City Council - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. The following is the procedure for public comment and participation. Individuals wishing to speak on agenda items must complete a signup card prior to the item being introduced. Those wishing to speak on quasi judicial public hearings must complete a signup card and sign the oath. Sign up and oath cards are available on the table. Individuals wishing to speak on non-aggenda items may do so under petitions and requests from the public present. This opportunity is offered twice in the meeting and individuals may speak at either the first or second petitions but not both. No signup card is required. Citizens shall not comment on any issue more than once during the meeting. All comments except petitions and requests must address the pending issue and citizens will be given three minutes to speak on agenda items. Next, citizens wishing to speak on the consent agenda must submit a signup card identifying the items of interest. Each speaker shall be limited to three minutes to speak on the entire consent agenda. And finally, all signup cards and exhibits being submitted to city council shall be placed in the box on the table. The purpose of the city council meeting is to discuss city business and proper decorum must be displayed by all in attendance. Public input and participation is encouraged. However, all persons in attendance shall comply with the rules for meeting procedures and shall refrain from any action that disrupts the orderly proceedings of the council meeting or hinders a council from performing its duties. No person shall interfere with the rights of

others to speak, hear, see, or attend the proceedings, make threats of violence, disrupt the proceedings with shouting, fail to confine remarks to the agenda item under consideration, nor continue to speak after the allotted speaking time has expired, as these actions shall be considered disruptive and disorderly. The mayor shall caution any person who violates these provisions and disrupts the orderly proceedings of the council meetings, and they shall be directed to comply. Any person who fails to comply as cautioned shall be ruled out of order shall forfeit the remainder of their speaking time on the agenda item under consideration and will be requested to return to their seat. Persons who fail to comply as directed shall be subject to removal from the council chambers by law enforcement or such other actions as may be reasonably necessary to enforce these regulations. Notwithstanding, the mayor may order the immediate removal of any person from the chambers who possesses a threat to property or life safety. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict a person's right created by the constitution, law, ordinance, or regulation. Welcome to the city of Titusville City Council regular meeting, February 24th, 2026 at 6:30. I call this meeting to order. And to kick us off, I'd like to invite Chaplain Brienne Robinson from the Titusville Fire Department to give an invitation.

I'm going to start off by reading a couple verses in a psalm. It says, "Enter his gates with thanksgiving. Go into his courts with praise. Give thanks to him and praise his name. For the Lord is good. His unfailing love continues forever and his faithfulness continues to each generation." Let's pray. Heavenly Father, I do thank you that you are a good God. I thank you for the privilege to be able to pray publicly in our city and in our country. I thank you for the service of these men and women in our city council. Father, I just pray you give them wisdom and discernment. May they make righteous and firm decisions. Father, give them clarity. Father, can continue the unity and no division. Father, we thank you for the safety of our streets and of our people and of our fire service, our police department. We give you thanks for all these things in your name. Amen.

Amen. Thank you, Chaplain. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. Member Stokl.

Yes. Um, mayor, I would like to uh before we get into our business, I think we all can recognize we have a lot of citizens from Royal Oak here and I don't know if any others have heard, but I saw a lot on social media and I was contacted as well that there is a concern that we will bring up rule 13 as a council, which essentially means that anybody that voted all in favor of a certain motion can bring up said motion and say that we want to reconsider our vote. Um, so I think there's concern that we may do that regarding the Gemini Lakes and so it might be prudent for us if we could state on record that we are not wanting to do that so they can have peace of mind. So I will say first start by saying I have no plans to bring up rule 13.

Vice Mayor, I have no plan to bring up rule 13. Member Nelson made neither. Yeah, I have no plans to bring up rule 13.

Thank you. And I don't either. I don't make motions. That's not what I do. I I conduct the meeting. So, uh hopefully that alleviates any concerns uh that you all have, but you know, I thought we kind of put this to bed last meeting. Uh but we we do have a lot of business to attend to. So, again, any public comments we do appreciate, but if it's about the Royal Oak development in particular, uh we're not addressing that, that's that's over, that's done with, and we're we're trying to move on with the business of the city. But with that being said, we're going to move on. CITY MANAGER YES SIR. WE HAVE TWO sets of minutes to approve. Thank you. Member Nelson.

Move to approve the minutes of the regular meeting on January 13th and the special meeting on February 7th. Second. I have a motion from member Nelson, second by Vice Mayor Cole. There any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. City manager.

Yes, sir. We have nothing under special recognitions and presentations. Under boards and commissions, we have 6A, the student advisory council. And uh in your packet is a two memos from the co-chairperson uh notifying that uh the 9th and 11th grade representatives from Ashen High School have forfeited their seats due to having missed three consecutive regular meetings. Those students are here tonight and they would like to continue serving on the board and request council's consideration to have them continue uh serving and also per the code city council can authorize them to continue serving. Thank you very much. City manager, city clerk, are there any cards?

All right, there's a sea of people. Can you raise your hand? Oh, there you are. Thank you very much. Appreciate you. Do you guys want to say anything? You can come up and say something. Good evening, city council members. My name is Sydney Ly and I'm here to appeal my removal from the student city council. I recognize the importance in my attendance and I apologize for not meeting the standard, but I would like to explain the reason for my absences. My first absence was due to a college visit at Florida State University and the University of Florida with my AP Academy. Since this was an overnight trip from the morning of the 18th to the afternoon of the 19th, I was not able to attend the meeting after school at 4:30. My next two absences held a pattern which I did not resolve until this February. Every month, all members of the student council, including myself, receive emails regarding the date and time of our next meeting. Starting December of 2025, I was not receiving any emails, including details about city council. Looking back, I should have known that the meetings usually happen every second Tuesday of the month at 4:30. However, while serving my first year on the council, there was a meeting that was pushed back to another date. I did not read the email stating that the date was changed. I walked into an empty chamber that day, and I told myself I would check my email for every meeting following that incident. That past situation paired with my recent problem of not receiving emails made me believe that the dates of the meetings were continuously getting pushed back resulting in my absence for two meetings, December 16th and January 20th. Despite my absences, I've been on this council for three years and I absolutely love serving my community through hard work, involvement, ideas, and connecting with other schools in our area. By using the skills I have obtained through this council, I have been able to apply them in my other extracurricular activities such as National Honor Society, Community Credit Union, Student Council, and High School Athletics. This has positive positively influenced how I work with others and

resolve conflict. If I am granted the opportunity to rejoin this council, I will be eager to attend all of the meetings and be involved in as much as I can as it is something I truly have passion in. All things considered, I really hope I can rejoin this committee where I am able to work alongside my peers while serving my community. Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming here.

Hi, my name is Kylie Miller. I'm a freshman at Astronaut High School and I love being on the student city council. I've made so many friends. I would like to apologize for my absences. I am a very involved athlete and student. I am in the AP Academy as a freshman. I am in still in the National Junior Honor Society at my middle school. I play JV and varsity softball at Astronaut. I was at a freshman volleyball game for my first uh missed absence. My second miss absence had to do with the AP Academy field trip that I also went on that I also had a cheer um event that I had to be at. And then my third miss absence was for tryyouts at for softball at astronaut high school. I really love being on the student city council because it's brought me so much more um voice for my community and I would really like to be able to keep my chair and to stay on student city council.

Thank you very much. Appreciate you. Uh first of all, thank you guys for coming in and advocating for your guys' spot on this council. I think that speaks uh very much to my heart that you're willing to come in here and quite frankly I think it's working. I mean these guys spoke beautifully, you know. So I I think uh Tyville Student Advisory Council is doing doing a great job. Member Nelson. So Sydney Kylie, no more absences. Okay. In that case, I would move to excuse the absences and reinstate the girls to the student advisory council. Second.

I have a motion by member Nelson. Second by Vice Mayor Cole. Are there any more discussion from this board? City clerk, call the role, please. Member Moscoso. Yes. Member Nelson. Yes. Mayor Connors? Yes. Vice Mayor Cole? Yes. Member Stokel? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Appreciate you guys' service. All right, city manager. Yes, sir. Before I move on to 6B, I do have one housekeeping item. Uh, item 9A cup9-2025 has been withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the applicant and that may come back at a later date, but 9A is not on the agenda tonight.

Thank you, city manager. Moving on to 6B, resolution number 4-2026, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and staff is seeking approval of resolution 4-2026 to reaffirm the service of seven existing uh members and remove one member due to lack of attendance and appoint one new member as follows. to reappoint members William Bill Garry, Joe Mantacon, Brian Clark, Elizabeth Ross, Kayla Manning, a principal planner from city staff, and the vice mayor to remove member Cody Kohl's, who's missed five consecutive meetings, and to appoint new member Monifeh Watson. And Terry Franklin's here to answer any questions if you have any.

Thank you, city manager. City clerk, are there any cards? Yes, sir. All right. Member Nelson. I'm sorry. I Yep. Member Nelson. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Move to approve resolution number 4-2026 appointing members to the affordable housing advisory committee. Second. There's a motion by member Nelson, second by Vice Mayor Cole. Any discussion? Sorry, I didn't get city clear. Member Nelson. Yes. Mayor Connors. Yes. Vice Mayor Cole. Yes. Member Stokl. Yes. Yes. Member Muscoso. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. City manager.

So, the last item under boards and commissions is 6C, the North Bard County Hospital District Board. And to um introduce that speaker, we have Mr. Robert Jordan.

Good evening. Good evening. You got to smile when you see me for sure. uh Mayor Connor, Vice Mayor Cole, and members of the city council. I'm Robert Jordan, chairman of the board of directors for Parish Medical Center. Tonight's presentation of the Parish Medical Center Sim annual report will focus on providing you and the community with information about the next evolution of parish's next steps in this transformation of health care through digital innovation. I'm joined this evening by members of the Paris leadership team as well as Parish Healthc Care Vice President of Digital Innovation, Dr. John Kachago, who will lead the presentation. Many of you have already met John, but I want to take this opportunity to formally introduce him to you and to the community. After an extensive search, John joined Parish in August of 2025. John is an esteemed digital health expert, educator, and author. With a career spanning over two decades, John has been at the forefront of integration technology into healthcare systems to improve patients outcomes, accessibility, and efficiency. as executive director of the Institute of Telealth and digital innovations at Texas Tech University's health science centers and a senior technology consultant for the IFC World Bank Group. John is well known for his expertise and dedication to advancing health care through technology. John has authored two highly regarded books. One titled Digital Health: The How to and Digital Maturity in Hospitals: The Transformative Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Digital Maturity of Hospitals. Beyond his publications, John's

influence has extended beyond academia and policy. as a leader in the aim ahead program, a $73 million initiative recognized by President Biden for promoting responsible AI in health care. John exemplifies a commitment to ethical innovation solutions that bridge the gap between technology and patient care. His work inspires healthc care leaders and practitioners everywhere to adopt a transformative digital tools that enhance the quality and reach of medical services. Today, John leads the digital innovation division of Parish Healthc Care and is here to present Parish Healthc Care's digital transformation roadmap. Dr. John Thank you very Thank you very much uh Mr. Jordan for that kind introduction and good evening honorable mayor Connors good evening Vice Mayor Cole and distinguished members of the Tyville City Council. Again, my name is John Gachago and it is my pleasure to present to you today on behalf of Parish Healthcare, specifically on our digital transformation journey. As I present, I may pause briefly to give you the courtesy of actually reviewing the slides before I expound on each one of them. The parish board recently approved a $25 million investment specifically to keep

our community's healthcare strong, connected, and prepared for the future. This investment builds upon and complements our already high-erforming integrated care system. recognized nationally as the first US hospital certified for its integrated care by the joint commission. Now you might ask what is the joint commission? The joint commission is kind of like the healthc care version of a quality and safety inspector. It's an independent nonprofit organization that inspects 23,000 hospitals, clinics, and other health care providers to make sure they are safe, well-run, and delivering high quality care. If a hospital meets their very tough standards, it earns certification. basically a national seal of approval that shows the organization is committed to patient safety and quality. What does this joint certifi what does this certification by the joint commission actually mean? In plain terms, patients don't fall through the cracks. The certification confirms that parish meets strict national standards for safe transitions of care, communication, and consistent quality at every stage of patient care. It shows our parish healthcare system provides better, safer, connected care that leads to better outcomes. Keep in mind, this is an automatic. We volunteer for these rigorous reviews every 3 years. Parish continues to meet these high standards, demonstrating long-term

dedication to integrated high quality care. Digital transformation for parish is not about fixing a problem. It's about staying ahead. Our care has always met high standards and digital capabilities allow us to enhance that excellence as healthcare technology changes. We're launching our digital transformation journey this year by upgrading our current electronic health record system by the reduction of multiple patient care computer systems to a single unified system. This is next generation continuation of what we do well made even stronger for the future. Today on your phone, when you text someone, share a photo, or join a group chat, everyone gets the same information instantly with a single unified platform. Your primary doctor, your specialist, and your hospital team can all stay on the same page, minimizing delays and potential mistakes. It's the healthcare version of a perfectly synced group chat. We can add new tools, strengthen cyber security, or integrate new services in the same way your phone can suddenly do something it couldn't do yesterday. It keeps parish ready for whatever the future brings. You should be aware that our digital

transformation roadmap was built based on community feedback on clinical needs and organizational goals. It is deliberate, phased and focused on extending what we already do. Well, this is what we call thoughtful evolution, not reactive change. So, how did we identify ways again to enhance and extend our capabilities? Firstly, like I said, community feedback. Every 3 years, an independent and comprehensive community health needs assessment is conducted in North Bread. Our most recent assessment was completed in 2025. What did we hear? Many residents struggle with chronic diseases, transportation to medical appointments, and health literacy. The enhancement identified was to create a simpler way for patients to manage their own health at home, such as digital tools that track blood pressure or glucose and share it directly with their care team. That means fewer office visits, earlier help when something looks off. Secondly, we looked at clinical needs. We surveyed our clinicians. What did we hear? Clinicians said logging into a single medical record system will be more efficient and will increase their time with patients. The enhancement we identified unify access with a single sign on and simplified interface. As an example,

staff members work with complimentary but distinct systems. So transitioning to a unified system, they can get to everything through one secure login. Meaning more time with patients and less time wrestling with the computer. That's an example of digital transformation. Thirdly, from our baseline survey, what we heard was patients want clear communication and predictable follow-up. Employees want fewer data entry burdens. The enhancement we identified improve messaging tools by not having to enter or repeat information from provider to provider within the community. Through enhanced digital tools and a single patient portal, we will be prioritizing better digital follow-up and improving the patient experience. From our IT assessment, what we found is some components, some system components communicate more efficiently with some systems than they do with others. The enhancement we identified with a unified system and enhanced digital tools, information flows more smoothly across parish from clinic records to hospital systems and ultimately to specialty care to patients. We are implementing upgrades that make everything more efficient for providers. In summary, our digital transformation

journey will lead to more support for care at home, streamlined workflows, better tools for clinicians, and better communication. Parish clinicians already use data exceptionally well. ED evidence of that is parish's integrated care certification. Enhanced digital tools will allow us to deepen insights, identify needs earlier, and personalize care even more effectively. Better information strengthens decision- making because modern data tools can reveal patterns humans alone cannot see. We are bringing all care settings into one connected digital environment so that patients experience seamless transitions. This doesn't replace a human touch. It strengthens it by supporting clinicians and patients with easier, more coordinated access to information and services. So you might ask, how is connected care better care? Firstly, connected care creates continuity from home to the clinic to the hospital. Think of connected care like having all your important apps synced on your phone, your photos, contacts, messages. So no matter where you are,

essentially everything is up to date. At Parish, we believe healthcare should work the same way. Let's say a patient checks their blood pressure at home using a digital blood pressure cuff. With connected care, that reading automatically appears in their digital chart at the clinic. So when they come in for a doctor's visit, the clinician already knows their recent numbers. No guessing, no repeating tests. And if that patient later needs to go to the hospital, the hospital team already has all the recent home readings and the clinic notes. They aren't starting from zero and the patient doesn't have to retell their whole medical history. That's what we mean by connected care. Home data flows to the clinic. Clinic information flows to the hospital. Everyone is working from the same playbook. Secondly, connected care enhances, not replaces, the personal relationships that define parish care. We believe technology should never replace the personal relationships our community depends on. It should in fact strengthen them. Technology allows our teams to work even smarter, not harder, giving clinicians more time with patients. Enhancements support safety, communication, and follow-up. For patients, it means easier access, faster information, and more

personalized experience. again building on the strengths already in place. So, how does technology improve the patient experience? Three specific ways. More clinician time with patients, better communication and follow-up, and an intuitive patient experience. And for us, intuitive means patients don't need to be tech experts. When we say intuitive, we mean easy to use, easy to understand, and easy to navigate. The way your smartphone just makes sense without reading needing a manual. Examples of intuitive designs include the following. One, a single login for everything, appointments, records, bills instead of multiple portals. Two, automatic guidance. If you're reviewing lab results and there's something important, the system highlights it and explains it in simple terms. Three, the system quietly guides you step by step just like the GPS on your phone. Parish has always been a community partner. This phase of digital transformation strengthens that bond, ensuring North Bread remains a leader in accessible, integrated, and modern healthcare services for generations to come. Thank you for your partnership, Tyville City Council, and your leadership. Parish Healthcare appreciates your

support for our mission, our vision and values. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much, sir. Vice Mayor Cole, do you have a question? No, I have a comment and my comment is that I think that all the citizens of Titusville realize the progress and the evolution of Parish Medical Center, how they're continually trying to stay ahead of the curve. This digital transformation is I mean I've been briefed on it and it's just amazing. When I first saw John's resume when he was coming here, I'm like, are we actually getting this guy? Cuz I looked at the books that he had written and those things. We are keeping ahead of the curve. We're a small community hospital. And I really appreciate the things that we do at Parish. And I want to thank all the people that work at Parish, the doctors, the nurses, the caregivers for the things that you do. And thank you for the presentation to keep us updated on the things that are going on in Parish Medical Center.

Absolutely. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Appreciate it, city manager. So, moving on to item seven, petitions and requests.

Hello, everybody. Okay. I just c Dr. Kathleen O, Titusville resident and Royal Oak neighbor. I have a few words I'd like to say. And before I start, I want to really thank all the Royal Oak citizens who came here tonight and they've been an incredible community to work with and we just couldn't have done what we did without them and I really appreciate it. I want to specifically thank you Sarah for just making that announcement, clarifying so that we can all go home very soon. We're all set. You can leave any time, but I know you want to hear me first. Um,

we could. Yes. Um, I also want to give my thanks to the council members who, as I said, stood with the cows. You did not overturn this very important vote and you served the community well and for that we're very grateful. Um, our work is not done here. Um, we know that the city mandated small area studies to be done um to see the best use of this land and we're very excited about that and Royal Oak Neighbors is particularly eager to be an active participant in this and going to work with the neighbors to have meaningful input into the process. We intend to set a meeting, lucky you, Mr. We're going to be meeting with you soon to discuss the ways that the we can work together for the benefit of this study and for the city and for our neighborhood. So, thank you. And really any Royal Oak neighbor who doesn't want to listen to hours of um discussion about tranquility um is more than welcome to leave at this point. They thank you. They've committed to not bringing up the rule 13. So, thank you all.

Thank you.

All right, Mr. Johnson, you're up. I guess you don't want to hear what I have to say, I guess. All right, I guess we'll take a two-minute recess. Okay. Just stand. You got to wait.

items. Mr. Johnson, I do believe you are getting up to have the floor. I I've submitted um two emails to you for this presentation. One is dated February the 23rd has to do with freedom of speech and the other one is dated today February the 24th has to do with uh Elizabeth Oak's project dirty illegal tricks by engineer and survey to maximize profits and to minimize the number of units. So on this particular matter uh comes to me uh what happened Friday is Friday I went to a viewing of Joe Robinson and there was someone there I believe her name was Mrs. Hopkins said that uh you know Joe is a very serious person spiritually and and otherwise and and he wants the truth spoken and he wants to for us to all to love one another and she also made an unusual remark. She said uh people should stop lying. Uh that's what this presentation is about uh is lying is that uh the the city engineer not city engineer the engineer of record of this project Elizabeth Oaks and the surveyor colluded to to delete um uh the um stop sign the um street sign of Mockyird Lane and uh the cleared area which um I and owner uh killer measured to be greater than 26t wide. So those were deleted deliberately to mislead the the city to proclaim that this was a landlocked um that houses were landlocked that were on Mockingbird Lane and not to be named in Mockingbird Lane. So this was a horrible thing that happened and uh we still four years later we're still stuck with the same situation. So I bring this to you,

bring this matter to you for consideration and for thought. Uh and uh I just start with a prayer. Lord, I just pray that pray that good things happen to this because right now one of the houses is has absolutely no no uh access to the house from this set of plans. So Lord, just help us to do the right thing and to do what uh Joe wants us to do. So uh uh I'm also here because of u uh freedom of speech and I'll just show this before sitting down. This has to do with uh what has happened with SJ. So I need to sit down because I'm required to. Right. Right. Okay. So I'm sitting down and sacrificing.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. It's a petition. Thank you very much. A presentation example would be on the agenda for a presentation uh like Parish just gave. So thank you very much for your time. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else for petitions or requests? Non-aggenda items. Seeing none, we're moving on to consent. City manager. Sir, moving on to item eight, consent agenda. We have four items on consent. Any members of council wish to pull any from the consent agenda? Member Moscoso. Uh, yes. I'd like to p uh pull 8A.

AA is pulled. Member Nelson. And I don't necessarily want to pull B, but I would like some additional explanation for that. A member of our public had asked me some questions and I think further explanation might be appropriate. All right. So, we're going to pull item A and B. All right. So, we're on item C and D. City clerk. Oh, sorry. City manager, can you read?

I'll read C. 8 C is the Jess Parish Medical Foundation grant for a Lucas chest compression device and 8D is Titusville VI Titus Village section 9, the fourth amendment to declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Thank you, city manager, city clerk. Uh, no cards for those two items. Thank you very much. All right. Uh, we're going to Member Nelson. Uh, move to approve items 8 C and 8 D. Second. A motion by member Nelson, second by Vice Mayor Cole. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. On to item 8A. City manager, can you read that for the record, please? Yes, sir. That is the 2022 2025 state housing initiative partnership ship program local housing assistance plan LHAP amendment number two and we have Terry Franklin will provide any responses to your questions. Miss Gosso, you pulled the item. Sure. Um could you explain a little bit about how this came about um with all of these amendments?

Sure. Um, I forget exactly when uh council approved the contract with Forest Glenn, but the city funded Forest Glenn Apartments through our SHIP grant in which the city allocated $100,000 towards that project from our ship program from years 2324 and 2425. I received notification from the developer that they are unable to get the units completed and occupied by June 30th. And that uh resulted in me researching with uh the state on how we can amend our LHAP to include additional eligible costs for them to be reimbursed so that they can spend the money that was allocated by the city.

Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. So this is the original 100,000. This isn't an an additional 100 on the 100. Yeah. It's not changing the amount. It's just changing what year the money comes from and what can be reimbursed instead of limiting it. Okay. And then on um page 69, one of the changes is the 50,000 uh instead of it was the maximum award was 50,000 um just general. If you look on I think it's D, it switches to per unit. I'm sorry, page 69.

Sorry, 68. Oh, I'm sorry. So 68. Um D, it says maximum award 50,000. And then in red, it's added per unit. It was always per unit. Um ship doesn't require us to define that, but I thought it would be good to define that that's per unit. in their template, it's defined as per unit. So that's why it was added. So could a developer come in since now it's including construction cost and get more than 100,000 since now it it does say per unit. It could be, but not for this development.

So this one is only for forest Glenn. This isn't going to carry on to future developments. It is open to future developments, but the the it could have been any development that applied for this, but this LHAP is no longer in effect. Um, so we wouldn't have any additional RFPs out there for this funding. Okay? because I see that more I think more developers are going to come in and and probably take advantage of of this program which is I mean that's what it's for but I want to make sure that we're also putting money aside for and we talked about firsttime home buyers and all the other things that this money can do. Um one of the questions that I got to sit down with Miss Terry a few weeks ago and I didn't get to sit with you before this um but I think how many we only helped one family get into a home. Is that correct? With first-time home buyer

so far this year, yes, we there are three others in the process right now.

And if you notice, we have like an excess of money. And so I want to make sure and I know and that's kind of why I spoke with her that it's a long process. It's not an easy one. There are a lot of things. But my my hope is that um yes, it's great that we can give it to these developers. This developer has already received 23 million from the state, 360 from the county, 100,000 from us, which is great, but I want to make sure that money, because these are rentals, that that money is actually going to go into the firsttime home buyer because it can be used for multiple things. So, we want people to get generational wealth by owning their own homes. And so, um, I don't know how we can make that easier. And I know that's a completely different discussion. Um, but my my fear moving forward is if this is per unit, that that changes things a lot. Um, from going from 50,000 max to 50,000 per unit. And are we able to cap that if a developer comes in and we say we're only going to dound 100,000 or can they request the whole 550,000?

Oh, no, they can't. Uh there's a 25% cap on the ship grant. So we can't allocate more than 25% of the grant for rentals. Okay. Everything else must be home ownership. So that's why the 100,000 um that's the maximum we could have done. Um the language that was in the LHAP uh above that said per units. Um, so it's not changing. But go back to your question about can other developers come in under this? No. Our new LHAP, which went into effect July 1st of this year, does not have this strategy in it. It doesn't. No.

So, this is almost custom for this developer. It It wasn't. We We had it already in our LHAP. It was originally for water and sewer connection fees um because at the time there was a lot of interest in building um housing for the homeless. So the city put out an RFP for that and it just so happened Forest Glenn was the only response that we got to that RFP. And so moving forward, developers can now use it for construction because this is pretty much like a reimbursement if we have if we ever do this strategy again. Yes. But this is it. It's not in the new plan.

Okay. Thank you. Member Stokel.

Yes. Um to so to clarify, we are only doing it for this one particular project because they couldn't meet certain deadlines. Yes and no. The other um portion of it is is they underestimated what the water and sewer utility connection fees were going to be to the development. So they can't spend that 100,000 and that 100,000 that the city did was actually the match for the local contribution for them to get the tax credit grant from the state. So since they underestimated the fees, they requested to be look at reimbursing for all development hard cost. So that's what generated the language change from fees to development cost.

Okay. And then the second question was in relation to item D the maximum a award 50,000. Can so how come we committed to 100,000 even though this had said originally 50,000? It's 50,000 per unit and they only needed a h 100,000 from the city. So I thought less than 50,000 per unit. So it was per unit before? Yes. Okay. So why is it in red as if we're adding that? It's added as a clarification, but the written language in the LHAP said per unit.

Okay. Separately elsewhere. Okay. Um and then is there stated a maximum amount? So if we are doing 50,000 per unit, it does it say somewhere else in the language? So what it says is that in the LHAP it says that the city will fund 50,000 per unit up to five units. So that gives you your maximum. Okay. Um but there the other equation is the 25% cap. Would we ever get to that five units times 50? No, we wouldn't.

Okay. And then um I would and I think you said this was the only application we had. Um so I think we're working with kind of what's who's applying for certain things. Um but I would agree with member Mscoso. I would I'm definitely in favor of and I think we've talked about this before. Anything we can do for first-time home buyers. Unfortunately, I feel like the criteria to qualify is difficult. um it almost makes it as if you maybe couldn't afford to pay your mortgage, but those are the people that are eligible to apply because you may make too much and you can't be eligible for the program, but then if you're below that threshold, you're going to be almost struggling to pay your mortgage. So, and I don't know if we have any oversight over that for amending the criteria or if that's given to us by the state or federal guidelines, but that that is where I would like us to see going in that direction is to try to help more home ownership.

Yes. So, um, this year's or the current plan does have first-time home buyers in it. This one did as well. Um, the program is struggling is spending the funds. Yeah. So, right now we have, as member Musposu said, quite a bit of home funds for that. So, if we add ship to, we're just adding more that we can't spend. Yeah. So,

Okay. All right. Thank you. I think I'd just like to clarify for the public, these are federal funds going through the SHIP program. This is not our tax dollars going out to these things on a local level. And when you have federal funds, there's tons and tons of criteria uh that people have to adhere to. And to member Stokal's point, the people that need the first-time home buyers plan program or qualify under the federal guidelines are probably not going to get a mortgage,

you know, because of the income level. Even if it's FHA, I think that would still be a stretch, which is why we have so few people that meet the qualification. But I think, you know, we as a city might be able to step up and just help educate first-time home buyers and let them know about the program so that we do get more applicants whether they qualify under the federal guidelines or not. That our job is to educate and share with the public and and hopefully we can get them through the process. But thank you, Miss Miss Franklin. And um does anybody want to make a motion? member Nelson move to approve the 2225 state housing initiative part partnership um I'll have HAB amendment to

second I have a motion by member Nelson second by Vice Mayor Cole any further discussion seeing none city clerk may may I also add in the report we were requesting approval for us to work with forest Glenn to amend their agreement to change that language from fees to development cost. Okay. So, including the amendment as set out by Miss Franklin, does the second stands. Thank you very much. So, I have a an amended motion and an amended second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, city clerk, Mayor Connors, yes. Vice Mayor Cole, yes. Member Stokel, yes. Member Muscoso, yes.

Member Nelson, yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Appreciate you, Miss Franklin. City Manager. We're on to item 8B, I believe. Yes, sir. Uh item 8B is a water allocation permit for the readym mix plant. And the recommended action is to authorize the issuance of a water supply capacity allocation permit in the amount of 10,300 gallons per day, which is 3.5% of the excess capacity for the development located at 7600 South US Highway 1. Thank you very much. City manager, city clerk. Yes, we have two cards. Stan Johnston.

My name is Stan Johnson. I'm not so much opposed to this, but I'm opposed to what's going on in the city regarding these issues. And this is this has to do with sustainability. And that there's no way that there's sustainability in our water resources for drinking water. We just don't have it. back in about uh maybe 1979 or so is I spoke with the director of water resources um Mr. Madison and uh he said that we have per for perpetuity right now at that time we could we can produce 7 million gallons a day that didn't work out very long because we we we couldn't do it with the resources we had then since then we've also got the the uh wellfield over there uh office uh north of south of Route 50 and uh now we have the big u um big one in Farmington. So um what the city has is sustainability reports that are completely false. Completely false. Make absolutely no sense at all. And I think you should pay attention to that. And that's what I've said many times. Same thing with our with the uh um the um absence of of maintenance for our storm water system that goes through the city and out to uh the St. John's River. We don't have it. We have violations of those laws. And so what I'm saying again to you is what I've done also. I've I've done it in affidavit saying your sustain your sustainability report is fraud. It's false reports. And I think you should pay attention to the to this issue because it is an important issue. The city of Tyville is not sustainable with resources that are fixed and all our I don't know what resources we have that aren't fixed. So uh uh we've got a problem here. It's a matter of truth. That's what I talked to you about when I talked about Joe

Robinson. Don't lie about it. City of Tyville is lying about their resources and their their sustainability ability to s sustain what we have. I've been here since uh my goodness, I came to Florida in 1952. And uh I've I've I've seen uh the fish swarming like like uh in the millions, I don't know, millions, hundreds of thousands going up rivers and so forth. The the shnook, that doesn't happen anymore. Not to my knowledge. So, uh uh that's on the West Coast. So, uh, please consider what's going on with our sustainability and this particular issue, which I'm not really against, but think about it. Thank you. Bye.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson, city clerk. The last card is Carol Stanton. Hello.

I'm Carol Stanton at 6 living at 6935 River Edge Drive. uh directly across from the proposed or maybe already tied up uh concrete recycling plant. My husband John Stanton spoke against this. He passed two years ago. He'd be rolling over his grave if he knew that this was going to happen. We live directly across from from what's happening. There's no stoplight. I can just envision trucks with concrete going up the hill toward the airport. We already have noise from many I live have lived there 28 years. I'm just about ready to leave my house because of the noise. We have of course all the launches. They wake me up at 3 in the morning. I can't do anything about that. The trains are much he carrying heavier loads. We have a car uh a semitr dispensary right across the street at the airport that carries uh cars that come on the I don't know how it works. It's in the middle of the night but it lights up the whole area. Uh if you're at dark through morning, uh there are six or seven trains a day, all that are blowing their horns about at least four to five times for at least five seconds. Uh they even on the weekends, even on Sundays, there is no traffic on that road. Golden Nights has very little traffic. Uh, which is good because if you have people turning in there, you're going to have auto accidents because people go 70 miles an hour past my house. They go 50 miles an hour of people that live on my

road. There's a big traffic problem there. I've called DOT about it and of course they've not returned any of my calls. Uh, I've been to the noise people at the um police station two months ago. Um, they took my number. I've never heard anything about that. Um, the trains are a nuisance to me, especially because I live right directly across from the airport road. Um, we have the the the personal jets, we have the launches, we have the train, uh, we have a high volume of traffic. There's more construction going on. There's heavier uh, construction trucks and they go 70 to 80 miles an hour past my house. So, I am I did not know because you passed this years ago before my husband died and I just came last week to pay my bill and I read about this. I had been told by the city planning and zoning that this company had sort of, you know, uh given up on this um and that they weren't doing well.

Thank you very much. I'm sorry I got to stop you. Everybody get the same amount of time, three minutes.

Well, I did want to say one more thing. I went online and if anybody wants to tear up their driveway and take their concrete over there if you if it does get built and there were a lot of stipulations like sound control walls, trees put in. They agreed to that with the first meetings when we were Laura Lee was involved, my husband and I and other neighbors. Um this anyway there's five recycling centers. There's the Doug Connor uh in Melbourne Incorporated, the Space Coast Crushers in Rocklage on Holiday Springs Road, the Bvard County Central Disposal Facility in Coco, and the uh Florida Recyclers in Melbourne, there's the Sarno Refill, and there's one in Melbourne Beach.

Thank you, ma'am. Right. And I think that's enough recycling centers that put silicus dust in the air and will hurt our You're going to give them 10,000 a day. I use 5,000 a month. Your time is up. I need you. Okay, fine. But this is going to hurt the river, which is already not any good to fish. Please have a seat. Thank you. Okay. I'm disappointed in the in the city council for that decision. Thank you. One second. One second. Is there any other cards? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you, Member Muscoso.

Um, so ma'am, I did ask our planning department if it was the same project. So, it's not a concrete crushing, it's a concrete mixing, so it's a little bit different. Um, yes, ma'am. So, um, I'm not sure, but I know that they'll be able to give you more details. So, it's a completely different um project that I'm sure um our planning department um I don't think we're going to speak to it right now, but um possibly later we can get his card and and speak to him about the project, but it's two different projects. Excuse me, ma'am. Excuse me, ma'am. Ohio.

Excuse me, ma'am. We're having discussion. I think it's really important to understand that we have code upon code, regulation upon regulation that makes it tough for anything to happen. And I do not believe this project ever came before us. So that means it probably compiled complied with every bit of regulation between sound buffer, noise, and all these other things. So it's not the same company, not the same project. And uh all they're asking for is 300 gallons a day more water than without that they would normally not have to ask council approval. That's what we're we're here to do. Well, yeah, but they don't they can go up to 900 9,999 gallons without asking for our permission.

All right. So, they're here for 10,300 gallons. And ma'am, we are having discussion. Ma'am, please don't interrupt. So, member Nelson, you pulled the item. Questions? I did. And I was going to ask if maybe Mr. Cook could talk to Mr. Stanton later. And she had some questions that she had asked me during our break. And so if Mr. Cook could speak to her later, that might be great. Do you want Mr. Cook to just to kind of give a quick overview? That would be great.

All right, Mr. You're cut you're on the floor. Okay. So, uh so to to let the miss stand know it's Titan Titan Florida requested which is Titan America Ready Mix which is a different company um from Deerfield Beach Florida. Um site location is next to the logistics center owned by FC which is a little not at the same location as the concrete crushing plant. I can't hear you. I can't hear you. Sorry. So the site location is not the same location as the concrete mixing the concrete crushing plan is next to the the FEC logistics center. The FEC logistics center. We can actually show you a map if you'd like to

step out but it's not at the same location. Um and like ma'am 10,000 a little over 10,000 gallons which is our threshold for the water allocation permit. Thank thank you very much member Nelson. Any further questions? No further questions. All right. Can I have a motion? Move to approve the water allocation permit for the ready mix plant. Second. I have a motion by member Nelson. Second by Vice Mayor Cole. Any further discussion? Seeing none, city clerk. Vice Mayor Cole. Yes. Member Stokl. Yes. Member Moscoso. Yes. Member Nelson. Yes. Mayor Connor.

Yes. Thank you very much. Motion carries. Well, I would say city manager, 50% of the items were pulled on that consent agenda. So, uh, that was was pretty challenging, but we got through it. Thank you. Moving on to 9B is Tranquility Development Agreement. And in your packet, you have additionally uh, uh, Brad Parish has put together a short summary, but uh, what we're asking is is for council to take action on the applicants fifth amendment to the tranquility development agreement, and Brad is here to answer any questions you have. All right. Hold on, Mr. Parish. City Cler, how many cards we got on this item?

Three names.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Mr. Parish, you have the floor. I do have a short. City attorney, did you have something? Sure.

Okay. During the public hearing portion of this meeting, anyone wishing to speak on the quasi judicial item must first sign a public hearing agenda card and sign the oath contained thereon. These cards are located on the table in the front of council chambers. Those speaking in favor of a request will be heard first. Those opposed will be heard second, and those who wish to make 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, council staff representatives, and such other representatives as authorized by council. If you have photographs, sketches, or documents that you desire for the city council to consider, they must be submitted into evidence and will be retained by the city. Please submit such exhibits to the city clerk. City clerk, have all persons wishing to speak before the city council signed an oath card?

Okay. If there's anyone present that has not, you can do so at this time. Uh, city clerk, have all agenda items been properly advertised? Yes, they have. Have any council members visited any of the sites or spoken to any members of the public regarding an item uh to be reviewed? You may make your disclosures at this time. Moscow. Um, yes. On Sunday, I drove through Tranquility just to see how it was looking. Vice Mayor Cole, I've had contact with the developer and presentations, but it has not had anything to do with my decision. Member Nelson,

I have likewise spoken to the attorney and many months ago drove through the development. Member Stokele. Yes. Um, I'm very familiar with the site and drive through it often. And then I have spoken with Cole Oliver, Robin Fischer, and Gary Allen. Thank you very much. And I have also spoken with Gary Allen, Cole Oliver, and Mr. Robin Fischer, as well as our staff, which given the cards doesn't seem like it's community. I feel like the disagreements between the city and the developer at this point. So, um, but I also did drive through it. So, city turn, is that it?

Yes. Thank you very much. All right, let's kick this thing off, Mr. Parish.

So, tonight is a uh request for an amendment, a fifth amendment to the Tranquility Development Agreement. I did do a short presentation. I'm just going to go through some of the slides to kind of help me um explain to you some of the requests that are being made. Uh there was a requirement of development agreements, amendments, even amendments require a community meeting. On November 3rd, we received a notice card from the applicant stating they were going to have hold a community meeting on November 5th. Uh the information related to that community meeting is in your agenda on page 154 and 155 of your packet. Uh from what I understand, they uh only had one attendee. To give you some um context, the property is about 350 acres. It's uh it's east of US1 north of the NASA causeway north of the um vector space DRRI or development regional impact. It includes a mixture a planned mixture of residential, single family, multifamily, commercial and open space and recreational amenities. It was originally approved with a development agreement called Sandy Point in 2007. reapproved with several amendment or changes as a new amend new agreement in 2017 under called Antigo Bay. 2021 is renamed 20 uh to Tranquility with one of the amendments and tonight we have a fifth amendment to the same agreement. The property has the one and only zoning district for this entire city called regional mixed use. This regional mixed use zoning district is not applied anywhere else in the city. This is the this property was uh or should say the zoning district was tailor made for this property for future development and it includes several subd districts. So the master plan was approved with subd

districts titled RMU 100, 200, 300 and 400. The 100 is the open space and with the fourth amendment to the agreement, it was uh determined by city council that they only need to provide 20% of open space. So everything primarily that's open space is identified as RMU 100. RMU 200 includes phases one, two, and three of the single family subdivisions. Phase one is complete and we are receiving and issuing permits for single family homes along the water. And that's about it covers fronts about twothirds of the entire development along the water. The Indian River Lagoon phase two is adjacent to it just further back or in inward to the property. uh that is under construction uh pretty much complete there. We're al I think in some parts we're actually already issuing permits there. And then phase three is a completely separate subdivision which is in the northwest corner of the entire development and will have its own access point. RMU300 is multif family. There are several swaths of this property that are slated for multifamily development. We do not have any proposals for any type of development in those areas yet. And then there is a large area that is titled RME 400 slated primarily for commercial development. Again, we do not have a proposed development for what specifically would go there either. The development agreement uh does include conditions that they pro um construct certain recreational amenities um at certain stages. So, for example, they're supposed to put in a boardwalk or a park. Uh I think there are two parks specifically even a trail um before the 50th certificate of occupancy is issued or before the 100th certificate of occupancy is issued. So we are monitoring that. Uh we I receive a report every month to see where we are with that. The RMU 100 there's a large internal swath of the property that has that uh RMU 100 open space area. There is now

proposed a pond which will be a part of the discussion I'll bring up with you. Um we do have in review a site a permit to dig a pond and or water feature and then also a separate permit to complete the spine road of the development. There are five amendments to this request parts rather to this amendment rather. So the first one is to increase the building heights from 100 to 150 ft. I'll point out specifically what the applicant's asking but basically on page 167 and 16 170 um you'll see the city's zoning overlay the height overlay which was adopted in 2017. I just want to point out that currently the development agreement as it was adopted in 20 or approved in 2017 allowed for multif family buildings or condo buildings um to high-rise buildings to go up to 100 ft in large portions of this property with some areas if they're the areas close to the NASA caused to 75 ft. That's by right right now in the development agreement. the applicant is asking is for utilization of the height overlays that was adopted by city council in 2017 to to uh qualify to go up to 150 ft. There has been disagreement between staff and the applicant as far as the interpretation of what that overlay says. And I'll point to you on page 167 of your packet. You'll see the definition or the qualifications for what the height overlay states as to what you can go up to, how you can qualify to go up to 150 ft. Our interpretation, you have to meet all the criteria in order to qualify that. And so the buildings or building along the water or adjacent to that water along fronting along the Indian River Lagoon

would have to be able to put in in order to go up to 150 ft would have to put in some kind of boardwalk with pedestrian amenities and also have a mixture of two uses inside the building itself. That is staff's interpretation how we've applied it since it was adopted. the applicant is asking for a little more flexibility in that to allow this to be to this qualification to be um to apply to the rest of the property. The second request, uh the small scale plat, we have two processes in the city's code. We have a regular platting process which is consistent with state statute which we primarily use. It's a two-step process, preliminary plat and final plat. And we use that right now whenever someone wants to develop a piece of property with a new subdivision such as that phase three single family subdivision on the northwest corner of this development. That and phase one and two all had to go through that two-step process because they were creating a master stormwater system. Uh dedicating roads to the city, dedicating certain infrastructure to the city. Um so that had to go through that two-step process. What the applicant's asking is for some flexibility to use what's called the small scale plat process which the code states if you are going to create you have a large piece of property or whatever size and you want to divide it up to up to 10 lots without creating any new infrastructure you could qualify on page 147 of our of your packet I'm just going to point out some concerns that we received from public works which was addressed with a previous request for another development that actually had to get a variance for this. But this is a pathway that the applicant's asking for to be rolled into this development agreement to be able to utilize this this this tool to subdivide the property from what I understand consistent with what's laid out on the master plan. Uh you'll see on page 147 147 of our

staff of your packet which is in our staff report some comments and concerns that the city staff has and the public works has related to how to qualify for the small scale plat. One being that uh water and sewer um you know for utilities and water the small scale plat requires only service lines are to be provided no main extensions. That's something that's pretty important. If a main extension has to be provided, then it would have to it wouldn't qualify for small scale plat. Another is storm water management facilities. Uh generally under smallcale plat, each new lot that's being created would have its own outfall. The applicant is stated they're going to provide a master storm water system which in the normal process would qualify for would have to go into the the larger process, the two-step process. um primarily because you would have common areas and facilities that all the lots would have to share and then the applicant's also asking for the ability to create lots without immediate frontage to a public road. Um and that is I believe because the spine road is in review right now under a permit. So, I believe they're asking for the ability to subdivide the property prior to that being issued, that permit being issued, and that road being constructed just yet. The third request, which is the max 10 foot wide buffers between uses when the language that was proposed to us in the draft amendment stated they wanted some reduction in the maximum or the required buffers between two uses. Our current code requires a 20 foot landscape perimeter buffer for a multif family development for example and if you have a property adjacent to it that's commercial that would have to put in a 10-ft landscape perimeter buffer so you could add conceivably have 30 ft of buffer the applicant is asking

for flexibility in that based on the conversation I had with Mr. call. The intent is to have the flexibility to go up to max 10 foot wide buffers between those uses. The third request is accessory structures in the 50oot building setback. the several properties or several lots along um US1 in the phase 3 single family subdivision are fronting or have back they back up against US1. The buildings themselves, the houses themselves will have to meet that building setback. What they're asking for is some flexibility in the code to allow accessory structures to be within the backyards of those lots because right now the code because of where they've laid their lots per that plat within that buff that setback. The code says that you can't put any structures within that backyard within that 50 ft. So they didn't necessarily have to put the lots within that building setback. they could have kept it out, but because of the layout of the subdivision and the number of lots they want to put in there, it they've actually encroached into that building setback. So, they're going to need some leeway from the code requirement. And they're asking for um your approval with this amendment to allow those lots to be placed where they are to and have th allow those property owners who will buy those lots to be able to put a shed or any kind of accessory structure within their backyard inside that building setback. The last one is the class one permit versus a class two permit. A class 2 permit is something that we generally require any site development to go through, especially if it's a new uh major development, commercial development, uh even a a a gas station or a um a new bank, whatever that might be, even and definitely for things as large of a subdivision.

The applicant is asking is for leeway to be able to use the class one permit that has been used generally for the small types of uh improvements. So, let's say a a commercial developer has an existing development and they just want to add on a a building or they want to restripe their parking lot or make some minor adjustment that doesn't require a complete wholesale review of everything. Uh they would qualify for a class one permit. The applicant is asking for that flexibility. They've also stated that the they would like to be able in addition to using the small scout plat plat process and subdivide the property according to how the master plan is laid out and I'll illustrate what that means in a moment to be able to clear out up to 30% of each of those new those parcels for the purposes of stockpiling soil that would be taken out of the pond the water feature. One concern that the city staff has is that we don't have exhibits to illustrate reasons why this is necessary. Um in this fifth request or this fourth part of this amendment, it states in there that they will have two years to construct. So issue from point of issuance of the permit, they'll have two years to complete the stock the digging and stockpiling, but it doesn't say how long beyond that it should stay. And I had a discussion with Mr. uh call Oliver about this and I think we're just misunderstanding of what the language really is was proposed in here. The way we read it, it doesn't it's not totally clear as to how long it will stay there post closeout of the permit. So we would suggest there be some kind of time frame explicitly stated inside the agreement such as two years. The applicant is also asking the flexibility to be able to ask you for extensions if necessary. We did the applicant did ask for uh or state that the reason for this fifth part this request for the class one permit is that they would like to be

able to phase the development as well. I don't have a phasing plan to justify or explain what they mean. Uh and that might be something we would uh we would request as well. Um so on the last slide here I just put an excerpt of the uh one of the exhibits from the what was adopted in the fourth amendment this agreement and you'll see the this is the entire development. Um it's looking at the top of the page is east and the left side of the page is north. So on the bottom of the page is US1 and NASA causeways or the um it's on the east side or the right side of that page rather. So you'll see what I've drew drew in there in red line is the spine road what's remaining of the spine road that needs to be permanent and constructed. That's what's in review right now. You'll see in I drew in a purple or blue bubble or kind of an oval shape there. That is an area you see in green there. That is the RMU 100 open space uh area. Uh that was what was approved with the fourth amendment of the development agreement with a we now have a permit request to put in a water feature in that location and that's what that bubble is supposed to try and illustrate where that location is supposed to be. The water feature will be adjacent to that phase 2 subdivision. The development agreement does state that there's supposed to be recreational amenities such as a trail through this area. I didn't see that in the permit request, so I'm not sure what the what's going to happen there. We do have a request also to put in a road adjacent to this water feature as part of that permit request. That permit is still in review though. The parcels that I believe, you know, after speaking with Mr. uh call Oliver about what the intent is of the small

scale plat is to subdivide this property what's not developed right now into what how you see it's illustrated. So the area that is just on on the top side of that spine road between where the water feature is supposed to be is one large parcel potentially the area um along the water that's not developed would be its own parcel as well. This is what I understand it be, but the applicant will have to clarify. And then the larger areas that are remaining as well be their own parcels. I have not received anything or any other indication if those would be divided any further beyond what you see illustrated here. The another concern that we have is that the uh agreement or the amendment that's proposed to us talks about that they'll they'll make sure they adhere to erosion control measures with the stockpiling of the the soil and that would certainly be required anyway during construction all the way to closeout. I'm not sure if that means they'll continue maintaining or utilizing existing the required erosion control measures post closeout of the permit and the soil being there in piles or they'll have something more uh substantial such as a drainage system to deal with any long-term planning beyond the close out permit. Tree mitigation was another concern that city count city staff has. So, as part of the request to clear 30% of each of those parcels, which is could be significant depending on how council sees this, we're not sure how to address that. The code specifically says that we are supposed to negotiate the applicant supposed to negotiate with the city in preserving trees with a proposed development. I don't have a proposal for

any specific development other than to clear out certain areas of this property and stockpile soil. From what I understand is that they they want to maintain or have that soil in there for future development proposals which we haven't seen yet. The clearing out of land in preparation for the stockpiling that soil, we're not sure how to address tree mitigation if it's necessary. If that means in some somewhere in this agreement, maybe just clarify that they can just immediately pay into a tree fund or they'll do tree mitigation by planting somewhere else in the site. We just don't have any means of justifying where they should be planting those trees since we don't have a proposal for a development. I think that's everything.

Thank you, Mr. Parish. Mr. Oliver. Good evening. Just a second while I gather my stuff. Thank you.

Good evening, Cole Oliver. um been here a couple times in front of you all. Uh Mr. Parish, you know, pretty much really hit on the areas where, you know, we're looking for and what I view on this amendment is he's absolutely correct. We have five separate discrete areas that we're looking for in this amendment to address. A vast number of them are to help staff and the developer on clarity of what the language states in the code versus the development agreement, how you know we're seeking to proceed. The first one on the height limitation, you know, our interpretation is the fourth amendment currently states that we're already entitled to 100 ft are the highest allowed under the height overlay district. And where the rub is is the definition of are we a mixeduse development here? You know, we are in a regionally mixeduse zoning district. We're here before you under a mixeduse development agreement. And you know the staff report which was highlighted to you know quotes language in it and um it's it's the page nine here and it says quote mixeduse development may increase height to 150 ft provided the development meets the following criteria. One the building includes two uses and two provides a walkway and amenities along the waterfront of the Indian River Lagoon. I'm gonna if I may approach and hand out the height overlay district language just so everybody can follow along.

You got to make sure you give the or the code is in page 167 of your packet as well. Thank you Mr. Parish, Mr. Oliver.

Yep. So if section 29162 sube states that a mixeduse development may increase height to 150 ft provided the development meets the following criteria. Includes buildings with a minimum of two uses such as multif family and commercial or a hotel and commercial. It doesn't say building including two uses within the building. Our position is we are a mixeduse development and we are committed to doing more than two uses. Not only are we committed to it, we're required by your code and the development agreement to have two different uses within here. And if you go to I I didn't print it out, but section 37 of your code um in the definition section defines what is mixed use. And I can read it to you here, but mixed use is defined as quote the development of a tract of land or building or structure with two or more different uses such as but not limited to blah blah blah blah. So it your code defines that mixed use as the development of attractive land with more than two uses. And that's exactly what we're proposing to do. We can't find anywhere in the code where it specifically says two uses within one building. And that's the that's the majority of our disagreement with staff. You know, secondary to that is where we would lay out the height within the development. And you know, our position is it says along the waterfront. We are proposed and committed. We are already bound by the development agreement and have committed to doing putting in the walkway boardwalk features along the waterfront that is part of this property. There's nothing in the code that says that it's only the parcels that are immediately bordering the water. It specifically says the mixeduse

development provided the development meets the criteria below. And we are putting in the boardwalk in those sections. So that's uh an interpretation issue that we have with staff and you know we've been working with staff, you know, to the extent we can to try to reach agreement on that one and unfortunately we are just at loggerheads on on this issue. We we just need clarity from you all um on how to apply that section of the code. The next section is related to the smallcale plat request uh to utilize that procedure. If I may approach one more time and then hopefully that'll be it. Yeah.

So, what what I handed you all and and Brad, just so you can follow along, it's uh section 34-141 of the smallcale plat process within the city. And it starts out with the intent and then you have the application and and then the qualification standards. And what we're really looking for is a variance to the qualification standards on what qualifies for this project. And I think to really get to why we're trying to utilize it, what we're what we I'd like you to focus on or follow along with me is the intent section. And the intent of this small-scale plat process is the approval of a smallcale plat is intended to be an administrative process for the division or creation of lots in any zoning district not requiring the creation of new streets or rightaways. We're not proposing creating any new streets of or rightways. And it's the process provides a division of a limited number of lots with minimum need for public facility improvements and access provided by existing public streets or private ways. We're not asking for any public facility improvements. They're all being done privately and we will be accessing via the existing public streets. Now, one of them is in permitting and Mr. Paris is correct about that and we won't be accessing that one or dividing land under the small scale plat process to that one until that road has been built and accepted by the city. Um so and and it goes on in the intent section to say this is to you know facilitate the administration of the the faster PLA process when no more public infrastructure is needed to facilitate it. Now the specific variance that we're asking for here is if you go down to section 143A1 A is the first one and it says that of the criteria to meet that that you have to show that water sewer and reuse can be provided by the addition of service

laterals only for each slot being proposed. No main extensions required. What we've proposed in our request is that we allow to be doing to put in private mains. no public mains. They won't be maintained by the city to the extent a main is needed. Now, keep in mind, all of this still comes to your staff for the technical review to make sure that they meet the codes required for your public uh facilities to process. So, they get to make sure that any proposed plat has the connections that tie in to be comfortable to meet their code. If we don't meet it, we have to go back to the regular prep plat process, which you know, again, we'd probably get the same comment and then come before you. So, we're really not changing the technical specifications of what are being put in. We're just not extending the public facilities into the property. And then the next one, the other section what we requested was subsection B. We asked to be able to utilize joint storm water ponds within this small scale prep plat process. Sorry, getting dry mouth and too much coffee. But to utilize those joint storm water ponds and this will all be conducted under a master storm water permit that is with the St. John's and showing the outfall necessary. We know that we have to show that to staff in order to proceed. But as the process is set up right now, you have to put individual retention on each ponds and show the positive outfall. What we're proposing is to be able to use joints among some of the properties as necessary as the engineering proceeds to show where those natural contours would line would fall. And then the final one is subsection E where we've proposed that not to have driveway connections onto the spine road or to US1 from every single lot. What we've requested is the leeway in in lie of driveway connections

is the right to use private easements across neighboring properties so we can control and reduce the number of access points onto the public roads and therefore potential vehicular and pedestrian conflict points. That's a safety concern. You know, we could do it now with just doing straight driveways and connecting onto the roads. We're proposing to provide the flex or have the flexibility from the city to not have to do that. So, we know this all comes to staff for the technical review. We're not asking to skip any reviews. What this really facilitates is us not going back through the public hearing process on the smallcale plat where there's no more public facilities or improvements being proposed. the third section. And bear with me, I'm kind of lost which one the third one is here.

Landscape 10 foot wide buffers. Landscape buffers.

Landscape buffers. Correct. Um so in this one and there's two different sections on the landscape buffers that we're requesting. The first one is to reduce the and and Mr. Paris stated that stated the current code correctly as to how the buffers between the proposed multifamily and you know like a public shopping center or whatever would work. You could theoretically have to put in 30 feet between them of this buffer. What we're requesting is the flexibility to go down to 10 feet minimum. not going below 10 feet and we might still do 30, but it is to provide some flexibility for those developers that are coming in. If they want 30 and that fits in their plan, that's great. But if they're in a community that wants more connectivity without the screening from these other uses, we'd like them to have that flexibility. What we've proposed to do is if we go down to that reduced um footage of the landscaping is to put in additional landscaping within that density uh that buffer to make it a little more dense and full to provide the screening that maybe as the goal of the city um as to why they have it here. And the comment we got back from the staff was that you know they the proposed language was 125% of the landscape enhance. We put in 125% of the landscape requirement. So we'd go above and beyond. The staff comment came back is uh revise the language to and for the staff to be able to implement it. And it was kind of we don't know how to implement this language. That one caught us off guard. this language, that very language has been in this agreement since 2017 and it's been in every iteration after 2017. So what we're proposing in different areas where they're putting the landscaping in. But so what we're doing is taking an

existing concept that we've used elsewhere and applying it within these internal boundaries between the multif family and the commercial as it comes in. So that was one of the landscape buffering um sections and the other one was the request to be able to allow the ancillary uses um in the backyards of the single family homes. You know, Mr. Parish is correct on the way he stated it. We would like to place them in there. We had the discussion with PNZ. Some of the council members expressed they didn't have a concern with it provided that we would put in a masonry wall um abuing the 25- foot landscaping abuing the US1 rightway and sidewalks area and we said we would do that. His concern was safety and noise and the developer has said they would do that and again we're stating tonight we're committed to do that and you know to the comment that the lots could have been laid out differently. Sure they could have. they weren't. The situation that we foresee happening if we don't take care of this now is those individual homeowners in the coming years are going to be coming in here asking for individual variances. And you're going to have angry homeowners who said, "I bought, you know, this lot. Why can't I have my tool shed in the backyard? Why can't I have uh my mosquito enclosure or my barbecue grill set?" whatever they're trying to put back there, we're trying to obiate the need for that discussion in the future with those other homeowners. So, that was our intent on asking for it. Now, the the final section is the request on the the the pond and balancing the dirt on the site. And approximately 250,000 cubic yards of fill or will be moved in the development of this pond. And just for rough numbers, I hate doing math in public, but if the trucks are running

fully loaded, it's about 18 yards per truck. Currently, if we did that and and took them off site, it'd be somewhere between 2,800 to 3,000 dump trucks going out of the site on the public roads onto US1 and all the potential for conflicts there. And then when we want to balance the other sites where we're proposing to put this dirt now so they don't go on the roads, all those trucks would have to come back in carrying the dirt again. So what we've proposed and it's in um it's in the staff report. I don't have the page, but it was submitted to the staff back in August or so. Um, showing the it was August 19th. Um, submitted it showing some conceptual areas of where we would propose to stockpile this dirt so that those trucks aren't on the road causing, you know, the sound and noise and safety issues that that many trucks cause. Um, one of the BMS would be along the new proposed uh spine road. bank that's proposed to keep it very low at about 8 ft high and with a concept of being as soon as the spine road is permitted that dirt would then become part of the spine road. The other two major fill areas we pulled them up as close to US1 and the mature vegetation as we could there to keep them as far away from the existing single family lots in the back. And you know we've I've spoken with Mr. Parish and the staff. We understand the concerns on these being left there. We've offered that we would bond it. So after the two years and we are proposing two years from when we start stockpiling it that that dirt will be removed or we have to come you know beg for forgiveness or ask you guys to grant it and if you don't our bond would be utilized to have to

bring that land back to the natural grade where it was. Um, we've also agreed that we would conduct the tree surveys and any mitigation that your code requires for the areas that would be proposed to be cleared. The 30% number was for us as a safety margin. So, if we proposed 20% and it ended up being 23%, we didn't have to come back and ask for another amendment to the development agreement to do it. So, that's a safety margin. We don't anticipate having to use 30% of any of these parcels to do that. If you look at the um and it's sorry, I'm not going to waste your time trying to find the page now, but if you look at that proposed site, you'll see it's nowhere close to 30%. We're not clearcutting. We're going to try to locate these in the areas where we don't impact any mature trees. We're going to pull them as close to the mature trees as we can and protect those trees because that keeps them as far away from the homeowners as possible. The erosion and mitigation measures u my client is willing to seed those uh piles as needed or place hay on them as needed to keep any concerns as to the soil erosion. Um you know, we're happy to do that. So, I think that that really covers what we're asking for and and and why. And I'm happy to, you know, try to address any concerns or questions that that you all have for me.

Thank you, Mr. Oliver. Um, I think in ease to make sure that we're all not getting confused up here because there's several different things I'm sure there'll be questions on. Can council we agree to just take them one amendment at a time? Is that is that good? All right. So, we're gonna start with section 3.4. Anybody have any questions uh for Mr. Oliver regarding uh that section? Uh that is the maximum overlay. Sorry, I was looking at the developers agreement. Yeah, it's probably in that order. I'm looking at the actual agreement, not the PowerPoint. Um but yeah, section. Yeah.

Yeah, you got me confused on that one too. Just a second. So because again at the end of the day whatever's on the PowerPoint isn't legal. It's page two of the developers agreement. Uh yes because at the end of the day this is what's in the contract. This is what matters. And uh you know before we kind of get into this you know this has been going on since 2017. And I believe every single council before us has supported uh getting this project moving. And you know, I have a concern about speed of productivity. Um, as Titusville has been has a bad reputation of getting people through the process and I want to make sure that whatever it is, we're getting people through the process and that's also why we have a planned development agreement, right, PD so we can have some flexibility, negotiate back and forth. So I just want everybody to kind of keep that in mind that the goal is hopefully to move forward and there's no residents here angry or upset taking aside on this matter. This seems to be between interpretation of our code as it is very ambiguous as our code has been maybe a little hodge podge over the the years and we're we're trying to figure that out and make it a little easier. Uh city attorney. Yes, ma'am. Just a point of clarification that the document before council is a proposed amendment and not a legally binding document at this time un until council deems itself so

but I wanted to make sure when somebody said I move or to whatever that they're looking at the right language that's agreed. Absolutely. So if there are any tweaks because I can see that happen and somebody tweaking one word and then we're trying to read it from memory. So I want to make sure we're good. Sure. And I anticipate it'll come back before council for finalization anyways after perhaps discussion or vote here. But I just wanted to make it clear that it's a proposed amendment. Thank you very much, city attorney. Member Stokel.

Mayor Member Stokal, I'm sorry. I just want to point out to clarify. So you can what you have on that page, what you're looking at is the clean version. I did include on page 146 the striketh through underline of what was proposed and from the original language to what's being proposed. so you can see the difference. Thank you, Mr. Parish. Member Stokel, you have the floor.

Yes. Um, just to reiterate um somewhat of what you were saying. So, this piece of property has been trying to be developed for over 20 years. Obviously, the beginning of that that was the recession. So, I understand that, but I think it's important for us to keep in mind that this has been uh vacant there. There's no there's really no other piece of property like it. And I think some of what we've passed in the past passed in the past um was so yeah I know um may have not been 100% accurate because we really didn't know what was being proposed here. I can tell you when I got on council almost nine years ago. This was one of my biggest projects that I wanted because and I keep saying it several times. We don't really have high-end housing in our area. And if you go by on 4:05 at 5:00, you will get stuck in traffic as everyone's leaving the space center and going to Orlando. That has been my biggest thing because it will help increase our tax base and hopefully help us to lower our millage rate as home values are higher. So, I've been a big proponent of this project. Um, so with that, as I've been going through this, uh, trying to understand the intent and making sure that, um, for at least from my perspective, I want to see this development go through. I think there's been a lot of time and money invested in it. And I think that it's well thought out for not only the developer to make a profit, but also to add a benefit to the community. So when I went through these one by one. So I'll tell you my concern with the first one was uh increasing the height and I'm like okay what is the intent here? Mixed use. We want to make sure and you guys have heard me say this before in other developments. I do not want you to build your apartments on a much much smaller piece of property. Again this is a large piece of property. Um build your apartments and then say oh here's a park. There's our there's our community benefit. that that has always been a sticking point for me. And so when I look at this, I look at this piece as a

whole and see, okay, where is that mixeduse element and so for me that front piece on US1 of being that commercial space, that is where I see that mixeduse component. Um, and so I would agree that I think that they should be allowed to have this. However, with the caveat, I would feel a lot more comfortable passing it if they would agree to developing structurally at least a 100,000 square foot of the commercial space. That way, I can ensure and feel satisfied that commercial space is coming as part of that mixeduse component before allowing them to have the 150 ft. And that would make me feel comfortable and I think that's a win-win. And I think that's the intent behind this. So, that's that's my piece on that first one.

Thank you, member Stokl. Member Mscoso. Sure. Um, so just looking at our land development regulations, um, I mean I think the in I would say the intent of having these minimum of two uses, commercial, multif family is so that the public can access that obviously and then the second part because it's two things is that it provides a public walkway um, along the waterfront. And so are you still going to be providing that public walkway on the waterfront? Yes, ma'am. That's part of the development agreement now which was put in there during the negotiations um which would stretch the along the um well I'm on TV now it's not the

is that going to be in front of those homes that are already along the commercial parcels where the um that but between the road the entrance road now I forget the name of it of Palms or something and the and the river there's a proposed linear boardwalk that runs that full length. Um, that that will go along the commercial and how long is that? I is there is that in our code with how long that needs to be? If you look at the last slide, I think the development agreement already says,200 ft. You look at the last slide of that presentation I gave you, you'll see. Okay. What's Yeah, Mr. Oliver's describing. It looks like it's a letter. It's labeled D.

T. You got to squint really hard. the area. Okay. So, in the front right along the water along the water on the water and then your um commercial I don't know if it's stated like the if it goes up to 150. I mean, we have to think if this is going to be 150, this is the the tallest development we're going to have in Titusville. I mean, Harbor Point is I think 12 stories or 12.

So, this is going to we're talking 15. And I'm just curious how this is going to affect live local because right now we know live local I know that that's going through the state as well. we are we're a mile out there, but now we're extending that within our community. I think that is something we've talked about a lot and so um we're adding a whole another radius for live local based off of this. So now we're saying possibly in the interior of our our community we could have up to 15 I mean 150 ft. That is huge. Um, so the those developments did you have where they would would be because from what I understand I felt like I mean it needed to be on the river. So I'm happy to see that you're doing the boardwalk but is it laid out where those developments would be?

Not yet. What we're proposing is within the property and that's the point of the definition that we I was reading which is um gez now I've lost it. Um it says the development and we'll have the waterfront uh boardwalk put in and the development is doing that and to the extent as to as the questions on live local the 150 foot is already allowed here under the existing development agreement. What we're trying to do is clarify do we have to put two uses in one building or not? And I don't think that it's a logical reading of the ordinance as drafted to state that you do have to have two uses in one building.

Like so what I don't want to see is like I mean multif family here and then there be a boardwalk for the public but no benefit you know where they would come in and shop and and eat at the bottom and then there'd be housing at the top. So I believe that that ties into the public park which is a use and then you also have um it would access all the way across. The intent is to put a high-end hotel there and you know whatever other commercial uses would presumably go there when that use is identified. But okay, thank you.

It will tie into the public network of roads. So, this won't just be multif family and then a boardwalk right in front of that because we want the public to I mean, if the the binding agreement said that there needed to be a boardwalk for the public use, then we want the public to have access to it and actually have somewhere to go instead of just in front of apartments. Sure, they definitely will have access to it. I'm not sure the exact RMU district that that sits in. I'm not sure that is a multifamily district, but I'm not positive on that. So there, you know, so I mean that's where I see the two uses would be would be beneficial and we agree that have two uses within the development just not within one building is is the is the rub.

And then you know again just how you kind of described it. You know you have multi-million dollar homes along the river. You're probably not going to put an apartment complex right next to it. You're going to probably look at the hotel or commercial public boardwalk park. you know some marina whatever might come up uh to to fit that usage that's true but we don't know that member I have the floor member Nelson

Cole there are things that I agree with you on this one I don't uh remember we did the height overlay uh because we thought we were going to get a hotel by Kennedy Point but This this happened about the same time and we negotiated this where it was 100 ft. So I really I don't have a problem along the waterfront changing the height but coming in I hate to see houses and then 100 150 foot building next to me. So I think to me I'd rather stick with what we started with which was 100 ft. That's what the developer agreed with. That's what we agreed to. Um some of you weren't here at that point as Sarah and I were here. We agreed with it. That's what they asked for and I would just assume live with that. Um, and I think the people who who are buying into the development, I think that's what they expect and we're turning around and changing the horse as we're going along. So, I I don't want to see us doing that. And as you as you know I tried to lay out, we don't see it as changing the horse because the existing development agreement now says if we meet the criteria of mixed use within the development and have the walkway along the property's frontage, we qualify. It's already in the existing development.

But do you see what I'm saying? It's like we agreed to one thing, things changed, and it's like, "Oh, but that really doesn't count now. The 150 foot height overlay district was not requested by my client. The city unilaterally put it on that property. Right.

So the city put that height overlay district on there after there had already been a development agreement in place that had the 100 foot and then there had already been I believe a plat submitted requesting the single family homes on a portion of it there. So, you know, again, the city placed us within the district and now they're trying to say, "But you can't take advantage of being in the district." That's that's that's the rub that we have.

Well, to me, it's like we make a contract. Contract says ABC and they change the statute and one of us comes in and says, "Ah, they changed the statute. Now we want D, E, and F." So to me, this is what we started with and I would just assume continue along that line. Again, I thank you. I you know, obviously we spar a lot, but um Oh, by the way, attorneys argue a lot. Yeah, noticed.

I I just don't see us as as asking to change anything. We're just asking for clarification on the definition so that we can avoid a dispute in the future. If we left it as it is now, there could be a dispute in the future as to where does the city code say it has to be within one building. And you know, our position is it doesn't. We'd just be arguing for the next couple years. There are other places we could do it, but it's more fun here uh than other places.

But you're right. Um we could be arguing for years on that. What we're trying to do is work through that tonight with what we view as the reading of the code con the development agreement consistent with the definitions and the criteria within the code as it's drafted. Um

I think the important thing for me is that we just have an answer and move on because I think the faster you guys get things built the faster we as council and our city can collect that tax revenue. And as we are staring down the opportunity of losing potential tax revenue with what happening in Tallahassee, I think it's critically important that these commercial projects get built sooner than later and us and I literally had this debate with Mr. Parish during my prep meeting of the definition of the code where he's saying building and I'm like it says buildings with an S and I and I don't want to see that. I want us to come to a resolution and move forward. Well, and and to that I just received a message from my client. You know, in the interest of trying to work forward, and I hesitate to do this soon because we have four more items to work through. If we can come to agreement on those other four items to move through, we'd be willing to pull this off the table for now as to this and and ride with the language that's existing now. You know, we don't have plans for 150 foot buildings now. when those plans come to fruition, you know, we can argue again if any of us are still around at that time and um or we will uh de debate again. Maybe not argue as a proper term, but um you know, again, provided that we can get to there tonight on these other items because these other items are really critical. This height one to us, you know, we're we were okay with 100,000 committing to 100,000 square feet of commercial and development before doing that. We want clarity so we can move forward and every time there's a dispute, we don't have to come back before the board for a development agreement amendment. Um, these remaining items are very timesensitive and crucial to us moving forward in on the project. So, you know, I'll just maybe conclude with not pulling it yet, but you we're almost there.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Oliver. And I think it's important to understand that, you know, as member Stokal said, who you know, you said at that time you fought for this project. I wasn't around that time, but this is a very complex project. It may be something that has um overburdened our staff in terms of how to apply the code because unfortunately they're dealing with the code as written and our city code didn't really have an opportunity to explore something like this. And we're talking about a very complex project that has multi-million dollar homes, another single family home, potential uh, you know, apartments, over 100,000 square foot of commercial, marina, docks, hotel, public boardwalk, wrong lagoon. Am I missing anything?

That's all I've seen. Okay. You know, so, you know, my concern is our city code just wasn't prepared to to handle something like this. And that's why uh the constant amendments to just clarify so that staff feels comfortable knowing the intent of council because this is the only RMU zoning district within the city. So we're we're wrestling with that. Staff's wrestling with it. We have some good-hearted debates. Um not arguments, but we are here tonight to try to move forward. Well, even though I'm not an attorney, I still love to argue. Member Stokele. Yeah, that was going to be my recommendation. If we can try to maybe go on to the second one. All right. So, uh, we'll we'll we'll table the first one. Pause up for that right now. And then,

um, and I had a question for staff regarding the small scale amendment or small scale plat. Um, it seems like they have a plan for access to utilities. Does somebody want to say something first? Okay.

Okay. Um it seems like for the small scale plat they have a plan for having p uh private utilities and I guess my question is what are your concerns with administratively approving what comes before you if the zoning's already there the land use is already there and they are able to provide and show utilities to you before approving the project. I'd refer you to page 174 of your packet 174 175 but included the sections of the code that are relevant to discussion tonight and in that section there section 34-143 which is what Mr. Oliver already handed out to you but I highlighted what I believe were the most relevant to here. So these are the things that you'd have to qualify for in order or meet the criteria you'd have to meet in order to qualify to be able to use the small scale plat process. They're hoping to wave that. So, it seems like what they're trying to do is get a plat approved as a one-step process, which I understand. And they want to try to make it as streamlined as possible. What I don't have is an exhibit that clearly illustrates what they want to do. I had a conversation with Mr. Oliver about it and he said that the based on the master plan was proved an exhibit attached to the fourth amendment from what I understand is what they hope to subdivide. But I'm not clear. I'm not totally sure. So I tried to illustrate that to you in the illustration of a map that I showed you in my presentation, but you'll see the things that are highlighted here. They want to wave the requirement that they don't have to put in any uh main extension. They want to wave the requirement that each lot can have its own positive outfall. They want to be able to put in a master storm water system, which is something we require with our with our two-step process. You have to go through the formal process. They want to wave that.

Wave the building area. um wave the the having to qualify or not have to put in uh driveways and not create in other words parcels that could possibly not be on a on a front as a road. What I understand is that's because we have a permit in review right now for the road for the spine road. So I believe that's what they're asking for is a process that's more streamlined and they won't be able to wave these qualifications in order to use this. Just just to clarify, we're not asking to wave any of these qualifications. We're asking to follow these qualifications with the added criteria that we can utilize private mains

in the section A portion that we can utilize joint storm water ponds in section B for the legal outfall and drainage which will all be shown in the site plan and the permits and in section E that we can utilize something other than a driveway connection. we can utilize private easements to get over to any other roads or cross other properties. So, just trying to be very clear, we are not asking to wave anything. We're asking to add to here a couple of items that would qualify us for this process. And the other items that we're not looking to touch is the lots cannot be subdivided or split in a way to increase development density or intensity. We're not asking for that. The density and intensity is already set by the development agreement. the um we're not asking if we have to ask to dedicate public areas to the public I mean areas to the public which is section F we're not asking to do away with that we know that we can't do that and qualify for this process and in um section C reasonable buildable area we're not asking to wave that we know we've got to show that we have reasonable building buildable area in any of the proposed lots that would be split off so again just trying to be extraordinarily clear We are not asking to wave any of this.

And can you explain to us why you would like us to allow this particular amendment? What would it save you in terms of time, costs? Why is this necessary for you guys? Sure. It's the PLA process of the public hearings and everything else. So it adds several months to the process of coming through for you know again and um for these specific items that you plan to meet just maybe in a different way.

Correct. And we we think we met meet the intent section 141 because we're not asking um to create any new streets or rightaways or any more public facility improvements to do this. Okay. Um Brad, do you have any concerns hearing that of what he's saying? Yeah. So the you look at 34-142 it says I have 15 days to turn around and review with basically what they're asking for is um a lot of infrastructure or a lot of information that's be part of a stranded plat that takes a longer time to review. So I'm not sure how we could even meet that those deadlines.

I understand they're trying to get out of having to bring this before you for you know quasi judicial process. I get that. I think the um issue that we have is we just don't know is this going to apply only to one process or is it going to apply subsequent from now on this is the process that will be utilized for any subdivision of land here. That's another question we have.

So if the timing is a concern, you know, if it's 30 days, that's fine. Um we don't have a problem with that. Um, and is it going to apply going forward by utilizing this process? It can't be utilized for more than 10 different lots. It's already self-capped by what would be in here, so it can't be used indefinitely.

Okay. Um, and again, I guess for from my perspective on this one, I don't necessarily like giving up things coming to council. I like us to have like our stamp of approval on it. However, the flip side of that is when we've been given a plan, a development agreement, and we kind of know what's happening. I am not in favor of red tape or extending, if you kind of watch and look through the back and forth and the timing of this. I would also argue this is probably why the state keeps throwing out legislation because of scenarios that might be like this of oh because you might there might be a difference on one little aspect of this you know now it's going to be held up for six months potentially. I I can tell you I know Tallahassee is hearing stories like that. And so for me um I like to try to balance that out of where can we eliminate red tape but also protect our community and our citizens. And so, um, as long as they're meeting criteria for staff to meet storm water, the utilities, the things that are being addressed here, I would like to try to help them out in this particular process where you guys feel comfortable. But what do you need from us to do that?

If you agree with this, then we'll, as from what I understand, this is a one-time process what they're asking for to be able to use this right now. I just don't have an exhibit to illustrate what they're trying to subdivide specifically. Um, I do want to remind you though the state statute the state last year adopted a a law that now requires jurisdictions to adopt an ordinance making their plat process administrative.

That thank you. That was that was my other thing that was probably already coming before us. So, um I have no concerns with this one knowing that it will still go to staff for approval and they will be checking these things that are important. Um, again I and asked this in my briefing. I think if you guys remember the uh Searstown Mall development, we were concerned with them selling off pieces of property and then somebody purchases it and then they have no access to utilities and they're we have to tell them, oh, you need to pay thousands or hundreds of thousands or potentially millions. Um, and I think this will by them having to approve it will protect any potential owner from that. So I'm okay with this one. Vice Mayor Cole,

I just want to make sure, Brad, that uh we reiterate that even if we approve these amendments, it still comes back to us for approval. So, uh I honestly feel the same way that uh member Stokal said that we would like to get this project. We don't want to be the obstacles that's going to stop this project from moving forward. We want this project to move forward because we want the tax revenue that we're going to get from the project hopefully if property taxes stay in existence. Yeah. Member MCoso. Oh, I think you had your light on first. I call on whoever I want. Member Moso. Okay.

Um yeah, I I would have to say I mean I hear a lot about tax revenue. Um but you know, just because a project can bring in tax revenue doesn't mean we get to greenlight it. I feel like we have to treat every project the same. And so I think our staff has done an excellent job. They've had 49 meetings with the applicant. I mean, a lot of work has been um done on both sides. And so this is a project I think we all want to support. We agree it's going to be good for our community. Um, I will say I just have my two concerns would be the um the height and then my second concern is the buffer because if we move down to 10 ft I'm thinking 10 feet is two sides two Hermans stacked up.

Remember MSO we're just on the uh one at a time. Okay. Yeah. Um yeah. So I'll just say those are my two concerns and then I'll let you guys have the conversation but um I just like for confusion sake I just wanted to take them one at a time. Yeah. Um, so we're on the small scale plat uh section. Member Nelson. So Brad, how long do you want to have to review this time frame? 30 days. Well, our our code currently states 30 days. No, under here it's 15. Under the small scale plan, it says 15. We're willing to agree to 30. Obviously,

um we can we'll use the time frames that are sitting here as best we can. Um that's what we the the time frames are. So, what what would be realistic? It really depends on the complexity of the project. So, our site plans are 30 days is what's recommended to city staff. Okay. U for subdivision reviews in each particular review. That's what we try to meet. You've seen our numbers, our averages. Sometimes they go up and down depending on how many projects we have in review in the docket at any point of time. Um, so if that's what you're asking us, I would recommend that. Okay. Vice Mayor Cole. Yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve the smallcale plant amendment. There's a motion by Vice Mayor Cole

with the 30 days. Second. Yes. And a second by member Nelson. Is there any further discussion from this board? Sorry. Yes. Member MCO, can I just uh staff, can you just remind me what your concerns were on that one more time? My biggest concern is I don't have an illustration or an exhibit to attach to the amendment to the application or the agreement rather that states exactly what they're proposing to subdivide that kind that we can say that to help implement this. And I believe Manny has something to add as well.

Just wanted to add some clarity about the small scale plat process that was actually added to speed up platting. we did that within the boundaries of this Florida statute. Um, so that's a great process as well as the non-residential minor division. Um, but what we when we went back and did some research and talked to the county years ago, what we were trying to do by requiring the utilities and the roadways ends is really to protect a future buyer. Um, because the county sometimes allows people to split and then there's no frontage, there's no utilities. And as member Stokal pointed out, they're coming to us and saying, "Wait a minute, you're requiring us to, you know, extend a road or extend water and sewer." So that's why that was written that way that you have to have those items in before you can even apply for a small scale plat, which is really to protect um residents or a future buyer. So I just wanted to give some clarification but if a smallcale plat part of the review are the existing utilities and we don't have that portion to review it's really a drawings on a piece you know on a on a submitt um and yeah so

so one section of the public utilities the road and sewer and the water that runs on the uh the existing roads are already in I believe the city has those public works drawings and everything else if not our engineer can provide them and they're in planning and permitting now for the other utilities that would run along the the remainder of the spine road that loops back to 405. So all of those public infrastructures will be in before we tie into any of them.

Um can I add maybe a friendly amendment? Would would you be willing to provide the um it says illustrating the proposed division of the land for the staff to determine. Would you be able to provide that information? do during the application when we submit our application. But if we attach it to the development agreement, then we want to do something different, then we got to amend the development agreement to do something different. So that's why we don't want it in here to attach to this because that brings us back down this train of coming back through community meetings, P&Z, and council readings to amend an exhibit that shouldn't have been attached in the first place in our opinion. So, but yes, they will have full exhibits with their packet that comes to them for their review. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Right. Any further discussion? City clerk. Member Stokel. Yes. Member Moscoso? Yes. Member Nelson? Yes. Mayor Connor? Yes. Vice Mayor Cole? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. On to E. Section 30-332 allowing the installation of a single 10- foot wide type A landscape separation between the different land use intensities within the subd districts. All right, member Stool.

Okay, question on this one, Cole. I think that there might be concerns because this is a very um small buffer, the 10 ft. Um, is it possible for this one to be and it's between two uses? If we were to say it's between um like commercial and apartments, I think the concern might be having a 10-ft buffer between an apartment complex and a single family home. Looking at the map of the proposed development and I based on the conversation,

I think that the intent here is if there is going to be a retail plaza for instance that might have a hotel may have apartments and you want to walk to like get something to eat, you don't want to have a me a 20 foot buffer where the intent is to have walkability within that. That's the intent. And the single family uses are already buffered by the existing preservation areas and open areas and spaces. So all the single family has that buffering in place. Okay.

The the spine roads are the 100 foot wide spine roads with the 15 foot landscape medians between them that provide the code separation between the 300 and 400 uses. So really what we're looking at is in the RMU 300 I believe is multif family

is the the RMU district that allows commercial uses and multifamily uses within RMU300 and so it's an and Brad correct me if it's the 300 or 400 one but in some of those you can have multifamily RMU300 is a multif family but it allows other commercial so within for example so in those subd districts We want to be able to go to that smaller boundary if that's what the people that are developing the project thinks makes the most sense in a mixeduse development as they see it at the time.

So would you be okay with this amendment saying that um we would go back to the 10 foot uh wide buffer between the RMU 300 and 400 which is multif family and commercial. So there's no, we already have a 100 foot buffer between RMU300 and RMU 400. They don't touch anywhere on the site plan. Okay. And that confused me. Um,

take a look at page 260 of your packet. You'll see the approved master plan that's currently governing on the property. And there's a table on on the top left of that page that shows what Mr. was talking about Ry 300, Ry 400, and where they're located by label uh as parcel 5 or 260 260. Almost there. And you'll see these large parcels are or areas are divided by the spine road.

Okay, I'm looking at the map and spine I see spine road going all across and then there's some cross streets. So the I'm sorry. The area that is labeled uh five along the water on the south south of the subdivision according to the table is RMU 400 which allows highdensity residential and or commercial. Okay.

So in that case if that's developed with a mixture of different horizontal uses such as commercial residential next to each other I think that in that particular district that's where they're asking for flexibility with the buffers. Would there be this flexibility with a 10-ft buffer anywhere else on this piece of property besides five in par let's take another example parcel 3 which is in the center of the development is called RMU 300 it's stated as highdensity residential only. So I don't see anything other uses proposed in that particular parcel.

I don't either. So that would be dedicated specifically just to multif family and then parcel six which is a large one has if you look at the table it's got 400 R 400 that's high density residential and or commercial that could be another example where you can have a mixture within that district and what about parcel two I think that's commercial isn't it two states 400 and that is also Yeah, same same question. And then the one right next to it, is that considered two as well? Just south on the other side of where two

two I believe that would be another example. Yes, that's still two. Okay. So, if I'm hearing you correctly, this could apply to two, three, five, and six. The rest are single family, right? And we we've already put the wide buffers between the single family homes and all other components of the property. Okay. And then three is only highdensity residential. So there's no other use that they could put there anyway. Is that correct? That's how I see it. It's high density residential section 300. I'm not sure like they couldn't put any commercial RU300 has off the top of my head.

Okay. Um, and I guess, yeah, going back to my concern looking like it would be a 10-ft buffer between a commercial and a single family home, um, or a multifamily and a single family home. But looking at the map, I feel like again depending on what a develop whoever owns the piece of property, if they're trying to do some type of plaza, especially in parcel 2 specifically, um I could see in parcel five them potentially wanting to do some type of restaurant like across the street or something or across the park um parking lot, I should say. Um

these districts could be subdivided later on. Okay, that's possible. So like one side being apartments and another side being just for example section two that we're looking at is approximately 30 acres according to this district that could have multifamily and a grocery center with you know out parcel restaurants on it. What we don't want to get into is having to tell that multi-family developer, you've got to put in 20 feet of landscaping buffer on your side and commercial guy, you've got to put in 10 feet on your side. So now you've got a 30 foot buffer when neither of them really wants it potentially. Okay? You know, all right.

We totally agree that the buffering from the single family home, we've that's already been accomplished, but you know, bells and suspenders if you want.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, member Stokal. I'll just read this section of the amendment again to allow the installation of a single 10- foot wide type A landscape separation between differing land use intensities within the same subd district. So, we're not talking about the differences between, you know, the the gated community or the front community or that. It's just within the same subsection. Member Mscoso. Yeah, I I would just say 10 foot is um is wild to me. That that's I mean that is nothing. 10 foot and if we think 50 feet that's what our what we require right now. I mean that's probably not even the length. So if we're talking walkability, people can walk. You know, it's not that big of a deal. So I'm definitely not for this. I mean, if you could give me a really good reason of why you think we need to get to 10 feet. And then I think the compromise that the staff is asking is what does that 125% actually look like? Because you're asking for clarity and you're saying we just don't really know what it's saying. And then the staff is also saying we would like clarity. What does the the additional because you're giving us an additional 25%. So what does that actually look like so that they can measure it?

Sure. And to address the the second point first, if the code requires 100 caliber in of trees, we'll put in 125 caliber in. If the code requires 100 plants, we'll put in 125 plants. So, whatever your landscaping code requires, we're going to do 25% more than what the code requires. And again, I go back to that language has been in here for nine years, and you know, we're asking to continue it. We've submitted this several times. If there were and through various different amendments, if that was the the concern, we don't know how to implement it. You know, we could address some ways to clean it up, but at this point, it's worked for nine years on that section. You know, we have areas where we're putting in the landscaping in different areas um under that definition, I believe.

And what about the first point? The first point on the 10 feet is um you know it's like your downtown mixed use district has 10 feet setbacks in its landscaping and on as it approaches different areas. So as a mixeduse development district we're asking for the same thing now and you know 30 feet 10 feet it's beauties in the eye of the beholder. We don't necessarily think that it adds benefit but if the buyer does then we'd like to let they can do it. They can always do more. I'm not sold, but thank you. Member Nelson,

I've seen some developments where you have residential right next to commercial and I understand what you're saying that 10 ft is small. How do you feel about 20 ft compromised? Not my project. I'd have to get with my client on that. Um, is it 20 ft now? It's 50T. 30 ft. No, it's not. This one's not the 50. Yeah, this isn't the So, I thought the 50 ft has to do with the separation between the tracks. I thought this was 20 ft currently. So, a residential development by itself has to have a 20 foot landscape perimeter buffer inside the property,

right? And the issue is that the next property adjacent to it, let's say it's commercial, would have to have a 10-ft minimum landscape buffer. So you could see 30 ft a buffer between both uses combined. That's what potentially that's what happens right now in the real world in the rest of the city. Member Nelson has the floor. You know, our point on that one is the rest of the city usually you're coming in with existing uses. It's not a uniform development. It's it's parcels developing peace meal not a master plan community.

Yeah. So for me I would suggest a compromise between commercial and residential 20 ft uh between commercial uses 10 ft and I think that would probably work. Member Stokl. Yeah, I was just going so Brad uh hearing our discussion and like I think what I guess my point would be is like having a plaza. Can you see any reason that I might not be seeing of why that 30 ft would be better than a 10 foot? Like what does that do? Is it just for what what's the rationale I guess behind that?

I it's just a policy. I mean you can see mixture of uses in our downtown aren't very far apart from each other. So urbanized areas that can understand what they're why they're asking for this. I just don't have, you know, anything to kind of illustrate what they're asking for. Really, their initial request was to have nothing in there and basically allow them to have the flexibility to provide whatever screening was appropriate, which I think the city council would probably want to see something. So 10 feet can work. Um, I guess it just depends what you put inside that 10 feet depending on what the separation of uses are.

Yeah. And I think that's kind of where I would like to give that flexibility to whoever is developing it. Um, like Cole said, it could be potentially more, but I think depending on the layout of it and if you I mean our downtown for instance, or if you've been to any um other developments that have the walkable communities, I I don't want to cause something that's like, oh, and I've been to those as well. I was like, why is this just here? And this was probably some type of policy that needed, but um considering what I'm hoping this piece of property will look like and the walkability and adding things for our residents, I would like to give them the flexibility on this one. I just it just doesn't make sense um in my mind to not allow them to do that potentially. And to member Nelson's point, I I think we're still far away from any of like the single family residential. would only be impacting like apartments or hotel which I would argue would probably want to walk close to shopping or eating.

Thank you. Member Nelson. So Cole, we're talking about areas two, three, five, and six. Correct. Yes, ma'am. The others are uh one and four are the single family zoned. Um so I'm going to make a motion You can disagree with me. Well, you got to make the motion first. So, the motion would be in areas 2, three, five, and six that it would be a 20ft buffer between residents and commercial and a 10-ft buffer within the commercial areas.

I I think that there's no buffers between commercials now. Okay. No buffers. a commercial development by itself would have the current code required to put in 10 foot landscape offer regardless what's adjacent to them. Um but if you have a plaza put in for example they could get a site plan approved for that plaza create all these out parcels and go through what's called a minor division which is another planning process we have and it potentially won't have to put any landscape offers okay between each other but just some screening as part based on what the developer wants. So there are those scenarios in our code. All right. There's a motion by member Nelson. Is there a second? Motion dies for no second. All right. Vice Mayor Cole.

I'll make a motion that we approve the maximum 10 foot wide buffers between uses. There's a motion by Vice Mayor Cole. Member Soal. Second. U as written in the amendment. Yeah. Just a second. A minimum of 10 foot. Minimum of 10 foot. Yes. Okay. All right. Just being clear. I don't want Oh, yeah. This does say maximum on our PowerPoint. Okay. That and my second stance and then that relates to areas 2, three, five, and six. Yeah, correct, Brad.

So, I I as you were discussing, we looked at the zoning use table and even the RMU 300 allows certain amounts of non-residential uses in there to be mixed in. So, that that applies to parcel 3 as well. Well, and I think the the general idea is we would like to see more commercial as well because that's obviously uh very very good in terms of not only economic development but the future of our city. So u but there's a motion and there's a second. Any further discussion from council? See none. City clerk. Member Muscoso. No. Member Nelson. Yes. Mayor Connors. Yes. Vice Mayor Cole. Yes. Member Stokel.

Yes. Motion carries. The motion passes. Section 30-3302 allowing the installation of single tip foot wide buffer. All right. Now we're on to section 28-327 to allow permitted accessory structures such as fences, swimming, pool, spas, hot tub, screen enclosures within the 50oot building setback from the road rightway lines. Member Nelson, do you have something on? Okay. Just asking. Mr. Mr. Oliver, did you want to

This is one we had we we previously discussed. The PNZ did recommend a masonry wall. Um my client was agreeable to that. That's not in the current language, but again, we reiterate our commitment that we made to PNG that we would do that. All right. Thank you very much. Any other questions, discussion? See none. Anybody want to make a motion? staff would recommend if this is approved that you specifically tie it to those lots in phase three adjacent to US one only. No problem with that. Those are the only lots that uh would be in there. So that's fine. All right.

Move to approve accessories structures and phase three or area three next to US1 um with the addition of the wall along US1. Second. There's a motion and a second. And I think I want to point out it does say that in the the agreement, the actual amendment. Yeah. So, it's already written in that amendment. So, I I think staff and developer already worked it out and increasing the landscaping to 125%.

Yeah. So, that's already in the proposed amendment as it sits on our on our draft of section 28. It it does say along the US one portion directly abuing one the phase three single family residential. So that's why you got to look at the contract. Read the words. You know they're they're right there. I don't like to go off PowerPoint. I want to read read the words. Uh so there was a motion by member Nelson. There was a second by Vice Mayor Cole. Member Stokele. Yes. Um and just to clarify uh Brad, they could build this development as is right now. They just would not be allowed accessory structures. So it could they could have their building and build their homes. Now this just would allow the accessory structures. Correct. Correct. Okay, that's all I had.

Thank you very much. Any further discussion? City clerk. Member Nelson. Yes. Mayor Connors. Yes. Vice Mayor Cole. Yes. Member Stokel. Yes. Member Muscoso. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Now we're on three- or sorry 3.6.9 6.9 base clearing and storm water drainage improvements I believe right

and just to reiterate reiterate on this when staff is correct I did have a typo um on where it says section 24-214 in the pro proposed amendment I believe that should be section 34-214 so just make sure we catch that we did uh you know again we would propose to add a bonding requirement um here we don't have a problem with that to alleviate any concerns that it's going to be left there and become a you know city's problem.

Thanks Mayor Cole do have a question about the if it is approved like this will you have a a means to I guess in high winds or something like that to stop the sand or the dirt or whatever you have piled up on there. So that was one of the reasons we were leave the mature vegetation around it to help block the wind. Okay. And then the alter the second was you know we would follow erosion controls and work with staff on that as it relates to placing hay or seeding um the property to to help maintain that. And I I would imagine if you guys had your way it wouldn't be there very long, right?

Hopefully it's much shorter than um anything. But member Moscow and um it won't be visible from the street or from the development or any of that. It'll be as far away from the street as possible. Will it be visible? It might be. Um you know, I can't promise you that won't be visible at all. I don't know exactly what all is around it. And then so you haven't provided the location of where this will be yet.

We provided conceptual locations in there in the packet and we're going to try to stay closest to those. Those were selected due to proximity to where we think the dirt will end up having to go and to minimize the impact to the trees. The other one I did forget is we do agree that we have to meet any tree mitigation. So for any clearing within that area. So you're pl you are planning on yeah obviously clearing that spot and then paying into the tree mitigation fund. We don't know if we'll pay in the tree mitigation fund or plant new trees, but we'll do whatever the code the code allows you either option. Okay. And how do we know what I mean how that works? Brad,

we don't we we plant trees on tree mitigation and require them to plant trees. We don't have any basis to require them to plant them anywhere uh because we don't have a proposed development as part of a landscape plan. Okay. So the other option is to pay into the fund. Okay. So the option would be that you pay into the fund and this is something we offer to all developers if they are unable to put the trees back onto the property. That's what they are off offer to do but they have to show that demonstrate with a landscape plan that they can plant the trees on that property

and we can plant on the property in certain locations. What we're trying to do is minimize, you know, we're obviously not going to plant them where we're pretty sure buildings are going to go in the future. So, we're going to try to put them in, you know, borders around the public roads and stuff like that if we have to mitigate. We're not even we're pretty confident we're not having any any mitigation here because we're not going to put the dirt. We're trying our best not to put the dirt in locations that require mitigation. So, I mean, without a plan, in good faith, we're trusting that you're going to do these things. No, we'll present it to the staff or we'll pay into the mitigation plan. Okay. The the concept plan that was illustrated though, too, is not binding. It's not part of the agreement. That was just information

and we come in for the site development permit process which allows for the clearing and grading and it goes through the staff's process where we give them the plans that we propose to meet and that's in the development procedure manual. Um sorry too much paperwork 173 as class one site development permits for land alterations and clearings. So if we would go through the permitting process with the city, they would see the plans where we're putting it and what trees we're impacting if any and our proposed plan to mitigate whether it's paying into the fund or uh planning them on site. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Member Mscoso. Mr. Parish, just want to remind you member Mscos had the floor engaged with Mr. Oliver. He didn't interrupt you while you were talking. So we're going to keep this cordial. Member Stokal.

Um. Yes. Okay. So, I think most of my things have been addressed already. One thing, um, I think when talking with them again, they are doing a development. They need to move some dirt for a part of their development. They will need some dirt for part of their development. And dirt is very expensive to haul away and then to purchase back. And I was like, I I'm not a fan of that, especially if they're working on a project. Um, but I did have some some stipulations that I wanted to make sure were addressed. one's the bond, so we'll add that into the agreement. Time frame, I think we said two years, but you also with the provision that you could apply for an extension if needed. Um, the location, hopefully it will meet what you guys provided conceptually. Um, and then as I heard it, you will follow the tree mitigation rules that we have in place already.

Yes, ma'am. Okay. So, with those things, I feel confident, and I guess that would be my motion, um, to approve the class one permit for up to 30% clearing of each parcel to stockpile soil with those conditions of the bond requirement, a time frame of two years with the potential um, option to extend if needed, the locations as presented before us, and continuing to follow our tree mitigation uh, rules as outlined in our policies. Second. Motion by member Stokal, second by member Nelson. Is there any discussion from this board, Mr. Parish?

I have questions of clarification on how to implement this. So, the language says that they have two years to dig and construct. That's how I read it. I don't see anything here that says how long it will stay there. So, when you read it, it says developer um clearing and storm water phasing plans. All phase activities by storm water for storm water drainage improvements under the section shall be completed within 24 months of the commencement of construction. So you have 24 months to complete in other words and then we have to dig and to pile up the dirt and then you close it out. It says nothing beyond that how long it should sit there. So that's where I think that includes the two years that two years saying

yeah I think that's yes I think what they're asking for from what I understand was two years for it to be there after close out of the development permit. It's from when we start digging till it's piled up. It's the two years. And if we have to take longer than that, we would come back. Correct. I feel like we're arguing what the word is is. City attorney. Yes. I just want some clarity. When do you get rid of the the soil? How long how long do you have to get rid of the soil is the question. I think two years after they started digging the pond. And that's what the language has to read in development. I think that's was what was unclear to staff which was also unclear to me. Thanks. Any other debate from this board?

City clerk. Mayor Connors. Yes. Vice Mayor Cole. Yes. Member Stokl. Yes. Member Moscoso. Yes. Member Nelson. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Again, we were we were withdrawing the request for the height just for the record. Isn't this fun? This is why we do a plan development so we can have this back and forth. Uh thank you all. U we'll be back at some point but hopefully not on this one for a while. Thank you very much city manager.

Yes sir. We're moving on. Uh there's no ordinances first reading section 10. So move on to old business section 11. And we have 11A which is the Christian Court Town Homes preliminary plat. And the recommended action is to take action on the preliminary plat for Christian Court Town Homes which was continued from the January 29th uh meeting. Yep. This is a continuence and we've already had um you know applicants spoke uh members of this board spoke and members of this board had questions about regarding compliance with code and as demonstrated from the last item. Our staff knows the code you know and we'll we'll go through every reason uh possible to look at all these different options. So now I need to ask this board, was there any issues you guys found with the code? Because that was the concern is the board didn't have enough time to look and we've had a month. Is there any concerns about this item?

Seeing none. City clerk, are there any more cards? We have one card. It's Jason Seal. I'm assuming that's the applicant. All right. Hopefully you'll wave in support. Thank you. Is there going to be a motion made? Member Nelson. Move to approve a pre preliminary plan for Christian Court Town Homes. Second. There's a motion by member Nelson. Second by Vice Mayor Cole. City Clerk. Vice Mayor Cole. Yes. Member Stokel. Yes. Member Muscoso. Yes. Member Nelson. Yes. Mayor Connor.

Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. And then no new business. Now we're on to petitions and requests from the public. Non-aggenda items. Sir, would you like to come up, Doug? Yeah. Yeah. Hello everyone. Um, yeah. Um, this is my first time here. So, um, it's just a concern. Can you say your name for the record, please? Oh, my name is Aquabio Aquabio. Yeah. I live in Royal Oak myself.

Okay. So um my concern is that because um I walk I walk around a lot and as you get older you know you need to do that. So I see a lot of uh problems waiting to happen a lot of holes like in front of my house for example um they we had competing um um internet providers. They come in there and then um they put uh dig dig up at least three of them in front of my house. They dig up and put some flimsy plastic not like what they used to put before and then they cover it up with something and that thing breaks off. So as I was mowing my lawn, stepped back, I fell through. Yes. And then um sometime I saw my um um I went to visit uh somebody and I saw a child uh trying to run across the road and then I was running to scream to help. Right. I fell into um another one in front of somebody's house. So when I I talked to uh a friend who was living close by, she said, "Oh, is uh this phone company, you need to call them. You need to I said, you know, and then many times I walk around even on um Washington. I see some holes and some of them look so bad, so close. So what I do is that I get a tree branch or a stick I put in there so that at least somebody coming can see because some of them are so close. So it was just a concern to me.

It's all over the place and then you will see old cables that were just abandoned or whatever. So you know take a walk sometime pick any place you will see. So, it's just a concern that somebody might break a leg or somebody might uh seriously get hurt. So, it's something that um you know, so thank you very much, sir. The challenge we have with these internet companies is they have a statewide permit to pretty much dig up in any easement and they've been really causing havoc around our community, not just for personal people's property, which they should restore, but also our city, hitting pipes, main lines, everything. So, if you you have these issues, uh Mr. Cook, I believe we do have uh, you know, our risk manager. We're trying to collect this data so we can help hold them accountable to get, you know, these things resolved. And depending on which provider it is, there could be a different number to call. So, um, but if you could just call the city and let Mr. Cook know, uh, he'll make sure it gets the right person.

All right, sir. I will make notes, take pictures, because, you know, the more information we have, the better we can hold him accountable. Member Mscoso. Yeah. I would just say um Sarah, you might remember that hole that's in front of the library that you called about. It's still there. So that's one of those holes. Is that city or county? That's what I couldn't remember. I think that we call Yeah, I called and I think it might have been county property

fun times. All righty. See another for petitions and request onto the mayor's report. Uh my report was attached. um you'll see a letter that mayors get sent when well people are going out of business per federal law. So that's in the report. And then there was also a report on our HUD inspection that was sent to me. Um while I do believe it was also sent to the city manager, I wanted to make sure council knew about it and our compliance uh with the HUD requirements. So with that, I yield the rest of my time. Vice Mayor,

I just want to say I had the opportunity to attend uh the wake, the funeral, and the burial at the National Cemetery on Monday of our former Vice Mayor Joe Robinson. Uh these events were well attended and the tributes that he received was welld deserved. So it was heartwarming to see the number of people that came out for the funeral on Saturday. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Member Nelson.

I missed the funeral. I hated to miss it. Um, I actually was in Guatemala teaching English in a very remote village. You could only access by boat. And it was 45 minute boat ride after a six-hour ride in a van. It was I was really far out. I will say that looking around this little village, I really miss Kevin. I really miss Kevin. Oh. Um, infrastructure did not exist. Uh, I saw the school was another 30 minutes outside of this this village and I was looking at the PVC pipes going through the river and they were a mishmash. You know, you had pipes going this way, you had pipes going that way and that was their water supply. I will say the water pressure. Um, I miss I missed my shower.

You didn't take You haven't taken a shower since I know I did.

I Thank you guys. But I These kids get up. They're Mayans. Um, Mayan community. These kids get up at 4 a.m. and do chores until 8. They eat breakfast and go to school until 400 pm and finish their chores. They live in these dormitories, 200 kids to a building and they are the happiest kids you've ever seen. So Joe would have been happy.

He would have been he would have said keep going. Um, I think next year we'll go back again. Uh, it was it was really rewarding. So, that's what I did last week. Thank you, member Nelson. Member Moscow. Yeah. Well, my kids are half Guatemalan and they're not getting up at 4:00 a.m. to do chores. I wish

you want them you want me to take them take them with you with me? Um the only thing I want to uh report or just bring up is um I know that we all met with the internal auditor. Um I don't know if you guys received I asked for all the internal audit reports for the past 5 years. So I have those but I want to make sure that you guys get them. So if you want them maybe the city manager can send them and then perhaps um at some point we can have a discussion. I don't know how that would work, but um I know that's going to be a bigger conversation, but I just think it's important we all have it and then we we know what's on this. Thank you. City manager,

did you have something to say to what member Mscoso said? Yeah, I we're in the process of getting those reports and I'll have them out to all council. Five years worth of internal order reports and that'll be a discussion item on the 10th of March because I think we've just finished all the one-on- ones today. So, um, there'll be discussion item on how to proceed as far as city manager report. Um, it's not your turn yet. That's why I was asking if you're It's member Stokal's turn. Pass. Usually, you have quite a bit. Sorry, city manager. I was just if you wanted to piggyback off what she said, give you an opportunity. But now the floor is yours, city manager.

Okay. Well, we already talked about city order. Um, just want to put another plug in for March 7th. We're having a great response to the community conference. It starts at 9:00, 9 to 12. Um, all the departments will be giving presentations, fire, police, public works, finance, uh, support services, water. Um, just it'll be a great event. It's a great opportunity to find out how the city works. And so far, we're anticipating over 100 people. So, we're looking forward to that. and March 10th is proving to be a very jam-packed agenda. Number of items will be coming up, so we'll be getting that out to you shortly. Thank you, city manager. Seeing no city attorney report, correct? Correct.

All right. I'll entertain a motion. Motion to adjurnn. We're adjourned. Thank you very much.