Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We'd like to call to order the July 8th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Can we have a pledge of allegiance? All right. Can we get a roll call, please?

Chairman Natan. Vice Chairman Scully.

Here.

Secretary Faison.

Here.

Member Rice.

Here.

Member Garrod.

Here.

Member Graham.

Here.

Member McDaniel. Here. Alternate Member Seidler.

Here.

Alternate Member Troutman.

Here. Awesome. Thank you. We have a quorum. Next, we're going to have an approval of the minutes. Do we have a motion or any comments? Any motion? Okay.

Member Troutman? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as written. All right. We have a motion. Member Faison?

I second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Roll call.

Secretary Faison?

Yes.

Member Rice?

Yes.

Member Graham?

Yes.

Member McDaniel? Yes. Member Troutman?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Member Grodd?

Yes. Thank you. Now we're going to move over to the quasi-judicial with the attorney. Thank you.

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

Seeing none. Thank you. All right. With no old business, we're going to move on to new business. My apologies. Petitions are requested in public. Thank you, sir.

Is that good? Okay, hello. Stan Johnson. Well, you know who I am. Thank you for volunteering your time and your diligence to... uh, to, to work on truthfulness and proper decisions that, uh, because the city's got many decisions to be made. And yesterday I sent you an email. I gave it to, uh, the clerk over here. Uh, and it's dated yesterday. And that's what I want to present to you briefly. Don't have much time. So you might be able to have time to, uh, Ask some questions. So what this is about is I sent an email to Chief of Police Tyler Wright, and I said that the former police officer, chief of police will not let me send, uh, criminal acts of the city, uh, through him. And he, I can't in the city of the state attorney said, well, we can't accept them from you. We have to have them through the police. So I'm putting, I'm appealing to him to send some crimes that the city has done to the state attorney. And what is the legal force? You've seen this before spraying sewage, on people. Now, that's what I'm saying is that's illegal because if I do it, if I do it to my neighbor and I will knowingly do it, it's illegal to do that. Number two is that you've heard me say water flows downhill. Well, the city of Titusville has built a number of dams and they've done it by this study right here. It's called the Freshwater Management Study by DRMP. So I challenge anybody to get a professional engineer who will say that this is okay. What they're doing with the city is doing it because they build another dams. They don't have compensatory storage. They don't survey what they're flooding and so forth. They're illegal. So this document in 1985 is illegal. The third, the second document I have is a city stormwater master plan. And, uh, uh, I'm bringing it because there's been a number of false reports on sustainability filed by Eddie Galindo, Millie Galeo, and so forth. And they say certain things like, here's what this says. I'm going to ask for another minute. The city of Titusville has not... I'm trying to say it. Is that... I'm trying to say that, oh, my goodness. I asked for another minute. Maybe I can't get it. I don't know. I say we give them one more minute.

One more minute?

Okay. What it is, it says that the culverts under I-95 are undersized, and they need to be removed and enlarged. This document also says that... that the floodways to the St. John's River water to the St. John's River. They need to be inspected and maintained. They're not. They're neither inspected or maintained. So we have a problem that this has not been followed for the last 60 years. That's 1966. So for 60 years, the city has failed to inspect and maintain floodways and ditches as required on page 7-2 of this document. On 7-3, it says the first thing you should do is take care of the outlet. They don't do it. So if there's any questions, I'm here for any questions. I'm sorry I'm out of breath. I had to wait for a train. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. No question. Any other petitions or requests from the public? Seeing none, we're going to move into old business. With no old business, we're moving to new business. Eddie.

Thank you, Vice Chair. This is item 9A, beginning on page 8 of 199 of tonight's packet. Small scale amendment number 1, 2026 Canaveral Avenue. The applicant is requesting a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, SSA, with rezoning on approximately 6,970 plus or minus square feet of land located on Canaveral Avenue north of Palmetto Street and south of Pine Street for the construction of a duplex building. The request intends to change the future land use designation from medium density residential to high density residential and rezone the property from the single family high density R1C to multifamily high density residential R3 to support the intended multifamily use. The property is part of the Titusville Platte, which is Platte Book 1, page 8, and is currently vacant. On page 12 is the staff analysis, and I'll read that. The purpose of the land use amendment and rezoning is to construct a duplex on an existing vacant lot. The subject property is in the Canaveral Heights neighborhood west of downtown in a primarily residential area. The surrounding properties are designated with the single-family high-density R1C zoning district and medium-density residential future land use. However, the zoning in the larger area, generally bounded by Pine Street to the north, Palmetto Street to the south, South Granite Avenue to the west, and the FEC Railroad to the east, can be described as a mix of R1C and multifamily high density R3 zoning and a mix of medium density residential and high density residential future land use designations. The property is approximately 6,970 square feet or 0.16 acres in size. The current R1C zoning district permits single family dwellings at a density of 6.7 dwelling units per acre, which yields one residential dwelling on the property. The requested multifamily high density R3 zoning district and high density residential future land use designation permit a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre, which yields two residential dwellings on the property. The current R1C zoning district is consistent with the current medium density residential future land use designation. The proposed R3 zoning district is consistent with the proposed high density residential future land use designation. And that map beneath that paragraph shows the surrounding zoning and the future land use designations. The future land use designations being the colors and the zoning districts being the lettered labels. And you'll see that throughout this area, as was mentioned earlier, between Pine Street and Palmetto Street, there seems to be a mixture of this, uh, medium density, which is the lighter tan and high density, which is the darker tan and the R one C and R three zoning districts throughout this area. I'll also point out on page 13, towards the bottom, the underlined text, the staff comment reads on April 27th, 2022, the council directed the staff to propose a strategy whereby certain portions of the draft 2040 Titusville tomorrow comprehensive plan may be incorporated into the adopted comprehensive plan. The city's consultant held a public engagement meeting on February 4th, 2023, and presented draft goals, objectives and policies to the future land use transportation and housing elements of the comprehensive plan. The amendments included an expansion of the urban mixed use land use category into the subject neighborhood. In various subsequent community and city council meetings between 2023 and 2025, the consultant identified missing middle type housing as appropriate in the area. Missing middle housing are small developments such as duplexes and quadplex buildings that fit into walkable neighborhoods. The subject neighborhood is walkable due to the existing street grid pattern and proximity to essential services. In addition, the compact development pattern of the neighborhood demonstrates an efficient use of land. These characteristics allow for an increase in density and overall intensity of the area. Next, I'll point the Commission to page 18. Page 18, the existing zoning, number two, towards the bottom. The existing zoning, if deemed consistent with the comprehensive plan, shall be presumed correct unless substantial change in the area has occurred since the original zoning. And the staff comment reads for that criterion, the property, all abutting properties and the surrounding zonings currently designated with R3 zoning and high density residential future land use were assigned to their current designations in 1993 as part of the implementation of the 1988 comprehensive plan adoption and have remained unchanged. No substantial changes in the area have occurred since the original zoning. The requested R3 zoning district is consistent with the surrounding zoning. However, in various community and city council meetings between 2023 and 2025, the consultant identified missing middle type housing as appropriate in the area. Missing middle housing are small developments such as duplex and quadplexes that fit into the walkable neighborhood. The City Council directed the staff to identify opportunities to remove barriers to development and redevelopment, especially related to small lots, and the need for housing that is more affordable. The rezoning request in the subject neighborhood meets the City Council's directives. And last on page 20, item number 7. Substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in the existing zoning district. The existing zoning on the property would allow a maximum of one single family residence. The property is currently vacant. There are no substantial reasons why the property cannot be used within the existing zoning. And with that, I will close and take any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Eddie. Member Trotman. Hey Eddie, on page 10, the staff report says that we're approving for high density residential on R3, but the applicant's forms on page 23 and 29 say UMU. Which one are we actually voting on?

Sure. Thank you for allowing me to clarify that. So the applicant originally submitted the request for UMU. And as was mentioned previously, there was a direction from council to expand the UMU into this neighborhood. And so since that hasn't happened, the applicant figured they would get out ahead of that and zone this property, UMU. However, since that change hasn't been made in the comprehensive plan and we're currently prohibited from making changes, publicly initiated changes to our comprehensive plan, the suggestion was made to the applicant to choose a zoning district and future land use category that would be more consistent with the current pattern that's in the neighborhood. And so, uh, the, the applicant had emailed confirming that they would like to change their request to our three and high density residential member facing.

Hey Eddie. So when we're talking about a walkable neighborhood, what is the definition of a walkable neighborhood?

I don't have a definition in front of me from any of the typical sources, APAs or such, but usually you would look at sidewalk connectivity in the neighborhood and amenities or attractions that are easy to walk to.

So if I'm not mistaken, I don't think there's any sidewalks in this neighborhood. And that when we're looking at walkability to go along with affordability, and one of the reasons why we build this house is to create more affordable housing, which needs to have a walkability score. which has to have an affordability score, this property doesn't, as far as I know, doesn't kind of meet that standard. But I get that we have the future land use of the R3 in increase, but I just wanted to say that it's not a very walkable neighborhood. And I'm sure that once they finish building it, those who live there won't be walking in that neighborhood.

Member Seidler?

Thank you. I have a question. We keep talking about affordability, that we need affordability and walkability. There aren't any sidewalks. And my question is because, staff, you refer to affordability quite a bit in this. I don't see anything in the application that requires these to be affordable or owner occupied or sold below market value. What makes these affordable?

The idea of a duplex allowing for an additional unit to be rented out provides some additional income for the property owner.

So and that comes to my next question is during the community meeting that the owner had, they discussed the managing that they basically manage a portfolio of rental properties and referred to our renters. So my question is, are these planned to be kept by the owners and rented out or are they planned on being sold?

So as far as zoning is concerned, we're not as much concerned with the owning or the leasing of the unit. It's more about whether the duplex structure is appropriate. As was mentioned, the current zoning on the property is single family. And so if that's more appropriate for the neighborhood, then I'd suggest keeping the current zoning on the property and not approving of this request. But maybe the applicant may be able to shed some more information on your question specifically.

Okay, and when I'm looking at page 11 that shows the aerial map, I just see single home, single home, single home, single home, single home, single home. They're all single family residences there. And then I look at the Kimmerly Horn where they, where is that? Where they show the, there we go, on page 14, the Kimberly horn transportation housing elements where they are, where we're missing middle housing. And I look at their map here and I see on the far left there's detached single family houses, which this lot predominantly falls into. And then there's another section of, of all of this middle housing and then it goes back into the mid high rise. So as I'm looking at the aerial map, I see the single family where it is there. Then we have single family. and then we have the railroad tracks, and then more of where I would see, according to this Kimalee Horn thing, the missing middle housing would be kind of in that section, and then to the high rise. Am I interpreting this correctly?

So I think what you're describing in the graphic is the gradient, the transition of less dense to more dense residential structures. That's what is defined as the missile missing middle housing is the gap between the single family residents and the mid rise and high rise residential buildings. The. town homes, duplexes, quadplexes, four-court homes. As far as the neighborhood, it's hard to tell from just an aerial what the structures are. I can tell you that we looked at several of the Brevard County classifications for the structures, and not all of them are single-family homes. The overwhelming majority are, but there are triplexes and duplexes and quadplexes throughout this neighborhood currently. And this neighborhood was identified by council as an area that, um, if implementing the title tomorrow program would have expanded the urban mixed use, uh, to further south towards this, this portion of the neighborhood, which does allow for more dense structures and mixing of uses, um, allowing for example, a small commercial, maybe an insurance office with a residential mix. And so that is something that council has shown an indication that they have interest in for this area.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Member Gerard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of questions, Eddie. First, back some months past, there was a very similar request involving a land use plan amendment and a zoning that would have facilitated on an existing lot in I changed so that the development would prefer a single family home as opposed to commercial. It was down south of Hopkins area. And one of the glitches in it, which I tried to suggest we might want to fix someday, and I think that's coming around, is the density within the land use and zoning. And in this case, the question I have is the 65-foot wide lot and the R3 zoning as opposed to the zoning that's there, what are the setback requirements for the current zoning 65 feet is kind of a small lot to put a home on. In some cases, the homes that are out there are similar. And then for a duplex, what's the setback going to be if the zoning is approved? And does that leave enough adequate room not to conflict so that, as the example I mentioned earlier, that the applicant has to come back and get a variance from some standard they can't comport with?

Yes, sir. In the R1C, the front yard setback is 25, interior side yard are 10, and rear yard is 25. In the R3, it's dependent on the structure type. No, I'm sorry. In the R3, the front yard setback is 25, interior 10, and rear 25.

So the remaining lot would be 45 feet in width, which should put two units that would be duplexes typically pretty skinny at 20 feet wide. And that would envision to me are duplexes by a use the same as a townhouse by design. A duplex townhouse two stories would be more appropriate with 20-foot wide units as opposed to one footprint for one duplex. Do you know if the applicant, is he here? Because those may be questions for him if they haven't discussed it with you. Yep. Okay. I'll ask them. But you answered my question on the setback. Thank you.

Member Rice? Yes.

What's really happening here, the reason why you're recommending R3 is because the lot is so small, that's the only way they can get two units on there for a duplex. Otherwise, you'd be submitting for an R2 if they could get to the two units, but the lot's just too small.

That's correct. The R2 would not provide enough density for the two units and the applicant originally requested the UMU, the urban mixed use, which also has 15 dwelling, a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. Um, however, in this between pine and Palmetto street, there are no other properties zoned to UMU, so it could be seen as inconsistent.

So I'm going to think outside the box a little bit and I know in our code there's a thing called accessory residential unit. Okay. where a single family home can have an accessory residential unit where someone else can live with the primary principle. Why does that not work instead of going through this process?

That could work. That's a question for the applicant whether they intend to build accessory dwelling units or if they specifically wanted two similar sized units.

Okay. Is there a restriction with the accessory dwelling unit where There's a size limitation on the second unit. Is there in that code? Do you know?

I believe there is.

That could have some bearing on it, too. There's also a lot size, a lot limit size, 10,000 square foot for the lot.

So accessory dwelling units are permitted in the current R1C zoning district with limitations, and the limitations include... There are quite a few, A through H, but looking specifically for anything size related. If an accessory dwelling unit exceeds 20% of the entire floor area of the primary dwelling, then it shall be compatible in architectural style, color. The floor area of an ADU shall not exceed 35% of the entire floor area of the primary dwelling. So that's the limitation is 35%. And shall be a minimum of 300 square feet and a maximum of 950 square feet. So there's a minimum, a maximum, and a percentage threshold.

Okay. Thank you. Member Garag? Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I forgot the second question I was going to. I contacted staff earlier when reading the report about the history of this mosaic of zoning districts in that general area. The one map shows it pretty clearly. I think you referred to it in color gradients of gray or light brown and dark brown or tan and brown. And that struck me when I contacted staff to find out the history. Was this independent over time? Uh, collectively an area, but independent request, and as the staff report shows, it wasn't it was all because of a categorical change that occurred, which brings me to the question when you mentioned the, um. urban mixed use zoning district has to wait until you can catch up because of statutory limitations taking place. But the objective from the Kimberly horn study was to create that flexibility inside the neighborhood as your report says for walkability and the fact transitionally we need housing starts like that available. If the Kimberly horn implementation occurs, As the city went through this process back in whatever year, you said 88 or 93, I forget which happened, but that was the city endeavored to change the area categorically. but they didn't get at all. And now filling it up is going to happen piecemealingly one lot at a time. However, the question is, does the city intend to implement the same strategy? It did whatever year did categorical changes again for this area based on the study. In other words, is the city eventually going to come in and change the zoning in this area potentially to provide for this?

The direction from council seems likely that yes, that, That's kind of where I thought that would go. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, is the applicant here?

Hello, everyone. I'm Joshua Wilson. I represent Gold Coast Developers of Florida. We are the applicant. We have owned the property for about a year and a half. I want to thank Eddie for explaining what's going on and the write-up that we have and the report that you all received. We initially were waiting on the city's lead when it came to the UMU transition for the area, and we did not submit an application because of what was coming down the pipe. But then Tallahassee decided to Bigfoot local government. And we're seeing this issue play out across the state with fairly reasonable adjustments to the future land use to try to mitigate some of the inconsistencies that the current zoning is having with the future development goals that municipalities have. And that is important. what we're experiencing here with the Canaveral Heights District. So we sought the UMU District because of some of the relief that it provides with the side setbacks, the front and rear setbacks as well. And again, we wanted to build something in collaboration with the vision that the building department and the tons of money that is spent on studying the area to deliver on some of the goals that the city has. Um, but unfortunately, as I said, that did not come to pass with the UMU district. And so in working with the building department, we figured that the R3, as you guys noticed, given that the lot density is very, very small is what would allow us to get that second dwelling unit. And to Mr. Gerard? Yes, sir. Mr. Gerard's point about it being a little skinny for us to have a 20-foot wide per unit in terms of the duplex, we're actually building two of those off of Robbins Avenue, 470 and 480 South Robbins Avenue, 3-2 floor plan right now. And I want to say that's maybe a mile away. west of the current location that we're speaking of. To Ms. Seidler's point with regards to when you look at the map and you see what is existing in the area, there is an R3 quadruplex to the southeast directly across the street, and that is where staff was able to recommend our ability to extend that zoning use across the street in order to gather the density that we sought to be able to build the duplex. So we have a plan that does satisfy the building code that will again bring lights and life to the neighborhood. And we're attempting to continue to invest in an area where during the community meeting, I spoke with a pleasant young lady who pointed out that the only issue she had was the time of the community meeting being at 9 a.m. And to that I said, I will do better at scheduling things at a more accessible time for the community to be able to participate and provide feedback on the development goals that we have. And thereafter in that conversation, we somehow started talking about a recent shooting that occurred in the area. And I only mention that because we are attempting to be the change that we wish to see in the communities that we build in. And so I hope that this Planning and Zoning Commission can support our effort to continue doing that. Please, any questions that you may have, I would love to answer.

Member Chard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just two questions. I heard your response. I may have misunderstood one. You've got a product you're going to put on there. You're aware of the setbacks. It conforms to those setbacks, and it's going to be a single-story building. It won't be two stories. That is correct. Thank you. Member Trotman.

Question to Eddie. Zoning gets approved or not, or however this goes tonight, if they start building that infrastructure, that walkability, is that something that the city is going to take on in front of that house, be a sidewalk, and start building that out? How does that go? We'll be required to put a sidewalk in. You'll be required. Okay.

Member Faison. So you mentioned affordability, and that's a big thing for me. And so Member Seidler brought up an issue or a comment about who's going to own it and who's going to live in it, because we're talking about affordability. And as this topic gets kicked around, one of the things that people never talk about is actually homeownership, because homeownership is how some families began to pass it on and began to build generational wealth. So as you're building these homes in these neighborhoods, which is great, and when we start talking about affordability, most times that's actually talking about multifamily units. Very seldom does affordability actually talk about home ownership, and not just home ownership, but those that are at 30, 50, 80% of AMI. One of the things that people don't, many people may or may not know, is that the AMI for Titusville is actually lumped in with Palm Bay, so all the way down. So Titusville's AMI right now is $100,000. And so when we hear affordability, we ought to, at least I, automatically calculate what that AMI, excuse me, what they're building for, which is actually the 120%. Because, again, at 120% of the AMI, which means a family of two or a family of four, that makes up to $120,000 whatever home that they can afford. is considered to be affordable, but that doesn't take into consideration those that make 50%, 80%, 30% of that same AMI. And so when I hear affordable, like you're building right now, right, your target audience is that 50%, 30%, 80% of the AMI, or are you targeting that, again, that 120%, as we see very common here when we talk about the topic of affordability?

Very good question. I want to say that our product serves existing Titusville residents as well as the transient residents that are coming here as a result of the space development that we're having and the other new industry that is coming to the area. We build a product that is at or below the median home price. I want to say the median home price in the area is about $290,000. And our single family product that we build in the R1C district, we sell for about $280,000 or $285,000. We just had a town home that we completed construction on last summer 8595 West town place and we just learned something new that you can actually convert a town home to a duplex and we found this out because the intended buyer was using an FHA loan to purchase and they wanted to house hack house hacking is something where. A lot of people are utilizing additional spaces to be able to subsidize some of their income, right? And so this gentleman wanted to purchase the property using that single loan that was accessible to him as a first-time homebuyer and to be able to subsidize his living expense. And so that's one of the ways that we look at being able to provide a product that provides meets the needs of communities and allows them to, in a sense, trickle down some affordability options. Right. Um, I think that property three, two rents for, uh, want to say $1,700 a month. Um, and as someone who has a mortgage on a property that just a brace for $500,000, you know, that $1,700 goes a long way to that individual as a first-time homebuyer being able to, you know, establish wealth building for himself and his future family. And so we envision this product to be able to do the same.

So since you mentioned house hiking, let me just, and Member Rice had mentioned ADUs. Yes. So in the city of Titusville, we allow two different types of ADUs. One is detached, one is attached, and one is detached. Thinking along those very same lines, there's also, what they call multi-generational living. Yes. All the same product, right? Again, with the cost of housing going up, if you guys have a product like that, again, because I'm looking at home ownership. When I look at affordability, right, I like to look at also raising home ownership. And so since you are a developer or since you build and sell homes, that's an item. But let's get back to what we're talking here. So in that area that you're building right now, and again, we're talking about walkability, and we're talking about safety because you brought up shooting in that neighborhood. And then the city has talked about doing UMUs. And again, I'm aware of what the city is looking to do in that area. There is a mixed use there. So the missing middle, I don't think when I take that neighborhood as a whole, there is no missing middle as a whole. We have R1, we have R3, and we have it in one area, in one neighborhood. I don't think that when we're talking about the missing middle, it has to be on the same street. It doesn't have to be consecutively R1, R2, R3. It just has to be in that general area. And I think that as I look at this map, I do see R1C and R3 just hodgepodge. So I don't think that neighborhood is missing. I think that the missing middle is being addressed. That's it. I'm good. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you. Thank you, sir. Are we going to have any public comments that submitted oath cards?

I have a card for Tony Shiflow.

I came before council back in a long time ago. Last year, as a matter of fact, because about these guys having their public meetings on in neighborhoods that are working class where they want to change the zoning and they have their meetings Wednesday, July 23rd, 2025, 9 a.m. For a multi unit that they wanted to put on the corner of Elizabeth Avenue and Queen. I did attend the meeting on February 10th, which was a Tuesday morning in a working class neighborhood at 9 a.m. There were two of us there. I spoke with the other woman who had attended, and she reminded me that we did like the plan that they presented for a duplex. I, however... I want to speak about a couple of other things. I've chastised these guys about their inconvenient meeting times, and I'm going to present to council that perhaps they, and somebody needs to present that when the developers have meetings, they need to have them at times when significant amount of the population affected can attend. Multifamily dwellings. I live on Tropic Street. Sorry, I didn't address that. And Kimleyhorn's vision for the West Titusville, they call it, we ask to be called Canaveral Heights, is a nightmare. We're fighting this overlay of the urban mixed use, the UMU for the whole community. It's a terrible idea, and Kimleyhorn has not presented well for us. Sidewalks, I want to say, Build them, nobody uses them. I live in the neighborhood. They ride, they walk, they roll their wheelchairs, they pull their carts, they drive their golf carts on the streets. Nobody uses the sidewalks that we have. And I don't think that's an issue. Now, this plan conforms to, they say it conforms to the surrounding area. I want to make sure that it conforms in scale, height, and setbacks. and that it conforms to the rhythm of the community, single family, one story homes. I think it's important that as we infill, because there's a lot of empty properties there, I think it's very important that we infill with concern and attention to the existing homes, many of which mine is a designated historic structure on Tropic Street. There's another one a couple of blocks away and there's several other homes that could be designated as historic structures. So I just want everybody to keep in mind as we make these zoning changes and things that we must keep in mind that Prevailing neighborhoods already. We're not against infill. Proper infill is appreciated and will be welcomed. And I don't know if they've changed their plan.

I don't know. Thank you. Any other cards?

No more cards.

Thank you. Does the applicant have any rebuttal?

Mr. Chairman, I just had a question for Ms. Shiflow, if I could. Absolutely. I was going to catch you before you all the way back down and sat. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

I queried the applicant on what the structure you closed by commenting about being similar to what's there in height and setback and demeanor and style. His response was a single-story duplex that's going to meet the standards. It seemed like that addressed your concern about similarity in structural size.

That's what I said, and then I said I don't know if they changed their plan because since this has all been presented, the property next door to the north, the immediate property, is now for sale and vacant, and my fear is that they will jump on, buy that, tear the house down, and put up a multi-story structure of maybe four to six apartments because they will have expanded territory. So that's why I said I wasn't sure if the plan would change.

I understand. Thank you for your answer.

Thank you.

I want to thank you, Tony, for the words. We do not have any intentions of changing the plan or acquiring said property that was sold to the North, did you say? We try to do what we say we're going to do. We've been before you guys several times and to date we have a very strong track record on delivering on the promises that we make. We do not have any plans to change the structures. Yeah, and the product that we build does conform with the rhythm of the community. We're not doing, you know, high rises we couldn't possibly. The lot constraints would not allow it. And I don't have that much money. I use my mother's 401k money to develop properties here, guys. So I am not a big, bad developer. I'm just Josh Wilson, who, you know, referees basketball at Eastern Florida State College for the last 15 years. So, yeah, thank you.

Joshua. Member Rice has a question.

So based on what you just said and what we heard, if we were to pass a motion with the condition that it was upon approval for a single story duplex building only, that would be acceptable to you?

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions, comments, concerns?

Member Jarrett? I was going to say we can make a motion if you're ready. Let's do it. Following the staff recommendation and from the... Discussion tonight. I would like to recommend on the conference plan amendment approval as requested as it reports and considering the compliance with 3440 the code and the provisions of chapter 163 and 166 I Would comment this is a comprehensive plan amendment and I don't think you can put a condition on a comprehensive plan amendment It's kind of a pure thing.

I Think you can with the zoning portion of the amendment. Eddie, would you clarify that?

Sure. So this is a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. And within this application, there are two ordinances. One is the process of change to the future land use map, which is the color on the map, to high-density residential. And the second is an ordinance changing the zoning district on the map. uh, typically you can, uh, recommend a condition on that zoning ordinance. It just staff typically does not recommend doing so just because it becomes more burdensome over time. Each zoning ordinance becomes unique rather than falling back on the, this standalone zoning district. But if that's applicable to this scenario, then absolutely you can make that recommendation.

Member Rice. Well, it's like most zonings that I've done in the past have always had a binding development plan. Okay, they're usually bigger projects, but they're binding development plans, and the zoning is conditioned based on that binding development plan. So the president is there to do exactly that. This just doesn't have a site plan yet, but basically he has outlined what he wants to do, single-story duplex building. So what's the difference between... stating the fact of what he wants versus having an actual binding development plan in front of me.

This application did not include a binding development plan.

Exactly. But so I can place a condition on what he says he's going to build to protect the interests of the people in the area that don't want multi-story building if they were to buy more land.

That's correct.

I believe we still have a motion on the floor. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

All right. We have a second, a second from a second. All right. Member Daniel. Thank you. All in favor.

Hold on discussion. Oh, please. Yep. Yep. Yep. Okay. So at this point here, um, I definitely wouldn't be in favor of putting a restriction on him, not even on him, but on this property to restrict, you know, multi-story when, if in the future, the UMO, the UMO, the UMU gets passed, um, And other properties can then do multi-story. Because at that point, other properties can then do multi-story. So I wouldn't be in favor of putting a restriction of no multi-story. If he gives his word and he already has another product that he's deporting to, we can go look at the other product that he's doing and we have to go with that. I just wouldn't be in favor of on this property at this time putting this restriction, and then later on another person comes in and they don't have that same restriction. Because Ms. Schimple is going to have the very same concern, and I echo your concern, right? But I don't want to put a restriction on one individual and then not on another. Because if so, we have to kind of keep the same momentum going, right? Everyone comes before us who asks to go from R1C3 to R3, keep the same momentum, right? That, no, we don't allow, you know, we don't recommend, right? And so I just would not want to go that route on this property at this time.

Chairman, if I may, there's also an important point I think that needs to be made, which is that the R1C zoning district that currently applies to the property as well as several of the surrounding property owners or properties, excuse me, that are in the similar R1C zoning district, the maximum building height for those is 35 feet. And so while the structures currently out there may be single story, they are entitled to go up to 35 feet. And so a homeowner could add Floors to their home without a rezoning process and you would be limiting just this particular property to one story Whereas the zoning district even in today that without the request if the requests were not approved The property owner could build a single-story home up to 35 feet Thank you

Oh, as part of the discussion, I'm glad you brought that up. I was going to ask that question for the rezoning that follows this, but for the comprehensive plan, there is not a height limitation under the comprehensive plans, land use designation currently or in the change of land use. That's correct. Thank you. Member Rice.

My only concern is that I've seen, I've been doing development a long time and I've seen developers come and say they're going to build something. with the binding development plan and down the road they want to change it all of a sudden okay and so you go to these community meetings and you present something to a community saying this is what we're going to build okay and it passes and you get your zoning you get this and the reason why it's called binding development plan is So they can't change it. They have to go back to the process when you don't put those restrictions. It's carte Blanc It's wherever the code says you're allowed to build is what you're allowed to build Period whether he changes his mind or not today. I think he does want to build exactly what he says he wants to build but down the road a Year from now if he hasn't built anything and he sells the property and the next guy says oh it's zoned r3 I'm gonna buy that property next door and build a high rise. There's no protection. We took action on something for something that was sold to the community with no restrictions. That's why I make that argument.

Would you then just, instead of putting a restriction to go above 35 foot, just he can't go above what's already allowed to be built?

If I may again, Chairman, the building height in both the current R1C zoning and in the proposed R3 zoning, both zoning districts have a maximum building height of 35 feet. So as far as talking about very tall structures, both of those would be limited under the current zoning and in the proposed zoning.

Thank you. Member Seidler?

Yeah, so my understanding is basically even if he wanted to, he has the right to build up to 35 feet. So whatever he says today, he can come in next week, the week after, or when he does file your plan. If you decide it's easier to build up an upper second story, he's allowed to within the current zoning. So for us to put limits on something that's currently allowed, regardless of what we say, I think He says he wants a one-story, but that might change because he's allowed two when he gets in there, and the property is little. It is narrow, and it is actually cheaper to build higher than it is wider. So he has every right to do that, and for us to bind him with this, we're putting limitations on something that there isn't a limitation on. We're creating one for him. That's my understanding. Am I reading this right?

The feeling I have from my recommendation for a motion was that this is a comprehensive plan amendment. I know that we tend to hear things in a combination, so the presentation about specificity of the type of structure was probably as unnecessary as my question about setbacks because I was jumping the gun. the question everybody has about limiting this by some standard condition is appropriate on the zoning. It really isn't part of the conference plan amendment. Perhaps what we could do is go through the conference plan amendment and see where we are with the motion in the second and then continue the discussion on the zoning because I do have a couple of things I wanted to mention as I just said when we got to the rezoning application. So if I may, I think we ought to at least see where we are with the conference of plan amendment and then we can further the discussion in the rezoning application.

All right, so I believe we have a motion and a second on the table. Is that correct? All right, we have a roll call. Lori?

Member Garrard?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Member Graham?

Yes.

Member McDaniel? Yes. Member Rice?

Yes.

Member Troutman? Yes. Secretary Faison?

Yes. Thank you.

Member Chard? Yes. Well, I guess in continuing the conversation, we'll now talk about the rezoning application. And what I'd like to respond to is if you can think about this. And the purpose of my query earlier about what's left from the derivative of setbacks and lot width in the standard and the applicant said he's got a design that works. That was only because I didn't want to hear it become a variance request another month down the road and that's why I brought up the historical reference I did where the zoning district rules sometimes can be tight to the point where after you approve everything, you have to go get a variance, which I just don't particularly embrace. In this case, the applicant responded and said he's got that standard of consideration. He's already got a product to make it. To try to build a high rise on a 65-foot wide lot is probably impractical, to say the least. It may even be impossible unless you start considering, well, we'll have to get a variance, which I, again, don't support. I believe conditioning zoning also has, as Eddie reported, and I agree 100%, maybe 1,000%, Trying to keep track of something like a condition on a zoning application for five or 10 years down the road is catching rainwater with a sieve, if you can actually know that that's there. Binding letters, conditional uses, they're their own file, and they tend to be tracked appropriately. One zoning change made in 2026 and 2030 you might not catch that standard being conditioned. But another comment I make is reverse this around. Imagine if the whole neighborhood built out with 35 foot high single family homes and this one lot is going to be a single story home. It would in itself look disproportionate if everybody built 35 foot high homes, which can be done because the zoning allows that. So I understand your concern, and I think Ms. Shiffle is concerned, but it looks like because of that tight fit on the 65-foot lot, I think it's going to end up being built just exactly what's been reported it's going to be built because it's kind of designing itself to meet that with those restrictions that are already there naturally, setbacks, front, rear, side. And, of course, the height limitation, it can't be 36 feet. It can only be 35. Not that that's a two-story building. That's a pretty tall building. But so I would like to if I may you want to read the rezoning in there. Do we need to? Separate application or is it already been read?

was your last motion specific to the future land use ordinance?

Future land use.

Okay. Then we'll need an additional motion approving, recommending approval of the zoning ordinance.

With that, I would like to make a recommendation to approve the rezoning application as requested and as staff comments, making consideration of section 3440 of, of the comprehensive plan and the provisions of, I guess that's really the rezoning isn't applicable to that, but as, as I would recommend approval of the rezoning. All right. We have a motion. Move a second.

Second.

Thank you. Any other discussion? We're going to go to a roll call vote.

Member Graham.

No.

Member Troutman.

Yes.

Secretary Faison.

Yes.

Member Rice.

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully.

Yes.

Member Grodd.

Yes.

Member McDaniel. Yes.

Thank you. We're going to move into 9B then.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Item 9B begins on page 54 of 199 of tonight's agenda.

I'm sorry, Eddie, just give me real quickly. When will this be heard before council? Oh, I'm sorry.

This will be heard by council on August 11th. Thank you. Item 9B, cell tower ordinance. Section 34-37 of the code allows the City Council or a property owner or their authorized agent to request changes to the land development regulations. These changes may include additions, deletions, or revisions and must follow the same review process as a rezoning application. If a proposed change affects the comprehensive plan, it must also be processed as a comprehensive plan amendment. The city received an application to amend the land development regulations to allow transmission towers in the CC zoning district through a conditional use permit, CUP. Currently, transmission towers are only permitted with a CUP in industrial zoning districts, the M1, M2, M3, and PID districts. The applicant has identified a wireless coverage gap in an area of the city where no industrially zoned properties are available. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 365-172-13B3, the applicant has contacted the City to discuss potential solutions to address the coverage deficiency and the limitations of the current regulations. Attached is the applicant's proposed ordinance. If City Council is inclined to approve the ordinance, then staff will recommend certain performance conditions be added, including distances and screening. On page 56, is the draft ordinance and I'll read the whereas clauses as they kind of give the background for this. Whereas the city of Titusville received an application from Vertex Development LLC to consider an amendment to the city's land development regulations to permit transmission towers in the community commercial CC zoning district with a conditional use permit. Whereas the city's land development regulations currently only permit transmission towers in the light industrial and warehousing M1 industrial M2 highway industrial infill M3 and planned industrial development PID zoning districts with a conditional use permit. Whereas the city's current permitted areas allowing transmission towers only in industrial zoned areas may be deemed too restrictive to promote the intent of Florida statute section 365 172. And whereas the applicant has provided technical data identifying an existing telecommunications network coverage deficiency, within the city limits of the city of Titusville, and whereas the applicant's data demonstrates that there are no properties zoned M1, M2, M3, or PID within a one-mile radius of the proposed location of a transmission tower intended to resolve the telecommunications network coverage deficiency. On page 57 of the ordinance is the use table. We kept it to one page with the heading on top, make it easy to see the change. You'll see if you follow the CC zoning district, which is in a burnt orange color, follow that column down to the row for transmission towers. The addition of a C for conditional use permit has been added in this draft ordinance on page 58. The use transmission tower has been amended again to add C in the CC zoning district in subsection a in subsection D, adding the community commercial zoning district to the list of zoning districts where this would be permitted and on the following page on page 59, A new subsection G, which reads transmission towers in the community commercial CC zoning district shall be located a minimum of one mile from the nearest transmission tower and must be located a minimum of 400 feet from a residential building. The enclosure shall be screened with an opaque solid fence and evergreen vegetation. Vegetation shall reach a minimum eight feet in height within one year of planting. On page 65 is the technical report that was provided by the applicant. And if you scroll to the next page, sorry, keep going to page 67, this is the beginning of their exhibits showing where the coverage gap currently exists. It's generally located in the center of the city. The first page, page 67, is the existing Verizon coverage without the proposed sites. The following page is the Verizon coverage with the planned improvements. And the final page, 69, is the Verizon coverage with planned sites and the proposed tower. And so between those three series, in that map series, you'll see that the red, the lack of coverage towards the center of the cities, reduces in size and increases the coverage. With that, I will conclude unless there's any questions. Thank you.

Members are thank you. Mr Chairman. Eddie. I had a couple of questions and I saw the applicant provided a whole lot of information about Bavard County standards or staff did. The report has inference of what the county standards are, what the city standards are. It's kind of ironic or not ironic. It's kind of coincidental. That the majority of the populations inside the area that's not served well, because we don't have a lot of commercial, not a lot of industrial zoning, which kind of seems counterintuitive where you have a lot of use, but you don't have a lot of available sites. So it kind of seems like a point in the direction there. But what I was concerned with is. Really, three points I have. I noticed on looking at Google Earth today that I was trying to find it because when I read the report, it kind of inferred that there was a tower. It might have been being replaced, and I think I misread it because when I started looking for the tower, although I did see a really tall, dark shadow cast by the 64 KV tower, power line transmission line that runs down Knox McRae and I'm going to take a wag at the height of those 64 KV poles that probably 80 to 100 feet at least may even be 120. So as your report shows, you're supposed to consider is this structure needing to be reduced because of compatibility that seems like a line of 100-foot concrete poles down in Oxford Gray set a height precedent in the area, in my opinion. And I wanted to clarify that. The stealth type of things that Bavard County has, the city doesn't really have those. You have some suggestive standards, I believe. They're not objective standards. You shall do this or you shall do that. How do you and staff approach that dovetailing those suggestions that are in the code such as landscaping and trying to minimize the impact that these supportive structures, boxes and equipment cabinets and fences with barbed wire on it, et cetera. How does the city code address those?

So hiding the towers is Likely not going to go very well, but what we do provide for in the draft ordinance is the screening of the mechanical equipment with the evergreen shrubs 8 feet in height. If there are other if it's a. agreeable to the Commission to require some type of there are cell towers that look like giant trees. Some people like them, some people find them tacky, but it is a way to provide some stealth for the antenna rather than being one large tower. So if those types of recommendations are something that you'd like to add to your recommendation tonight, you can do so. Thank you. Member Sheidler.

Thank you, Chairman. How many community commercial parcels throughout the city then if we do pass this would be eligible to place a tower on?

so I don't have that number. Um, but we do have a spacing requirement in the draft ordinance of, uh, what is it? One mile on page 59. Yes ma'am. So on page 59, the added language would require a minimum distance of one mile. There are various, uh, properties on community commercial throughout the city and this would, this limitation would space them out.

And a, Has any other wireless carrier expressed this sort of lack of coverage? Or is it just Verizon at this time?

Over the years, we have had other carriers. We've had a request for THAUs, I think they are, towers on wheels or something of that sort, as well as a permanent structure just west of downtown. So there have been other examples of coverage gaps.

Coverage gaps. And then I do appreciate the, on page 75, has a wonderful map that has all the mile circles around it and as I'm looking at it the proposed tower I am seeing is right by a school is it and as I read the report it says that they have obtained the lease for that property so I'm assuming that it's all, they've already obtained the lease, and then my next question is, if this is Verizon, and it is one coverage gap, which is pretty significant, and it's one developer has leased that parcel, is it possible to address this in a singular, in a site thing instead of changing the whole, rewriting the whole Cities zoning to allow towers in all CCS can we not address this because it is a single it's very specific and instead of making and changing it to a General and allowing towers to be maybe placed all over versus addressing this

Sure. Some of that I'll leave to the applicant to address as far as the site selection. The map on page 75 is very useful in showing where the existing towers are, where the coverage gap is, and the proposed tower. I will caution the Commission that the proposed tower location Uh, while they even if they do have a lease secured is only proposed and is not relation has no bearing on the adoption of this ordinance. Uh, because if that lease were to fall through tomorrow and the ordinance is adopted, the ordinance still remains in effect. Um, the. CC zoning district is next to, um, is it Madison Jackson, other president Jackson, uh, middle school. And my understanding is that they, the applicant approached the school board requesting, uh, to cite the tower there and we're not able to do so. Um, The applicant has paid an application fee to consider this ordinance as presented tonight. And so you can add a suggested change to the ordinance. But as far as whether, this isn't staff driven basically is what I'm trying to say.

It's not staff driven. And have they come to you and talked about other options that we may have that would get better coverage here? Are there other options besides changing the zoning throughout the entire city?

The most recent discussion with the applicant was about how to address the potential proliferation of cell towers since there are many properties on CC. And my understanding is the applicant provided that one mile distance requirement to try to space it out throughout the city as well as the screening requirement for the mechanical equipment to reduce those nuisances. Thank you.

Mm-hmm. facing Any other questions for staff See none we'll talk to the applicant

Good evening. Mary Solick, 121 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1500, Orlando, Florida. I am legal counsel for Vertex Development, who is the applicant on this particular project. Vertex is a tower developer. They build vertical infrastructure, and then they lease that space out to the wireless carriers. We're now down to three wireless carriers left in your marketplace, Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T. That's it. So when, Vertex has been a client of mine for a very long time. I've been doing cell tower zoning work since 1996. I did two other towers here in Titusville a very long time ago. They came to me and they said, our customer, Verizon, has come to us with a build-a-suit and they need to get coverage in this area of Titusville and they can't get in there because all of the properties are zoned residential or commercial or anything but industrial. You only allow towers on industrial properties. And if you look at that map on page 75, you can see with the existing rings, Everybody has got towers built all the way around the fringes of your city on industrial properties trying to get as much coverage into your community as they can get. So we have this hole in the middle, and we can't solve it with your current code. There is a state statute that Eddie referenced in the staff report. Essentially, it says local governments can prohibit wireless communications. The ordinances can prohibit towers in residential areas as long as it doesn't cause a prohibition in service. And if a carrier is able to demonstrate to a local government that it needs to provide service in an area and it can't get in there, you're to work collaboratively and try to come to a solution. And I'm very happy to report that your staff has worked very collaboratively with us. But before I contacted the staff and used this statute, which in the 25 years it's existed, I've never been able to do it before. This is the first time I've actually used it. The client said to me, what can I do? Can we rezone the property to industrial? Well, no, not without changing the future land use too because the future land use is commercial and industrial probably isn't a very good use for that property right where it is. I said, you don't have any options. Let's go talk to the city about what they'd like to see. So again, we collaborated with the city staff. They suggested that we propose this text amendment. I know it sounds scary to say you're opening up the floodgates and you're going to allow towers on commercial properties all over your city. But from a practical matter, it's I don't predict that will happen. I also want to correct something else that Eddie said that the report that's in your staff report. that starts on page 65 is from Omnicom Consulting Group. That is not our report. The statute that I told you about that directs us to work collaboratively also says that the local government can hire their own independent consultant to review the information that we provided to verify that what we're telling you is true. So that's what this Omnicom report is. And you can charge the applicant for that. So we got the bill, but you hired, the city hired Omnicom to take a look at what we had submitted and make a recommendation to the city before this ordinance was developed. So that's what that Omnicom report says. And the Omnicom report verifies that there is a coverage gap right in the middle of your city. The Omnicom report suggests that once it's built, once Verizon goes on it, the other two carriers will follow suit and co-locate their antenna on that tower. And then you probably won't see much more in Titusville. We'll get it covered. We just need this one site kind of in the middle. Your staff was concerned about opening the floodgates, so we suggested a tower-to-tower separation requirement. That's the one mile that... And if you look at that map on page 75, it's got all those circles. One mile distance from this proposed tower is going to bump up against the sites that are already existing. I guess I'm saying not very articulately is that we won't need another one. We've already got it covered from all of these other sites that ring your city. I don't think it's going to be the floodgate that you think it's going to be. The coverage maps and Omnicom confirm that as well. It's pretty much covered on the fringes through the towers on the existing industrial sites. The cheapest, fastest way for a carrier to get on air is to hang antenna on an existing tower. If this tower does get built, and again, what you're considering tonight is just a text amendment. If that gets approved by the city commission, we still have to come back in and apply for a conditional use to put a tower on that property. We do have a lease that my client secured. We wouldn't be doing this if we didn't have a lease secured on that property. So we'll have to come back before you in another public hearing for the conditional use where you will evaluate the application against the criteria you have in your code. The staff asked us for some more suggestions on how to address compatibility. We suggested landscaping around the tower. I do work all over the state of Florida. I don't think I've ever seen a code that doesn't require landscaping around the base of the tower. You don't require it on the sites you've already built. easy we do it all the time and then you can do a residential separation there's also state statute that addresses separation and that the local government can maintain separations between towers and residential uses to the extent that they're necessary to address aesthetic impact. So when you add a 400-foot separation requirement from the base of the tower to an existing residential structure, you will eliminate a lot of other commercial properties in your city because they can't meet the separation requirement. This particular site is five acres. And because it's south of Knox-McCray, it's behind an out parcel, we can meet the residential separation requirement from the structures to the north. We abut the school on the east. We did contact the school board. They did not want the tower on their property. So I think I've answered all your questions, addressed your questions.

Member Faison? So I will say this, that I know someone who has Verizon that lives in the non-covered area and they do have an issue. So I can speak to someone who has Verizon that they do have an issue that lives over in the Royal Oak community and they're having cell issues, especially if they're indoors. So I do know that area does suffer from not having a cell tower.

I was in the school parking lot tonight. I have T-Mobile. My bars went to nothing.

So my question then still is I realize we have a mile setback in the commercial community commercial zoning is it possible to continue with this process on this specific site without changing these zoning and the allowability throughout the city on the CCS is it possible to work on and change the zoning on one site?

I don't, I can't change it to, you only allow towers on industrial zoning. I can't change the zoning on the property to industrial because it doesn't match its future land use. And I can't imagine that there would be staff support for changing the future land use and the zoning to industrial in that location. Commercial is the correct future land use and zoning for that property. If there were another solution, just a property-specific solution, the staff and I were not smart enough to figure out what that was.

Member Graham?

Andy, my question is very similar to hers. Without changing all of CC to reflect this particular thing, I can't imagine there are going to be 30 or 40 cell towers that's going to go up. Can't they point out a specific CC property? Can they not do a couple of agreement with that or some kind of variance without changing the CC verbiage throughout the city? No.

I mean, it's really a use limitation of the code. If your city were larger and if it weren't already covered on the outside through the industrial zone properties, I would understand the concern. But when you look at what's the coverage that's out there through the existing towers and what's left to cover, this will probably be the last tower you see.

Any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you. Do we have any cards?

Yes. Tony Schiflow.

No cards? No cards. All right. Thank you. Do we have any thoughts, Board? Member Rice?

Just curious, because I'm thinking of a way to do it. What if you came up with a new zoning category that only allowed certain semi, well, I'm going to call it semi-public, like FPNL, city gas, cell towers, things like that. Instead of blanketing the city with all the CCs, have a separate category that's allowed in this future land use category for conditional use that was for this purpose. That way it's not opening the door to all CCs.

Again, this doesn't open the door to all CCs because they also have to meet the limitation separating tower from tower, so there's at least a mile between towers. As far as creating a brand new zoning district just for utilities, that seems more of a burden that would expand the use table, which is already quite large with a brand new zoning district, which would only have utilities. Uh, this is a request that does not come up very frequently, so I would not suggest that that would solve this issue.

Okay. Why just just glancing at this map on page 75, I see four areas that are to have CC categories outside of those circles.

If it would help expanding that distance requirement to two miles, three miles, something larger, that may help the proliferation of towers. But again, the one mile is what's currently being proposed.

OK, and this map doesn't cover the entire city, either, on page 75. There's a chunk in the north and a chunk in the south that is not shown on this map. So I can't really look at the entire city and see what species is affecting throughout the community. All right. Thank you.

GREG BRUDNICKI. Member Carrard. MEMBER CARRARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of thoughts on what staff's reporting on that I'm gleaning from this is the imposition of this one mile radius. If you went two or three arbitrarily, you're probably going to find a conflict with another tower within those radius. The service area that's lacking the way the depiction is by the consultant is, as I introduced originally, was this is a high populated area in the center of the town and that's where the service area isn't very good. Where you have industrial zoning is usually like industrial zoning is. It's out away from the city. It's by the railroad tracks or over here by the space center where nobody lives, at least this time. So a two juxtaposition between serving the populace that lives in the area and not being intrusive, which I agree. And I think the comment that I have is the applicants impose this conditional use. They didn't. ask it to be a permitted use. So when you can't find every CG zoning that's there right now because we don't know where they are. Conversely, if another application comes in, it has to come in through a conditional use on any other CG property. And then all those criteria, the staff report has compatibility, height limitations, landscaping or any other measure that's going to try to reduce the adverse impact of tower has on people would be considered and might lead to not approving that conditional use on that particular piece of property. And that would assume you could find one within that one mile radius. A lot of criteria working against just maybe being the fear it could happen many times. It maybe could happen, as the applicant says, if once, maybe once, maybe not even that. And that's my comment to that concern, is that's what's nice about having the conditional use plugged into it, because you will look at every specific site independently for what its compatibility is. And I wanted to also add that the idea that The least my experience has that have seen these cell towers when they try to put them in urban areas, this same issue is repeated throughout the state. And because of the nature of people built subdivisions of homes, not industries and not commerce, we're a state of residencies. And the fact this happens gets treated differently. I actually had to become aware of it where I used to live in the city of Kissimmee. They've installed these five G transmitters receivers, whatever the broadcast is. Their transmissions antenna are on top of concrete poles. I'm going to say they might be 50 feet high. They're probably less. and they're numerous. They all the way down a major collector road where the residential people are and they're in the right of way. When I said I looked into it, the city of Kissimmee rewrote their zoning district rules so they could actually embrace allowing these to be within the public rights of way that also allow the service provider to do it in a stealth manner. That doesn't appear to be the problem solution in this site where you would put a lot of small and I don't know if you've seen these things. They had a news comments a few months, maybe a year ago. A community was all upset because they came out one day and put the concrete pole in front of a resident home and there wasn't like by them. But the option was don't use cell phones, don't have cell phones, and that doesn't work too well either. Other stealth techniques I've seen used. I also saw them not work out, and that is they put the antenna array internal to the pole instead of an appurtenant that's attached to it. You see it looks like a triangulation of, I think it looks like, egg cartons but the internal attachment you can do but it reduces the ability the transmission and you can't put as many service providers on that usually it's limited to one so where I in fact was a regulator at the time that created a stealth antenna that looked like a big gray pencil in the air it didn't work out in the long term because they needed more service so even that kind of stealth technology where if a gray pencil isn't obtrusive I don't think it looks like a tree makes it less intrusive to I saw one of those recently I think going to Melbourne it's in the middle of nowhere and there's a hundred and twenty foot I was thinking you could maybe condition it that it would be look like a pencil since it's near the school pencil and look like an eraser I'm just kidding

I like that idea. Member Seidler.

Thank you. I realize there's a 400-foot distance from residencies. What is the actual, I'm looking on page 76, and it shows, it has the blue star there. How far is that actually from the school property? It literally looks like it's in the parking lot.

so I'll just say before the applicant that the, the CCs on property does a, uh, directly above the school property as far as where it's located on the site.

Um, I'd have to let the applicant, how far is it from the school's property and is the height going to be 150 feet? I see in the report from the independent person, they said it was going to be 150 feet.

Ann, I would say also on page 87, there's a minimum of 200 feet, section 9.89. It talks about the height and feet there on right around page 87.

That may be a different, that's a different jurisdictions code. Your staff included some regulations from other jurisdictions around you. That's Melbourne. Yeah, yeah. The subject parcel is 5.94 acres, and it's irregularly shaped. I have a survey if you have an ELMO.

No ELMO?

I'm showing my age now. Yes. Okay. So it's 5.9 acres, and it has frontage on Knox-McCray, and it has frontage on Barna. It has two out parcels. There's the shuttered convenience store that's at the southwest corner of Barna and Knox-McCray, and then there's another little commercial building. that fronts on Knox-McRae, and the tower is proposed to be located behind that, but there is a portion of the subject property that butts the school property. And we'd be probably, I can't, look at that distance. I don't want to speculate here. Oh, wait a minute, maybe I gotta step back here.

So, if I may, so part of this is, right, so the question is how far is it from the school property Or is it, how far is it from the school? Because where this property is, there is a big parking lot. Is it part of the field?

The field is further West. It's next to the field.

Yep. So I mean when it comes to 400 feet from the building, I think that that part's probably met.

That was residential. Residential buildings. That was for residential. But I don't know what, what is the setback? How? So if I'm the leg of this tower, how close am I to the school? What's the distance between the closest part of this tower to the school?

It's probably at least 500, 600 feet to the school building.

I call it the property appraiser's tax roll parcels. If you look at it, maybe you can get on yours. This parcel's five acres? 5.9. So the radius along Knox McRae of this parcel of land is, Follows the convenience stores 583 feet of frontage along Knox McRae and then the The ditch that's there, if you know where the ditch is? Yes. The ditch runs east to west and then turns to kind of the north. It's 348 feet to the turn, and then you add another 190 feet, and you're still running. So you're 500 feet of square. If they put it in the middle, you'd have to be a pretty good way from the school itself. I don't know about the property boundary. You probably would only be 100, 200 feet from the property boundary. Are you going to put it in the middle of that parcel?

No, no, it'll be behind the, we're proposing to put it behind the, the outpour, the out parcel, not the, not the one that's parcel 10.

There's a nail salon right next door.

It's the nail behind the nail salon. Yes. It's tucked in behind the nail salon. And, um, Share with me what your concern is, and maybe I can address that with some of our fall zone technology.

What is the height of this one? Is it 150 feet?

It's proposed to be 150 feet.

And where's the fall calculated to be?

Well, we engineer that for each tower, and we will engineer this one to be within... the parent parcel so that it will fall within the property.

Within the five acres? Yes. It will make it through our hurricanes?

Yes, they are designed for hurricane wind load standards. I tell people that in an event of a hurricane, you need to be worried about everything else out there that's not designed for the wind load standards before this tower will fail. The monopoles just don't fail. it will be one of the safest structures built. And we put them on schools all the time. My client Vertex has done seven or eight schools in Pasco County. I've done them in other counties. There are a lot of schools that allow us to put the towers on the school properties.

Thank you. Member Faison.

So I was looking this up, and one of the things that we discussed here was about proliferation of these towers. And with a quick Google search, of course, the federal government restricts cities from actually prohibiting proliferation. So the federal government kind of goes along with saying that of course if there's a need for it, and again this community here needs it, that area is uncovered, then we're kind of a little bit restricted on what we can do or not do. So just kind of be aware of that.

When you did the mile radius between towers, what is the, obviously I think you do know the distance between the current towers that we have. What is the average distance between those? So if we changed it to two miles, would that impact the towers that we have there? Because the concern is with everybody up there is that the CCs will allow more towers to be built on if we don't have a distance restriction? Will that impact you?

Yes, we would not be able to do it. Most codes do have tower-to-tower restrictions, but they're not nearly this big. Usually, I would say the average that I'm seeing is probably 1,500 to 2,000 feet for The separation for guide towers, the really big towers and the separation distances are reduced when you bring the tower designs down. The guide towers are deemed to be the most obtrusive, then the lattice towers, then the monopoles. And it's usually a graded separation requirement. But a mile is pretty restrictive.

Thank you. Member Faison? And this is for Eddie. And again, right now we're talking about cell towers and communication towers, but as our nation moves toward more and more AI and more and more data-driven, and again, I know this isn't for today, but looking down the path, there may become more, there may be more of these devices that are going to be required to be run. You know, like right now we have data centers going to one place, but Here they may require who knows what's in the future. So when Member Rice mentioned a utility zone, that may be something we can look at in the future, that if more of these things come out, that we start having that, put them inside of a utility zoning area. Not for today, but for the future. What do you think about that? First of all, sir.

Well, I don't have a crystal ball, so I'm at a disadvantage. It's certainly something that could be needed in the future.

I just had one other thought, and I'm going to piggyback on something that Member Garrard had said earlier. We didn't ask for permitted use. We asked for conditional use, which means we would come back before you, and you would see all the particulars, and you would judge the compatibility, and every tower that would come in would have to do that. If you go the zoning route... A conditional use applies just to the use, and if that use ceases to exist, then the conditional use approval goes away. If you change it to a rezoning, that rezoning runs with the land, and we would have trouble getting landowners to agree to that because that's a more permanent restriction on their property, limitation on their property.

Thank you. Does any member have a motion or additional thoughts?

I guess it's my night for recommendations. Member Girard. Based on the discussion and the information provided by staff, I think my opinion is I believe this is a good change to the zoning code. And for the citizens that have bad Verizon service, it's good for them, too. So in that light, I would like to recommend approval of the draft ordinance as it's written.

All right. Thank you. Member Faison? I second. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, can we have a roll call, please?

Secretary Faison?

Yes.

Member McDaniel? Yes. Yes. Member Garan. Yes. Member Trotman.

Yes.

Chairman Scully.

Yes.

Member Rice.

Yes.

Member Graham.

Yes. Thank you.

All right, we're going to move on to 9C now.

9C, yes, sir, is the semiannual report beginning on page 90 of 199. This is your January through June 2026 semiannual report. If there's any changes to be made, please let us know. We do need to know if this will be presented as... presented just the report, or if one of the members will be in attendance to present the report to council.

Thank you. I nominate Mr. Garrard to present.

We have a motion? I was gonna second. I think we're good with the report. Do we need a motion and a second on that?

Vice Chair, I have a card on the side. Tony Schiffalo.

Tony Schiffalo, Tropic Street, also the owner of the historic Norwood House. I serve on the Historic Preservation Board, which is also an advisory board to City Council. I'm a cheerleader for our advisory boards, and I'm just going to stand here and say, make the member, present your report in person. Don't miss an opportunity to present what you have done and accomplished, not only to the board, but to all the people at home that are watching on television. I know it's very effective. I have to watch what I wear to the grocery store. You're that woman who's always speaking up to city council, so it pays to have your advice and your accomplishments represented. I want to urge you please have a member present your semiannual report in person to the board and to the public. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other cards?

No more cards.

Thank you. Any thoughts board? I think we're just going to go with the report if that's okay. Is that something we need a motion on? I think traditionally in the past you have made a motion.

Okay. Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion to send the report on to city council. All right.

We have a motion. Member Graham?

I'll second that.

Thank you. We have a motion. Second. Roll call, please.

Member McDaniel? Yes. Member Garrard?

Yes.

Member Rice?

Yes.

Member Graham?

Yes.

Secretary Faison? Yes. Member Troutman?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes. Thank you. And now we're going to move on to 9D.

Good evening, Christy Anderson, senior planner. This is a comprehensive plan amendment number 1-2026, future land use map amendment, and CPA number 2-2026, comprehensive plan text amendment for the Space Coast Innovation Park Phase 3 Transmittal Hearing. The applicant Satya Madiwala, I apologize if I mispronounce that, on behalf of the Titusville Cocoa Airport Authority is requesting a comprehensive plan future land use map amendment with the corresponding text amendment for a property located south of Shepherd Drive, east of State Road 407 and west of Grissom Parkway to change the future land use designation from planned industrial park, industrial, low-density residential, conservation, and commercial high-intensity to planned industrial park, and to also change the zoning districts from planned industrial development, industrial, single-family medium density, open space recreation, and community commercial to the planned industrial development with master plan. The existing and proposed zoning and land use maps are provided on page 193 and 194 of your packets. The existing planned industrial development zoning and planned industrial park land use along State Road 407 was placed on the property in 2010 in which a technology and development and public demonstration facility known as the Four Frontiers was proposed with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.32. However, the project was never developed and the land has remained vacant. Future land element policy 1.8.14 requires that all requests for the planned industrial park land use require a mastered development plan, and if the project intends to limit the maximum intensity allowed, then the requested maximum intensity threshold shall be established and listed within the comprehensive plan. The applicant is proposing a text amendment to revise policy 1.8.14 to remove the old four frontiers development and replace with a new master plan development known as space coast innovation phase three. The proposed text amendment is provided on page 110 of your packets. The subject request proposes an approximately 350 acre planned industrial park which includes approximately 205 acres of industrial development space. The master plan is provided on page 135 of your packets. The project is a proposed phase development. The planned industrial park land use allows a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5. The applicant is requesting a maximum intensity threshold of 0.23 floor area ratio which will be used to determine concurrency and impact of the project. The property is within the city's urban service area and utilities are available to serve the property. The city's preliminary concurrency assessment was analyzed for phase one at the full build out potential and found adequate capacity. The full build out of the proposed land use will require further planning to meet the needs of the phase master plan. Concurrency will be evaluated with each phase and site plan as they are submitted. The master plan designates approximately 97.62 acres, this little over 27% as open space consisting of green belts, landscape buffers, and wetlands. The property contains two wetlands that are greater than five acres in size. The first is approximately 15.59 acres and the second is a continuous 120 acre approximately wetland that is proposed as a conservation easement as part of the master plan development. The conservation easement equals approximately 41% of the total site area. According to the applicant's wetland mitigation strategy provided on page 141, any impacts to the wetlands from the proposed development will be addressed and offset. The assessment was completed using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method, known as UMAM. as a standardized tool required by the state of Florida. The results of the assessment indicated that the proposed development would exceed the state's no net loss requirement for wetlands and the project is expected to maintain and improve overall wetland functions and environmental benefit compared to existing conditions. Any unavoidable damage or loss of wetlands shall be mitigated pursuant to the city's stormwater management technical manual to ensure no loss of functional value. Although not included in the staff report, I would like to read the following comprehensive plan future land use element policy into the record. Policy 1.16.4 reads impacts to areas designated to conservation land use designation shall be considered if it is unavoidable due to absence or feasible and or practical alternatives for reasonable use of the land or the regulation creates an inordinate burden on the existing use of the land or a vested right to a specific use of the land or due to a significant site constraint and or practical design modification constraint. The allowable impact shall be based upon a specific evaluation determined through the permitting process conducted by all the regulatory agencies with jurisdictions. That's the full policy. Impacts to wetlands will require permitting through the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Mitigation requirements will also be assessed within each phase and site plan of the development. The future land use map amendment and corresponding text amendment are legislative items and must be transmitted to the state's land planning agency for review. Adoption hearing for the comprehensive plan amendments and rezoning with master plan may be scheduled after the state review is complete, which is approximately 30 days. Staff is respectfully requesting that you provide your recommendations to city council on CPA 1, 2026 for the future land use map amendment provided on page 193 and CPA 2-2026, the proposed text amendment to future land use element policy 1.8.14 provided on page 110. And this is scheduled to be heard by city council on July 14th. And if you have any questions from staff, I'll be happy to address them at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Member Gerard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For staff, two questions. How does, in the 100 plus acres of conservation easement wetlands, who's the conservation easement favored to? South St. John's, the city, state of Florida?

The applicant can probably elaborate on that. Okay, I'll ask the applicant. Yeah, we haven't had any details on the specific easement language at this time.

Thank you. And I have a question that perplexes me, and I mean that seriously. So the traffic study that was submitted is pretty extensive. To say the very least, it analyzes the traffic volumes several, several different ways. ANALYZATION, SUMMARY, AND CONCLUSION IS OFFERED. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANOTHER TRAFFIC STUDY WHERE THE RECOMMENDATION WAS, IT SAYS ON PAGE 105, THE TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CPA IN THIS CASE, 1-2026, INDICATED THAT THE State Road 407's capacity based on context classification C3C commercial and level of service C per city title comprehensive plan. Then the footnote actually goes, a traffic study will be required with the submittal of a site plan. So I'm trying to put my arms around what good does providing this at this level where the analysis at a comprehensive plan amendment level is significant for long-range impacts. I'm very pleased to see the analysis that was submitted by the applicant that comports with the level of service standard that shows they won't exceed it. But to make the applicant come back with another traffic study, is that envisioned to be with every site plan that comes in? You keep repeating the traffic study for your site plan even though this one has analyzed it on trips generated from the proposed maximum build-out. So any subsequent traffic study would assume it's less intense than the maximum build-out that was concluded in the traffic study. I'm just not coming up with a real good answer why would that benefit anybody.

So I do know that this traffic analysis was based on the full potential build out and that was primarily addressed for the land use as to where the traffic study that will be required with the associated site plan will analyze the actual specifics of the site and what will be constructed and all of the potential access points to each development phase.

that part, that part I fully understand what I'm, what I'm looking at here is that there was another comment made that they would look at. I think, um, um, I was another project, not this one, but the comment was that we would look at the traffic study and there wasn't one. Uh, I actually, suggested that the traffic study be provided in one that was continued. It was a different project, different thing, but we didn't get that. We being in P and Z did not get to see the traffic site. Not that everybody understands one word that I do, but if it's submitted, we should be able to look at it. And I'm looking at this going, this was a maximum build out scenario. The conclusions right there, it meets a level of service C. If the independent transportation studies are going to come site by site, then I say it envisions that you're going to be conditioning the improvements required for any one site. This site needs to put a decel lane in. This site needs to put an acceleration lane in. This site needs to widen the pavement. Wait a minute, there's not enough right of way to do that to put a turn lane. And if you've driven down 407 or 405, I guess 40... I always get confused. The two-lane one that goes to that I-95 out there. In the morning, when you look at the peak periods, you see it. There's 5,000 cars out there on one time, and there's 800 and something in a two-hour period. And you go out that road where the traffic generation and the trip generation turn movements are going to meander through the park, and some of those trips will be there. There's going to become a point where the right-of-way and pavement on that road's deficient. and it doesn't fail for level of service, it fails for congestion. But one applicant comes in and they say, oh, well, we got it fixed, just go ahead and widen the pavement, make it a four-lane divided section in that way, kind of like what they did the other direction of that same road, 407. So that's what concerns me is that where the application has provided the very analysis you can look at to come to a decision as to whether this change is going to have an impact, adverse or beneficial, And if it's not going to be adverse and it's beneficial, you would think you would support it. but to then say you're going to get independent ones all the way through the build out of this thing on a 300 acre planned industrial park, I just fear is going to lead to a getcha. And one site all of a sudden gets told we have to widen this and do that. I would think at least this would be evidence that should at least allude to, it may be a level of service C, but we should be looking at site improvements necessary to correct traffic impedance on two lane section roads or whatever the, Situation is and I mean I'm speaking out of character here I just think that's an a burden to make have an applicant provide that and then comment that well We'll just get traffic studies later. It's like there is the study I'm just saying I don't I don't dovetail that one, but thanks for the information Member Schiedler

Thank you. This kind of goes a little bit with the traffic study and the concurrences that were calculated, and we're told that it's for a max build-out, but I'm looking at this application or this request, and it says it's going to be into three phases, and we're just looking at phase one. So I'm looking at phase one, and I don't even know what phase one is. I know that phase one is on 98 acres, but I don't know what the concurrency, how we calculated concurrency when we don't know what's going to be in there. Do we know what's going to be in there? What are the calculations? What did we... on the traffic concurrency, what did we use for that?

So that was based purely on the proposed land use and the floor area ratio. So that would be the full build out of the entire site, which would highly be unlikely. So it would be the highest, most potential use is how this was analyzed.

And thank you for bringing up the floor area ratio because currently as it sits, It's 1.5 on this 350-something acres, which gives us really a floor ratio area of over 22 million. Correct, yes. Square feet. It's very high. And they've reduced it to 0.23, I think, which gives us their maximum intensity build-out of just a little over 3.5 million. So to me, there's something going in there. That's very specific and usually applicants don't restrict themselves by 19 million square feet. So as I'm wondering how these concurrences were calculated based on a 98, we don't know exactly, I mean, for example, if on the 98 acres, we have this, the water, the water on page 105, the portable water, and it talks about Phase one and there is enough but and it's not a reservation of it for the site plan review concurrency be Revaluated at the time and reservations will be through a water allocation permit at the time and the city does have the option to purchase additional water from Coco if needed so When we're calculating the maximum build-out, and I'm how did we determine? that There's a great traffic study and we see that there is congestion, but there could be in that phase one, and I'm going to just give an analogy here. Phase one could have a nature preserve, so the water wouldn't be a demand, and the traffic would be very minimal, or we could have a warehouse in there. It would be more moderate water use, and the traffic would be increased, or we could have I'm just gonna use the semiconductor manufacturing, which would be high electricity, high water. So in this, what we were given, I don't know what's going in there and how they came up with these numbers and how they decrease the floor area ratio from 22 million to 3.5 million. So there's, how did you calculate those numbers?

So as far as city staff, we only utilize the floor area ratio and the maximum potential build out. So the applicant is here and they do have a presentation, so they might be able to shed some lights on some of the missing information that you're discussing at this point. Typically with these planned industrial master plans, they don't get to the level of detail lot per lot. It's kind of slated for an area. So at this time, with this analysis, we don't have the level of detail to narrow that down. But like I said, the applicant's here to maybe address potential uses and how they came to that four area ratio that's acceptable for the development.

Okay, thank you. I'll probably have questions. Thank you.

Member Graham.

I had a question, still back to the traffic thing. They used some data base from, it looked like pretty recent data from last month or something similar to that. Has any considerations been made for fixing to have a huge amount of increased traffic due to the apartment complex that's about a half mile away from there, all the increase in that? Was any of these thoughts, you know, put into play of what the maximum supposed to be from them included the maximum that is being proposed here?

So the city's preliminary concurrency assessment, I do believe it accounts for specific development that's already been approved in the area. But I don't have that level of detail.

Real quick, is your question about the traffic study or the concurrency analysis?

It's still the traffic study.

The traffic study is going to analyze the volumes on the roadway, the capacity of the roadway, the turning movements. The preliminary concurrency assessment is going to evaluate on a big picture scale how much of our city utilities do we have. And how much will need to be provided to this development? And do we have enough capacity in our water and our sewer services for those? So it sounds like your question is more about the traffic.

It is. It's using data that we have or they had that's recent. But... This apartment complex over there is fixing to open up, and it's pretty substantial, and it's going to increase the traffic immensely. So you don't really have new real-world data yet because it has not opened up. That's really one. And then how does this work with, obviously, this is a DOT roadway. And do they get this particular data to make a decision of whether or not it means that they need to increase that lane to three or four lanes? Because like one of the other members mentioned earlier, it can be a nightmare on 407 first thing in the morning, especially at the end of the day. And this is just going to add to it. And then unfortunately, everybody in town thinks that the city of Titusville is responsible for State Road 407, which you're not. But you're going to get the blame for it because you agreed to let this development go in as is.

Yes, sir. So because they are proposing an access onto State Road 407, they will be required to get an FDOT permit. And so FDOT will review the access and traffic.

Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, we're going to hear from the applicant.

Good evening, Commissioners. Kenan Hussaini, Kimley Horne Associates, 7341 Office Park Place, Melbourne, Florida. We have a brief presentation. I don't want to keep people long, but I do want to add some helpful insight to the project. Our whole team is here for comments and questions, so continue to give them to us and we'll provide clarity. SO THIS PROJECT IS ON BEHALF OF THE TITUSVILLE COCOA SPACE COAST AIRPORT. THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM IS KEY GROUP AND HINDS, THE CIVIL ENGINEER, THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT. SO BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, BOTH TEXT AMENDMENT AND MAP AMENDMENT ALONG WITH A REZONING REQUEST. The project, as shown, is located just east of 407, just west of Grissom, and just south of Shepherd, as shown here on airport-owned property. The existing land use map, which is small there, but I think I can bring it up a little bit bigger. It kind of has patchwork, land use, and zoning. Like staff said, there's an existing PID property along 407, used to be called Four Frontiers. Internal to the site is open space recreational, M2 industrial, community commercial, and there's some residential at kind of the center south side. What we're proposing is uniform land use and zoning across the project to be PID and PIP for planned industrial development and planned industrial park. It's tough to see because of the scale, but the red outlined area in the center of the site, that's the big continuous proposed conservation easement that we're proposing to try and limit impacts to the high quality wetlands in that area. The other areas, as was alluded to, We don't have a specified user at this time, so we don't have detailed site plans that show exactly what buildings are going to go where, so we can't accurately show parking and internal traffic circulation, but we do show the major access points and the connection points to State Road 407 and Grissom. This here is a future land use map. The colors on the map just mean that it's changing. It's going from one land use and one zoning to another land use and another zoning. So you'll see that the white area along State Road 407 is continuing to remain PID, and then the entirety of the rest of the property would be rezoned and land use amendment to be PID and PIP prospectively. So as staff stated, there's a requirement for minimum 20% open space for any PID properties or any PID zone properties. Currently, what we show here is we have 27% open space. On top of what's shown here throughout the individual development parcels and the individual Building and parcels of the the site we would include additional hardscape areas additional amenitize stormwater areas We anticipate that will be over 30% on a open space recreational requirement, which is well above the 20% minimum requirement wetland conservation. So our staff, our team, Oneida, they met on site with St. John's River Water Management District. They spent a week and a half on the property evaluating all the existing wetlands, evaluating the uplands, evaluating the buffers that contributed to the wetland system and they provided a scoring analysis which staff indicated the UMAM scoring analysis to help with the functional loss calculations. This graphic, albeit small, but it's in your packet, it shows that our functional loss is less than what our functional gain is, the functional gain will be by 1.33 functional credits. Let me go back to that real quick. Also to note, the existing OSR zoned property on the site is around 95 acres. What we're proposing in conservation is 148 plus or minus acres. So it's a little over 50 acres of additional preservation that our project is proposing. The traffic analysis Nelson with envy fives here for the specific traffic questions. I'm not a traffic engineer, but yeah, to address some of the questions at the comp plan amendment level and rezoning level, we look at it from a macro level, so we have to assign maximum uses based on code and what we've done is we've taken what that patchwork land use and patchwork zoning background trips would put on the road if they develop by right. And then we added what the modifications to our project would do, and we show a substantial decrease in daily trips due to the restriction of the Florida area ratio down to 0.23. Community outreach, our meeting was held June 24th from 6 to 8 p.m. at the courtyard by Marriott in Titusville. Mailers were sent out in accordance with the requirements. Residents attended, answered questions for that two-hour period. Sign-in sheet and comment cards were provided to those who attended. A full copy of that was provided to staff as part of our application package. That's it. Thank you for your time. I'm here to answer questions. I have most of them written down so far. You want me to start addressing them?

You have my questions already?

I think so. No, no, the ones that are asked so far. So there was a question early on about the conservation easement. Conservation easement would be in favor of St. John's River Water Management District. With that, there's a preserve area maintenance plan required, and that would be a requirement of the property owner throughout the duration of the project. Why a site plan needs an additional traffic study? I think staff alluded to that. Specifically, when we look at it from a land use and rezoning level, you look at it at a macro level. You look at roadway capacity and what that does to the overall network. When you get down to site plan level, you look at what is the real traffic distribution going to be based on the specific site and based on access points. You look at intersection analysis to see if there's a signalization required as part of how the traffic circulates, how many access points it is. So it is going from a very macro level to a very, you know, a finite level. They are important because, as you discussed, you need to understand what your decel links are for turn lanes. You need to understand where you're going to trip signal thresholds and when a signal needs to be installed. Also, the question was, FDOT yes, we will have to submit everything to FDOT will have to get FDOT driveway utility and Drainage permits for the project so we will have to go through FDOT for everything next question question about is there a specified user why would we restrict it from 19 million to 3.5 million there is no specified user but we do know that we've done some massing studies or some conceptual site plans and we understand that we can't get more than 3.5 million square feet of industrial and maintain that 148 acres of conservation so that's where we're willing to give up not give up that that intensity or give up that square footage, but based on what developable area is not in conservation, realistically, we could only get three and a half million. That's probably more than what we can get, and we're willing to live with that. Mr. Graham's questions. We talked about traffic increase due to apartments. Yeah. So every traffic study, they look at background information. They look to approve projects. They look at what growth is in the area. Like there's a FDOT approved growth rate. All that gets factored in. So it does get factored in projects that are currently approved in construction that haven't been completely certified yet. And I think that's all I have written down if anyone has the question I missed I apologize I'm happy to answer again We have our traffic team on site and we have a lot of our members on site so we can help answer those questions Thank you member facing.

Hi. How you doing today? Hey, nice to meet you good good good, so you had a great picture of your Flood area of your conservation area, and it was outlined quite nicely So how do you guys make sure that water don't leave your property and into the neighborhood just south of you?

Yeah, absolutely. So the neighborhood Southwest Willow Creek, which is now Verano is a KB home community. They discharge their water to the old Willow Creek that flows south and then directly west under I-95 through the box culverts. That's the same overall wetland system that we drain to historically. They're required to maintain a a. perimeter berm elevation, I'll be like on site. We'll be required to do the same thing. We can't put any white, any stormwater into a wetland that hasn't been treated. So we'll have to provide on-site attenuation in our stormwater ponds with the site being so big we can easily do that We do need a lot of fill so our ponds will be oversized to account for the fill needed But yeah, we're required by st. John's River water management district before any water leaves our site It's got to be treated and then we have to maintain the historical flow rates So as it stands today, we'll do a pre development model based on the survey data That's out there understand how much water is going to that wetland system today and will have to be less than that. We can't exceed that amount.

All right. So how tall are those berms that you guys are planning so far? Because that neighborhood that you mentioned, that whole neighborhood is kind of built on berms. And so that was a wetland once before. Yeah. And I didn't know that. But when I drove out there and I looked at how high the road is, you know, the elevation compared to where the wetlands are, they're about, it looked to me about six to eight feet up, that whole neighborhood. And so for your berms, I'm sure they have to be much higher than that to kind of contain the water that you guys will be producing and holding.

Yeah, it all depends on the detailed drainage analysis done. Typically, in the PID area, we're proposing 50-foot buffers along any public right-of-ways and 50-foot buffers on the south because there's residences to the south, 35-foot buffers on the north because it's consistent land use and consistent zoning. I would anticipate that they're going to be four to six foot tall berms within those. They do both screening and provide a perimeter berm for stormwater.

And does that size of a berm hold a 100-year flood? Because I believe we had a 100-year flood much higher than that. And so I would hate that. What you guys develop can't contain the water that you guys are producing because you kind of rearranged the wetlands here, right? You're taking the wetlands that were along 407. So you're filling that in. I can see that happening right now. So you're filling that in. And then that now is going to be transferred back to that area that you've kind of contained. And so now we're going to have potentially could have too much water in that area that they could adversely impact the neighborhood just south of

Yeah, so it sounds like you're talking about floodplain compensation more so. Okay. Yeah, we would be required by the local floodplain administrator to make sure that we're providing cup-for-cup floodplain compensation on site. If we fill in floodplain, we have to designate ponds to provide that same compensation, the same compensatory storage that's on site currently. We do that through looking at the existing survey, calculating it out. It's all part of the site plan approval process we go through with KB and his team.

But would you guys be willing to go ahead today and to assure us and those residents that you're going to go far and above what's required? So let's say if four to six foot is required, that you want to maybe double or triple that just to make sure that those homes south of you are protected.

I don't know that I can commit to a double or triple. I can promise you that we have to provide floodplain protection for all adjacent residents. I sign and seal the plans and My company's liable for all that, as you guys know. We will exceed the requirements of the city of Titusville.

Okay, good. That's going to be a concern of mine, that they don't get flooded because of the development that just happened north of them. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. Member Rice.

What is the projected build-out for all three phases?

How many years? So that we don't know. It's so market-driven. We've looked at – there's been a couple other approved – not a couple. There's a single approved Space Coast Innovation Park Phase 1 that's been approved for a couple years now. It's so market-driven, it's tough to put a timeframe on it.

I would think with your market study, you've analyzed what the build-out would be, and you have an idea of what you're anticipating.

Yeah. I know right now there is a lot of activity, but unfortunately, I just don't know. What does your market study say? I'll defer to another member of my team. I did not prepare a market study on this specific site Okay, you addressed my compensatory storage issues.

Thanks. The other thing I have is in the three phases in Will the wetlands be impacted in what phase the first phase second phase third are all three phases and

So the wetlands will be impacted in all three phases the only wetland above five acres will be impacted with phase one None above five acres is what you said and no I said wetlands small isolated wetlands are being proposed to be impacted in all phases The single wetland we're proposing to impact over five acres is with phase one.

Okay and then Will you be using any... I don't want to get too far in the way. This is just a transmittal hearing. Yeah, okay. LID, low-impact development techniques with stormwater. Are you planning on doing any of those type of... Stormwater techniques.

Yes, certainly. We will we were looking at doing stormwater harvesting as one of them on the previous projects We've done different type of filtration systems to remove nitrogen phosphorus. Yeah with the new statewide ERP rules We have to get very creative as engineers to figure out how to remove nitrogen phosphorus. I

And then as your traffic studies come through, you'll be obligated to do whatever improvements those traffic studies require.

And same to the question about water and sewer. As we go site plan for site plan, if there's not capacity and there needs to be a line upgraded, we'll handle that at that time. If there's an 8-inch line that provides water going down 407 and it needs to be upsized to a 16-inch line, we'll go through a utility developer's agreement to do that as part of site plan approval. Thank you.

Member Shiler.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your report. On page 187 of our packet, we have a map here, and it has a road going from State Road 407 to Grissom Parkway, and it's a future road, Challenger Road, and that goes through the wetlands. I think that's Phase 1 over to Phase 3. When do you propose putting in this road?

So that road's not proposed. I believe that is an old graphic that was part of maybe a traffic study. That's not part of our application documents, and that's not being proposed.

Okay.

Well, it was given to us, so that's part of the proposed traffic study documentation.

Yeah, so that's not being proposed.

Okay. Thank you.

Member Gerard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following up that same question, that was a couple I had, and it may be appropriate if your transportation engineer is here to respond to my question. The first question is the way you've identified the preservation of the wetlands, you're going to dedicate it to St. John's, and it's going to be managed properly. I don't believe there's a much likelihood you're going to build a road through it. You said you weren't going to build a road through it in response to the question, Grissom Parkway. And that's significant to me because that means the property that's going to develop on the internal road to, excuse me, I had it up so I could do it. which I think is Grissom Parkway that goes all the way down through the project. Your property by scale, when I'm looking at this, is most likely the largest development site within that whole regional airport. And that those trip generation factors you've got in these four area ratios you spoke to, is there a prohibitation once this is approved to obtain the maximum capacity F. A. R. On the developable sites by the question. I mean, you're capturing 5.5. You said for your ratio, but the reality is three point something.

Yeah. So so they're currently with what we're hearing tonight is a map amendment, which we looked at the maps, but there's also a text amendment shown in your package. That text amendment restricts the floor area ratio to 0.23 over the entire plus or minus 350 acres. Where that that that that that that answers my question.

So the compensation for 300 plus acres under the zoning and land you should get. and a preservation of 100 and some acres of wetlands doesn't discount you can still put your density up to that maximum on the overall site, but intensification on any one site that is developable, not encumbered with the wetlands.

Correct. Yes, as long as it meets the requirements of the site plan approval that we have to go through, yes. So, again, that traffic study that picks numbers that may not ever be achieved doesn't mean it can't be achieved. What's shown in the traffic study cannot be achieved. What's shown in the traffic study was max floor-to-area ratios prior to us suggesting a text amendment to reduce the intensity. So you measured the potential on the current code, not the code you proposed to reduce it by? The maximum current code. Okay. Using max floor-to-area ratios, max density in the residential, yes. Okay.

In the end, there's still a window of opportunity based on your traffic study that was pretty lengthy and showed evidence of two things. The second question is without building a road, you're going to have two development nodes. You're going to have the one on Grissom Parkway, whose trip generation is going to go north or south, and it's going to come out to the west if it doesn't go north. And most of the time, I've driven through there and looking at where people work and live. Sadly enough, I think most of the people are working going to work live in Orange County because the traffic's pretty intense going west and coming east if you go there second to third shift or and then that's what your study showed. It's good. A lot of people come in.

Yep.

So back to the site on 407, you're not lined up with the current turn lane in the center lane and the uh... uh... uh... continuous right turn link approaching the intersection your properties southward tooling section correct work was part of the so here's the third question your transportation engineer i would assume already knows that he's going to go to f dot to get uh... development improvements and that the tooling section is not going to work at a level service would imagine there's peak period level service failure there. When I have been there, I don't know if any other members have been there, but if you get stuck behind somebody turning left into the decel lane and it's backed up, which it does, traffic stops on the two-lane section. So have you addressed that in your study? Do you anticipate roadway improvements, even though this is just a CPA? I'm always concerned that everybody knows someone may ask you to widen the pavement width within the right-of-way, and can that be achieved? And I would think your transportation engineer might be able to answer those questions.

Yeah, I can bring Nelson up, and we talked about this beforehand. So when Nelson reran his trip generation for our IT land use codes based on the 3.5 million, it produced a total daily trips of 7,948 trips. Again, that's from a macro level. That's a 50-50 north and southbound distribution. When we do get down to the traffic study itself and the specific traffic study, it'll be more site-specific. And from what we see in industrial use, it's an assumption that more trips are going to go straight to 95 and out as part of the industrial use. In this traffic study that was submitted, it showed that the level of service on 407 currently was a C. With the addition of our total build out, it would go to a level of service of D. Still an acceptable level of service for a DOT arterial or collector road. When we reduced it or restricted the property to the .23 Florida area ratio and restricted it to 3.5 million square feet, we're borderline still in a level of service of C at max build-out.

So the transportation engineer is going to answer a couple of questions. The principal one is do you anticipate widening the road section in front of your property?

Right now with the max build-out we looked at and the capacity, lane capacity, we don't anticipate a widening. But when we do look at a micro-level assessment and an expansive traffic study that's going to be required by DOT, yes, we will be looking at every single junction within that traffic study. So we will sit in a pre-application meeting and get an approved methodology from DOT. Now, this is something that you guys will probably end up seeing that methodology before that traffic study is conducted in that that will state how that trip generation and distribution will be done and which intersections will be included in the study area and what's the calculation and methodology for turn lanes and how that's going to be done and the capacity on the lane capacity on the segments that's going to be identified within the study area and intersections. The junctions where, and you're right when you mentioned that, you know what, people who live elsewhere is going to be coming in here this way. So this level of traffic study we have right here in the comp plan, it's a little bit different from the traffic impact study that will be done and will be required by DOT.

And I think my twofold concern is that looking at this from the macro level and just being pragmatic, you're building one of the largest sites in this industrial area of the airport, and you agreed with me. And you're doing it by... Good luck in the two lane section and you're doing it where in other areas of Titusville where it's been. I'm sorry to say permissive to go to date F dot and everybody gets a driveway and there's driveways. All along 407. I guess that's north, if you're correct, where independent sites come in and say, I need my driveway, right turn, right turn. What I'm looking at in this planned industrial park is more evidence of a controlled intersection, a controlled intersection that's warranted. I'm not sure if I remember the numbers right, but a two-lane section road maybe carries 10,000 trips a day, maybe 11,000. maybe 12, but somewhere in that it's going to fail at that point. There's too many cars at peak period in the two-lane section to travel at 60 miles an hour. You're going to impede traffic if you do that without providing a storage area. So what I'm looking at coming up here, what I'm trying to get to so that you don't get your gotcha, is the future of development. Your site, I think, would warrant the same kind of roadway improvements that the current intersection has north of you, which is envisioning a divided lane storing traffic, or perhaps even a four-lane section there with one point of access for the whole site. Once you get internal, you can take all your traffic and drive around parking lots and driveways, but to come forward with that much linear frontage in a two-lane section and expect to see it on a site-by-site analysis so somebody comes in with one site and says, I can do a right turn only and a right turn out, That's daily and dollar short to me. That's just a big enough project. This should be already calculated, and that's my question. Are you anticipating that kind of improvement?

Well, first of all, DOT does have an access management plan for this roadway, for each one of the roadways. So there's a connection spacing required for this roadway.

I understand that. What concerns me is I was at a DOT meeting recently where they gave a nice description of what their DOT is going to do to State Road 407. And if you're familiar, they did some enhancements. Bottom line is they've got to acquire right-of-way. I can only assume this section of that road has an adequate right-of-way for a complete build-out. So my question is when that happens down the road with your... your comprehensive plan amendment already passed and the zoning already given, the text amendment. When you come in and somebody's going to say, well, the first thing we need to do is get dedication right away, and we need to change it from a two-lane section to a four-lane section. And as I said, I envision the type of roadway looking like the entrance into the park that's north of you, not just five lots down the road and five driveways.

Yeah, and I think staff read that in the code that, Right now, currently, it shows that there's capacity, and I think they're speaking more towards water and sewer for Phase 1. No, water and sewer. No, no, specifically. In general, yes, if there is a concern, concurrency, as far as traffic capacity on 407, we have to get it approved by FDOT. FDOT is not going to allow us to submit a Phase 1 traffic study, a Phase 2 traffic study, a Phase 3. They're going to want to see an entire build-out traffic study, a detailed analysis. That was my point.

from the first time...

Sorry, sorry. Sorry, we're missing your point. But yes, so if it comes out that FDOT says it has to be widened, it's on the onus of our project to widen that roadway.

Well, as it would be, I'm a favorable person to comprehensive plan amendments not being conditioned, as I mentioned on another application. This is just the pure macro, as you called it earlier, point of view. But somewhere in this, what I see in Titusville from my perspective is this, deference to FDOT on roads where it impacts the residents and citizens when someone wants to go to Aldi's and they get stopped on 407 because someone wants to turn left. And that happens right now in the main entrance into that park. If you go out there at peak period, there's more cars turning left into that left turn than the capacity. So it backs up and stops until the person can turn left. Of course, as I mentioned, there's a lot of folks driving from Orange County that makes turning left a little difficult. So that's why from the get go of this and those numbers you, you show in illustrations of this is a very large project. I compliment that. It's a big thing in a place that needs to be dealt with very carefully in my opinion. And that's why I want to make sure that you're looking at this in a pragmatic way that says we can anticipate what we're anticipating. It's coming down the, down the pike. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Thank you.

Member Faison.

Staff. Is staff's compatibility analysis based on a specific proposed operation on the most intense uses that would be allowed under the proposed designation?

Can you repeat that?

Sure. Is staff's compatibility analysis based on a specific proposed operation that they plan on using or on the most intense uses that would be allowed under the proposed designation?

So without the detailed site, then it would be done with the maximum potential build-out that the land use would allow.

Okay. So your analysis is based on the most intense uses. Correct.

Maximum potential build-out.

Okay. All right. So then my next question is, since the applicant is not identifying a specific use or user, right, can staff identify the full range of uses that would be allowed under the plan industrial park,

this amendment so the the planned industrial development zoning district is an established owing district that has a set of permitted uses episode currently so what are those uses what I'm asking

Primarily industrial related warehouse So sorry saying that they could be using heavy manufacturing they could put in high cube warehousing They could use a truck terminal. It could be outdoor storage. It can be the hazardous material handling I mean it could be a wide range of things right so are there any so what I'm asking are the allowed uses and or any prohibited uses was just simply wide open, whatever you want to put in there.

It's currently what the permitted uses in our code are now. Correct. So it would have to be limited to what's already established. So I believe heavy industrial uses are permitted with a conditional use permit, but primarily light manufacturing would be the primary use of the planned industrial development zoning.

Are you asking for a couple examples of uses that are permitted in PID and some that are prohibited? Correct.

Because right now we don't know what they're doing. They haven't stated what the use is or who their customers will be. And so we're talking trips right now, but yet they haven't said it. So let's say, for example, they decide to put in, you know, some kind of trucking thing now, right? This question now about transportation really becomes a big deal because we have multiple rigs coming in and out of every day, slowing down traffic, creating even more of a hazard. But again, we don't know what uses are allowed and we don't know what their intentions are. So we have to go on the most intense use of that land and make our determination based on the most intense use that they could possibly use that land for.

Okay. Okay. Obviously, the list is very long as far as all the uses that are in our use table. So give me the worst case scenario. This is section 2854, the use table. Warehousing is a permitted use in PID. Transmission towers, timely, is permitted with a conditional use permit. Retail or wholesale of products manufactured on site. That's like if you're brewing beer, being able to sell. Print shops, engraving. mechanical service and repairs permitted with certain limitations, light manufacturing is permitted, laboratories are permitted, some examples of things that are not permitted, heavy industrial use, dry cleaning plants, and bakeries and confectionaries. Okay. All right, thank you.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I got a question. Would chemical plants be permitted in this area? I'm just curious.

For planned industrial plants. Chemical plant is not a listed use in the use table, so it would depend on the scope of their operations for us to identify. Usually we do that through a zoning verification letter to identify what the use is classified under in the use table and whether it's permitted or not. So it's hard to say without knowing the full operation of the chemical plant.

All right. Now I was just curious. We had some stuff come up previously in chemical plants and what kind of a city we are and things like that. So I was just curious what was in that one. Thanks.

Any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you. Thank you. Do we have any cards, Lori?

There's two more speaking cards. Kevin Daugherty.

Good evening. I'm Kevin Doherty. I'm director for Tyco, also known as the Airport Authority. There was a member question about the roadway through the Phase 3 site plan. That was all just conceptual, done at the time of the master plan. That was three or four years ago, so we have no intention on building that roadway. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you.

Kathleen Yontz.

Good evening, everyone. I represent the development company working with Kevin to develop the property. We've been working with him for about two and a half years now to get to this point. You asked a lot of great questions, and I think what we've learned in working with the prospective tenants in the area is that this is the zoning category that we need in order to keep it non-heavy zoning. industrial and non-hazardous and to preserve the area. We've agreed to limit the maximum use as opposed to pursue the standard maximum use standard. So we worked very hard with St. John's Water Management District for two years to get to this point to be able to even present the scoring scenario you saw today. and take that next step to be able to develop the property. But I'm here for any questions you have.

Member Shidler?

Does aerospace fall into the category, into the PID district?

I mean, aerospace as a category wouldn't technically be a use. It would depend on what that particular user was doing in, I mean, aerospace is mentioned in the PID zoning. However, it really still would depend on what specific uses are taking place within the facility, which would be addressed in the site plan consideration once we present the actual site plan.

Okay, and on your question, phases, phase one, phase two, phase three, because you don't have clients yet who, and you can't tell us how many square feet are going to be in phase one or phase two or phase three, so that is going to be determined at a later date?

Yeah, that's how we approach the discussion with staff to talk about concurrency and things of that nature, but until we know what type of user is stepping up, you know, we can't specifically address any of the capacity issues or anything like that. So we took a phasing approach just to address some of the initial questions. But phase one, phase two, and phase three will go as planned through the property. And every time we submit a site plan, we'll be required to address any capacity that does or does not exist specific to the use. Okay. Thank you so much. Mm-hmm.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any of the cards?

No more cards.

Thank you. What's the pleasure of the board? Member Rice?

Yeah, this is just a transmittal hearing, so I'm going to recommend approval of comprehensive plan limit CPA number 1-226-2026 map and CPA number 2-2026 text to be transmitted.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, can we have a roll call vote?

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Member Graham?

Yes.

Member Troutman?

Yes.

Member Grodd?

Yes.

Member Rice?

Yes.

Member McDaniel? Yes. Secretary Faison?

No. Thank you.

All right. Chairman, real quick, does Member Faison want to explain his no vote or move on?

No, I can explain. So, again, I can't support this at this stage because the floor area ratio reduction doesn't sufficiently answer the question of what they're doing. I'd like to know what's going on before I say yes, I'm on board.

Thank you. Member Rice? All right, we're going to move into petitions and requests from the public. Seeing none report, city staff. No reports, sir. Thank you. City attorney. No report. Thank you. I have no report. Do any of the members have anything to report? Seeing none. Thank you all for being here.