Notice 7. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS. Page 1 of 77

Transcription

1 CITY OF TITUSVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING January 6, S. Washington Avenue Titusville, Florida Council Chamber at City Hall 6:00 PM Notice All persons who anticipate speaking on any Public Hearing item must fill out an Oath Card to be heard on that agenda item and sign the oath contained thereon. These cards are located on the table near the entrance to the Council Chamber or may be obtained from the Recording Secretary. This meeting will be conducted in accordance to the procedures adopted in Resolution # Those speaking in favor of a request will be heard first, those opposed will be heard second, and those who wish to make a public comment on the item will speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if necessary. A representative from either side, for or against, may cross-examine a witness. Anyone who speaks is considered a witness. If you have photographs, sketches, or documents that you desire for the Commission to consider, they must be submitted into evidence and will be retained by the City. Please submit such exhibits to the Recording Secretary. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. December 1, 2015 minutes Approve Minutes 6. QUASI-JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION PROCEDURES The following items are subject to quasi-judicial rules of procedure. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these items must first sign a Public Hearing Agenda Card and sign the oath contained thereon. Those speaking in favor of a request will be heard first. If you have photographs, sketches, or documents that you desire for Planning and Zoning to consider, they must be submitted into evidence and will be retained by the City. Submit these exhibits to the Recording Secretary. 7. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS Page 1 of 77

2 A. Landscape Features and Pergolas in the Front Yard Discuss issues and concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission related to draft Ordinance Landscape Features and Pergolas in the Front Yard. This ordinance was denied by the City Council at their December 8, 2015 regular meeting. B. Land Development Regulations Update Project Status and Next Steps Accept the report of staff s findings of the City s Land Development Regulations; approve the proposed code structure; and support the proposed revisions to the approval procedures specified in the code. The staff will give a 15 minute presentation. This item was presented to the City Council September 8, C. Code Update Project Format Phase Chapter 27 Land Use 10. REPORTS Accept the draft Chapter 27 to the Land Development Regulations entitled, "General Provisions" as written. The staff will give a 10 minute presentation. This item will be presented to the City Council January 12, A. Semi-Annual Report Submit the semi-annual report to Council. 11. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS FROM PUBLIC PRESENT 12. ADJOURNMENT Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City desires to accommodate persons with disabilities. Accordingly, any physically handicapped person, pursuant to Chapter Florida Statutes, should at least 48 hours prior to the meeting, submit a written request to the chairperson of the meeting that the physically handicapped person desires to attend. Page 2 of 77

3 Category: 5. Item: A. City of Titusville "Gateway to Nature and Space" REPORT TO COUNCIL To: From: Subject: Planning and Zoning Commission Members Peggy Busacca, Community Development Director December 1, 2015 minutes Department/Office: Recommended Action: Approve Minutes Summary Explanation & Background: Alternatives: Item Budgeted: Source/use of funds/budget Book Page: Strategic Plan: Strategic Plan Impact: ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type December meeting minutes 12/17/2015 Backup Material Page 3 of 77

4

5 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 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 Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. XXX Chairman Williams called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present were Vice Chairman Chavier, Secretary Chambers, Dr. Fayson, Member Bobik and School Board Member Hare. Dr. Tibbitts, Member Ritchie and Member Baker were absent. Also in attendance were Senior Planner Trevor Traphagen, Planning Manager Brad Parrish, Assistant City Attorney Chelsea Farrell and Recording Secretary Laurie Dargie. XXX Vice Chairman Chavier motioned to approve the minutes from November 18, Dr. Fayson seconded. There was a unanimous voice vote. XXX Chairman Williams asked Staff if there were any items that could be moved to the end of the meeting so that the items with public present could be addressed since it most likely will be a long meeting. Mr. Traphagen said that items 9A and 9C could be moved to the end of the agenda. Quasi-Judicial Confirmation Procedures None XXX XXX Consent Agenda Items None Old Business None XXX XXX $ew Business Rezoning REZ # Mr. Traphagen gave an overview of this item. Mr. Rodney Honeycutt of 3700 S. Washington Avenue Titusville, Florida came to speak in favor of this item. Mr. Honeycutt said the purpose of this single-family residential is for the assistant pastor s home and security on the site. Mr. Honeycutt said under the current zoning a separate structure is not Page 1 of 22 Page 4 of 77

6 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 allowed. Mr. Honeycutt said this is the best zoning for the site so that a lot split can be done so that the single-family residential house can be established. Member Bobik asked if this would be a house. Mr. Honeycutt said yes. Dr. Fayson asked if this will be taxed. Mr. Honeycutt said he is not sure about the taxes. Mr. Parrish said the new lot that would be created would be accessed for taxes like any other single-family home. XXX Dr. Fayson made a motion to approve the Rezoning # Dr. Tibbitts seconded. Roll call was as follows: Vice Chairman Chavier Yes Secretary Chambers Yes Dr. Fayson Yes Member Bobik Yes Chairman Williams Yes Motion passed. XXX Comprehensive Plan Amendment o Mr. Traphagen gave an overview of this item. Daniel Ladan of 3635 Hickory Park Drive Titusville, Florida came to ask a question regarding this item. Mr. Ladan said he lives on Hickory Park which abuts up to this property on the west side. Mr. Ladan asked if this property will come up to his road which is a cul-da-sac. Mr. Traphagen showed Mr. Ladan the concept map and that all of the proposed units will be on the eastern part of the property and the only access point will be from Knox McRae Drive. Mr. Ladan said that answered his question and thanked Staff. XXX Vice Chairman Chavier made a motion to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment No Dr. Fayson seconded. Roll call was as follows: Dr. Fayson Yes Secretary Chambers Yes Vice Chairman Chavier Yes Member Bobik Yes Chairman Williams Yes Motion passed. Page 2 of 22 Page 5 of 77

7 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 XXX Comprehensive Plan Amendment o Mr. Traphagen gave an overview of this item. Matthew West of 1615 Edgewater Drive Orlando, Florida came to speak in favor of this item. Mr. West is with Littlejohn Engineering & Associates. Mr. West said Littlejohn Engineering is the consultant for this project. Mr. West brought a PowerPoint presentation which he had shown to the Commission members and explained the slides. Mr. West also provided paper copies of the PowerPoint to the Commission members. Mr. West said they are proposing an Assisted Living Facility, which will be 128 units with 144 beds. Mr. West said it would be three stories and about 45 feet in height. Mr. West said there would be a Memory Care Unit, which would be one story. Mr. West said to make this site work the Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended because of limitations that Mr. Traphagen outlined in the Staff report. Mr. West said the site is located directly across the street from Parrish Medical Center and the State College. Mr. West said the surrounding Future Land Use is Public Semi Public, which is a church, and school, which is to the North of the site. To the East of the site is the American Legion, State College and Medical Center. Mr. West said this property will not access Old Dixie Highway. All the access will be to US Highway 1. To the South of the property is Residential Medium Density. Mr. West said he would like to remove the height limit so the nice three story Assisted Living Facility can be built. Mr. West said there is no better place for a medical campus than across the street from the Parrish Medical Center. Mr. West said he did the math and if they were limited to 75,000 square feet, it would give a 0.06 FAR. Standard suburban Floor Area Ratio is.22 therefore they would be limited to less than a third of a typical suburban shopping center from an intensity standpoint. Mr. West said he cannot think of a better place for a medical campus such as this. Mr. West said he outlined why this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Member Bobik asked what the total footprint on the lot would be. Mr. West said about 200,000 square feet. Mr. West said the Memory Care Unit is about 30,000 square feet, the Assisted Living Facility is about 95,000 square feet, and the other buildings, which are medical offices, total 48,000 square feet. Mr. West said the pharmacy will be about 16,000 square feet. Dr. Fayson said this is not the first time this site has come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Traphagen said this site was brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council three previous times under the following Conditional Use Permits: CUP# , CUP# and CUP# Mr. Traphagen said all three were proposed medical facilities. Dr. Fayson asked how serious is the developer with moving forward with the project. Mr. West said Mr. Garrard is very serious about moving forward. Louis Garrard V of 59 Lake Morton Drive Lakeland Florida came to speak in favor of this item. Mr. Garrard said he is Co-Developer along with the church to do the entitlement process. Mr. Garrard said clearing of seven acres has taken place for the first phase. Mr. Garrard said this area is for the Memory Care Unit and he hopes of the permits by early January to start construction. Mr. Garrard said Summerplace Developer out of California has done about ten of these projects across the state of Florida. Dr. Fayson asked if this is affiliated with Temple Baptist Church. Mr. Garrard said yes. Page 3 of 22 Page 6 of 77

8 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 Secretary Chambers asked what kind of permanent staffing will this require. Mr. Garrard said it will be staff 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Mr. Garrard said the first phase will employee at least forty fulltime employees. Dwight Severs of 1308 Riverside Drive Titusville, Florida came to speak against this item. Mr. Severs passed out handouts to the Commission members with the reasons for denial of CPA No Mr. Severs said he owns a home South of this area which is a residential area. Mr. Severs said he has no concerns or objections to the Assisted Living Facility, Memory Care Unit or Medical Offices. Mr. Severs said what scares him to death is the extreme they are going to go to High Intensity Commercial. Mr. Severs said the analysis needs to be based upon High Intensity Commercial. Mr. Severs said without a height limit, what happens if someone changes their mind and wants to do something different. Mr. Severs said there are reasonable alternatives before even getting to the comp plan. Mr. Severs said Section should be amended by changing to a different Land Use category. Mr. Severs said it was very clear that the applicant and developer prepared the Staff report and in his 40 years, he has never seen this be done. Mr. Severs said he has a fundamental concern. Mr. Severs suggested that if the Commission considers High Intensity that it only be done on the easterly portion of the site and not on the westerly portion. Mr. Severs said regarding the compatibility of the site, all that was analyzed was Parrish Medical across the street. No analysis was done to the South and West of the tract, which is not compatible with the surrounding uses. Mr. Severs said there is absolutely no restrictions placed on this Comprehensive Plan Amendment saying there will be setbacks of X distance, for example, Hospital Medical (HM) is a 10 foot rear-yard setback. Mr. Severs said he hates to speak in opposition. Mr. Severs said the applicant said there would be no access to Old Dixie Highway but there is nothing in writing that states this. Mr. Severs said there is no restriction that says they cannot sell off the portion that goes along Old Dixie Highway and for access to Old Dixie to be prohibited. Mr. Severs said there are avenues available where they can accomplish what they want to accomplish without asking for High Intensity Commercial. Mr. Severs said Policy says Sites for high intensity commercial development shall be located with convenient and direct access at arterial intersections. Mr. Severs said it does not say arterial road but arterial intersection. Mr. Severs said this does not even meet the first fundamental requirement of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the issues of compatibility Policy says Commercial land use designations shall be encouraged in a pattern which offers maximum accessibility, compatibility, and clustering. Commercial land use designations shall be given priority at locations exhibiting proximity to other type of nonresidential uses, including employment centers and marketing centers. Mr. Severs said the Comprehensive Plan defines compatibility and it should be with nonresidential uses. Mr. Severs said he listed his reasons for denial and he said the only reason he is recommending denial is due to the request of High Intensity Commercial. Mr. Severs said he knows there is a need for Assisted Living Facilities. Mr. Severs read his list of reasons for denial. Mr. Severs respectfully encouraged the Planning and Zoning Commission to not approved CPA# Mr. West said from a compatibility standpoint the Comprehensive Plan says from a Low Intensity Commercial has a 1.0 FAR for development and so does High Intensity Commercial. Mr. West said there will be commercial abutting the properties before and after. Mr. West said the difference is the Land Development Regulation which is not specifically handled by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. West said Mr. Garrard would be willing to have something in writing such as a conditional use or policy to prohibit access to Old Dixie Highway from this site. Mr. West said the site does not include the strip that Mr. Severs pointed out that connects the property to Old Dixie Highway. Mr. West said Mr. Page 4 of 22 Page 7 of 77

9 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 Garrard would agree to a restriction to prohibit access to Old Dixie Highway. Mr. West said as far as the arterial road connection to an intersection, the access will be located near the intersection of the Hospital, which is an intersection on an arterial roadway. Mr. West said it does not specifically say how close to the intersection it has to be, and whether it has to touch the intersection. Mr. West said Mr. Severs states that they have not met the proper drainage requirements. Mr. West said Saint Johns River Water Management District has already signed off approved for the stormwater requirements. Mr. West said the drainage is going to be made better. Mr. West said he disagrees with Mr. Severs as to not meeting Policy and Mr. West said the Staff report explains how it is consistent with these two policies. Mr. West said one of the Staff conditions that were given to have approval was to have a traffic study. Mr. West said a preliminary analysis has been provided. Mr. West said changing the Land Use does not change the amount of maximum theoretical amount of development that can generate traffic to increase on US Highway 1. Mr. West said an increase in FAR is not being requested. Mr. West said he is going to have to agree to disagree with the analysis conducted by Mr. Severs. Secretary Chambers asked if Mr. West would agree to have no access to Old Dixie Highway. Mr. West said yes, Mr. Garrard would agree to that restriction. Chairman Williams asked Staff how would a condition of a use, such as a restriction to access a road be tied to a Land Use map. Mr. Traphagen said it would be a condition of the CUP itself, not the Land Use map. Mr. West said state statutes allow the creation of parcel specific comprehensive plan policies. Mr. Traphagen said it is not the City of Titusville s practice to have parcel specific policies. Mr. West said he and Mr. Garrard would like to meet with Mr. Severs to see about working out some of his concerns. Chairman Williams said Mr. Severs was the City Attorney for the City of Titusville for 40 plus years. Chairman Williams said he has hardly ever seen Mr. Severs show up with issues regarding projects. Chairman Williams said he feels Mr. Severs carries a lot of weight and it would be good to meet with him because he is well respected in the community. Chairman Williams said this area has been designated for Hospital Medical for a long time. Chairman Williams said it would be wise to work with Mr. Severs no matter the outcome to find a resolution. Member Bobik asked what part of the site is being cleared now. Mr. Garrard said the South of the property in the triangle portion of the conceptual plan. Mr. Garrard said they put in a paved road. Member Bobik said he is suspicious of dry ponds. Mr. Bobik asked if it would be next to the singlefamily residence. Mr. Garrard said it cannot be developed therefore a dry pond will be done. Chairman Williams advised the Commission that right now the Future Land Use is being looked at to determine if the change should be made from Low Intensity Commercial to High Intensity Commercial. Chairman Williams said the next item is dealing with the Conditional Use Permit and will have more details explained. Member Bobik said the aerial map shows the lot line abutting the church property and asked if it is part of their property. Mr. Garrard said yes. Dr. Fayson said he has a high regard for Mr. Severs. Dr. Fayson said in the past meetings have been held to get the public s feedback and input for projects such as this and he would suggest that a meeting be held to get the public s comment. Mr. Garrard said in years past meetings have been held Page 5 of 22 Page 8 of 77

10 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 to get the Community s feedback and this is why they have chosen to develop this site the way it has been presented. Dr. Fayson asked when the meetings were held with the public. Mr. Garrard said the meetings were held in 2007 and Dr. Fayson suggested getting with the Community and Mr. Severs now to get the feedback. Mr. Severs said he met with City Attorney Richard Broome last week and expressed to him his concerns. Mr. Severs said he thought once City Attorney Broome addressed the concerns with City Staff he would be called to have a meeting. Mr. Severs said he was never contacted by anyone from the City. Mr. Severs said he hears words stated, however if they mean what they are saying why is there nothing on record. Mr. Severs said he is happy to meet with Staff at any time. Chairman Williams said the first concern he had was the crossing of paths in the parking lot with the church. Chairman Williams asked if part of the parking lot belongs to the site. Mr. Traphagen said a portion of the parking lot does belong to the site being discussed; however the buildings do not belong to the site owner and belong to the church. Chairman Williams said this should have been divided differently in the past. Chairman Williams asked if there will be cross access with the church. Mr. Traphagen said yes, they would share the entrance at US Highway 1. Chairman Williams asked what trips the state to determine if a stop light is needed for this area. Mr. Parrish said Florida Department of Transportation would have to do a study to determine the need for a stop light. Mr. Traphagen said one of the conditions would be that a traffic study be conducted for the entire project site. Mr. Garrard said they already contacted Department of Transportation (DOT) with regards to wanting to have a traffic light installed by the Emergency Room entrance and DOT was opposed to this because they said it would cause more accidents. Chairman Williams said he is surprised with that information. Chairman Williams said he did notice that the Staff report was done differently. Mr. Traphagen said they took the outline that Staff uses to create the Staff report and based the Staff report on the same criteria that Staff would use to make the report. Mr. Traphagen said he reviewed the report himself and went over the justifications and assessed it as he would a typical comp plan amendment. Mr. Traphagen said he did not have any major disagreements and if he had comments, he stated them on the cover sheet of the Staff report. Mr. Traphagen said they did use the same review criteria that Staff uses. Chairman Williams asked was the setback is when abutting residential. Mr. Traphagen said the HM zoning district has a 10-foot rear yard setback. Chairman Williams said he views Hospital Medical (HM) and Tourist (T) as very extreme uses. Chairman Williams said it has been agreed upon in the past that this site be used for HM. Chairman Williams said there just needs to be found a happy medium. Mr. Parrish wanted to remind everyone that this is not a rezoning change. Mr. Parrish said when the Planners are looking at the Comprehensive Plan they are viewing it as the regulatory plan per state statue. Mr. Parrish said the Comprehensive Plan is not as regulatory as the Land Development Code. Mr. Parrish said Staff does feel that the property is compatible. Mr. Parrish said Staff did not see any inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Parrish said that the only fundamental difference Page 6 of 22 Page 9 of 77

11 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 between Low Intensity Commercial Land Use and High Intensity Commercial Land Use is in Policy of the Comprehensive Plan, which is High Intensity Commercial cannot be put in an area that is predominantly residential. Mr. Parrish said several CUP s have been approved for this site in the past decade and Staff does not see any major differences in the current proposal when compared to past proposals. Chairman Williams asked about unifying the properties. Mr. Parrish said he was talking about a unified development plan. Chairman Williams said in the past it was a condition of Staff that unity of title was needed on the properties in order to move forward. Mr. Traphagen said this condition could be recommended as part of the CUP. Chairman Williams said unity of title would help ease some of the concerns. Dr. Fayson suggested again that the applicant meet with Mr. Severs and the community to get feedback. Dr. Fayson said he would like to table this item. Chairman Williams said he is comfortable moving forward with this item. Dr. Fayson said that Mr. Severs mentioned that he did not meet with City Staff and he would like to allow for opportunity for a meeting to be held. Mr. Parrish said Mr. Severs did meet with City Attorney Richard Broome and Mr. Traphagen before tonight s meeting and Staff would be more than willing to meet with Mr. Severs again after tonight s meeting. Mr. Parrish wanted to remind the Commission that this is a transmittal hearing and not an adoption. Dr. Fayson said he would like more information from the community before making any decision. Vice Chairman Chavier asked what happens if this is approved. Mr. Traphagen said this is a transmittal so it will come back before the Commission for adoption, therefore the Commission will see this again. Mr. Traphagen said approving the transmittal will just allow Staff to forward it to the State for their review of the proposed change. Vice Chairman Chavier said the public will then be notified. Mr. Traphagen said yes, they will be notified just as they were for tonight s public meeting. XXX Dr. Fayson made a motion to table Comprehensive Plan Amendment No Secretary Chambers seconded. Roll call was as follows: Vice Chairman Chavier No Secretary Chambers No Dr. Fayson Yes Member Bobik Yes Chairman Williams No Motion failed with a 3 No, 2 Yes vote. XXX Chairman Williams said he has always read into the code that arterial was acceptable throughout the city and it has never crossed his mind in High Intensity Commercial Use that there is no intersections. He has not seen this as an issue. Chairman Williams said he did feel that there would be a need for a Page 7 of 22 Page 10 of 77

12 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 new traffic light so it is good to have the information from DOT. Chairman Williams said he did not see complete consistency in this plan. Chairman Williams said it does abut a residential area and the buffering should be addressed in the next item. Chairman Williams said he does not see any issues with changing this to High Intensity Commercial. Chairman Williams suggested that the concerns that have been brought up by Mr. Severs should be addressed and resolved with him. XXX Vice Chairman Chavier made a motion to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment No Secretary Chambers seconded. Roll call was as follows: Vice Chairman Chavier Yes Member Bobik Yes Secretary Chambers Yes Dr. Fayson Yes Chairman Williams Yes Motion passed. Conditional Use Permit o Mr. Traphagen gave an overview of this item. XXX Mr. West showed the slide from the PowerPoint presentation that showed the Conditional Use criteria. Mr. West said the Assisted Living Facility is 500 feet from any residential property. Mr. West said they would agree with the condition of no access to Old Dixie Highway from this site and would be open to discussion for what type of buffering should be used between the site and residential area. Mr. Garrard pointed out that there was a road that was paved and there is a piece of property that buffers against the residential property. Mr. West said that they could discuss an offer of a 25-foot landscape buffer. Mr. Severs said he would suggest tabling this item so allow for time to discuss and work out the details. Mr. Severs said nothing can be done until the Comprehensive Plan is passed. Mr. Severs said he has no issue with the Assisted Living Facility. Mr. Severs passed out a handout with his reasons for denial, tabling or modifying with conditions; Conditional Use Permit No Mr. Severs said this property does not abut US Highway 1 because Rails to Trails owns this portion of property and Mr. Severs said he does not know if the applicant has permission to access this portion of the property. Mr. Severs said he has raised concerns about the Comprehensive Plan, which have been addressed. Mr. Severs said a drawing with block boxes has been presented with no regard to the tree plan survey. An applicant is supposed to design the project and preserve trees, Mr. Severs said the way it is designed no trees will be left. Mr. Severs asked if Memory Care is listed as a use in HM. Mr. Severs said he considers Memory Care Unit as an Assisted Living Facility and should be a part of this application. Mr. Severs said the layout and design of the project, the proposed area for the pharmacy has the Page 8 of 22 Page 11 of 77

13 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 headlights in the drive-thru lane pointing directly into single-family residential. Mr. Severs said the reason he brings up the layout is that he has seen issues with the layout and he does not feel that the City should be left out of the process. Mr. Severs said the previously approved proposal had five approved conditions. Mr. Severs said he does not see any other conditions other than the condition of being approved by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Severs said the following were not addressed as conditions: screening, traffic study, height, location of structures, wetlands, etc. He does not see a Staff report with any of these suggested conditions. Mr. Severs said if the applicant does not intend to development the westerly portion of the property then it should be written out as a condition. Mr. Severs said the concern is that if this is change to High Intensity Commercial and something happens with this project then the next owner can use High Intensity Commercial on the site. Mr. Severs suggested having a recorded document in order to not run into problems with a future Council or individual if sold off. Mr. Severs said he would respectfully request denial of this property. Mr. West said the Memory Care Unit is considered a skilled nursing facility and should be not a part of the Conditional Use Permit. Assistant City Attorney Farrell said the zoning code does allow a nursing home and it has been interpreted by Staff that the Memory Care Facility is considered to be a nursing care facility which does not require a CUP. Mr. Traphagen said there are conditions with the permitted use of the Memory Care Facility which are that it meet the same requirements of an adult assisted living facility. Mr. West said the concerns about the layout are not subject to the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. West said he cannot speak to the tree preservation at tonight s meeting. Mr. West said they agree to meet with Mr. Severs; however does not see a reason do delay this item. Mr. West said the project is already into the engineering and design. Mr. West said a lot of Mr. Severs concerns can be addressed without delaying this item. Dr. Fayson asked if this item could be tabled because he is not comfortable with the resources that have been presented and would like to get community feedback. Mr. Garrard said they met with the Community in Dr. Fayson suggested not moving forward at this time. Chairman Williams said he is overlooking that this is a whole new project. Mr. Garrard said this is not a whole new project, the only change is that they are requesting 45 feet in height for the Assisted Living Facility. Mr. Garrard said there is a new architectural rendering. Dr. Fayson asked how long will the transmittal take to receive back. Mr. Traphagen said once it is mailed out and received then they have thirty days to respond back. Mr. Traphagen said various state agencies review it and send back comments to him directly. Mr. Traphagen said the comments are brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission during the adoption hearing. Dr. Fayson said this would allow plenty of time for a meeting with the community to receive feedback. Chairman Wiliams said he agrees with Dr. Fayson that there would be enough time to allow this item to be tabled and for details to be hashed out. Chairman Williams said he did not have an issue with the Future Land Use Map being moved forward but the CUP has details that need to be resolved. Chairman Williams would suggest tabling this to the next meeting on December 16, XXX Dr. Fayson made a motion to table Conditional Use Permit No Member Bobik seconded. Page 9 of 22 Page 12 of 77

14 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 Roll call was as follows: Vice Chairman Chavier Yes Secretary Chambers Yes Dr. Fayson Yes Member Bobik Yes Chairman Williams Yes Motion passed. XXX Mr. Traphagen said that Staff would not be the ones who would facilitate a community meeting it would be up to the applicant. Mr. Parrish said this is only allowing the applicant two weeks to conduct a meeting. Dr. Fayson asked Mr. Severs if he would be able to meet soon. Chairman Williams asked if a mailing was sent to all owners surrounding the site out to 500 feet. Mr. Parrish said yes. Mr. Parrish said that the meeting that is being requested will not be set up by Staff it would have to be done by the applicant. Chairman Williams said this is why he was asking the applicant if they would be ready by December 16, 2015 meeting. Chairman Williams said it is up to the applicant discretions as to when, where and how they would have the meeting. Chairman Williams asked how many people turned out at the last meeting in Mr. Garrard said about 10 people turned out. Mr. Garrard said the last project was stalled due to economic reasons. Mr. Garrard said he believes the concern is that someone else will come in and put in High Intensity Commercial in the back area and that is just not economically feasible to do that. Mr. Garrard said the highest and best use for the site is what has been presented. Chairman Williams said he would like to get consensus. Mr. Garrard said they did take in community feedback when designing this project. Vice Chairman Chavier asked what the feedback was from the community. Mr. Garrard said the feedback was that the residential owners did not want Commercial backing up to their properties or Commercial vehicles having access to Old Dixie Highway. Mr. Parrish asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission would just like to get feedback from the applicant that was received from the Community. Chairman Williams said any feedback from the community and any resolutions that were agreed upon between Mr. Severs and the applicant. Mr. Severs said the current CUP is nothing like the last proposal and they are different. Mr. Severs said if they mean what they say just put it in writing. Assistant City Attorney Farrell said that a decision for the next Planning and Zoning meeting must be made at tonight s meeting so that the applicant knows whether or not they have to advertise again or not. Chairman Williams said he has a commitment to this Board and since he voted to table the item he would attend the meeting and he would suggest having the meeting on December 16, XXX Interpretation of Uses in Planned Industrial Development (PID) Page 13 of 77 Page 10 of 22

15 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 Mr. Parrish gave an overview of this item. Charles Breidenbach of 1415 Chaffee Drive Suite 5 Titusville, Florida came to speak against Staff s interpretation of the PID zoning. Mr. Breidenbach is the owner of Drop Dead Customs. Mr. Breidenbach said that this has come about after applying for the City of Titusville s business tax receipt. Mr. Breidenbach said he has the definition of manufacturing which is The process of converting raw materials, components, or parts into finished goods that meet a customer s expectations or specifications. To make into a product suitable for use. Mr. Breidenbach said this is exactly what he does. Mr. Breidenbach said this property was annexed into the City of Titusville decades ago. Mr. Breidenbach said less than 500 yards from his property this use would be allowable. Mr. Breidenbach said when he looked at the property to use he asked the property owner if it was zoned Industrial and he was told by the owner that it was Industrial. Mr. Breidenbach said from what he understood was that his business would fall under the Industrial zoning. Mr. Breidenbach said he did not know the zonings were broken up and he never looked into. Mr. Breidenbach said he does run a clean business and follow the rules of manufacturing in the City s codes. Mr. Breidenbach said this same situation came before the Commission about a year ago for Falcon Marine and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the business. Mr. Breidenbach said he is not requesting a zoning change but he is asking that the Commission see the interpretation of the code as allowing his type of business, which is restoration. Chairman William asked if the company that owns the property is out of Vero, Florida. Mr. Breidenbach said yes. Chairman Williams said they didn t question the business use. Mr. Breidenbach said he told the owner exactly what he was doing and he did not say anything about the PID zoning. Mr. Breidenbach said he has been doing business in Florida for several years and he did not know that he had to talk to the municipalities about licenses and restrictions. Mr. Breidenbach said he thought because he had a state license that was all that he needed to do business anywhere in Florida. Chairman Williams asked if this came about because a fire inspection was done. Mr. Breidenbach said yes. Chairman Williams said that the Planning and Zoning Commission is the interpreting body and it is critical that the Commission is decisive in the decision. Chairman Williams said he did research in other areas regarding PID zoning. Chairman Williams said what he was trying to determine was how do other municipalities look at PID. Chairman Williams said they used Conditional Use Permits and the intensity of the use. Chairman Williams said he then researched M-1, M-2, and M-3. Chairman Williams said it has been determined that this is a Light Industrial use by Staff. Mr. Parrish said it was determined that this is a permitted use in the Light Industrial zoning district. Chairman Williams said warehousing is in Industrial and Planned Industrial. Chairman Williams said he can see both sides of the argument. Chairman Williams said the intent of the area was for space high technology. Chairman Williams said the businesses in the area are not high technology. Chairman Williams said he is conflicted. Chairman Williams said it is very challenging because he has looked at several things. Chairman Williams said if this is an auto body shop he has an issue with it, if it is an auto restoration then it is a specific use because not just anyone is bringing their vehicle to get fixed. Mr. Breidenbach said he is not a collision auto body shop. Mr. Breidenbach said he does not deal with insurance companies or collision repairs. Mr. Breidenbach said he restores classic cars, muscle cars, antiques etc. Mr. Breidenbach said if the classic car is wrecked he will fix it but if an Acura is wrecked he does not fix it. Mr. Breidenbach said he also supports a lot of local businesses. Chairman Williams said there is Page 11 of 22 Page 14 of 77

16 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 a difference in auto restoration and an auto repair shop. Chairman Williams said he believes Mr. Breidenbach is running a restoration business. Chairman Williams said he would like to close up the loop hole and find a different way to be more specific or start dividing up PID s like other municipalities to give other narrow minded specifics. Mr. Breidenbach said he employees seven families and probably has a half million dollars into the business and if this request is not granted he will probably have to close the business. Vice Chairman Chavier said he agrees with the Chairman that the PID is becoming an issue. Vice Chairman Chavier said the problem is that PID can be plopped down anywhere that has acreage. Vice Chairman Chavier said the concern is the type of business that can be used in PID. Vice Chairman Chavier said PID should be done away with and just use M-1, M-2 and M-3 zonings. Vice Chairman Chavier asked Staff if they know where they are going with PID zoning. Mr. Parrish said there is a possibility of PID being split up. Mr. Parrish said this is something that Staff has discussed and certainly can be recommended for a long-term solution. Chairman Williams said when you mix and match it brings a lot of gray area. Vice Chairman Chavier said he wanted to throw an idea out; is it possible to use the CUP in PID specific to only his business until he decides to sell it and the CUP disappears. Mr. Parrish said there is a CUP in PID that the Commission might like to consider. Section (c) Multi-use buildings consisting of two or more permitted and/or conditional uses. Mr. Parrish said he is not sure how this would exactly apply but this is something that he might be allowed to apply for as a conditional use; however, the existing businesses did not have to do through this condition. Vice Chairman Chavier said the problem is the door has been opened and he wants to know how it can be closed tightly to avoid having this situation arise again. Vice Chairman Chavier said can this kind of enforcement be brought about. Mr. Parrish said that all situations cannot be avoided with regards to being able to prevent someone from not knowing the rules of the City and starting a business without first checking with the municipality. Mr. Parrish said a Conditional Use is specific to the location even if the owner changes the CUP on the property would remain. Vice Chairman Chavier said if the City continues to use PID then Staff has to close the door somehow. Mr. Parrish would agree that improvements need to be made to the PID code. Vice Chairman Chavier asked how will the City stop this situation from happening again. Assistant City Attorney Farrell said that it would not be feasible for the City to know ahead of time that someone is opening up a business unless they approached the City first to ask questions. Chairman Williams agreed that it would have to be initiated by the owner of the property. Assistant City Attorney Farrell said it should be standard for a new business owner coming into a new city to go to the municipality to find how what the city s policies are for starting a new business. Mr. Breidenbach said he has had a state license with Florida for several years and he did not know he was supposed to get a separate license from the City or he would have obtained the license. Dr. Fayson asked how long Mr. Breidenbach has been operating his business in Titusville without a license. Mr. Breidenbach said he has been in Titusville for 8 months. Vice Chairman Chavier asked Staff what their recommendation would be based upon what the Commission has been discussing thus far. Mr. Parrish said he has heard two different types of uses one is an auto body which is not consistent and one is auto restoration. Mr. Parrish said the business owner needs to make clear as to what he does so that the Commission can make a clear determination. Vice Chairman Chavier asked if this was approved would it open PID up to vehicle restoration. Mr. Parrish said yes it would allow vehicle restoration in all PID. Vice Chairman Chavier asked if vehicle restoration would be a conditional use. Mr. Parrish said it would have to be a similar situation. Page 12 of 22 Page 15 of 77

17 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 Member Bobik asked Mr. Breidenbach if they do painting. Mr. Breidenbach said yes. Member Bobik asked if they passed the fire inspection. Mr. Breidenbach said yes and they actually had more than the requirement for fire safety. Vice Chairman Chavier asked if he has been inspected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mr. Breidenbach said yes but it was not scheduled. The EPA just showed up and he passed the inspection without any violations. Mr. Breidenbach said nothing is worked on in the open air it is all done inside the building. Vice Chairman Chavier asked how many vehicles are being worked on at a time. Mr. Breidenbach said he has 14 projects going at this time. Vice Chairman Chavier asked if any vehicles are stored outside. Mr. Breidenbach said there are four parts cars stored outside in the back of the building. Mr. Breidenbach said once the parts are taken off the cars the ATM comes and removes the rest of the vehicle. Vice Chairman Chavier asked if outside storage is allowed in the PID. Mr. Parrish said there are additional requirements for screening in PID for outside storage. Chairman Williams asked if Screaming Performance is only online. Mr. Breidenbach said that Screaming Performance does the same thing as he does. Vice Chairman Chavier asked if any work is done outside. Mr. Breidenbach said no work is done outside, not even washing cars. All materials are stored inside the building. Mr. Breidenbach said he does not do work outside because it makes a mess and looks bad and he wants a clean appearance. Vice Chairman Chavier asked where the parts cars are stored. Mr. Breidenbach said they are stored in the back of the shop and no one can see them. Vice Chairman Chavier said PID is supposed to have a clean business appearance and he is concerned about the outdoor storage of the parts cars. Mr. Breidenbach said if this is the only problem that would prevent him from keeping the business he can store the parts cars inside his shop and the problem would be resolved. Mr. Breidenbach said he does not like to keep the cars on sight therefore as soon as he is done with the cars he calls ATM and they come and pick up the vehicles up for free for scrapping. Vice Chairman Chavier said he would like for Staff to correct this situation so that the Commission is not confronted with this situation again in the future. Vice Chairman Chavier would like Staff to come up with criteria to close the door for future code issues in PID. Vice Chairman Chavier said outside storage is not allowed in PID. Mr. Traphagen said he wanted to clarify that outdoor storage is allowed in PID as long as is not in the front yard of the building and not allowed in the setback areas of the side and rear yard, so outdoor storage is allowed if these criteria are met. Chairman Williams said it is against the covenants to store cars in the parking lot. Mr. Traphagen said Mr. Breidenbach is not storing cars in the parking lot. Chairman Williams said he is scrapping. Mr. Breidenbach said this is not a deal breaker and he can have this issue cleaned up by the end of the week. Mr. Breidenbach said he has 6,000 square feet in the building so this is not an issue. Vice Chairman Chavier said this is also addressing future issues with PID. Dr. Fayson asked Staff what can be done to help Mr. Breidenbach. Mr. Parrish said there are two options, one is immediate and one would take time. Mr. Parrish said the Commission if so chooses could find that auto restoration with conditions is acceptable in the PID. The other option is long-term and would allow for Staff to review the PID and proposing an amendment to the zoning district to tighten up the language and providing additional language to clarify what the uses are. Mr. Parrish said this second option would not resolve the current issue of a business in operation without a business tax receipt from the City of Titusville. Chairman Williams asked if helicopter restoration would be a permitted use. Mr. Parrish said he is concerned about answering hypotheticals. Chairman Williams said he is not trying to back Staff into a Page 13 of 22 Page 16 of 77

18 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 corner but when a use is not specifically written, it is not permitted. Mr. Parrish said that Staff would have to fall back on if a use is not listed it is not permitted. Chairman Williams said he is just making a point that automotive repair is prohibited and should fall into M-1 or RC. Vice Chairman Chavier said if the Commission decides to allow auto restoration, he would like it stated that it does not include collision repair. Mr. Parrish said page 141 of the agenda packet is a description of Mr. Breidenbach s business that he provided. Mr. Breidenbach said he restores vehicles and creates art. Mr. Breidenbach said he would invite anyone to his shop to see what he does. Chairman Williams said having Mr. Breidenbach go through a CUP would be time consuming and expensive. Chairman Williams asked what is Staff s intent on PID. Mr. Parrish said he does not have an answer at this time for how Staff would modify or change the PID zoning code. Mr. Parrish said it would have to be reviewed and researched to see what would be the best solutions. The intent of the PID has a different purpose than other Industrial zoning districts. Mr. Parrish stated should PID be made similar to the other zoning districts or is it a special zoning district, this is something that Staff will have to review and determine. Chairman Williams said there will be a major change. Vice Chairman Chavier said he would recommend using the CUP process and use restoration as the key. Vice Chairman Chavier said he would like to change the wording to restoration of antique automobiles. Mr. Parrish suggested using what Mr. Breidenbach wrote on page 141 of the agenda packet, assembly of automobiles. Vice Chairman Chavier suggested ground up restoration and assembly. Chairman Williams said if the Commission finds that restoration is a permitted use, then there is no CUP that would be necessary. Mr. Parrish said the Commission would be defining what Mr. Breidenbach s use is and if found to be permitted on page 168 (d) a CUP would not be required. Chairman Williams said either the Commission finds that restoration as being acceptable or because the business is located in an area with multiple uses, it would be a cause for a CUP. Mr. Parrish said that is correct. Chairman Williams said it sounds like the Commission members are in agreement that restoration would be acceptable. Dr. Fayson agreed that it should be restoration. XXX Dr. Fayson made a motion to accept Antique Automobile Restoration as an acceptable use in the PID zoning. Vice Chairman Chavier seconded. Roll call was as follows: Vice Chairman Chavier Yes Member Bobik Yes Secretary Chambers Yes Dr. Fayson Yes Chairman Williams Yes Motion passed. XXX Self-Storage in the Regional Commercial (RC) zoning district Mr. Traphagen gave an overview of this item. Page 14 of 22 Page 17 of 77

19 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 John H. Evans PA of 1702 S. Washington Avenue Titusville, Florida came to speak in favor of this item. Mr. Evans presented a handout to the Commission members. Mr. Evans said he represents a company called I Storage. Mr. Evans said I Storage has a contract to purchase the old K-Mart building on Highway 50. The property has been vacant for ten years. Mr. Evans said his client plans to buy the building and renovate it and make it into an indoor mini storage facility. Mr. Evans said the handout he presented is an example of what it might look like when it is complete. Mr. Evans said it will look a lot better than it does today. Mr. Evans said it shows what the inside would look like. Mr. Evans said mini warehouse storage is only allowed on Industrial zoned property, so as it is now the mini warehouse storage is not allowed. Mr. Evans said the property would either have to be rezoned or the Regional Commercial code would need to be amended to allow for mini warehouse storage be an allowable use. Mr. Evans said the storage will be all indoor. Mr. Evans provided the code, which shows the permitted uses in RC. Mr. Evans read a few of the permitted uses in RC which are: Sales and/or service of household appliances, gasoline powered mowers, garden tillers, outboard engines, motor scooters, motor bikes and motorcycles, Restaurants including carry out restaurants, delicatessens, ice cream parlors and similar establishments, Retail gasoline sales, Commercial parking lots, and Nightclubs and cocktail lounges. Mr. Evans said his client has no objections to the conditions that Staff has recommended. Mr. Evans said this would be a great addition to the City of Titusville and would fill the vacate building. Chairman Williams asked about subdividing the property. Mr. Evans said if the property was rezoned to Industrial it would abut two residential neighborhoods on two sides. Mr. Evans said it would be inappropriate to change it to an Industrial zoning. Mr. Evans said the mini storage is less intrusive than some of the permitted uses he mentioned. Vice Chairman Chavier asked if the present building will be used. Mr. Evans said yes. The building will be renovated and new landscaping will be installed etc. Mr. Evans said it will look similar to the buildings that he provided as examples. Vice Chairman Chavier asked if the property has already been purchased. Mr. Evans said his client has a contract on the property that is contingent on whether or not he is allowed to have the mini storage facility in this location. Vice Chairman Chavier said this is a large piece of property and he wanted to know if anything else will be developed on the property. Mr. Evans said no other development is planned at this time but discussion took place that in the future possibly putting something closer US Highway 1, maybe a small restaurant. Mr. Evans said a lot separation would have to be done in the future for this to take place. Vice Chairman Chavier said he likes the architecture that has been presented. Vice Chairman Chavier said he met with Peggy Busacca in the Planning Department today. Vice Chairman Chavier said there has been discussion in the past for the Master Plan of Highway 50. Vice Chairman Chavier said he has notes that he had kept from a meeting in Vice Chairman Chavier thought the Planning Department had something for the Highway 50 corridor. Vice Chairman Chavier said he is concerned because this is an important corridor for the city and personally speaking he does not think that a storage facility like this is appropriate for Highway 50. Vice Chairman Chavier said this is a prime location and if there is a storage facility on this property it would preclude future development around the area. Vice Chairman Chavier said he is disappointed that no work has been done on the Master Plan for Highway 50. He said this is what happens; since no plan is done the Commission has to make decisions regarding the future of State Road 50 which is an important corridor. Vice Chairman Chavier said he thinks something better can be established in the K-Mart building other than a storage facility. He said he knows the building has been vacant a long time but we want to have walkable communities. Vice Page 15 of 22 Page 18 of 77

20 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 Chairman Chavier said a storage facility in the heart of the Highway 50 corridor is not a good idea. Vice Chairman Chavier said he is torn because he feels there has been a missed opportunity for this corridor. Vice Chairman Chavier said he printed off the list of businesses coming into Titusville. Vice Chairman Chavier said he thinks the project looks great but there needs to be a vision for Titusville and having a mini storage is not the vision he has for Titusville. Vice Chairman Chavier said he is not sure what to do here. Mr. Evans said this building had a land owner that sat on this building for ten years and has finally found someone willing to use it and put the money in it to look attractive and put in new landscaping. Mr. Evans said he believes that storage will be a very good business in this area because it is Regional. Mr. Evans said there are no indoor storage facilities in Titusville. Vice Chairman Chavier said there are two indoor storage facilities in Titusville. Vice Chairman Chavier said in his opinion it discourages future good quality development. Mr. Evans reiterated the other permitted uses for RC that he previously read and said his opinion is they are more offensive than an indoor storage facility. Vice Chairman Chavier said the storage facility is not offensive and feels the City should be proactive in what they do with the main corridors going through the City of Titusville. Mr. Evans said philosophically everyone would agree with Vice Chairman Chavier; however, this particular owner has been waiting for ten years and finally has a contract to get the property redeveloped and to put him off for another ten years while nothing else is done at all. Secretary Chambers said the old Gooding s building has been sitting vacant for about 20 years and if the City just sits around waiting, the vacant buildings will be piles of junk. Secretary Chambers said if these old buildings are not used they will fall down. Secretary Chambers said he would suggest getting occupants in the buildings and bringing them back to life. Mr. Evans said vandalism is a real issue. Member Bobik asked if there will be a resident manager on site of the storage facility. Mr. Evans said someone will be onsite during operation hours but it will not be a 24-hour access facility according to his client. Member Bobik said some areas want 24-hour access for their storage units. Mr. Evans said 24-hour access will not be allowed at this location. Vice Chairman Chavier said this is a choice piece of property. Titusville is growing and he feels that this property will not sit vacate forever. Vice Chairman Chavier said he thinks we should be patient and wait another five to seven years because he feels something better would come in. Chairman Williams said he would be more agreeable with subdividing this property and making the front part of the property Community Commercial. Chairman Williams said he brings this up because the City does have other storage facilities next to residential. Chairman Williams said he is not in favor of this because of the other RC zoning areas that the City has that are empty and this would open up a wide range of possibilities for more storage facilities. Chairman Williams said there is the old Gooding s building, the old Publix on Knox McRae, the old Public on Garden Street and Searstown which are four main areas that could all potentially become storage facilities. Chairman Williams said he has this fear that this might happen. Chairman Williams said he feels the better option is to subdivide so that the front portion can be used for something else and the min storage facility can be used in the back and be zoned as M-1. Mr. Evans said he does not want to be here when that property is zoned Industrial. Chairman Williams said he feels that the proposed option is worse than rezoning to M-1 Industrial. Chairman Williams said from what he has read the downfall of cities is having storage facilities because everyone is moving out. Mr. Evans said he feels that it is the opposite for the City of Titusville because of the people who get jobs at the Cape. There is need for storage while they are Page 16 of 22 Page 19 of 77

21 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 looking for a house to live in. Chairman Williams said opening this up to RC would open the floodgates for people who want to fill vacant buildings with storage facilities. Chairman Williams said the other problem is that the entire property is not going to be utilized. Chairman Williams said he didn t want to see the Miracle City Mall be vacant for another ten years before finally being developed but on the other hand he feels like maybe the city should have waited. Chairman Williams said he does not know yet but he has his fingers crossed. Chairman Williams said he feels it opens up a lot more problems having it allowed. Mr. Evans said Titusville is known for blocking development. Mr. Evans said he has seen numerous developments be blocked by the City of Titusville. Chairman Williams said he suggested another option, which will maybe allow for even more money to be made from the property. Mr. Evans said Titusville is famous for blocking development. Chairman Williams agreed that Titusville is known for blocking development but does not feel that this is the case in this situation. Mr. Traphagen said he understands the Chairman s concerns with opening up RC to storage facilities, however, placing this property as Industrial still does not mean the property owner can be forced into subdividing the property. Chairman Williams said he understands. Mr. Traphagen said that if this property was changed to Industrial it would open up the uses to allow much more intensive uses other than storage facilities. Chairman Williams said what he suggested isn t the absolute solution but he does not think changing the code is the answer to this. Chairman Williams said he is not comfortable changing the code for storage facilities. Mr. Parrish said Staff looked at this as an opportunity to reuse, revitalize, and redevelop a piece of property that has sat vacant for ten years. Mr. Parrish said a vacant building has a lot less accessed value to the City of Titusville than an occupied building. Mr. Parrish said the applicant is proposing to amend the code to allow for mini warehouse storage in the RC zoning but only within an enclosed airconditioned building. Mr. Parrish said access to the mini storage could only be from inside the building. Mr. Parrish said that Staff found that Industrial was inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding area and there was no way around it. Mr. Parrish said this is why Staff thought that amending the code was the better option with the recommended conditions. Mr. Parrish said other conditions could be added such as so many feet from the street so that a storage facility is not sitting right on the street. Mr. Parrish said changing the zoning just was not an option that Staff could see. Chairman Williams said he can appreciate Staff customizing this for the applicant but still feels that it is opening RC up to issues. Chairman Williams said he does not think his suggested option was the best either but said both end in the same results. Chairman Williams said what is being proposed is Industrial, which should be in M-1 or M-2. Chairman Williams said he does not think it is so inconsistent but at the same time it is looking beyond five years from now. Chairman Williams said it would be far cheaper to take an old shopping mall and put up dividers rather than going through the entire planning process and putting up a brand new building. Chairman Williams said it is an expensive process but picking up a non-used store in RC the cost can be cut down by $100k or $200k. Chairman Williams said he is concerned about future RC owners. Dr. Fayson said he would hate to see a building that has been vacant for ten years to not be occupied. Dr. Fayson said he does not want to wait. Dr. Fayson said from what he sees it looks like an attractive development. Dr. Fayson said the Gooding s building has been vacant for 20 years. Dr. Fayson said he would like to see the buildings occupied. Dr. Fayson said he does not see this as a block to further development. Page 17 of 22 Page 20 of 77

22 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 Vice Chairman Chavier said the City should be patient for another five to seven years for development to come in and storage units are not what the City is looking for in prime real estate areas. Mr. Evans said he feels that the storage facility will only make Titusville better. XXX Member Bobik made a motion to approve Self Storage in the Regional Commercial (RC) zoning district. Secretary Chambers seconded. Roll call was as follows: Vice Chairman Chavier No Secretary Chambers Yes Dr. Fayson Yes Member Bobik Yes Chairman Williams No Motion passed with a 3 Yes, 2 No vote. XXX Rezoning o Mr. Traphagen gave an overview of this item. XXX Vice Chairman Chavier made a motion to approve Rezoning No Member Bobik seconded. Roll call was as follows: Secretary Chambers Yes Vice Chairman Chavier Yes Member Bobik Yes Chairman Williams Yes Motion passed. Small Scale Amendment SSA o A Mr. Traphagen gave an overview of this item. XXX XXX Dr. Fayson made a motion to approve Small Scale Amendment SSA# A. Vice Chairman Chavier seconded. Roll call was as follows: Page 18 of 22 Page 21 of 77

23 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 Vice Chairman Chavier Yes Secretary Chambers Yes Dr. Fayson Yes Member Bobik Yes Chairman Williams Yes Motion passed. XXX Small Scale Amendment SSA o B Mr. Traphagen gave an overview of this item. Chairman Williams asked if the Hospital actually owns this. Mr. Traphagen said the Hospital does not own it, it is owned by an LLC. Chairman Williams asked if the property next to it came in as an ALF. Mr. Traphagen said yes the property just to the West which is an ALF was placed in the Conservation Land Use designation. Staff is proposing to change it to the Public/Semi-Public so it is consistent with the zoning. XXX Secretary Chambers made a motion to approve Small Scale Amendment SSA# B. Vice Chairman Chavier seconded. Roll call was as follows: Vice Chairman Chavier Yes Member Bobik Yes Secretary Chambers Yes Dr. Fayson Yes Chairman Williams Yes Motion passed. Small Scale Amendment SSA o C Mr. Traphagen gave an overview of this item. XXX XXX Vice Chairman Chavier made a motion to approve Small Scale Amendment SSA# C. Dr. Fayson seconded. Roll call was as follows: Page 19 of 22 Page 22 of 77

24 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 Vice Chairman Chavier Yes Secretary Chambers Yes Dr. Fayson Yes Member Bobik Yes Chairman Williams Yes Motion passed. XXX Small Scale Amendment SSA o D Mr. Traphagen gave an overview of this item. XXX Dr. Fayson made a motion to approve Small Scale Amendment SSA# D. Vice Chairman Chavier seconded. Roll call was as follows: Vice Chairman Chavier Yes Member Bobik Yes Dr. Fayson Yes Secretary Chambers Yes Chairman Williams Yes Motion passed. XXX Small Scale Amendment SSA o E Mr. Traphagen gave an overview of this item. XXX Dr. Fayson made a motion to approve Small Scale Amendment SSA# E. Vice Chairman Chavier seconded. Roll call was as follows: Vice Chairman Chavier Yes Secretary Chambers Yes Page 20 of 22 Page 23 of 77

25 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 Dr. Fayson Member Bobik Chairman Williams Yes Yes Yes Motion passed. XXX Small Scale Amendment SSA o F Mr. Traphagen gave an overview of this item. XXX Dr. Fayson made a motion to approve Small Scale Amendment SSA# F. Vice Chairman Chavier seconded. Roll call was as follows: Dr. Fayson Yes Secretary Chambers Yes Vice Chairman Chavier Yes Member Bobik Yes Chairman Williams Yes Motion passed. Petitions and Requests from Public Present None XXX Reports XXX Mr. Traphagen advised the Commission that there is an informal public meeting regarding golf courses tomorrow night December 2, 2015 at City Hall in the Council Chambers at 6:00pm. Assistant City Attorney Farrell said there is litigation going on regarding the title of the property at Royal Oak Golf Course, there was an alleged transfer. One of the owners has filed for a quite title action and this has not been resolved yet. Assistant City Attorney said they might have more information in a month or so. Until the quite title action has been resolved no maintenance will be done more than likely. Assistant City Attorney said there is a question who actually owns the property and that has to be determined by a judge. The next meeting for the Planning and Zoning Commission is on December 16, Dr. Fayson asked what the operation just north of the power plant is. Mr. Traphagen it is the future site of the Logistic Center. It will be a warehouse terminal. Page 21 of 22 Page 24 of 77

26 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 1, 2015 Vice Chairman Chavier asked what happened to the vegetation around the retention pond in front of Wal-Mart. Mr. Traphagen said he does not know what happened but he will find out and let the Commission know. Vice Chairman Chavier said it looks like herbicides were used. Vice Chairman Chavier said it needs to be cleaned up so that the retention pond does not get full of the waste and runoff from whatever happened at this location. Vice Chairman Chavier said it looks very ugly. Adjournment 10:36 p.m. XXX Page 22 of 22 Page 25 of 77

27 City of Titusville "Gateway to Nature and Space" Category: 9. Item: A. To: From: Subject: REPORT TO COUNCIL Planning and Zoning Commission Members Peggy Busacca, Community Development Director Landscape Features and Pergolas in the Front Yard Department/Office: Community Development Recommended Action: Discuss issues and concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission related to draft Ordinance Landscape Features and Pergolas in the Front Yard. This ordinance was denied by the City Council at their December 8, 2015 regular meeting. Summary Explanation & Background: On December 8, 2015, the City Council accepted the Planning and Zoning Commission's unanimous recommendation to deny Ordinance Landscape Features and Pergolas in the Front Yard. The Council then requested that the Commission work with Ms. Kathleen Burson to address their concerns. At the November meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission included recommendations to the Council to make the Ordinance better suited for a potential future adoption: 1. Minimum yard size requirements; 2. Regulations for inspections; 3. Regulations for required permits; 4. Building materials requirements; and 5. The possibility of allowing pergolas to be attached to the primary structure to increase strength. The Commission also requested to pass along the intent of the recommendation, which was to address wind loads, safety (during storm events), and aesthetics of the structures if they are permitted. Summary Explanation & Background: On June 10, 2014, Council adopted Ordinance to permit landscape features (arbor or trellis) in the front yard of residential structures with the following provisions: l Accessory structures not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall not require a permit. No accessory structure shall encroach into a utility/drainage easement. l Accessory structures shall not be located in the front yard with the following exception: one detached landscape feature arbor or trellis under one hundred twenty (120) square feet, with a maximum height of twelve (12) feet, a minimum five (5) feet from the property Page 26 of 77

28 line, and shall not be placed in the sight distance triangle as specified in Section (e). Such landscape feature shall not be used for storage, including vehicular storage. On July , Kathleen Burson requested that Council reconsider the maximum size of landscape features and their use for vehicular storage. At that meeting, Ms. Burson requested Council consider the following two (2) changes to the existing code: l Eliminate the maximum size limitation for landscape features in the front yard of residential structures; and l Permit vehicle storage under a pergola if placed over the driveway; if located in the yard, only seating is permitted under the structure. The attached ordinance makes the following amendments to the Code: l Adds definitions to clarify terms, as requested by the Building Official. l Permits one detached landscape feature not exceeding 120 square feet and one incidental landscape feature not exceeding 25 square feet in the front yard setback area. An incidental landscape feature may include a pond, wooden swing, etc. l Clarifies that all accessory structures are required to comply with the current edition of the Florida Building Code, as requested by the Building Official. Accessory structures less than 1120 square feet are not required to obtain a building permit, consistent with State Code. l Clarifies that a pergola may be used for purposes parking no more than two (2) legally registered and operating passenger type motor vehicles or pick-up trucks. l States that pergolas shall not be used for storage of grills, furniture, boats, personal water craft, swings or other personal property, as requested by the Code Enforcement Manager. Comments received from Ms. Burson on October 23, 2015 are attached. The Building Official has no opinion on the design standards, except to stated that all pergolas will be required to meet the Florida Building Code. Staff was also asked to provide information about two (2) issues: l What is the difference between the location of landscape features/pergolas in the front yard and the back yard? Accessory structures located in the back yard generally are not as visible from the street and may be shielded by fenced. Therefore limiting accessory structures in the front yard is intended to reduce visual impacts to neighboring properties. l Is there a concern about windload requirements for landscape features/pergolas? According to the Building Official, a properly anchored pergola without roofing creates less of a windload concern than a wood panel fence. However, if a roof (including screen or lattice work) is installed, the structure should be required to meet structural windload requirements. Alternatives: This is a discussion item only. No action is required. Item Budgeted: NA Page 27 of 77

29 Source/use of funds/budget Book Page: Strategic Plan: No. 1 Quality of Life Strategic Plan Impact: ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type Draft pergola ordinance rejected by the City Council December 8, /14/2015 Backup Material Kathleen Burson's suggestions 10/23/15 12/14/2015 Backup Material Staff's Renderings 12/14/2015 Backup Material Page 28 of 77

30

31 ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 27 GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS, SECTION DEFINITIONS TO INCLUDE DEFINITIONS OF LANDSCAPE FEATURES AND PERGOLA; AMENDING CHAPTER 59 ZONING, ARTICLE III RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, DIVISION 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES RELATING TO SETBACKS REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE AND PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE. WHEREAS, pergolas can be utilized as shade for vehicles and seating; and WHEREAS, the Titusville City Council desires to allow attractive alternatives for accessory structures to provide shaded parking in residential zoning districts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the City of Titusville, Florida as follows: SECTION 1: That Section Definitions of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Titusville is hereby amended to add definitions as follows: Landscape Feature: Is an accessory structure which can be an arbor, trellis, gazebo, wishing well, fish pond, fountain, swing, patio, statue, driveway columns or other similar structures customarily found in gardens or on lawns. Pergola: Is an accessory structure which is located outdoors consisting of an open/impervious horizontal upper section constructed of cross rafters or latticework supported on columns or posts, over which vines or other plants may be trained. SECTION 2: That Section Accessory Buildings and Structures of the General Provisions for Residential zoning districts of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Titusville is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec Accessory buildings and structures. (a) Accessory buildings and structures may be erected on any lot, provided that such buildings and structures comply with the provisions of this section. (b) No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot of record which does not have a completed principal structure on the same lot. (c) The cumulative area of all accessory buildings or structures, excluding swimming pools and pool enclosures, shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the square foot area of the principal structure. (d) Any accessory building or structure, excluding swimming pools and pool enclosures, exceeding twenty (20) percent of the square foot area of the principal structure shall be Ordinance o Accessory structures in the front yard Page 1 of 4 Page 29 of 77

32 compatible in architectural style, color and exterior facing material to the principal structure. (e) Accessory buildings and structures shall meet the standards for the zoning district in which. they are located with the following exceptions: (all dimensions are in feet): (1) Rear Yard Setbacks: for Accessory Buildings and Structures (all dimensions are in feet): RE RR R-1A R-1B R-1C R-2 R-3 RMH-1 RMH-2 Detached Building/Structures Attached Screen Porches Swimming Pools Pool Enclosures (2) Side Yard Setbacks: RE RR R-1A R-1B R-1C R-2 R-3 RMH-1 RMH-2 Detached Building/Structure Attached Screen Porches Swimming Pools Pool Enclosures (f) Accessory structures shall not be located in the front yard setback. Exceptions: a. One detached landscape feature not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet, with a maximum height of ten (10) feet and a maximum horizontal dimension of twelve (12) feet. Such landscape feature shall not be used for storage, including vehicular storage. Setbacks shall be a minimum of five (5) feet from all property lines and shall not be placed in the sight distance triangle as specified in Section 39-41(e). b. One pergola not exceeding three hundred and twenty four (324) square feet, with a maximum height of ten (10) feet and a maximum horizontal distance of eighteen (18) feet. The pergola shall be a minimum ten (10) feet from the front and corner side yard property lines and a minimum of five (5) feet from all other property lines and shall not be placed in the sight triangle as specified in Section 39-41(e). A pergola may be used for purposes of parking no more than two (2) legally Ordinance o Accessory structures in the front yard Page 2 of 4 Page 30 of 77

33 registered and operating passenger type motor vehicles or pick-up trucks. A pergola shall not be a carport as defined herein [Carport: Shall mean an accessory structure or portion of a principal structure, consisting of a roof and supporting members such as columns or beams, unenclosed from the ground to the roof on at least two sides, and designed or used for the storage of motor driven vehicles]. Pergolas shall not be used for storage of grills, furniture, boats, personal water craft, swings or other personal property. c. Fences as allowed in Sec (f)(g) In single-family residential districts (RR, RE, R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, RMH-2) detached accessory buildings or structures shall be a minimum of five (5) feet from the principal structure. (g) Signs shall be permitted as regulated by Chapter 39, Article V. (h) No accessory structure shall encroach into a utility/drainage easement, unless permitted by the City. (h)(i) A building permit is required for all accessory buildings and structures exceeding one hundred and twenty (120) square feet in size. Accessory structures not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet do not require a building permit per Florida Building Code. However, they are required to comply with the current edition of the Florida Building Code Section and the City of Titusville Land Development Code.. Accessory structures not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet which are not physically anchored shall not require a permit. No accessory structure shall encroach into a utility/drainage easement. Accessory structures shall not be located in the front yard with the following exception: One detached landscape feature arbor or trellis under one hundred twenty (120) square feet, with a maximum height of twelve (12) feet, a minimum five (5) feet from the property line, and shall not be placed in the sight distance triangle as specified in Section 39-41(e). Such landscape feature shall not be used for storage, including vehicular storage (Moved to (f) above) (i)(j) Side corner setbacks shall meet the principal structure setbacks for all accessory structures in all residential districts. Exception: Pergolas, landscape features and incidental landscape features as permitted in paragraph (f) above. SECTION 4: SEVERABILITY. If any provisions of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. SECTION 5: REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES. All ordinances or parts of ordinances, and all resolutions and parts of resolutions, in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Ordinance o Accessory structures in the front yard Page 3 of 4 Page 31 of 77

34 SECTION 6: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption by the City Council in accordance with the Charter of the City of Titusville, Florida. SECTION 7: INCORPORATION INTO CODE. This ordinance shall be incorporated into the City of Titusville Code of Ordinances and any section or paragraph, number or letter, and any heading may be changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical, and like errors may be corrected and additions, alterations, and omissions, not affecting the construction or meaning of this ordinance and the Code may be made. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: James H. Tulley, Jr., Mayor Wanda Wells, City Clerk Ordinance o Accessory structures in the front yard Page 4 of 4 Page 32 of 77

35 Front Yard Pergola Design Guidelines: To qualify for a pergola in the front yard, the following minimum criteria must be met: The structure must be made of pressure-treated solid wood or have the look and strength of solid wood. Metal poles, PVC poles, tarps, rope and other flimsy temporary or semi-permanent components are not permitted in the front yard. Vertical supports and all other decorative components may be of pressure treated wood, steel, aluminum or pvc to look like wood or of a variation to have a highly decorative nature. The vertical supports must be a minimum size of 4 dia. or square. Larger supports are encouraged, i.e. 6x6 or 8x8 posts. Supports must be set at least two feet in the ground and set in or on a concrete footer or slab. Clearance from the ground to the rafters must be at least 8. Rafters must be a minimum of 2 x6 set no more than 24 apart and attached with FBC approved metal straps and screws. The top layer may be decorative in nature of lattice, 1x1 s or larger pieces consistent across the top of the rafters. Attachments must be secured with screws to meet minimum FBC code. This layer may be covered with an attached pervious window screen to allow wind and water through. No covering will be allowed that creates an uplift without materials and attachments meeting FBC code. All four sides of the Pergola structure must be open without any framing or walls other than the posts. Page 33 of 77

36 Page 34 of 77

37 Page 35 of 77

38

39 City of Titusville "Gateway to Nature and Space" Category: 9. Item: B. REPORT TO COUNCIL To: Planning and Zoning Commission Members From: Peggy Busacca, Community Development Director Subject: Land Development Regulations Update Project Status and Next Steps Department/Office: Community Development Recommended Action: Accept the report of staff s findings of the City s Land Development Regulations; approve the proposed code structure; and support the proposed revisions to the approval procedures specified in the code. The staff will give a 15 minute presentation. This item was presented to the City Council September 8, Summary Explanation & Background: At a special meeting of the City Council in 2014, the staff was directed to present a strategy to update and improve the zoning code. On February 24, 2015 the staff presented and received approval for a three phased strategy to the update the code: (1) Discovery/Review Phase, (2) Format Phase and (3) Rewrite Phase. On September 8, 2015, the staff presented to the City Council a report of its findings. Enclosed for the Commission's review is the report describing the results of the Discovery/Review Phase with the recommendations that were presented to the City Council. The staff will give a short presentation on the results of the code review; a proposal to reorganize the structure of the code; and recommendations for streamlining the review and approval procedures of several development orders. The following agenda will address the results of the Format phase. Alternatives: 1. Accept the report of staff s findings of the City s Land Development Regulations; approve the proposed code structure; and support the proposed revisions to the approval procedures specified in the code. 2. Do not accept the report of staff s findings of the City s Land Development Regulations; do not approve the proposed code structure; and/or do not support the proposed revisions to the approval procedures specified in the code. 3. Provide other direction. Item Budgeted: NA Page 36 of 77

40 Source/use of funds/budget Book Page: Strategic Plan: No. 1 Quality of LifeNo. 2 Economic DevelopmentNo. 3 Financial StabilityNo. 4 Efficient and Effective Services Strategic Plan Impact: ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type Staff Report 12/17/2015 Backup Material New Code Structure 12/17/2015 Backup Material Revised Approval Procedures 12/17/2015 Backup Material Stakeholder Interviews 12/17/2015 Backup Material Summary of Actions to amend the Code 12/17/2015 Backup Material Page 37 of 77

41 City of Titusville Staff Report CITY COUNCIL Code Update: Discovery/Review Phase Meeting Date: January 6, 2016 Prepared By: Brad Parrish, Planning Manager Staff Recommendation: Accept the report of staff s findings of the City s Land Development Regulations, approve the proposed code structure, and support the proposed revisions to the approval procedures specified in the code. Background In August 2014, the City Council directed staff to propose a strategy to update and improve the City s Land Development Regulations (LDR). On February 24, 2015, the staff presented to the City Council two alternatives strategies. These included (1) Chapter 59 Zoning Code Update and (2) a Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based code rewrite. The Council selected a hybrid approach whereby the entire LDR would be reviewed for issues and staff would suggest ways to clarify language, eliminate redundancies, expedite review processes, restructure the code, and propose new policies to amend the comprehensive plan where needed. In addition, the Council requested an opportunity midway through the process to determine if EAR based amendments will be necessary to update the comprehensive plan. The staff also proposed a schedule with three phases to complete the project, including a Discovery/Review, Format and Code Drafting Phases. The staff completed the Discovery Phase and developed a framework for a new code structure with revisions to the approval procedures of several development orders. This report summarizes the steps taken to complete this phase, and describes staff s findings and recommendations. The Lean Six Sigma process was utilized to review and analyze the development order approval procedures specified in the code. The Core Team included staff members from the Community Development Department and the support team included the Water Resources, Public Works and Code Enforcement Departments. The DEFINE phase was completed by creating a Project Charter, defining team roles and conducting one on one interviews to gather the Voice of the Customer. This phase was completed prior to beginning the analysis of the existing code. The MEASURE phase was completed by mapping current processes and the existing format of the code as well as measuring the length of the code. This phase was completed by the Community Development staff. A consultant assisted staff in mapping the existing code and processes. The ANALYZE phase was completed by identifying the causes of existing issues, prioritizing how issues should be addressed and quantifying opportunities for improvement. This phase was completed by City Staff with the assistance of a consultant. Staff is currently in the IMPROVE phase. Through the IMPROVE phase, staff will identify solutions, validate solutions and implement a new structure to the code. This phase is expected to be the most time intensive phase due to the need for piloting the various approval processes Q:\Planning Admin\Code Update\Staff Reports_Powerpoints\CodeUpdate_StaffReport_DiscoveryPhase.docx Page 38 of 77

42 Code Update: Discovery/Review Phase Approach and Findings 1. Stakeholder interviews [see enclosed list of comments Attachment C]: To garner an understanding of how the Land Development Regulations are viewed and used by the public, the staff conducted one-on-one interviews with several residents and business owners. Some of the comments received include: applying the code consistently, the code should be flexible, predictable and promote realistic criteria, and should reduce the need for variances. 2. Consultant Gene Boles [see enclosed consultant report Attachment D]: The consultant advised the City on the ways and means to successfully update the Code. He conducted a full day workshop with several members of the Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, Titusville Environmental Commission, Board of Adjustments and Appeals and Historic Preservation Board. A separate half-day workshop was attended by staff from the Community Development, Public Works, Code Enforcement and Water Resources Departments. The consultant advocated using a Results Neutral method to streamline the code. Through this method the code s processes, procedures and structure can be streamlined without major policy changes. The consultant reviewed the City s LDRs and submitted a report with the following recommendations: a) The City staff s [3 phased: Discovery, Format, Drafting] approach is workable; b) Need to separate the organization, format and decision-making aspects of the LDRs from its regulatory content; c) Reorganize the code to reflect how it is used; d) Avoid too much detail early in the development order approval process; e) Simplify development review procedures; f) Clarify decision making authority; g) Consolidate regulatory content and simplify; h) Avoid non-conformities; and i) Reconcile the comprehensive plan with the LDRs. 3. Staff Review [see enclosed Summary of Actions Attachment E]: Several staff members from the Community Development, Public Works, Code Enforcement and Water Resources Departments reviewed the LDRs and provided comments and suggestions to the Planning staff. The Discovery Report summarizes their findings and the approach to restructuring, rewording, and streamlining the code. Code sections are color coded to indicate to be retained, modified or removed. a) The Approval procedures are confusing and not consistent; b) Too many development orders and permits require the approval of the P&Z, Council or other board that can otherwise could be approved administratively; c) Too much detail is required early in the development order process (i.e. sketch plats, rezonings, conditional use permits); d) The lack of flexibility in the code requires variances; and e) The code is 600+ pages. Converting development criteria into tables and technical manuals could reduce the Code to -300 and will help remove inconsistent standards. Page 39 of 77 Page 2 of 4

43 Code Update: Discovery/Review Phase Recommendations 1. New Code Structure [see Attachment A]: Approve the proposed new code structure. The current LDRs will be reorganized into the following structure. a) The structure is based on a hypothetical sequence of questions that a property owner or developer may ask in order to approve a project; Current structure New structure [See Attachment A] Ch 27: General Ch 27: General Provisions Which zoning districts are permitted Provisions Land Use/Zoning matrix on my property? Ch 31: Administration Ch 28: Zoning Districts What uses are allowed on my property? Ch 35: Environmental Protection Ch 29: Overlay Districts Are there any special criteria in my area? Ch 39: General Performance Ch 30: Natural Resources How can the land be prepared for the new use? Ch 47: Procedures Ch 31: Design Standards What are the site design standards? Ch 48: Historic Ch 32: Signs Where and what kind of sign is allowed? Ch 51: Subdivisions Ch 33: Development What type of approval is required? Options Ch 59: Zoning Ch 34: Administration What are the approval procedures? Ch 63: Appendices Ch 35: Agencies & Boards Who approves my use? Ch 36: Interpretation, Equitable Relief and Can a variance be granted from the code? Enforcement Ch: 37: Definitions What is the meaning of a particular term? Technical Manuals b) A land use/zoning matrix will be introduced; c) Permitted, conditional, accessory and prohibited uses will be consolidated into tables; d) Zoning district design criteria will be consolidated into tables; and e) Detailed development criteria will be transferred to technical manuals. 2. Revised Approval Procedures [see Attachment B]: Support the proposed changes to the approval procedures of several development orders including: a) Area of Impact Plan (AIP): Remove the AIP requirement from the Shoreline Mixed Use (SMU) zoning district; b) Planned Development: Replace the master plan approval procedures in the PUDZ, PID, UV and RMU zoning districts with a simplified Planned Development (PD) rezoning process, amend the comprehensive plan accordingly, and allow the PD rezoning development option in more areas of the City; Page 40 of 77 Page 3 of 4

44 Code Update: Discovery/Review Phase Attachments c) Conservation Subdivision Design: Replace the Cluster Development criteria that is currently allowed in the Residential Estate (RE) zoning district with a new Conservation Subdivision Design criteria and make it optional in all residential zoning districts; d) Development Review Committee: Create a staff level Development Review Committee (DRC) with the power to grant specified waivers to Technical Manuals; e) Design and Waivers in the CRA: Replace the staff level Downtown Design Review Committee AND Community Redevelopment Waiver Sub-Committee with the new staff level Development Review Committee (DRC) [appeals will go to the DCRA]; f) Site Plans in the CRA: Allow site plans to be approved administratively instead of by the Downtown Community Redevelopment Agency (DCRA) [appeals can go to the DCRA]; g) Variances in the CRA: Instead of the Downtown Community Redevelopment Agency (DCRA), consider giving the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (BAA) authority to review variances in the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) zoning district; h) Conditional Use Permits in the CRA: Instead of the Downtown Community Redevelopment Agency (DCRA), consider giving the P&Z and Council authority to review conditional use permits in the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) zoning district; i) Dredge fill permits: Dredge fill permits require approval from the TEC but are already issued by the St. Johns Water Management, FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, j) Streets: Street names (not to be confused with street renaming), Cul-de-sacs, and Single family residential alleys require P&Z approval but could be handled through the administrative site plan or plat process, and k) Home Based Businesses: Home based business approvals can be inserted into the Chapter 11 Business Licenses Code of Ordinances instead of the Zoning Code. Mar 2015 Jul 2015 Nov 2015 Mar 2016 July 2016 Hire employee Discovery Phase Stakeholder interviews Publish Discovery Launch webpage P&Z workshop/public comment Update Council Code Format Phase [Council will decide if EAR is needed at this stage] P&Z workshop/public review of code format Update Council Code Drafting Phase P&Z workshops*/public review Adoption Phase* > *Additional workshops and Council meetings may be necessary Page 41 of 77 A. New Code Structure B. Revised Approval Procedures C. Stakeholder Interviews D. Consultant s Report E. Summary of Actions Page 4 of 4

45 Proposed New Code Structure Chapter 27 General Provisions Preface Previous Chapter 27 Intent (relationship to comp plan) Previous Chapter 27 Insert FLU/Zoning Matrix Misc. Provisions (Relationship to zoning and prior code) Previous Chapter 27 Chapter 28 Zoning Districts General Provisions and Zoning Districts Established Previous Chapter 59 Agricultural and Special (GU, SA) Previous Chapter 59 Recreation Special (OR) Previous Chapter 59 Public Special (P) Previous Chapter 59 Residential (RE, RR, R 1A, R 1B, R 1C, R2, R3, RMH 1, RMH 2 & RHP) Previous Chapter 59 Commercial (HM, T, NC, CC, RC, OP, CM) Previous Chapter 59 Industrial (M 1, M 2, M 3, PID) Previous Chapter 59 Mixed Use Special (CBD, UMU, SMU, RMU, UV, PUDZ) Previous Chapter 59 Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) Previous Chapter 59 CUP Performance Criteria Previous Chptr 47, Art VII, Chptr 59, Art X Insert Uses (Permitted, Conditional and Accessory) into Table Insert Uses Standards (Permitted, Conditional and Accessory) into Table Insert Zoning Criteria (+Accessory) in Tables with illustrations Chapter 29 Overlay [Special] Districts P and Z Regular - January 6, :00 PM Titusville Shoreine Area (TSA) Previous Chptrs 59 & 63 Airport Impact Area (AIA) Previous Chptrs 59 & 63 Wetland and Conservation Area (WCA) Previous Chptrs 59 & 63 Area of Critical Concern (ACC) Previous Chptr 35 Art III, 59 & 63 Planned IndustriaL Park (PIP) Previous Chapter 63 Historic Preservation (HPA) Previous Chptrs 48 & 59 Chapter 30 Natural Resources Trees Protection and Removal (general criteria) Previous Chapter 35 Environmental Wetlands and Mitigation Previous Chapter 35 Protect of TOPO Previous Chapter 35 Flood Previous Chapter 35 Toxic Materials Mgmt (enabling language) Previous Chapter 35 Bulkhead/Dredge Permits (enabling language) Previous Chapter 35 Concurrency (enabling language) Previous Chapter 39 Chapter 31 Design Standards & Improvement Requirements (subdivisions, landscape, access, etc.) *the following sequence may change General Performance (general criteria) Previous Chapter 39 Subdivision (general criteria) New Stormwater (general criteria) Previous Chapter 35 Streets/Sidewalks/bike (general criteria) Previous Chapter 39 Parking (general criteria) Previous Chapter 39 Structures Project over property Previous Chapter 39 Utilities (enabling language) Previous Chapter 39 Landscaping [buffers/screening] (general criteria) Previous Chapter 35 Insert standards into Tables *adopt specific standards for industrial developments Chapter 32 Signs Signage Previous Chapter 39 Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) Signage Previous Chapter 59 Insert criteria into Tables Chapter 33 Development Options (site plan, PD, Commercial retrofit) Development Agreements (no public hearing) Previous Chapter 59 Subdivisions/plat (sketch plan, preliminary, final plat) Previous Chapter 47 Lot Split and Small Scale Plat (administrative) Previous Chapter 51 Art II Site Plan Approval (administrative) Previous Chapter 47 Special (PUDZ) Planned Development districts (rezoning) Previous Chapter 59 Cluster Development Conservation Subdivision (sketch plan, preliminary, final plat) Previous Chapter 59 Art II Div 2 (RE) Transfer of Development Rights (administrative) Previous Chapter 47 Art XIV Div 3 Page 42 of 77 8/28/2015

46 Proposed New Code Structure Chapter 34 Administration and Procedures Procedures Previous Chapter 47 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) Process Previous Chapter 47 Rezoning Previous Chapter 47 Subdivisions/plat (sketch plan, preliminary, final plat) Previous Chapter 47 Site Plan Approval Previous Chapter 47 Permits/Approvals Previous Chapter 47 Apps/Forms Previous Chapter 47 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Previous Chapter 47 Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) Design Review process Previous Chapter 59 Chapter 35 Agencies & Boards City Council Previous Chapter 31 Admin Officer Previous Chapter 31 P&Z Previous Chapter 31 BAA Previous Chapter 31 Code Board Previous Chapter 31 Historic Previous Chapter 31 Ad Hoc (Temporary) Committee Previous Chapter 31 TEC Previous Chapter 31 Downtown CRA Previous Chapter 59 Downtown Design Review Committee (DDRC) Previous Chapter 59 Community Redevelopment Waiver Sub Committee (CRWSC) Previous Chapter 59 Development Review Committee (DRC) handles tech manual waivers and takes role of Downtown design and waiver committee. New Council to delegate authority P and Z Regular - January 6, :00 PM Chapter 36 Interpretations, Exceptional, Equitable Relief and Enforcement Storm Plan Previous Chapter 47 Variances Previous Chapter 47 Waivers (of tech manuals) New Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) Waivers and Appeals Previous Chapter 59 Administrative and Interpretation Appeals Previous Chapter 47 Rehearings Previous Chapter 47 Enforcement Previous Chapter 47 Non Conforming Uses Previous Chapter 47 Interpretation of Uses Previous Chapter 31 Vested Rights Previous Chapter 47 Beneficial Use Previous Chapter 47 Chapter 37 Definitions Definitions Previous Chapter 27 Technical Manual(s) responsible parties to be determined *the following sequence may change Guide to Landscape Previous Chapter 63 Lists, Charts, Requirements Previous Chapter 63 Insert Subdivision criteria w/references to relevent sections of code into technical manuals Fees Previous Chapter 47 Protect /Remove Trees (specific criteria) Previous Chapter 35 Storm (specific criteria) Previous Chapter 35 Toxic Materials Mgmt (specific criteria) Previous Chapter 35 Bulkhead/Dredge Permits (specific criteria) Previous Chapter 35 Utilities (specific criteria) Previous Chapter 39 Concurrency (specific criteria) Previous Chapter 39 General Performance [+Subdivision] (specific criteria) Previous Chapter 39 Streets/Sidewalks/bike [+Subdivision] (specific criteria) Previous Chapter 39 Parking (specific criteria) Previous Chapter 39 Page 43 of 77 8/28/2015

47 Proposed Approval Processes Historic Preservation Development Orders Admin Permit Admin Review Appointed Body Council Certificate of Appropiateness Pres Officer HPB¹ Historic Designation HPB X ¹ Certificates of Appropriateness appeals to City Council Downtown Development Orders Admin Permit Admin Review Appointed Body Council Comment Comment Conditional Use (Downtown) P&Z DCRA Council Waiver in the Downtown (minor variances) CRWSC DRC Design Review in Downtown (>1.5ac or >10Ksf bldg) DDRC DCRA Bring all design reviews to Design Review in Downtown (<1.5ac or <10Ksf bldg) DDRC² DRC² new DRC Transfer of Development Rights (Downtown) DCRA X Variance & Admin Appeals (Downtown) DCRA BAA ² DDRC denials appeal to DCRA Lot Split, Small Scale Plat, Plat and Streets Development Orders Admin Permit Admin Review Appointed Body Council Lot Split Engineer Small Scale Plat (Minor Division > 10 lots) Engineer Sketch Plat P&Z X Preliminary Plat Engineer Final Plat X Comment Street Name P&Z X Already part of plat process Street Rename P&Z X Street or Easement vacate P&Z X Sec not LDR Culdesac Approval (39 41) P&Z Already part of plat process P and Z Regular - January 6, :00 PM Cluster DevelopmentConservation Subdivision Design in the RE any residential zoning General Processes Development Orders Admin Permit Admin Review P&Z Appointed Body X Council Process through existing sketch plat, preliminary and plat processes Comment Admin Variance Waiver Process Planning Airport Overlay AA/FDOT Appeals of Admin. Interpretation BAA Approval Process Determination of Appeals P&Z X Staff can determine the right process Area Impact Plan P&Z X BAA Rehearing (Appeal of CUP) BAA Beneficial Use City Manager P&ZBAA X Building Permits (Chp. 6) Building Class I Site Plan (47 22) Administrator Class II Site Plan (47 22) Administrator Comp Plan Amendments P&Z X Conditional Use Regular P&Z X Conditional Use in RMU zoning district Planning Development Agreements P&Z X Remove public hearing requirement Doggy Dining X Delete or move to Chapter 11 licenses Dredge/Fill Permits TEC X Redundant Enforcement Citation CB Fee Waiver City Manager X Move fees to resolution Home Based Business X Delete or move to Chapter 11 licenses Rezoning, including new PD P&Z X Replace master plan w/ PD Rezoning. See below Signs (39 151) Building Single Family Residential Alley (39 41) P&Z Temporary Storage Building Use Interpretation P&Z Variance BAA Waivers (Technical Manuals) DRC Move design criteria to tech manuals. Vested Rights P&Z BAA X Master Plan Approval Process Planned Development Rezoning Process P&Z and Council Public Hearings separate approvals) (three Zoning districts Concept Preliminary Final PD Urban Village (UV) X X X Regional Mixed Use (RMU) X X X Planned Unit Development Zoning (PUDZ) Planned Development (PD X) X X X Planned Industrial Development (PID) X Florida Department of Transportation Airport Authority Planning and Zoning Commission Board of Adjustment and Appeals Code Board Historic Preservation Board Downtown Community Redevelopment Agency Downtown Design Review Committee Community Redevelopment Waiver Sub Committee Development Review Committee FDOT AA P&Z BAA CB HPB DCRA DDRC CRWSC DRC Could retain PUDZ design criteria but use new PD approval process Page 44 of 77 8/28/2015

48 Code Update: Discover/Review Phase Stakeholder comments Nine stakeholder interviews were conducted between December 2014 and February What does the City do well? Processing of applications Flexibility of application deadlines Can-do attitude Staff willing to meet with applicants prior to public meetings to avoid surprises Processing of applications Building Department executes permitting/inspections well The current layout of the code is logical to follow Current staff works well with applicants and tries to work out problems. Fast track 2. What could the City improve? More professional background for Planning and Zoning Commission members Allow more commercial. Need residential in downtown. Provide public education on the development process. Water Department does not have their phone number listed on the City webpage. A training program should be developed for board members. Create an internal admin process for simple, straightforward decisions. Be more flexible with signage, allow larger signs not blocked by trees. Executing policy Staff following through on direction from Council Reduce the number of variances needed for development Takes too long for issues like Bay Towers to be resolved and corrected Willingness to accept change and accommodate new development Look into landscaping requirements being cookie cutter, applied across all zoning districts, which makes it especially difficult for industrial districts. Perception of projects being stuck in review because decisions are not based on clear-cut criteria. Too much discussion is required. Suggestion: create a messaging campaign or forum to get the word out that the City is improving its code. Public facilities in downtown should be in excellent condition to encourage business owners to follow suit. Lead by example. Get businesses in the vacant buildings as a priority, focus on redevelopment later. Communicate better with prospective business owners. Communicate the plans for Riverfront Acquisition site. A better mix of commercial downtown: 4 spas, 3bars already Move hospice uses out of downtown Create more flexible re-use criteria of downtown buildings 3. What are the positive opportunities for the City? Creation of an Economic Development Element for the comp plan Parks and preserves. Elected officials want to increase curb appeal, need to implement policies to force property owners to follow through. Page 45 of 77 Page 1 of 4

49 Code Update: Discover/Review Phase Stakeholder comments Code enforcement is underutilized The City is a great place to raise a family Look into the stormwater impact trigger when modifying existing buildings close loopholes for a better solution in the long run. The historic residential area is an opportunity being missed. The City owns beautiful riverfront property just get it looking better. Work alongside GTR, Economic Development Council, and Chamber of Commerce. Create a welcome package for out of town business owners. 4. What obstacles does the City face? Industrial zoning districts Future land use element (designations) Land uses should be streamlined Public concern about growth. Welcoming economic development. Not enough retail demand in the CC zoning district. More strict screening requirements are needed (chain link fence with green cloth is not enough) Interpretations in the past has been very subjective Some sections of the code are not clearly written which causes too much interpretation Attracting new businesses and retaining existing residents There are perceptions about it being too difficult to locate a business here. Cathy will be preparing a list of blighted properties but what to do from there? Recently changed special events permit may be cumbersome. Possible discord between Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Merchants Assoc. 5. How do you interact with the code? Zoning atlas sheets are unusable Code language through Municode, format is logical enough to figure out Land development code requires multiple variances for redevelopment Current code format is satisfactory Mainly through the residential section Buying properties (typically concerned with what can be placed next to a property) The Code is fine. Murals, startup businesses 6. How should the code be changed to increase user friendliness and efficiency? Reduce variances for redevelopment (buffer, road and landscaping) Shoreline setbacks Shoreline mixed use regulations are prohibitive, uses are fine Reduce variances for redevelopment (buffer, road and landscaping) Further incorporate neighborhood plans (mark on maps) The code is not a problem. Don t let the code dictate the specific use (coffee shop) --let economics play a role in what uses take hold. Just prevent the obvious conflicts (church adjacent to salon and coffee shop). Mobile vendors section is confusing, having to move every 4 month. Does the current code permit and/or promote the type of development to meet current market demands? Page 46 of 77 Page 2 of 4

50 Code Update: Discover/Review Phase Stakeholder comments City is almost built out and Code does not deal well with redevelopment. The Code should be more flexible. SMU does not work for redevelopment. UV zoning difficult to utilize. Should be more flexible and specific to Titusville. Appears tailored for another more dense community such as Orlando. HM, NC, CC, RC zoning districts could be more flexible Rezoning process appears to work. It is good to notify the surrounding neighbors about a nearby change of use. Consolidating some commercial zoning districts could remove that notice to the public. Success of the Space Port depends partly on a flexible redevelopment code. The redevelopment and reuse of the existing commercial areas could help entice prospective business owners to establish in Titusville. Industrial zoning districts need to be more flexible. Somehow the Spaceport industrial area should be development ready (shovel ready). Mentioned clearing plans. The Fisher building is an example of good downtown redevelopment project in the DMU. Don t chip away at existing OR zoning. Maintain wildlife corridors. Consider changes to accommodate small business owners. Need to work to allow more flexibility of street front improvements. Right size done during 2020 EAR committee in 2008 of land uses with existing zoning. Land use densities high/higher than zoning found this questionable. The County s Mims Small Area Plan dealt with right sizing between land uses and zoning districts very well. Change the zoning on Garden St. to commercial and provide a means for making it transition. Currently the lots are too small. Need to create middle ground for industrial uses. Vector space is very heavily landscaped and visually appealing. Heavy industry typically requests little or no landscaping and Vector Space is the opposite. A middle ground for funky uses is needed to preserve the areas like Vector Space. Code requires landscape islands for parking lots that are too narrow to grow a canopy tree. Too few regulations in place to re-establish a healthy tree canopy. City s Code requires too few parking spaces for restaurant uses and too many spaces for big-box stores. Too many variances are required for development. The code cannot be changed to accommodate market demands. The City has to be willing to accept change. Too many unknowns exist in the process, difficult to understand the number of roadblocks to work through or time required on a project. Additional Comments Remove move sections from the code and put them into resolutions. i.e. fee schedule and stormwater review criteria. Incorporate the draft changes to the industrial districts into the code. He stated that the Council rejected his new code format not so much the policies. Agreed with zoning pyramid structure. Allow uses in less intense districts in the intense districts. Concerned about combining districts. Council and City are used to them. Do not touch wording of floodplain language and no need to amend lot split and small scale plat language. Parking needs revision. He proposed new parking tables in his industrial design criteria presentation. Page 47 of 77 Page 3 of 4

51 Code Update: Discover/Review Phase Stakeholder comments Code and permit regs are not consistently applied. There is a mismatch between industrial and commercial codes. E.g. landscaping code is problematic. Provide more administrative discretion and flexibility with the code. Create a one stop call to find out bills liens instead of calling each department. Designate Garden and Hopkins as commercial districts. Make more info available online. Allow more internal review of plans and permits instead of bringing to P&Z and BAA. Reduce thresholds. Clarify CUP process so public understands is not a site plan. Downtown signage should be more prominent and flexible. Revise landscaping criteria to allow business signage to be seen on commercial corridors. Businesses do not want to announce that they are moving to a new area, for market reasons, but our process tends to force things into the open. Reuse vacant building with quick certificate of occupancy through the Building Dept. Create predictable steps of reuse of existing buildings. Work with the building official and zoning planners. Continue façade grants. Use Fisher building. Efforts to redevelop property frontages and to beautify landscaping should be based on leading by example not regulation. Keep some control over obvious nuisances. Use CRA funds in the residential area of CRA. Create a new or maintain direct public access to the IRL adjacent to US 1. Flexible reuse criteria of downtown with building official. Retrofitting downtown historic buildings. Communicate with businesses about the permitting process including the process to start a new business in the city foe new owners. Create incentives for redevelopment to remove obstacles. Brownfield assessments. Mural project. Special event forms. Need to review the need for certain criteria. GTR would like input in the design and function of the park in front of Miracle City Mall. Connect Sand Point Park to downtown with better sidewalk connectivity. Allow mobile vendors in the downtown. Consider revised liquor criteria in the downtown. Look at the state s Sunbiz site for a useful example of how to start a business in FL for Titusville. Page 48 of 77 Page 4 of 4

52 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Sec Definitions. Chapter 27 Article II. - Definitions Chapter 35 Environmental Protection and Conservation Article 1. Protection and Removal of Trees. Division 1. Generally Sec Intent. Sec Criteria for removal. Sec Relocation or replacement of trees. Sec Mitigation Plan. Sec Exceptions. Sec Tree protection during construction. Sec Recreation, open space and agricultural provisions. Sec Protection of habitat of endangered and threatened species. Article III: Stormwater Management, Conservation and Aquifer Protection Sec Intent. Sec Stormwater management permit. Sec Same-Exemptions. Sec Stormwater management plan process. Sec Stormwater management plan, required information & exhibits. Sec Stormwater management criteria. Sec Stormwater management performance standards. Sec Erosion control standards. Sec Area of critical concern performance standards. Sec Exemptions. Sec Pervious pavement standards. Sec Hydraulic design criteria stormwater conveyance system. Sec Conflicts with other ordinances and codes. Sec Review fees. Sec Maintenance and inspections. Sec Enforcement and penalties. Sec Emergency exemption. Sec Definitions. Sec Vested rights. Sec Intent. Sec Conflict. Sec Prohibition Acticle IV. Protection of Natural Topography Article VI: Hazardous and Toxic Materials Management Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 49 of 77 Page 1 of 18

53 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Sec Intent. Sec Materials regulated. Sec Materials Prohibited. Sec Hazardous & toxic materials regulated based upon environmental sensitivity. Sec Hazardous and toxic materials requirements in the area of critical concern. Sec Report of spills & liability for clean-up. Sec Inspection & Enforcement Sec Existing users Sec Toxic chemicals/substances list Article VII: Bulkhead/Dredge Sec Bulkhead line. Sec Fill restricted; permits required. Sec Application for constructing islands, etc.; general requirements Sec Purpose of chapter. Sec Procedure for securing approval of work to be performed in or on water bodies within the city limits of Titusville. Sec Exhibits to be submitted with application for dredge and fill permit. Sec Maintenance requirements of upland property owner. Sec Construction permits Valid for three years; extensions; restrictions; deviations. Sec Penalty for violations Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 50 of 77 Page 2 of 18

54 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Chapter 39 Article II: Streets, Sidewalks, and Bicycle Facilities-General Provisions Sec Street classification. Sec Traffic control/access Sec Access to arterial streets. Sec Street entrances. Sec Coordination with surrounding streets. Sec Relationship of streets to topography and site conditions. Sec Attention to handicapped in street construction. Sec Bridges Sec Utilities Sec Street width and drainage requirements in subdivisions. Sec General layout of streets. Sec Street intersections. Sec Street alignment and curvature. Sec Blocks Sec Construction standards and specifications. Sec Public streets and private roads in subdivisions. Sec Road and sidewalk requirements. Sec Bicycle facilities Sec Street names and house numbers Article III: Parking Sec Number of parking spaces required. Sec Credit for required parking spaces. Article IV: Utilities Sec Utility ownership and easement rights. Sec Sewage disposal/water supply facilities required. Sec As built drawings required. Sec Sewage; sewer connections compulsory; connection required. Sec Water and sewer utility construction, site plan review, and permit review fees. ARTICLE V. - SIGNAGE DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY Sec Purpose of regulations; scope. Sec Definitions. Sec Administration and enforcement of article. Sec Signs excluded from regulation. Sec Specially permitted signs. Sec Number of signs. Sec Political campaign sign regulations. Secs Reserved. Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 51 of 77 Page 3 of 18

55 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action DIVISION 2. - DISPLAY OF SIGNS Sec Provisions relating to the method of displaying signs. Sec Surface area, number, location and height of ground signs. Sec Surface area and number of wall signs. Sec Reserved. Sec Sign illumination and signs containing light. Sec Dynamic or variable message signs. Secs Reserved. DIVISION 3. - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Sec Miscellaneous restrictions and prohibitions. Sec Maintenance of signs. Sec Unlawful cutting of trees and shrubs. Sec Nonconforming signs. Sec Amortization of nonconforming signs. Sec Off-premises signs and billboards. Sec Substitution of noncommercial speech for commercial speech. Sec Content neutrality as to sign message (viewpoint). Sec Severability. Secs Reserved. Article VI: Concurrency Management System Sec Development orders, approval & conditional approval. Sec Levels of service Minimum levels of service established. Sec The methodology for determining Levels of Service. Sec Administration of concurrency review & approval Sec Annual concurrency report. Sec City of Titusville proportionate fair-share program. Sec City of Titusville-Water/sewer demand factors. ARTICLE VII. - STRUCTURES PROJECTING OVER CERTAIN PROPERTY Sec Projections; fences and walls. Sec Permit Required application. Sec Same Permit fees. Sec Condemnation of unsafe awnings and signs. Sec Public liability; property damage insurance. Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 52 of 77 Page 4 of 18

56 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Chapter 47 Article XIV Division 3: Water & Sewer Fees Sec Sewer capacity allocation permit (SCAP) fees. Sec Water charges: meter deposits: refunds (a) Sec Transfer of development rights. Sec Establishment of sending sites; transfer of TDRs. Sec Establishment of receiving sites. Sec Calculation & costs. Sec Procedures pertaining to the approval of development rights on a potential receiving site. Sec Establishment of the TDR bank; deposits & withdrawals from the TDR bank; limitations. Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 53 of 77 Page 5 of 18

57 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Chapter 59 Article I. General Provisions Sec Designation of district boundaries Sec Rules for interpretation of district boundaries. Sec Transitional setbacks. Sec Prohibited uses. Sec Conflicting sections. Sec Property frontage/access Sec Zoning map adopted (Reserved) Sec Additional requirements for zoning districts consistent with Downtown Mixed Use Land Use. Sec Reserved. Sec Trailers, mobile homes, and residential coaches. Sec Temporary storage units. Sec Short-term rental of single-family dwellings. Sec Administrative waiver of setback requirements. Sec Administrative waiver of lot size, width or depth requirements. Sec Zoning Districts. Article II. Zoning Districts Established Article III. Residential Districts Division 1. General Provisions Sec Residential zoning districts. Sec Accessory buildings and structures. Sec Screening. Sec Fences and walls. Sec Home occupations. Sec Overlay districts. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Existing churches and schools. Sec Supplementary district regulations general standards. Sec Residential/professional uses. Sec General Provisions. Sec Bed and breakfast inns. Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 54 of 77 Page 6 of 18

58 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Division 2. Residential Estate (RE) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Subdivision II. Cluster Development and Open Space Sec Cluster development authorized. Sec Regulations, criteria, and standards. Sec Binding Site Plan. Division 3. Rural Residential (RR) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Division 4. Single Family, Low Density (R-1A) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Division 5. Single Family, Medium Density (R-1B) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 55 of 77 Page 7 of 18

59 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Division 6. Single Family, High Density (R-1C) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Division 7. Multifamily, Medium Density (R-2) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General Provisions. Division 8. Multifamily, High Density (R-3) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General Provisions. Division 9. Residential Manufactured Housing, (RMH-1 Subdivision) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General Provisions. Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 56 of 77 Page 8 of 18

60 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Division 10. Residential Manufactured Housing Park, (RMH-2) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec Streets and access. Sec General Provisions. Sec Mobile home parks, building permit requirements. Article IV. Commercial Districts Division 1. General Provisions Sec Commercial zoning districts. Sec Screening. Sec Fences and walls. Sec Overlay districts. Sec Public service and facilities required. Sec Commercially zoned districts located in low intensity commercial land use categories. Sec Supplementary district regulations. Sec General provisions. Sec Commercial accessory structures and uses. Sec Dog-friendly dining. Division 2. Hospital-Medical (HM) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Hospital Medical (HM) conditional uses. Sec Hospital Medical (HM) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Division 3. Tourist (T) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Tourist (T) prohibited uses. Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 57 of 77 Page 9 of 18

61 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Division 4. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Neighborhood Commercial (NC) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General provisions. Division 5. Community Commercial (CC) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Community Commercial (CC) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General provisions. Division 6. Regional Commercial (RC) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Regional Commercial (RC) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General provisions. Division 7. Office-Professional (OP) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Office-Professional (OP) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 58 of 77 Page 10 of 18

62 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General provisions. Division 8. -Commercial Marine (CM) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Commercial Marine (CM) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General provisions. Sec Authority/jurisdiction. Sec Purpose. Sec Definition of terms. Sec General requirements and minimum standards of design. Sec Operation. Sec Miscellaneous provisions Article V. Industrial Districts Division 1. General Provisions Sec Industrial zoning districts. Sec Performance standards. Sec Screening. Sec Fences and walls. Sec Overlay districts. Sec Living units as accessory uses. Sec Supplementary district regulations. Division 2. Light Industrial Services and Warehousing (M-1) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Light industrial services and warehousing (M-1) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum offstreet parking requirements. Sec General provisions. Sec Purpose and intent. Division 3. Industrial (M-2) Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 59 of 77 Page 11 of 18

63 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Industrial (M-2) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General provisions. Division 4. Highway Industrial Infill (M-3) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Highway Industrial Infill (M-3) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General provisions. Division 5. Planned Industrial Development (PID) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Planned Industrial Development (PID) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General provisions. Article VI. Special Districts Division 1. General Provisions Sec Zoning districts established. Sec Overlay districts. Sec Fences and walls. Sec Screening. Sec Supplementary district regulations. Division 2. General Use (GU) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec General Use (GU) principal permitted uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 60 of 77 Page 12 of 18

64 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Sec General Use (GU) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Division 3. Open Space and Recreation (OR) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Open Space and Recreation (OR) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Division 4. Central Business District (CBD) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Central Business District (CBD) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec Mixed use development requirements. Sec General provisions. Division 5. Urban Mixed Use (UMU) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Urban Mixed Use (UMU) prohibited uses. Sec Site density, intensity and dimensions. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Division 6. Shoreline Mixed Use (SMU) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Shoreline Mixed Use (SMU) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 61 of 77 Page 13 of 18

65 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General provisions. Division 7. Residential Historic Preservation (RHP) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Residential Historic Preservation (RHP) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General provisions. Sec Accessory building and structures. Division 8. Public Use (P) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Public Use (P) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General provisions. Division 9. Study Area (SA) Sec Purpose and intent Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General provisions. Sec Purpose and intent Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Accessory uses. Sec Conditional uses. Division 10. Regional Mixed Use (RMU) Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 62 of 77 Page 14 of 18

66 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Sec Prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density Sec Height, yard and area requirements. Sec Minimum off-street parking requirements. Sec General provisions. Division 11. Planned Unit Development Zoning (PUDZ) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec General provisions. Sec Permitted uses. Sec Minimum land area required for PUDZ. Sec Unified control. Sec General PUDZ requirements. Sec Internal yard and bulk requirements. Sec Open space requirements. Sec Review criteria. Sec Procedure for securing approval of a planned unit development. Division 12. Urban Village (UV) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Permitted principal uses. Sec Conditional uses. Sec Urban Village (UV) prohibited uses. Sec Maximum residential density. Sec Maximum allowable height. Sec Unified control Sec General Urban Village requirements. Sec Design review criteria. Sec Procedure for securing approval of an Urban Village mixed use. Division 13. Indian River City Neighborhood Zoning District (IRCN) Sec Purpose and intent. Sec Sub-districts established. Sec Residential sub-district regulations. Sec Commercial mixed-use sub-district regulations. Article VII. Development Agreements Division 1. Generally Sec Development agreements-purpose and intent. Sec Procedure for application of development agreement. Sec Development agreement review procedures. Sec Contents of development agreement. Sec Applicability of ordinance and resolutions of city to development. Sec Recordation of development agreement. Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 63 of 77 Page 15 of 18

67 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Sec Execution of development agreement. Sec Home rule powers development agreements. Article VIII Overlay Districts. Division 1. Generally [(RESERVED)] Division 2. - Reserved Division 3. Titusville Shoreline Area Overlay District (TSA) Sec Intent. Sec Legal description of district/official map. Sec Overlay districts. Sec Underlying zoning. Sec Minimum building setback from the mean water level of the Indian River. Sec Breezeways. Sec Review of development in the district. Sec Density/submerged lands. Division 4. Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AIA) Sec Intent Sec Permitted zoning districts. Sec Prohibited zoning districts. Sec Airpark Height Notification Zone and regulations. Sec Airpark Runway Protection Zone and regulations. Sec Airpark Noise Impact Zone and regulations. Sec Avigation easements/waiver of claims/notice of disclosure. Sec Construction modification (Airpark Noise Impact Zone) Sec Other regulations. Sec General Subdivision 2. Space Coast Regional Airport Impact Area Overlay District Sec Intent. Sec Airport Height Notification Zone and regulations. Sec Airport Runway Protection Zone and regulations. Sec Airport Noise Impact Zone and regulations. Sec Avigation easements/waiver of claims/notice of disclosure. Sec Construction modification (Airport Noise Impact Zone). Sec Other regulations. Sec General. Sec Airport Operations Development Waiver Zone. Division 5. Wetland and Conservation Area (WCA) Sec Intent Sec Permitted zoning districts. Sec Prohibited zoning districts. Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 64 of 77 Page 16 of 18

68 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Sec Conditional uses. Sec Standards. Sec Official map. Division 6: Areas of Critical Concern Overlay District (ACC) Sec Intent. Sec Permitted zoning districts. Sec Prohibited zoning districts. Sec Standards. Sec Official map. Division 7. Reserved Division 8. Historic Preservation Overlay District (S) (HPA) Sec Intent. Sec Definitions. Sec Local Register of Historic Places. Sec Certificates of Appropriateness-Requirement and Criteria. Article IX. Public Uses Article X. Division 1. General Provision Sec Purpose and intent. Division 2. Car Wash Design and Performance Criteria Sec Compliance. Sec Compliance. Division 3. School Performance Criteria Article XI. Downtown Mixed Use Smart Code for the CRA Division 1. General and Administrative Sec Intent/purpose Sec Relationship to downtown master plan from the downtown master plan. Sec Relationship to comprehensive plan and city s land development regulations. Sec Location, land use and zoning maps. Sec Applicability. Sec Guiding principles. Sec Rules for interpretation of district boundaries. Sec Preexisting conditions/applicability. Maps Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 65 of 77 Page 17 of 18

69 City of Titusville Land Development Regulations Code Update Summary Actions Existing Code Action Sec Administration, submittals and review process. Sec Project procedures for the community redevelopment area. Sec Community Redevelopment Agency Development Approval Authority. Sec No use or sale of land or buildings except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. Sec Incentives. Division 2. Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) District Sec Intent/purpose. Sec Instructions. Sec (Reserved.) Sec Downtown Mixed-Use Zoning District. Sec (Reserved.) Sec Sub-Districts Described. Division 3. Uses and Use Criteria Sec Intent/purpose. Sec Pre-existing conditions. Sec Regulations that cover all sub-districts. Sec Miscellaneous provisions applicable to all sub-districts. Sec Table of uses. Sec Criteria for specific uses. Sec Institutional uses. Sec Nonresidential uses. Division 4. Site Dimensional Criteria and Performance Standards Sec Site development criteria. Sec Parking standard in general. Sec Parking requirements. Sec Loading requirements. Sec Queuing requirements for drive-through facilities. Sec Visibility. Sec Access to off-street parking. Sec Landscape standards (Reserved). Sec Signage and street graphics. Sec Stormwater standards (Reserved). Division 5. Landscape Standards Sec General. Sec Spacing requirements. Sec Landscape material size requirements (at time of planting). Sec Tree preservation credits. Sec Irrigation. Retain Retain but Modify Delete Page 66 of 77 Page 18 of 18

70

71 Category: 9. Item: C. City of Titusville "Gateway to Nature and Space" REPORT TO COUNCIL To: From: Subject: Planning and Zoning Commission Members Peggy Busacca, Community Development Director Land Development Regulations Update Format Phase: Draft Chapter 27 "General Provisions" Department/Office: Community Development Recommended Action: Accept the draft Chapter 27 to the Land Development Regulations entitled, "General Provisions" as written. The staff will give a 10 minute presentation. This item will be presented to the City Council January 12, Summary Explanation & Background: The staff completed the Discovery/Review Phase of the Code Update project and presented its findings to the City Council on September 8, On December 16, 2015, the staff completed the Format phase of the project and is now ready to present drafts of a new LDR. The first of several drafts to the Commission will be presented. The draft Chapter 27 "General Provisions" describes how the City's LDRs implement the Comprehensive Plan. The draft Chapter includes a new Future Land Use and Zoning Consistency Matrix. The matrix specifies the zoning districts that are consistent with the future land use categories. Finally, all sections of the existing LDRs that regulate how certain zoning districts can be utilized within certain land uses are now located in the new Chapter. Alternatives: 1. Accept the draft Chapter with changes. 2. Do not accept the draft Chapter and provide other direction. Item Budgeted: NA Source/use of funds/budget Book Page: Strategic Plan: No. 1 Quality of LifeNo. 2 Economic DevelopmentNo. 3 Financial StabilityNo. 4 Efficient and Effective Services Strategic Plan Impact: ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type Draft Chapter 27 General Provisions 12/29/2015 Backup Material Page 67 of 77

72

73 Proposed New Chapter 27 General Provisions Text highlighted in yellow indicate staff s note. Strikethrough indicates deleted code language. Underline indicates new code language. [This is the first chapter of the LDRs. This chapter addresses the relationship between the comprehensive plan and the LDRS.] ARTICLE I. - PREFACE Sec Short title. This ordinance shall be known as the "Land Development Regulations" or the "LDR'S" of the City of Titusville. Sec Authority. (a) These land development regulations are adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Chapters 163 and 166 of the Florida Statutes and pursuant to the Charter of the City of Titusville. (b) Whenever any provision of this Ordinance refers to or cites a section of the Florida Statutes and that section is later amended or superseded, this ordinance shall be deemed amended and refer to the amended section or the section that superseded the original section. Sec Jurisdiction. (a) These regulations are applicable within the corporate limits and planning jurisdiction of the City of Titusville, as generally shown on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Titusville, as most recently amended. A copy of the FLUM is available for public inspection in the Community Development Department located in City Hall. (b) These regulations shall be applicable to all development within the City of Titusville. These regulations shall apply to all applications submitted to the City by an applicant pursuant to securing approval of any development order within the corporate limits as now and hereafter established by the City of Titusville, Florida, which shall include, but not be limited to, industrial parks, planned developments, subdivisions, mobile home parks, travel trailer parks, townhouses, multifamily or motel hotel units, or any other development projects of any kind and nature whatsoever, except those that are specifically excluded herein from any or part of these regulations. Sec Miscellaneous. (a) As used in this ordinance, words denoting the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter. (b) Words used in the singular in this ordinance include the plural and words used in the plural include the singular. Sec Remedies. Any person found to have violated any provision of this Code may: (a) Be punished as provided in Section 1-8 of the Code of Ordinances (original volume). (b) Be prosecuted before the Code Enforcement Board (see Chapter 31, Article 5 of these regulations [new citation to be added later]). (c) Be enjoined by the City from violating these regulations. (d) Be denied future permits until Code compliance is achieved by the violator. (e) Be denied a certificate of occupancy or permit reasonably related to the violation. (f) Be issued a citation by the Code Enforcement Officer (see Chapter 47, Article XI [new citation to be added later]). Page 68 of 77 Page 1

74 Proposed New Chapter 27 General Provisions Text highlighted in yellow indicate staff s note. Strikethrough indicates deleted code language. Underline indicates new code language. The above remedies are in the alternative and the City Manager through his Code Enforcement Officer shall have the authority to determine which remedy or remedies shall be pursued by the City. In the event litigation is filed by the City against said violator, the City shall be entitled to assess its reasonable attorney's fees and costs against said violator. ARTICLE II. - DEFINITIONS [The Definitions from Article II of the original Chapter 27 will be moved to the new Chapter 37 and called Definitions ] Secs Reserved. ARTICLE II. - INTENT [Formerly Chapter 27. Article III] Sec Intent. [Formerly Sec ] The general intent of this ordinance is to establish procedures and standards for the development of land within the corporate limits and planning jurisdiction of Titusville in an effort to: (a) Insure proper legal description, identification, monumentation, and recordation of real estate properties. (b) Provide for the harmonious development of the city. (c) Realize a coordinated design pattern of streets, sidewalks and other transportation facilities. (d) Encourage sufficient recreational facilities. (e) Preserve water resources. (f) Provide for flood prevention, proper storm drainage, and appropriate utility systems. (g) Conserve valuable and scenic natural features, with provision for adequate open space. (h) Promote the public health, safety and general welfare. (i) Encourage a high degree of quality and aesthetics in developments. Sec Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. [Formerly Sec ] It is the intention of the City Council and Local Planning Agency that this ordinance serve to implement the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Section of the Florida Statutes, that requires the adoption of Land Development Regulations, and comply with the requirements of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Rule 9J- 24, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). These land development regulations specifically address the following provisions: (a) The subdivision of land, including provisions that meet the statutory requirements of Chapter 177, Part I, F.S., including review procedures, design and development standards, provisions for adequate public facilities, mitigation of development impacts, land dedications, fees and administrative provisions; (b) The regulation of the use of land and water for the use categories included in the Titusville Comprehensive Plan as implemented by a set of zoning districts and a zoning map; (c) The protection of potable water supply sources through the control of land uses and activities within the identified cones of influence and general areas of influence for the City of Titusville's wells and wellfields; Page 69 of 77 Page 2

75 Proposed New Chapter 27 General Provisions Text highlighted in yellow indicate staff s note. Strikethrough indicates deleted code language. Underline indicates new code language. (d) The regulation of the areas subject to seasonal and periodic flooding and the provision of drainage and storm water management through the control of the type, location, density and intensity of land uses located within these areas; (e) The protection of environmentally sensitive lands designated in the Comprehensive plan, particularly the wetlands areas identified in the conservation land use category; (f) The regulation of signage; (g) The provision of public facilities and service concurrent with the impacts of development based upon adopted levels of service (LOS); (h) The provision of safe and convenient on site traffic flow, considering the need for vehicle parking and pedestrian movement; and (i) (j) The implementation of the regulations specifically stated in the adopted policies of the Titusville Comprehensive Plan. In the event of a conflict between these regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan shall prevail. It is the intent of the City to have the more stringent regulations prevail in the event of any conflict. Secs Reserved. ARTICLE III. FUTURE LAND USE MATRIX Sec Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Categories (C-LI) Commercial-Low Intensity (CHI) Commercial-High Intensity (Cons) Conservation (DMU) Downtown Mixed Use (ED) Educational (PSP) Public/Semi-Public (IND) Industrial (PIP) Planned Industrial Park (REC) Recreational (RES-1) Residential One (RES-2) Residential Two (LDR) Low Density Residential (MDR) Medium Density Residential (HDR) High Density Residential (PUD) Planned Unit Development (RMU) Regional Mixed Use (SMU) Shoreline Mixed Use (UMU) Urban Mixed Use (US1) U.S. 1 Corridor Page 70 of 77 Page 3

76 Proposed New Chapter 27 General Provisions Text highlighted in yellow indicate staff s note. Strikethrough indicates deleted code language. Underline indicates new code language. Titusville Future Land Use/Zoning Consistency Matrix [This matrix is currently not in the code] Zoning/FLU C-HI C-LI CONS DMU (1) ED PSP IND PIP REC US1 RES-1 RES-2 LDR HDR MDR PUD RMU SMU UMU GU SA OR P RE RR R-1A (2) R-1B (2) R-1C (2) R-2 R-3 RMH-1 RMH-2 RHP HM T NC CC RC OP CM M-1 M-2 M-3 PID Research Park CBD UMU SMU RMU UV PUDZ PD DMU IRCN Page 71 of 77 Page 4

77 Proposed New Chapter 27 General Provisions Text highlighted in yellow indicate staff s note. Strikethrough indicates deleted code language. Underline indicates new code language. Secs Reserved. Article IV Future Land Use/Zoning Matrix standards. Sec Commercial zoning districts located in the Low Intensity Commercial land use category. [Formerly Sec Commercially zoned districts located in low intensity commercial land use categories ] In addition to the restrictions and requirements of each zoning district created by this section except the Hospital Medical (HM), commercially zoned property identified in the adopted Future Land Use Map as Low Intensity Commercial shall be developed according to the following criteria: (a) Site requirements. (1) For development which is to contain more than one business use in a single center or as part of a single development, the maximum allowable leasable floor area for the total development shall not exceed seventy-five thousand (75,000) square feet. Forty thousand (40,000) square feet if the development does not contain a retail food market or supermarket. (2) No more than two (2) individual uses shall contain more than three thousand (3,000) square feet. The average area of uses in the development shall not exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (3) Maximum impervious surface coverage shall be seventy-five (75) percent of the gross area of the site. (b) Maximum building height. The maximum height for all buildings shall be thirty-five (35) feet. However, architectural features and appurtenances such as, but not limited to, clock towers, identification monuments, chimneys and other similar features, shall be allowed in excess of the stated height, subject to the approval of City Council after recommendation of Planning and Zoning Commission. (c) Streetside setback area. The entire area between the curb and property line shall be landscaped. Landscaping in these areas shall consist of an effective combination of street trees, grass, ground cover and shrubbery and may include such items as sidewalks and access driveways. (d) Storage and refuse collection areas. (1) All outdoor areas and refuse collection areas shall be screened so that materials stored within these arenas shall not be visible from access streets or adjacent properties. Sec Community Commercial zoning district. [Formerly Sec General Provisions of the CC zoning district] (a) Sites zoned community commercial must either be located at the intersection of two collector roadways or have frontage on an arterial or higher classification roadway. Community commercial districts may only be located in a low-intensity or high intensity or DMU land use designation on the Future Land Use Map. (b) Existing conditions on improved parcels within this zoning district not meeting the standards described in section [new citation to be added later] shall be considered to be conforming and shall establish the standards for that parcel if: (1) The improvements were completed prior to the adoption of this ordinance [article]. (2) The parcel was administratively rezoned in order to implement this ordinance [article]. Page 72 of 77 Page 5

78 Proposed New Chapter 27 General Provisions Text highlighted in yellow indicate staff s note. Strikethrough indicates deleted code language. Underline indicates new code language. (c) The following requirements shall be met by retail gasoline sales uses (including full service fuel stations) (1) All gasoline pumps, tanks, vents, pump islands and pump island canopies shall conform to setback requirements for the district except that no such pumps, tanks, vents, pump islands or pump island canopies shall be located closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any side property line. (2) All outdoor display of merchandise is prohibited. (3) Off-street loading spaces which are provided for the delivery of materials, merchandise, fuel oils or any similar accessory or product shall be located in such a manner on the site in order to completely separate these off-street loading areas from customer parking areas and access drives and aisles thereto. Sec Conditional Use permit required for the following uses in the M-1 zoning district when the land use is not Industrial. [Formerly Sec (h) Conditional Use in the M-1 zoning district] (a) Wholesale or warehouse use is a conditional use when the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation is not Industrial. [See Chapter 29, Article VII, Division 2 [new citation to be added later]for criteria] (1) No facility shall contain bulk storage or flammable liquids. (2) No outdoor display. (b) Manufacturing, assembly and fabrication of products within a completely enclosed structure is a conditional use when the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation is not Industrial. (1) Minimum lot size: One (1) acre. (2) Manufacturing, assembly and fabrication activities shall be located no closer than seventyfive (75) feet from property lines of residentially zoned properties. (c) Outdoor storage is a conditional use when the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation is not Industrial. For purposes of Section (f)(1) [new citation to be added later], if the outdoor storage is joined with a required conditional use specified in Section [new citation to be added later], the uses shall be deemed one (1) particular use. (1) Outdoor storage shall only be permitted as an accessory use with a principal building on the same lot, unless the storage area is secured by appropriate fencing. In all cases, access to the site shall be improved and permitted as determined by the City Manager or designee. (2) Outdoor storage shall not be allowed within the minimum building setbacks. (3) Outdoor storage shall be screened from view from adjacent rights-of-way and from adjacent lots with non-industrial uses or zoning, by buildings and/or an opaque masonry wall, or closed, opaque fence extending at least six (6) feet in height from the ground consistent with Section 35-38(b) [new citation to be added later]. All fences shall be maintained in good condition. A chain link fence shall not meet the visual buffer or screening requirement from adjacent non-industrial uses. An opaque landscape buffer of no less than twenty (20) feet in depth may be utilized in place of a masonry wall or opaque fence. (4) Outdoor storage must be kept in a neat and orderly arrangement; materials may not be stacked in piles higher than the screen wall or fence; and additional screening may be required for stored items that are large enough to exceed the height of the fence or wall. Page 73 of 77 Page 6

79 Proposed New Chapter 27 General Provisions Text highlighted in yellow indicate staff s note. Strikethrough indicates deleted code language. Underline indicates new code language. (5) Outdoor storage shall be located no closer than seventy-five (75) feet from property lines of residentially zoned properties. (6) All areas utilized for outdoor storage shall utilize paving or other stabilized surfaces that are designed and constructed to ensure soil or water contamination does not occur. All such areas shall provide stormwater measures consistent with the requirements of Chapter 35, Article III [new citation to be added later] of this code. Sec Wetland and Conservation Overlay (WCA) and the Conservation future land use category. [Formerly Sec Official map of the Wetland and Conservation Overlay] (a) The Conservation Area Overlay District shall conform to the Conservation Land Use designation noted on the City of Titusville Future Land Use Map. (b) An illustration of the areas affected by the Conservation Area Overlay District is to be found in Chapter 29 Special Districts Chapter 63, Appendix/Illustrations and Exhibits, section , Illustration No. 4. Sec Additional requirements for zoning districts consistent with Downtown Mixed Use Land Use. [Formerly Sec. 59-8] (a) In addition to the applicable requirements contained elsewhere in these regulations, all property developed after the date of adoption of this section and zoned R-1C, R-3, T, NC, CC, OP, CM, M-1 and P, that is located in a Downtown Mixed Use Land Use as shown on the adopted Future Land Use Map shall comply with the following additional requirements: ([citation to be added later]) (1) T, NC, CC, OP, CM and M-1 zoning shall be permitted where: (a) Property has frontage on and access only from a collector of higher roadway; or (b) Property has frontage on Orange Avenue; or (c) Property has frontage on Buffalo Road; or (d) Property abuts a railroad right-of-way. (2) Ground signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. (3) Fences, walls, and/or screens exceeding thirty (30) inches in height shall be prohibited forward of the front or street side facade of the principal structure. (4) If all required off-street parking can otherwise be accommodated on site, the required front and street side setbacks can be substituted with a minimum ten-foot deep landscaped buffer area. Within this area, impervious coverage shall not exceed three hundred (300) feet in any yard. (5) In the R-1C, NC, OP and M-1 zoning districts, outdoor storage, retail sales and/or display shall be prohibited between the principal structure and any road right-of-way. (6) In the T, CC, and CM zoning districts, outdoor retail sales and display may be permitted as a Conditional Use (per Chapter 47 Article VII [new citation to be added later]) within the DMU Land Use designation except as noted: a. A Conditional Use Permit shall not be required for retail sales and display of automobiles. b. A Conditional Use Permit shall not be required for outdoor storage and/or display in the P zoning district. c. Outdoor storage, retail sales and/or display shall not be permitted when such activity is specifically prohibited by use restrictions within the particular zoning district. Page 74 of 77 Page 7

80 Proposed New Chapter 27 General Provisions Text highlighted in yellow indicate staff s note. Strikethrough indicates deleted code language. Underline indicates new code language. (7) Outdoor storage is permitted in the rear and interior side area, provided this area is enclosed with a six-foot high opaque screen and no items so stored are visible over the enclosure/opaque screen. Secs Reserved. [The existing Chapter 27, Article V. Misc Provisions will be relocated to Chapter 28, which will be presented at a later date.] Page 75 of 77 Page 8

81 Category: 10. Item: A. City of Titusville "Gateway to Nature and Space" REPORT TO COUNCIL To: From: Subject: Planning and Zoning Commission Members Peggy Busacca, Community Development Director Semi-Annual Report Department/Office: Community Development Recommended Action: Submit the semi-annual report to Council. Summary Explanation & Background: The semi-annual report will be submitted to the City Council at their January 26th meeting. Alternatives: 1. Submit with changes. 2. Other direction. Item Budgeted: Source/use of funds/budget Book Page: Strategic Plan: No. 4 Efficient and Effective Services Strategic Plan Impact: ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type Semi-Annual Report 12/17/2015 Backup Material Page 76 of 77

82

83 PLANNING & GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT To: Scott Larese City Manager From: Peggy Busacca, Executive Director Community Development Department Date: January 26, 2016 RE: Planning and Zoning Commission Semi-Annual Report Within the last six months (July through December 2015) the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed twenty-four (24) cases during eight (8) meetings. Four (4) meetings were cancelled due to inactivity. There were Twenty-two (22) agenda items heard during the previous reporting period (January through June 2015), therefore there was an increase of two (2) items from the previous reporting period. Currently there are seven regular members and two alternate members. The following is a summary of cases reviewed: Type of Case July December 2015 Conditional Use Permits (CUP) 3 Rezonings (REZ) 6 Subdivision Review 0 Vacations: Easement (EAS) Right-of-Way(ROW) 0 1 LDR / Code Of Ordinance Amendments 3 COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS/ANNEXATIONS (Future Land Use Map) Listed below a. Large scale (CPA) 2 b. Small scale (SSA) 2 Comp Plan Text Amendments 0 Resolutions 0 Area Impact Review (AIP) 1 Special Review Items (Developer s Agreement, Small Area Studies, Joint 5 Planning Agreement, etc.) Annexations 1 Design Review for CRA 0 TOTAL 24 Page 1 of 1 Page 77 of 77