of the property? Because I'm familiar with that little square lake right there. I used to fish it a lot.

Yeah, it's to the proposed Challenger.

That's all the way to the Challenger Road? Correct, yes, sir.

All right. Any additional questions? Close the public hearing. Uh, and then any additional questions before we finish the vote? Seeing none. Roll call please.

Lori member Graham.

Yes.

Secretary Faison.

No.

Member Rice.

Yes.

I Sherman Scully.

Yes.

Member garage.

Yes.

Member McDaniel. Yes. Chairman Aton. Yes.

Member Faison.

Once again, safety. Safety of the traveling public. And again, I get that FDOT owns that, but if we're not pushing that conversation, then it's not going to happen. Because what you're, in essence, saying, if no one's going to push the conversation, then we don't have to have the conversation, even though we know that it's needed. And you're going to let FDOT... determine when that is versus saying, Hey, this is, this is, this is a necessity for this development to come in to make sure that our traveling public is safe. At least have the conversation, push the ball than just sitting back and letting them determine when it's going to be. So my vote is no until we can actually nudge the ball down the field. Member ice.

I think that conversation is being pushed internally. in the community, but you can't hold a project just because you want to make a point. You can't hold it up. No, no, no, no. It's not making a point. It's keeping the people safe. That discussion has happened. No, no, no.

So we're not making a point. Lives being at risk is not making a point. Okay, making a point is pink over blue. That's making a point. When we have an on-ramp coming off of 95, folks are flying at 95, they have a road, a half mile of the road, and you already have people making, they can't make a left-hand turn, people getting impatient. Some minivan is going to get crushed by some Mustang that happened in Miami when a young man was drag racing in Miami and he hit a minivan, turned to be his mom. He killed his mom and his daughter. All right. So we don't want any tragedies. This is not making a point. This is making safety a priority. Whether it's behind closed doors, out front, this is making safety a priority. So it's not making a point.

Member Rice.

I'm going to move forward with the master plan. I find that the master plan, the master plan is consistent with the proposed land use amendments, city comprehensive plan, land development regulation, and the master plan requirements described in Chapter 33, Article 2, Section 33-23 of the code. with the following conditions, that the sidewalks shall be installed with each phase of the site plan and are submitted per Section 3323E. Concurrency for transportation utility solid waste will be evaluated with each phase and site plan as they are submitted. The Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority retain ownership, control of the maintenance and administer of the common open spaces specified in Chapter 30, Article 1, Division 3, Section 30-5-A to C. of the land development regulations, and any future commerce components shall remain ancillary to the primary industrial use and may compromise up to 25 percent of the development within each phase, and that the wetland mitigation within the City of Titusville of 15.5 million acres with a functional value of 11.44.

Do anyone care to second?

That was the same motion you made before, right? Well, just for the master plan.

Okay. I'll make a second to that.

Okay.

Second. Any discussion before roll call? Seeing none, roll call, Lori.

Secretary Faison?

Yes.

Member McDaniel? Yes. Member Garrard?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Member Rice?

Yes.

Member Graham?

Yes.

Chairman Natan?

Yes. All right. We approved and this is going up.

Can I please request a separate motion for the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, CPA 2-2026? Yes.

My first motion included that. Are you saying that has to be broken out? Because I included both the text in that. I specifically said it.

Just to be clear, the motion that you made included the text and map amendment. The second that was made was also in favor of the text and map amendment, and the vote the board took was on the text and map amendment? All right, we're good.

Yes.

On to item 9B.

Thank you chairman. This is item nine B ordinance on convenience stores and retail gasoline sales beginning on page one thirty nine of tonight's packet hundred and fifty page packet. The staff recommends the city council amend the zoning use code to address ambiguities related to convenience stores and gasoline sales. The zoning use table found in section 28-54 of the code lists the allowable uses in each zoning district. Currently, convenience stores and the retail sale of gasoline are listed as two separate independent uses with conditions specific to each. In addition, the code lacks a definition for convenience stores. The staff desires to clarify convenience stores and retail gasoline sales under the convenience store use and introduce a definition. This is a staff initiated ordinance based on City Council's May 26, 2020 directive to review the land development regulations to encourage redevelopment. On page 143 is the use table. And we did notice that the headings did not copy over onto each page of the use table. So apologies for that. We will do better in the future. We did remember and we will do better in the future. One of the things we talked about was maybe not providing all of the rows of uses if they're not relevant to the discussion, just the ones that are being amended. So that might help. But anyways, on page 142, you'll see, I'm sorry, 143. The changes are shown in the row for convenience stores. The first change removes the last part of that use name, which in parentheses says without retail gasoline sales, and changes the Cs, the conditional use permit requirement, to Ls, which is a limited use. On the following page, 144, no changes, 145, The use towards the middle of the table retail gasoline sales is stricken. And so we're trying to condense consolidate those two uses to simplify the code and to remove the ambiguity. Because if you have a convenience store in parentheses without gasoline sales, then how can you have gasoline sales as a separate principle use? It's a little confusing to applicants. And so we're just trying to provide some clarity there. On page one forty six the convenience store use again that same change with the name and the uses in which zoning districts they would be permitted in with limitations and then the new definition convenience stores is in subsection b that says a retail business occupying a relatively small for area. designed to provide for the frequent purchase of convenience items, including food, beverages, personal care products and other everyday merchandise. The establishment may operate independently or in conjunction with motor fuel dispensing facilities. So one respect that there are still convenience stores that do not have motor fuel sales. But in the event that they would like to, as most gas stations that you think of traditionally have both the convenience store component and retail retail sale fuels that would be captured in this definition. On page 147 is at the bottom there. Section 28 dash 168 would remove and leave as reserved the current section describing retail gasoline sales. And so that's a summary of the ordinance and happy to take any questions. Thank you.

So I'm kind of old school, but maybe they just don't exist anymore. Do we have a dinosaur? But where does a gas station without a convenience store fit in this? like has an auto mechanic shop like used to be where you got your oil change, but you couldn't buy a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk. Well, Goober worked. Like I said.

Yeah, so that would not fall under these definitions unless it had a small convenience or component to it. We just haven't seen that use in many years.

Maybe it'll make a comeback. Member Rice. Are you done with your stuff?

Okay. On page 148, and that was where you're deleting all the sales of gasoline, okay? Why some of these conditions weren't carried over to the other section? You know, shall require all gasoline pump tanks, vents, you know, there's some good things here that was required with gasoline sales. Why wouldn't you carry those requirements over to the convenience store section? during the consolidation.

Sure. So one of them was the subsection D related to a standalone generator as backup service that is being carried up and added to the convenience store use on page 146. It remains subsection D in that use. But if there are other conditions or limitations that you felt were appropriate to carry over, those could be included in your motion tonight.

You're good with that?

Okay.

Member Chapman.

What is a relatively small floor area?

Define that for me. It's ambiguous in the definition on purpose to give some flexibility, but I couldn't give you a square footage.

Do we have at least a minimum square footage that it needs to be?

This definition does not include a minimum limitation. Right.

Do we want something? I mean, I don't know. Yeah, I don't know what small areas downtown or whatever. I just thought that was a little odd.

Member Gron. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On convenience store definitions, and I don't mean to be facetious. It's because I drove here in a Tesla. You haven't included dispensing energy. So if a convenience store wants to put gasoline service in it, that's okay. But what if it wants to come back and add electrical energy? supplies like they're doing and a lot of that. Shouldn't that definition also envision that fuel may not be gasoline, petroleum, distillates, it may be electricity? They could, absolutely. So could that definition be somehow massaged before the city council that would include the alternative form of fuel, which would be electricity, being treated the same as the alternative fuel, petroleum? Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

I see no questions. Open a public hearing. Do we have any cards, Lori? No cards. All right. Close the public hearing. Bring it back to committee. Anyone cares to make a motion or with any of the conditions that were brought up?

Member Grodd.

Thank you.

I'll make a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of ordinance for convenience stores and retail gasoline sales with the provision that the definition be amended to include electrical service as a fuel.

I'll second it. Motion and second. Any discussion before we call the vote? Seeing none, roll call please, Lori.

Member McDaniel? Yes. Member Garrard? Yes. Member Rice?

Yes.

Member Graham? Yes.

Yes.

Secretary Faison?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Chairman Natanz?

Yes. I see 9C has been pulled by staff. Do we need to do anything with that?

You do not need to do anything with it. We'll bring it back to you as soon as we can. I did want to point out that Item 9B, the Ordinance on Convenient Serving Retail Gasoline Sales, will go to Council for final public hearing on October 13th.

All right. This would be our second petitions and requests from a public president. Anyone care to make any statements, say anything? Seeing none. Any reports? City staff?

No reports, sir. Thank you.

City Attorney? No report. I do not have anything. Any of the members have any reports? Member Garroth?

Just several things, and one I highly recommend if, and I was speaking to Mr. Scully earlier, today there was a presentation by Thousand Friends, and in the presentation, it's really a history of Growth management legislation in Florida from the seventies to today. The interesting part is what the latter part of the presentation is how these laws you've seen enacted in the past. At least my experience going on three years that each of these legislative sessions have created one more example of deruling what started as a good process to protect Florida in general. Such concerns as flooding, wetland destruction, roadway network congestion, yet now we are actually going backwards. And I highly recommend watching. It's a two and a half hour presentation. The presenters are the best there are. Most of them were in the founding fathers' family in the 80s with the Elms legislation. But if you've ever heard the words, if you don't really understand how all this stuff congeals into what Eddie and the staff deal with, the comprehensive plan and amendments, This is one good CliffsNotes version of what to know about growth management. Now it's not even called growth management. They have a new connotation for it that they came up with when it filtered through the different iterations. But nonetheless, it's worth watching. I also wanted to comment. I kind of find it ironic. Your mic turned off? I'm sorry. We changed the convenience store definition to resolve an issue which was before us, which I think the attorney in the audience was representing when the argument became about convenience store selling gas, and it didn't need to be a conditional use. I seem to recall that quite clearly. I thought that was ironic, and that was... The irony of irony is irony can generate its own irony. The irony is when I was trying to convince everybody the fear of loathing and traffic that I mentioned that, well, you know what happens when attorneys argue that FDOT's the jurisdiction for decision making, you have no dog in the hunt. And that was the whole impetus behind that was to make sure that we have a local control over it. And I think we will, and hopefully the applicant will do a great job of it.

Anyone else? Don't see anything, so we will stand adjourned.