Regular City Council - February 28, 2023 at 6:30 PM

City Council

Regular Meeting

February 28, 2023

The City Council of the City of Titusville, Florida met in regular session in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 555 South Washington Avenue, on Tuesday, February 28, 2023. 

Mayor Diesel called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m., not 6:30 p.m., due to the prior City Council at 5:30 p.m. for special recognitions and presentations meeting ran late. 

Present were Mayor Daniel E. Diesel, Vice Mayor Joe C. Robinson, and City Council Members Herman A. Cole, Jr., Col USAF Retired, Jo Lynn Nelson, and Dr. Sarah Stoeckel. Also present were City Manager Scott Larese, City Attorney Richard Broome, and City Clerk Wanda Wells.  Assistant City Clerk Jolynn 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 Wells read the procedures for public comment and participation. 

xxx

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Staff distributed a revised draft of the minutes of January 10, 2023, amending the date or header from January 10, 2022 to January 10, 2023. 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to approve the minutes of the regular City Council meeting on January 10, 2023, as revised and the special City Council meeting on February 4, 2023, as submitted. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

xxx

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS & PRESENTATIONS – None. 

xxx

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Student Advisory Council - Resolution No. 5-2023 – The request was to approve Resolution No. 5-2023 - Amending Resolution Nos. 42-1993, 18-1995, 46-2000, 5-2009, 43-2010, and 1-2017 which established the Student Advisory Council, by amending the Appointment of Members, Term of Office, Quorum, etc., by deleting any reference to the North Brevard Homeschool Association and replacing it with the Academic Community Enrichment, Inc.

Stan Johnston submitted a public speaking card. He requested Council amend the proposed resolution by requiring Student Advisory Council members to attend at least one City Council meeting. 

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Robinson moved to approve Resolution No. 5-2023, as recommended. Member Cole seconded the motion and the roll call vote was: 

Member Cole                          Yes

          Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

         Member Stoeckel                    Yes

The motion carried unanimously. 

xxx

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

Kay St. Onge read from a prepared statement that reviewed her concerns on a sewer spill that occurred in December 2020, including a lawsuit filed on behalf of a boy and concerns for bacterial infections and the safety of recreational activities related to the Indian River Lagoon, posting public warnings in the community on the dangers of raw sewage, a request to continuously monitor bacteria in water outfall areas that flowed into the lagoon, etc. 

Bill Klein expressed concern for public health and safety for the swimming area at Parrish Park. He referenced other counties and cities that issued public health advisory warnings when there were concerns or issues related to bodies of water in the community. Mr. Klein requested testing nutrients in park ponds and water outfall areas that flowed into the lagoon, in order to keep the community safe and if there were concerns for public health and safety. 

Toni Shifalo commented on the purpose of the 2022 Speak Up Titusville Charter Amendment and rights to clean water. 

Nayra Atiya commented on a personal health related event that she experienced in 2006, which she believed was caused by bacteria in the Indian River Lagoon. 

Kristin Lortie supported local and statewide initiatives for clean water that she said would appear on the 2024 election ballot. She also reviewed a news article of February 23, 2023 that appeared in The Advocate, concerning the public health and safety concerns. Ms. Lortie requested the City to be accountable, proactive, and citizen inclusive in the shared endeavor to address the health, safety, and water quality of the Indian River Lagoon, which was an objective in the City’s Strategic Plan. 

Maureen Rupe read from a prepared statement that cautioned that when nature was mistreated, it would mistreat communities. 

Stan Johnston distributed information. He expressed dissatisfaction of a City official and his concerns for dishonesty and fraud by a City official. 

Stu Buchanan distributed information. He read from a prepared statement that recognized and thanked the City’s Code Enforcement Division for the professionalism and contribution to the community. 

Joe Hill expressed concern for sidewalks, bike paths, and pedestrian walkways in certain areas. Second, he requested amending the City’s backyard chicken ordinance by allowing more than four hens, as well as allow citizens to have several bantam hens (Bantams were miniature or smaller than conventional size chickens). Third, Mr. Hill requested school resource police officers be equipped with Narcan, in order to immediately counteract harmful illegal drugs that may kill children. He advised that dangerous drugs were made to look like candy. Fourth, on electric card, he expressed concern for the City’s power grid and whether electric car charging would impact the grid. 

Per Mayor Diesel’s request, Public Works Director Kevin Cook provided an update on sidewalk and traffic infrastructure improvements. 

Natalie Le James expressed her concern on a prior sewer spill and asked the City to do something about it. 

Terry Perez expressed concern on the health and safety of the Indian River Lagoon and negative impact on human health. Recreational water activities were important to youth. Polluted water caused by prior damage and development and population growth impacted marine life and humans. 

xxx

CONSENT AGENDA

City Manager Larese read Consent Agenda Items A though G, as followed:

Stan Johnston submitted public speaking cards on Consent Agenda Items A, B, C, and D. He reviewed why he was neutral on Consent Items A and B, opposed to Consent Item C, and why he supported Consent Item D.  

Motion:

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

Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          Yes

The motion carried unanimously.  

xxx

ORDINANCES – SECOND READING, PUBLIC HEARING AND RELATED ACTION

Ordinance No. 8-2023 - Establishing rules for the use of certain City facilities and a process for the issuance and appeal of trespass warnings for violations occurring on public property - City Attorney Broome read Ordinance No. 8-2023 – AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 13, NUISANCES, BY ENACTING A NEW ARTICLE VI ENTITLED “TRESPASS PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC PROPERTY” AND ENACTING SECTIONS 13-120 THROUGH 13-123 PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION AND MANAGEMENT OF   PUBLIC ACCESS TO CITY-OWNED, CONTROLLED, AND LEASED PROPERTY BASED UPON ITS INTENDED USE; ESTABLISHING RULES FOR USE OF CITY FACILITIES; ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR THE ISSUANCE AND APPEAL OF TRESPASS WARNINGS; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE, for the second time by title only. 

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

Mayor Diesel opened the public hearing. 

Stu Buchanan supported the proposed ordinance, for the purpose of deterring individuals that wandered into otherwise restricted areas of City facilities and for how the ordinance pertained to public parks.  

Toni Shifalo was against the proposed ordinance, for the reasons that the ordinance language was too vague and gave too much authority to the government. 

Stan Johnston was against the proposed ordinance for personal reasons. He expressed his dissatisfaction with City procedures and City officials. 

Kristin Lortie was against the proposed ordinance due to she felt the length of time an individual might be trespassed from a city facility or park was too excessive. She also felt the ordinance gave too much authority to the government. 

With no additional persons that wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.  

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Robinson moved to approve Ordinance No. 8-2023, as recommended. Member Nelson seconded the motion and the roll call was:        

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          Yes

Member Nelson                      Yes

The motion carried unanimously.  

xxx

Ordinance No. 16-2023 - Single-family dwellings in the Open Space and Recreation (OR) zoning district and the Wetland and Conservation Area (WCA) Overlay - City Attorney Broome read Ordinance No. 16-2023 – AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION (OR) ZONING DISTRICT, AND WETLAND AND CONSERVATION AREA (WCA) OVERLAY DISTRICT; SPECIFICALLY AMENDING CHAPTER 28 “ZONING” SECTIONS 28-54 “ZONING USE TABLE”, 28-80 “SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS (DETACHED)” AND 28-322 “OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION (OR)”; AND BY AMENDING CHAPTER 29 “SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND OVERLAYS”, SECTION 29-74 “CONDITIONAL USES”; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, EFFECTIVE DATE AND INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE, for the first time by title only.

This was the first reading and the first public hearing. 

City Manager Larese highlighted the request in the Council agenda packet. He advised the second and final public hearing was scheduled for the regular City Council meeting on March 14, 2023, beginning at 6:30 p.m.   Additionally, on February 22, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission made a motion to accept this ordinance as presented. 

Mayor Diesel opened the first public hearing. 

Connie Milton was neutral on the proposed ordinance. She expressed her understanding on the history for why the ordinance was proposed, Council’s prior direction to staff on amending the Code language, the importance of clarifying and formatting the Code language on wetlands and uplands for single family dwellings, etc. 

Per Mayor Diesel’s request, Community Development Director Brad Parrish provided information on how the proposed ordinance was drafted and formatted, based on the number of uses, definitions, avoiding redundancy, etc.   

Sandra Clinger was neutral on the proposed ordinance. She felt the current Code did not need to change. She reviewed her concerns on the staff report and wetland protection areas, permitting with the State versus at the City, the State did not enforce City Codes, legal protection of wetlands, concerns for developing a single-family home, wetlands impacting the larger community, functional wetland values, etc. 

Stan Johnston was against the proposed ordinance. He felt a larger problem was at stake, which was dishonesty and fraud. He expressed concerns for seven weirs and whether the City was environmentally sustainable. 

With no additional persons that wished to speak, the first public hearing was closed.  This was the first reading and the first public hearing on Ordinance No. 16-2023. The second reading and final public hearing was scheduled for the regular City Council meeting on March 14, 2023 at 6:30 p.m.

xxx

Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application No. 7-2022, 1881 Knox McRae Drive - City Manager Larese highlighted the request in the Council agenda packet. The request was to conduct the public hearing and review CUP Application No. 7-2022 for a school at 1881 Knox McRae Drive. This was a quasi-judicial item. Additionally, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item on February 8, 2023. The Commission recommended denial of Conditional Use Permit Application No. 7-2022, due to concerns with the location of the playground near Barna Avenue. 

City Attorney Broome reviewed the Quasi-judicial Rules of Procedure with the Council. 

Council reviewed their familiarity with the property at 1881 Knox McRae Drive and whether or not they had formed any opinions about Conditional Use Permit Application No. 7-2022. The indication was no and the Council were objective.  Principal Planner Eddy Galindo reviewed the staff report and proposal for the property. The focus of the request was relocating a playground at the subject site. 

Mayor Diesel opened the public hearing. 

Dwayne L. Dickerson, an attorney on behalf of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application No. 7-2022 and his client, Village Charter Holdings, gave a presentation that reviewed the location and size of the subject property, existing site conditions, his client’s goals provided (the immediate request was to relocate the playground), installing physical traffic barriers or bollards for safety reasons and which would address the Planning and Zoning Commission’s concerns for children’s safety, etc. 

Mr. Dickerson was also prepared to review his client’s other (separate) goals for the subject property and had prepared existing and proposed future land use and zoning maps for the subject site. City Attorney Broome requested keeping the evidence and records for this public hearing specific to the CUP Application No. 7-2022. The City Attorney also reviewed Quasi-judicial procedures and steps. Mayor Diesel and Mr. Dickerson discussed whether stakeholders at the subject site were supportive of the request. Member Nelson and Mr. Dickerson discussed her questions on landscaping, etc.  

Sandra Zumpano and Stan Johnston waived their right to speak.

Ervin Jenkins indicated he was neutral on the request. He owned the Space Coast Early Learning and Daycare Center---a tenant and business at the subject site. Since his business accommodated toddlers, he was concerned for traffic and the new proposed location for the playground. He also desired learning if another school or daycare was moving-into the shopping center on the subject site. 

Staff and Mr. Dickerson reviewed information on the project, in response to Mr. Jenkins’ questions, concerning the number of parcels making up the subject site, the existing CUP was proposed to be revised, relocating the playground and the new distance children may need to walk to reach the playground, etc. 

Mayor Diesel felt the property owner’s representatives needed to discuss and communicate more with the tenants prior to this meeting. Member Stoeckel confirmed the property was zoned commercial and she commented about following the City’s vision rather than making spot adjustments on land use and zoning uses. Member Nelson reviewed her questions with Mr. Dickerson on the thinking behind relocating the playground. Mr. Dickerson advised having the playground remain where it was would make it difficult to work on a separate and future proposal for the property where the current playground was located. Mr. Dickerson also reviewed the proposed request at this meeting and keeping children safe with the proposed playground’s relocation.

Mayor Diesel felt it was important for the applicants to have communication with the existing daycare business or tenant(s) at the subject property on the proposal. Safety and communication with these other stakeholders or tenants were important.

Per Vice-Mayor Robinson’s prompting, discussion ensued on the application’s requested action and the Code parameters that Council must consider or follow, the distance from the current daycare business to the playground (a suggested design consideration at present), a daycare business could choose to move in the future, taking into consideration that toddlers attended the current daycare business at the subject site, etc.

Per Mayor Diesel’s request, City Attorney Broome reviewed the options and procedures available to the Council. Mr. Dickerson offered making a compromise to meet or communicate with daycare tenant and reach a solution deemed safe for children attending daycare at the subject site.

Vice-Mayor Robinson commented being careful to weigh the Code criteria against the applicant’s request. There were other steps ahead for the applicant’s plans.

Mr. Dickerson assured he and his client were open and desired getting formal feedback and the importance of such feedback. He also desired moving forward with the request.

Member Nelson desired tabling (postponing) the requested action to a future City Council meeting and in the interim, having the applicant communicate with the daycare business or other stakeholders. She acknowledged if the request did meet the City’s Code criteria, she was concerned for any liability associated with moving the playground further away from the current daycare center.

Member Cole conferred with City Attorney Broome. Member Cole commented on the landlord-tenant coordination and whether the Council could deny the request, if the applicant’s request met the City’s Code criteria. If Council were considering approval, they could add conditions of approval to abate any nuisance type concerns, etc. If Council were going to deny a request, the Council (or maker of the motion) would need to specify the basis for denial based on the Code criteria. 

Mayor Diesel conferred with City Attorney Broome, only discussing hypothetically, whether the Council could make a condition of Council’s approval that would require the applicant meet and communicate with the daycare business tenant and reach an understanding and agreement on relocating the playground. City Attorney Broome felt, in his opinion, this could be like the Council giving their authority to the tenant. It was also unknown if the tenant had any property rights or interest in the rights to the playground, the length of the tenant’s lease, etc. (these were not within the City’s scope or related to the request at hand). Instead, the Council must consider the proposed conditional use permit application and whether the request met the Code requirements and whether there were conditions the Council could impose that would abate any concerns or provide the Council a level of comfort. 

It was noted if the Council denied the request, the Code would not allow reapplying for the conditional use permit for one year. Member Stoeckel commented on the question of whether to table or deny the request and the parameters that were in place in the Code to assist Council to apply the parameters to the requested action. City Attorney Broome and staff provided information on hearing procedures and criteria in the staff report. Member Cole conferred with City Attorney Broome on whether tenants were separate and unrelated parties. 

City Attorney Broome redirected the discussion. He advised that the public hearing was not yet concluded. The Council would need to continue the meeting by following the public hearing procedures, gather evidence from speakers, anyone that may have an interest, and the Council must weigh this, as the Council evaluated this evidence, information, and factors, within the Code criteria. If the Council felt that satisfactory provision and arrangement that addressed the conditional use factors had been met, then this could be Council’s basis for approval; If after hearing from the speakers and competent substantial evidence was presented that indicated the proposed conditional use on the subject property failed to meet the Code criteria and did not provide adequate safeguards, then Council would have to state this and the findings for a basis of denial, etc.  

Staff indicated the Code required the applicant to hold a community engagement meeting with the surrounding property owners. This had been completed and a report was provided of the feedback of the nearby residents; however, this did not include the tenants at the subject site. A solution to hold a similar meeting with the tenants could be a solution.   

Member Nelson read from a portion of the City’s Code criteria. She discussed the proposed positioning of the playground and concerns for safety. Staff discussed the location, vehicle access points were not changing, etc. 

Mr. Dickerson, attorney on behalf of Conditional Use Permit Application No. 7-2022, offered rebuttal remarks. He reviewed the location of the existing playground was on the other side of a traffic lane or access point, whereas the proposed new location for the equipment would facilitate a sidewalk for the children that attended the tenant’s daycare business to reach the proposed new location for the playground. Mr. Dickerson felt there were pros and cons. 

Mayor Diesel requested hearing from any additional persons from the public that wished to speak; however, there were none. 

Mr. Dickerson was invited to rebut any comments during the public hearing. Mr. Dickerson felt it was positive there were few speaking cards submitted by the public.  

Mayor Diesel conferred with City Attorney Broome on options available to the Council. Mayor Diesel and Member Nelson had safety concerns. Mr. Dickerson was agreeable if Council tabled the request. 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to table Conditional Use Permit Application No. 7-2023 to allow the applicant additional time to bring back information on maximizing the safety. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion. 

Vice-Mayor Robinson requested having discussion. He and staff discussed the landlord was not required to get the tenants’ consent on the proposed conditional use permit. 

Member Nelson desired maximizing the Code requirements and the safety of the children as it related to the relocation of the playground. Discussion also ensued on tabling the request did not mean the end of the proposal, following the procedures for the public hearing process, until Council reached a decision, the legal limitations of Council’s authority, etc. 

Mr. Dickerson reviewed information on meeting the Code criteria, his willingness to voluntarily meet with the tenants to ensure these or all stakeholders were on the same page, etc.

Mayor Diesel asked whether the Council could make a stipulation of approval. 

City Attorney Broome redirected the discussion and advised that the Council had not formally made their findings on the request and reviewed against the Code criteria. He further reviewed information on how Council must base a final decision, having a nexus to impose a stipulation to address any nuisance the Council felt may be at stake regarding safety concerns, the Council was required to make a full analysis according to the procedures, etc. 

Member Nelson commented that although there was not a requirement for the applicant to communicate with the tenants, the tenants could have some ideas. 

City Attorney Broome reviewed the public hearing procedures and requirements. A final decision would need to be based on competent substantial evidence and findings presented at the public hearing. 

Mayor Diesel discussed with Mr. Dickerson whether he (Mr. Dickerson) had been at the subject site when children were outside on the subject site or being picked up and dropped off, etc. Mayor Diesel felt the applicants were doing everything right. The Mayor advised that with his professional education background, he felt communication with the tenant of the daycare business that was presently operating at this location needed to occur, although this was not a requirement, only evaluating the issue of safety. 

Per Vice-Mayor Robinson’s request, City Attorney Broome reviewed the context or definition in which the Code discussed “safety”. There were twelve factors related to safety. Staff reviewed the Code criteria for safety that staff had analyzed against ingress and egress and structure analysis, how zoning designation applied, etc. 

Per Member Cole’s inquiry on the timeline, if Council voted to table the request, staff advised the agenda item would have to be re-advertised and the earliest that it can be reheard by City Council would be at the regular City Council meeting on March 28, 2023 (in one month). 

Per Member Cole’s request for whether a delay of one month would cause the applicant or his client any issues, Mr. Dickerson briefly highlighted his client’s other goals and projects, which would also require going through their own public hearings. 

Member Stoeckel and staff reviewed the City’s requirements for the applicant to hold a meeting with the community and provide a report to the City with the community’s concerns (Land Development Regulations Section 34-13), but requiring the landlord or applicant to notify their tenants was not a City Code requirement. The applicant was required to notify surrounding property owners within 500-feet their meeting with the community; however, staff added that signage was also posted on the subject site alerting the community on upcoming public hearings (date, time, location, etc.). 

Member Stoeckel liked the idea of the applicant or landlord communicating with the tenants at the subject site, because she felt the Council (or only speaking as an individual Council) did not visit the site day-to-day or knew the “ins-and-outs” of what happened there and to develop or discuss any potential issues the tenants and the landlord identified with the proposal to relocate the playground. Regarding safety, even though the ingress and egress points were not changing, she questioned “what happened” at these areas could be changing and potentially causing a concerns for safety. 

Vice-Mayor Robinson advised that earlier in the meeting, a motion was made and awaited the City Council’s consideration (copied below for reference).  

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to table Conditional Use Permit Application No. 7-2023 to allow the applicant additional time to bring back information on maximizing the safety. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion. 

The roll call vote on this motion was:

          Vice-Mayor Robinson            No

Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          No

Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

The motion carried and was approved, 3 yes to 2 no.  

xxx

Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) No. 8-2022, 1881 Knox McRae Drive – City Attorney Broome read the following ordinances for the second time and by title only, as followed:

Ordinance No. 9-2023 - 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 3.79+/- ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON KNOX MCRAE DRIVE, HAVING BREVARD COUNTY PARCEL I.D. NOS. 22-35-21-00-258, 22-35-21-00-258.1, AND 22-35-21-00-258.3 FROM COMMERCIAL HIGH INTENSITY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Ordinance No. 10-2023 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5-1993 OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE BY REFERENCE BY CHANGING THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE MULTIFAMILY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONING DISTRICT ON APPROXIMATELY 3.79+/- ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON KNOX MCRAE DRIVE, TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA (BREVARD COUNTY PARCEL I.D. NOS. 22-35-21-00-258, 22-35-21-00-258.1, AND 22-35-21-00-258.3; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

City Manager Larese highlighted the request in the Council agenda packet. The request was to conduct the second reading and public hearing of ordinances for Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) Application No. 8-2022, 1881 Knox McRae Drive. The land use amendment was a legislative item and the rezoning was a quasi-judicial item. The Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Planning Agency, considered this request on February 8, 2023 and recommended denial due to a lack of information. Specifically, the Commission requested information on the division of the property between the existing and new land uses and zoning, the parking situation, conditions related to the present use, and sewer capacity. 

Principal Planner Eddy Galindo highlighted the staff report and policy review analysis provided in the Council agenda packet. Vice-Mayor Robinson and staff discussed his questions whether the Code facilitated allowing the Council to approve SSA 8-2022, even though the matter of a separate request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application No. 7-2022 was still pending Council’s consideration. Staff indicated yes; the Code did allow this and explained how the playground may become a non-conforming use that could not expand under present circumstances and only if SSA 8-2022 were approved. Staff further explained what was permissible by the Code, if CUP 7-2022 (a related request) were later approved. 

Mayor Diesel opened the public hearing. 

Dwayne L. Dickerson, an attorney on behalf of Small Scale Amendment (SSA) Application No. 8-2022 and his client, Village Charter Holdings, gave a presentation that reviewed the existing and proposed Future Land Use Map amendments for the subject property, considerations or meeting compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the existing zoning map for the property, facilitating population growth, the compatibility of the project with surrounding properties,  aesthetic improvements and revitalizing the existing shopping center, repairs scheduled for a nearby sewer lift station(s) on the subject site, etc. 

Sandra Zumpano waived her right to speak.

Elizabeth Mazlin represented For Sight Optical (eye doctor office) and the Health First Medical Group, which was part of the Royal Oak Professional Condominium Association (indicated to be a tenant at the subject site). She advised for the past two years, there was a problem with the sewer lift station and pumps on the property. She felt this problem was due to the landlord’s lack of maintenance. She summarized her and her employer’s concerns  was whether the landlord would properly repair and continuously maintain the sewer lift station thereafter, maintain the existing shopping center and areas proposed for zoning changes, avoiding a junk yard appearance with allowing persons to park trailers on the site, etc. 

Sandra Clinger waived her right to speak.

Stan Johnston commented on Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application No. 7-2022 (the prior agenda item), which was separate, but related to Small Scale Amendment (SSA) Application No. 8-2022. He commended the Council and the applicant tabling the agenda item rather than taking a vote at this meeting, in order to facilitate the applicant communicating with the tenants about the request within the CUP application. Mr. Johnston felt this was the right thing to do, even if the applicant had met the Code requirements for CUP No. 7-2022. Mr. Johnston further advised that he was not against SSA Application No. 8-2022. 

Mr. Dickerson, attorney on behalf of SSA Application No. 8-2022, offered rebuttal remarks. He advised that he and his client were excited about the site plan that lay ahead for the project and addressing any previous mentioned issues at the site plan phase; however, at this public hearing, he desired staying within the scope of the requirements for the proposed small scale amendment application. Mr. Dickerson felt he and his client met the City’s Code and Comprehensive Plan requirements. He would continue to work with the tenants. One concern for the sewer lift station(s) was well on its way for being resolved. Mr. Dickerson advised he was fairly new to the project and looked forward to working with staff, the tenants, and having a successful project. 

Member Stoeckel discussed her thinking on changing the site’s land use designation.  

There were no additional individuals that wished to speak. 

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Robinson moved to approve Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) No. 8-2022, 1881 Knox McRae Drive, and related Ordinance No. 9-2023, as recommended by staff and based on finding the requested land use change was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

City Attorney Broome reviewed the numbering of the application and ordinance that proposed to change the land use on the subject property. 

Member Nelson seconded the motion and the roll call vote was:

          Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          Yes

Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

The motion carried unanimously.  

xxx

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Robinson moved to approve Ordinance No. 10-2023, as recommended by staff and based on finding the requested land use change was consistent and in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Code. Member Cole seconded the motion and the roll call vote was:

          Member Cole                          Yes

Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

Member Stoeckel                    Yes

The motion carried unanimously.  

xxx

Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) No. 9-2022 - Wealth Hospitality, Helen Hauser Boulevard - – City Attorney Broome read the following ordinances for the second time and by title only, as followed:

Ordinance No. 11-2023 - 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 DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLUMBIA BOULEVARD AND CHALLENGER MEMORIAL PARKWAY WITH PARCEL ID NUMBER 22-35-33-00-506, FROM THE COMMERCIAL HIGH INTENSITY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO THE RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Ordinance No. 12-2023 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5-1993 OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE BY REFERENCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLUMBIA BOULEVARD AND CHALLENGER MEMORIAL PARKWAY WITH PARCEL ID NUMBER 22-35-33-00-506, FROM THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

City Manager Larese highlighted the request in the Council agenda packet. The request was to conduct the second reading and public hearing of ordinances for Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) No. 9-2022. On February 22, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission, Local Planning Agency, made the following three motions:  

1. Made a motion to approve SSA#9-2022 regarding the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map amendment (Approved 7-0).
2. Made a motion that their approval of SSA #9-2022 regarding the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map amendment was made based on that is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Approved 7-0).
3. Made a motion to approve SSA#9-2022 regarding the rezoning from General Use (GU) to Tourist (T) based upon it being consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations, including the rezoning criteria described in Section 34-40 of the Code (Approved 7-0).

Principal Planner Eddy Galindo highlighted the staff report and policy review analysis that was provided in the Council agenda packet. 

Vice-Mayor Robinson and staff discussed his questions on the staff analysis, specifically on wetlands, a failing wetland versus wetlands in good shape, the amount of time it might take a wetland to transition and reach failing status, which might be caused by nearby development, being careful in the big picture to mitigate or prevent harming good and functioning wetlands, etc.  

Member Stoeckel desired more information that addressed her concerns on negatively impacting wetlands.

Mayor Diesel opened the public hearing.

Woody Rice, the applicant and an engineer on behalf of SSA Application No. 9-2022 and the property owner, distributed information to Council (3-pages titled Exhibits A, B, and C). He reviewed wetland systems (in general), evaluating whether they were pristine, could be rejuvenated, whether it made sense to transition a wetland to development, etc. More specifically, Mr. Rice reviewed his analysis of the wetland on the subject site and its being in existence before nearby developments and infrastructure. The wetland on the subject site was negatively impacted to the north, south, east, and west sides by previous development projects, being two major drainage canals, the development of Interstate 95 and State Road 50 (major highway systems), the digging of nearby borrow pits, etc. 

Mr. Rice continued and reviewed how the Titusville AWT Plant Wetland (also nearby) was designed and its purpose, the ownership of surrounding properties, the subject site was located in an isolated quadrant of properties, the City of Titusville owning land in the area and in majority controlled the destiny of the quadrant, additional development would likely not occur in this particular area, due to his client’s property was the last one in the commercial corridor in the area, etc. 

Mr. Rice further advised the subject site was a combination of designations, being partly conservation, high intensity commercial, with Tourist (T) zoning. He estimated approximately 75% of the subject site was zoned properly, so the area he and his client were focused on was .25% of acreage. He reviewed information in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Section 1.6.3.2 that discussed land use changes for 5 acres or greater; however, his client only had 3 acres (wetlands) under consideration. His point in saying this was to draw attention to prior completed projects near the subject site and his suspicion they did not originally meet the requirements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, such as the State’s installation of a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) pond near the interstate, City of Titusville owned infrastructure, Helen Hauser Boulevard, etc. For this reason, he felt the Council could not evaluate his client’s parcel with the surrounding parcels. 

In addition, Mr. Rice advised that an environmental scientist with the project would speak at this meeting. He reviewed again how nearby drainage ditches that were dug a long time (decades) ago, likely when the property was developed by the Titusville Fruit & Farms Company, negatively impacted the wetland on his client’s property. Mr. Rice further advised that he and his client held a community meeting and invited the surrounding property owners; however, nobody came to the meeting except he and the project’s representatives. To all of this, Mr. Rice requested Council to approve the requested actions.

Member Nelson commented on giving $250,000 to the St. Johns River Water Management District to purchase wetlands, which she advised was not even located in Brevard County. She made the point to indicate money was leaving the City and being put into Volusia and Orange Counties. “How could we change this” and “what could we do to put more wetlands back into the City”, were the ideas she posed with these statements. Member Nelson also asked how Mr. Rice would address these ideas. 

Mr. Rice advised the project’s environmental scientist would speak in a moment. He also felt that developers would be thrilled to have a wetlands bank in Titusville or within the Brevard County community. This would mean that wetland mitigation would be available to use for the community in Brevard, if this were available. Mr. Rice advised that these types of processes took years to develop with other public agencies, because they were big and complex. He pointed out that if the City or community never started the process, speaking now to encourage local action, then the City or surrounding community would never have such a program. 

Member Nelson and the project representatives discussed her questions regarding a wetland area(s) in Christmas, Florida and whether it was part of a wetland mitigation bank. Mr. Rice advised his project was proposing wetland mitigation in the area Member Nelson discussed. Member Nelson also advised there was a string of wetlands going through the City and she was interested in how many acres of wetlands there were in the City. To this, Mr. Rice reviewed his familiarity with the wetlands that Member Nelson discussed. He also reviewed that many property owners, approvals from various entities and agencies were involved to achieve establishing wetland mitigation areas. 

Vice-Mayor Robinson thanked Mr. Rice for providing information and addressing many questions. 

Andrew Conklin, Conklin Environmental Services, on behalf of Small Scale Amendment (SSA) Application No. 9-2022 became familiar with the property in 2018. He discussed an Environmental Site Assessment he prepared for the subject site (Phase 1 component of the report). One component of this report reviewed any aerial photos and the earliest one discovered for the property was taken in 1943. The 1943 photo revealed a featureless plain divided into a gridwork of 10-acre parcels, fencing, no trees, low maintained herbaceous vegetation that looked like a cattle range. Over time and after 1943, the subject property became studded with palm trees. 

Then, big changes occurred to the subject property in 1968, when Interstate 95 went in to the east of property and in 1972, a large borrow pit was dug to the west side of the property. The only uplands on the subject site were the result of the spoil (dirt) from the digging of the nearby borrow pit. Mr. Conklin advised that 1967 was probably the last time the property was in a state it had not been used or disturbed, and it was not flanked by construction, dredging, the property and the larger nearby were not yet fragmented, etc. He added that in 2018, his analysis was that the usefulness or viability of the wetland was low to moderate. 

Mayor Diesel paused to ask whether Mr. Conklin was being considered an expert witness for this public hearing agenda item. Discussion ensued on this matter for several minutes. 

Andrew Conklin reviewed his experience and qualifications as an environmental consultant in east central Florida for the last approximate 27 years, which included having his work evaluated by State regulatory agencies on the quality and functions of wetlands for his clients’ projects. 

Woody Rice briefly highlighted why he used Mr. Conklin’s services for his projects. He indicated he desired Council deeming Mr. Conklin as an expert for the environmental issues that were in question or before the Council at this public hearing.  

Member Nelson requested information on Mr. Conklin’s formal education, to which Mr. Conklin replied consisted of a Bachelor Degree in Biology from Judson University in Elgin, IL and 27-years’ experience as an environmental consultant in east central Florida. 

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Robinson moved to accept Andrew Conklin as an expert witness for this project (Small Scale Amendment (SSA) Application No. 9-2022). Member Nelson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

Mr. Conklin continued and discussed the evaluation of the wetland on the subject site. He reviewed key information about the subject site in detail, such as most of the site qualified as a wetland, primarily because of the soils and wetland hydrological indicators there, mixed vegetation plant species and vegetative structures that were on the subject site and nearby, the next step was determining the quality of the wetland based on State accepted measurements or criteria used for evaluating wetlands (scale of 1 – 10), which was based on the Department of Environmental Protection Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). 

xxx

It was 10:30 p.m. There was a brief pause in the public hearing for SSA No. 9-2022 to take care of extending the meeting time, according to Code requirements and another matter indicated by the City Manager. 

Motion:

Member Stoeckel moved to table Old Business Item A. - FY 24 CDBG and HOME Grant Funding Recommendations to the next regular City Council meeting on March 14, 2023. Member Nelson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to extend the Council meeting until 11:30 p.m. Member Cole seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

xxx

The public hearing continued on Small Scale Amendment (SSA) Application. No. 9-2022. Andrew Conklin, Conklin Environmental Services and person deemed to be an expert witness, continued and discussed the following information: 

• Compromised water quality at the subject site
• Impacts to the subject site from prior surrounding developments and adjustments
• The de-watering affects from prior (old/relic) manmade excavations partially on and immediately adjacent to the subject site (west side)
• A manmade borrow pit (pond)
• How prior manmade adjustments in the area of the subject site caused an unusual combination of vegetation to grow on the land
• The last time the subject site was likely ecologically healthy was prior to 1943
• Professional methodology and scoring of the subject site’s wetlands and review by other government agencies. He gave the subject site a score of six (6) out of ten (10). Mr. Conklin advised his style was to rate a wetland as high as possible, as a precaution and not mislead. In another translation, a score of six (6) was like a “D” or a “D Plus”

At 10:35 p.m., Mayor Diesel called for a 5-minute recess. Minutes later, the public hearing continued on Small Scale Amendment (SSA) Application. No. 9-2022. Mr. Conklin continued and reviewed the following information: 

• The property owner was limited in the wetlands mitigations options available to them, including options through the federal government, because a mitigation bank was the only acceptable program for the federal government
• The nearest wetland mitigation bank was located in the northwest corner of Brevard County via Farmton and the St. Johns River floodplain (approximately 13 miles from the subject site)
• A wetland mitigation bank was also located in east Orange County
• Plans to coordinate with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) or other pertinent agencies on these matters in the future
• The Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) was also the measurement used by SJRWMD to evaluate the quality of a wetland, but also evaluated was the amount of “ecological lift” or “improvement” that was provided to the mitigation bank that was funded by mitigation dollars that came from property owners
• Credits assigned for ecological value that benefit the geographical area where wetland credits were assigned.
• The project at the subject site needed approximately 1.75 credits

Mayor Diesel commented on Mr. Conklin’s UMAM score of six (6) for the subject site’s wetland.

Jessie Kirk, the property owner of the subject site, commented on her current efforts to complete or close on prior outstanding contracts and business dealings championed by her late husband. She advised that she had a buyer for the subject site that was ready and willing to purchase the subject site. Her property was the last piece of property on Helen Hauser. She requested Council’s consideration on the requested action.

William Alcoca, local developer that was familiar with Mr. Rice and Mr. Conklin’s work, was also familiar with wetland mitigation requirements and some wetlands that lost their value as a wetland due to impacts caused by nearby development. Mr. Alcoca requested Council approve the requests.

Chico Patel, a franchisee representative of a proposed Hilton Hotel (Hilton product hotel) in the local area, advised there was a demand for hotel accommodations in the price point that his franchise desired providing to the community.

Maureen Rupe read from a prepared statement. She was concerned when an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan that was proposed, because this was amending the City’s future vision and goals. Policy currently provided that wetlands of five acres or more of wetland should be designated as conservation, with no more than one home built on the total of five acres. She further continued to read from policy that discussed connectivity amongst wetlands, parcel size requirements, and questions on her concerns, disagreement with wetland mitigation bank programs, etc.

Mary Sphar distributed information. She advised that she spoke as a representative of the Sierra Club. Ms. Sphar read from a prepared statement that reviewed her concerns on how the applicant’s request was not in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.6.3.2., concerning Conservation, the policy’s requirements on conservation and meeting criteria, policy requirements for wetlands or properties greater than and less than 5-acres being subject to review, her opinion that the wetland on the property (indicated as roughly 3 acres), when joined hydrologically by a nearby wetland that was more than 5-acres, etc.

Motion:

Member Nelson gave Ms. Sphar an additional minute to speak. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

Ms. Sphar continued and proposed reasons why the Council should deny the applicant’s request based on her analysis of the Comprehensive Plan.  

Sandra Clinger commented that the wetland on the subject site extended beyond the property’s legal boundaries. She requested Council deny the request, arguing that if the Council approved the request ---it would negatively impact the larger wetlands system or “cause death by a 1,000 cuts”. Ms. Clinger argued the wetland on the subject site was not dead and still had some functional value indicated by the expert. Additionally, Ms. Clinger commented on the subject site suffering encroachment and having exotic plant species, which she advised was due to not protecting the wetland and providing appropriate uplands. If the request was approved, this would impact property to the south of the site, lack of wetlands buffers would continue diminishing remaining wetlands in the City, etc.

Michael Myjak commented on the value of wetlands, the City had not done a good job taking care of wetlands, his not being in agreement with giving up wetlands in the City, Farmton had a lot of wetlands and it was clever that the company could profit on their own wetlands from another jurisdiction, incremental diminishment of City wetlands was not good, the importance of stopping and reversing negative environmental trends currently associated with wetlands, the Indian River Lagoon, stormwater, nutrients and pollutants in water, and instead---planning for a healthy environment for the long term future, etc.  

Laurilee Thompson distributed information. She supported Mr. Myjak’s comments. She did not support the applicant’s request and instead urged the City to start buying wetlands in the City and making a “forever plan”. Ms. Thompson discussed how fresh water or stormwater runoff that flowed into the lagoon was terrible for the ecological balance of the lagoon and which killed seagrass. Instead, stormwater should be redirected to flow into wetlands instead of the lagoon.

Stan Johnston advised that information and emails that he often submitted to the City indicated his credentials as a professional engineer, his areas of expertise, his open standing request for City representatives to send all comments and feedback to his email address, his desire to be considered an expert witness on other matters, his professional principles were included in all of his correspondence, etc. He did not have the same expertise as Andrew Conklin and he was not against the applicant’s request. Additionally, Mr. Johnston supported Ms. Thompson’s comments.

Woody Rice, the applicant and an engineer on behalf of SSA Application No. 9-2022, offered rebuttal comments. He commented on not being legally permitted to enter onto other wetlands that were not owned by his client, letting the evaluation of the wetland on the subject property stand on its own merits, which he advised the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) were in agreement or understood this concept and the P&Z was a tough group to convince. 

Mr. Rice also advised he agreed with Laurilee Thompson’s comments and his desire to step-up and assist the City with the goals discussed by Ms. Thompson. He also felt the City needed to start the related processes for these goals. 

Concerning the exhibits that Mr. Rice distributed earlier in the meeting, he discussed the prior nearby developments that received prior Council approval or support and that underwent the same processes, his request for Council to approve the request, the subject property was the last one at the south end of Helen Hauser and there were no other projects coming in behind this one or to the south of the subject property, because the property to the south of the subject site was controlled by the City, etc. He and the expert Mr. Conklin were available to answer questions. 

Member Nelson discussed questions with staff on whether the current condition of the wetland was deteriorating or whether the condition could improve, information provided in the agenda packet on the current status of the wetland, deferring to expert(s) on wetlands on trends over time, the current classification of the site’s wetland was classified as low to moderate, whether the wetland was hydrologically connected to a larger wetland system, information from an environmental report that was provided, the wetland was 2.86 acres in size, an aerial photo comparison or view did not include ground truthing information, etc. 

Principal Planner Galindo added that the applicant submitted a concept plan with the application and when this occurred, the concept plan became binding.  Changing the concept plan thereafter required the Council’s approval. 

Community Development Director Parrish highlighted information on page 420 of the Council agenda packet, from the environmental report. It was indicated that secondary impacts to offsite wetlands would be evaluated. 

Vice-Mayor Robinson and staff discussed that the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) still had jurisdiction and requirements on the matter of wetlands on the subject site. 

Member Stoeckel and staff discussed the citizens’ concerns on the Comprehensive Plan, the Conservation policy, whether there was background information available on whether the policy could be interpreted, other policies in the Comprehensive Plan facilitated wetlands mitigation (example policy no. 1.1.11), nuances in the policy or polices on whether mitigation was anticipated or not, Council determining whether or not the request was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, etc. 

Member Stoeckel and staff also discussed the Comprehensive Plan being a 20-year visionary document that was reviewed and updated every 7-years via the Evaluation Appraisal Report (EAR) hearing process. 

Mayor Diesel and staff discussed building requirements associated with wetland and parcel sizes. It was determined the wetland on the site was 2.86 acres. It appeared (informally) there were adjacent wetlands that could be combined to create a wetland that was greater than 5-acres in size, but there was not a wetland survey delineation that could to prove or confirm a total wetlands area of 5-acres or greater. An aerial photo was a point of guidance, but for this item, there was not proof there was a wetland greater than 5 acres. 

Member Nelson and staff discussed the question that if Council approved the applicant’s requests at this meeting, what happened if the SJRWMD came back later and said there were 5-acres or more of wetlands in the area and would that impact the permitting for a project proposed on the subject site. 

To this, staff advised the SJRWMD’s scope was to evaluate impacts on a subject site and then whether there were any secondary impacts and buffer requirements, to which staff explained. The SJRWMD would not review the City’s Comprehensive Plan when they completed their analysis. Staff further advised all of the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and those prior to conservation (indicated) needed to be taken in together and in conjunction be evaluated or applied collectively, not apply a single policy alone. For example, City policy indicated that “Wetlands shall be defined consistent with the existing State and regulatory agencies…”. Then, City policy discussed different strategies under the particular policy. 

Staff continued and discussed Council’s role and application of the Comprehensive Plan to evaluate the requested action specifically for the subject site. Nearby properties were not part of the analysis and pertaining to the requested action or taking into consideration whether there was more wetland acreage nearby. The policy’s indication was the size of the applicant’s wetland could not be used to require the property to stay in conservation. 

Mayor Diesel discussed quasi-judicial hearing requirements of making a decision based on facts and evidence. The proposed land use change was not quasi-judicial, but did require consideration against the Comprehensive Plan, evidence, etc. 

As there were no additional persons that wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. 

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Robinson moved to approve Ordinance No. 11-2023, as recommended by staff, and based on the evidence presented and by his finding the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to the best of his knowledge. Member Nelson seconded the motion and the roll call vote was:

          Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          Yes

The motion carried unanimously.  

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Robinson moved to approve Ordinance No. 12-2023, as recommended by staff, and based on the evidence presented and by his finding the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the criteria in Section 34-40 of the Land Development Regulations to the best of his knowledge. Member Cole seconded the motion and the roll call vote was:

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          Yes

Member Nelson                      Yes

The motion carried unanimously.  

xxx

It was nearly 11:30 p.m. 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to extend the meeting until 12:30 p.m. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

xxx

Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) No. 10-2022, Titusville Chance Partners / Columbia Boulevard – City Attorney Broome read the following ordinances for the second time and by title only: 

Ordinance No. 13-2023 - 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 DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLUMBIA BOULEVARD AND CHALLENGER MEMORIAL PARKWAY WITH PARCEL ID NUMBER 22-35-33-00-506, FROM THE COMMERCIAL HIGH INTENSITY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO THE RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Ordinance No. 14-2023 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5-1993 OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE BY REFERENCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLUMBIA BOULEVARD AND CHALLENGER MEMORIAL PARKWAY WITH PARCEL ID NUMBER 22-35-33-00-506, FROM THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

City Manager Larese highlighted the request provided in the Council agenda packet. The request was to conduct the second reading and public hearing of ordinances for Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) No. 10-2022. The land use amendment is a legislative item and the rezoning is a quasi-judicial item.

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), acting as the Local Planning Agency, considered this request on February 8, 2023 and recommended approval of SSA No. 10-2022 Chance Partners small scale land use amendment approved 5-0 and approve the planned development (PD) rezoning ordinance with master plan and conditions 5-0. Included with the P&Z’s motion to approve the rezoning were two additional conditions recommended by the P&Z. There should be no burning of vegetation as part of site construction AND buildings shall be no taller than 35-feet within 75-feet of the property line.

Community Development Director Parrish reviewed the staff report provided in the Council agenda packet, the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendations, proposed conditions of approval, etc. 

Member Stoeckel and staff discussed her questions on whether the proposed changes were compatible with surrounding properties, setbacks, the City’s vision in the Comprehensive Plan, etc. 

Kinan Husainy of Kiley Horn & Associates and applicant of Small Scale Amendment Application No. 10-2022, gave a presentation that reviewed information on the multi-family development and project that was proposed for the subject site, project location, property survey, architecture, recreational open space, buffering, community outreach, previous projects, etc. 

Member Stoeckel and Mr. Husainy discussed her questions on buffers and whether there were plans for the commercial. 

Kim Rezanka, an attorney on behalf of the application, was available to answer questions. 

Judd Bobilin, on behalf of the application, was available to answer questions. 

Stu Buchanan commented on being an expert witness for other government agency hearings, multifamily projects were best located near interstates or arterial roads, his support of the project’s location and proposed ordinances, decreased traffic count, etc. 

Stan Johnston commented on his concerns on not being considered an expert witness, dishonesty on sewer or utility matters, concerns for sewer and water availability for the project, etc. 

Sadie Neal waived her right to speak. 

Sandra Cerrato expressed concern for the height of the residential units for the Carriage Homes on the proposed project and whether these units included one or two stories above a ground floor garage, whether more public meetings would be held to afford citizens additional opportunities to provide feedback on the applicant’s project, etc. 

There were no additional persons from the public that wished to speak.  

Member Stoeckel and staff discussed her questions on whether the plans on page 468 of the Council agenda packet was a binding plan, whether or not the citizens would be notified about the project’s upcoming requirements or site plan, provisions in the proposed ordinances that would  govern the property, flexibility provided in some provisions or Codes, setbacks and height regulations, etc.

Judd Bobilin, on behalf of the Small Scale Amendment Application No. 10-2022 and President of Chance Partners, who was joined by  Kinan Husainy of Kiley Horn & Associates, offered rebuttal comments. Mr. Bobilin advised the Carriage Homes were only two stories.    

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Robinson, based on the evidence, presented moved to approve Ordinance No. 13-2023, as recommended. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion for discussion.

Vice-Mayor Robinson desired amending the motion to add that approval of Ordinance No. 13-2023 was based on the request and was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as recommended. Member Stoeckel’s second held. 

Member Stoeckel and staff discussed proposed conditions of approval were related to the Ordinance No. 14-2023, not Ordinance No. 13-2023. 

The roll call vote on Ordinance No. 13-2023, as stated was: 

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          Yes

Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

The motion carried unanimously.  

xxx

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Robinson, based on the evidence presented and finding the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria in Section 34 through 40 of the Land Development Regulations, moved to approve Ordinance No. 14-2023, including the master plan and conditions for the rezoning ordinance as recommended by staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. 

The conditions of the rezoning ordinance (Ordinance No. 14-2023) included a maximum 488 residential units, a 50-foot maximum building height, an architectural control statement, a 50-foot buffer and building setback from the adjacent single-family residential subdivision, up to two shared driveways with the adjacent commercial zoning, open space, recreational amenities, multi-use path and bicycle shelter as recommended by staff.   

In addition, the motion of approval included the conditions of the Planning and Zoning Commission that there should be no burning of vegetation as part of site construction and buildings shall be no taller than 35 feet within 75 feet of the property line. 

Member Stoeckel seconded the motion. 

Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          Yes

Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

The motion carried unanimously.  

xxx

Development Agreement (DA) No. 1-2023 Tranquility (F/K/A Antigua Bay) Fourth Amendment –  City Manager Larese highlighted the request provided in the Council agenda packet. The request was to conduct the City Council public hearing and consider the Fourth Amendment to the Tranquility Development Agreement.  City Manager Larese advised that the applicant, Gary Allen, Jr. on behalf of the Sunbelt Titusville Investments, LLC and Carolina Holdings II, LLC, the owners, were requesting the approval of an amendment to the master plan and development agreement for the Tranquility development (formerly known as Antigua Bay). The applicant was proposing modifications to the existing master plan and development agreement to develop a mixed-use planned community with 2,404 residential units, including single family and multi-family, commercial, preservation and park lands. 

On February 22, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission, Local Planning Agency, made a motion to not accept the 4th Amendment Tranquility as presented, and recommended to City Council that they request the applicant continue to work with City staff regarding the following concerns: Future Lane Use Policy 1.20.2 (Comprehensive Plan), Open Space and Park and Recreation requirements, RMU zoning sub-districts, density, and legal description, which are outlined in the agenda packet as “Outstanding Issues” in the February 22, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on page 33 of 283, so that a better proposal was presented back to the City for approval. (Approved 7-0).

The Report to Council in the Council agenda packet indicated the following: 

The planned community would be developed in multiple phases on approximately 340+ acres located between the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) and the U.S. Highway 1 and Columbia Boulevard (SR 405) roadways. The property was designated with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use of Regional Mixed Use and Conservation and is zoned Regional Mixed Use (RMU). The Fourth Amendment proposed the following significant changes:

• Replaces Exhibits B-1 through B-5 with new Exhibits B (overall plan) and B-1 (open space).
• Reconfiguration of the RMU-300 (multi-family) and RMU-400 (commercial) subdistricts shown on the master plan.  Specific labels of medium density multifamily residential, high density multifamily residential, regional commercial and multifamily residential/commercial (mixed use) consolidated as RMU-300 (multifamily residential) and RMU-400 (multifamily residential/commercial).
• Increases the area where maximum height within the RMU-300 and RMU-400 subdistricts may be hundred (100) feet, except for properties within 250 feet of Columbia Boulevard (SR 405). Proposes a reference to the City's Height Overlay for a potential height of one-hundred fifty (150) feet,
• Reduces the size and configuration of the open space previously shown as Parcels 11A and 11B, and designated for preservation except for the construction of a multi-use trail.
• Proposes 20% open space/parks instead of 20% open space AND 15% parks.
• Eliminates specificity as to location of various open space, parks and recreation areas.
• Proposes stormwater ponds in the minimum 20% open space.
• Deletes the requirement to donate property to the City for a future fire station.

The highlighted text in the DRAFT Amendment indicated text that was different from the version of the agreement with strikethrough/underline language. The most significant difference is Section 8 [Sec 3.6.8.1(b)] states that the building heights may be 150-feet.

A lengthy discussion ensued. 

Community Development Director Parrish distributed information to the Council. He reviewed this information, information on the staff report, history of the property, the uniqueness of the property’s land use and zoning, prior steps to get a master plan approved, the consolidation of processes being presented to Council at this hearing, additional history of the property, staff findings and analysis of Code criteria against proposed changes, the complexity of changes, a matrix to organize the proposed changes and staff’s comments, information in the proposed development agreement and its exhibits, the process which Council might, at this hearing, go through each section of the proposed development agreement and individually address each section (one-by-one), etc. 

Community Development Director Parrish highlighted and reviewed staff’s analysis and findings of five (5) outstanding issues with the proposed development agreement and whether the issues were in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan or other policies in the Code, etc. 

To this, Community Development Director Parrish launched into and reviewed the following information:

• Comprehensive Plan policies
• The applicant’s proposed changes to the existing development agreement
• The purpose of prior amendments to the development agreement
• The five issues that staff felt needed to be addressed
• Holding meetings with the project representatives and the representatives’ making changes to the proposed development agreement as late at this morning
• Portions of the project that might be completed easily and others that were more complex
• Additional history, timelines, prior meetings, more changes and questions on the applicant’s proposed changes to their development agreement, staff providing feedback and concerns prior to scheduling public hearings  
• Questions about open space and parks & recreation and which policy requirements applied
• Staff was comfortable with the applicant’s proposed changes thus far, but would also want to carefully review the final document submitted by the developer, if Council approved the agreement at this meeting
• Staff’s conversation with the developer this morning and staff’s desire to add additional notes on the project’s Master Plan, for the purpose of defining “things” better and document compliance with outstanding issues

Community Development Director Parrish continued and highlighted the following:

Community Development Director Parrish continued and highlighted the following:

Mayor Diesel and Community Development Director Parrish discussed the Mayor’s questions on whether staff reduced five (5) previously referenced issues (page 592 of the Council agenda packet) to one (1) main issue. 

Staff indicated the main issue that Council should address was open space, because once this was defined and determined, everything else would come into play or may change depending on the Council’s interpretation. 

Community Development Director Parrish highlighted a couple of the other items that still needed to be addressed: 1. The legal description for the property or project (that was presently being confirmed by the City surveyor); and (2) The density or the Regional Mixed Use (RMU) district and future land use policy concerning “the 50% rule”; a table in the top left corner of the project’s Master Plan was amended to include and expand an information matrix. Even as of “this morning” (on the day of the Council hearing), the developer was going to add more information to the matrix and had not provided the final version of the document to Community Development Director Parrish.

Member Stoeckel and Community Development Director Parrish discussed that if the Council were inclined to approve the request(s) at this hearing, the Council would have to be comfortable with “what was being presented” to Council at the public hearing. This would include an itemized review and discussion of “everything” that was changing in the proposed fourth amendment to the development agreement. 

Per Member Stoeckel’s request, Community Development Director Parrish reviewed information on “why the development agreement was there”, “was it beneficial to the applicant”, “what happened if the developer did not want to keep coming back---what would they do then if the development agreement was not there”, “the timeline that discussed why the project was taking maybe a little longer”, to which Community Development Director Parrish replied. 

This was not an easy project. The RMU zoning district had minimum requirements and it also required a Master Plan be approved. A Developer Agreement was not required; it was an option that did vest the developer to development rights that were in effect at the time that a development agreement was approved, etc. 

Member Stoeckel and Community Development Director Parrish further discussed her questions on other project information, policy requirements, avoiding ambiguous details in project documents by asking or requiring the developer to clarify how they were allocating their uses, whether stormwater ponds could be counted as open space. 

xxx

It was 12:30 a.m. 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to extend the meeting until 1:30 a.m. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

xxx

Member Stoeckel and Community Development Director Parrish continued discussing whether stormwater ponds could be counted as open space (the indication was yes), wet detention was a new concept to the development agreement, a green area and whether there was a pond there (page 638 of the Council agenda packet), etc. 

Vice-Mayor Robinson commented on his review of the Council agenda packet and concerns for the context or terminology beginning on page 578 of the Council agenda packet and throughout, which he felt indicated the information associated with the proposed changes to the development agreement were not specific and could not be determined. 

Vice-Mayor Robinson also felt the information that was provided left questions on whether or not the proposed changes were in compliance with governing policies. He felt it was not normal for information in the Council agenda packet to be tentative. It was his desire to make a decision based on the best or complete information available. 

Mayor Diesel had some of the same concerns, but also felt the outstanding issues had been reduced to only one or a few items to further develop, like parks and open space. He did feel the Council could get through the public hearing and organize and consider each lingering component, one-by-one. 

City Attorney Broome advised there were variances or waivers within the proposal and that normally, development agreements were solely legislative. Since this was different, City Attorney Broome reviewed the Quasi-judicial Rules of Procedure with the Council and the Council’s familiarity with the project, whether any individual Council had formed an opinion on the requested actions, etc. 

Mayor Diesel opened the public hearing.

Gary Allen, Jr., the applicant on behalf of proposed Development Agreement (DA) No. 1-2023 Tranquility (F/K/A Antigua Bay) Fourth Amendment, joined by Bruce Hall of Catalyst Design Group, gave a presentation that reviewed other projects championed by the developer, design and architecture, the conceptual Master Plan for the project, amenities, buffers, open space and connectivity system, the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 33-41, etc. 

Rodney Honeycutt, an engineer on behalf of Development Agreement (DA) No. 1-2023, distributed information and briefly highlighted the timeline and the latest developments for the project. From the information that he distributed, the first being a large map titled Master Plan, Tranquility, Exhibit B, Proposed Master Plan, Mr. Honeycutt highlighted the Use Table and the Master Plan Data Table shown in the upper left corner of the large map, along with additional information associated with the information tables. 

Mr. Honeycutt also distributed a special warranty deed for the mitigation property and he discussed the deed’s significance on this matter.  

In addition, Mr. Honeycutt distributed a copy of an email from the former Community Development Director (Peggy Busacca) dated May 31, 2022. He read a portion of the email aloud that discussed LDR Section 33-41(b)(3)(a) and parks “and” open space. 

One other item (On item B 7 that staff referred to during the meeting), Mr. Honeycutt advised that currently open space was shown on this document and there were three parcels that were located in the open space (as defined in the document he was referring to while he spoke). The largest parcel was 38 acres consisting mostly of stormwater ponds. This had not changed with the project plans. 

Mr. Honeycutt advised he was available to answer questions. 

Member Stoeckel and Mr. Honeycutt discussed her questions on open space, a prior map, how stormwater ponds were factored, green areas indicated stormwater ponds and recreation, the LDR’s provisions and confusion on whether the Code permitted stormwater ponds to count toward open space, wet ponds as a recreational element in the development agreement language, Mr. Honeycutt’s belief that that any definition on the LDRs or Codes for open space included recreation, the development agreement superseding the Code/LDR, percentages associated with the total of open space and recreation, the Code did not indicate cumulative calculations, whether a scrub jay habitat was involved in calculations, to which staff indicated the habitat was not counted or calculated into an earlier plan, etc. 

Discussion ensued on the difficulty of analysis paralysis, the developer working with staff and making sure the project was in compliance, feelings that the public hearing should not feel like a workshop with Council, etc. 

Member Cole reviewed if there was unsteadiness by the information communicated to the developer in May 2022 versus at present. Community Development Director Parrish responded and indicated the May 2022 email was not based on a formal staff review of any document, but only contained general information. The May 2022 email only discussed one area of the Code; however, there were two other Code sections in that were omitted or not discussed in the email of May 2022. 

Community Development Director Parrish advised that he communicated to the developer that when they submitted their initial proposal in November 2022, the developer should first submit a complete, thorough, and formal proposal based on the City’s Codes. Staff went onto provide a formal review of the developer’s proposed changes. Per staff, the Council’s objective at this meeting was to determine if staff were correct or the developer was correct in their application of the City’s Codes to the proposed development agreement and the exhibits and documents that had been submitted. 

Council individually discussed their concerns, thoughts, and opinions with Mr. Honeycutt on the following topics:

• Percentage requirements for open space and recreation
• A 2017 plan, scrub jays, a prior community meeting, decreasing the size of areas, the developer changing course
• Bringing clarity to the collective pieces of information and written communications
• Whether plans were binding, protecting property owners, assisting the developer to help them realize their goals

Mayor Diesel and City Clerk Wells facilitated hearing from additional individuals that submitted public hearing oath and speaking cards.

Tim McWilliams advised he was an individual involved in the home building and real estate business, but also an individual that served on a County scrub jay and/or conservation group, as well as a federal Fish and Wildlife Conservation Plan. He advised that he sold the subject property to the current owner. He also discussed the subject property’s prior and current topography, scrub jay habitat conditions (always were poor on this property in his opinion), big trees facilitated use by predator birds, permitting timeliness differences amongst governing agencies, getting the open space back to 20%, etc.

Randy Coleman read from a prepared statement that reviewed information on building a new home, space industry activities, his belief the City was delaying the project, etc.

Mayor Diesel felt it was a matter of opinion or perspective on who might be responsible for causing delays on the development project.

Ron Reeves supported the proposed amendments to the development agreement, for reasons he explained.

Woody Rice distributed and reviewed information on the City’s current and applicable Codes and his analysis on the debate on the open space requirement.

Tom Kirsop supported the proposed amendments to the development agreement. He felt the developer was known for building upscale and beautiful projects. He also commented on the real estate value and size of the open space area.

Stu Buchanan supported the proposed amendments to the development agreement, for reasons he explained.

Albert Forbes supported the proposed amendments to the development agreement, for reasons he explained.

Cole Oliver, on behalf of the development project, commented on working as late as very recently to “nail down” issues brought up by or with the Planning and Zoning Commission. He advised that four of the five major issues had been resolved. The remaining issue was the question on the 20% open space requirement for the project. Mr. Oliver added that site plans still needed to meet the City’s Code requirements and particular project aspects would account for the overall open space requirements.   

Cara Fischer Scott supported the proposed amendments to the development agreement, for reasons she explained.

xxx

It was 1:30 a.m.

Motion:

Member Stoeckel moved to extend the meeting until 2:15 a.m. Member Nelson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

xxx

Bill and Ashley Byrne supported the proposed amendments to the development agreement, for reasons they explained.

Monika Edwards and Terry Perez were unavailable to speak. William Alcock waived his right to speak. Stan Johnston indicated “this should not be happening”.

Timothy Saunders supported the proposed amendments to the development agreement, for reasons he explained.

Robin L. Fisher supported the proposed amendments to the development agreement, for reasons he explained. He also commented on the estimated taxable value of the project once completed, having secured funding for public safety services, the developer had not requested any financial incentives from the City, etc.

There were no additional persons from the public that wished to speak.

Council individually discussed their concerns, thoughts, and opinions on the following topics, with staff, Cole Oliver, and the project representatives:

• Council’s tentative support was indicated for 20% open space and recreation for the project’s total acreage
• Appreciation for the developer and citizens
• Confusion on whether stormwater ponds were supposed to be included in the open space Code requirement
• Whether staff was comfortable with their professional analysis of the final proposal
• Agreement language changes and various versions of the proposed development agreement

(page 597 of agenda packet, a version submitted by Cole Oliver on February 27, 2023, etc.)

• A review of specific language in the proposed amendments (by Cole Oliver)
• Possible conditions of approval
• It was not normal for additional or late-breaking changes to be proposed at or just before a public hearing

Further,

• Steps moving forward, if the request was approved, which the desire indicated was getting a sole, clean, version of the correct proposed development agreement, then site plans and implementation of the City’s Codes
• Staff was not comfortable with collectively combining agreement language from three versions of the proposed development agreement into one version
• Staff recommended going through each proposed change to the developer agreement on a one-by-one basis, in order to be clear about what the City Council was asked to consider or approve
• Providing the developer flexibility, but also the importance of the developer following the Codes
• Tabling the request would mean more time was required to re-advertise (a legal requirement)
• Whether or not the Council was in a position to vote
• The project representatives and staff taking the next few minutes while the Council meeting continued to clarify the specific, proposed, amendments

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to table the Fourth Amendment to the Tranquility Development Agreement until later in the regular City Council meeting of February 28, 2023 (the 6:30 p.m. meeting). Member Cole seconded the motion and it carried, 4-1 with Vice-Mayor Robinson in objection. 

xxx

ORDINANCES-FIRST READING

Ordinance No. 15-2023, Amending Rule 5 of Section 2-26 of the Code of Ordinances "Rules of the City Council" – City Attorney Broome read Ordinance No. 15-2023 – AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING RULE 5 OF SECTION 2-26 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES “RULES OF THE CITY COUNCIL”, BY AMENDING THE PROCEDURES AND TIME LIMITS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT COUNCIL MEETINGS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, for the first time and by title only. 

City Manager Larese highlighted information on the proposed ordinance, as provided in the Council agenda packet. 

Four individuals submitted public speaking cards. 

Stu Buchanan supported the proposed ordinance, for reasons he explained. 

Stan Johnston was opposed to the proposed ordinance, for reasons he explained. 

Kristin Lortie was unavailable. 

Toni Shifalo was opposed to the proposed ordinance, for reasons she explained. 

The public hearing for Ordinance No. 15-2023 was scheduled for the regular City Council meeting on March 14, 2023 at 6:30 p.m.

xxx

OLD BUSINESS

FY 24 CDBG and HOME Grant Funding Recommendations – This item was tabled earlier in the meeting (at 10:30 p.m.) to the regular City Council meeting on March 14, 2023 at 6:30 p.m.

xxx

It was nearly 2:15 a.m.  

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to extend the meeting’s time until 2:45 a.m. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

xxx

NEW BUSINESS

Abatement of Nuisance located at 2280 Beechwood Court, Titusville FL 32780 and Resolution No. 7-2023 – The request was to authorize the City Attorney's Office to proceed with all necessary actions to enjoin the public nuisance at 2280 Beechwood Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes Sec. 60.05, and approve Resolution No. 7-2023.

Five individuals submitted public speaking cards. 

Stu Buchanan supported the proposed abatement and resolution. 

Michael Myjak distributed information. His home was in the same neighborhood as the subject property. He read a prepared statement that reviewed why he supported the proposed abatement and resolution. 

Nayra Atiya advised her home was in the same neighborhood as the subject property. She reviewed why she also supported the proposed abatement and resolution. 

Stan Johnston waived his right to speak. 

Michael Payne was unavailable. 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to authorize the City Attorney's Office to proceed with all necessary actions to enjoin the public nuisance at 2280 Beechwood Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes Sec. 60.05, and approve Resolution No. 7-2023, as recommended. Member Cole seconded the motion and the roll call vote was:

Member Cole                          Yes

Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

Member Stoeckel                    Yes

The motion carried unanimously.  

xxx

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

xxx

MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS

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

xxx

Council Reports - 

Mayor Diesel passed the gavel to Vice-Mayor Robinson. He requested Council’s consideration of four (4) proclamations. 

Stan Johnston waived his right to speak. 

Motion:

Member Diesel moved to authorize a proclamation to the Ancient Order of Hibernians proclaiming March 2023 as Irish American Heritage Month, which will be presented at the Regular City Council meeting on March 14, 2023 at 6:30 p.m., under Special Recognitions and Presentations. Member Nelson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

Stan Johnston waived his right to speak. 

Motion:

Member Diesel moved to authorize a proclamation to the Saint Johns River Water Management District proclaiming April 2023 as Water Conservation Month, which will be presented at the Special Recognitions and Presentations meeting on April 25, 2023 at the 5:30 p.m. Member Cole seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

Stan Johnston waived his right to speak. 

Motion:

Member Diesel authorized a proclamation to the Historic Preservation Board proclaiming May 2023 as Historic Preservation Month, which will be presented at the Special Recognitions and Presentations meeting on April 25, 2023 at the 5:30 p.m. Member Cole seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

Stan Johnston waived his right to speak. 

Motion:

Member Diesel moved to authorize a proclamation to the American Legion Auxiliary Titusville Unit 1 proclaiming May 26-29, 2023 as Poppy Days, which will be presented at the Special Recognitions and Presentations meeting on April 25, 2023 at the 5:30 p.m. Member Cole seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

Vice-Mayor Robinson passed the gavel back to Mayor Diesel. 

xxx

Vice-Mayor Robinson commented on attending a ribbon cutting of the Brevard Art Museum with Member Nelson. Mayor Diesel commented on judging a chili cooking contest with the City Manager. 

xxx

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

City Manager's Report - City Manager Larese submitted his written report. 

xxx

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

Stan Johnston waived his right to speak.

By a consensus vote, the Council authorized canceling the regular City Council meetings on June 27, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. for the summer recess, as requested by the City Manager.   

xxx

Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Budget Workshop and Public Hearing Dates - City Manager Larese highlighted the request provided in the Council agenda packet. 

Stan Johnston waived his right to speak.

By a consensus vote, the Council authorized and scheduled a budget workshop and public hearings for the FY 24 Budget, as followed: 

• Budget Workshop – Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 5:00 p.m.
• First Public Hearing – Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:30 p.m.
• Second Public Hearing – September 21, 2023 at 5:30 p.m.

xxx

City Manager Larese highlighted the following informational only:

• Special City Council Meeting – March 7, 2023, 5:30 p.m., City Hall Council Chamber, Fiscal Year 2024 Strategic Planning with Senior Staff
• 2023 Student Awards Ceremony – May 1, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. at Titusville High School Performing Arts Center

xxx

(Continued from earlier in meeting) Fourth Amendment to the Tranquility Development Agreement – It was getting close to the end of the meeting. A few minutes was allotted to allow staff and the developer to return and distribute information. The public hearing on the Fourth Amendment to the Tranquility Development Agreement resumed after several minutes of waiting. 

Attorney on behalf of the proposed Fourth Amendment to the Tranquility Development Agreement, Cole Oliver, stood at the podium. He and Community Development Director Brad Parrish jointly highlighted and discussed approximately ten or eleven proposed changes to the Fourth Amendment and for the Council’s consideration.

Community Development Director Parrish began by orienting the Council, other staff, and individuals on the version(s) of the proposed, amended, development agreement that he and Mr. Oliver were ready to highlight, by going through each proposed change individually. Community Development Director Parrish referred to the version on page 594 of the Council agenda packet, another version with highlighted changes, etc. Mr. Oliver advised that he did not have the highlighted version in front of him, but only a red-line version, with the first change being in Section 3 – Density intensity is of uses. 

Although not numbered in any document, Community Development Director Parrish and Mr. Oliver reviewed approximately eleven, finalized, and proposed changes (items) to the development agreement for the Council’s consideration. During this review, they also ensured the Council and all staff that were present were clear on the final language that was proposed in the fourth amendment to the development agreement. The items or finalized changes included:

Staff clarified whether the Council and all individuals that were present were clear on Sections 5.1 and 5.2 (the item currently under the discussion). Members Nelson and Stoeckel showed visible head nods indicating agreement. No one spoke in objection or initiated additional discussion. 

Mr. Oliver summarized this was the extent of the proposed changes to the project’s development agreement, the exhibits that would be attached to it, which also included the master plan that was provided to the Council. The project representatives desired adding additional notes and that if Council accepted the additional notes and the master plan that was in front of them, which he believed was (indicated) Exhibit B1 or B2. 

Community Development Director Parrish advised staff did not have B2; however, he and project engineer, Rodney Honeycutt, began a discussion. They were sitting at the staff table and had a large document in front of them that appeared to be the size of 24”x36” drawing. 

Mr. Honeycutt advised that B2 was not changing. Community Development Director Parrish advised Exhibit B1, as provided in the Council agenda packet, would stay the same. 

Community Development Director Parrish discussed the document that was the master plan, which was distributed with notes and new tables. He advised that Mr. Honeycutt would read a couple of notes that Mr. Honeycutt requested be included and considered by the City Council. If so, the notes would be added to the version of the documents or fourth amendment that was provided in the handout (distributed). 

Mr. Honeycutt advised, 

“So, there will be a note added under the master plan data table that density and mixed-use parcels, which includes commercial and multifamily, is calculated by using the total parcel acreage. 

It is Note 13. 

And then under the use table, there is going to be a note added that there is 51.1 acres of RMU-100. That is just to clarify that when you add all of the acreages together from the use table, that it is still 345.9.  And to help you understand how the percentages work. So, when you add these percentages, it is not 100.  That’s because we did not include the non-residential and commercial. 

And so, one other thing on the map, there’s a solid line around the parcels internally to designate the parcel line and right now it is shown on the exhibit you have that between the single family and the Parcel 3 particularly---the solid line has dashes in it and that’s because it was put there because this is the part of Phase 1 and 2, and so now that it is a solid line, so it is clear where the Parcel 3 boundary is… 

Also on the end, it moves up to here (pointing to the map), so that just completes that. And this line is solid here, too”. 

Mayor Diesel requested whether Community Development Director Parrish understood or agreed with the information discussed or offered by Mr. Honeycutt. The indication was yes. 

Vice-Mayor Robinson and City Attorney Broome briefly discussed Quasi-judicial Rules of Procedure. 

With no additional persons that wished to speak, the public hearing on Development Agreement Application No. 1-2023 and the Fourth Amendment to the Tranquility (formerly known as Antigua Bay) Development Agreement was closed. 

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Robinson moved to approve Development Agreement No. 1-2023 and the Fourth Amendment to the Tranquility (formerly known as Antigua Bay) Development Agreement, as modified by staff and the applicant. Member Cole seconded the motion and the roll call vote was:

Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          Yes

The motion carried unanimously.  

xxx

CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT – None. 

xxx

With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned the next morning on March 1, 2023, at 3:00 a.m.