November 18, 2020 Minutes

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) of the City of Titusville, Florida met in regular session in the Council Chamber of City Hall, located at 555 South Washington Avenue on Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.

 

XXX

 

Chairman Severs called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present were Secretary Speidel, Member Grant, Member Parrish and Member Porter. Alternate Member Riley joined via telecommunication. Vice-Chairman Richardson and Member Murray were absent. Also, in attendance were Planner Navael Fontus, Senior Planner Gabriel Quintas, Assistant City Attorney Chelsea Farrell, and Recording Secretary Kim Amick.

 

Chairman Severs said at the last meeting Vice-Chair Joe Richardson indicated he could not be at this meeting because he had a conflict involving a required condominium association annual meeting.

 

Chairman Severs said Alternate Member Noel-Copeland, who submitted a resignation, prior to the last meeting, as he understands her resignation letter has not been acted upon by Council at this time, is that correct.

 

Assistant City Attorney Farrell stated yes.

 

XXX

 

Member Grant asked that a correction be made with regard to page 10, his statement was tiny homes on wheels.

 

Member Porter made a motion to approve the November 4, 2020 meeting minutes with the correction. Secretary Speidel seconded.

 

Roll call was as follows:

 

Member Riley                         Yes

Member Grant                        Yes

Member Porter                        Yes

Member Parrish                       Yes

Secretary Speidel                    Yes

Chairman Severs                     Yes

 

Motion passed.

 

XXX

 

Assistant City Attorney Farrell read the Notice of Requirements.

 

XXX

 

Quasi-Judicial Confirmation Procedures

 

Chairman Severs said under new business Item 9A, B and C are regular legislative matters and Item D, is that a quasi-judicial matter, the right-of-way vacation.

 

Assistant City Attorney Farrell stated yes.

 

Chairman Severs read the quasi-judicial procedures.

 

XXX

 

Consent Agenda Item

 

XXX

 

Old Business

 

XXX

 

 

New Business

 

Assistant City Attorney Farrell asked Chairman Severs to poll the audience to see who is here for Item 9D, probably the first three are not attracting any audience members.

 

Chairman Severs asked who many individuals are here for 9D which is the right-of-way vacation, three.

 

Chairman Severs suggested they take that item first rather than having them wait for the other items. 

 

ROW #3-2020 Huntington Park (Video start time 00:10:45)

Mr. Quintas gave an overview of this item.

 

Brian Daigle, 1250 Eau Gallie Boulevard, spoke in favor.  Mr. Daigle, MBV Engineering, said he represents the owners and they agree with staff’s recommendations and are acceptable to all the conditions.

 

Kevin Cunningham, 3115 Treetop Drive, spoke against.  Mr. Cunningham said he wanted to make a statement he disagrees with Huntington Park proposal of the map that he received.  Mr. Cunningham said he has an objection to the way the development is being done in the past and that it has 50’ wide home lots in an area that is surrounded by 150’ wide lots.  He said if the Huntington Park proposal goes through he has not objection to the right-of-way being turned over to them but he would suggest to the owners that a compromise of the eastern 32 lots of development be switched to 75’ wide lots instead of the 50’ wide that they currently have.

 

Chairman Severs said the only issue before the commission and their recommendation deals with whether or not they should recommend vacating the right-of-way.  Chairman Severs said they will have a separate public hearing dealing with the sketch plat and the lot layout and everything dealing with a sketch plat.  He said that would be the more appropriate time to come back for that.  Chairman Severs said do you have any additional comments regarding the vacating of the right-of-way.

 

Mr. Cunningham said he had no additional comments regarding vacating the right-of-way.

 

Chairman Severs said the current 20’ right-of-way provide access to any other property that they are dependent on.

 

Mr. Quintas said there is an existing old plat from 1914 and there are lots in theory on paper that have access through that right-of-way.

 

Chairman Severs said does this applicant own the property on both sides of the area you are talking about.

 

Mr. Quintas said yes.

 

Chairman Severs said from a legal standpoint does the City Attorney’s Office envision vacating this right-of-way of impairing anyone’s access to their property.

 

Assistant City Attorney Farrell said there are conditions in the right-of-way that would satisfy that issue.   Assistant City Attorney Farrell said the condition of requiring a preliminary plat and site plan being approved and that the vacate is contingent upon recording of the final plat within two years satisfies that issue as that final plat will need to address any lots that may be on paper without access but the plan is to remedy that situation within the preliminary plat site plan.

 

Chairman Severs said with regard to the conditions, number C, has an evaluation been determined how you are going to calculate a Performance Bond.  Chairman Severs said how are you going to determine a Performance Bond, perhaps you will go over it, there will be improvements for water lines, sewer lines, etcetera, is that going to be a part of the bonding requirements.   

 

Mr. Quintas said it is his understanding it would be.

 

Member Parrish said on the Future Land Use Map that shows all the conservation areas indicated on the property, how they would vacate, even thought it is a paper street, without knowing where the transportation through this property would be.

 

Mr. Quintas said in theory they could be heard concurrently but the issue is they are reviewing a sketch plat that will come before the commission and in order for anything else to move forward that right-of-way would have to be vacated or else it would be a bisected development.  Mr. Quintas said it is not their intention to put any roads or a line transportation within the right-of-way or over the existing right-of-way.

 

Member Parrish said the right-of-way becomes buildable property once it is waived.

 

Mr. Quintas said yes.

 

Member Parrish said that gets calculated into the total amount of property that this developer is going to use to calculate the density he is going to propose for this development.

 

Mr. Quintas said yes.

 

Member Parrish said if they knew what the proposal would be in connection with the site and how it will be arrange the roads then there would be a clearer picture of what the whole proposal is going to be.

 

Mr. Quintas said the way to approach this is to evaluate the request on its own merit without any consideration of any future development.

 

Chairman Severs said you are indicating to the commission to evaluate this based on the criteria on Page 80 and Page 81 of the agenda package and determine whether or not it is in compliance with that criteria.

 

Mr. Quintas said yes.

 

Secretary Speidel said this not going to be one of those, lets fill in some wetlands, before the site plan.

 

Mr. Quintas said this has nothing to do with wetlands.

 

Chairman Severs said one of the conditions they have inserted is approval on condition to allow work in the right-of-way once a preliminary plat/site plan has been approved.

 

Member Riley said did staff do research to verify this was an old farm road.

 

Mr. Quintas said this was part of an old plat recorded in early 1900s by the Titusville Farm and Fruit Company.

 

Member Riley said why was there a right-of-way there.

 

Mr. Quintas said it had to do with speculations in the 1920s, they would subdivide lots and dedicate rights-of-way to guarantee access to those lots.

 

Member Riley said do you see any need in the future for that right-of-way to be used by the City for a roadway.

 

Mr. Quintas said Public Works and Water Resources have indicated they do not foresee any need.

 

Member Grant made a motion to approve as submitted by staff.

 

Chairman Severs said is that with the three conditions as recommended by staff.

 

Member Grant said yes.

 

Member Riley seconded.


 Roll Call was as follows:

 

Member Riley                         Yes

Secretary Speidel                    Yes

Member Porter                        Yes

Member Parrish                       Yes

Member Grant                         Yes

Chairman Severs                     Yes

 

Motion passed.

 

Primary Use Tables (Video start time 00:29:08)

Mr. Fontus gave an overview of this item.

 

Chairman Severs said dealing with residential professional uses, any professional use could go in R1A, R1B, R1C, etcetera such as a doctor’s office, accountant’s office, is that correct if the conditions are met.

 

Assistant City Attorney Farrell said you are looking at the Master Use Table and the row for Residential Professional Use which is not something that is changed by this ordinance but currently exist in the code.

 

Chairman Severs said he is questioning if that is appropriate.

 

Chairman Severs said another question is accessory use.  Chairman Severs said every house and every lot in a residential subdivision could have an accessory living unit in the past all that was allowed was mother-in-law quarters and things of that nature but it is now saying that a neighbor could have an apartment or two housing units on every family lot in the City as long as they meet the criteria.

 

Mr. Quintas said without having studied that accessory use, he believes it is to take the place of a guest house.

 

Chairman Severs said there is no limitation on mother-in-law quarters and it could be rented to anyone.   Chairman Severs said it is 400 square feet to 600 square feet, it is tiny houses so every lot in Titusville could have a second housing unit.

 

Mr. Quintas said that would violate the single-family zoning district.

 

Chairman Severs said it is allowed by code, accessory dwelling unit.

 

Mr. Quintas said that is a suggestion to City Council.  Mr. Quintas said that is outside of the scope of what they were directed to do.

 

Assistant City Attorney Farrell said on the prior subject, Residential Professional Use, Code Section 28-78, Municode says what the standards for conditional uses are for that section, these uses require public hearings for all CUPs Conditional Uses and it lists all of the zoning categories and residential/professional uses shall have all frontage from a collector or higher roadway, that is the only condition.

 

Chairman Severs said it would have to be on an arterial or collector street, so that makes a significant difference.

 

Chairman Severs said another question is about indoor gun facilities and conditions and two members voted against it because they felt it did not meet the criteria.  Chairman Severs said it was an interpretation of this code that is recreation.

 

Chairman Severs said another concern is outdoor recreation and if interpretation is outdoor recreation includes an outdoor gun range then it is being allowed in CC and tourist district and he feels there is a flaw in the use code if the interpretation if outdoor recreation includes an outdoor gun range.  Chairman Severs if it is going to be allowed in the city limits it should be in industrial districts.

 

Chairman Severs said another question he had deals with drinking establishments, such as bars, taverns, lounges, is there special requirements dealing with outdoor seating.

 

Mr. Quintas said not to his knowledge, but there are some special requirements in the Indian River City Zoning District for outdoor seating.

 

Assistant City Attorney Farrell read the section of the code for Standards for Permitted Uses with Limitations.

 

Secretary Speidel made a motion to accept the Primary Use Table proposed by staff to consolidate and rectify any problems with inconsistency of standards within each district.  Member Grant seconded.

 

Roll call was as follows:

 

Member Grant                        Yes

Member Riley                         Yes

Secretary Speidel                    Yes

Member Porter                        Yes

Member Parish                        Yes

Chairman Severs                     Yes

 

Motion passed.

 

Discussion took place to recommend to Council that staff revisit uses, such as gun ranges as a recreational use, in the use tables to determine appropriateness of allowance of such uses in certain zoning districts.  Consensus to further discuss at a future meeting once all commissioners identify which uses should be revisited.

 

XXX

 

Accessory Use Tables (Video start time 00:55:25)

Mr. Fontus gave an overview of this item.

 

Chairman Severs said with regard to the Accessory Use Table, refer to Accessory Dwelling Unit, under RE, RR, R1A, etcetera it says L, it is permitted with limitations.  Chairman Severs said at the last meeting there was discussion about home businesses and would they be allowed in an accessory building and the ordinance drafted did not allow it but this code which allows accessory dwellings on the same lot does allow the accessory dwelling to be in an accessory building and maybe there should be some logic between the two codes.

 

Secretary Speidel said referring to the shed in the backyard devoted to doing fingernails, they are talking about permitting it if this code is changed.

 

Chairman Severs said accessory dwelling is already permitted.

 

Mr. Quintas said they are not talking about nails or businesses, that is a separate code revision.   Mr. Quintas said Chairman Severs was referring to accessory dwelling units.

 

Secretary Speidel said what is a recreational court.

 

Mr. Quintas said the code defines it as an improved surface typically concrete or asphalt used for accessory outdoor recreation uses such as tennis, basketball or other similar uses.

 

Secretary Speidel made a motion to accept the Accessory Use Table with the intension of standardizing the codes.  Member Porter seconded.

 

Roll call was as follows:

 

Secretary Speidel                    Yes

Member Porter                        Yes

Member Parrish                       Yes

Member Riley                         Yes

Member Grant                        Yes

Chairman Severs                     Yes

 

Motion passed.

 

 

XXX

 

Ordinance and Resolution – On-Street Parking Ordinance (Video start time 01:02:17)

Mr. Quintas gave an overview of this item.

 

Chairman Severs said on Page 74, Item 9.16.8 refers to the DRC is that defined in the code and what powers do they have by code.

 

Mr. Quintas said the DRC is defined in Section 31-91 of the code.  Mr. Quintas read some segments from the Section 31-91.

 

Chairman Severs said if you had two developments within close proximity of each other and the want to utilize the same on street parking is there a limitation with regard to do that.

 

Mr. Quintas said there would not be any kind of prohibition with this change but staff would have to monitor the usage of this to make sure this does not result in very little parking for new developments throughout the area.

 

Chairman Severs said has staff reviewed as an alternative reducing the parking requirement.

 

Mr. Quintas said there has been discussion but not sure if it has been reviewed.

 

Assistant City Attorney Farrell said at the planning meeting, Peggy Busacca, indicated that was going to be a component of the LID analysis.

 

Member Porter made a motion to accept the ordinance and resolution on street parking as proposed.   Member Parrish seconded.

 

Secretary Speidel said how will this be enforced.

 

Mr. Quintas said it would be evaluated at the site plan stage.

 

Roll call was as follows:

 

Member Parrish                       Yes

Secretary Speidel                    Yes

Member Grant                        Yes

Member Riley                         Yes

Member Porter                        Yes

Chairman Severs                     Yes

 

Motion passed.

 

XXX

 

Petitions and Requests from Public Present and Press (Video start time 01:09:53)

 

Stan Johnston, 860 Poinsettia Avenue, spoke as a professional engineer and citizen who has been slighted and slandered by a number of people, City Council, City Manager and City Attorney.

 

XXX

 

Reports (Video Start time 01:14:02)

 

City Council Summary of Action October 27, 2020 

Informational only.

 

Chairman Severs said he expressed concern at the last meeting because there had been a resignation and there was concern expressed about the virus, he suggested that perhaps a resolution could be enacted by the City Council allowing some flexibility in light of the public health and safety.  Chairman Severs said he did review the meeting and they did discuss that item and the City Attorney’s Office is in the process of preparing a resolution to be brought back to the Council.

 

Chairman Severs passed out information from the Brevard 2070 conference he attended virtually.

 

XXX

 

Adjournment 7:18 pm