City Council - Regular Meeting

is 6 o'clock and we will bring the meeting to order. Please uh would you please stand for the pledge in a moment of silence? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. You may be seated. Welcome everyone to tonight's meeting of the city council. Members of the public are welcome to speak on any topic, whether it is on tonight's agenda or any issue that is important to you. Each person that wishes to speak should complete a speaker card, which are located near the glass doors and submit it ahead of time to the city clerk. After you have been recognized to speak, please use the microphone at the podium and clearly state your name and address for the record. Please address all of your comments to the city council rather than individual members. Direct all questions to the chair. Speakers will be given up to three minutes. All right. Thank you. We have no presentations or modifications and we're could start with the public hearings. And this is Stellar Town Homes, Miss Fischer. Thank you,

Mayor. Yes, I am very sorry. We are missing one person. We're missing Pat. Um, can we get a motion and a second to excuse um Pat Bentley from the meeting? Miss Adams, I'll make a motion to excuse Mr. Bentley. Miss McGuire, I will second. Thank you. Um, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say nay. Motion passes 6. We've excused Mr. Bentley. All right. Thank you. I'm very sorry, Miss Fischer. Thank you.

Uh, for the record, my name is Christy Fischer. I'm the city's planning director and we were at the planning and zoning board last week and these items um went before them. So, they are now before you and on the agenda, their label is agenda items 5A1, 5A2, 5A3. I'll let the city attorney talk about quasi judicial.

Thank you, uh, mayor, members of the council. As you all are probably familiar with by this point, um resonings do um mean that it's a quasi judicial hearing. And what that means for you is that the uh both the public and the applicant is entitled to know of any communications that you've had or any other means of gathering knowledge about this development outside of the materials and the conversations with that you have with staff. Uh so if you've uh spoken with anybody or even if you've gone by to observe the property for the purpose of trying to glean information uh you should uh you should disclose that at this time and um I would ask you to do so. Thank you. Miss Boltz.

Yes, I did have a meeting um I believe it was with Mindy and and was there somebody else there? Those two. Okay. All right. There was several people there. Yeah. I don't know all their names, but I had a meeting with them about it. Thank you, Mr. Gaylord. I had a meeting with the applicant uh in person in December and then I had a phone call with Mindy today as well. Thank you, Miss McGuire. Very similarly, I also met with the applicant at city hall. Um and I've also had some phone calls regarding it as well. Thank you, Miss Adams. I had a phone call with Mindy earlier today about this project. Mr. Frrampus.

I had a text from Indie today, but I couldn't uh communicate it because I had a different meeting I had to be to. So, I just got a text and we didn't discuss anything. All right. Thank you. But I'll disclose it since there was a text. Thank you. And I as well I had a phone call with Mindy today regarding this project. So, thank you. Thank you.

Okay. A little bit about the background of the project. Remember, you know, I just present this so that everyone's aware of what the project is. Um, we are advisors to city council. Same thing I said last week with the audience so that they understood that city staff, planning and zoning board were advisors to you all. You all ultimately make the decisions as to whether you want to change comprehensive plan amendments, designations, zonings, development agreements. Um, so with that said, I I'll tell you a little bit about the project. the applicant is here. They have a team and I believe they have a presentation. So, we have that, you know, saved. Um, I will just go through my presentation and then if you all have questions for me, but like I said, the applicant also has a presentation. So, the location of this is what we call as being south of New Haven Avenue. and several of the businesses just to give landmarks or like the uh Honey Bay Tam and it used to be um the Starbucks, now it's the Coney Pokey location. So, it it's off of MLAN. Um that's where you see some of the yellow areas that touch on MLAN. It's a very odd shape. It's 17.12 acres. That's why you see all those yellow lines that represents all the property that they have. um that is all now vacant. There did used to be, you know, different buildings there, whether it's single family or other structures there, but it's all vacant now. The applicant is proposing 133 unit townhouse subdivision um in their existing FELU stands for future land use. That's a designation from the comprehensive plan. It's 14.01 acres of commercial and 3.11 acres of low density residential. in order to have that townhouse subdivision the way that they want it, they need to have the medium density residential future land use. So that's

where the change comes. Um, and then with their existing zoning, since the majority of their property has that commercial New Haven zoning, they have only the little 3.11 acres that's the residential agricultural. They would also need to change that. So on its own, they don't have what they need in order to have their 133 unit townhouse subdivision. So, they would have to go to the R2 zoning. Um, a little bit about the history. Um, this property has been in the city for a while. I don't know when it might have been annexed, but we do find records that in ' 81 it had a commercial future land use. And 83 there was a zoning to um a commercial zoning and then in 2017 we did an administrative reszoning as we did with several parcels in the community redevelopment area to allow it to be commercial New Haven. So the first request what I like to tell people is you look at the left hand side of the screen um and you see the word subject property subject parcels that's roughly the property. I know it's hard to see because there's a lot of colors there, but it's the red and sort of the yellowish that they would want to make orange on the right hand side of the screen. Sort of that brown or orange-ish uh color. And that that's what the future land use part of it is about. As part of that analysis staff looks at, you know, whether you have similar residential around it, you do. You know, that that is something that we take into consideration when we do our analysis in the staff report. The comprehensive plan um requires you by statute to look at. For example, the items that are bulleted here, water, sewer, drainage, solid waste. Those are all items that the state says you need to look at with a comprehensive plan. And then we thought we'd put a photo in here, you know, looking south from West New Haven Avenue. On this slide, um we have two rectangles that I kind of draw your attention to.

You know, staff also has to look at maximum impact. So we looked at okay if this remained as commercial what's the maximum impact. So that's the first box um the comm and the LD-RES um that's a possibility unlikely because in all these years since 81 it has not developed into anything commercial. The MD res could have a potential of 171 dwelling units. Um or another way to look at it is the 50% building coverage. So that that's a total. So again, that those are things that the state wants us to show because we do end up sending um these items if they get approved to the state and that's part of the analysis. Um I chose to do things a little bit differently with this comprehensive plan amendment and I listed both the inconsistent and the consistent policy. And remember there's a whole set of goals and drags those policy as part of the comprehensive plan and state of Florida requires said we see if this future land use amendment is consistent with it. Uh to me the one policy where it wasn't quite consistent was transition areas doesn't mean that they don't have it is just as staff you know I'm always looking to provide the biggest buffer to existing single family. So they'll I'm not going to belabor this point. They're going to talk to you about their buffer. They have images that show it far better than reading the words. So, I'll let them do that. Um, we did talk to the applicant about reorient reorienting the site and having a portion of the storm water to the rear of the site. There were citizens in the audience at pling and zoning board who did not like that. So again, that the main thing was just to make sure there was enough buffer. Another inconsistency in our perspective is that you have native vegetation and wetlands and you know even though

there's a small wetland pocket um and it may not truly be functional in terms of the sort of the vegetation promoting you know the animals and the uh vegetation that bigger wetlands do. Um that was an inconsistency. A lot of times other developers will incorporate it into a stormwater pond. They did end up telling us that some of the what they call the fingers contain the tree preservation areas. Um the city has a a minimum of 10% of existing vegetation to be preserved. Another item was the transportation element and this really had to do with you know whether there was any discussions. They'll tell you about how their only access is to New Haven Avenue, which is, you know, from the staff's perspective. Um, that's better than having an access also to MLAN. You know, what have you done to talk to FDOT? So, they they can tell you whether since last week with planning and zoning board, they had a chance to talk to the state. the things that they're consistent with is the medium density residential land use designation um does allow for a transition. So if you picture that subject parcel and you picture that you've got on three sides the residential around it and it's single family for the most part. So it does provide you know continuation of residential. So that that much is true. Instead of having what previously, you know, like we said, it was zone commercial, you'd have sort of a chunk of commercial sort of in the midst of neighborhoods. Another item we looked at is, you know, this is what we call infill development. It is part of the community redevelopment area and it will integrate pedestrian sidewalks along both MLAN Drive to the east and Donna Lane to the west.

other policies of public facilities objective they have to deliver basic water and sewer um we have it you know in the surrounding areas they don't have a plan yet so I couldn't tell you exactly you know what the velocity is how big the line sizes none of that has been figured out yet that will come that will come in the future to city staff and our civil engineer and the team from public works and other people will be looking at it but that's um not what they have with this development agreement Um, in terms of housing opportunities, we do have a policy in the comp plan where we try to get different types of housing um, in the city because there's all different types of sort of target populations and you want to have enough for everybody. This is something that I always want to mention because of the way that the state made us put us a whole element in our comprehensive plan saying that if you basically it says if you have a piece of property whatever the zoning is you have a right to develop that property under that zoning. It does not mean that if you ask for a reasonzoning you necessarily have a right to that but there are certain things that local governments can and cannot do. Moving on to 582, the resoning request. And I know this is sort of more the common thing that people are used to hearing about is the zoning. Um, it has that commercial New Haven zoning. So that's on the left hand side of the screen. On the right hand side of the screen, you have the R2 zoning that they would like. It is consistent um with our codes. And you know, my last bullet statement there, it could contain more open space. that that's something that is an aspirational request. Moving on to the development agreement. So, normally at this point, we would ask council if they can make a decision about the future land use and the zoning, but because very typically you all also want to talk about the layout,

I figured we'd just roll that into the the uh presentation here. So, the reason for agreement is those bullet statements in blue, the proposed uses. It gives us, you know, some limits on density. It limits the type of development to the town houses. It makes clear what they're asking waiverss for. Um, we get to ask for architectural landscape enhancement and to regulate entrance to US 192 and not to MLAN. Um, stellar concept plan. I'm not going to read through this. There are different sections um that are part of the development agreement. This is a development agreement that at this point in time we call a draft and that's for council to be able to give feedback to both staff and to the applicant and have some communication about it. The development agreements have a 30-year duration. So that's the last bullet point. The conceptual master plan um is this black and white drawing and again you know think of this property that you saw on several of the aerial was sort of up and down. Now they've turned it on its side so they can show you the layout. So MLAN it, you know, drive is this north to south road and you really don't see New Haven Avenue here, but it would be here um up at the top of the screen. So it's 22 buildings, uh four storm water ponds. I'll let them you know talk to you more about the layout. Um but this is what they had shown to the planning and zoning board last week. Um these are some of the dimensions. Again, it's it's in the development agreement. It's just another way to present it to you all. Um the architectural elevations. This is so that the audience can see this too. You know, you do have unified themes. You do have the slope roofs to make it look more residential instead of flat roofs. Um there's no balconies, but there is some an abandoning of the window and they can tell you a little bit about

that in the concrete pavers in the driveway. So what I have here with these six bullet points is not the complete um citizen input. There was some back and forth between you know citizens and the planning zoning board. So we took this aerial and we sort of overlaid um what they have as their concept plan so you all can see it. And then you'll see some numbers. Those numbers to the left and to the right are just to depict sort of the the addresses of some of the homes in that area. Okay? is just a reference because sometimes people will say, you know, live at 113 whatever street and this was just to give us sort of a reference. Um there were several emails to the planning zoning board and to city council. There was concerns about the finger-like strip near 207 MLAN. So um really this number should have been down here, but this is what we're talking about. Concerns about drainage. Um, whenever you have, you know, older neighborhoods and you've got newer neighbors that are going to come in, they're going to be built at a different elevation. How is that going to be handled? And that's why we, you know, talked in the staff report about storm water drainage and the pre-development versus postdevelopment. Concerns about sideyard setbacks near building 8 and I showed that as sort of like a red number eight at the very bottom at the south end. And then the planning and zoning board expressed concerns about the purchase of town homes by large corporations. Transient ten Tennessee um for you know having people in there for less than a year and the planning zoning board asked if the applicant had attempted to address staff concerns buffers wetlands um environmental study no outreach to FDOT. The applicant will explain. And there was also some discussion um about moving a sidewalk that was going to come out here to connect to the Timber Ridge um sidewalk that actually is right here.

Um so there would be a connection and there was talk about moving that. I'll I'll let the applicant tell you a little bit more about that. So the recommendation from the planning and zoning board to city council is for you all to consider approving the first reading of ordinance number 202603 which changes that future land use amendment from the commercial and the low density residential to medium density. Uh we did our advertisements and like I said the date of the public hearing from planning and zoning was January 14th. For 5 A2, the recommended reszoning motion from planning and zoning board was to approve the first reading of ordinance number 202604 and that's to go from the commercial New Haven and the residential agriculture to the one two and multifamily dwelling unit zoning subject to the development agreement being approved. And then this is the motion that the planning and zoning board made for you all. Um was to recommend that you review this draft and consider you know whether native trees 10 in or larger within the southern finger absolutely could not be removed thereby providing another buffer to the residents. um that the development agreement be amended to include a restriction requiring one-year residency and increase the side setback for building 8 to provide additional buff buffering to the existing single family residential units to the east and west. So if I could ask the city attorney to help us so we don't forget to read the titles of those two ordinances.

Okay. Thank you, madame mayor. And there are two ordinances that I will read in turn. The first one is ordinance number 2026-03, an ordinance of the city of West Melbourne, Bvoulevard County, Florida, amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan to change the future land use on a parcel of land totaling 17.12 plus or minus acres located at 1765 West New Haven Avenue and as more fully described herein from commercial to lowdensity residential to medium density residential providing an effective date and ordinance number 2024 or 2026-04, excuse me, an ordinance of the city West Melbourne, Vard County, Florida. Reszoning a 17.12 plus or minus acre parcel of land generally located south of West New Haven Avenue, east of MLAN Drive and west of Donna Lane, 1765 West New Haven Avenue, and is more fully described here in from commercial New Haven and residential agricultural to R212 and multif family dwelling district providing an effective date. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, the applicant is going to speak next. So, hold on just one second before we go to the applicant. Will we do you have a question for just for um Miss Fischer? Mr. Frampus? Um I don't know if it's for Miss Fischer or Miss um Mr. Roadie. Um when it comes to the disclosure, we talked about this property before. Correct. Was it at a meeting or like a like months ago? Right. Yes. Yes. You and you and I. And was it at a meeting at city hall or was it on council? I can't remember and I want to at the conference room. Okay. So add that to my disclosure because it was many months ago and sorry about that.

Many months ago in a series of different meetings. Yes. Right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Now the applicant please. Good evening. Happy new year. Good evening.

Uh for the record my name is Daniel Sorrow representing the um the applicant the developer. Uh tonight I'll briefly walk through the land use, the reasonzoning and the development agreement. Show how they're consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and compatible with the surrounding area. Uh on behalf of before moving forward, I'd like to just introduce the project team. You see them here in the audience. We are a local team. They've got experience in the city of West Melbourne. They understand the expectations of this board. A little bit about the developer. Stellar is a residential developer. Uh they're focused on green industry standards. So sustainability is really Excuse me. Is your mic on? Can you check his mic up a little bit? Is that better, Madam Mayor?

Is that better? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, they're environmentally focused. They're green certification standards for almost all of their projects. They have over 3,000 residents living in stellar communities to date. They have several projects here on the Space Coast. They're in uh either under construction, have constructed, or entitled. Uh they've got projects in Palm Shores, uh city of Rocklage, and uh they just finished up one in Palm Bay. So we've got a couple others in Merit Island that we're looking at as well. We did hold a public meeting that was well attended by about 20 residents surrounding the property. Um that was back on December 29th. It was collaborative. We shared them their plans. They gave us some feedback. We took that, we incorporated that into the plans. Many of them were supportive that um residential is a better use than commercial, the existing zoning. Um, we talked about access points, tree preservation, sidewalks, things of that nature. The project location is on US 192. It's about halfway between the Indian River and I 95. It's one of the biggest and most intense developed corridors in the whole city of West Melbourne. Uh, 192 is where you find all the commercial activity. It's the main node. Um, and it's it's highly uh densified. This shows a little bit closer view of the 17.2 acre site. We're directly across from the Melbourne Square Mall. You can see the amount of pvious area there. You can see the the densification of the commercial uses. The commercial uses are all along uh 192. Uh and this is one of the last remaining undeveloped parcels along this corridor. Everything else has been developed or redeveloped. Um and it's the commercial use. You've had out parcels, you've had restaurants, you've had other things develop along 192, but not this parcel. And that's because it's tucked far away from 192. You don't have those pass by trips. You don't have those uh visibility, but it's owned commercial. And I really feel that there's an opportunity tonight with this

parcel because we do have the land use and zoning of commercial uh to to change that. This is a true infill project. It's a hole in the donut. It hasn't been developed and it's surrounded by development. Um, so it's it's really important and I think that we can find a use, the town home use that could be compatible to transition from that more intense commercial use down to the lowdensity residential surrounding the project. This is a closer view of the intensification of the Melbourne Square Mall and the amount of commercial and retail. It comes right up to our project site. So these commercial uses that could be extended on our 17 acre site today. uh commercial is what it's land use and zoned for. We feel that the town homes are a much more compatible, much better transition buffer and a much better use for the subject site. The site isn't what most people think of it today. It's undeveloped, but it's been a dumping grounds for furniture, shopping carts, uh couches, you name it. Uh I think we found it when we were out there. The lack of management has resulted in informal use of the site. Um, and furthermore, you see all that exotic vegetation, it chokes out the native vegetation and it degrades the ecological function of the site. So, it's it's really a shame to see what's happening there, but um with the proposed town home community, we're allowed to go in. We're allowed to clean it up. We're allowed to repurpose the site for a good residential use and have a managed landscape, managed ecosystem that's good for the environment, meets the city code, and all environmental standards. I thought Miss Fischer did a good job talking about the land use, so we won't harp on that. essentially we can't do the town homes right now because it's own commercial and has the land use of commercial. So that's why we're here before you this evening. Um one thing I wanted to point out is that

uh there is a statutory provision that's allowed called the live local act and because we're land use and zoning of commercial and commercial hasn't been viable for this site really the alternative is to seek a residential entitlement. So, a change from commercial to residential, which is what we're here before you tonight asking for. Um, if those two options fail, then there is a statutory provision that the property owner could seek that allows for uh multifamily affordable housing on sites like this because it's zon commercial and and this would be a good site for it. I'm just going to be honest because they go around the state looking for sites like this 17 acre site. So you could go six stories high, 20 units per acre, which is the highest in the city at the city parkway interchange density, and have that right next to lowdensity single family housing. We don't think that's compatible, but it is an option um for the property owner uh to to to move forward. In fact, Satellite Beach is dealing with this issue right now. uh they have a live local project and you know the policy makers are feeling handcuffed because there's no real local control that they have over the project. The environmental is is not what you've seen as I showed on some of the previous examples. The site's really degraded. This little small wetland is overrun by exotics. It's man-made. We think it's not connected to any other waterways. Very poor quality. Not worth preserving. When we went out to the site visit, there were also no known listed species. Uh so no good wildlife was was there as well. Transportation, I did want to touch on this because by changing from commercial to residential, it's effectively taking almost 10,000 trips off the the road. So lessening the roadway impacts, lessening the amount of

cars on the road. By going to a medium density residential, you're effectively uh reducing traffic in the surrounding area. This is our proposed site plan that uh that we're presenting before you. It is a true infill project. You can see the transition from the commercial uses along 192, some of the big boxes, some of the retail, some of the restaurants as you go uh closer and further to the south um in the Kenova Park neighborhood. You wouldn't want commercial halfway through the site. It just puts it too close to the existing lowdensity single family detached neighborhoods. You know, this is planning 101. It's my profession. It's how it started. You didn't want single family homes right next to industrial in New York City. So, they created this zoning, this planning, um this transition of uses. And that's what we've tried to do with this project. It is um a greater buffer to the to the commercial and uh and the lower density residential. A little bit on the retention pond. We strategically located it here because all of our land development analysis, early engineering said that this had the best soils. This is where the best um generation of fill would be it was going to minimize import. We still have to go through St. John's River Water Management District. The city public works department do detailed engineering designs but preliminarily this is what uh we have found out the villas of West Melbourne just to the south of us did the same thing located the pond in the same location. This is an existing uh CRA. Uh the entrance that we designed does have one main point off of 192 into the community. This is a nice grand upscale entrance. Uh it'll be a gated community. We added pavers at the intersection of the parking lot as well as the entryway. Uh we enhanced the landscaping. We've got several amenities that you would find in one of your nicer communities in the city of West Melbourne. Uh got the tot lot, the pool, the the mail kiosk, all the things that uh the residents

enjoy now, as well as the the fountain and the features. I did show the buffer along Lee Road. MLAN Road is a similar application. We're only required to put 20 feet. So the town homes could be 20 feet up against the property line. We're 45 feet, more than double of what's required. We've got the 20 foot buffer. We've got the 25 ft rear setback. Um, another thing that the developer has done is chosen to put pavers in their driveway instead of the asphalt or the concrete. It's a little bit higher of an aesthetic. Looks a little nicer, a little bit more expensive, but our uh residents appreciate it. The style of architecture is transitional. that's between modernism and classical. So, it doesn't have all the heavy ornamentation that you would find in the classical. It's in between. It's timeless. It um it it's really wellreceived. It it provides a nice balance of uses. And that facade treatment that you see on the front of those buildings is going to be on all four sides. So, we're going to do it on the sides and the rears of the building. Also, a little bit about the the project revenue. Um annually this project will generate about $72,000 um in advorum taxes reoccurring funding source for the city. Then a onetime building impact fee of approximately $666,000. Uh and that'll pay for our proportionate fair share of the infrastructure costs. Uh so you don't have to burden any of the existing taxpayers. Recommendation. I think Miss um Miss Fischer did a great job of presenting um all sides of the project. But before I walk through these next points, I I would argue that we are 100% consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan. Uh we've gone through each of the policy elements and uh the first one that I just like to kind of respond to is that we're not a multifamily development. We're a platted fee simple attached project. We've got more than enough buffer twice the amount that's required

by code and we're meeting all the open space criteria. So So that is that is you know actual that is that is something that we're attesting to. Same thing with the natural open space policy 5.5. We meet all the open space requirements. In fact, this is a town home project with 57% pvious area that's either green or blue. In a townhouse project, it's almost 60% uh pvious. That's huge. So, that's a lot of open space. Typically, you find town homes about 75 or 80% pvious area. And then uh the uh second one that uh staff was uh mentioning was policy 2.3. Um and then the wetland issue. We kind of talked a little bit about that not being of any good quality. Uh and then policy 2.4 where we do have a transit stop located directly across the street at the Melbourne Square Mall. Uh we are removing almost 10,000 trips from the roadway network. We're providing three sidewalk extensions and we're committed uh to providing ride share opportunities throughout the community. uh as a as another option. Staff identified several policy items that you see on your screen that we are consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan. Uh we're in agreement with those. I think it's well supported by both policy and site conditions. Uh and it represents the appropriateness of what we're asking for and compatibility, appropriate transition in land uses and reinvestment within the CRA. Uh in conclusion, I I just like to read a little bit of the blue um that uh staff has has come to. The development is anticipated to have minimal impacts on the surrounding properties. And dropping down a little bit further, the project is designed to provide an appropriate transition between the more intensive commercial uses to the north and the lower density residential neighborhoods to the south. And then just past Wednesday, we did have the planning and zoning advisory board uh where they recommended approval of all

three applications. they found us consistent. Uh and then in a similar rationale, we respectfully ask the city council to concur with staff's findings, the recommendation of the PNZ board, and recommend approval. On behalf of the project team, we thank you for your time. We thank you for listening to the presentation. We thank you for your support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh we have one question before we open the public hearing. Did you want to ask a question, Mr. Frampus? Yeah, I had a question for you. After the planning zoning board meeting, did you guys agree to our three changes?

We have agreed to it. I think there was one comment that was a little bit loose-ended and that was providing an additional buffer between building 8 and we just wanted to put on the record that we'll make it consistent with the other buildings and make it 45 ft on each side. Um, so that was the only thing that I think was a little bit left the residency rule as well. Yes, sir. Thank you. You're welcome.

Thank you. will open the public hearing and we I have three speaker cards here. The first person to speak is Joanna Grant. Speak your name and address into the microphone. I'm Johanna Gant. I live at 207 Buffett Lane um and West Melbourne, Florida. Right. If you could pull up the map if you don't mind. Um, that shows uh the actual development on it. I know I'm killing my time here. All right. Um, with all the buildings and the numbers. You can go back one more two. Go back two. All right. So, I live in that little piece there. That's uh Yes. No. AC. You had it right the first time. Um, when we had the meeting before, I wasn't really exactly sure about the setbacks, but our property is also affected by the building, I believe it's 12 for the same reasons that building 8 is because that's directly on our driveway right next to our house where it's built. So, and it also takes up part of our driveway and we've spoken with the developers about this. We're trying to work out a compromise. They also have sidewalks going out to MLAN at that point next to our private drive on Buffett Lane. And there is no connection to the sidewalk other than to walk the 2530 ft across our driveway and then it's a grass area and then the sidewalks into the Timber Ridge subdivision. I would like for it to see it down further. If there are city plans to put in sidewalks, it would connect them at that point. Um the other thing um because they're really sidewalks to nowhere. Correct. Uh this set back got back to our stuff and then the finger uh we would like to maintain that ourselves

because we own that property up to that point and so do our neighbors um at 217 and we would be happy to maintain that property and maintain the the national n natural vegetation without any interference or any problems from the development. And then we also have a lot of flooding on our lot and we are very much set back from that little wildlife for wetland area that was there. Every time it rains for, you know, I say 8 10 inches, we get a massive amount of water that collects back there. So there is going to definitely be some issues with drainage on our property from the sides. uh where our pool is, the water will actually come up right to the pooling the pool itself. So, and that's without any development. What's going to happen when there is development? So, we really need to hope and pray that they will figure that drainage problem out. And we do not have I do not have my husband and I do not have a problem with going the low res because we do not want a sixstory building next to our home. So that's think I covered it all. Yes. But we would really like to have some more setback for the side for the side on our would be our north side. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Grant. Um, does the applicant wish to rebut?

No, the other two are actually the applicants.

Well, great. Um, thank you, Madam Mayor, Madam Deputy Mayor, and and members of the city council. Um, we did meet with uh the the resident who just spoke and we're agreeable to making the sidewalk change. We're agreeable to working with her and the other property owner adjacent to that little sliver so that there could be some sort of arrangement with a with a dedication or a transfer, we're committed to keeping the trees in there. But if there's a a way that uh we can dedicate that piece of property to them and and um you know, we're happy to do it. We have no use of it. And um you know, in terms of the drainage, today's projects really are held to a higher standard than than they were. There's been mismanagement of the whole site has been, you know, relatively no improvements. So, the water just goes wherever. Right now, we have to keep all of the water on our site. We have to um channel it and convey it to proper storm water detention areas and retention areas. So, uh generally speaking, when you develop today, it it helps the surrounding drainage areas. that, you know, we're required to take on certain flows on site and and and I think it will alleviate some of some of the [clears throat] problems she's experiencing now with without really any kind of a plan. Um, city council uh member preference, I did just want to note one thing that the three items that staff recommended, uh, one of those items did not include the residency. Um, so I I wanted to to make a point that the recommendation that staff had on there uh didn't include that one. We did want to keep it as six months instead of going to the full year just for the purpose of um if somebody, you know, is in the National Guard or something and they get called away and they live in this community and they do want to have to rent out their uh property for longer than six, seven months or something. We want to give them that opportunity to be

able to do that. restricting it for a full year is, you know, it it could be a little burdensome um to some of the property owners. So, just wanted to ask you for consideration on that. I think a year is kind of the standard of what some of the communities are doing these days. Um I think a year would be fine, but that's up to the council. Thank you,

Mr. F. Yes, sir. Um All right. So, we we're still in the in the public hearing. Are there is there anyone else from the public that wishes to make a comment on this before we close public hearing? All right. Seeing nothing, we'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to council. Miss Vultz. Yeah. Now, then you said all that. Now, I forgot what I was going to say. The question I was going to ask him. Um, but I'm I'll think about it. All right. Thank you. Um, Miss Adams. Thank you, Mayor. I do have Would you like to go? Yes, I do remember. Yes. [laughter] Is there Is there going to be an HOA?

Yes, ma'am. There will be an HOA managing the property in perpetuity. Oh, great. Thank you. Don't sit down. It's okay. So, I'm pretty sure most of my questions are for you. Although, Miss Fischer, if you have a input, you're more than welcome. Um, in particular, I'm going to try to go in order of my notes. Uh, with it being this one's first, Miss for Miss Fischer, with it currently being zoned commercial and the and the way I know live local was brought up, have we had any applications in terms of commercial recently for this project or any interest from a live local perspective?

No. remember I've been here since 2007 and Keith Mills was here before and you know he would tell me how there had been a few affordable housing projects that even before my time had been sort of bandied about but the zoning at that time had not been changed so this property has sort of always been right for speculation of some sort of he Dan is right that it's not technically multif family it's just that the point is to sort of have buffers between, you know, some of these uses. So, we've always had residential um Mr. Roie remembers sitting in on several pre-application meetings we had with other developers who wanted to do apartment complexes. They weren't live local, but they were apartment complexes. So, that seems to be what we've always had people inquire about this property. Um,

but none for commercial. Not for commercial unless it was very little commercial. We did have somebody who wanted to put in a thousand square feet of commercial which is a tiny most convenience stores are like two or three thousand square feet. So it it was just a token commercial. Okay. Thank you. In regards to the development agreement and part of the input from the residents and staff, I echo Mr. Francis's comment that I think a year would be better than six months. Is there flexibility on that?

There is. And I I think what it was was that we didn't have a rental um you know a rental prohibition but there was a one-year minimum um and we are agreeable to that. Yes. Great. So we can make that change if we decide to move forward with the project. Great. In terms of the input for more open space, I know with your current design, Christy, if you could go back and or forward, I don't know which direction it was in terms of the PowerPoint that had kind of their overlay of the project. This one? No, it had the green space and the ponds. Can we go to theirs? Okay. One minute, please.

Yeah, the other one. I just wanted to show the addresses. Miss Adams, can can we get clarification on what he just said about the rental aspect of that? You said there's no agreement for you. You had nothing in there about rentals. We're talking about I I think what I understood that planning zoning wanted is you had to live in the residence for a year prior to being able to rent it. That's what you're saying. You're okay too. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. No, you're good. That's how I understood it. So, I wanted to make sure we were good.

Hi, I'm sorry I don't have a card filled out, but I will after I'm done speaking. Kelly Del Monaco, planning consultant. Um, to clarify where we're coming from, um, the planning and zoning board had a fear of large corporations coming in and purchasing properties and then immediately renting them out to people. So they requested that we consider one year of residency after purchasing a piece of property before you can rent. That we do not want to do. But what we did say to Christie was instead of the sixmonth rental restriction that we currently have in the development agreement that we could move that to a one-year rental restriction. Um all that mean

Yeah. So, if you were to buy the property and you purchased it as an LLC, we didn't want to tell someone they couldn't rent it out for a whole year, but once they rent it out, what planning and zoning was asking for. Correct. Correct. And what we're saying is we're happy to restrict the rental time period to one year or greater, but we didn't want to start regulating people coming in whether they were an individual or an LLC purchasing the property. So, they couldn't rent it for a whole year. That's what PNZ was asking.

But part of what's bringing forward to this council is the fact that it's owner occupied town homes. Correct, Christie? That's that's what I'm understanding. And so to me that says the person or entity buying the property will then be there for a year before they decide to do anything else. That's how I understand it permanently.

But that's not what's coming forward. Correct. Right. Because what they didn't do was their rental restrictions section reads the applicant shall provide a restriction of any rental periods less than six months within the homeowners association documents. So that that's where we're talking about is it less than six months or less than 12 months that they're going to provide a restriction on rental period. And to me it was two things that planning and zoning board wanted. One, they didn't want the corporations, you know, to be buying these units, you know, in mass and then, you know, not really having it be an ownership type of product. Um,

which is why they ask for owner occupied for a year. So, can we ask why you're not willing to do that if you'd like this project to move forward?

I think I think we are willing to do that to to make this project move forward. I think the one-year minimum on um residency is is fine and we're agreeable to that. What we didn't want to do was to put somebody in a hardship situation to where they buy a house. um they're in there six months down the road, they get called to the National Guard or something, they have to pay two mortgages or if they rent a place and pay a mortgage. We wanted to give them the opportunity to rent out their home so that they could um you know, they they could meet ends meet. Uh we didn't want that restriction placed on the HOA. We didn't want that restriction placed on the future resident. So that's where I think the difference is.

In all due respect, that's not what you're Mr. Monica just said she said they don't want to do that. Alex, let me uh refer to you.

Okay. So, um one of the things that um we would ask this board to consider is is to not put that restriction uh on on the project this evening. We would like it to have that flexibility, have that opportunity to be able to rent it out to um future homeowners who um you know maybe need to fill in the gap for somebody who uh doesn't have you know that availability to live in the city of West Melbourne for an extended period of time.

Okay. I can tell you I won't support it without it. Thank you. I hear you and I understand where you're coming from, but I think if you're going to tell this council it's an owner occupied town home, we're responsible for the residents who also live in that area who I'm sure if you ask them would want people that are there for a longer period of time taking care of their property being invested in the community, then you lose that chance of more transient populations coming in and out of the location. Uh, Council Member Adams, would you uh consider a percentage of a number of units that would be allowed because I'm sure it would be a hardship situation to where maybe there's only a handful of folks that that would apply to um that would be available to have that, you know, shortened term uh restriction on there. I would consider that, but I'd look at something like, I don't know, 5%. Which I don't know if it's if that's worth it to you.

Yeah, I can tell you other communities in South Florida with single family homes have done a 10%, but that's through their HOA docks, right? And I don't know what those numbers work out to off the top of my head.

Hi, Cole Oliver, council with the applicant here. Uh just speaking with the applicant, one of the things that we would like to consider is um the big concern is someone that comes in, moves in, buys a town home, gets relocated for a job or for whatever reason. Now they're stuck. They can't rent this this unit out. They can't um make they're going to have to rent some place somewhere else and they're going to be making two payments. So maybe in lie of a total ban from that maybe bridging the gap would be allowing something to be put in the development agreement with people that find themselves in those situation can come before staff and ask for a waiver for those hardship purposes. You know if it's a job transfer something legitimate. I we understand and hear the concern on a corporation coming in and buying up all of them and trying to do it um that way. And I could see why you guys would say, "No, we don't want to allow that quote unquote hardship." But for a situation where it really is a hardship where someone's job or a life circumstance causes them to have to move out of that facility, they're going to either be forced to fireell the the the property at a lower at, you know, some discounted rate, which isn't good for the city or the community or anyone to have the property values depressed for those artificial reasons. Or they could come before you guys and ask for a request. And you know, we would also point out that I'm not aware of any other communities within West Melbourne that whether they're single family homes or multif family or anything or town homes that have a similar restriction on them. Um, that's a policy decision for you all to make. We just wanted to point out that that would be different than any other ones that have come before this board at this time.

It's okay. In West Melbourne, we're okay doing different. Understood.

Christine, how successful, if you have any experience, because I do not. Uh, how successful can HOA communities be in terms of enforcing something like that only because I would like to believe from the goodness of my heart that people would honestly say, "Hey, I got pulled away from a job. I got a new job offer. I'm leaving for the National Guard." Whatever the reason, if it's legitimate. However, I could also then see the applications of things that are not true that are then just submitted to the HOA and the HOA says, "Yeah, you're good. we're still going to take it and move forward. Therefore, sort of nullifying the impact of trying to save those spaces for, you know, encouraging that owner occupied space.

Um, I have not heard that it has been unsuccessful in that particular community down in Pemrook Pines. I've heard that they have been successful with that. I don't know what mechanism they use to do that. I mean, I can certainly ask and and see if there is one, but I I cringed a little bit when the applicant was talking about, you know, having a waiver to give to staff um to talk about this. I I don't want that to be another thing that the city has to keep. Oh, I had assumed he was talking about HOA staff. I was not assuming city staff.

You know, whether it's the HOA or you you all, I thought it from the hearing from Mr. Frampus. I thought it was kind of the concern of the cities and I wanted to have the city have that mechanism to police it if they want it. I feel like that gets a little crazy might be a strong word for that, but that feels like a little bit much. Um, again, I think if we're not looking at one year across the board, I don't know what number 5% works out to, but what about 5%. I have other questions, but since we're on this one, 5% as to the number of units having it or I'm not understanding the question. Apologies.

If you're looking at a low number of units that could have that flexibility of someone who needs to leave before their one year of owner occupied time. Yeah. Um going back to the enforcement, how we would imp apply this, my concern would be is how do you identify those 5% and is If it's going to be building eight, for example, well, it may be the owners in building one or two get relocated and we're right back in that same position. You know, if it was 5% of the overall project that they could do that annually, I'm not sure my client would necessarily have a problem at that, but I'd have to

I can say that the homeowners association does it by first come, first serve. um they report that they're renting the unit to the homeowners association and then once they hit the 5% level, nobody else can do it. Um and the enforcement if it's in the development agreement, the enforcement would come that if a homeowner uh suspects that the numbers higher, then they would have to come to the city and say they're violating the the agreement and then we would have to enforce it. I would I would think.

Yeah. I I think this this is a really important topic for the council and I would ask that we we just take a a step back for a quick second and really separate these two items because because I think we're talking we we keep talking about them together, but to me I think they're two they're two totally different subjects. Both very important to the council, both very important to the developer. But I think you know question number one is a mechanism for the corporate sales and the the thought of this just becoming a you know big company purchased entity and and becoming a rental right and I I think that's qu kind of question one for the development team is

I don't nec on the zoning and stuff changes if if you're talking about and they're both off the development agreement.

Yeah. Well, and I and I think the question number two then is okay, if we can agree to a percentage that can be non um non-resident that lives there for a year and then becomes a rental. If we can agree on that percentage, then then what then the question is the rentals, right? and how long and and what percentage of the variations that can be because I think the to me the first question in this is knowing the council and their past actions is the desire not to have this be a corporate entity and and so I think to me that's kind of how I see it and I think it's I think both those questions are important to the council but I think we can't we can't get to six months or a year topic until we address the bigger one which is the the corporate ownership.

I think you you're spot on and I'm kind of taking them maybe the the second question first which I think is the easier one from our end. Our client has agreed to shift that minimum rental period of time if someone does rent it which is the harder question from six months to a year period of time. So, your shortest rental available would be one year to try to minimize some of that, I'm not going to say vagrancy, but transency of people coming in out of the community. That one I think um we're agreeable to on our end. I'd have to ask my client. We're halfway there. In other words, we're halfway there on that topic. [laughter] Do you guys want to caucus uh for a couple minutes?

I think that would maybe um just a couple quick minutes. Yeah, I because I you know, normally we'd say, "Hey, let's postpone this or whatever." But this I think five minutes of you guys talking could solve this and and also give the council a little bit time to process what we're talking about. Is that fair? Or move on to the next item real quickly while we talk about it. While you're talking, you may want to consider my next question regards to the open space. No, no, no. I'm saying you can have your conversation, but consider if there's any flexibility for additional open space. That was my only since they're going to be talking, I'd rather they talk all at once. Thank you. Mr. Gayler, do you want to ask your question so when they're caucusing, they can caucus?

I do want to ask my questions for when you guys are caucusing. So, um the gentleman that was presenting uh made a statement that you guys were open to incorporating ride share opportunities. Um, I did talk to Mindy this afternoon a little bit about the incorporation of ride opportunities and I know um we recently there was a a project that came before the council that that utilized ride opportunities. Um, so just wanted to see if something like that could be potentially incorporated into the development agreement. [snorts] Um and also just had a question on uh Miss Fischer mentioned in her presentation uh that you guys had um at the planning and zoning board had not been able to say whether or not you coordinate with FDOT yet. Um so just kind of wanted to know if you guys had been able to coordinate with the state yet and what the outcome of those deliberations were were

and then if Yes sir, Mr. Soro, I just wanted to mention we have other town houses that are coming in as well and we've asked them for the same thing. one year owner occupied before they could rent it out and they had no problem complying with that. Um, so you're asking us now to consider a a percentage when none of the others asked for that and they were willing to do it. So I know you want to caucus. Yes. Go ahead, please. Do we want to take a fiveminute break while they do that or do we want to move on to the How many units was it? 133. 133. 133. Thank you for coming.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Sorrow. We're back.

Good evening, Madame Mayor, Madame Deputy Mayor, members of the city council. Thank you for that opportunity to discuss with our team um how to properly respond to several of the questions raised by the board. you know, the the first one I think the the main one with the um the residency and the rental being one year. Um we want to agree similar to uh the other uh applicants that you mentioned uh mayor. So we're we're good with that um uh that uh requirement recommendation from the council. Also, uh, Commissioner, I think with FDOT, we have, uh, engaged a traffic engineer to begin analyzing that intersection, working with FDOT. We've got a methodology, uh, that's been processed, and we're looking to schedule the preapp uh, shortly after um, this meeting with uh, with the district uh, to move that process forward. Um, there are several ride share uh, opportunities that we're considering. Um, posting it in the clubhouse, uh, having next door having some u opportunities for um you know different uh residents to participate maybe in commuting, going to and from work, other uh events. And you know the great thing about this site is we're in such close proximity to all these different commercial uses which really makes it a a true infill. There's the transit stop across the street um bicycling and and other opportunities that uh but ride sharing will be part of our HOA documents and even willing to the little section of the development agreement if if that's important to uh to the board. And then um in terms of open space, you know, we're at 57% open space currently on the plan that you see on the screen uh which is a lot. And and the St. John's River Water Management District changed the rules on us that became effective early January of 2026. So, with that new requirement, uh

there's a lot of nutrient removal that's required in terms of of uh meeting their threshold of what they'll approve and what they won't. So, we have to have a lot more drainage on our site than we would normally have prior to January 2026. Um, so this project, although we're we're pretty comfortable with um the amount of detention and retention areas, we may have to add a little bit more dry detention areas, but these dry detention areas, you know, they're they're maybe full for maybe 24 hours, but then they're dry and they kids run in them, they play in them. You know, you can walk um you know, the dogs love playing in them. And we've got sidewalks all along around the retention ponds and benches and so we've activated these so that they do uh function as open space. We'll look at providing some more open space as we go through the engineering design drawings, but but we think with all the new St. John's River Water Management District requirements that we're going to be pretty close to um that threshold of needing those amount of detention uh and retention areas. So, I think that might have covered all of the board's questions. If there's any follow-up questions for my team, Ryan, please let me know. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right. Did he answer the res? Yes, he answer the resident question that they're willing to do the first year owner occupied and not renting out after that and then you did say that. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, sir. All right. We're back to councils again. We are on 2026-03. What we're looking for action on Looking for action on 2026-03. Looking for the first

that that is the first one. 03 is the first one. 03. Yes, that is the first one. 030 comp plan amendment is 202603 and the resoning amend uh ordinance is 202604. Right. You want them all separate, right? Yes, they have to be voted on separately. All right, Miss Magcguire. [clears throat] Um, all right. I will make a motion that we approve the first reading of ordinance number 2026-03 as written. Miss Bolt.

Yes. I would like to add the changes that we just agreed upon to be added into that. Um, okay. That's with the the third one. Okay. We're just on Okay. Yeah, we're just on that one. I'll second that. Okay. Thank you, Miss McGuire. Your lights still on? Nothing. You finished? All right. So, we are on 2026-03. We have a motion on the floor from Miss Magguire. We have a second from Miss Folz. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say nay. Motion. Motion carries. Five zero. 51.

51. I'm sorry. looking right at him and said zero 51. All right, next item is 202604. Miss Adams, I'll make a motion to approve the first reading of ordinance number 202604 as written. Thank you, Mr. Gaylord. Second. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor from Miss Adams and a second from Mr. Gaylord. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say nay. Motion carries 51. Right. Thank you. All right. Next, the development agreement um which is

so just keep in mind with the development agreement um action on the development agreement will be on the second reading. So we we include the development agreement for discussion so that everyone can see what's in it. have these discussions like we did tonight about the um uh rental periods, those kinds of details and then see the detailed site plan. Um so there's no formal action on the development agreement this evening as it's just a draft and then that development agreement with those changes will come forward to the for the second reading in two weeks I believe. But if if I could have clarification whether you all agree with the three bullets that the uh planning and zoning board had or there's something in addition to what we just talked about with the occupancy. So specifically with this third bullet statement um they you heard the applicant say they agree that they're going to have sideyard areas that are a little bit bigger. You heard the resident come up and talk about the concern of the proximity to building 12. Didn't know if you all wanted to discuss that. That wasn't really discussed, I don't believe.

Miss Folz, your light is on. Sorry, Miss Adams. Thank you, mayor. Um, in terms of the additions recommended by the planning and zoning board, I think they're good. I did have a note about if we're going to make the side setback increased for building 8, what flexibility do we have with the building that the resident brought up in their commentary today? Because I don't believe in well hoping and praying and we'll see what happens. I'd like to hammer that out.

I think for the record we're agreeable to 45 ft which is consistent with the rest of the community and the rear setback. So on the sides of building um eight, we would have 45 ft on both the east and the west side of that building. Right. So that addresses building 8. Didn't the resident live near building 12? Yes. She's asking building 12.

Oh. Oh. Oh. Building 12 with that little sliver. We're committed to not developing that parcel, keeping it as is um and and remaining in perpetuity. I think that in terms of ownership with their driveway, um, that's something that the third party is going to need to work out. We did talk to the property owners on both sides. We'd like to have, you know, it just dedicated or transfer another piece of ownership where 207 is located, but um, you know, we're we're agreeable to it. We're we're not developing that.

They were talking about this area here, Dan. Do you see my cursor? That's where the sidewalk is going to go. And they wanted it all further. You want that to be 45 ft also. We've got 20. You have for the side. You can do that. Yeah. Okay. So, it can be the same as with building eight for building 12. So, I'd like to see that added, Miss Fischer. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you. Um, all right. We're on to the next item. 5B. Mayor, I had a question for Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Gayler to hear your latest son.

Miss Fischer, you had asked about incorporations. Um I'd like to be able to see something in addition to the stuff about building 12 about the sidewalks that were mentioned by the resident. Um you guys had said that you were committed to connecting those sidewalks. Staff's recommendation. That was one of the things that they had brought up during the the DRC review. And I I think um we even saw an exhibit this past week that showed it going a little bit further to the north, I think, in between uh two of the buildings and and we're agreeable to that as well.

Okay. Um and then the Are you going to put something in there or work with Miss Fischer about the dedication for that strip that you were just talking about? Sure. We'd work out the details. Okay. Yep. That's all I have. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Item 5B.

Okay. This is the second reading of another agenda item um that we had about a month ago. Um we're calling these the Karassi slivers. Carassi is the name of the family that owns the property there at the intersection of Hollywood and Eber Boulevard. Um so for the record um the applicant is Jessica Gal the attorney for the property owners which are Bvard 12 Bvard 8 Bard 24 and this time we're only talking about 3.12 acres. So on this aerial you can see you've got 1.06 acres that's near West Melbourne Landings and you have 2.06 acres um Maybe we'll wait just a minute here until we get the room cleared out.

Thank you, Chief Esta. Sergeant of arms. [laughter]

The existing use on on all of these properties currently is more agriculture than anything else. There is no development here. Um, we don't have in our records any development proposals, but remember this was part of a cleanup and this would make it so that these two slivers have a matching future land use in zoning. Um, and we went through the property history before, so I'm not going to belabor that. Um, again, it's just changing those little slivers from being the RES 4, which is a county mutual lane use designation to being medium density residential in the city. And then for the reszoning going from the AU that it had in the county before 1990 to an R1B and an R2 zoning. Um we're not going to go through the analysis because a lot of this was really dependent on the development agreement and you all in December did approve that development agreement. That development agreement set limits on what they could use those little slivers of property that it's not going to be for buildings. They're going to work with BVAR County and they're going to use those as buffers if needed. Um there's not really going to be impacts to surrounding neighbors. So you've got West Mer Landings on the north, you have Manchester um on the south. So the two recommended motions with the two staff reports that we have with the council agenda is for 5B1, the smallcale amendment to approve the second reading of ordinance number 2025-32. And then for 5B2 which is agenda item for reasonzoning approving the second reading of ordinance number 2025-33 and the applicant uh Mark Watts is in the audience if you need to ask the applicant any questions.

All right. Thank you Mr. Francis. Did you want to uh ask Mr. Make a motion? No. All right. Thank you. Your motion. You need to read anything. Yes, sir. Do you want read the

Yes. We have two different ordinances. Once again, I'll read the titles in turn. The first is ordinance number 2025-32, an ordinance of the city of West Melbourne, Vard County, Florida, amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan to change the future land use on parcel land totaling 3.125 plus or minus acres located near the northeast and southeast corners of Hollywood Boulevard and Ebro Boulevard and as more fully described herein from Bard County residential 4 to city of West Melbourne medium density density residential providing an effective date. The second ordinance is 2025-33, an ordinance of the city of West Melbourne, Vard County, Florida, reszoning 3.125 acres generally located near the northeast and southeast corners of Hollywood Boulevard and Eber Boulevard and is more fully described herein from Bvard County agricultural residential to city of West Melbourne uh RB or R1B single family residential and R212 and multif family dwelling providing an effective date. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. And I have no speaker cards on this. Mr. um Francis, did you want to make your motion? I make a motion we approve the second reading ordinance number 2025-32. Thank you, Mr. Gaylord. I'll second. Thank you. All right. We have a motion on the floor from Mr. Frampus and a second uh for Mr. Gaylord. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say nay. Thank you. Motion carries 6. Right. Thank you. 5B2.

Miss Fischer, you have the motion up here 5B2 to reszone the property. Right. Thank you, Mr. Frampus. Make a motion we approve the second reading ordinance 2025-33 as written. Mr. Gaylord. Second.

We have a motion on the floor from Mr. Frampus and a second by Mr. Gayler. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say nay. Motion carries 6. All right. Thank you. That was easy. All right. Next item 5C. Annexation. Properties located at 9:30 South John Roads Boulevard. All right. The property history. Um we're moving to another part of the city here. This is on the west side of of John Rose Boulevard um near Woodland Park and Fortune Place. Um it's the area that is shown with the yellow rectangle. Um it's a small property. It's 2.75 acres in size. This would be the second reading if you all approve annexing it. And we did send out notices like we do for every item that's before you with public hearings. Um there was we didn't get any phone calls, emails or visits from adjacent property owners. They do meet the adjacency requirement for the city limits and there's not going to be, you know, really any building on here. Remember, this is the site that's proposed to be dedicated to the city as a park with a walking trail. Um, and if we, you know, do annex it tonight, then they're going to end up, if you all approve, um, the UD res designation and the R3 um, zoning so that it would be consistent with the rest of the property that was to the west of it. So, in conclusion, like I said, this is a second reading. So, if you all would entertain a motion to approve the second reading of ordinance 2025 29. And if the city attorney could read the the title of the ordinance, please.

Thank you, mayor. This is ordinance number 2025-29, an ordinance of the city of West Melbourne, Bvard County, Florida, annexing by voluntary petition a parcel of land approximately 2.75 plus or minus acres in size located at 9:30 South John Roads Boulevard and is more fully described herein, finding that the area being annexed is reasonably compact and contiguous to the city, that the annexation of the property does not create an enclave, and that the annexation of the property otherwise complies with Florida law, amending the corporate boundaries of the city to provide for the incorporation of the real property described herein. Providing for the filing of the revised city boundaries with the different department of state, providing for repeal of prior and consistent ordinances and resolutions, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

All right. Thank you. I have no speaker cards on this. I have lights on, Miss Voltz. Yes. I'll make a motion to approve ordinance number 2025-29. All right. And Miss Adams. Thank you. Mr. Frampus, you had a question? I do. Uh, we talked about the property being uh dedicated as parkland and and all the maintenance being covered by the development itself. Uh, at what point does that happen? Is that in the development agreement? That's in the development agreement, right? And um, are we approving a development agreement tonight? Is that you would be? Yeah. and it's currently in there as we

Yeah, I was going to get to that. I just didn't want to sort of muddy up the waters about I want to vote yes if it's not in there and yeah, if you all would rather hold off the vote on this and I'll go through the others, we can certainly do this. Whatever the pleasure make sure those changes were in there and the maintenance agreement was in there and everything before uh there are some changes that they made. There's a whole paragraph and I can certainly kind of go through that if if you all desire. Okay. All right. So, I will switch to the other presentations we were going to make which is 5C2 through 4. And again, this is quasi judicial. So, if the city attorney wants to talk to you all about that.

Okay. So, the prior ordinance is so I think we're all on the same page. I don't believe we voted on that. We haven't approved it yet, but we're moving forward so that some of the questions can be answered. We will need to come back to voting on that one first. The annexation itself is not quasi judicial but the reasonzoning and um and comp plan amendment. Uh for those you do have to uh consider this a quasi judicial public hearing. And uh again as before if you had had any commercial or any communications about this matter outside of the staff report and meetings with uh city staff please disclose them at this time.

I do not have any lights on so please continue. Okay. So, the background we have Anna Saunders, the u the civil engineer, and she's in the audience. She's the agent for LAR Homes. Um the size of the property in the front, again, just that rectangle is 2.75 acres, and that's what you have the future land use in the resoning change for um because the other property that's behind it that Lenard would use is still in the city, has the right designation, has the right zoning. So this front property um is proposed to be a city park with walking trail and stormwater pond. Currently they have a designation in the county of commercial. So in the in the county there used to be that uh strawberry upet farm um that went away but it still had that commercial designation. In the city it would become urban density residential if you all approve on the second reading. And then the same thing for the zoning in the county. They had a RU-2-15 which was actually a medium density multif family in the city. The closest thing to that is the R3. Um, and that would be for multif family. So 5B2. So that's the agenda item is again this request for what we see on the the left hand side of the screen, the CC to what would be consistent in the coloring um for having that sort of taupe color. uh the urban density residential. We do our analysis about compatibility and it is compatible and it's consistent with the land development regulations. We look at the comprehensive plan. Uh remember this property is not going to have buildings on it. So although there may be, you know, a water connection if if there is going to be any um you're not going to have bathrooms, you're not going to have other facilities that would require utilities. [clears throat] the maximum impacts.

Even though we know what this is going to be, which would be, you know, park property, we still have to go through the exercise of looking at the maximum impact if this property were developed on its own. So, meaning if 2.75 acres were developed, we've gone through that analysis. We does we've identified that it is consistent with our future land use goals, objectives, and policies. And you know, this really has to do with delivery of of water and sewer. That's one of the things. And then we've talked about private property rights. Um in this case, the private property rights is not as, you know, sort of a prominent because they're going to be upon uh creating the subdivision, they're going to they're going to dedicate that parcel of land, this 2.75 acres to the city. Switching gears to 5C3, which is the reasonzoning request. So again, we talked about that the zoning right now is what they have in the county by virtue of you all doing a second reading of the annexation. Then we need to do a zoning designation which would be the R3. And then you know looking at this consistency with land development regulations um they would be consistent with the R3 um zoning with the future land use. It doesn't the application doesn't contain conditions or limitations that wouldn't be applicable to other properties. So where they're not asking for anything different or special about their zoning. The city would get the park for use as a walking trail and for LAR storm water. Um that that's sort of the the benefit that LAR would get would be still having a storm water pond. And this would also provide additional buffering to the low density residential that's to the south. So shifting gears to the development agreement. Um you know the property has

a history where part of it was going to be developed with apartments. So that that history has you know kind of gone to the point where we are today that in 2025 you know they would like to develop the whole site as townhouse lot. And I had a member of the audience asking me, "How is that different than a condominium or other types of things?" And a townhouse lot is not a condominium. It means that you actually own the land that the building sits on. So your portion of that unit, you own the front yard and you own the backyard. You actually have a legal description of the land that you own. A condominium, you do not have that. So we're not talking about condominiums. We're talking about actual little lots. Um, with this layout, you know, it would be that front 2.75 acres, the back 14 plus acres to equal about 16 and a half acres of development. Um, they are proposing a 144 unit development. And so remember that the key phrase here is fe simple that they own, you know, the lot that they would have. So that means they still have to go through a subdivision process. John will talk about the changes in the code later, but the development agreement again does provide the city some basic assurances about the density, about what type of development, what type of infrastructure they're willing to do, um the architecture, the landscaping, and then it addresses the city park with a walking trail. I'll let the applicant talk about their architectural style. Um we you all in December December 16th you reviewed the draft of the development agreement. You didn't make a motion on it because you had discussion on it. Um these were some of the features that are part of it. It has a 30-year duration. This is the conceptual master plan and it it shows

that public park, you know, that that really has not changed. The changes really came to section five of the development agreement. So, I don't want to read through all this in public. Everybody can read what's up on the screen, but I do want to point out some of the highlighted areas that, you know, staff specifically sort of wrote in and they agreed to that, you know, this community development district has a responsibility to maintain the drainage pond and the area up to the high water mark. Um, the drainage control structures and conveyance facilities, pond basin, pond banks, literal. So we we put a lot of sort of meat onto the bones if you want to sort of paraphrase it like that that it it's something that we feel comfortable that tells them what they have to do, what is their responsibility. And you know this this talks about the city's opportunity that last sentence that says the city shall install monument signage for the park with signage to be approved by the developer or CDD prior to installation or replacement. That was also an item that we talked about. So there's two items. Here's storm water pond and how that gets maintained and what is their responsibility. And then the other thing that you all had brought up about was the monument signage. So that is in the development agreement. Um the this slide again just goes through what staff feels is consistent with our comprehensive plan or land development regulations. And then that brings you to the motions. So we have a recommended motion about the smallcale amendment. That's SSA. And then a recommended motion about the resoning. And then the development agreement. Um, with the development agreement, we had some additional, you know, conditions from when we had this meeting back in December 16th. So, these items one through five. I think they we

should still have that as part of the set if you all approve it. Um, but I think they did address what you all have unless there's something else you want to ask the applicant.

Mr. Frampus. A couple things. Um, I have a big problem with mixing the maintenance of the park and all that stuff. I had a problem all along with having that be one of our parks allowing water retention ponds. If you put a sidewalk around it, then you turn it over as a park. I just I don't like the idea. Um, these are town ho houses and so was the last community we just talked about. Um, is anybody considering the same restrictions with the owner occupied uh uh consideration in the in the agreement that we talked about for them? I mean, we're we're forcing it on one. It seems like they both should have to do the same thing. I mean, it's they're they're both town houses. Right. Am I Am I correct in that that the other the last one we just did it on was a townhouse. It's the same. So it's it would be a subdivisional.

So it seems like we we should be doing the same thing for this one if we did it for that one, especially in the same night. So um there are couple things I think we should talk about in discussion. I don't like the idea that the developer can tell us what signage to put up in our park. That's why I don't think we should take it over as a park. I think we'd allow them to just give us our park fees and move on and uh we don't have those restrictions or or we take land or something however you know that we normally do that. So, um that's um my thoughts and hopefully the council can consider it.

All right. Thank you, Miss Adams. You had questions as well. Plus, I do um the um the applicant would like to speak as well. I have two cards from the applicants. Would you like them to speak? Miss um Rosena and um and Anna Sanders. We have cards from both of them. Rosena, Lacy Rosena here on behalf of Lenar Homes. Um we're here to answer questions. This has come before you. We have worked both with Miss Fischer and with Mr. Carrie on change the development agreement. The reason for the sign is we just don't want bright LED lights shining into the home. We want them consistent with our other parks if if it

and and that's yeah that that was the reason for that. Lar was concerned that we didn't want LED lights shining in the town homes. That was the only reason for that. Um there are other issues too. We're upsizing utilities. We're putting in turn lanes to make the the road safer. So there are are other differences as to what's being done for this. This isn't an infill project. This is in an industrial area. Um so not that it matters. There's still town homes. AR is known for single family homes uh for selling single family homes. So we're here to answer any questions and um so and if we have any questions from NJ perspective I think Miss Miss Saunders put them to you in December. Miss Adams, do you have any questions for Minka? I don't believe for the applicant. No.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Go ahead, please. Oh, well then um can we come back Miss Adams have her turn? Okay. Well, it was since she was standing up there. We'll come back good with that. Okay, Miss Adams. Miss Feser, if you would please go back to the agreement that has the highlighting.

My question was in regards to the first section that's highlighted. The end section of that sentence says they have the right but not the obligation to maintain the remainder of the park. Which I understand if we take that over as a public park that then becomes city responsibility to take care of. So why are we then saying they have the right to maintain it if we're not asking them? Like that just seems strange to me. So I wanted to ask about that. Yeah, that phrase I did not put in there. Um the the wording about the drainage pond, the high water mark, the drainage control structure. We did. So I Right. That makes sense to me, but it seems like either you have the responsibility to maintain it or you don't. And the city does.

Yeah, I think Mr. Rosena has idea was we could mow it if the city didn't get to it fast enough. That that was the entire idea that we could mow the park if necessary. If we need to change that language, that's

Yeah, I I I think we're looking at this um park acquisition kind of holistically as opposed to short-term. So shortterm, LAR has a high vested interest to make that thing look really nice, right? They they want to sell homes. they want to, you know, they're going to be marketing, they're going to be doing all kinds of things. Um, at some point, you know, they'll be out, the HOA will be in, and we'll be working with the HOA. And so, at some point, the HOA, we anticipate, will come forward and say, you know, hey, that's a city park city should take care of that. And so I think we're trying to hedge both sides of this, you know, long-term approach to what what this site will be.

Oh, good evening. Yes, Miss Sunders.

Yes, ma'am. Um, the right not the obligation is really directed towards the landscaping and similar to what Mr. Vie said, I'm sure you guys have a beautiful landscape pallet. Lenard tends to um go over and above with the landscaping and so they want the right, not the obligation to add to that. Um, another level of assurance that I'd like to make sure that the board recognizes it's not there will be an HOA component to it, but it's a CDD. So, it's a community development district, which is in fact a a government arm. So, they've got voting. They're required to have professional staff, which includes an attorney, um, an engineer, and a management company. Um, so there are budgets and, you know, all sorts of things that are required to make sure that that community continues to run effectively as it's it's meant to. So at least right now there is no I mean the CDD will be maintaining um that pond in those storm water areas the development agreement outlines.

Right. And I I think from one perspective and in my opinion I think the city benefits in terms of we get to offer a recreational space which was why I was supportive of moving it forward to this step. But it also seems like in trying to make things more clear, I feel like the responsibility is now getting more ambiguous with the city, not necessarily clear um in terms of the signage, I do think, and I understand the the concern about the lighting, but I also think to Mr. Frampus' point, either all of our parks have the same signage or they don't. I don't know how we want to necessarily iron that out, but I I do think it's strange to then say we're going to have a city park, but then the signage has to be approved by the developer because what happens if we change something about our signage, developer doesn't approve it? Technically, you know, technically it's a city park, but also it's for the residents there and it it seems ambiguous to me.

Yeah, it I'm sorry. It it seems like we could solve the sign issue because I I [clears throat] think I think they're thinking the worst case scenario and we're thinking the worst case scenario. I think if we if we remove that it won't be a LED US 192, right? It it it will be consistent with other park signage that doesn't have any LED displays. Well, we just don't want it to look like, you know, it's not a billboard lit up sign 60 feet in the air. All of a sudden, your sign ordinance changes. Everyone loves LED lights and it's, you know, Christmas every day going by. That's all.

And while we do have LED signs at some of our parks, th this would not be a high this would not be a hightraic road that we would be looking to market the the wreck programming. I I mean, I don't anticipate, again, I just myself, I don't anticipate an LED sign being at this location. the LED signs that we do have, the two that we have, um, are part of our our facilities and our programming that they're located at. And so that's kind of the goal of those. So I, again, I it's up to the council, but I think we can put this to bed if we just eliminate that we have, you know, won't be doing any LED signing

or if we change it to be consistent with our parks, I think that could work, too. Some of our parks have LED, right? I get that. But we're also changing our signage. And so I think what we would just simply ask is just the professional courtesy, right, to provide us an opportunity to see what is going to be put in front of our main entrance to our project site, right? And same thing, the right not the obligation with respect to landscaping. You guys are going to, you know, we're going to go out there and landscape it initially.

You guys can obviously change that landscape planning pallet if you so choose. we have a significant uh landscape budget and we like to make things look you know a certain way and so again same thing right not play obligation I think we can certainly modify that language to make I think both parties comfortable that you guys have the flexibility that you need to have whether it's the ground monument sign which I think is what we had spoken about before and your signage throughout the city I mean looks really nice quite honestly so if it was that I don't think we'd be putting that in there but you're right things do have the tendency to change so if there could just be you notification or something along those lines that's put into the document that allows us that like I said, professional courtesy to see what might be forthcoming. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

I I wonder if we couldn't solve some of this and I'm looking at Mr. Zena to see if he's amenable to tying these provisions to the board turnover and that um until the board gets turned over to the residents, they have the, you know, these rights to, you know, for the signage as well as the maintenance of the um the park area. And once they turn it over, then that terminates. Does that help? Um, I don't understand what you just said. Yeah. I mean, it's still So the CD the way the CDD Oh, okay.

Beginning it's developer run, right? Because that's the only person who is there and owns the property. As homes sell, land um owners, property owners come in and they end up being on the CDD board. They run for election. They get they get voted in. the CDD board itself, the governance of the board will not change. That is always so that professional governmental component will always be there. All right. So, we'll have to work something else out if we want to. Barefoot Bay does that, right? Is that Barefoot Bay is a little different because they they have a county charter, but Right.

So, I it's not something we want to fall on our sword over, right? We just want again professional courtesy if you guys would allow us the opportunity to work with staff to kind of craft that language and put it in front of Mr. Kerry and Mr. Rodie and Miss Fischer, make sure that they're comfortable with it. If you would entrust them with that, um, we'd be happy to move forward with it. I'm fine with that conversation happening. I do have other questions. U, Mr. Roie, just an estimate. If this became a city park, what do you estimate the cost to maintain it would be? Cool. Um, you know, we're we're on a like like many other people, we're on a oneweek uh MO about six months a year, and then we're on a two week uh to 3-w week MO about six months, you know, again, depends when it rains, depends when it gets warm, all all those things. And so, um, anticipate a twoman crew going out there, uh, once a week to to spend a two hours maintaining that site is pro is would be the approximate cost. Um, $100 uh an hour for the the labor and the equipment a week gets you probably somewhere in the ballpark of $5,000 a year.

Okay, thank you. I know rough number. Don't Okay. Yeah. Parish. I was just wondering what type of investment the city would have to make in something that is much smaller than the size of most of our other parks. Yeah, it because we're saying this is a city park, but for the same token, this isn't like the city is putting in a full park.

Yeah. As I mentioned before, you know, this is not going to be the um the most utilized city park in the city, but I do think it's important that we have this option for the residents in that area. I go back to our our our parks master plan. The number one rated item was walkability and trails. This uh does allow us to get a piece of land that the whole public, which would mostly be the people in that part of the community, will be able to utilize as a little walking trail. It's it's pretty decent size. It's almost a almost the size of a lap around a track. So, it's it is pretty good size for a walk. Um as opposed to just having a fence up and it just being for just the residents of this community. I think it adds another element for that side uh that area of our our community that doesn't really have anything like this. So,

you and I talked earlier about the pond and to share with council my concern looking at the pond space. Cities near us have had issues somewhat recently with uh people drowning in ponds, specifically children. And so knowing how close it is to people who could have children, not to say children are the only ones, but I try to think of it from that perspective. You had said you were going to look into the pond shelf and if there was anything that needed to be done so that we didn't have that issue. I don't really want West Melbourne to be in the news because we had somebody drown in a park that then could be a city park.

Right. And and keep in mind all of our parks um minus to uh have ponds as existing, but we do we did ask the engineer to um take a look at their drawing and be able to answer that question.

Sure. So I brought a se a cross-section with me just so I can answer that. So from what we call the top of bank and in this particular location, let's call it this edge of the sidewalk to where the water actually would start where you physically if you walked down and you touched it, it's just over 35 feet. It's about 36 feet. The slope of that is 5 to one. So that means every five feet it's a foot, right? Like it you go five feet the elevation changes foot. That same slope continues for a water depth of two feet. So from where the water starts to foot depth is an that's an additional 15 feet. And we've got it at that 5 to1 slope. When you um design and permit with St. John's River Water Management District, you're allowed to do steeper slopes. However, when you do that, they do have a requirement for fencing for that exact reason. That rule came into effect, I'm going to say the early 2000s because of unfortunate incidents. Also, the lake bank is hard to stabilize. In this particular circumstance, we used a 4 to one side slope, I'm sorry, 5 to one side slope. The 4:1 sides slope per St. John's state requirements um 4:1 does not require fencing. So, ours is actually flatter than that. And we have received our St. John's water management district permit just so you're aware.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And the reason for that is because you can you're able to crawl out of that. So they've done studies with the state through St. John's that those slopes are appropriate. And again, our slope is flatter than that, meaning it's more relaxed, easier to uh exit the pond if you were unfortunately in it. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Mr. Frampus. Thank you, Mayor. Um Christie, in this picture here that I'm looking at, all the blue would be considered the high water mark, right? All the way up to the edge of the dotted line. It could be Anna. You all put this together, this graphic. So

sometimes you get graphics that don't exactly show the pond as it really is, right? They show the entirety of the pond being blue. That's actually where the water line is. So the water typically is gonna when I say typically you know rainfall event it raises you know a couple of inches that's where the water is going to be 90% of the time and and what was the distance uh what was the distance between the high water mark and the park property line. So from that blue line that blue dash line to the back side of the sidewalk is 36 feet and your park line is actually on the opposite side of the sidewalk. The sidewalk is within the boundary of the park. you'd have an additional 5T on top of that. So that's that black line. Is that

correct? At this scale, it shows black, but it's a concrete sidewalk. Yes, sir. Okay. So, there's 36 feet before the sidewalk. Yes, sir. Between the sidewalk and um the parking spaces were how many? Because I know we talked about trying to get more in there.

When we came to PNZ, we had four parking spaces. That was a recommendation that they had asked us to look at. We added two more. So, right now there's six. At the last council meeting, I committed to you and I'm still committed to that that we're more than happy to work with staff to look at if there's the ability to add additional spaces um provided that there's safe turnarounds and and all of those, you know, types of good safety traffic features. Uh we did make our construction plan submittal to the town just before Christmas and that has just started routing through its process. So once we get comments from Christy and her team, uh we'll be happy to, you know, take a look at those and if again if we're able to incorporate um additional spaces because that's what the city would like, we'll happily do that.

The more for parking spaces I know, um Mr. Roie, as far as this little piece of land goes, are is the city going to be responsible for the roadway? Because typically we're not. No, the road will be the development. Okay. But they said that they're only responsible for the high up to the high water mark. No, the the road is the the road is the developer there. Um what we don't have at least I don't believe we have is a graphic of just the park.

We don't have a graphic of just the park, but at the last council meeting that was brought up, sir. And so what we um committed to at that point in time is we'd either talk about putting an easement over that front port part of the um driveway component up to or sorry the roadway up to that first island to make sure that public access was always maintained or we come up with a different option for that. In that construction plan submitt that I just referenced, we've also submitted the preliminary plat. In that document, what we've done is separated the road rightway into two tracks so that they're both private, but the one has a specific um component uh description on it that allows for, you know, permanent public access. It's not restricted to just emergency vehicles and utilities and that sort of thing. So, we thought that was the level of assurance that um the board may want. Staff may come back and say, you know what, we just want it to be an easement and written in notes. we're committed to do. We'll go ahead and execute that whatever.

I'm okay with maintaining the parking spaces, but typically the road Yeah. going in is uh the roadway will be ours to make. [laughter] It's just you guys wanted the guaranteed right that you always have access to it. And so we wanted to make sure that we created that separate um designation. And like we brought up with the last community that came in, uh where what's your stance on owner owner occupied uh for the first year? Lar Homes builds single family homes. These are they look like a townhouse. It's a single family home. They're You have the preliminary plat in hand. Um there's no intention of So that's a yes. Go put it in there.

I've not seen any of the language that you've asked anybody else. So I don't I can't really answer that at this point in time because I haven't seen that language. Again, their document wasn't ours. What I can tell you is that we do single family homes. Um and like I said, we have talked to you about that at the last meeting. preliminary plat. It's be simple. We've already submitted that document. So, how do we get the language? We gave the other group five minutes. Would they like five minutes to caucus? No. Yeah. I haven't seen I don't disagree with you. I just want to be consistent with what we did.

Yeah. And that remember the other development agreement did have a section about rental restriction and then they were going to add some other language. This development agreement doesn't have a section about rental restriction. And if that's what you're asking that they consider that they have both the rental restriction and the corporation. Um I don't know what that other language is. We could certainly provide to them a copy of what you know we had with Stellar in terms of the rental restriction language that Stellar had in their agreement and they could see that. But no, in this agreement there isn't a section on rental restriction.

Okay. I just feel we should be consistent with what we're approving for these types of communities. So, um I don't know how we do that if we're going to be voting on all this stuff tonight. Um but I well open for suggestion. My my strong recommendation mostly because my bladder is full. I'm just Okay. Duly noted. put that in the minutes, please. Is that we that we take a fivem minute recess and we confer with the developers and talk about this language with them.

That's an excellent idea. Let's take a five minute. Thank Thank you, Mayor. We just

So, unfortunately, I'm not as important as my kids might think I am, right? Um, so I'm not I don't have the ability to make that decision on behalf of tonight. I don't have the folks here to be able to say yes to that. So, part of my responsibility is also to go back to LAR's corporate um council and run that through the flag pole. So, I would respectfully request that we continue this to your next meeting, which I believe is February 3rd, so that I can have that answer um for you and have it be made in front of you. In respect, we just we didn't know this was going to be asked. And for the record, that would be all four items. That would be the annexation, smallcale amendment, the reasoning, and the development agreement. Four.

And I also make a suggestion. I don't know what the discussion was, but it was it similar to what we talked about. It would be in this in their because it's different from the do you even call it a declaration or the CR?

Yeah, we'll have CDD documentation. Then we have HOA documents. Yes, sir. So, I know all council wasn't privy to what we were talking about. Can you explain that a little bit so they would know how it's would be enforced?

So the CDD would be aware of it. It's kind of like a subcommittee, right? You've got the CDD and then you've got the HOA. The HOA would actually be the managing entity of the homes itself. The CDD is more of your infrastructure and your uh community property and that type of thing. But the CDD is um from an enforcement standpoint above the HOA. Um and so while the HOA would have its own board and so on and they would self police it, the CDD would be the entity that would step in um and assist if So which document is it better to be in

the HOA documentation because that's part that's actually what covers the house in the specific lot itself. Yes, sir. So that it would be in the HOA docs where they were um you know uh they would have to verify that you know there was a year before a rental went into effect. That's correct. Yes. Essentially you got neighbors looking at neighbor. You want a motion that we uh Yes. We're going to we're going to pull this item until the till the next we're going to table this for a time certain February all four items not just all four all four February fourth is it not February 3rd

February 3rd February 3rd all right um Miss Adams I don't know who the official Mr. Frampus. Was that a motion? Okay. Okay. Yeah. All right. We have a motion on the floor from Mr. Frampus, a second from Miss Adams. All those in favor of pulling this item until the February 3rd meeting, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say nay. Motion carries. 6. All right. So, we're going to go right straight to 5D. [snorts] Nope, that's me. [laughter]

All right, let me get settled here now that that's over. Just a second. All right, so this is an ordinance uh as we discussed last time. Um we are on second reading now. Ordinance 2025-28. And if you don't mind, mayor, I will read that real quick so that I don't forget to. Um, this is ordinance number 2025-28 in orange of the city of West Melbourne, Florida, relating to plats, creating section 86-3 of the city code of the city of West Melbourne, designating the city manager as the approval authority for plats and replats and permitting the delegation of city manager duties, amending section 86-10 of the city code of the city of West Melbourne relating to preliminary plat submittal requirements. Amending section 86-13 relating to administrative review of preliminary plat. Amending section 86-15 relating to preliminary plat review by planning and zoning board. Amending sections 86-16 relating to preliminary plat by the city manager. Amending section 86-20 relating to final plat. Amending section 86-22 relating to plal final plat review by planning and zoning board. Amending section 86-23 relating to final plat review by city manager. Amending section 86-24 relating to recording of the final plat amending section 86-25 relating to use of plat providing for conflicts providing for severability for codification and scrier's errors and providing an effective date. So this ordinance um came about because the legislature uh took away final plat authority and preliminary plat review authority from uh the governing body of the city. Um and so we have to change our uh our city codes accordingly. Um the state law does not prevent it from going to the planning and zoning board. So we left that in. Uh the instead of the uh city council, the city manager will be the approval authority. He can delegate his

uh review and uh approval authority to another employee if uh necessary and if he desires to. uh but he will be the final and accountable um reviewer and the uh the rest of the ordinance is really just making sure the codes the city code lines up with the state statute so uh that it it so that we have the uh proper authority under the city code uh to approve plat now that this new statute is in effect. Um the statutes that have been going through with plat um began before this law went into effect. We don't have any more in the hopper now. Uh so plats from here on out will be have a public hearing before planning and zoning board but we'll go to the city manager for final review and approval. So that is the ordinance and I will take any questions that you may have.

Thank you Mr. Frampus. I just want to make a motion but do we need public comments before that since it's uh yeah this is an ordinance so there's a public hearing aspect to it. I have no um I have no speaker cards. So therefore, we'll close the public hearing. We've [snorts] opened it and closed it. And Mr. Frampus, I make a motion we approve ordinance 2025-28 as written. Thank you, Miss Adams. I'll make a second with a comment that I hope Mr. Roadie asks them such good questions that we would have that we miss out on the opportunity to do so. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Volts, do you have a question?

Well, not a question, but a comment. If it's going to go before the code enforcement board, we better make sure that the people on the sitting on the code enforcement board um realize the importance of their decisions and and how you know it could affect everything because it's not going to be coming before the council. So, um they're going to be really really important um after this. Yeah, that's certainly a conversation we've had with board members, but we'll continue to to hammer that home that they are the only public um and recommending body that's going to be looking at it now. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion on the floor from Mr. Frampus, a second from Miss Adams. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say nay. Motion carries 6. All right. Next item 5e.

Okay. So that is uh the this is the uh businesses selling alcohol near institutions ordinance uh which is uh the ordinance that came out of the promise discussions where uh the city council requested an ordinance to uh eliminate the ability of the uh alcohol sale licenses within the community park. It does not remove the provision that allows uh a one-time u event to be able to uh to sell alcohol if requested and if approved by city council. So this is uh taking away the permanent license though from that area. Um and this is ordinance number 2026-02 if I may write it. Read it mayor.

Yes please. An ordinance of the city of West Melbourne, Florida, relating to businesses selling alcohol near institutions, amending chapter 10, section 10-5 of the city code of the city of West Melbourne, eliminating an exemption from the prohibitions on businesses having license to serve alcohol near an institution if the business has a lease, concession agreement, or contract with the city, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, providing for codification and scriveners errors, and providing an effective date. And I will take any questions that you may have about this ordinance. Miss Adams, All right, Mr. Francis. Um, again, I'm just going to make a motion. So, all right. Thank you. That'll be public hearing first, right?

And again, I have no, we've opened the public hearing. I have no cards, no one to speak, so we're closing the public hearing. And yes, thank you, mayor. Uh, make a motion we approve ordinance 2026-2 on first reading. Thank you, Mr. Gaylord. I'll

second. All right, we have a motion on the floor from Mr. Frampus, a second from Mr. Gaylord. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say nay. Motion carries. 6. All right. Next item is the minutes. I'm sorry, public forum. We have nothing for public forum. Um, all right. Next is the consent agenda, which is approve the regular council minutes of Tuesday, December 16th. Miss Adams. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of our previous meeting. All right. Thank you, Miss Voltz.

I'll second. All right. We have a motion to approve the minutes by Miss Adams and a second from Miss Volts. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Those oppos say name. Motion carries 6. All right. Next item.

All right. So, this is ordinance number 2026-01, recovery residences. Um, the the past couple ordinances that I've discussed are either had been previously discussed or are very simple in nature. This one is a little bit more uh probably coming out of nowhere. So, I want to explain the background a little bit. Um there are and Miss Fischer is here if you have any zoning questions for her, but there are uh currently allowed in the city uh group homes in the uh commercial Wickcham and commercial New Haven zoning districts. Um the state in the last session uh mandated every city to create a process for approval of recovery residences. A recovery residence is essentially a group home for people who are recovering from drug and alcohol addiction. The house is supposed to be completely drug and alcohol free and the you know the nature of how they run it is kind of up to the individual homeowner um you know how they want to operate it but uh they are supposed to monitor all of the rooms for uh drugs and alcohol uh to make sure that it's not on site. Um and the recovery residence is something that arguably would be allowed under the current code. Um but the the state mandated certain um approval uh issues that we have to look into uh when approving it. And so um the as I discussed in the the staff report um the they're also commonly known as sober homes. So and this the staff report that the Florida Senate did kind of uses those terms interchangeably. So It seems like even though the statute isn't entirely clear that the sober homes and the residency uh the recovery residences

are the same thing. Um and the uh there's a voluntary certification program for recovery residences uh through the state conducted by private credentiing agencies. And uh you know this all happens at the the state level but at the local level um the ordinance requires us to uh make see if there are any uh reasonable accommodations that need to be made. So that's part of the application process uh which is the justifications for the request of reasonable accommodations. Um, and the ordinance itself is that you see in front of you is very similar to what most other agencies have because most of the criteria that are in it are mandated by the the new state statute. Um, and and so if you see in last month the city of Melbourne approved theirs and their ordinance is substantially similar to ours because you know again these provisions are um somewhat cookie cutter and mandated by the state. Um there are a couple of differences. Uh number one, the statute doesn't prohibit the charging of a fee for the application. So in the future, if the uh city council determines that there should be an application fee, they could uh do so through that process uh through the separate resolution. Um, again, when we have fees like this for application, it's supposed to be a reflection of the actual cost incurred by the city so that the taxpayers at large aren't um subsidizing an application for a particular person. Uh, so it would be a rather nominal fee, not something that would be, you know, punitive in any way because it can't charge any more than the expected costs to the city. Um, and the uh the application has to take into account uh the Fair Housing Act as well as the Disability Amendment Act or excuse me, the Americans with Disabilities Act. And

so um part of the process for the application is making sure that uh that these facilities comply with those federal laws. Um and again the rest of the application is really just putting the uh state statute into our ordinances or the statutory criteria into our ordinances so that we have the proper uh questions that we can ask through our application for approval. Again, you know, just like to reiterate this doesn't change the zoning. The zoning that these are being allowed for are the same zoning that would they would currently be allowed to operate group homes. this just uh adds the recovery residents and the certification process to the state um so that they can qualify for the state program. So that's an kind of overview of the ordinance. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. But if I may read the ordinance by title, this is ordinance number 2026-01, an ordinance of the city of West Melbourne, Florida, relating to recovery residents, uh, creating section 98-1455 of the city code of the city of West Melbourne, setting forth the purpose of recovery residences, creating chapter 98, article 5, division 13, sections 98-1455 through 98-1465 of the city code of the city of West Melbourne, relating to application of recovery Residences relating to findings of reasonable accommodation, relating to the decision process, creating an appeal process, creating the requirements for the request form, relating to stay of enforcement of the code, relating to the expiration of approvals, relating to revocation of reasonable accommodation, relating to annual certification, relating to revisions, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, providing for cotification and scriveners errors, and providing an effective date. Thank you.

Right. Thank you. I have no speaker cards on this. No public hearing or close a public hearing. I'm sorry. Mr. Frampus, I had some questions. Um, I do think we should have some nominal fees uh some kind of structure brought up and approved uh consistent with any other application that we do that our uh employees have to take time to go through and and uh manage. Um, did I I'm pretty sure that I read there's four different levels of these types of uh homes. Is that correct? Um,

yeah. The the state statute really governs this program. Um, and the the state has level I believe you're right. I believe it's level one through level four and each of those levels have different criteria. Um, but that's all determined by the state accreditation agency uh when they file for the state. Yeah.

Um, do we have any ability to govern how many of the different levels that we have in our city? Like I mean, if somebody came in and wanted to do a hundred level fours, that's kind of significant to me. Um I think these groupones are a great thing and these recovering uh addicts need to have these kind of places to go to but you know uh I didn't know if we had any ability to govern how many of them we can have in our city.

So part of the purpose of the statute is the state doesn't want the cities to exclude these through its zoning ordinances. Um, so there's not an ability for us to exclude any uh depending on the level. The caveat that I would give to that is the we could the the zoning requirements for those zoning categories probably don't allow um for more than a certain number of you know certain size buildings certain number looking over at Christy because she can might be able to certain number of group homes in one particular area. Is that Well, no. I meant the you had mentioned like a 100 unit. No, no, no. No, I meant the amount of different facilities. 100. Oh, okay.

Came in and said, I want to buy up 50 houses and make them all group homes. Okay. I I thought you meant a 100 unit house like have the ability to No, that at all. We don't. What I will also say though is um Christy and I have discussed this at length and um we you might want to build buy a 100 town homes and make them group home. [laughter]

If the town homes are in commercial Wickham or commercial New Haven then we might have to look into that. But the um these are in designed to be kind of normal single family homes that rent out individual rooms. So they're they're going to be by their nature pretty small. Um but no there's no mechanism to say all right we've already got five of them now we don't want anymore. Um the thing I Yeah. Yeah. That that's preempted. I

know that many years ago the state had preempted local governments from not allowing res recovery residences in single family or other residential. So it was pretty broad the exemption. Um I had been asked whether we have these already and the answer is yes. They there are um most of these are sort of in the area off of New Haven um in the older neighborhoods. So this is really in sort of that area between where the mall is to Dair Road. We have a bunch of those little streets on the north side and the south side. That's where most of these are. Um, so I don't, you know, it it's not as though the city since I've been here has ever had a big clamoring that, you know, there's some organization that thinks this is windfall profit, so they want to build a hundred of these. I've never heard of that.

Good to know. And uh, you'll come back with a fee structure, Mr. Ry. I'm happy to. We're taking a look at some of the requirements. I'd be happy to. We're we're taking a look at some of the requirements that we'd be responsible for and just trying to come up with a a ballpark of how much time, you know, some of it is very, you know, office orientated and some of it is on site and so trying to we have to do inspections too. That's what they're requiring us. Fun. And so we're reading through those to try to see, okay, on average, you know, is this like a typical

with the county fire marshal that we Well, that might be um but, you know, is this like a a 10-minute inspection or is this like get out the tape measure and make sure, you know, everything's to to par. So, I think once we have our arms around what kind of inspection we would be required to do, it'll be easier to come up with a fee. you know, again, call it $150, something like that. Thanks. That being said, I'll make a motion we approve ordinance 2026-1 for the first reading as written. Thank you, Miss Adams. I'll second, but I did have a follow-up question. Go ahead.

I know Miss Fischer had said she didn't see a clamoring for this in her city in her experience, but in my almost four years here, I don't remember any. Have we had any applications or interest? Hold on. Hold on. Talking to the mic.

The ones that we have are preempted and they're already in residential. So, this is it's different than um the assisted living facilities, the small group homes that are, you know, mostly for the care of the elderly. And that does very clearly go through sort of a state process, but it's also preempted. So that means that cities cannot say, okay, in neighborhood X, it's single family homes, you cannot have a group home. Now, the state says, you know, there there can be as many group homes as long as there's a separation distance of 1,200 uh feet, linear feet, and that's what we measure. This is an unknown entity to me and to many of my colleagues. So, I don't think a lot of us have a handle on it. I think that fee will end up being higher than what you said.

Okay. Thank you. I think All right. We have a um Oh, sorry. We have a motion on the floor from Mr. Frampus, a second from Miss Adams. All those in favor, please signify by saying I.

Those opposed say nay. Motion carries 6. All right. Um item 8B, Mr. Roie. Thank you, mayor, deputy mayor, and members of the council. Um, this item uh has come up um here recently and so we we amended the agenda to get this on. Um, as timing is everything, we are we are in the process of finalizing what we're calling the transmission lines between the water plant and the sewer plant. And while we have a good understanding where a lot of the infrastructure and the ground is between the water plant and the sewer plant, we don't exactly know some of the items that have been added over the years. And one of the items that we're specifically worried about is uh because we have an injection well at the sewer plant, we have uh the state comes in and just actually just recently added um we have a multitude of monitoring wells that the state comes in and puts in. And while we have a piece of paper that shows where they are, there's um there's still some confusion as to the best routes to get the trans to get the the affluent from one side of the facility to the other. And so in instead of keep running into this problem as this is now the third challenge that we've had where we've wanted to run some significant lines through our facility and are worried about hitting our our pipes because we either know where they are but we don't know what depth they are or we know what depth they are but we don't exactly sure where they are. Um we want to try to solve this problem once and for all. And so, uh, working with a company that we've worked with on numerous projects and also including,

uh, the water plant project, um, we received a a bid, uh, for $35,000 to do, um, the surveying of those lines, but more importantly, the topography because some of our transmission lines have to be a certain depth of cover. and we're the challenge is we don't exactly know where where some of our lines are, what depth they are without having to dig them and find out the hard way. And so this is kind of a a solution to a multitude of problems. And while I could um charge this to the uh sewer project, the BNR project that's underway, or I could charge this to the water plant project, this has a lot more to do with with concentrate from the water plant. So, I decided to um uh if you guys approve this, decided to take this out of the water plan contingencies.

All right. Thank you, Miss Adams. I have a quick question. Our staff report had outlined that our city policy is typically that we get three competitive bids if it exceeds $25,000. I understand the value of having a contractor already familiar with the site and the fact that this needs to be done quickly. My question is, how do we know this number comes anywhere close to what two other bids would come at? I just feel like I I want to trust you and the contractor by saying this is a fair quote for the work, but I have nothing else to compare it to.

Yeah, a couple of different things. One, we we we were able to get the price down um from the original number, so we feel really good about this based on some of the other projects that we've done and the cost that we've paid. Uh the second thing is this this particular uh entity has done all the surveying work at the water plant site already and so they're able to incorporate the documents into that and that is extremely valuable. Uh thank thankfully they don't know how valuable that is to us but we do and so that is that is a a bonus that is really important to this. The the other item is they are on site at the water plant. So the the company uh TLC who's doing a great job on the water plant by the way. Um the company TLC that's doing our water plant has them on site daily doing testing and so they're able to to rapidly get this done for us. And it is very timesensitive. And so, um, while I spend my day making sure, uh, when when possible, the department heads make sure they get their three quotes for anything that's over 25,000. Um, this one, uh, I think is is important enough and I feel confident enough in the price um, that we are getting the value and in fact, we're getting more than the value uh, for them to do this operation. So I I'm bringing this forward uh because I think it's that important and it is that timesensitive. We're in we're while it feels like we have 11 months and two weeks until this all has to be done. It's all starting to come together and all the contractors are getting each other's way. And so the the faster we can identify this route uh the faster the team um the contractors on site can get some of this work done. And to be clear, it would cost us more if we went

with a contractor who did not have the previous pieces that you mentioned. I I think it would cost us much more and it would delay us more weeks to get all those quotes to to be able to utilize this and it is very timesensitive to us. Understood. I'd like to make a motion to approve and authorize the city manager to execute the contract uh as noted in our council packet.

Thank you, Mr. Frampus. Second. All right. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor for Miss Adams, a second from Mr. Frampus. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say nay. Motion carries 6. All right. Thank you very much. That was easy. I'm out of paper now. Okay. Council reports. Mr. Frampus. Um, I hope everybody had a great holiday. Um, mine went well with my son visiting for a couple weeks. Um I have no other report. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Wolf.

Yes. Um yeah, I had um multiple holidays, multiple Christmases in multiple different places. So I was everywhere, but I spent a lot of lot of time making chocolate. Believe me, a lot of time. I mean, I'm still making chocolate. And it was delicious. Very good. Good. I just took a whole ton of it over to the police department um before [laughter]

um but the um stompout bullying uh event that I missed um because I woke up with a really really bad backachche that day. So I was not able to go there. I hope it went well. um the um chamber event that I was at, Linda Weatherman and Jim Lisenfeld, the county manager, were both there. They did a great presentation. Um so that was um really good and um and I think that was it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Miss Adams.

I wanted to give the council an update in regards to our youth advisory board. They uh since their last meeting they had some really great discussion at their last meeting not since sorry at their last meeting in terms of how they want to accomplish their different goals. They had discussion talking about the differences between their short-term and long-term goals and I think they've got a solid plan for most of them moving forward which is good. Um in terms of feedback I think from staff uh we have two staff members and then a police officer who also u just help guide that board provide feedback u and I think they've been really great so I just wanted uh to thank them for their work with the board because they've been able to give us some really good feedback and when we have questions about can they do these things what does that look like u parks and wreck has been able to give them some good feedback and then we're looking at uh potentially a collaboration event with the police department coming forward in May. Um I won't say anything more about that yet because they're still finalizing what their details look like, but from their discussion and then feedback from uh staff and the police department, it looks like it's going to be really good for what they envision it to be.

The Can I ask you a question on the council or on that board? Um, did have we talked to them about maybe getting them tours of the different areas of the city so they can come? I know they're all young and probably haven't seen all that stuff. I didn't know if we have did that kind of outreach for them to help them formulate some ideas. So, we have had that conversation with them and I know that our representative from the police department was also great in their first two meetings in sharing some of his ideas and feedback in terms of trying to help them see kind of the whole viewpoint of the city. We always like to share the smells of the sewer plant, too. So, um

I I did get nervous when uh council member Adams asked about field trips. I that did that did make me a little nervous, but we are going to try to accommodate that the best we can. So, thank you.

In terms of a League of Cities update, we did just have our meeting uh this past week, but I did want to let everybody know that currently uh it looks like there's about 1,700 bills that have been filed at the state level and there is still an open window to submit things. So, I know I see Mr. Roadie is getting a little stressed out. Um, it does not mean all of those bills obviously will be moving forward, but if you haven't joined the league's calls, which are typically on Mondays, this week due to the holiday, it was on a Tuesday. Um, they're really good at keeping eyes on things. But I will note they don't have five hours on the phone to update everybody on everything that's moving. And so if you have a particular interest, you may want to take a look to see if bills have been filed in relation to that interest. I had a resident reach out in regards to clarification on ebikes and things like that and so we had a conversation about it and I had asked the city attorney about any potential legislation moving forward with that. Obviously that's not going to make the league's phone call review but I am going to keep eyes in terms of if things like that are moving they're going to impact our residents. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Um and then just recognize chief that the stompout bullying event was very well done. It helped that it was beautiful cool weather. So, I appreciate that. I know you didn't control the weather, but it was a great event all the way around. I think the students really enjoyed it and I noticed I know it's a small thing. U but the audio from this year compared to previous years much easier to hear our student speakers and that type of thing and so I think that just helped kind of bring it together before they walked to the school. So, thank you.

Okay. Um, Mr. Bentley's not here. Mr. Gaylord.

Yeah. I just wanted to say that the stompout bullying event uh was very good. I enjoyed hearing from all the student councils. Um, they gave some pretty good speeches. Um, I told council member Adams that, you know, uh, from now on when I give speeches, I need someone there holding up the speech so that I can just read it because that was very helpful. Um, also want to note that she continues to be correct in terms of uh identifying my dress attire at these certain events and that walking to the school in uh dress shoes might have not been the best decision in the world and she was correct. Uh, but Miss Rodie and I had did have a wonderful conversation on the way there and I really enjoyed the event. So it's

okay. Miss Magguire.

Um, since we met last, I did get the chance to do another ride along with our um, police force. Those are always very eye opening for me because I think at this point I've done four of them throughout the years. Um, and I feel like each time I learn something new or I'm just reminded how well um, our officers are trained. I think everybody was very happy that my ride along look did not continue this go around and I had just normal traffic stops. So thankful for that. [clears throat] Um but I just wanted to say, you know, thank you chief. Um every officer I'm always with is, you know, very well informed on what they need to know. Seems to know all, you know, knows all the rules, is able to tell me why we do certain things instead of other things. Um and so I just appreciate that. So thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. And I will say that um I don't want to copy what everyone else has said, but the stomp out bullying thing, of course, I was there and it was very nice. Although I had other things to do, so I you know, so sorry I wasn't able to walk the whole the whole distance, but I'm sure you did well without me. Um I also wanted to congratulate Miss Adams because she was sworn in as the new Space Coast League of Cities president. So we're very very happy and very proud of her to be there. And uh tomorrow's the pension board. Mr. Bentley's not going to be there, but I will be there in his place. And then this weekend um or the 25th, whenever that is coming up, I leave for Tallahassee for the Florida League of C city's legislative days. And Miss Magcguire is going and um Mr. Gaylord is going as well. So, I'm looking forward to doing that. And guess you're not going. You just told me that. Okay. So, I'm looking forward to that as as well. That's my report, management report. Mr. Roadie,

really brief. Um, get your uh famous or infamous chili recipe ready council. We are the city is going to have a chili cook off here in early to midFebruary. We're still finalizing the date and so the council uh we is welcome to participate. We won't we won't put you in the uncomfortable position of judging said chili cookoff. But uh we do have some qualified uh judges. By qualified I mean people who have volunteered to judge. So um get get your favorite chili recipe ready and then we are still tracking for the workshop. So uh the the work please continue to hold that date. We are waiting anxiously for that date. There is one member who may not be able to do that and so we might have to pivot but as of now we are go for the workshop. So

okay that is all. All right Mr. Francis you had a question. Yeah. Um [clears throat] Mr. Odum it's on the ebikes. I know Chief you put something out on that or your department put something out on that. Can you just enlighten us to what your guys are going to enforce now because I know the communities are having a lot of problems with them and then it for the city attorney if there is any legislation coming up. It'd be interesting to know.

Yeah. So, we did put out an educational piece on emotos which are the ones that are that don't have pedals uh usually go more than 28 miles an hour. Um and then that's going to be followed up. It'll probably be out tomorrow. I just approved it tonight. another post on what ebikes are allowed because it also raises some people see uh people on legal ebikes and then shake their fist at them and say they shouldn't be doing that. Hold on, Chief. If I could just interrupt, why don't we define motos? Yes. Ebikes and scooters.

Got it. So, ebikes, there's actually up to three classes of ebikes. One is um just pedal assist that helps you pedal a little bit easier. That's a class one. Class two is uh it goes up to 20 miles an hour and it it can be run by throttle or by pedal assist. Uh class three then goes up to 28 miles an hour. Um and then that can be just throttle. Um but it does have pedals. Um all those none of them can be over 750 watts of power. Uh by statute it's supposed to be listed on the bike. All those types of things.

And they're allowed on sidewalks. They're allowed on sidewalks, uh, streets, uh, bicycle lanes, unless you have an ordinance that specifically prohibits it, but they are they are allowed, and we don't have anything that prohibits that. Then you take a step up to emotos, which really have been causing a lot more of our issues lately. Uh, I think a lot of uh, a lot of people received some for Christmas, maybe. Uh, but these are the ones that easy pretty easy to tell. Uh, they definitely go over 28 miles an hour, but they don't have the traditional bike pedals, so they can't break by. They just have the studs that their the feet go on and it's run by throttle only. That's the ones we've been having some problems with. Um to the point of we had some our goal is usually first education. Uh we tried to educate some local youths on that. Uh some of them chose to flee from the officers. Uh caused some issues. So the ones that have we've run into that have cooperated uh we've called parents said, "Hey, come on over. We need you to uh you know retrieve this. This isn't street legal. They have to have a license. They have to have insurance. Uh and they cannot be ridden on the roadway without those things. And the kids

and they license, right?

And they need a license. So if they're under 16, they don't have it. Uh the ones that chose to flee and uh uh take evasive measures and really create some issues. uh they were met with some uh uh toes of those emotos and parents had to pay or for them had to pay the uh the uh towing bill um and a a citation for for what they did. So um goal is education, but sometimes uh when they take it too far, we had to do some more enforcement. So uh we did put out an education piece on the e-otos because that's the one we were having the biggest problems with. What you're going to see is probably tomorrow a piece come out on ebikes. So people just understand people, you know, over 16, they don't have to have a helmet. They are allowed to ride on the sidewalks and on the street because some people get upset about them because they they just don't understand those either. So we're trying to educate both of those. Um, so

coming out in the email, right, that'll come out on our social media tomorrow. Is there is there going to be a link to the other one as well, so they can jump back and

Yeah, we we'll we can add I can make sure we add a link to it. So, um, but yeah, the the one side of these aren't allowed, but also what is allowed. Um, I think what you're what you're seeing happen at the state is there in some is some pending legislation uh that deals with uh certain speeds. Um, some some other areas have started looking at some local ordinance that might restrict uh where they could ebikes or e-otos could be uh because the e-otos only belong on private property basically. So, uh, we're closely monitoring what what the state's doing and if that's going to be adequate for us. Uh, but in the meantime, our officers are proactively engaging, especially with the juveniles. Uh, I think what not just here, but the problems is they they tend to go in in packs and be disruptive and disrespectful and uh uh when they're riding the emotos, we certainly have a a reason to stop them at that point. And our goal is safety. We don't want we don't want to be a headline. Uh because, you know, I'm glad I didn't have something that could go that fast when I was their age, you know, and it's just they're they're careless. And so, we're trying to educate. And what we have found though is by us being proactive and talking to these kids and some of the ones that we towed their emotos, uh word does start to get around that, hey, they mean business here. So, education is the goal. Enforcement is sometimes necessary. We'll combine both of those. uh see what comes out of the state law. We we've gone through that and then if we need to enact further measures here, we'll certainly be happy to bring those forward.

What's your advice for the communities and how to just contact a non-emergency number if it's a problem or

Yeah, and definitely contact the non-emergency number. Obviously, if there's something that's dangerous, uh call 911 and that way we know what location you're in. uh you know, if you're on a cell phone, it'll plot where you're at that we know exactly where the problem is occurring. Um we'd rather uh either way, you're gonna you're going to get a quick response and we're going to come out because we know it's been an issue. Um read up on them obviously before you you purchase any of those things for your children. Make sure you know what you're buying, uh what the speeds are. Some of those are going up to 40 45 miles an hour and yeah, it really is. So, we're trying to do what we can to stop it and I know other agencies are dealing with the same issues. And and just to clarify, e ebikes are okay. They are

under a certain class are okay on sidewalks, roadways, bike lanes. Yes. Emotos are not allowed. Correct. On public rideways. That's correct. They have to be licensed. They have to be insured. They don't have a VIN, so they can't be licensed or insured. So, all classes of ebikes are okay. Class one, two, and three are all currently okay. on the roadway up to 28 miles an hour. It's uh the Emotos, like I said, they would have to be licensed and insured, but they don't have a VIN, so they can't be licensed and insured. Uh plus, you would need a a licensed driver's license to operate them. They're only allowed on private property. And of course, with that private property's permission

and and that is the confusion. That has been the confusion is our issue is that either one they go up on the grasses, they tear up the grasses and they're very disrespectful like the chief was saying, um, you just kind of stop them just to talk to them and say, "Hey, stay on the damn roadway and don't mess up the grass." And but and the ones that we've dealt with that have been respectful and whatever and they've gotten the message and we haven't had additional problems with them. So, it's just going to take kind of a concerted effort to let them know we're paying attention out there and we certainly are. Thank you.

So, I have a question on this as well. So, Windgate during school time, certain school times, traffic is moving at 15 miles an hour, and the speed limit's 25 for most of it, and the kids are on the sidewalk doing 28. If it'll go 30, they'll do that. So, they're going faster than the cars are going. Um, and so the people who are out there just walking their dog or just not paying attention because they're quiet. You don't know they're coming along. How can we make this safe for the for the public who are just out there walking and you've got a kid coming by at 25 or 28 miles an hour?

Well, and that applies to the roadway. So, we would have to enact something locally. Uh, I know Cocoa Beach um they just enacted something dealing with passing on the on the sidewalk at a safe speed. It becomes really subjective though, what's considered safe as opposed to a set mile an hour. So, it's something that we'd really have to dive into. Um, you know, if it's a particular if it's, you know, school opening or school closing and we usually try and have officers out there in addition to our crossing guards, I can make sure they they kind of pay attention to some of that, too, and educate those kids. So, because you're right, if you're walking, you just you don't hear them coming.

You don't know they're there. And you have a dog on a leash, especially, and the kid gets between you and the dog and the leash, and it can be a mess. All right, that was it. That was my question. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kerry.

I didn't have a report tonight until about five minutes ago. And now I will uh let you know that the uh bill that I found that was currently had been filed uh is Senate Bill 382 if you want to monitor it. Uh it's by Sen Senator Trunau. And uh what that does is creates a new definition, the statute for electronic motorcycle, which is the emotives that he discussed. And um essentially if it's 750 watts and can travel over 28 m then it would be an emoto. And um in order to uh gather data they want the every police department to note in their accident reports that it was an emoto. So that's kind of what's out there right now. Um you know whether that bill will change or not uh as session goes through. We'll see. Um there are a couple of other provisions um that you would need to have a driver's license or learner's permit for a class three ebike which is up to 750 watts and up to 28 m. So

that would be the 20 to

same bill. And then it would also require, and this gets to what the mayor was saying, a person operating the ebike on a shared pathway that's not adjacent to a roadway, uh, must yield the pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing pedestrians. So, and the companion bill in the House of Representatives is House Bill 243 if you want to keep an eye on those bills if you're interested. And, um, you know, as they go through the process, if they get any traction, they could be amended in committee. So, what I uh noted to council member Adams last week, by next week may be obsolete. So, we'll see. Um, but I'll try to keep an eye on that and check in once a week or so and see if there's any updates on that.

All right. Thank you. Anything else? Anything else for the good of the order? Am I missing anything? Did I forget anyone? All right. Thank you. All right. We are adjourned.