One of a notable topics addressed was the proposed amendment to the Titusville Resort and Destination master plan. This amendment sought to transform Building F from multifamily residential units into a 100-bed assisted living facility (ALF), while reducing the number of multifamily units in Building G from 340 to 240. Despite the change in use, the overall number of residential units and non-residential square footage on the site would remain unchanged. However, the parking requirements became a point of contention. The current plan stipulates a need for 1,094 parking spaces, but the proposed amendment would provide only 992, necessitating a potential waiver from the Development Review Committee.

During the meeting, Eddie, a staff member, clarified that the assisted living facility must adhere to specific Land Development regulations, including minimum square footage for common areas and outdoor recreational space. The proposal required review due to the shift in usage from multifamily residential to assisted living, but it was noted that the new facility would comply with the Urban Village zoning district’s permitted uses.

Board discussions delved into various aspects of the amendment. Member Gad inquired about the nature of the application, seeking to understand if it involved a complete re-evaluation of development standards or merely the inclusion of the assisted living facility. Member Grant raised questions about the terminology of “rezoning,” highlighting that the amendment required a new ordinance number due to changes in conditions. Concerns about parking demands were also voiced, with Member Moso pointing out the typically lower parking requirements for assisted living facilities. The applicant had conducted a parking demand study to justify the proposed reduction in parking spaces. Additionally, there was dialogue about the flexibility of parking space sizes, with Eddie confirming that reduced dimensions were permissible under city standards.

The conversation around this amendment also touched on building heights, with the proposed changes setting a new maximum height of 75 feet for the buildings involved, compared to the previously approved 90 feet. A member raised concerns regarding the potential for architectural embellishments to exceed height limitations, emphasizing the need for clear definitions in zoning district standards.

Environmental concerns took center stage with a discussion about Cumberland Farms, where underground storage tanks have reportedly been leaking since 2002. A board member sought updates on this situation, noting potential environmental impacts on groundwater and nearby properties. Despite unanimous recommendations from an environmental advisory board for city intervention, the city had not taken action. The discussion revealed historical issues with these tanks dating back to 1995, with replacement efforts in 2002. Frustrations were expressed over the slow remediation progress, with calls for more proactive measures and transparency from Cumberland Farms regarding monitoring efforts.

The board also dealt with ordinance language simplification, recognizing the need for more accessible language in city ordinances to enhance public understanding. Discussions included the potential for providing simplified versions of ordinances alongside official documents and leveraging local vernacular to resonate with the community. Members agreed on the importance of public comprehension, stressing that while simplifying language is crucial, it should not dilute the content of the ordinances.