Council approves first readings for 150‑unit townhouse plan near Coastal Commerce Center

The West Melbourne City Council on first reading approved a pair of ordinances that clear the way for a 150‑unit townhome project on roughly 16.21 acres south of West New Haven Avenue and the Coastal Commerce Center.

Christy Fisher, the city’s planning director, told council the applicant proposes fee‑simple townhomes rather than apartments and asked the council to amend the comprehensive plan and rezone the site from commercial to medium‑density residential and R‑2. “The proposal from the applicant is for 150 units,” Fisher said, and staff included a 150‑unit cap in the draft development agreement to avoid the higher theoretical density allowed under the land‑use designation.

The nut graf: The first readings — ordinance 2025‑19 to amend the future land use map and ordinance 2025‑20 to rezone the property — passed unanimously 7‑0. Council and staff emphasized infrastructure, stormwater and buffering; the development agreement will return at a subsequent meeting for final approval and any negotiated changes.

Council and staff said the site is a long‑undeveloped infill parcel annexed in 2007 and framed by commercial uses to the north, a canal to the south, and single‑family homes to the southeast. Fisher and applicant representatives said under a build‑out comparison the townhouse plan would generate fewer vehicle trips and less impervious coverage than a full commercial build‑out of the parcel.

Courtney Barker, speaking for Local Land Co. Florida, described project features: a mix of rear‑loaded and front‑loaded townhome models, a pool and cabana amenity, paved driveways, textured garage doors and an on‑site stormwater system sized to meet new state treatment standards. Barker said the developer intends a mix of 20‑foot‑wide townhouse lots, and that rear‑loaded units would be served by 30‑foot alleys. She also said the project design reserves about 27% of the site for stormwater and about 22% for building footprints.

Council members questioned buffer widths, trash‑truck turnarounds, street lighting and whether sidewalks and walking trails shown on concept plans would be guaranteed. Barker and Fisher said the city and applicant would put amenity and trail commitments into the development agreement. Fisher confirmed that staff had negotiated a change from a previous request for 0‑foot perimeter landscaping to a minimum three‑foot perimeter landscape where needed, plus a six‑foot opaque wall behind three buildings and a six‑foot PVC fence elsewhere along the property perimeter.

The applicant also offered to annex a 0.67‑acre triangular parcel adjacent to the site (Parcel 3) into the city and either place it under a conservation easement or dedicate it to the city for a potential future city sign; Deborah Gutierrez, the property owner, said she supported annexation and preservation of the small triangle.

Council action: On motion by Councilmember Adams and second by Councilmember Frampus, council approved the first reading of ordinance 2025‑19 (comprehensive plan amendment) and ordinance 2025‑20 (rezoning) by roll call, 7‑0. The development agreement will be revised per council direction and returned for final action at the next meeting. Staff noted the draft development agreement in the packet was intentionally presented as a working document to accept edits and additional conditions.

Looking ahead: Council asked staff to return a revised development agreement that (at minimum) clarifies sidewalk and trail commitments as binding, confirms how gated‑community approvals will be handled, documents tree‑planting sizes and irrigation commitments for the perimeter buffer, and specifies timing and permits for the Tillman canal work the developer proposes to pipe and relocate. The Council did not take final action on the development agreement at the meeting.