Regular City Council - April 26, 2022 at 6:30 PM

City Council 

Regular Meeting

April 26, 2022

The City of Titusville City Council met in regular session on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, at Titusville City Hall, second floor, Council Chamber, 555 South Washington Avenue, Titusville, Florida 32796. Mayor Diesel called the City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 

Those present in the Council Chamber included Mayor Daniel E. Diesel, Vice-Mayor Robert L. Jordan, Jr., City Council Members Jo Lynn Nelson, Joe C. Robinson, and Dr. Sarah Stoeckel. City Manager Scott Larese, City Attorney Richard Broome, and City Clerk Wanda Wells were also present. Assistant City Clerk Donhoff completed the minutes of the meeting. 

Mayor Diesel requested a moment of silence. He then led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. City Clerk Wanda Wells read the procedures for public comment and participation. 

xxx

APPROVAL OF MINUTES – None.

xxx

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS & PRESENTATIONS – None. 

xxx

Council made two modifications to the meeting’s agenda, as followed: 

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Jordan moved to table agenda item 9B - Ordinance No 14-2022 - Car Rental Agencies in Downtown Mixed Use District - Midtown Subdistrict to the regular City Council meeting of May 10, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. Member Nelson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Jordan moved to table agenda item 9C - Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment with Rezoning (SSA) #2-2020 - The Cottages to the regular City Council meeting of July 26, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. Member Nelson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

Additionally, City Manager Larese advised that agenda item 9D – Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) No. 1-2022 with  Annexation (Voluntary Annexation Application No. 1-2022), Correll Palms was withdrawn by the applicant.

xxx

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Student Advisory Council Annual Report – No action was requested. Several members of the 2021/2022 Student Advisory Council highlighted the Council’s Annual Report, including the recommendations and goals for 2022/2023. 

xxx

Student Advisory Council Scholarships - No action was requested. Mayor Diesel awarded scholarship checks to three (3) seniors of the 2021/2022 Student Advisory Council, including Jacob Phillips of Titusville High School, Benjamin Hamilton of the North Brevard Home School Association, and Emilee Ellis of Astronaut High School.

xxx

2022/2023 Student Advisory Council Membership Appointments – In accordance with Resolution No. 1-2017 and as recommended by the schools, the following slate of students were proposed to serve on the 2022/2023 Student Advisory Council:

Astronaut High School (4 students): 

• 12th grade: Savannah Sevor
• 11th grade: Addison Flake
• 10th grade: Callie Cerrato
• 9th grade: (selection of student pending from school) 

Titusville High School (4 students)

• 12th grade: Aiden Sperr
• 11th grade: Richie Dobbs
• 10th grade: Victoria Hillery
• 9th grade: Caydn Fiebig

North Brevard Home School Association (4 students)

• 12th grade: Aliyah Deimeke
• 11th grade: Edie Pringle
• 10th grade: Julia Moon
• 9th grade: Julia Curtis 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to appoint the aforementioned slate of students to the 2022/2023 Student Advisory Council, as selected and recommended by their respective schools. Vice-Mayor Jordan seconded the motion and the roll call vote was:

       Member Robinson                  Yes

                                    Member Nelson                      Yes

                                    Mayor Diesel                          Yes

                                    Vice-Mayor Jordan                 Yes

                                    Member Stoeckel                    Yes

The motion carried unanimously.

xxx

Titusville Housing Authority – No action was requested. The Titusville Housing Authority's Semi-Annual Report was written only and included in the agenda packet. 

xxx

PETITIONS AND REQUESTS FROM THE PUBLIC PRESENT (NON-AGENDA ITEMS)

Stan Johnston requested being able to speak on Council agenda items that did not propose or request action by the City Council. He also commented on receiving communication from the City on a development project. 

xxx

Jemuel Chaparro requested Council change the City’s Code to allow “U-Haul” rental trucks to be parked behind his business on Hopkins Avenue. His property was adjacent to the Save-a-Lot (grocery) in the downtown area.  

Community Development Director Peggy Busacca advised that rental trucks were not presently permitted in the zoning category where Mr. Chaparro’s property was located. She also advised that there was a related proposed ordinance under consideration that addressed the mid-town district, but not the downtown district. 

Council supported the request from the citizen for staff to review changing the Code to allow “U-Haul” rental trucks parked behind his business on Hopkins Avenue. The subject property was adjacent to the Save-a-Lot in the downtown area.  Staff would prepare a report to bring back to the City Council.

xxx

CONSENT AGENDA

Member Nelson requested discussing Consent Agenda Item I, following the City Manager reading the Consent Agenda. City Manager Larese read Consent Agenda Items A through L, as followed:

Member Nelson requested more information on Consent Agenda Item I, to which Public Works Director Kevin Cook distributed and discussed information with Council. 

Stan Johnston submitted public speaking cards on Consent Agenda Items B, D, E, F, H, I, J, and L. He reviewed why he was in favor of Items B, D, and E. He also reviewed why he was neutral or neither on Items F, H, I, J and L.

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Jordan moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A through L, in accordance with the recommendations. Member Nelson seconded the motion and the roll call vote was:

                                    Member Nelson                      Yes

                                    Mayor Diesel                          Yes

                                    Vice-Mayor Jordan                 Yes

                                    Member Stoeckel                    Yes

       Member Robinson                  Yes

The motion carried unanimously.

xxx

ORDINANCES – SECOND READING, PUBLIC HEARING AND RELATED ACTION

Ordinance No. 13-2022 - Marinas and Yacht Basin – City Attorney Broome read Ordinance No. 13-2022 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATED TO MARINAS BY AMENDING SECTIONS 28-54 “USE TABLE” AND 28-143 “MARINA AND YACHT BASIN “ TO ESTABLISH MARINAS AND YACHT BASINS AS A LIMITED USE IN THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE UPTOWN AND CIVIC WATERFRONT SUBDISTRICTS, AND TO REQUIRE APPROPRIATE SEWAGE PUMP-OUT FACILITIES IN MARINAS SERVICING BOATS WITH ON-BOARD FACILITIES, AND AMENDING SECTION 28-324 “DOWNTOWN MIXED-USE (DMU) SMART CODE TO REMOVE RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE REQUIREMENT FOR MARINAS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE, for the second time by title only. 

City Manager Larese highlighted the request provided in the Council agenda packet. 

The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this ordinance on April 6, 2022 and unanimously (7-0) recommended approval. The Community Redevelopment Agency considered this ordinance on April 12, 2022 and unanimously (6:0) recommended approval. 

Mayor Diesel opened the public hearing.

Stan Johnston declined to speak. 

As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. 

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Jordan moved to approve Ordinance No. 13-2022, as recommended. Member Nelson seconded the motion and the roll call vote was: 

                                    Mayor Diesel                          Yes

                                    Vice-Mayor Jordan                 Yes

                                    Member Stoeckel                    Yes

       Member Robinson                  Yes

       Member Nelson                      Yes

The motion carried unanimously.

xxx

Ordinance No 14-2022 - Car Rental Agencies in Downtown Mixed Use District - Midtown Subdistrict – Council tabled this item earlier in the meeting and to the regular City Council meeting of May 10, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. 

xxx

Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment with Rezoning (SSA) #2-2020 - The Cottages - Council tabled this item earlier in the meeting and to the regular City Council meeting of July 26, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. 

xxx

Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) No. 1-2022 with  Annexation (Voluntary Annexation Application No. 1-2022), Correll Palms - City Manager Larese advised earlier in the meeting that this agenda item was withdrawn by the applicant.

xxx

Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) No. 2-2022 - Sisson Townhomes - City Attorney Broome read the following ordinances, for the second time and by title only, as followed: 

Ordinance No. 19-2022 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 60-1988, WHICH ADOPTED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON APPROXIMATELY 11.82 ACRES +/- OF PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF SISSON ROAD, PARCEL I.D. NUMBER 22-35-27-AV-*-106, FROM THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE TO THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; and 

Ordinance No. 20-2022 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 05-1993 OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE BY REFERENCE BY CHANGING THE MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO THE MULTIFAMILY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONING DISTRICT ON APPROXIMATELY 11.82 ACRES +/- OF PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF SISSON ROAD, PARCEL I.D. NUMBER 22-35-27-AV-*-106; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The land use amendment was legislative and the rezoning was subject to the Quasi-judicial Rules and Procedures.

City Manager Larese highlighted the request provided in the Council agenda packet. The request was to conduct the public hearings on Ordinance Nos. 19-2022 and 20-2022, as related to Small Scale Amendment (SSA) Application No. 2-2022. The Applicant was requesting a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) with rezoning to utilize one zoning development standard for purposes of approving a concept plan for 91 townhomes. The property was located west of Sisson Road. The intent of the request was to change the western portion of a 11.82 acre parcel with Brevard County Tax I.D. No. 2213531 from the current Medium Density Residential future land use to High Density Residential and rezone the same portion of the property from the Multi-Family Medium Density Residential (R-2) zoning to High Density Residential (R-3). The acreage of the entire property included the subject tax numbers 2213531 and 2218356 for a total of 15 acres.

City Manager Larese advised that staff recommended preserving the existing land use as a transition between the low and high-density residential land uses.

The Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Planning Agency, considered this item on April 6, 2022 and recommended approval of the FLUM ordinance 6-1 and rezoning with concept plan and max 91 units, 7- 0. One member voted against the FLUM ordinance due to potential impact to wellfield and based on staff's recommendation.

Community Development Director Busacca highlighted the staff report included in the Council agenda packet. She also briefly reviewed some concerns and trade-offs related to more residential units being located to wells and contamination (water), fewer residences causing traffic impacts, further review and traffic analysis, etc. 

Discussion ensued on the number of allowable units, requirements related to impervious surfaces and drainage, development requirements, calculations or mathematical formulas on various development requirements, a traffic study was required regardless or if the number of trips per day was more than 500, etc. 

Mayor Diesel expressed concern on traffic and congestion in the subject site area. 

Member Stoeckel and staff discussed her questions related to development parameters that were presently allowable, if the proposed land use and zoning amendments did not change.  

Vice-Mayor Jordan, Member Robinson, and staff discussed their questions related to “trips” or traffic counts and characteristic areas of study (like single-family, multi-family, etc.). 

Member Nelson and staff discussed her questions related to the binding concept plan limited the project to 91 units; it was not the zoning or land use designations that determined this number of units. The question some might ask was whether the City would require a binding concept plan without a rezoning. There was no action taken if there was no rezoning. 

Additional discussion ensued on the potential current allowable units according the subject site’s raw acreage. If the proposed amendment(s) was approved, the number of allowable units could change without a binding concept plan. 

Mayor Diesel opened the public hearing.

Tara Tedrow, an attorney on behalf of Small Scale Amendment (SSA) Application No. 2-2022, gave a presentation that highlighted the following information on SSA Application No. 2-2022:

• Property location and portions thereof identified for amendments to land use or zoning
• Current future land use designation and City Comprehensive Plan sections
• Current and proposed zoning designations
• Residential uses permitted by right by zoning category 
• Residential development standards by zoning category 
• Density comparison and of the surrounding developments
• Proposed land use plan development program
• Impervious coverage calculations
• Comprehensive Plan Policies
• Additional basis for support, some which included information on traffic studies and professional publications for these analysis, transportation concurrency, capacity, and non-deficiencies (to address public perceptions of traffic) 
• Proposed architectural elevations
• Summary of public meetings on the proposed project
• Development Land Use Plan Development Program
• Questions 

Mayor Diesel appreciated that Ms. Tedrow addressed some of his questions and provided information on transportation concerns in her presentation. He also commented on his perception of transportation trends in the area of the subject site. 

Vice-Mayor Jordan and Ms. Tedrow discussed his questions related to estimated unit sale prices and square footage of the residences. 

Member Stoeckel and Ms. Tedrow discussed her questions related to traffic study procedures, how traffic studies distinguished between peak and non-peak traffic periods, transportation capacity standards, the City’s traffic engineer evaluated more than traffic capacity regulations such as frequency of crash reports in the area, etc.  They also discussed density, formal processes to make changes to the property, the binding concept plan and its attachment to the property or viability, etc.

Member Robinson reviewed his concerns on peak traffic times and roadway congestion. 

Catherine Spern lived near the subject site. She was concerned for gopher tortoises on the property.  

Stan Johnston advised that Sisson Road was a County Road and that the road was going to be widened. He asked whether the City was communicating and coordinating with the County. He also advised that the County would need a right-of-way to widen Sisson Road. Additionally, Mr. Johnston desired citizens being able to give electronic presentations to Council. 

Tara Tedrow provided rebuttal comments. She commented on State requirements on removing gopher tortoises. This public hearing was about zoning and entitlements. Many various regulatory reviews and requirements would be required later in the project, before the City would issue permits for development, such as accounting for protected species, etc. Ms. Tedrow advised that her client, not the City completed an independent traffic study using the County’s guidelines, whereas the City provided transportation concurrency analysis.  The project would also require the County’s consideration or permits related to items under the County’s regulatory authority (traffic, etc.). 

Member Stoeckel and staff discussed her questions on developing the property and what a potential buyer of the subject site would be required to complete, if the land use and zoning did not change.  

As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. 

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Jordan moved to approve Small Scale Amendment (SSA) Application No. 2-2022. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion. 

City Attorney Broome recommended the Council consider the proposed ordinances individually.

Vice-Mayor Jordan moved to amend the motion on the floor and approve Small Scale Amendment (SSA) Application No. 2-2022 and related Ordinance No. 19-2022, as recommended and with the with the conceptual site plan and maximum 91 units. Member Stoeckel’s second held and the roll call vote was: 

                                    Vice-Mayor Jordan                 Yes

                                    Member Stoeckel                    Yes

       Member Robinson                  Yes

       Member Nelson                      Yes

       Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Before announcing her vote, Member Nelson confirmed that the concept plan was included in the current motion to approve Ordinance No. 19-2022. The indication was yes. 

The motion carried unanimously.

City Attorney Broome advised that the concept plan was attached and associated with the rezoning ordinance for Small Scale Amendment (SSA) Application No. 2-2022. 

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Jordan moved to approve Ordinance No. 20-2022 with relation to Small Scale Amendment (SSA) Application No. 2-2022, as recommended with the conceptual site plan and maximum 91 units.

                                    Member Stoeckel                    Yes

       Member Robinson                  Yes

       Member Nelson                      Yes

       Mayor Diesel                          Yes

       Vice-Mayor Jordan                 Yes

The motion carried unanimously. 

xxx

ORDINANCES-FIRST READING

Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) No. 1-2021 Windover at Windsong - City Attorney Broome read the following ordinances, for the first time and by title only, as followed: 

Ordinance No. 21-2022 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 60-1988, WHICH ADOPTED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON APPROXIMATELY 13 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COLUMBIA BOULEVARD (STATE ROAD 405) JUST WEST OF WINDOVER WAY, PARCEL I.D. NUMBER 22-35-32-00-9, FROM CONSERVATION AND COMMERCIAL LOW INTENSITY FUTURE LAND USE TO CONSERVATION, COMMERCIAL LOW INTENSITY AND LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; and 

Ordinance No. 22-2022 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 05-1993 OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE BY REFERENCE BY CHANGING THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) AND OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION (OR) ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC), OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION (OR) AND SINGLE-FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1B) ZONING DISTRICTS ON APPROXIMATELY 13 ACRES +/- OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COLUMBIA BOULEVARD (STATE ROAD 405) JUST WEST OF WINDOVER WAY, PARCEL I.D. 22-35-32-00-9; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

City Manager Larese highlighted the request provided in the Council agenda packet. The request was to conduct the first reading of the ordinances related to Small Scale Amendment (SSA) Application No. 1-2021. He advised that on April 20, 2022, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Planning Agency, recommended denial, 6-1. The reasons provided were that two houses could already be built in the OR zoning district and that the R-1B zoning was too intense and there were concerns about the impact to the trees. 

The proposed land use amendment was a legislative item and the rezoning was a quasi-judicial item.

Community Development Director Busacca advised that staff was available to answer questions; however, any evidence that needed to be entered or submitted would occur during the public hearing scheduled for the regular City Council meeting on May 10, 2022. 

Numerous individuals submitted public speaking cards on the agenda item for the first reading of the proposed ordinances. Mayor Diesel and Vice-Mayor Jordan commented on receiving emails from the community on the proposed Small Scale Amendment  (SSA) Application. They also discussed inviting representatives of the many individuals that were present to share the community’s opinions with the Council, in case individuals within groups and of similar opinion, more or less said the same thing; however, each individual also had the right to be heard. 

Mayor Diesel and City Attorney Broome reviewed the procedures to hear from the applicant and those present for the first reading of the proposed ordinances and related small scale amendment (SSA) application.

Jason Wright and Megan Wright, the applicant and property owners of the subject site, distributed information. The Wrights commented on their desire to build two homes on their 10-acre property, providing a survey or document with this information to the City (if the Council desired), their desire to maneuver around and preserve trees, not building on wetlands, the buildable area on their property was in a “funky” area, meeting setback requirements required by various agency codes, etc.

The Wrights continued and commented on the public’s input and discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, their presence in the community and personal involvements, their intentions to build two single-family homes on their property, the public’s concern if they were to sell their property, the Wright’s financial investment thus far to complete securing plans or engineering services to prepare for building new home(s), removing an incorrect label associated with the former owner of their property and former project name (Windsong at Windover), etc. 

Additionally, Ms. Wright reviewed why she was not comfortable applying for a conditional use permit to achieve her goals of building the two homes on the subject site. She also commented on the community’s prior input and substantive records related to previous or historical proposed changes to the property (by former property owners), the Wright’s property was located inside the City limits and many individuals that did not support the Wright’s request lived in Brevard County’s jurisdiction, not the City.  Ms. Wright continued and advised that when her property was annexed into the City, 44 townhomes were planned for the subject property, whereas presently, she and her husband desired building two homes. At this point, the Wrights had spent thousands of dollars toward being able to build two homes on their property. 

Member Nelson and Ms. Wright discussed her questions related to a map of the subject property and the items on the map. Staff advised that the St. Johns Water Management District typically required a 15-foot setback from wetlands. Then, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would be the regulatory agency for the single-family house if the property owners proposed to impact or build in the wetlands. A power line easement was also discussed, which the Wrights intended to use or keep for their driveway. The Wrights also desired keeping trees that provided screening and privacy from the neighbors. 

Discussion ensued on the proposed rezoning designation provided different setback requirements, which the Wrights advised would assist them to maneuver around trees. The discussion also touched on the community desired assurances that only two houses would be built on the property. 

Jason Wright and Megan Wright requested Council table the public hearing to the regular City Council meeting of June 14, 2022, for the purpose of facilitating having their attorney present at the public hearing. 

Member Stoeckel and Ms. Wright discussed her questions related to why the Wrights desired reducing the area presently dedicated to commercial use and increasing the area for residential use. Member Stoeckel recommended the Wrights submit a binding concept plan for the two homes they desired building, which would give the community assurance that the future density of the subject site would not increase. Vice-Mayor Jordan supported this recommendation and discussed property owner rights, reaching a compromise with the community, promoting trust, etc.   

The Wrights advised that if the Council did not approve their request, they would sell the property. 

Mayor Diesel supported the idea of having a binding concept plan for the two homes. Member Nelson recommended the Wrights’ attorney working with the City to add additional information on these types of concerns into the recitals of the proposed and related ordinances.

Per Vice-Mayor Jordan’s request for clarification, Ms. Wright advised that her brother and his wife (who were at the meeting) would own the second proposed home on the subject site. By the Single-Family Medium Density Residential (R-1B) zoning requirements, each home was required to be at least 1,200 square feet in size.

Mr. Wright advised that building and material costs were presently high and building two homes on the property would not begin immediately, if Council approved the request. 

Mayor Diesel commented on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendations. Ms. Wright indicated that building the two homes under the property’s present land use and zoning designations and via a hypothetical conditional use permit (CUP) would not work for them, because a 50-foot setback would be required and this caused them difficulties. The Wrights also indicated that any conditions that could be imposed with a conditional use permit were “an unknown” factor, because they could not be known unless they submitted a CUP application and requested a public hearing. For this reason, the Wrights selected the small scale amendment application and requested rezoning their property because zoning requirements were clear. 

Mayor Diesel requested hearing from the public and any representatives that may represent groups amongst the individuals at the meeting. City Attorney Broome confirmed with City Clerk Wells there were an additional 21 public speaking cards from individuals that were “for” or in favor of Small Scale Amendment (SSA) No. 1-2021. 

Brief discussion ensued on public participation procedures or the Quasi-judicial Rules of Procedure and whether the City would hear from individuals in the order of for, against, and neutral (during first reading of the proposed ordinances), and hearing from group representatives from each of these positions associated with the individual public speaking cards. 

Jacqueline McLaughlin, family member of Jason and Megan Wright, desired building the second home on the subject property. She advised that she was a local business owner and her family’s life and activities were in Titusville. She compared the concerns of a previous agenda item at the meeting that were addressed by an attorney or developer (concerns for traffic studies, traffic concurrency, etc.) and advised that there would not be any concerns like these, if the Wrights and her family were allowed to build two homes on the 10-acre subject site. She also discussed researching the history of the property, annexing into the City, Comprehensive Plan requirements, etc. 

Sandra Clinger reviewed her formal education, which emphasized protecting resources in the coastal zone that were subject to development. She read from a prepared statement that reviewed her request and desire for the applicants to pursue obtaining a conditional use permit, rather than a small scale amendment, for reasons related to concerns for density, Open Space and Recreation (OR) zoning regulations, preserving wetlands, uplands, trees, environmentally sensitive areas, etc. She also displayed (in-hand) a large drawing or map of the subject site and information on the drawing to support the rationale for her concerns and request. 

Ms. Clinger further commented on the subject site was the entrance for the Windover neighborhood, the proposed small scale amendment application was inconsistent with several areas of the Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Codes, getting a site plan, minimizing impacts, reasons the Council should deny the proposed request, rezoning should not be used as a tool to address setbacks, employing other design options to build two residences, etc. 

Member Stoeckel summarized the applicants (Jason Wright and Megan Wright) two main concerns and why they were pursuing a small-scale amendment versus a conditional use permit. The issues were related to 50-foot setback requirements in the wetlands and reducing the commercial area and adding more area that was residential. As a compromise, there was the idea to secure a binding concept plan that allowed two single-family homes to be built on the subject site. 

Ms. Clinger felt changing the property’s zoning to Single-Family Medium Density Residential (R-1B) zoning was a “big jump”. 

Discussion ensued on setback distances and if more than one zoning designation applied to a property, the zoning area began at the zoning’s boundary, not necessarily the property boundary. These matters were tied with setback requirements. Additional discussion continued on allowable uses on the property’s current zoning. In Open Space and Recreation (OR) zoning, some uses could feel intense to communities, like tennis clubs, etc. 

Vice-Mayor Jordan advised that he had driven by the site. He advised that the Windover neighborhood was beautiful. He commented on reaching a compromise through securing a binding concept plan (agreement) for the property and being flexible. 

Connie Milton distributed information. She felt that development agreements were not binding. She referenced City Code Chapter 34, Article VIII, and the Development Review Procedures Manual, Section 16, related to Development Agreements, including that they expired at the end of five years. 

Staff advised that development agreements and binding concept plans were not the same.

City Attorney Broome read and highlighted the requirements for concept plans under Code Chapter 34, Section 34-39. Concept plans (in conjunction with rezoning) were binding on the property and its future successors, heirs, etc.  To modify this scenario, formal rezoning or zoning amendment procedures for the property would need to occur. 

Ms. Milton continued and displayed (in-hand) a large drawing or map of the subject site. She reviewed why the Council should not approve the applicant’s request. She also did not want Council to amend the property’s Open Space and Recreation (OR) zoned areas. Instead, she felt the applicants could build the two desired homes under the current land use and zoning designations, by obtaining variances to do so, etc. Additionally, Ms. Milton advised that a petition (exhibit) was submitted from persons against the requested action. She continued and covered various pieces of information with the Council on why the proposed request could facilitate future development that was too intense or impacted the nearby Windover neighborhood.  

Member Stoeckel and staff discussed her questions related to the applicants building their homes under the subject site’s current land use and zoning designations. This discussion included that the scale of maps or maps created by others may not be accurately scaled, unless confirmed accurate. 

Member Nelson and staff discussed that a tree survey would not be received or reviewed until the process to issue a building permit. Member Nelson interpreted that Ms. Milton wanted a tree buffer. 

Discussion ensued on options afforded to property owners to obtain their goals. When asked why or how rezoning was a useful option, staff advised zoning designations affected a larger assortment of items, such as uses of the property, intensity, setbacks, height, etc., whereas a variance application required the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to consider very specific information. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals could also not take into their analysis the Windover community (nearby residents). Further, if decisions of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals were challenged, those matters were decided by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, not the Council. Further, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals was not allowed to consider financial impacts, if scenarios “were of the person’s own making”, etc. 

Ms. Milton was interested in obtaining the document or information that determined how a curvy shaped wetland boundary on the subject site was determined. 

Megan Wright questioned whether Ms. Milton was qualified to review the survey of the subject site of her property. 

Mayor Diesel and City Attorney Broome reviewed public participation procedures to ensure hearing from all individuals that desired speaking individually or that desired being represented by any informal designated representatives. 

Susan Perez desired preserving the Windover neighborhood’s character like it was now. She also felt trust needed to be earned. She feared the subject site may be developed too intensely one day, which would impact the enjoyment and special character by the Windover residents. 

Virginia Wright advised the Windover community may be located in the County’s jurisdiction, but its many residents shopped and worshipped in Titusville, etc. 

Paul Leader recommended getting written agreements that could be attached to the property versus accepting verbal intentions from applicants. Scenarios changed. For instance, if the present owners could not obtain financing to construct the two homes and were forced to abandon their plans. He also felt the property owners could build their homes under the existing land use and zoning designations. 

Judith Kinloch confirmed the proposed rezoning would not change the zoning of her property. She was also concerned with having to repeat coming back to Council, if additional and future public hearings were scheduled for the subject site.  

Staff advised that the proposed changes could provide “a sense of permanency”, whereas a conditional use permit had an expiration date; however, land use and rezoning changes could eventually be requested or made via required processes (not permanent if future land use and zoning designation changes were made). 

Edna Humphrey confirmed that a binding concept plan would be attached to the subject property, not the owner. She felt this was a win-win solution for all stakeholders. 

Stan Johnston was displeased with public speaking procedures and the use of Robert’s Rules of Order at the first reading of the proposed ordinances. 

Lindsey Grizzle confirmed the public hearing for Small Scale Amendment (SSA) Application No. 1-2021 and the second reading of the related ordinances was advertised and scheduled for the regular City Council meeting on May 10, 2022. It was possible the Council could table the requested action to a future City Council meeting. 

Christine Boland reviewed the applicants’ professional statuses. She also questioned whether any Council members must abstain from voting based on financial conflict and interest. 

Veronica Clifford did not support rezoning the subject site. She did not see why the applicants did not pursue Council’s approval of conditional use permit (CUP) to achieve their goals. She also felt a prior precedence was established for a favorable outcome, if the applicants pursued a CUP. 

Staff advised that the applicant submitted the type of application they desired to assist them with their goals, not the City. Each request had an associated set of procedures. Staff also reviewed the Quasi-judicial Rules and Procedures that required consideration of facts and evidence during the public hearing. 

Robyn Rogers questioned if Council approved the proposed request, whether precedence would cause an inevitable cascade of similar changes to nearby properties. 

Staff discussed two properties near the subject site, with zoning designations that allowed 15 units per acre. Some other nearby properties were platted. Some did not have deed restrictions. In short, any request for any property was completed on a case-by-case and comprehensive analysis. There was not a precedence. 

Carlos Novela was interested in whether sewer services would be extended to the subject site, to which staff commented in response. About septic, the State regulated septic tanks. Mr. Novela was concerned that sewage could affect bird habitat. 

Haley Thomas expressed concern on ambiguous plans. She felt detailed plans would reassure the community. She was also in favor of responsible development. 

Vice-Mayor Jordan commented on the purpose of the proposed ordinances. Mayor Diesel agreed and desired striving for a win-win solution, too. Member Stoeckel advised it was important to her to navigate and review information related to setback requirements. 

Alexandra Ray advised her main concern was environmental impacts. She was impartial, but desired more information from each party and being rational and respectful to all. 

David Poole advised that it was inevitable the property would change ownership in the future and future owners could champion other plans for the property. He did not support amending the zoning of the subject site. 

There were no additional persons that wished to speak. 

Proposed Ordinance Nos. 21-2022 and 22-2022 were read by title only. The public hearing for Small Scale Amendment Application No. 1-2021 and the related ordinances was scheduled for the regular City Council meeting on May 10, 2022.

xxx

Mayor Diesel called for a recess from 10:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:23 p.m. 

xxx

OLD BUSINESS

Comprehensive Plan - Adoption Strategy – City Manager Larese highlighted the request provided in the Council agenda packet, which was to approve the strategy to incorporate portions of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan into the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Council previously directed staff to propose a strategy, whereby certain portions of the Draft 2040 TitusvilleTomorrow Comprehensive Plan may be incorporated into the adopted Comprehensive Plan. To this, staff’s recommendation was to consider adopting four separate amendments. The four amendments and associated topics were Mobility (Transportation), Housing and Historic Preservation, Land Use and Environmental. Each was highlighted, as followed: 

1. Replace the existing Transportation Element of the adopted comprehensive plan with the Mobility Goals, Objectives, Policies and Strategies (GOPs) from the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
2. Amend the existing Housing Element and other related portions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan with the Housing GOPs from the Draft 2040 Plan. The amendment may also include several draft Historic Preservation related GOPs.
3. Add a selection of the GOPs from the City-wide (CD), Downtown (DT), Waterfront (WF), Gateway (GW), Neighborhood Preservation (NP), Employment (EM) and Open Space (OS) of the Draft 2040 Plan into the Future Land Use Element of the adopted comprehensive plan.
4. Amend the Conservation Element of the adopted comprehensive plan with selected environment related GOPs from the Draft 2040 Plan.

The Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan began in 2017 with the TitusvilleTomorrow public engagement project, which was presented at a number of Commission and Council meetings in 2018-2020, and transmitted to the State for review in 2021. After a thorough review of the State's comments and concerns and the recent adoption of property rights bills by the Legislature, the staff recommended Council consider an alternative to adopting the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan.

During the Council's Presentation Meeting (on April 26, 2022), staff gave an update on the status of the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan and a summary of the comments received from the State agencies. The staff also described the alternative "next steps" the City Council could consider in light of recent statutory changes. These included:

1. Adopting the plan with the State's recommended changes, or
2. Adopt portions of the plan into the City's existing (adopted) comprehensive plan. [preferred]

On July 13, 2021, the City Council approved the Transmittal of Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 1-2021 to the State's Land Planning Agency, Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) for review. In September 2021, the City received comments and recommendations from the DEO, the Department of Transportation (FDOT), and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC). The DEO and Regional Planning Council recommended updating the resiliency related studies and language in the Comprehensive Plan, and the FDOT expressed concern about the impact the increased density would have on state roadways. Adoption of the plan would be significantly delayed in order to address the State's recommendations and concerns.

The staff recommended approval of the alternative of adopting certain portions of the plan into the existing (adopted) Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, policies related to economic development, housing, mixed use development, and transportation. 

Community Development Director Busacca advised the City would seek a consultant to assist the City’s with the related objectives, since it did not have enough staff. Draft language for the LDR to understand the implication (more specificity of the policy application) of the draft policies

Stan Johnston submitted a public speaking card. He advised that he was a registered professional engineer. His concern was using erroneous policies and having a Comprehensive Plan that was incorrect. He continued and reviewed further concerns on flood zone calculations, maintaining drainage ditches that led outside the City, etc. 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to approve the strategy to incorporate portions of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan into the adopted Comprehensive Plan, as recommended. Vice-Mayor Jordan seconded the motion and the roll call vote was:

Member Robinson                  Yes

Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Jordan                 Yes

Member Stoeckel                    Yes

The motion carried unanimously. 

xxx

NEW BUSINESS – None. 

xxx

PETITIONS AND REQUESTS FROM THE PUBLIC PRESENT (NON-AGENDA ITEMS) – None. 

xxx

It was 10:28 p.m. 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to extend the meeting until 10:40 p.m. Vice-Mayor Jordan seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. 

xxx

MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS

Mayor's Report - Mayor Diesel submitted his written report.

Mayor Diesel requested staff to prepare a plaque for Sand Point Park on the history of the Little League.  There was no objection from Council.

xxx

Council Reports - 

Mayor Diesel commented on the success of the City’s recent annual employee picnic. 

Member Robinson commented on recent training that he attended and facilitated by the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO).   

Member Nelson commended the Community Relations Department and the recent issue of the Titusville Talking Points Magazine that featured an article on the new Boys & Girls Club facility (the Carter House) on the front and back covers.

Second, Member Nelson advised that Keep Brevard Beautiful was hosting a coastal cleanup on September 17, 2022, in case the Council, the public, or any groups desired assisting with the cleanup.  

Vice-Mayor Jordan requested having staff review the City Manager’s salary to ensure it was commensurate with other city managers or similar cities, etc. 

Mayor Diesel desired a pay study for the City workforce. City Manager Larese advised an employee pay plan study was proposed with the mid-year budget requests. 

xxx

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

City Manager's Report - City Manager Larese submitted his written report. There was one informational only, including the Annual Student Awards Ceremony – May 2, 2022, 6:00 p.m., Titusville High Performing Arts Center. City Manager Larese commented on using precautions with hand-shaking as the community transitioned through the COVID-19 pandemic. 

xxx

CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT – None. 

xxx

With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 10:39 p.m.