Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the March 4th Titusville Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Uh everybody stand for the pledge, please. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call, please. Lori. Chairman Eton here. Vice Chairman Childs here. Secretary FA here. Member Gar here. Member Scully here. Member Gellen.

Alternate member Sidler. Alternate member Troutman here. All right, we have a quorum. Uh, next item of business is approval of the minutes of February 18th. Does anyone have any comments or changes or a motion? Member Chman. I would make a motion to consider the minutes as written. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right. Minutes are approved. Uh, city attorney, quasi judicial procedures, please.

Good evening. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, any person wishing to speak on a quasi judicial item must first sign a public hearing agenda card and sign the oath contained thereon. These cards are located on the table at the front of the council chamber. Those speaking in favor of a request will be heard first. Those opposed will be heard second, and those who wish to make a public comment on the item will speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if necessary. Witnesses may be cross-examined by the applicant, commission staff representatives, and such other representatives as authorized by the commission. If you have photographs, sketches, or documents for the planning and zoning commission to consider, they must be submitted into evidence and will be retained by the city. Please submit such exhibits to the city clerk. City clerk, of all persons wishing to speak before the planning and zoning commission signed an oath card?

Yes. Is there anyone else present who has not signed an oath card who wishes to speak on a quasi judicial item? If so, please submit a card at this time. Have all agenda items been properly advertised? Yes. In the event that a member has received exparte communication, verbal or written, the identity of the person with whom communication took place and the substance of the communication must be disclosed, including opinions and facts discussed. Any written communication must be made part of the record. Have any of the members visited any sites or spoken to any members of the public regarding an item to be reviewed?

I did. Uh Mr. Oliver representing item 9B. Um, he's done some work before for me, so he had my phone number. I just wanted to notify me that he was not going to make it, but a member of his staff was going to rush here and try to represent item 9B. Okay, that's all. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Um, now we have our first of two petitions and requests from the public present. Uh my name is Stan Johnson. As you know, I'm professional engineer. I've been here for over 50 years. And uh I've come to uh show you an interesting problem that we have. This is the storm water management plan of the city of Titusville. And uh uh interestingly is that a number of engineers that who have been in charge of this didn't even see it. That's hard for you to be responsible for for something that your engineers do not even look at and community development doesn't look at. So what I did, I sent you an email and that that uh little handout that's part of of a page in here. Let me open the page to you. You have an attachment to the email that I sent you. That's 11 [clears throat] by17. 11 by 17. Please see. So that's part of it right there. That's showing 16 sections typical sections of ditches. The widest one being 170 ft and the most narrow being 70 ft. Those are this was to be implemented beginning implemented in 1966. That's about 60 years ago. So why hasn't it been implemented? So don't beat yourself to death because it it has a history that is embarrassing that nobody looks at it and there's many violations to city code and many violations to budgeting and other things. So, um, this has tra I'm not saying whether this is traditional or

not, but traditionally the city has ignored this document that cost them big money, big time. And there's many errors now in what the city is doing because they are ignoring it. So, this email that I sent you enumerates some of the problems that the city has because the city has ignored this for years and continues to ignore it even in our sustainability report. So, um I don't have much time. So, instead of reading you the title, I'll read you uh what it says here. is that uh that city consultants DRMP, Geocentech, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and others including the city of Titusville have uh ignored these laws and they've covered up negligence and dishonesty and it has to do with failure to satisfy FEMA requirements, FDOT requirements, engineering drainage law, the fact that water flows downhill, uh implementation of budgeting, false and fraudulent sustainability reports very to maintain public improvements. Then I go on a little bit more. I got just a few seconds left. But including we have dams. We have dams and the dams were shown. Can I have another 30 seconds? Nobody

on camera. Just 30 seconds. Oh, 30 seconds. Okay,

a second. Uh, all right. 30 seconds. Here it goes. Uh, is that um what's going on is that u uh the city is not implementing these and it's illegal what the city is doing. And it's uh it's bad. It's really bad. And what I mentioned on the uh um about dams is that the dams were approved without even having a survey of dam of of the dams to show what they flood. They were approved without that. They were approved without approval from FEMA approval without survey of the wetlands and pre pre and post development wetlands. So, it's it's highly illegal what the city is doing. So, I hand it I'm I'm here for any to answer any questions about what's going on.

Thank you. No questions. Okay. Good luck. Thank you. Yeah.

Yeah. I have a question not not for Stan. Um in regards to this uh Eddie, um I know that Stan comes up here and and brings a lot of information uh to us. Uh this was something I was kind of curious about. I did get the email from Stan. I believe all of us got that email. Um and uh I guess uh the canals that we have in in the city like I assume the city manager keeps track of that and how and when those get taken care of or anything like that. Um, is any of that information public or can be provided public or is that something that we can ask city council to look into on these canals to to get some information, some light into this, I guess?

So, the city canals would be maintained by the public works department. Um, I believe Stan has has um emailed them as well with his concerns and so they're aware of his concerns. I'm not sure if there's any additional information that needs to be brought forward at this point. Yeah, I just curious if you know transparency is being taken care of and and they're getting information out to that we're you know either we're taking care of this or we're not or we got process improvements in place to start mitigating this. I don't know. I don't know where we're at with that stuff. So,

any other petitions and requests? Uh seeing none uh we have no old business. Uh first order of business is item 9A. Thank you chairman. Good evening commissioners. Item 9A is reszoning number 8 2025 at 317 Oleander Place. And this item begins on page 10 of 89 of tonight's packet. The applicant is requesting a resoning for property located at 317 Oleander Place from the Indian River City Neighborhood Commercial IRCNC zoning district to the Indian River City Neighborhood Residential IRCNR zoning district in order to construct a single family residence. The current Indian River City neighborhood commercial zoning on the property was adopted by ordinance number two, 2014, which established the Indian River City neighborhood zoning district for the area, generally bounded by Mstead Drive to the north, Cheney Highway, State Road 50 to the south, the FEC Railroad to the west, and the Indian River Shoreline to the east. This zoning district was created following the adoption of the Indian River City Neighborhood Plan. The plan began in 2005 by residents concerned with the long-term stability of their neighborhood. The main objective of the plan is to provide housing opportunities for residents with a range of incomes and promote home ownership and protect the residential character of the neighborhood from non-residential encroachment and non-conforming uses while providing redevelopment and revitalization opportunities for the commercial corridors. In reviewing the request, it is important to consider the likelihood that the property could be utilized in its current zoning district as part of a larger commercial redevelopment along the South Hopkins Avenue corridor in the future. Prior to the adoption of the neighborhood plan, the property was zoned community commercial CC and had a future land use designation of commercial highintensity.

The adjacent property to the west at 407 South Hopkins Avenue has a single family residence which is not a permitted use in the CC zoning district. At the time it would have been a non-conforming use. The Indian River City neighborhood commercial zoning district permits existing single family residences to remain as a permitted use. Therefore, the subject property is separated from the commercial corridor along South Hopkins Avenue by an existing home. If you'll turn to page 17, page 17 of the agenda packet has a map at the top of the page, which is an excerpt from page 25 of the Indian River City neighborhood plan. It's the core residential area map. And the area that's outlined, uh there's a green hash and a red outline is the core residential area for single family. You'll notice the subject property is towards the center left is a budding but just outside of that core residential area. If you'll turn to page 18, future land use element policy 1.13.1.1.1 states, "The city of Titusville shall provide for the preservation and revitalization of the established residential and commercial neighborhoods of the US one corridor study area as identified in the US1 corridor master plan adopted in 2006."

[snorts]

The staff comment reads, "The US1 corridor master plan concept plan uh US1 corridor master plan concept plan identifies the subject property and the surrounding area as single family residential and emphasizes neighborhood preservation for the area betweenstead drive and state road 50. The character district's map within the master plan identifies the subject property as within the residential preservation district. The request to reszone from the IRCNC zoning district to the IRCNR zoning district is consistent with the US1 corridor master plan. Uh the findings are summarized at the end of the report on page beginning on page 23. And with that I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. member child.

So, you're basically you're trying to um point out that the plan for that area is that it the future use is that there's commercial along there um that all of it kind of converts to commercial. Is that kind of what you're saying in the plan there? There are two different plans in place. There's the US1 corridor master plan which identifies that the subject property should be residential in nature

and then there's also the Indian River City neighborhood plan which identified this property is outside the core residential area although it is just outside of it. It's abudding it and so the the property has remained vacant for a number of years in the commercial Indian River City neighborhood commercial and the applicant is proposing to change that to residential in order to construct a single family residence. Okay, got it. Member Gar.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I spoke to Eddie earlier this week uh in a call and I have a few more questions to follow up that, but I also want to ask specifically some of the background information is very illustrative to me as to what this request is really all about. Looking at page 17 as Eddie pointed out and P25's the core residential area map. I'm going to offer some supposition. The report later from staff indicates this lot has remained vacant. It still is vacant. It's remained undeveloped. It transitioned because of comprehensive plan designations, more particularly the core residential area map where with good reason because the adjacent home site developed with a house is on Hopkins Avenue. From a planning perspective, somebody would have, I suppose, said, well, using the beastro that's located on Hopkins just south of there, I think it's called the cold spot. as a house turned into a cold spot, the next lot developed with a cold spot and it's migrating just exactly like this plan would suppose it should happen. My supposition since I didn't write the plan was the idea was the home would buy the lot eventually and kind of follow the suit led that I just explained how the cold spot grew like this does commercial on Hopkins into a residential area. This however is the staff report points out didn't do that. It's remained as it was as it has been in perpetuity. The applicant comes forward and is trying to adjust that to what they want to do. Build a house. Staff report suggest or certainly documents that there isn't much likelihood of the scenario commercial goes east towards uh that highway one plan commercially speaking because the home's been improved. It's a nice

looking homestead. I always go by it and shake my head. I wish my house looked that good and it's not probably going to go commercial. Somebody's made a very nice homestead and intends to stay there. So plans don't always work like planned and I think that's what the summary suggests in the end while the support is there that the plan didn't work and now because of that we should let somebody go forward. That's my take on how much importance there is to page 1789 uh of what that map's trying to illustrate and how the dynamics work or didn't work. And if you look at the line along Hopkins, it it goes back and forth as it dives in and out of homesteads or houses that convert like the example I gave of the cold spot. The question that I had uh for Eddie on the phone, and hopefully legal counsel is going to be here to help us with this is in the report on page 19, I think it is. Um during the summary of support in the uh analysis about building coverage, lot width and density um [clears throat] lot area, lot width and density and um coverage, they're all development standards. And then in the report, it speaks about that the nonconformity and the nonconformity in this instance is not caused by an effect of some homeowner. It didn't sell off some of the property to build another house and leave themselves painted in the corner, so to speak. It's not a case where you created a subdivision of inconsistently sized lots so that would violate the district rules so you don't really create a problem for yourself and ask for relief. In this instance, it's what I'm used to familiarly calling a lot of record. It existed in ownership before the rule came to it. The rule in this case set a standard that said you have to be this

wide, this large, this long, this setback, that setback, this height and etc. to which in everything but I believe the density issue you have this relief through section 34347. [clears throat] And I thought maybe perhaps you could explain what 34347 does in reference to the specifics on lot area, lot width, and um I'm sorry, got the cursor in the wrong place. Uh section 28330, lot area minimum, lot width minimum, and building coverage minimum. Um which isn't apparently an issue. The other the ones that are substantive that appear on face value are lot area and lot width and that's section three 344. How does that help a applicant? Excuse me. Sure. So what member Gad is speaking to is the development standards for the proposed zoning district and how the lot would not meet those development standards. There are remedies in the code for lots that don't meet the the dimensional standards. Um, and one of those remedies would be if the property owner owns the adjacent lot that is also a substandard, they would be required to combine those lots to make a lot that meets those standards such as u uh lot width. Then those two two lots combined would meet the minimum lot width. Um, in this case, the property owner doesn't have that um that's not this scenario. Um but what member Grod is talking to specifically because um those remedies in section 34 347 speak to the lot area and lot width. Um they don't speak to density. Um and so what we've added in our staff report is that a variance would be required to the density um because it is an additional

standard that's laid out in the zoning district um that is separate from the specifically outlined lot area. Now uh as me member Gad mentioned density when you look at it that at that at a lot level um is very similar to is is regulating the same thing as as a lot area. you're looking at it at how many square feet does the lot have and can it support one unit? Um, and so are we regulating the same thing twice and is there a remedy that already exists in the code? If there's a remedy for lot area, does it also uh need a variance to density? Um, and so that was the question that the member Gerat is bringing up. So, so as I was mentioning when you have when you don't create the deficiency, you plan a subdivision or you sold lots away from your ownership and created the substandard measure therein is why you would either say I need a variance or you don't get a development order because you didn't conform. You caused your own problem. Simple as that is my opinion. In this instance, what happens is the ownership is existing in single terms. It's only that property and there's a regulatory relief built into the code for that referred to in my experience as a non-conforming lot of record or a lot of record which in the case of vacant land. However, you've got to build to the development standards that exist when you ask for the zoning and being granted the zoning now you have to meet that standard. Setback height lot coverage those are standards that are kind of fitting the the hand in the glove. I had questions related to that

to that extent. The call in my my opinion is density to me is more regulatory to land use regulations than zoning because if you take those extrapolated data criteria like lot width, lot depth, lot area. It extrapolates to density. It's pretty simple to think about that. In the case of the comprehensive plan, it's the glove the hand fits into. zoning the hand. The glove says we want this finger to be this long and that finger to be this wide density from the two fingers. If you plan a subdivision, you have to plot out those lots in that density configuration, then fine-tune them down to lot width and lot area. And you see that every time you see a subdivision proposal. And that being said, I asked the question, then why isn't density as a zoning matter as grandfathered protected as the other two zoning standards are? Because it's merely a zoning standard. It's not exceeding the density of the comprehensive plan. If you were to regulate it on a lot by lot basis, I would dare say you'd have an awful lot of created nonconformity in Titusville based on a density of a gross land area applied to lots which were in their time platted to be the right width and the light right depth and the right area. But any one of those net lots might cause an exceedence of density because the density was in compliance because over here's the park, over here's the retention pond, over here the road rights of way. So from the blanket area, you meet density with your proposal. But any one lot might not meet that density. And so taking that to this point, my question was why would you have to go to the board of adjustment to ask the question of that board, can I

get a variance from density when you've already stepped through this body for recommendation, the city council presumably if they approved it and now you take that process and you revert it back to the board of adjustment and they say, "No, I don't think so. It doesn't sound like a hardship to me." And I'm not projecting that. But I'm just saying what a what a ride you take for no good reason. And you're not done until the board of adjustment decides. This to me is a zoning matter. A zoning matter is related to this body and the city council, not the board of adjustment. And the zoning matter before us is accepting a request to approve a zoning supported by staff by the analysis with one exception that it won't meet the criteria of lot density wherein I think my opinion lot density as a zoning matter in this case is just like the maximum coverage vacant land. It's just like lot width. It existed before the zoning. It's just like area of zoning. It existed before the zoning. the zoning only comes when it's approved. So my question and I hope that makes sense to everybody. I was trying to explain it to why I asked the question. So council, may I ask you what you think of my opinion?

Um so I mean I agree with the intent and the analysis. The issue is even if we all agree on that, we're still bound by the plain text in the code where there is a 10,000 10,000 square foot lot area minimum. Um, this to me would be a classic hardship and is the entire reason that the variance process exists, especially more so than self-created hardships. I mean, the lot of record issue is definitionally a hardship that variance should be applied to. Um, so I mean, I'm in agreement with your interpretation, but I just am not sure how it overrides the the text that we have in this zoning district. this body. Does council have the power to grant variances without

the not you board?

Yeah, that stays with board of adjustment and appeals. And and if I may follow up that then and the reason I'm going this length is because if my opinion isn't the opinion prevailing, I think my opinion warrants exploration because my opinion's based on this knowledge whether this was a date and time that the city of Titusville said today hereby grant the city of Titusville subdivisions are 1,000 zoning. We're going to reszone the whole city. Everywhere in the city is going to be R1000 zoning. And your minimum lot width has to be 100 ft. Using that example, somebody out there is not going to be conforming and they're going to live in their homestead. And then what the government would do eventually is force not force compliance with that new standard by denying any development order that made you improve your property exceeding some determining factor like 50%. or if your building burnt down, you would deem it nonredevelopment because you lost your conformity due to an act of God. In this case, when you have vacant property and you cast upon the city the R1000 zoning that says you'll be 100 ft long wide. However, you existed in your single ownership before you cast the rule to me. What my experience teaches me is that becomes a lot of record as same as the day you created zoning in whatever year the city of Titusville adopted comprehensive zoning. I presume it was in the 60s. And after there you had a conform, you had a subdivide land to the development standards that are in the text of the book. All that's fine. That's what we do. We evaluate plans to see if they meet the zoning. We respect the stats report. They say we recommend you approve it because it meets all the standards. as an example. But for nonconformity that existed before a

rule, in most instances, you are protected. You didn't ask that to be there. And even if you did ask it, you didn't ask for that minimum to be there. It's the one you were given to one assigned to you. Purely speaking, the city council grants it. You may have asked for it, but the granting is a pure subject. They did it. It happened. And at that point, that creates a time frame. From that point on, you can't make your lot smaller. You can't further subdivide it out of compliance with the code. But if you existed in single ownership with no other ownership in history under your common ownership by creating that zoning to the property, you become protected by the nonconformity. Because in my opinion, it just doesn't do a lot of sensible good in this instance to send a party through this process to have to go and ask dad if it's okay ask after you asked mom and the aunt and grandma and you got all the way through all the family. But you got to get dad's permission. And and in this case, dad's permission is on a hardship issue. And our regulatory review is on a zoning matter, development standard matter, to which I have the opinion, and I understand council's advice and why I'm spending the time is to say if these rules aren't there already, if these rules exist to force a person to go through these subordinate processes, I don't think that's the right direction. I think it ought to be a cleaner slate. It ought to say if you are a lot of record and you ask for a zoning that you're substandard to, as long as you can meet height and setback and those other functional requirements, you have to meet because it's new development. The ownership is the issue, not the development per se. You can't grant, you can't create a nonconformity by saying my lot's too small, so my house I have

to build will have to be five feet away instead of 10, the code. And that's what hardships are for. Someone would argue, well, make the house smaller and meet the code. And I go, well, I like big houses. That's what hardships are about. Is that a hardship or not? That's what the board of adjustments embodied to do uh empowered to do. In this instance, it's more pure. It's vacant land. It's never been an ownership of any other property. It's remained vacant land. The area map had a glitch in it. Maybe a glitch, maybe a presumption, a supposition was I think that guy will buy him out eventually. It hasn't happened. Staff has a very good analysis about the Indian River City plan and all the specifics of that to me. Everything's ripened for this makes sense, but this one exception that after it's all over, go get a variance from density. And that part I don't I don't understand. Lot area, lot width, I get as grandfathered in without exception. But density to me that's just not relevant to this case because you have lot area and the lot area is grandfathered in. Density is not in my opinion my practicing opinion [snorts] density is more favored by comprehensive land use designations for future development. Not to overlay existing development and try to take that and mold it into something that is kind of vague. density to one lot is never going to exceed the maximum density of an area. I mentioned to Eddie that if you accumulated Indian River City, wipe the wipe the slate clean from I don't know where it goes north to uh Mstead. If you were to go from Homestead to 50, from Hopkins to US1, clean it off and come back, I guarantee you'd have more houses than exists there now. And I equally guarantee you in any one lot you don't meet the density of that designation. There's examples of that. I'm absolutely sure without going and

nitpicking the spots. I could assure you because we have one right here. It doesn't meet the density. It existed before the rules adopted. It gets protected in two of three categories and one category it's not. And that's where my my opinion lies. So I could be wrong but uh but what my father say the general say I may be wrong but I'm never what is I may be I may not be right but I'm never wrong. So that's my two bits on it for consideration. Member Chapman.

Yeah. So I was curious about that as well. If if the applicant was going to have to go for a variant after after this process because I noticed the same thing. I was like, "Wait a minute. We already have an issue coming before us that they're going to have to go down another route and get another permission slip, so to speak." Um, one thing that I did notice in in some of these maps and all this is uh the the residential in this area becomes uh it was all highlighted as high density residential on on the map there. Uh let me see if I can pull up the map here and I can show you where it's highlighted. But it's it so it's like even if this was you know we look at it and we say if we agree to go h uh not commercial but the u the reasonzoning for the um to to do the house uh that it would go to the high density residential under that one.

I don't believe that's correct. Where did you see that? I'm trying to find the map here where it had like the lines u highlighted which map it was.

Are you speaking to the zoning or the future land use? Uh the zoning. So right now the future land use that they're requesting is for the residential and I'm trying to find the map that shows where it was.

So this request is strictly a reszoning. So the future land use is not proposed to change. The zoning map is shown on page 33 and the surrounding zoning districts are Indian River City neighborhood commercial and Indian River City Neighborhood Residential. Yeah, I think uh on page 15 it shows the Indian River existing zoning map and I was trying to find that map. You said it was down in 30 on page 15. Uh yeah, there's like a cutout of of that uh area.

That map is straight. It's an excerpt from the Indian River City neighborhood plan which is included as an attachment to this agenda item. Um that is what the existing or what the excuse me what the future land use was on the properties in this area prior to adoption of the US1 future land use and the Indian River City neighborhood zoning district. So prior to 2014. Okay. So under the residential the IRCN residential what I guess if it were to be approved as a to go residential that would still have the you could go low density, medium density, high density

like how we normally do other residential. No. So what density level would get that if if we were to vote on that? is your question. What is the maximum density in the Indian River City neighborhood residential zoning district that's being requested?

No. Um I guess I can't find that drawing now, but uh what I was looking at before it showed a high density I guess it might have been previous what it was before. So between the commercial and the residential, it's just those two nomenclatures. doesn't state. Um so like say Bara there's low you know single family low density there's you know single family medium density there's single family high density there you know there's those different density levels those are the different future land use districts in the city but those are not um located in this area within the Indian River City neighborhood plan

those future land use designations are not found within this area once the US1 corridor master plan was adopted those were replaced so this particular lot if if we're to go for res residential um then I guess it would be a density question then at it's saying minimum 10,000 right?

Mhm. um the US1 corridor, the US1 future land use that's on the property currently is not proposed to change and there's no density tied to that future land use um today. The zoning on the property, the requested IRCNR has a maximum density of four dwelling units per acre. Okay. I guess that's what I was trying to figure out is they could put up to four dwellings per acre, but this isn't an acre. So it would just be the certain lot size then that Mr. Gerard's talking about

correct. They're allowed the the maximum density in the zoning district is four units per acre. And if you divide the four units by the 43560 the number of square feet in an acre. It's a is a little more than 10,000 square feet and this lot is approximately 7,500 or 800 square feet. So it's below the the number for one unit which is garage point. Then my question then would be to is this something that we would ask city council or that we could change certain laws that allow us for certain situations like this to say okay well we would approve this with this nature uh to where city council or I don't know how our laws would work to to allow us to address a situation like this if we got to present that to city council they approve and whatever verbiage y'all come up with to say that that helps us in these situations like this or is or is it no this is this all right you're going to have to go down all this line these citizens are going to have to go down all these lines

to make this happen. One additional uh if you wanted to do that outside of this application, the commission could make a recommendation to council to consider adding density to one of the non-conforming uh one of the remedies in the non-conforming section so that that in the future if this were to come forward uh the density standard that's in the zoning district since as member Grod mentioned in some other codes density is usually listed in the future land use designation whereas here in Titusville we have it listed in our future land use designation and in our zoning ing district. Um they're usually different levels. Um the future land use usually allows uh greater density and the zoning district further limits it to is more restrictive on the density.

Yeah, I'd be open for anything that we can process improve where we see issues that you know I'd like to throw out.

I'm hoping that but I I want to point out to answer what you're saying and make it as simple rather than the long term as I do. I apologize. Just look at the statement on page 19 of 89, section 28330. Minimum lot area is 10,000 square ft. You can read through that, but that's the minimum zoning lot area. And the lot width is 85 ft. So if you come in with a development, you propose a subdivision vacant land into little lots or big lots, doesn't matter, lots, those lots have to be 85 feet in that zoning district and 10,000 square feet. That's correct. I want you to scroll down to density. Oops. Density is 10,890 square feet. Your subdivision can't have 85 ft lots that are 10,000 ft. You'll have to do it differently. But you told me the standard was 85 10,000. No. When I'm a developer, and you hear this every presentation, vacant land, 100 acres, I'm going to be losing roads and retention and etc. My net density, however, will be four units an acre. And my lots will be 85 ft by 10,890 square feet in area. I mean 10,000 square feet in area. And staff will recommend approval because those lots aren't relevant to density. Density was the big picture. Density is the comprehensive plan. Density doesn't belong in a code that also requires lot area. They're in conflict. built-in conflict. Now, I will admit that'd be the first hardship I'd throw up in front of the board of adjustment and say, "You got no choice. You created the rule and you created the hardship." My point is I think the density of this zoning district is got the same grandfather provision as lot width and lot area because it's not a development. I'm not proposing anything new. It exists. It's

protected by its vested right. But to view the density as one standard alone that you could alternatively recommend denial if I was a purist I say I don't want to violate the comprehensive plans density of four units an acre. I can only recommend denial and that's not the right way and that's not what I would be doing but that's the way it plays. And just to be clear the density is not listed in the comprehensive plan only in the zoning district. only in the zoning district in in this designation. The US1 future land use designation does not have a density. Other areas have densities. Other future land use designations do have a density.

Then there's a twofold problem I would suppose to say both with the way that they approach the comprehensive plan study area and the way that they have provided for an inherent conflict between lot area standards and density standards.

All right. any interest in moving this along. I think we've heard from council that this is not something as as much as I think we all would like to ease the process for the applicant. It's not in the cards for this particular item. But we can make the recommendation to staff to have to bring this back or to have council consider streamlining the process so somebody else doesn't c get caught in this uh conundrum or whatever you want to call it. Um, so with that, any other questions before I open the public hearing? All right, I'll open the public hearing. We have any cards, Lori? Yes. Norman White.

Hello. Good evening. My name is Norman White and thanks for all that super wealth of information. Um, I actually bought this lot. Probably should have done my homework. I actually do build houses for a living. So, I probably should have known to do my homework. I'd assumed it was a platted lot that was grandfathered. I seen it was platted back early years way back before the 70s. And I don't I just know the county rules, but if they've been platted before 1972, you know, they're grandfathered in, but I don't they don't like to use that word grandfather, but you can't take the value like but then I find out it's not buildable. But even I'm not familiar with the title rules. I don't want to sound like a know-it-all cuz no, but I know Scotsmore, they're building on 0.15 acre lots with septic tanks every day. People are raising cane, but they're they were planted before 1972 and there's really nothing they can do. They're even putting septic tanks and wells on them on, you know, 0.15 acre lots. So, I really don't know. But, you know, but at one time they come up with density, then they beat that. Then they're starting to put them on little tiny lots. But, I just assumed I mean there's there's residential all around it. I didn't I didn't know there was some kind of future some I don't know how you can take people's property and turn it in. I even figured and maybe I'm wrong but I figured even though it was if it was originally padded platted as a residential lot if someone didn't change it it would be buildable. I just assume houses all around it that you know it was it was built. I don't know the city rules and I'm totally unprepared. I would like hopefully get this next meeting I want to get a little more prepared. I know the county rules. I know the count you know May of 1975 if it's platted. I don't care if it's zoned for a 5 acre lot. You can build on a 50 foot wide lot, you know, because it can be GU. So, I mean, but I don't know no city rules. I know they got their own zoning rules and I'm seeing that now. So, I don't I don't you know, anyways, I bought the lot. I told my son, which my stepson that if he saved up to enough money to get a lot that I would help him build a house and that's what we do for a living is build homes and um stuff like this. So, this would be his first project to to get to build a home. And um and it was a it was a four block. You don't find a lot nowhere for 20 grand.

You know, it ain't no super expensive area, but we thought we'd build a small p affordable house we could build for like 250. You know, someone have a new first starter home and even told him he could take it, but we don't know what we're going to do. I don't want to sit here and say we're building it for him and you know, file some kind of hardship and then end up selling it. So, I don't want to say the truth, but he we thought about maybe keeping it for himself, but we don't know that. I don't want to say that and then not happen. But regardless of that, I mean, I don't know if there's I do want to be able to have a chance to study the platted, like, you know, was it platted before a certain year? And then like if you take a lot that's buildable today, they can say now on these lots are are not buildable when you replat them. But to take the value out of the lot, if it was a buildable lot, I don't know. I know that's way it is in, you know, the county, but I don't know the city rules. I mean, you seem very very up on it, you know, like rather, you know, you can or can't. I don't know. You know what I'm trying to say? So, I I need to research like I do I know I know the county rules very well, you know. So, I mean I don't know if this pertains to that or was it a residential lot at one time?

I mean I mean and I he was saying something about that I heard they want to do commercial there. These people are not going to knock their houses down. I don't think I mean there's lots of people that are going to there's houses beside it across the street. I mean and it's not dead on Hopkins by no means. It's I mean I mean it would have to take a big developer to come in there and want to knock them all down and you know I mean there streets to streets. I mean I can understand if there was a big block of woods in there 20 acres they could put a mall or a grocery store 10 acres. I mean these are street street street street street streets. So I don't I just ask any you know consideration you know to give us a project. So, so just so you know that that you're you're stuck in a little bit of a a issue here, but assuming we approve this tonight, goes to council. You do that, then you're going to have to go for the board of adjustments and appeals to get a variance on the density. And then you work with with the staff to get a bu building permit for this within the setbacks of the plan um for for this zoning district and and and for a single family home on this lot. And so a couple extra steps there unfortunately, but you know, it's

it's totally okay. We'll do it. We'll try our best. You know, that's all I can ask. You know, like I said, I don't I mean, I turned in a building permit and everything. I just assumed it was was platted. I don't remember it was platted, but it was years and years. I thought, you know, it's old enough. I was kind of going by the county rules, but I I was dummy me not to go try to, you know, look into the city stuff. It happens. Uh, anyone have any questions for the applicant? Seeing none. Any other cards? Lori, thank you.

Yes, Lawrence Graham. [snorts] Good evening everybody. My name is uh Lawrence Graham, 2161 Christine Drive. Um, first of all, I didn't realize he bought it, but he's he's a great guy, by the way. Um, I almost feel bad that I gotta maybe talk about it a little bit differently. Um, I'm looking at this from a couple angles. Uh, number one, I was on that IRC redevelopment committee. Matter of fact, there's my whole file that I saved from back then. And as you guys have seen the the colored maps that was designed or the the whole program was put together uh namely for about two or three uh reasons. Uh, one of those was to shore up the commercial corridor because there was stuff being bought up and uh trying to be turned into multif family or other items and they were trying to find a way to to maintain the integrity of all the residential lots in the area. And if you look at this map, you'll see the irregularities. That's because they had a bunch of commercial that was residential that become commercial and they had to work around it. Uh I'm also the owner of Orange Plumbing that is on 4295 South Hopkins. You'll see it's around my building as well. Okay. Even that being said, there's a big vacant lot right next to me that is was a residential house. They tore it down and I thought about I would buy it and then see if they can make that commercial. It's like no, that's not in the cards. That's not the way it was

designed. So, we have a situation here where uh they have a old beat up residential structure that was on there. It's uh non-s salvageable because I I looked at it and uh you know for them to have to redevelop it they have to take it out of commercial and move it to residential. If you look at one of the the major things that we had brought up for the commercial side says purpose and intent of commercial mixeduse subd district. It is intended that the positive design elements of both commercial residential development be protective and enhanced and where appropriate where appropriate mixed residential and commercial structures be developed. It is intended to encourage the expansion of commercial uses uses where stormware storm water requirements buffering two residential areas and aesthetics can be improved. It is further intended for the district be in accord and promote the purposes set forth in the comprehensive plan. So that's one of the many items under the commercial to maintain it. And somebody brought up the neighboring property. The neighboring property is the cold spot. Well, that's where I've got another thing. I'm one of the owners of the building of the cold spot. If you change this back to residential, now we got 50 foot buffers that come in place for not only uh seating but parking and you're you're changing what

normally for extra time here. I'm sorry. It would encroach on that. I'll make a motion for extra time. Um how how much more do you need? Oh, I'm I'm I'm almost done. I'm just pointing out what the reason for this

this whole IRC development committee was for. It was for maintaining that of the commercial corridor because at the time um the county and the city there was some thought that there would be some facade grants and stuff to enhance that corridor um for one and number two was the uh splitting up of those beautiful residential lots that are in the middle there. Some of them what was happening it was people were were passing on and they were getting subdivided and then your densities would increase and they were trying to stop that or slow that from continuing to happen. But it it's just my opinion that a lot of heartache went into creating this. I think we went in about 9 months, 10 months to do to create this plan and you get it shored up and then if we can change it from commercial to residential, well then it's going to leave an opening for somebody like me that's going to go after to some residential that's right after right next to my commercial property.

All right. Thank you. Thank you guys. I have a question. I have a question for you, sir. Um you were saying that there's a house on there, but it looks like it's a vacant lot. Are we talking about the same property or same property? Same property. It's irregular. It's a real tiny house. It's just there's a tiny house from the floor up. Yeah. I don't know. I was looking at some of the satellite stuff and no house on there. Yep. I Mr. Chair, if if you're going to speak, you have to come to the podium garage, but he bought both of them. Correct. I think perhaps if you're going to speak, you have to come to the podium.

Okay. Sorry. I was uh told that it was the house right next to the cold spot that um has an irregular lot like it's just a reg it's almost like a small L shape. So it's not that we're not talking about the same we're not talking about the same thank you Mr. Chairman to clarify for the for the citizen the purpose I mentioned the cold spot was from the perspective of the map we were examining which shows this undulating line where properties are along Hopkins and on residential streets like the cold spot and the land use went east

to allow it to expand. This property is not near the cold spot. It's two two streets away. Okay, that's good. when you'd said it was right next to I thought you were talking to that particular discussion for trying to explain my opinion confused everybody I apologize the cold spot was just a reference to how land use planning works to change things as you pointed out it changes and cold spot is a nice looking business yeah and and again thanks for your time I'm sorry for that misdirection I that obviously that 50oot setback to cold spot wouldn't apply my bad for bringing that exact No you're good thank you any other cards I'm sorry. Yes. Don Mount.

Don Mount. Um 605 South Palm Avenue. And I was under a little bit of confusion. I was thinking I was looking at 317 Dell Spine, which is connected to the cold spot. and changing that to from commercial to residential would have a negative impact on the commercial property. So, but but the bottom line is Cold Spot has just for your edification I guess um Cold Spot has been operating over 40 years as a bar. It was a house originally and then for for 40 years it's been operating as a business. And that's really all I think I need to say unless there's any questions. That's fine. Thank you. Anything else, Lori?

No more cards. Okay. Um bring it back and close the public hearing. Um any members have any questions for staff or a motion? Member Gar.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh to be brief, I would like to make a recommendation to approve the applicant's request as uh outlined in the staff report uh as it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and believe consistent with the nature of the undeveloped property. I would also add that at some point I would like to create at least advisement to city council that this density issue and the juxosition between density and lot area should be addressed so that that doesn't create this problem that's protected in two ways not the other one way. Thank you chairman. Could I make a suggestion that that be a separate motion just to be clean for the applicant uh the minutes? Thank you.

I'll cut I don't even know that that has to be a motion. And I think it's just our recommendation to staff. We've done it before that way. So, um, I'll second the first abbreviated version. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, all right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion before a vote. Uh, seeing no lights. Uh, roll call, please. Lori. Member Grod. Yes. Member Scully? Yes. Vice Chairman Childs? Yes. Member Troutman? Yes. Secretary Fen? Yes. Chairman Eton? Yes. Congratulations. You're you're on. You've passed the first step in your journey. [laughter]

And this will be heard by city council on March 24th. Right. And then I guess I would make the motion that or do we need to make a motion? I don't think we need a motion. Do we need a motion? If the commission is going to make a recommendation to city council to consider changing the non-conforming standards to add density, I I would suggest making that a I would make that motion to to direct staff for city council as you just worded it so nicely. [laughter] May I just the motion? Would that be simply solved by providing the same protection as the other two under section 34? I forget the number. Right. That's the non-conforming section. And so by adding density as one of the a very easy fix literally that could be

second. I'm about to process improvement. We have a motion and a second. Uh any discussion? Uh roll call please. Lori, can that motion be restated? Fix it. No. No. I think you I think we prefer you do it

to clarify. The motion makaker's idea I believe is to ask staff to report to city council. make a change recommended by us to the nonconformity protection of 341364 whatever that number is [sighs] and uh provide for that protection on density within the zoning district in the same manner they are protecting it for lot and area and I'll second that. Okay, I have a motion and a second again member facing are you just there for your vote? Okay. I thought maybe you had a comment, wanted to cover it off. All right. Roll call, please. Lori. Member Troutman. Yes. Secretary Face. Yes. Vice Chairman Childs.

Yes. Member Scully? Yes. Member Groad? Yes. Chairman Eton? Yes. All right. Moving on to item 9B, please.

Item 9B, conditional use permit number 9, 2024, Titusville Storage. This item begins on page 67 of 89. The applicant is requesting a CUP to allow a mini warehouse use at a vacant 2.55 acre property located west of South Washington Avenue, US Highway 1 and south of State Road 50 having Bard County parcel ID number 22352600504.1 currently designated with the light industrial services and warehousing M1 zoning district. A CUP is required to permit a mini warehouse use in the M1 zoning district according to section 28214 mini warehouse. The conceptual site plan illustrates a four-story mini warehouse building, associated parking, storm water facilities, and wetland preservation area. The property is currently vacant and has been designated as industrial on the city's future land use map as early as 1988. The current M1 zoning district was placed on the property with the adoption of the citywide reasonzoning ordinance number 51 1993. The property is currently vacant. The property has 438 ft of frontage along US Highway 1, an arterial road and abuts the Florida East Coast Railroad along the rear. Uh page 80 is the concept plan. You might have to zoom out to see the full plan, [snorts] which illustrates one access point off of South Washington Avenue. Uh, one building is four stories, several parking spaces, proposed dry retention, and protection of a 5,123 123 square foot uh, wetland with uh, as small as as narrow as 15 foot wide wetland buffer along the perimeter. And happy to take any questions. Thank you. Member Grod,

one simple question for Eddie on the site plan. I'm glad you mentioned 80 of 89 [clears throat] on the northeast corner of the property shows proposed cross access which is good planning. Did the city require cross access in the adjacent property which I think is the brewery? That's correct. The property to the north is Bricks PL uh bricks brewery. Um, and non-residential uses along an arterial require uh require that cross access. So, this will join to one that exists already. So, the easements can

I'm not sure if there's an existing cross access on that property to the north currently, but if that property to the north, if it doesn't currently have one, if it gets redeveloped in the future, we'll have to provide that as well. Okay. if you can just make look into that if it did back because that probably before your time or certainly before my time but just to see if there may be one there that makes that easy. Thank you. So, I know there's a parking spaces that go I think all the way up. I'm looking at the Google maps right here, but I don't know about roadage, right? That's why I was [clears throat] asking member face. Uh, currently, how many storage units do we have in the city of Titusville or servicing the city of Titusville?

I don't have that number for you. Let's do a quick Google search and it says there are there are over 70 self-s storage facilities located in or directly serving the Titusville area 70. That's a lot. Okay, we're going to continue this. So, I just want just keep that in people's minds that there are 70 storage units that are serving Titusville currently right now. Um there was a big switch. which I don't know if any I don't know if many people know but some time ago a lot of folks were making money doing real estate and once real estate kind of became a retail market they went to buying um mobile home parks and once they bought up mobile home parks they went from mobile home parks to now buying storage units and car washes and so we see a proliferation of storage units and car washes popping up all over America and so a quick Google search says that there are already communities uh in Florida such as uh Vero Beach and Cape coral that I put a moratorum in to stop the proliferation of storage units. And so we just had a few just recently built in Titusville and know as we look at another storage unit, how many do we already have and is there really a need for the community to have another? And so I don't know, but we'll see.

Member Chow, I I had some of those same thoughts when I was thinking about this, like how many storage facilities do we have? We already had some just upgraded or new ones, U-Haul, all them ones, right? My my main question right now to staff is is uh so the cup is for the mini warehouse. What about the mini warehouse statement or or or title defines it to have to be a cup? What what like for us to have to consider the cup? educate me a little bit on this of when you go into planning and zoning and you're coming up with the zoning and you're like, "Okay, well, you know, we'll make it this, but if you want to do these other ones, you got to get a cup." Now, like, what goes into the naming of these other categories that could be there as long as city council or the city agrees that it's okay? like if you could help me educate why what a mini warehouse would would really put it out why we need a cup for mini warehouse.

Let me ask a clarifying question. Are you asking why was this specific project required to go through a cup or why does the city why did the city council require the mini warehouse use in general to go through the cup process? I I assume that the uh applicant is doing a mini warehouse. They called it a mini warehouse or they called it a warehouse or storage facility. Okay. So, at some point somebody used that word mini warehouse and then then because that verbiage is in our um ordinance or you need a cup for that. Yeah. What specifically would is many warehouses like we have to consider this.

My guess is it's business license. So that's that's the term that city council has adopted for this use and they have a definition explaining so that we can verify that what they're proposing meets that definition is this use and so it meets that definition. They are proposing a mini warehouse use. Um the cup the purpose of a cup and I'll share this because I had a call with one of the PNZ members who asked me just in general what is the purpose of this process? What are we supposed to be reviewing? council has said that a mini warehouse when you look in the code for a mini warehouse use, you find the name, the definition of what a mini warehouse is and any substandards um and what zoning districts they're permitted in. And if you've I'm sure you've all seen are familiar with our zoning use table. We've got the P which is permitted by right. If an applicant is proposing use as permitted by right, they can come in today and get their uh BTR, the business tax receipt and start uh or building permit to start construction and and the site plan and all of that. If it's a C, conditional use permit, it means that the use is permitted in that zoning district, but prior to receiving site plan approval, business tax receipt, building permit, they have to go through this public hearing process to see if council wants to adopt any additional conditions because typically these uses might have some type of nuisance associated with them, whether that's heat, noise, vibration, uh, lighting, some some type of factor that the the council may want to review this project specifically so that they can add conditions to protect the surrounding uh properties. And so whenever we're reviewing a a conditional use permit, we're reviewing a project to see if there's any other conditions that um because council has said that this use is permitted in this zoning district, but what conditions should we apply, if any, to this specific project at this location. So that's just a basic CUP.

Yeah. No, I appreciate that. That's exactly what I was trying to get out of that. Thank you, Member Childs. for a cup though, do you can can you according to our ordinances and what a cup is, can you take into a consideration that we have too many and that's a reason for that we're not going to do a cup because are you saying that's a permitted use but only if it's a you know if it's something that we still need? Is that is that permitted in our ordinance to take that into consideration? Maybe that's just a question. Would having too much be a nuisance?

I was I was going to say I'm not an attorney, so I'll let David answer, but um typically no. Zoning can't be used to say you have too many in the cup process. You're saying you've council has said that this use is permitted in this zoning district and council has applied this zoning district to this property. So therefore saying this use can be permitted at this property with the understanding that it must meet any conditions that were outlined in the uh listed in the cup in the conditions and any additional conditions that council may want to impose. Uh saying that there are too many is not one of the limiting factors but maybe uh if there's anything else David wants to add.

No that's an apt summary. um you know that would be more of a legislative consideration that would be council's perview when making the zoning districts this process is just sight specific [clears throat] whether the approval of this permit would require any additional conditions but not consideration of other properties. [snorts] Got it. Thank you member.

Thank you Mr. Chairman to to to kind of complement Mr. facing's observation and that's kind of like why we're all here as we just did. You you find some things need to be fixed because they're inherently wrong. In the instance of this, however, you make a good point. There is a saturation point. Sometimes you see it with my mother used to tell me in Titus had more gas stations. There were gas stations in every corner because everybody wanted a gas station. Um gas stations are out of vogue now. Super stations are, but many warehouses I think have replaced gas stations. So, your point's well taken. I would comment on this location for conditional use that we have recently just approved repeatedly brand new subdivisions, brand new development orders. We've amended development orders, the fifth amendment to a development order. We've slapped 150 foot tall apartments within a mile of this site. And I think that many warehouses by and large are located near residential apartment multif family or highdensity detached single family whereby you don't have enough room to store the stuff from New York when you moved here. And this is coming like the chicken and the egg. I suspect it's coming because they're coming and they're coming pretty quick as we keep seeing. So I I I agree with the observation wholeheartedly. That's what we're here to see and watch trends and make recommendations. In this instance, that location probably is well warranted because of its proximity to

I I I agree. I think the the governing of units is is more of an economic thing as far as overall if it didn't make sense, they're not going to build it. Um they they this is cost significant money to do these kinds of projects. the comprehensive plan and whether middle of downtown Titusville historic district we should put a mini warehouse whole another whole another issue. Um but um yeah I I think like you say this is this is a good spot for it. Um [snorts] I have to laugh. Do you remember we saw a presentation here a couple years ago where they were trying to do a similar idea in front of the warehouse that's on 50 that used to be a cooks and then later be what I remember was the representative had a photograph of one of his many warehouses like in downtown Miami but it was facade [laughter] you couldn't tell it wasn't in the historic district

and and frankly they look the ones you all of the ones recently look very nice you know Yeah. Yeah. And it it probably looks better than an empty overgrown lot or a dilapidated Kmart. Uh which is what you're talking about. Um so, uh with that, um open the public hearing. Do we have any cards, Lori? Yes. One card. You got the call to rush here.

Yes. Um my name is Christy. I'm here from Lounge on behalf of the applicant. Um, we agree with staff's report and the findings in the staff report and we are requesting that a conditional use permit be granted to allow them any warehouse use. Um, I don't want to bore you with reiterating what he just went over, but I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Anyone have any question? Member FC. So, I'll ask you. So, how many uh storage units are there in Titusville? I'm not certain, but I heard you guys just say there's 70. So perhaps 70.

All right. And and well, so because you're not the applicant, so I don't I don't know if you know what the market research is on storage units in Titusville, like their u fill rate, like how often, you know, you know, what is their field capacity rate? Um [snorts] how many vacant storage units are there? What's the nearest one to you? For example, since he mentioned about a mile and a half, there is one just around about two miles from you right now, uh 50, which is a a brand new one. Uh right now, U-Haul over on Garden Street is just now expanding. So there is also availability there. There's other storage units throughout the city. Are you aware of all of these?

I am not. But as mentioned earlier, I don't think the need or saturation is a relevant factor in granting the conditional use permit. Um so we here on this panel, right, are looking after the community and if we see that there is an oversaturation of anything, right, then there wouldn't be a need for a conditional use permit to be granted. We could choose to elect to not approve. Now, of course, we're not the approving body that schools to the city council, but we can recommend not approval. Would you agree? You can recommend that? Yes. I'm just referencing what the criteria are in the zoning rule that's applicable. Correct. But I can still recommend not approval, though. Would you agree? Sure. You can recommend whatever approval you guys decide on.

Yes. So, when you say that's not relevant, I'm just saying that it it it's my purview to be able to recommend. Understood. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay. Does anyone else have questions? Anyone else have anything? Thank you. Thank you. Any other cards, Lori? No more cards.

I see no other people, so I assume there's no other cards. I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Member Child's. Yeah, I agree with you chairman about it's a it's a supply and demand issue and I think if it didn't look right in that place there would be a reason to say you know and that's why the cup is there is like because there's some some areas that are zon this way you're like well it could or could not go in this area. So we're like let's have them come before us so we can look at look at it and see if it really does fit. And I think in this case in that area, I don't see why there would be a problem with the storage, especially like right across from that big, you know, apartment building. There's that's tons of customers over there because they have, you know, I actually my ex-daughter-in-law lives over there, but um they I mean their apartments and they sometimes need extra storage and that's a nice little quick jot across the street there.

Um well, can you really go across the street? you probably like do a U-turn or something, but um I think it's I think it's one of those where it's supply and demand and I I'm fully in support of this. But so so the other thing about our property, right, is that it's right against the railroad tracks and which is also another high value for future folks that may need real estate along railroad tracks. And so once we allow that to go there, that's no longer there. And so as we look at our property that we have, we have to make uh we have to make sure that we're doing due diligence and great care of what we have because we don't have very much railroad property. Orlando doesn't have very much of that. You know, uh there's other communities that that don't have this. So that's a very valuable location, not only for that. So if we're going to put storage units, there's plenty other places in the city that storage units can go. But I also say that we don't need more storage units. This community doesn't need more storage units. and it doesn't need it along railroad tracks because that right there is another source. I mean, we had somebody before us that was looking for uh real estate that that had access to railroad tracks.

A bleach plant. Huh. Of the bleach plant. Yeah, the bleach plant. Right. So So it's not like that's not valuable for some other use. Right. And if we if we're going to agree with storage units, which is fine if y'all if you guys agree, why does it be right against railroad tracks where something else can go there? I don't think you block somebody just because we don't think it I don't know. I don't think you just block somebody because you don't you think someone else might be able to put something there that might need to use the railroad tracks. I think that though as a Huh. But we've done that before. We we something not go someplace.

I don't think so. I think if if you you have to take the project and say, is it okay if they go, you know, if if this use works there, then it should work there. Not maybe there's some other use that might magically appear someday that might want to use it and we're going to, you know, approve it for this use. So, I don't think that's right. Yeah. Okay. I'd play devil's advocate a little bit on that. If something ever happened to this building, this fourstory building, it's it's very easy to add a rail spur there, and then this becomes a warehouse of some sorts, you know, in future terms that now they already have a building there that's four stories. You know, it plays devil's advocate. You know, it could be that, too.

Emmer, just a couple of footnotes to to Mr. FA's concern, and I think it's all that's valid. I mean, that's what we're all here for. Um, one of the idiosyncrasies of my experience with industrial and manufacturing is that it's good planning process to put it on a railroad right away, especially when the railroad rideway is one boundary and a federal highway is the other boundary or an interstate. There's not a lot of housing and subdivisions that want to squeeze between those two the way they used to do it like where I live. Um, so that's a good point about protection of that corer for railroad access, but I'm looking at a 260 foot deep property. And when you have a sighting for railroad access, the siding's going to jump into that property boundary, a pretty good proportion of it, to be able to facilitate the siding's width and rail width. That shrinks the property's development potential because 260 feet is probably going to drop below 200 feet. When you start putting all those standards together, those skinny peninsulas of land between roads and railroad rideways are not always uniform in size. Some places it could be coterminus like Hopkins at the FEC railroad by the high school. There is no land left. Go south here, it's 260 ft. go down to where the bleach manufacturer was and it's probably closer to a thousand feet where a railroad sighting could be. So, this may be a good industrial site, but to envision an industrial site that might need railroad rightway might not be practical. It could be done, but it'd have to be a different kind of development than you would have maybe for bottle manufacturing that needs to have railroad cars for bottles being manufactured to ship out. That's my at least comment on the likelihood of this being something that should be protected

for something big when something like this between the brewery might be a good transition going south. Uh, nobody's really bothered in a mini warehouse by what takes place in a brewery. Uh, I can assure you that's a that's a very big rule in communities that regulate breweries because of the odors that emanate from the brewing process. And you have to be careful about exceeding the volume of brew to what makes brew up, the trucks that transport grain. So, it's one thing to have Bush Gardens in Annheiser Bush. It's another to have a micro brewery like like the name of it I forget.

Yes. Bricks. So that's just my followup to what you said. I think these are valid points of economic consider considerations and geometric considerations and do we have too many that can be of good consideration. Mayor Chapman.

Yeah. Just a quick question actually to Eddie. Um, so with this property, um, I need I just want to touch base on the,uh, environmental part of it just real quick. And, uh, I know that when they go through the process of this, does does this have the same statue of like 25% tree canopy, any of that stuff, or can they come in and clear cut this and then put native trees and what is what's in our ordinances now as far as uh, foliage and things like that? or what what part of that process on this property because I know this property has it's it's very wooded and I know a lot of it is pine but uh I was just curious on what will they have to keep to ordinances when it comes of this kind.

Sure. So that's a few steps down the road. Um if if council is inclined to improve the cup, uh the next step will be submitting the site plan and their tree mitigation package and landscaping package. And so I'm just pulling up the canopy requirements. Uh if you give me just a second. [snorts] So for commercial and industrial development these fall under section 30-31.5 B which is optional canopy area requirement. So if they elect to opt into the canopy requirement they can receive reduced m tree mitigation require um required mitigation for the trees that are have would have to be removed but they're not required to provide the to meet the canopy section. they could come in and clean clean it out and then build their property up and then put in whatever foliage that they build on their plan or whatever. There are still other uh sections of the code uh like the landscape perimeter um which says I guess the question would be does this come back to us again for that part of the process or because it's like that's pretty streamlined because of the highway one corridor and

that's correct. Okay. So, what what you're talking about is more of the engineering side of things, the site plan approval. Uh what's being presented tonight is the CU is the the this is the only the only time unless um the only time it'll go back to a public hearing is if it needs a variance, a BAA meeting that would not come before you. Um other than that, I can't think of what what else would bring it back before the PMZ for a land use change or or reasonzoning. They wouldn't need to do any of those. All right. I just want to at least touch base on the environmental side of it and see where we're at on that too with it. So, thanks, Member Childs.

I make a motion to recommend approval of conditional use permit 9-2024 Tyville Storage as presented. I have a second. I'd make a second, Mr. Chairman, if I may make a note to the to the concern. The site plan shows in the southeast corner or the bottom right of the page 80 of 89. That's a pretty large area. If you look at the existing wetlands, which is not going to be cleared, and you look at the buffer, which I don't think the code lets you clear the buffer, the southeast corner is going to remain wooded to what extent those woods are there now. Okay. I didn't know.

Yeah. I didn't know if they could uh agitate that area at all or not or is possible. But my my second because and you're concerned I I agree with I think they're going to be leaving the southeast corner as is because of environmental rules. Sure. And I think that'll make some citizens happy there. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion before we call a vote? Uh roll call, please. Lori. Secretary FAC. No. Member Grod. Yes. Member Troutman. Yes. Member Scully. Yes. Vice Chairman Childs. Yes. Chairman Eton. Yes. Member FA, could you state your

basis? So, our our community right now is growing at at an alarmingly rate and there needs to be a moratorum or some kind of stop pause to re-evaluate what we're allowing in the city. Um, when we already have say 70 storage units that already are accessible to the city, do we really need more? So, we need to look at that. President Eton, is is that something that we can I guess another thing that we could ask staff on to look at is is if this is becoming a a big trend to to to Mr. Fons.

So like so so this trend isn't just for the city of Titusville. It's across the nation. Um as I said Cape Coral and the other communities Vero Beach that have that have gone ahead and put a moratorium in um because this is becoming proliferation. These are low city. These these are low buildings. They provide a low tax base to the com to communities um and sometimes they they can create blight. So do we really want to continue to allow just anything to be built in this community? I'm not saying to no to any storage units. What I'm saying is let's put a pause on some of these buildings and look and see is it something that we need in this community. Car washes is another one. Do we need any more car washes in this community?

Do we I don't know. So, so I I agree with you totally like that that we definitely need to look into these things and see, you know, where our trend is going and and but is that how do we direct staff and ask city council to do a study on that and and see that would give information back to them to to move down the right path to Mr. Faison's Mr. Face's concerns and things of that nature or how do we get to this point to find out what's saturated or not?

Sure. So the the process would be as the recommending body to city council is you would make a recommendation that council uh direct staff to research that issue whether it's car washes, self- storage facilities or or both or additional uses. If council decides that that's an issue they want to direct staff to study, they will make that motion at their at their city council meeting and then staff will provide a report to council and then uh council will provide further direction on whether to make a moratorum or additional action. And again, I don't make the recommendation again if this board if if my commission fel my fellow commissioners actually see that there's an issue. If my fellow commissioners do not agree that it's an issue, then I wouldn't do it. But me personally, I think we need to take we need to present this to the council to to look at what we're allowing in this community uh when it comes to car washes and storage units. For example, one one additional caveat is to consider the Senate Bill 180 and uh the what the legislature adopted is we're not currently allowed to adopt anything more restrictive. So at this time we're not permitted to adopt moratoriums. Uh but the moment that we are allowed to adopt a moratorum then council could provide that direction. So this would be to start the study to see whether that is an issue that council wants to address when the time is is right when that when that becomes an available option.

And I was going to be clear again you said that and again we cannot the communities cannot allow anything more restrictive. So it's a green light go for everything. What's that? Did you just say that that the state passed some kind of legislation that prevents [snorts] communities from re being restrictive? Is is that what I heard you say? Yes, sir. because we're impacted by the hurricanes. Uh that's what the intent is that communities cannot adopt uh new regulations that are more restrictive subject to amendment perhaps in this legislation. Potentially it's brewing again.

So So I'm flabbergasted again. So it's a green light go for So that's why I said is it a a green light go for just about anything in this community because of the hurricanes, because of this legislation? I'm not sure what you mean by green light go. I mean people can just come up like and just say hey I want to build this now and we can't correct those those uses are currently permitted in the code and and the new moratorum [clears throat] stopping those uses uh could not be adopted that's correct thank you member

just a footnote and two things that are trending since you were mentioning trending to expand that comment that the the trend in ownership of property and Homesteads versus apartment dwellers can probably be expressed best by the now move to regulate at a federal level national corporations who build subdivisions of detached housing for the principal purpose to rent, not to buy or sell, to rent because people like the atmosphere of a detached house as opposed to the colony living in a 150 foot building overlooking the space center. To that extent you would have to ask the staff I think to conduct the survey of what's the occupancy rate of the 70 many warehouses. If for example staff reported the occupancy rate of all many warehouses in Titusville was 100%. Then certainly the question begs I must need more because you're approving apartments.

Correct. And the reason we're getting more many warehouses is that some of these home sites that are getting built on 50 foot 40 foot lots I mean where you put your fiber McGee's attic and everybody has one and the answer is many warehouses. I mean that's just it's it's a these things that's why I said I find it myself humorous when many warehouses first emerged. I mean they were like shacks. They were metal buildings. They were just horrible. Now they've evolved. At least they got some facade and some decoration to make them look nice. But your point's well taken. The question really is what's the saturation point? But before that, what's the occupancy rate?

Yeah. So when the one that was built over on Garden Street, when that gentleman came up and I didn't ask what it cost to build, but he told me that he recouped his cost in three years and they have 80% occupancy rate. And with 80% occupant rate, he recouped and it costs millions of dollars to build these. He recouped his money within three years. So I understand that they're profitable. I do. I understand that they're they're a great investment. I I completely do. But at the same time, and I'm I'm not I'm not anti-growth, but I am very very pro Titusville. Okay? Very very pro Titusville. So when the guy built the one on Garden Street again, can you imagine? I think they're like theirs may cost 10 million. I think there her building may four four stories on that property maybe 10 maybe a little bit $12 million and they'll recoup that back in three years with 80% occupancy rate not 100% occupancy rate 80% occupancy rate that is that is insane okay but it's a great it's a great investment and so I'm not I'm not I'm not that I I get the numbers I 100% do but I also get my community

has anyone care to make a motion to recommend the council something that we can't do as per any discussion. [laughter] Yeah, I mean we can't do it. I'm not I'm not uh that that being said uh I we have uh no public um I think you're passed. So thank you. Um the um yeah so um let's see reports city staff just the March 7th uh if you signed up for the community workshop this Saturday we'll see you there

city attorney no report I have nothing to report any of the members member

garage I have One thing to ask, we I asked this back a few months ago. I didn't see anything or at least an answer in response. For me, the way the staff uh uh orchestrates and pageionates the reports is very extensive and very illustrative and very informative. The difficulty I have, and I'm familiar with that by what I did, is that you don't see the location unless you're inherently familiar with it because you're a longtime Titusville resident, and I am, and I can see these spots in my mind by when I can't, which I do find I can't do always, I find myself scrolling through 47 pages to find out where that address is or cheating. and using my phone. That leads me with the question, what good's the report do if I have to use my phone to find it? So, what I asked several months ago was, could staff consider at least following the the introduction page, the next thing you see is where it's at. all the other sunundry stuff with floor and fauna and environmental reports and 47 ways to build something that's useful but 9A drove that home for me is uh same thing crossed my mind is it would be

so if if that would be possible it'd be helpful to me maybe other members if you agree yeah yeah just a satellite photo with a red box around it that says subject property would be there's a satellite photo with a red box surround it on page 25 can I ask if maybe it would help if it was more zoomed out is or just duplicate it up at the top. I think is duplicate it in the staff report and and yeah, just under the staff report the intro section wherever wherever your beginning starts. I don't I I'll have to go back and I'll show you my thought. Maybe it'll help other members or maybe just move the maps before the staff report would I think [clears throat] it's just the one image that we need. We don't need to move all of them

because the confusing part is the other maps did not show the subject property in relationship to the Indian River City map. you knew where it was cuz you referenced it, but unless you look at find the other map to find out where it is and then in your mind's eye look at that in reference to that, that made it even worse. But just just as an example, you open up the first page after forget the minutes. So the the meat and potatoes here is resoning request 802025. The thing starts off with applicants request recommendation background. Which page are you on?

This will be page 12 of 89. So, you start by what are we going to see? We're going to see resoning. We're going to see what the applicants request, the staff's recommendation, the background, and then the next thing you see is property information. What I'm submitting is what if you put the map after that, and then the property information, you would have the you would have the data that would be illustrative to the photograph of where it's at. So, you kind of start getting spatial with yourself. So we don't do what the poor guy did tonight when I opened [laughter] my mouth about and I was thinking I said that to myself as I talked. I said I don't want to advertise. So what I want to do is call it that place on Hopkins near something that looks like that. And I cheated and said the name.

It's fine. Well they happen to be here. Well yeah I mean if it's it's illustrated by the citizens that spoke against it that they didn't even know what property it was. So um I understand. Yeah. To me the pictures were the thousand comment about protection trees like following your suit just food for thought

but yeah I think to your point Eddie if we're using the one of 25 is zoomed out just a little bit more with the red box don't have to say subject property we kind of know what it is if you don't want to say it but and have that somewhere in those first couple pages. pages. I think it's the fact that we start on page 12 and this is on page 25 is kind of illustrates our I would [laughter] careful. [snorts] Yeah, I would suggest right like line 15 right after property information if you Yeah, maybe did the image and then start your your property information. That probably I apologize if that wasn't addressed previously when you brought it up.

Yeah, this this this particular one really drove it home. So, but I had that thought while we were going through all that. Not too. Yeah. All right. Uh, I think we are adjourned. Thank you everyone. Before you gave, I did need to announce I will not be present at the next meeting. Uh, the third Wednesday of this month. I won't be present and I'll let you know in an email. Thank you.