Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the August 5th, 2026 regular meeting of the Titusville Planning and Zoning Commission. Everyone will stand for the pledge, please.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Roll call, please.

Chairman Aton?

Here.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Here.

Member Rice?

Here.

Member Graham?

Here.

Member McDaniel? Here. Member Seidler? Here.

All right. We have a quorum. Next order of business is approval of the minutes of July 22, 2026. Anyone have any comments? If not, do you care to make a motion? Member Rice?

Yeah, the only comment I have is on the discussion about the ordinance with the platting process. I don't want to change his motion because that's probably what he said, but I think we need to capture that the intent was that we were taking it out of during the final plat process. It didn't mean it couldn't be in the preliminary plat review P&Z and City Council. I think that was the intent of our discussion. It doesn't really get captured in the minutes that way. Can you point us to a page number? I'm on page six.

So where it says, Member Garrard made a motion to approve the ordinance with the following conditions. Your clarification is specific to number two.

Well, yeah, yes, for number two, but it just says after this, is the Planning and Zoning Commission had further discussion on the item. Well, we had a lot of discussion, and it came down to that the covenants and the deed restrictions... would not be reviewed during the final plat process, but it probably would still be reviewed in the preliminary plat by Planning and Zoning and City Council.

OK. We could review the minutes in the discussion from the last meeting and add to those meeting minutes if that's part of your motion tonight.

I'll approve the minutes. With you going back and looking at the discussion, make sure we capture the discussion from what we had at POZ.

Understood. Thank you. And I'll second.

I have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye, please. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Minutes are approved. Do we have any quasi-judicial items tonight, City Attorney?

No, the items this evening are quasi-judicial.

Oh, do we... I can read them if we'd like, but I don't think it's necessary. It's completely up to you. If it's unnecessary to read it, that's fine. We can jump straight into the agenda. We have no public presence, so I'm assuming we have no petitions and requests from the public and no old business. And our first item in new business is item 9A.

Great. Thank you, Chairman. This is item 9A, beginning on page 8 of 46 of tonight's packet. Street renaming number 1-2026, Ponce de Leon Drive to Curiosity Court. In May 2026, Brevard County E911 requested that the city officially rename the roadway and cul-de-sac located south of Golden Heights Boulevard. The request was prompted by the existence of two similarly named streets, Ponce de Leon Drive and Ponce de Leon Street, within the same mutual emergency response area, which could create confusion during emergency dispatches. Because Brevard County E911 has no record of approving or reserving the name Ponce de Leon Drive for the Titusville Roadway, and Ponce de Leon Street already exists in the city of Cocoa, The city must rename the roadway to a name approved by Brevard County E911. The adjacent parcels are currently vacant and the name change should not impact any property owners. Name significance. NASA's Curiosity rover has transformed our understanding of Mars and its potential to have one supported microbial life. Since landing in Gale Crater in 2012, the rover has discovered evidence of ancient lakes, detected organic molecules, and studied the planet's climate, geology, and radiation environment. Still operating today, Curiosity continues to provide valuable scientific data that advances our understanding of Mars and helps prepare for future robotic and human exploration. Brevard County E911 approved the proposed street name Curiosity Court. The city's Public Works Department and Fire Department reviewed the proposed name change and expressed no objections. Letters were mailed to all property owners abutting the street to provide notice of the public hearing, consistent with the notification requirement in Section 3240 of the LDRs. This item is scheduled to be considered by City Council on August 25th. On page 11 is a street map highlighting the segment south of Golden Heights Boulevard that terminates in a cul-de-sac to be renamed. And if you're so inclined, we would appreciate a recommendation TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE STREET RENAMING.

THANK YOU. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

Hello. Hello. So this, this is very interesting to me because it's our, my first time going through a name change.

Mine too.

Um, so in the email dated on Wednesday, July 8th, it was addressed to you. Um, it says our office has approved the following street name choices for the reference roadway curiosity court and flight path court. So what was the determining factor for landing on curiosity court versus flight path court?

Historical significance. One of the review criteria for street renaming is that you have to provide some documentation. Usually streets are renamed after peoples or important figures. And so flight path didn't have as much of a historic designation as curiosity. That was all it came down to.

Seeing no further questions, I guess I'll open and close the public hearing and then bring it back for a motion. Member Rice.

I move for approval of SRN number 1-2026, Ponce de Leon Drive to Curiosity Court.

I'll second.

I have a motion and a second. Roll call vote, please.

Member Rice?

Yes.

Member Graham?

Yes.

Member Seidler? Yes. Member McDaniel? Yes. Vice Chairman Scully? Yes. Chairman Aton?

Yes. All right. That one was easy. Item 9B.

Moving right along. 9B is ordinance not yet numbered. That's why it says XX 2026 pet grooming in neighborhood commercial NC zoning ordinance. During the June 9th, 2026 city council meeting, council directed staff to draft an ordinance to allow pet grooming services in the neighborhood commercial NC zoning district. Pet grooming services are currently permitted, a permitted use in several commercial zoning districts. However, the use is not currently permitted in NC. City council will conduct a final public hearing on this item on September 8th, 2026 on page 30 is the ordinance with the whereas clauses, whereas pet grooming services is currently a permitted use in several commercial zoning districts. And whereas the Titusville city council has determined that pet grooming services is an appropriate use in the NC zoning district. Page 31 is the simplified use table. Hopefully that's a little easier on your eyes than the rows and rows and rows and rows. And so you'll see on page 31 the addition of the letter P, meaning the use is now permitted if approved, in the column for NC, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. And that's the summary on this item. If you're so inclined, we'd look for a recommendation of approval of the ordinance as presented, but you're welcome to present additional changes. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for staff on this item?

Hey, Eddie, isn't this allowed in CC?

Yes, sir. It is currently allowed in CC.

It's on the table there. I didn't see it. I thought it would be P there. No, it's right here.

So on page 31 of the agenda packet is the use table and what you'll see is the underlined P means in addition, we're proposing to add a P in the column for NC zoning district. It's currently permitted in several other districts, the CC, RC, several of the DMU sub districts, UMU, it's permitted with limitations and in the RMU. UV and IRCN as well. So this is just this ordinance would simply add dog grooming as a permitted use in NC but it is also allowed in other commercial zoning districts.

Your effort to simplify it confused him. I looked right through it. So any other questions? I will open and close the public hearing since we have no public present. Anyone care to make a motion? Member Scully?

I recommend approval of the ordinance as written.

Member Graham?

I'll second that motion.

All right. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Member Graham?

Yes.

Member Rice?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Member Seidler? Yes. Member McDaniel? Yes. Chairman Aton?

Yes. All right. We got a shot at a record here, 9C.

Yeah, I figured I need to slow us down a little bit. I want you to go home disappointed that we ended the meeting too soon. But this is item nine C, which begins on page 37 to 46 and this is the ordinance. Also, um, not numbered yet for recreational and commercial amusement indoor. At the March 10th, 2026 city council meeting, the city council discussed land development regulations, section 28 dash two 75 recreation and commercial amusement indoor and expressed concern about the lack of zoning districts that permit indoor recreation. Council discussed permitting indoor recreation in the downtown mixed use DMU zoning district and directed staff to draft an ordinance on page 39. That's the ordinance. There's three whereas clauses, whereas the downtown mixed used mixed use district was established to enable the city to encourage public and private development compatible with the character of the downtown area and in conformance with the community redevelopment plan by encouraging a mix of uses and development through the district throughout the district. And whereas the downtown mixed use district is intended to become the center for economic and business affairs and expand employment and living opportunities. And whereas the city council desires to expand the opportunities for entertainment, tourism, employment, recreation, business, and public use of the area encompassed by the downtown mixed use district by permitting commercial indoor recreation uses within the downtown mixed use zoning district on page 40 is that simplified table. This time we gave you a few more rows, but, um, You'll notice in the columns for DMU, in the downtown sub-district, uptown sub-district, midtown and civic waterfront, the use is now, the use is proposed in this ordinance to become a limited use, whereas it's currently prohibited. And the limitation is on page 41, or begins on page 41, subsection three at the bottom of the page. uh, shall require and continues onto the following page, a conditional use permit if the use has a maximum occupant capacity of 400 or more persons with the following conditions. SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED IN THE CIVIC WATERFRONT SEA SUBDISTRICT. SHALL BE LIMITED TO ASSEMBLY HALL AUDITORIUM USES ON A MINIMUM 10 ACRE LOT. SHALL LIMIT OFFICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ASSEMBLY HALL AUDITORIUM USE TO NO MORE THAN 10% OF THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF THE BUILDING. SHALL PROVIDE A TYPE B BUFFER SPECIFIED IN CHAPTER 30 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARTICLE 3 IMPROVEMENTS DIVISION 10 LANDSCAPING ALONG ALL PROPERTY LINES ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION SHALL NOT ALLOW VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM A LOCAL STREET UNLESS THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANT CAPACITY OF THE FACILITY IS NO MORE THAN 400 PERSONS SHALL PROVIDE ON THE CONCEPT PLAN THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF ANY OUTDOOR ACTIVITY OR GATHERING AREAS The use of amplified sound devices in these outdoor areas shall be considered as part of the CUP and conditions may be applied by council to mitigate the impacts associated with these devices. And last additional conditions may be adopted by the city council to mitigate the impacts of the proposed use. Um, with that, that sums up the ordinance and happy to take any questions. Again, if you're, Inclined to approve the ordinance as presented, we'd appreciate a recommendation to City Council recommending approval as presented. Thank you.

Member Rice. Yeah, I have two questions. One is, how many 10-acre sites do we have in the DMU? Because I can only think of one.

That was my question.

That's correct. Okay. Is this a request by somebody?

No. That condition or this ordinance?

No, just the change to allow this in the DMU period. Was someone asking for this change in the DMU?

City Council, not an applicant.

Okay, just City Council. Okay, I was just curious. Thank you. Member Seidler.

Thank you. On page 40, you have the mixed use, the DMU, downtown, uptown, midtown, and then civic waterfront you have is limited, and then we go to the exceptions on page 42. It says shall not be permitted in the civic waterfront C sub-district. Can you give me the distinction between those?

So if you back up just one more page on page 41, the beginning of those limitations, it exempts the civic waterfront from this CUP requirement. Again, the CUP, what the ordinance is intending to do, big picture, is to allow these indoor recreation and commercial amusement activities in the downtown. However, if it's such a large facility that has 400 plus occupants, then the use would require a conditional use permit would need a public hearing process where PNZ and council could approve some conditions, including a traffic safety plan. So something to that effect. The reason why the. the waterfront district is not included in as one of the options is because there's just There are no properties that would meet those limitations And so this this doesn't apply it which the civic the waterfront would still allow commercial and indoor amusement Just not the CUP such a large facility the 400-plus So is the 10-acre requirement that's that's only a

triggers the CEP. It's not a requirement of the ordinance that you have to have a 10-acre parcel to be a permitted use.

Correct. The CEP requirement and the 10-acre requirement are only facilities that would have more than 400 occupants.

Okay. Seeing no more questions, I'll open and close the public hearing again. Anyone have any additional questions or care to make a motion? Member Scully.

I will recommend approval of the ordinances written.

Anyone care to second? Member Rice. Second. I have a motion and a second. Roll call. Okay. Yeah. Roll call, please.

Member McDaniel? Yes. Member Rice?

Yes.

Member Graham?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Scully?

Yes.

Member Seidler? Yes. Chairman Aton?

Yes. All right. We are on a roll. I see no more public for petitions and requests. City staff report?

No report, sir. Thank you.

City attorney? Also no report. Okay. I have nothing. Any of the members have anything to report? All right. We will stand adjourned in 19 minutes.