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

City Council

Regular Meeting

March 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, March 28, 2023. 

Mayor Diesel called the City Council meeting to order at 7:12 p.m., not 6:30 p.m. due to the prior meeting (City Council Presentations meeting at 5:30 p.m.) 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 – None. 

xxx

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS & PRESENTATIONS – There were no scheduled presentations at this meeting.

xxx

Public Works Director Kevin Cook provided an update on the fish kill at the Osprey Sewer Plant Pond. Council and staff discussed that two witnesses observed signs or evidence after-the-fact that an individual(s) may have dumped something into the pond, subsequent testing of the pond water by the City, notifying the public, etc. 

xxx

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Titusville Environmental Commission and North Brevard Library District Board – The request was to accept the resignation of Titusville Environmental Commission Alternate Member Julie Weaver with a term that will expire on November 30, 2023. The request also included appointing (reinstalling) Julie Weaver as a regular member to the North Brevard Library District Board for an unexpired term to expire on September 30, 2023.

Stan Johnston submitted a public speaking card. He commented on filling board vacancies, concerns for dishonesty, etc. 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to accept the resignation of Titusville Environmental Commission Alternate Member Julie Weaver with a term expiring on November 30, 2023. The resignation was effective on March 14, 2023. The motion also included appointing Julie Weaver as a regular member to the North Brevard Library District Board for an unexpired term to expire on September 30, 2023. 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) - 

Rodney Honeycutt requested Council direct staff to prepare a resolution to extend the Code Enforcement Lien Amnesty Program, to which Council discussed placing this item on a future City Council meeting agenda, sending notices within the community, whether Mr. Honeycutt suggested an expiration date of the requested extension, etc. Council indicated their support of Mr. Honeycutt’s request.  

xxx

Michael Myjak requested whether there was a better way to detect sewer leaks, other than when fish kills occurred. 

Public Works Director Kevin Cook gave an overview on how sewer meter flow that was delivered to treatment facilities was monitored. If there was a large drop, technology was used to alert the City if there were issues with flow. With the fish kill, the drop within the pond was too small to get picked up by the technology, so the fish kill was the first sign there was an issue in the Osprey Sewer Plant pond. 

Mr. Myjak continued and discussed how such a small issue like the one that caused the fish kill could affect the health of water bodies. He discussed his experience with technology and felt it was important to improve the City’s sewer pressure monitoring system. 

xxx

Stan Johnston expressed concerns for fraud and dishonesty on a prior sewer spill. 

xxx

CONSENT AGENDA

City Manager Larese read Consent Agenda Items A through J, as followed: 

(There was a scrivener’s error in Resolution No. 8-2023 and it should of referenced Resolution No. 7-2021, not Resolution No. 7-2020)

Nathan Slusher submitted a public speaking card on Consent Agenda Item A. He expressed concern whether there was a Council voting conflict on the agenda item, to which Council and staff clarified information for Mr. Slusher that helped him understand more information on the request. 

Stan Johnston submitted public speaking cards on Consent Agenda Items E, G, and I. He waived his right to speak. 

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Robinson moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A through J, in accordance with the recommendations. 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. 

xxx

ORDINANCES – SECOND READING, PUBLIC HEARING AND RELATED ACTION

City Attorney Broome read and reviewed the Quasi-Judicial Rules and Procedures. 

Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application No. 7-2022, 1881 Knox McRae Drive – This item was previously tabled by the City Council on February 28, 2023 (6:30 p.m.). City Manager Larese highlighted the request as provided 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. 

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 (Vote 5-0).

Community Development Director Brad Parrish commented on page 463 of the Council agenda packet. The project’s Concept Plan had since changed on the proposed location of the playground equipment, bollards were added by or near a sidewalk, and a second egress from the playground was added to the plans.  

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 highlighted the location map, existing site conditions, applicant’s request, and an exhibit. The exhibit included proposed and designated school parking spaces, bollards, playground and playground entrance, six (6) foot wall, information on the existing building or old shopping center, proposed future student drop-off and pick-up location and route, playground emergency exit, etc.

Council discussed several questions with Mr. Dickerson on the following items:

• Whether the daycare or school would occupy the entire building and each of its stores
• The drop off and pick-up area(s) for the child daycare or school
• Stormwater retention area
• Bollards and a wall around the playground were proposed and would be installed
• Concerns for traffic near the playground
• Whether the new proposed location for the playground was not part of a quality vision for the site’s overall plan
• Future expansions or changes to the subject site would require the City’s approval
• Investment, future improvements, and formal review of future plans for the subject site

Ervin Jenkins, a business tenant and child daycare business owner at the subject site, was pleased with the recent landlord-tenant communications and accommodations made by the applicant and landlord. 

Stan Johnston commended the Council for previously tabling the agenda item and taking more time to address the Council’s and the citizens’ prior concerns. 

There were no additional public that wished to speak. 

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Robinson advised that based on the evidence presented and finding that the request in the application met the criteria in the Land Development Regulations, moved to approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application No. 7-2022 at 1881 Knox McRae Drive, as recommended by staff and as presented by the applicant. 

Community Development Director Parrish confirmed Vice-Mayor Robinson’s pending motion was based on the applicant’s presentation on CUP Application No. 7-2022, including the Concept Plan presented at this Council meeting. The indication was yes. 

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

Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) No. 5-2022, Greg Nelson – City Attorney Broome read the following ordinances for the second time and by title only, as followed:

Ordinance No. 17-2023 - 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 A 3.31+/- ACRE PORTION OF  A PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF INTERSTATE 95 AND STATE ROAD 406 (GARDEN STREET) INTERCHANGE, HAVING BREVARD COUNTY PARCEL I.D. NO. 21-35-31-AT-1-14 and 21-35-31-AT-16-1, FROM CONSERVATION FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO COMMERCIAL HIGH INTENSITY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 

Ordinance No. 18-2023 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 27-1997 OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE BY REFERENCE BY CHANGING THE OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION (OR) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) ZONING DISTRICT ON A 3.31+/- ACRE PORTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF INTERSTATE 95 AND STATE ROAD 406 (GARDEN STREET) INTERCHANGE, TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA (BREVARD COUNTY PARCEL I.D. NO. 21-35-31-AT-1-14 and 21-35-31-AT-16-1; 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 as provided in the Council agenda packet. The request was to conduct the second reading and public hearing of the ordinances for Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) No. 5-2022.

The Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Planning Agency, considered this request on March 8, 2023 and recommended approval of the comprehensive plan future land use map amendment from the Conservation Land Use to the Commercial High Intensity Land Use category on the portion of the overall property as illustrated and described in the land use ordinance and as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and more specifically with Conservation Element Strategy 1.6.3.2. (Approved 7-0) and recommended approval on the rezoning from Open Space and Recreation (OR) to the Regional Commercial (RC) zoning district on the portion of the overall property as described in the rezoning ordinance and as consistent with the Commercial High Intensity Future Land Use category of the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning criteria described in 34-40 of the Land Development Regulations. (Approved 7-0).

Community Development Director Brad Parrish reviewed information from the staff report provided in the Council agenda packet. 

Mayor Diesel and Council discussed Quasi-Judicial Rules and Procedures, ex parte communications, and whether or not Council had formed any opinions on the requested actions. 

Member Stoeckel and staff discussed her questions on the rationale for the property’s existing land use designation(s), the applicant’s responsibilities to the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and the open space Code requirements for the Commercial High Intensity land use designation.   

Mayor Diesel opened the public hearing. 

Kim Rezanka, the applicant and an attorney on behalf of Greg Nelson and Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) Application No. 5-2022, distributed information and ensured the Council was provided the packet of information that was also provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission. She then reviewed the following information. 

• The history of the subject property and parcels
• The project’s representatives’ names and resumes were provided or available
• Processes required to complete the project’s goals
• The requested actions within the proposed ordinances
• Information on the surrounding properties and roads
• Existing and non-existing legal access
• An old manmade pond that took on the features of a wetland
• The applicant identifying a specific use was not legally required by Code or Statute
• Environmental report
• The Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) involvement regarding legal access
• A community meeting was held on January 13, 2023
• The community’s questions and concerns
• The Planning and Zoning Commission’s concerns

Council and staff discussed the Council’s questions on the following items:

• How a 1962 home was able to be built on a current commercial zoned property
• Conservation
• The future of a lake or water body on the site was unknown

Rodney Honeycutt, an engineer on behalf of behalf of Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) Application No. 5-2022, distributed information and reviewed the following items:

• Property location and compatibility with regional commercial
• The property had limited access being near Interstate I-95 and the property’s access was east of the old gas station
• Filling in a pond in the Area of Critical Concern (ACC) and why this followed the rules for the ACC
• Water and aquifer details
• Offsite drainage

Jon Sheperd, a professional environmental representative on behalf of behalf of Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) Application No. 5-2022, reviewed the following information:

• A central issue was the 3.31 acres, which was a manmade pond dug in the late 1950s or early 1960s. It was not a wetland, even though it was set forth previously as conservation
• If a body of water was over one acre in size, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) indicated it would have some wetland function
• His meeting with SJRWMD in 2020 regarding the manmade pond, which was indicated to have minimal functioning capacity at approximately 40%
• The southern 2.2 acres of the pond system was graded (determined) by SJRWMD to have 53% functionality
• The SJRWMD would require mitigation and wetland mitigation credits would need to be purchased

Council discussed their questions on the following items:

• Stormwater requirements versus whether a wet pond was desired
• Creating a dry stormwater feature
• Development Code standards for properties in the Area of Critical Concern (ACC) indicated wet ponds were not acceptable, only dry. This was good for wellfield areas in the ACC
• The importance of wetlands (habitat, filtering stormwater, etc.)
• The pond had steep sides and had standing water in it
• How the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) may classify the body of water on the site
• Wetland mitigation and whether it was a benefit to have a wetland in the area
• SJRWMD wetland mitigation requirements
• The boundaries of a nearby wetland mitigation boundary (located in parts of Volusia and Brevard Counties)

Additional individuals submitted public hearing oath cards.

Donna Sauerland lived near the subject site. Her concern was additional flooding in the Fairglen neighborhood (Fairglen Street) that may result if the pond was filled on the subject site. Storms already caused flooding in her neighborhood. Her second concern was traffic. She felt the area was already too busy.

George Sauerland desired learning where stormwater may flow, if the pond on the site was filled. He was also concerned for flooding in his neighborhood or its being on a lower elevation (indicated), if a new development or new improvements were built on a higher elevation.

Nathan Slusher waived his right to speak.

Beth Charron advised that her neighborhood already had difficulties with flooding. There was no drainage plan. Her second concern was traffic and her neighborhood and the project being located by Interstate I-95, commercial businesses, and two public schools. Ms. Charron desired traffic study impacts on the proposed project at the subject site

Denise Meadows distributed pictures of flooding and a fallen tree in the Fairglen neighborhood following a storm(s). She spoke on behalf of property owned by a trust and that was located near the subject site. She was concerned for further flooding, if the pond on the subject site was filled.  

Matthew Howell of the Fairglen neighborhood expressed concern on additional flooding, filling the pond in with debris, if it was allowed to be filled, whether the applicant was obtaining permits, etc.

Quentin Feezor of the Fairglen neighborhood expressed concern on additional flooding. He had a photo on his phone of a road that was covered by water seven days after a hurricane of recent years (copy of photo provided for public record purposes).

Community Development Director Parrish advised that a citizen showing the Council a photo on their phone had not been made part of the evidence of the public hearing. Mayor Diesel discussed the correct procedures. Mr. Feezor was asked to email the picture to him or the City.

Toni Shifalo advised the wetland or pond on the subject site was less than five acres and she judged why it should be distinguished as having been “manmade”. Ms. Shifalo felt this wet area on the subject site was part of a larger wetland system. She also commented on the City motto, “Gateway to Nature and Space”.

Steve Hall, his family member being of the Fairglen neighborhood, was concerned by future impacts caused by flooding to the Fairglen and nearby neighborhoods, increased traffic and congestion, allowing the pond on the subject site to remain wet, etc.

Stan Johnston did not speak.  

Bill Young discouraged development of the subject property. He advised the current issues with flooding in the area were the result of decades old and prior flawed decisions on development. Mr. Young also commented on the importance of having nature, balancing the City’s approach to development to offset issues like flooding, requesting drainage, and thinking outside the box to solve these types of issues.

Melinda Roberts of the Fairglen neighborhood commented on how prior flooding threatened her home and other homes after prior storms. She desired allowing the applicant to allow the pond on the site to stay wet, because she felt it provided at least some functionality for stormwater drainage. Ms. Roberts was also concerned whether the residents would be required to begin paying flood insurance costs.  She wanted the applicant to accomplish their desires, but not at a cost to her neighborhood.

Brief discussion occurred on the Fairglen neighborhood being built in the 1960s, whether the Fairglen and other neighborhoods were built in flood zone areas, Interstate 95 was completed in the late 1960s or early 1970s, the prior relocation of a home near the beach to the Fairglen neighborhood, etc.

Bob Porta was a longtime resident that remembered how the community once used the pond he advised was known as Nelson’s Lake. He commented on historical flooding when the pond was full and affected the neighborhood. For this reason, he requested to not allow the pond to be filled.

Kim Rezanka, the applicant and an attorney on behalf of Greg Nelson and Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) Application No. 5-2022, rebutted some of the public’s comments and concerns. She spoke to what she heard as the main concerns being the pond, flooding, and traffic, which she advised were site plan issues. To this, Ms. Rezanka further reviewed information on the following:

• Site plan and engineering
• City Code requirements
• New development could not impact old development
• The Area of Critical Concern Code requirements and impervious surface Code requirements
• Accommodating displaced water
• Existing acreage zoned commercial that could not be accessed – a detriment to moving forward with commercial
• Traffic study would be required at site plan review
• Room for expansion was possible by her analysis and this was why the Florida Department of Transportation took a portion of property
• Upon the owners’ purchase of the subject site in the 1950s or 1960s, the was no City zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan
• Fairglen was an old subdivision. There was no stormwater management; however, there was a storm drain in the subdivision that was neglected and who was responsible for it was unknown
• Stormwater for the project was a site plan issue
• Trees
• Prior fires on the subject property were set by transients. This may be a Code Enforcement issue, but it was not a zoning issue
• Flooding patterns were changing historically, with more hurricanes that were occurring
• Removal of the pond on the subject site would not mean more flooding to the nearby area, because the requirements indicated the stormwater on the site was required to be maintained
• The subject property was located in a commercial area and gateway
• The proposed actions met the requirements in the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations
• If speeding drivers were a concern on Garden Street, this should be addressed by the police, not the property owner
• The pond was located on private property
• The 40% standard referenced by one citizen was related to impervious surfaces, not the lake
• Concerns for the visual appearance or noise from Interstate 95 was an issue for the FDOT
• The reasons for the proposed actions were to obtain proper legal access
• Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) scores indicated the pond or lake was not functional
• The property owner was entitled to have their property zoned based on zoning concepts, without regard to a particular use---this was excessive governmental control or affected Constitutional rights of property owners

Mayor Diesel desired more information on water and if the pond was filled, where would the water go. Rodney Honeycutt, an engineer on behalf of behalf of Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) Application No. 5-2022, offered rebuttal comments and information on the following:

• The purpose of the pond on the subject site was not intended to prevent the adjacent subdivision from flooding
• When a swamp area to the south of the subject property filled up after rain events, water could affect the area

Member Nelson requested how flooding could be prevented from affecting the Fairglen Subdivision. She and staff discussed this and future anticipations about flooding, the subdivision and an old stormwater drain in the subdivision was not related to the applicant’s request, Code requirements provided that new development could not affect old development (meaning one could not make things worse than they were now), the purpose of site plan review processes and stringent requirements, etc.

Vice-Mayor Robinson and staff discussed his questions on whether historical precedence indicated when something or a condition of something had been a certain way for a long time (the indication was historical drainage patterns or measurements thereof), whether there was a way to address these concepts, etc. Vice-Mayor Robinson was interested in whether the current condition of drainage in the area was documented, in order to judge or calculate that new development did not make an old development worse.  

Member Stoeckel and staff discussed her questions on what accountability or structures were in place to address issues that occurred later and following projects being completed according to meeting all policy requirements. She gave an example of one squishy (wet) neighborhood, even when major rain events had not been an issue.

Member Cole and staff discussed his questions on the elevation of projects and engineering calculations related to draining stormwater away from projects. Mr. Honeycutt (engineer) and staff responded to this item of discussion. The comments reviewed information on the State issuing permits, addressing any adverse impacts, evaluating historic drainage, whether meeting minimum requirements was enough, the developer having certain expectations, in order to complete projects, pre and post drainage studies (post development must be less than pre development study), water was required to be maintained on site, dry retention was required, less than 40% impervious surface was required in the Area of Critical Concern, the subject site was currently lower than the Fairglen Subdivision according to Mr. Honeycutt, etc.

David Scott Charron advised his property was twelve feet away from the lake on the subject site. He advised that when you stood in his yard, you had to look up to see the Shell gas station (indicating his property was lower than the Shell gas station). Water could only come down to the lake due to gravity. The lake that he was referring to was like a big holding tank to keep his neighborhood dry.

Brief discussion ensued on a nearby area determined as wetlands, according to Mr. Charron.

City Attorney Broome advised the applicant would have the opportunity to rebut any new comments from Mr. Charron (and additional speakers from the public). The questions thus far dealt with filling the pond, historical and more questions could be asked on what would happen, the permits that were required and/or if doing so would impact wetlands governed by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and addressing adverse impacts. The matters at hand were related to land use and zoning and other questions were being brought forward.

Jon Sheperd, a professional environmental representative on behalf of behalf of Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) Application No. 5-2022, indicated many of the questions were related to engineering issues. About the environmental side, he advised there was currently no permit that regulated the water on the subject property. A permit that was required in the future included getting a permit from SJRWMD that managed water. Getting this permit would dictate where water would go and where it could not go. 

Kim Rezanka, the applicant, highlighted information that she distributed earlier in the meeting. She advised the pond on the subject site only concerned her client, not speculators. The project engineer indicated that water flowed into the wetland at the south. The development in the area was older and probably did not have stormwater management. Ms. Rezanka reiterated any new development could not impact older development. Engineering and other studies that lay ahead were onerous and required careful review. The issue for her client was related to access. The requested actions at hand dealt with land use and zoning, not development of the subject site because there was no site plan (not to the site plan phase or not for this item yet), etc. Ms. Rezanka added that she did understand the concerns that were raised, but reiterated the requested action at this hearing that would allow her client’s property to be used for commercial purposes, as was intended when the pond was a borrow pit. The pond was not intended to be for everyone else’s use. 

Mayor Diesel understood Ms. Rezanka’s comments and the focus and purpose of the requested actions at this public hearing. He also commented on the previous inquiry of how to measure current flooding in the area against new development and whether flooding conditions became better or worse. 

Ms. Rezanka indicated these were engineering considerations that perhaps were handled during pre and post development related studies. She and her client understood what the legal and performance standards were and the issue for them was old development next to old development. She and her client could also not prove “right now” that new development on the subject site would not impact the old development surrounding the subject site. Instead, the issue for her client at the present time was a zoning issue, because there was not proper access. 

Member Stoeckel discussed the Comprehensive Plan, balancing these issues, and seeing “both sides”.

Per Mayor Diesel’s request, staff reviewed the City’s Comprehensive Plan and policy information to assist Council with their consideration of whether the applicant’s requests were consistent or not consistent with policy criteria (beginning with the proposed land use amendment ordinance. The proposed rezoning was subsequent and this was quasi-judicial). Some of the information reviewed by staff included two of the more relevant policies: 

• Comprehensive Plan Policy, Conservation Element No. 1.6.3.2
• Comprehensive Plan Policy, Future Land Use Element No. 1.16.4  

Member Stoeckel discussed her questions on whether the property with surface water was usable. Staff commented on a photo or exhibit that was previously distributed by Mr. Honeycutt and where the applicant reasonably believed they could have a vehicular access to the property. The indication was the applicant would be unable or limited on the west side by Interstate 95. This meant evaluating access on the east side of the property by the gas station, but then because of the location of the pond, it could limit the ability for where the road (access) could be installed. This was where Future Land Use Element No. 1.16.4 could address the applicant’s goals.

Member Stoeckel wanted the applicant and property owners to have access. She also discussed ways in which she evaluated the scenario and for which the applicant might accomplish their goals. Member Stoeckel was concerned for taking away a substantial amount of conservation and causing impacts. Allowing the applicant flexibility was discussed as a step that came before the design process, when it would be known what the applicant could and could not do. The applicant returning to Council for further considerations could also be a requirement, if during later steps of development, the applicant’s goals were not achievable under current Council approvals.

Member Cole discussed whether it was possible to ease the neighbors’ concerns on flooding. He knew particular items of concern could not be evaluated until there was a site plan. Staff indicated the standards in the Area of Critical Concern (ACC) might be useful. The ACC standards were more stringent than State standards or State stormwater requirements. The 40% maximum pervious standard was pretty stringent. There were several other ACC standards that discussed items like the design of the site’s stormwater system, the build-out potential of property, the amount of fill that could be brought to the property, limitations on the amount of topography that could be removed, etc. Staff referenced page 525 of the Council agenda packet during this portion of the discussion.  

Mayor Diesel and staff discussed the applicant’s request concerning the proposed land use amendment. The applicant requested removing the Conservation land use and replace it with surrounding commercial high intensity. The question at hand was whether this was a good policy decision. It was also noted that no matter the land use designation, the process of wetland mitigation was a requirement with the State and local government, as well as a site plan would need to be approved. 

Council discussion ensued with staff on the following:

• Impervious surfaces and “the 40% policy provisions”. Examples included buildings, concrete, asphalt, etc. The other 60% of surfaces could be ponds, drainage, or surfaces that rain could percolate through
• The amount of fill that could be brought in and removed. Specific policy provisions were enforced for this subject
• Comprehensive Plan Policy, Future Land Use Element No. 1.16.4
• The desire by one individual Council member to retain some conservation land use on half of the property or on a particular area of the subject site, so the applicant could have flexibility and the vehicle access they desired  
• Options before the Council that went with approval or denial
• Future Land Use Element Policy No. 1.16.4 discussed areas designated conservation land use and whether wetlands could be impacted in there. The policy read,

“Impacts to areas designated as Conservation land use designation shall be considered if it is unavoidable due to absence of feasible and/or practical alternatives for reasonable use of the land, or the regulations create an inordinate burden on an existing use of the land or a vested right to a specific use of the land, or due to significant site constraint and/or practical design modification constraint. The allowable impacts shall be based upon site specific evaluation determined through the permitting process conducted by all the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction’. 

There were no additional persons from the public that wished to speak. Discussion ensued on the following:

• Policy and how it pertained to the proposed legislative land use amendment
• Formalities associated with legislative actions, if the proposed land use amendment was denied, then the proposed zoning would be inconsistent and could not be considered
• Formal policy and approval criteria
• If the land use amendment was denied, the applicant may be able to achieve some of their goals through the site plan review process
• Site plans were approved administratively by City staff
• Proposals that required and did not require City Council’s approval
• Meeting design standards
• The Conservation land use designation allowed some impact to wetlands as governed by process and policy
• Items that could not be located inside an area designated as conservation
• If (hypothetically) the land use was changed as requested by the applicant, yet the property was still wet (The State identified the area on the applicant’s property as a wetland)
• Requirements dealing with wet property involved the State and any other regulatory agencies, including the City during the site review development permit

Motion:

Vice-Mayor Robinson moved to deny Ordinance No. 17-2023, due to the proposed ordinance was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion and the roll call vote was:                          

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

          Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          No

Member Nelson                      Yes

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

The motion carried, 4-yes to 1-no, with Member Cole in objection. Ordinance No. 17-2023 was denied. 

xxx

At 10:20 p.m., Mayor Diesel called for a 10-minute break. The meeting resumed at 10:30 p.m.

xxx

Ordinance No. 18-2023 required the Council’s consideration. It was noted that the ordinance’s proposal to rezone the property to Regional Commercial zoning (On a 3.31+/- acre portion of property located southeast of Interstate 95 and State Road 406 (Garden Street) Interchange, Titusville, Florida (Brevard County Parcel I.D. No. 21-35-31-At-1-14 And 21-35-31-At-16-1), was inconsistent with the property’s current Conservation Future Land Use Designation. 

Motion:

Member Stoeckel moved to deny Ordinance No. 18-2023, due to being inconsistent with the property’s land use designation. Vice-Mayor Robinson 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. Ordinance No. 18-2023 was denied. 

xxx

Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) No. 6-2022, Palmetto Complex - City Attorney Broome read the following ordinances for the second time and by title only, as followed:

Ordinance No. 19-2023 - 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 0.54+/- ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON PALMETTO STREET, HAVING BREVARD COUNTY PARCEL I.D. NO. 22-35-04-00-53 and 22-35-04-00-50, FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Ordinance No. 20-2023 - 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 SINGLE-FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY (R-1B) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONING DISTRICT ON APPROXIMATELY 0.54+/- ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON PALMETTO STREET, TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA (BREVARD COUNTY PARCEL I.D. NO. 22-35-04-00-53 and 22-35-04-00-50; 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 as provided in the Council agenda packet. The request was to conduct the final reading and public hearing of ordinances for Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSA) Application No. 6-2022. 

The Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Planning Agency, considered this request on March 8, 2023 and recommended approval of the comprehensive plan future land use map small scale map amendment from the Low-Density Residential Future Land Use category to the Medium Density Residential Future Land Use category on the 0.78-acre property as described in the future land use ordinance. (Approved 7- 0) and recommended approval on the rezoning from Single Family Medium Density (R-1B) zoning district to the Multi-Family Medium Density (R-2) zoning district on the 0.78-acre property as described in the rezoning ordinance (Approved 7-0). 

Community Development Director Parrish reviewed information from the staff report provided in the Council agenda packet. 

xxx

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. Member Cole seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

xxx

Community Development Director Parrish continued and reviewed information from the staff report for Small Scale Amendment Application No. 6-2022. A Concept Plan was also provided in the Council agenda packet, on page 631. The Concept Plan was associated with the proposed rezoning ordinance, if it was approved. 

Mayor Diesel opened the public hearing.

Stavros Hatzistavridis, an engineer on behalf of Small Scale Amendment Application No. 6-2022, was available to answer questions. 

Stan Johnston waived his right to speak. 

There were no additional persons that wished to speak.

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to approve Ordinance No. 19-2023, as recommended by staff and indicating it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Member Stoeckel 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. 

Motion:

Based on the evidence presented and finding that Ordinance No. 20-2023 was consistent with the Land Development Regulations, Vice-Mayor Robinson moved to approve Ordinance No. 20-2023, as recommended by staff. Member Cole seconded the motion.  

City Clerk Wells confirmed the proposed motion included approval of the Concept Plan as recommended by staff. The Concept Plan was located on Page 631 of the agenda packet. The indication was yes. 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

ORDINANCES-FIRST READING

Elected Officials Compensation Proposed Adjustments – City Attorney Broome read Ordinance No. 21-2023 – AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 2-28 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY INCREASING THE SALARY OF COUNCILMEMBERS AND MAYOR; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, for the first time by title only. 

Two individuals submitted public speaking cards.

Nathan Slusher was unavailable and Stan Johnston commented on why he was opposed to the proposed ordinance. 

The public hearing on Ordinance No. 21-2023 was scheduled for the regular City Council meeting on April 11, 2023 at 6:30 p.m. 

xxx

OLD BUSINESS – None. 

xxx

NEW BUSINESS

Mayor and City Council Office Advisability – The request was for Council to consider directing staff to pursue an office for the Mayor and City Council at the Chamber of Commerce building and including the cost in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 proposed budget.

Stan Johnston submitted a public speaking card. He did not support the idea. 

Following Council discussion, the Council was not in support of pursuing an office for the Mayor and City Council at the Chamber of Commerce Building.

xxx

Resolution No. 9-2023 accepting Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan WW050340 Amendment 1 – The request was to adopt Resolution No. 9-2023 accepting Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan WW050340 Amendment 1 raising loan amount from $4,889,000 to $9,528,453 for the construction of the Indian River Force Main Improvement Project. Additionally, authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.

Council, City Manager Larese, and Public Works Director Kevin Cook briefly discussed the payment terms of the loan, project completion timeline, why the amount increased from a previous amount, the cost of labor and materials increased, the project benefitted the health of the Indian River Lagoon, status of current lift stations or infrastructure, the area that served to benefit from the improvements afforded by the loan, etc. 

Stan Johnston submitted a public speaking card. He commented on professional education classes he took during his career to learn from others. 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to approve Resolution No. 9-2023, as recommended. Member Stoeckel seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

Mayor Diesel                          Yes

Vice-Mayor Robinson            Yes

Member Stoeckel                    Yes

Member Cole                          Yes

Member Nelson                      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

Mayor Diesel advised that he named and selected the late Jane Speidel as the winner of the Mayor’s Community Spirit Award. Mayor Diesel also reviewed information on an open house at the Boys & Girls Club. Member Nelson added that the Fire and Police Departments would hold different activity days at the Boys & Girls Club during summer, including that Council was invited to “water day” events. 

xxx

Mayor Diesel requested Council authorization on the presentation of a particular proclamation. 

Stan Johnston submitted a public speaking card. He waived his right to speak. 

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to authorize a proclamation to the Women’s Center of Brevard proclaiming April 26, 2023 as Denim Day, which would 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. 

xxx

It was 11:00 p.m.

Motion:

Member Nelson moved to extend the meeting until 11:15 p.m. Member Cole seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

xxx

Council Reports - 

Member Stoeckel commented on studying the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the increase in development projects, private property owner rights, Council citing specific policies when considering land use applications and proposed ordinances, having flexibility, etc.

Member Nelson commented on attending an event at the City’s Osprey Plant, house painting efforts in the community, trash pickup events, etc. 

Vice-Mayor Robinson commented on substantial information provided on the City’s website. 

Mayor Diesel commented on lagoon improvement projects, delivery partnerships and trends. 

Member Cole commented on the recent Titusville Environmental Commission (TEC) meeting.  

xxx

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

City Manager's Report - City Manager Larese submitted his written report. All items were informational only. 

xxx

CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT

Acquisition of SunValley lots by bid at the tax deed sale – City Attorney Broome provided an update on the acquisition of SunValley lots by bid at the tax deed sale. No action was requested.

xxx

Settlement of Pending Claim – City Attorney Broome outlined the request provided in the Council agenda packet. He reviewed proposed terms to settle and approve the settlement of claim in Edwards v. City of Titusville and authorize defense counsel, City Manager or designee to execute the necessary settlement documents.

Stan Johnston submitted a public speaking card. He was opposed to the request for reasons he explained. 

Motion:

Member Cole moved to approve settlement of the claim in Edwards v. City of Titusville and authorized defense counsel, City Manager or designee to execute the necessary settlement documents, as recommended. Member Nelson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 

xxx

With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.