Community Redevelopment Agency - February 11, 2020

  1. Minutes

     Community Redevelopment Agency

Regular Meeting

February 11, 2020

 

 

The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) of the City of Titusville, Florida met in regular session in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 555 South Washington Avenue, on Tuesday, February 11, 2020.


Call to Order/Determination of a Quorum – Chairman Walt Johnson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Present were Chairman Walt Johnson, Vice-Chairman Dan Diesel and Members Greg Aker, Jim Ball, Robert Jordan, and Jo Lynn Nelson. Also, present were Executive Director Scott Larese and Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Attorney Richard Broome. Sr. Administrative Assistant Debbie Denman completed the minutes. Member Sarah Stoeckel was absent


Sr. Administrative Assistant Debbie Denman read the procedure for public comment. 


Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance – Chairman Johnson asked for a moment of silence and then led the entire assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 


Approval of Minutes 

 

Motion:

Member Jordan moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting on January 14, 2020, as submitted. Member Nelson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.   


Special Recognitions and Presentations - None


Old Business - None


New Business 

 

Building Height Amendment in the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) – Uptown Sub-district – Executive Director Larese advised that Section 28-44, Downtown Mixed Use (DMU), Sub-districts provided for additional height for convention/hotel/entertainment facilities in the DMU - Uptown Sub-district. Section 28-324, DMU Smart Code Zoning district standards were internally inconsistent and limited height to five (5) stories in the DMU Uptown Sub-district.

 

At the January 28, 2020 City Council meeting, the City Council approved advisability to develop an ordinance to correct the internal inconsistency by increasing building height in the Uptown Sub-district in specific areas of the sub-district. A copy of the proposed ordinance increasing building height west of US Route 1 in the sub-district was included in the agenda package. Also included in the agenda package was a copy of the current height overlay code which provided an example of the height transition zone.

 

Staff recommend approval to amend the DMU - Uptown Subdistrict building height regulations to correct the internal inconsistency by increasing height in specified areas of the DMU - Uptown Sub-district.

 

Member Ball provided his concerns with the two conditions that were added into the DMU - Uptown Subdistrict building height regulations. He asked that staff provide a definition of what “abut” meant if the definition was different than adjoining property lines and that if staff felt there was an architectural reason for the transitional plane of 45 degrees, that some flexibility was provided to the applicant to provide something other than a transitional height plane.

 

Redevelopment Planner Tim Ford provided the definition of “abut” as described in the publication “Land Use and Planning” defined as “abutting as having property or zoning district boundaries in common” and “The Language of Zoning Glossary of Words and Phrases” defined as “abutting is having property or district lines in common, e.g. two lots are abutting if they have property lines in common”.

 

Member Ball recommended that if “abut” was going to be put into the Code as a condition, a short definition should be included pertaining to the definitions provided by Redevelopment Planner Ford. 

 

Referencing the transitional height plane, Redevelopment Planner Ford advised that he believed that the transitional height plane was added to be consistent with Code Section 129-63.

 

Redevelopment Planner Ford advised that in the second condition - A transitional height plane shall begin at a point fifty (50) feet from any setback line and then extend at an upward angle of forty-five (45) degrees over the lot A transitional height plane diagram is shown in Section 29-163, Transitional Height Zone - the word from should be changed to above.

 

Discussion ensued that included the transitional height plane of 45 degrees.

 

Stan Johnston questioned DCRA and advised that the Height overlay boundary did not have a legend for the different colors. He stated that he was against increasing building heights.

 

Motion:

Member Ball moved to accept staff’s recommendation to amend the DMU - Uptown Subdistrict building height regulations to correct the internal inconsistency by increasing height in specified areas of the DMU - Uptown Sub-district, as recommended with the deletion of the requirement of transitional height plane as currently in staff’s recommendation with the addition of an abbreviated definition of what “abut” means. Member Jordan seconded the motion. 

 

Member Nelson asked if 50 feet above any setback line was left in, would that have to be amended and asked whether there was a recommendation from staff to delete the second requirement.

 

Executive Director Larese advised that staff was not emotionally attached to that condition.

 

The motion carried unanimously.


Petitions and Requests from the Public Present 


Executive Director’s Report 

 

Executive Director Larese submitted a written report that included the following information:

 

Informational

  • Fulltime Maintenance Position
  • CRA Special Audit Scope of Work


Capital Projects in the Downtown

  • Sidewalk Infill & Repair
  • Street Resurfacing
  • Street Lights
  • Downtown Cameras
  • Spaceview Park Observation/Walkway Pier
  • Commons Parking Lot Landscaping 

Ongoing Projects

  • US Highway 1 and SR 406 Corridor Studies
  • Historic Preservation Board
  • CRA Projects Chart

Sr. Administration Assistant Denman advised that there were speaking cards for Petitions and Request and the Executive Director’s report.  


Stan Johnston commented on the review of his correspondence to the City. He stated that he asked Geosyntec whether they were aware of a report, but they advised that were not aware of any report and that he was never sent the report.

 

CRA Attorney Broome stated that Mr. Johnston was provided the report from Geosyntec.

 

Mayor Johnson asked that the report be provided to Mr. Johnston again.


As there were no action items on the Executive Director’s Report, Mr. Johnston did not speak under that item. 


Member Ball thanked staff for putting the CRA projects on the web-site.


The meeting adjourned at 6:08 p.m.