Good evening. Welcome to the June 3 uh meeting of the Titusville Planning and Zoning Commission. Uh if everyone would stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one
indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Roll call please. Lori. >> Chairman Eton >> here. >> Vice Chairman Scully >> here. >> Secretary F >> here. >> Member Rice >> here. >> Member Grod >> here. >> Member Graham >> here. >> Member McDaniel
>> here. >> Alternate member Sidler >> here. >> Alternate member Troutman >> here. >> All right. Thank you. We have a quorum. Uh, next order of business is approval of the minutes. Anyone have any comments or changes or care to make a motion?
>> Member Gar. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll motion to approve the minutes as presented. >> Member Scully. >> Second. >> All right. Have a motion, a second. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? All right. Minutes are
approved. Uh, city attorney. >> Good evening. Quasi judicial uh process and procedures. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, anyone wishing to speak on a quasi judicial item must complete and sign a speaker card along with the corresponding oath on the card. The cards are located on
the table in the front of the chambers. City staff will make the initial presentation and then the applicant will present. Then the hearing will be open for public comments and those who wish to make a public comment on the item will speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if they desire. Witnesses may be cross-examined and all photographs, sketches, or documents for
the hearing must be submitted to the city clerk and will be retained by the city. Members, please disclose any exparte communications or site visits at this time. Um, I did have a communication on item 9A with um, uh, Cole Oliver uh, who's
advising the city and I also spoke to the mayor about that item today as well. Is that it? All right. um petitions and requests from the public present. This is a section of the
meeting that anyone in the public u can speak uh for three minutes. You don't have to fill out a card on any item that's not on the agenda. If it's on the agenda, then please you'll have an opportunity to comment at that point.
Anyone? Seeing none, uh, item 8A, Eddie, I think you've got advisement on this. >> Great. Thank you, chairman. Uh, yes, sir. This item begins on page 10 of 66 of tonight's packet. Did want to advise
the commission that our staff received an email on June 1st from the applicant's representative requesting a continuence of this item to the next PNZ meeting on June 17th in order to finalize the layout and they will be submitting a revised concept plan. Uh my
understanding is that in order to continue to the next meeting, you would need to open the public hearing. Um if you'd like me to read the summary and explanation, I will. If not, we can save that until next meeting. Uh it probably makes sense just to keep it fresh if we're going to continue it to the next meeting. Um I will open the public
hearing on item 8A. Um see if there's any comments. Does anyone have anything? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Do we need a motion to extend or anything or move it or anything? City attorney, >> uh, I believe you'll still need to hear
any comment cards from the public if any have been submitted. >> Were there any cards? >> No cards. >> Yeah, there no cards. >> Uh, there'll need to be a motion for continuance. >> Okay, >> Mr. Chairman, I have a question before we get to a motion, staff.
>> Sure. Uh, I sent Eddie an email today and hopefully what I'd like to ask the commission's consideration is that the applicant in the plan that's been submitted didn't include a traffic analysis report. There is none. Eddie confirmed there hasn't been one
submitted. So, question for staff, is a traffic report a requirement for submitt? I don't believe that one is required for that application type. Um, but we can forward your email to the applicant so that they know that that's something that you would find useful in your consideration. I
>> I'd appreciate that since they're requesting to continue. I would certainly like and look forward to seeing a traffic analysis and as I mentioned Eddie the critical part of this is their driveways alignment on Dair Road and they need to really provide some documentation and perhaps
that's what they're doing. But if you would pass that on that we can look at that before uh the next meeting to continue to the next meeting. Sure. Thank you. >> All right. We've got a um Well, I forget. We don't have a motion. We need
a motion. I thought you were going to make the motion. >> I'll make a motion. Do you want to continue to the next meeting, which will be the 17th? >> That's my understanding what the applicant is requesting. Yes, sir. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to continue it to the 17th. >> I'll second that.
>> Okay. Motion and a second by member Graham. Um roll call, please, Lori. Member Grod, >> yes. >> Rice chairman Scully, >> yes. >> Member Graham, >> yes. >> Member McDaniel, >> yes. >> Member Rice, >> yes. >> Secretary Face, >> yes. >> Chairman Eton,
>> yes. >> All right. So, item 9A or 8A, I'm sorry, is is continued. Item 9A, Eddie. >> Thank you, sir. Item 9A, um, I'm going to pass out the revised ordinance before I start reading the summary. Thank you.
>> No, this one. >> Speak on the microphone. If not, it's an agenda star um in case you want to view it virtually um or electronically, I should say. Um but this item begins on page uh 46 of 66 of the agenda packet.
On March 24th, 2026, in response to a request made by Mayor Connors, council approved advisability for the city manager and staff to review the city's planned industrial development PID zoning regulations and ways to make the regulations more friendly or possible for aerospace industry and/or businesses
to be able to develop in the PID zoning district areas. The ordinance was drafted in part based on Titusil's proximity to the Kennedy Space Center, Patrick Space Force Base, Space Coast Regional Airport, and direct access to transportation facilities such as Interstate 95 and the FBC Railroad. The
Titusville area supports a growing number of aerospace and defense related industries. Council has determined it is desirable desirable to amend the land development regulations to expand an industrial use to support aerospace and defense related manufacturing and certain associated
uses related to the same. The ordinance expands the definition of light manufacturing to specifically include the aerospace industry in the M1, M2, M3, PI and DMU zoning districts. The ordinance also eliminates the public hearing requirement for a child care
facility in the PID zoning district under certain circumstances. Finally, the ordinance allows structured parking in the P zoning as a primary use. On May 26th, 2026, the city council requested additional language pertaining
to the aerospace industry in proximity to the airport. Enclosed for the commission's recommendation is an amended ordinance with a new subsection entitle 28210E light manufacturing activities permitted in the P.
Um, like I said, I I handed out the latest version of the ordinance. It's just a a change to the the language to make it uh more easy to read. Um, if you would look at page seven of that um packet, again, this is available on Agenda Star.
if you don't uh if you prefer to look at uh electronically as opposed to the hard copy. On page seven, we have the uh child care section. That's section 2810. And you'll see the change um in the
table under P zoning. Currently, a child care facility requires a conditional use permit. So a public hearing process if you wanted to establish a standalone child care facility in the PI zoning district. This change would make it a limited use on the condition. If you see
the um additional language in C1A, it says a conditional use permit is not required when a child care facility is approved as part of an approved master plan. Now, the purpose of that is to streamline for these aerospace or
defense uh activities that may have a child care component to it for their employees uh to not have to go for a second public hearing process. A master plan is already a public hearing process that would come before P&Z and council. And if uh unchanged, this code section
would require a conditional use permit on top of the master plan. So, two public hearings. And so this would streamline or simplify that process for these types of uses. The next is on page eight. Page 8 has section 28154 related to
parking structures. And you'll see in the PID zoning district in that table, currently parking structures are not a permitted use. So a parking garage is not a permitted use in the PD. If if an a developer or applicant requested a or submitted a site plan application for
just a parking structure, we would not be able to approve it. It is not a permitted uh use currently. With approval of this ordinance, it would make it a limited use. And again with that uh similar condition that it be part of a an approved master plan with the idea that again it would come before
PNZ and council for public hearing um if approved. And the purpose of um allowing it as a limited as opposed to a permitted is to protect uh the city's industrial lands from becoming um
purchased for the purpose of solely of a parking uh structured parking as opposed to a parking structure that serves one of these intended uh users, aerospace or defense. On page uh page eight of 11,
we went there already. Page nine of 11 is section 28-210, light manufacturing. And in this table, you'll notice that there's no change to P. Currently in the PID zoning district, again, that's
planned industrial development. Light manufacturing is a permitted use in this zoning district. Um however on page 10, the following page, this ordinance adds an additional subsection E which is intended to highlight and add some
visibility to these specific um industries, aerospace and defense to provide a call out specifically stating that south of State Road 405 and east of State Road 407, light manufacturing activities including but not limited to
aerospace and defense related research and manu manufacturing such as the fabrication, design, development, testing, production, assembly, operation, processing, inspection, repair, maintenance, refurbishment, or integration of aircraft, spacecraft,
satellites, missiles, rockets, unmanned aerial vehicles, defense systems, or related parts, components, subsystems, accessories, attachments, materials, and supporting equipment systems and tooling thereof are permitted. And so again, this is to emphasize that these uses are
permitted, especially in this district, um, this geographic location south of Road 405 and east of State Road 407. And that's it for my summary. Uh, happy to answer any questions. Um, we do have
also for you in the agenda star packet two letters of support. We received those today. Uh, one is from the EDC, the Economic Development Council, in support of this ordinance, and another is from Tao Airport Authorities Executive Director, uh,
Kevin Dy. Uh, again, also in support of this ordinance change. Uh, thank you. >> Thank you. Um, member Troutman, >> thank you. Uh, real quick, Eddie, uh, I passed out a document, two-page document
to everyone on the council. Um just a couple definitions here. Something that I've noticed here recently or from some of our meetings some definitions. It's either not called out things of that nature. So I want to try and hone in a little bit on that. This is being a
legislative and you know we have the choice to fix some of this right now so that later on we're not getting put in a situation where our code doesn't define that or not. So page one there's two of them that are like phrases actually. there's it's a combination of words. I I
recognize that later on now that I needs to be a little bit broad there, but some of the definitions that might be very obvious to some people might, you know, come back later in a legal standpoint, but uh spacecraft, satellite, missiles, rockets, either we add something. I'm
asking if uh when y'all are debating on this uh as far as adding either that we point out to FAA or DoD definitions when said terms that are not in our code reference or we add these terms to our
to our code when we're creating this legislative action is all. Thank you. Were you asking a question or >> I'm sorry. This was more of a I I passed this out and I noticed some some definitions that may need to be directed
to uh have a better understanding or added as in their deliberation. Sorry, it might not be more of a question, just more of a things I've I've noticed. >> Understood that. >> Thank you. Thanks. So, as a city attorney, as a point of clarification, if if this moves forward, could that be
made those definitions be included as a part of the recommendation on the motion? >> It could be included as recommendation. Yes. >> Okay, great. I think it's a good catch. Member, member GR, thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of questions um for Eddie with the presentation with this
light industrial. I noticed on page nine of 11 the handout which is on the on the computer as well. Um it says under uh parent C standards for permitted uses with limitations in the light industrial services and warehousing in one district
manufacturing ABC. Um it says a conditional use permit shall not be required when the future land use designation is not industrial. So this is an industrial type of zoning under a planned industrial development.
Would there be a scenario where you would not have industrial land use designated where you would have a PID for industrial or aerospace? And then the secondary question is if you didn't have industrial land use,
you'd have to do a conditional use. But how do you do a conditional use that's in contrast with your land use if this is an industrial type of zoning district? >> Is your question specifically about um
on page 9 of 11 um se subsection C1? >> Yeah. >> So that that's existing code language that's not intended to be changed um as part of this ordinance. Okay. Okay. But yes, that there would be an instance
where if the um industrial if the future land use designation on the property was industrial, then a conditional use permit would not be required. That's correct. >> But if it's not industrial and it has a PI zoning, do you have a
permitted use for these changed developments? Aerospace industry, parking garage. Uh with this ordinance, we would be highlighting the fact that aerospace is included in light manufacturing. So this would this is the use that would be um that we would use.
Maybe my question is not clearly spoken. When I read a a conditional use permit shall be required when the future land use designation is not industrial. Mhm. >> So in that sentence, you're envisioning
that you would have an industrial type zoning district, PID for aerospace. It would not have industrial land use, and you would require a conditional use. Well, subsection one is specific to M1. So that would be a piece of property
that has the M1 zoning on it, but a different in uh land use that doesn't have industrial future land use on the property. So, if it had a commercial land use on it and it was zoned M1, then it would require a conditional use permit. >> Okay? And that's where I'm focusing on.
>> You would review a conditional use. You would ask the question, is this conforming to the future land use designation of industrial under the conditional use? You would say yes or no. And if you said no, how would you review and approve a conditional
use? If a person came and said, look, the land use is not industrial. You cannot support a development that's not industrial oriented because of the land use. Granted, you could change the land use and get it to form, but I just don't know why you would want to throw
something that's inconsistent with the plan to a conditional use review in an M1 zoning district. >> Well, again, that's not language. This is existing code language uh that's not intended to be changed. So, uh I'm not sure that it >> Yeah, I'm not sure. Yeah,
the proposed changes to this ordinance opens the ordinance up for review. Correct. I'm seeing a sentence the chairman I mean Mr. Troutman pointed out we might need some definitions. We can merge new definitions. But my question is why would you have a person apply for
a conditional use when it gets to the review point? You would have to say you may have filed it but you don't have industrial land use. So your M1 zoning is in conflict with the future land use and your conditional use would have to be denied. It seems like a pacer a paper
trail paper trail that leads to nowhere. >> Sure. I I don't have the uh the background on how that co code section was written or the intent behind it. But if your suggestion is to as part of this ordinance make an additional change to a section that's not intended to be amended, that can be part of the
recommendation. >> Just see if it's a conflict that could be prevented alleviating it. It's kind of like draft on the documents. chicken soup and a cold. Um the other question I had um in the case of the parking garage, so in the master plan,
you come in with a overall picture of proposed development and colors are red and commercial and manufacturing is blue and you do get some definition, but you don't really get clear site plan analysis. So by having it be a permitted use, not requiring a conditional use in
that P is the proposed change. Um, if you wanted to put it into an existing P, you would have to amend that P. >> Correct. >> Yes, sir. >> Amending the PID would not be sight
specific. For example, Industrial Park, there's two lots. One's built, one's vacant. the vacant one wants to do a child care integrated into uh the facility, but it wasn't in the master plan. So, I'd amend
the PID for one of two lots. And that can be really difficult if you have more than just one and two where you got 50% of the representation. You might be one of 10. >> And that's always difficult to get an amendment when you're not a collective whole of the property affected. or what
you end up with is a conditional use by another name sight specific one lot I want to do this here's my plan I do it and that's the reason I bring this up is that you have existing development that already has the zoning and in some cases
in the industrial park area there where this affects built out or partially built out and so it becomes to me the same path you're still calling it conditional use by another name by saying amend the P and I have seen At least in some instances, these PIs
get amended in a specific area rather than the entire P. >> Sure. And in that case where there's an existing U master plan for an industrial park, it may make more sense for a specific property owner to apply just for the CUP rather than try to amend the
master plan. >> Well, that brings up the third question. So in other words, you can only do the child care, which probably came to development recognition in today's world. Two parents work. They put the kid in the child care where they're
nearest where they work. That's the whole intention of it. But that wasn't the way it was when I grew up, so to speak. This is a new realm of development where they integrate child carees. And that's always a debate, too, is do you want children cared for in an industrial park? Well, not when it's
integrated in the building. It's a different thing. And so you're still getting a conditional use format as opposed to maybe lightening this up a little bit more and say who would you affect adversely with a child care in an industrial park that's a aerospace
industrial defense park whether or not you had it on the master plan or not. And and I know this may seem laborous, but I've watched several things be a trace where someone has to go through three steps to get to a simple answer. We had that most recently and that is
looking into a similar circumstance about land use designations and getting variances from density. You might recall that this seems to me that it could be much more refined if you just said in a planned industrial park that's an aerospace industry and a person wants to
have an integrated child care within that planned industrial. It seems like you're halfway there to make it a permitted use because you say if you master plan it, you don't have to come back and ask, right? But if you had an older one and you didn't master plan it,
you got to come and ask specifically on your site, which would be to amend the PID, but you're really doing like a conditional use. You're making a one-site development request, and I don't particularly see that as beneficial. I see it as creating a conflict. But that's for consideration.
That's the three questions I had. Thank you. >> I Yeah, I mean, my take on on it is that you you brought up some good points, but they apply to historical or you know not necessarily grandfathered but amending something
that was an already versus I think most of this was anticipating a new P. So yeah, whether there's a recommendation that you the the old version applies or I I I don't know or or as far as as that
goes, but we'll we'll see. And that that's kind of why I was saying is if you think about this in a broader approach if the consideration is to facilitate child care facilities in working environments for aerospace industry and I have the zoning why not
just say you can do it as opposed to saying oh well you can do it if it's Sunday after the third Monday on Friday following Halloween. If it's that you get to do it and and I see that I I I've sat across and heard people complain at me about why do I have to do this? it's
permitted and and I'm just trying to perhaps in expand the idea to create what's really being intended integration of child care facilities in these kind of zoning districts if you want to make them permitted permit them whether you
did it in a master plan as long as it's integrated in the building if you want a freestanding one that I can also understand would be an amendment to the PE because you may not have considered what that activity was going to be traffic volumes and times and all those things that we should consider. So for
food for thought is it seems like it would be better for the public regulated by this if the consideration was we want to put child care facilities integrated into a building in that zoning district permit them allow them.
>> So so that red line would just change to be that child care you or you know childc care facility >> yeah I think there it's in the in the So, so if it was a permitted use from an oversight standpoint, I mean the part I
like about this is everybody gets a look at the child the child care approval becomes part of the approval of the master plan. Is that the same in the if if you just blanket it as part of the P then it would the approval
of the childcare facility would just become part of the permitting process of the the facility in in the PID or how would that work? >> Uh essentially yes sir. So that would that would allow a child care facility throughout the planned industrial
uh development zoning district. And the challenge with that is then um anyone who wants to start a child care business could purchase a piece of property that was originally intended to be industrial in nature um and establish a standalone
childare facility without a um without the contingent of it being part of or serving a working environment. as was discussed earlier, the industrial use. And so having it approved as part of this master plan ties it to an industrial use and ensures that the
childcare facility is related in some way, shape or form to an industrial use. >> Got it. U member Seedler, >> thank you. Um can you tell me what specific projects have been prevented from locating in Titusville because of
the current code? >> Um I don't have that information. I don't know that there was there have been any specific denials. >> Okay. >> So I I jump in there. I so I I sat on the North Boulevard economic development
zone board for its entirety and I've been recently been appointed to the Titusville Economic Development Zone. So I think the the real answer is we don't know because the way the site selection
process works for these kinds of projects, they look at all the reasons to not come here and and because you're competing with other areas and other states. So you would never we would
never really know. The goal, I think, is to understand, and I think based off of what I know about this ordinance and and what the mayor was going for, is to understand the impediments of those kind of companies coming here and kind of
clean out as many of those impediments as we can. And I think that's the purpose of this. So understanding who didn't come, we probably will never know because they saw things like this that would potentially complicate their
moving here. So they just give us a different rating on their on their site selection >> is in your research and in your communicating with others about this. Um my I guess another question I have is could the objective be accomplished by
adding maybe specific aerospace related uses to the code rather than um broadly expanding the definition of light manufacturing because we're changing light manufacturing in all of these U
zoning districts and some of them are in residential neighborhoods, some of them are downtown, some of them are by the airport and if we are changing the definition to be a broader definition um and I'm wondering can instead of just
changing the definition can we add certain things that they actually require? >> Um Eddie I so short answer is yes. Uh an additional another way of looking at this would be to create a standalone use. However, that could create some
unintended consequences as well. Um that could be a recommendation tonight is that if you feel that that's the best path forward. Uh but creating an additional use then could conflict with what we have currently in the code as far as light uh light manufacturing since some of them do overlap. And so um
this is just really a chance to to bring some visibility to the aerospace industry within the existing use of light manufacturing. Um and with the the definition that we're adding, it's quite an extensive
list here that we the interpretation seems very um open and I'm wondering does and when I'm reading this does this ordinance reduce opportunities for public review um public input for example they it doesn't
come to planning and zoning or city council doesn't have to review it because it's permitted um in the plan industrial area for example you've got P by the airport but you also have it um closer to town and in residential areas
so if we change this definition and we have missiles rockets unmanned aerial vehicles defense systems um components systems accessories attachments material supporting equipment systems and tooling
and they want to put it in the middle of downtown and it's permitted because now we've included it in the P and it bypasses us because it doesn't require a conditional use and it's approved. So my
I am wondering um if we are trying to solve one problem kind of like we did with the trucks, you know, we were trying to limit them use on certain roads and tell them to go somewhere but we cause problems
elsewhere. So by us making this definition quite broad, can that bring in for example other companies and other um manufacturers that aren't aerospace
for example, but they it falls under materials supporting equipment. Um and they apply for that where we're really trying to gear this towards aerospace. I'm looking we're looking at child care. We're looking at parking
structures. We're anticipating that this is all aerospace, but there are companies and other uses that might fit into this definition that maybe we're not intending for them to be here and
are we creating something that will allow for for like materials, hazardous waste, things of that nature. I know we didn't none of this talks about any of that, but when we bring these things in that
is a concern and this list is quite extensive. Um I'm just kind of thinking of cautiously either we define or we limit or we're very specific because the in
light industrial manufacturing is very broad. I yeah I think based off of of my research that some of those items were brought up and that's the reason the south of 405 was put in that eliminates
downtown mall areas you know the bulk of the major residential areas by that and in that area my business is in that area so I'm very very familiar with what's going on down there but there's a a massive locked facility going next to to
me. The Eckller's warehouse was converted to Blue Origin for a factory there. There's a new um development going in the back of the industrial park um that's um in EP I think or something
like that. That's a large very large uh building. Um Astrote um you know, Astropac, all of those companies are are there and there's a lot of development around the airport and I think you know that's why the airport's
in and also why you know it's it's one of the places one of the few places in the area that have enough development area to support a large factory which is I think really what this aerospace is going for. It's
not downtown's not suitable for those kinds of places but it's it's excluded anyway the way they've drafted the ordinance. So, I think that's really the goal of this is to get those kind of companies, but it also, you know, has a
huge benefit and it gets it inside the city limits and inside our tax base versus going out on space property or somewhere like that that it helps us from the job standpoint, but it doesn't help the property tax base.
One other um question. We heard many meetings ago um the bleach plant by us expanding this light manufacturing, would that enable something where we all
voted no for? Would that would they qualify in the P at the airport based on this definition? Uh, well, that application's not before you tonight, so I wouldn't want to speak specifically to that. But would bleach processing be considered aerospace or
defense? I I don't know that necessarily they would. Um, but that was not the um that was not considered as part of drafting this ordinance. But when we change the definition of light manufacturing to include all of these things in
addition to and um because when you see it um it says here that um uh the city's plan industrial
development zoning regulations and ways to make the regulations more friendly or possible for aerospace industry and or businesses to be able to develop in the PIT zoning district areas. This is not specific just to aerospace. This is
andor businesses. So when we are expanding the definition, we need to be thinking about what the andors are. >> So are we expanding the definition or clarifying the definition? The definition of light manufacturing in
the latest version of the ordinance that was provided tonight by hard copy and in the agenda star is on page nine and the definition is is specifically subsection B and the definition is is not uh proposed to be modified. However, in
subsection C, sorry, E on page 10, there's a new standard for light manufacturing activities permitted in the PID. So if a user were to propose a light manufacturing activity and their zoning was PID, these standards would
apply that say south of State Road 405 and east of State Road 407 light manufacturing activities including but not limited to and then it goes into the aerospace and defense and affiliated um businesses and and related
activities. So no to answer the question the definition is not changing but this is um the aerospace and defense is being added in the language of the condition in subsection E light manufacturing activities permitted in P
>> right and that because that's the way I read it is is if you look at the definition of light manufacturing it doesn't say that those items that we're now including are excluding are excluded. I think you could make a very good case that in most cases those are
light manufacturing items. This is clarifying and put and and and calling out for again kind of clearing away those potential impediments of arguing over is it light manufacturing is it not that you're
clearly calling out that they are permitted in that area. Um, not to say that somebody may not come in a different light manufacturing zoning district that wants to do one of these things and say they are doing light manufacturing because you know that's
everyone is is a matter of that the discussion of is it light manufacturing is it not just because it is such a broad kind of category. So that's my take on it anyway. Um, member Rice.
Yeah, you know, I I want to follow up with the same thing. It sounds like what we're trying to do is be competitive in a marketplace for for these businesses that are willing to relocate for economic benefits, employment benefits, tax based benefits.
It's a very competitive marketplace. So, my problem with the way it's written is that you're only doing it for new master plans and PIDs. new. I would open that up to all of them that
are inside those limits of 405 and 407 ex but I would limit those that child care and the structure okay clause and say providing those items are allowed in this providing their accessory uses to
the principal use which is aerospace. Okay. And I would open it up to all PIDs that are in that target area. Okay? Because if you're if I have a defense contractor or aerospace contractor that says, "Hey, I want to go into the
existing P." Well, now it's not the same. They're not playing by the same number by the same rules that someone joining a new P would play by. So, they're at a disadvantage. Why would we do that? So, let's open it up. Let's make it more
advant advantageous for all of our PIDs, existing or new. That's that's my take. I think we're just trying to be competitive. >> I think that accessory adding that accessory term, >> right? >> Handles >> handles handles the the child care and
the structure. It's an accessory used to the principal use which is aerospace >> and that's why open it up. >> Yeah, without that it is a concern I think. >> Right. >> U member Graham. Yeah, I got a couple of questions. Um, we currently have a
couple of daycare style and a charter school in that industrial area. Um, how was it they were able to be in that area if it's such a big issue at this point in time? >> I don't have specific information on
those properties or th those businesses specifically. I don't know if they were part of a planned industrial development if their zoning is PID. They may not be zoned P. Um or they may there may be a specific section of the code that allows them in certain cases. I'm not sure.
>> Yep. Both of those are literally a a third of a mile to a half a mile apart right there on Gryom Boulevard. The other one is offshoot off of it. That was called the DAC facility uh way back in the day. Uh, another
question that I had was um just a little bit out of the scope, but what about cafeteria slash restaurants? Um, a lot of big facilities have their own restaurant or cafeteria on on board. Are they going to be permitted in the same
area along with child care? Because that is a u that's a model for a lot of big big companies. >> That's a good question. Um, that's not specifically included in this ordinance, but that could be an additional recommendation is to add a an additional
caveat for restaurants. >> Yes, sir. And last but not least, James brought up a good point, but in reading what your definition is, we're back to uh I think it's page 9, 28 210 B, the definition,
it seemed like um it it covered a very broad topic cuz I like you, I looked it up and initially aerospace is a pretty broad term. Um it basically covers uh astronautics and
aeronautics and uh so you have to keep breaking it down and it looks like uh in this definition that you guys have currently if it applies throughout the the places that they would be able to be
um added to it. It it covers a lot of those definition issues you brought up if you were looking at it from the page that you sent us. Member Gar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, a note, I just received a text message from our
old chairman um, who says there's no volume on the spectrum broadcast of tonight's meeting. I don't know if that's something the audiovisisual people can address, but that's the breaking news, so to speak. But I did have another question, if I may. Um
the discussion the members are having about easing things up was the same discussion I was having earlier which is if you are going to integrate a child care and an existing building why make someone amend the PUB which what's an application fee to amend a PD
this ballpoint >> pro approximately $2,000 >> all because you want to put on the first floor of your existing building a child care facility for your employees But in 1980 when they did that P, no one thought about child care in an industrial part because it wasn't the
wasn't it wasn't the way it was done in those days. So that's the same line I was making is that things like integration in existing buildings, whether it's in the PD or not, they're accessory and incidental to the principal use. It should be allowed and not make somebody go through $2,000
worth of filing just to say it's okay to add a a list of a change in use. that that's where I was headed. Um the second question I have is focused on the idea of this PI and the geographic
restriction and that's an overlay zone. That's the intention of this that you've got a zoning district that allows a number of uses including aerospace uses which under this proposed change would allow an expansion of uses favoring
expanding the uses with child carees and parking garages and other matters that addressing this. Um, but it's being done in an overlay that's only geographically between those point of references, 405, 407. So, you
couldn't do it anywhere. You could only do it in this overlay zone. And and that's kind of favorable. I have might even suggest you could consider defining what it is you're doing as an overlay zone that focuses on you have these
rules everywhere but over here in this location there's a different set of rules. It's an overlay district that has additional benefits to making it quicker to develop, easier to develop, favorable for economic development. So it might be something to focus on like draft on the
page is just call it an overlay district. It might remove confusion on the public's behalf. Is this in that zoning district? No, it's a special area that has to be that zoning district somewhere, not all places. As the chairman mentioned in downtown, you
wouldn't have the right location. So, I think that would eliminate the concern myself, may help the public understand it better. Not that I think that people that have multi-million dollars uh businesses are going to be unnowledgeable to read the rule, but maybe it would maybe it help to call it
an overlay district. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh seeing no more questions, we'll open the public hearing. We have any cards for >> Rick Smith. >> Hello.
Um 2645 Smokeoky Lane adjacent to the property being developed on Dair Road in US1. Um the 7-Eleven. Um I don't stand for or against. However, I am for or against depending on what the plan is. Will there or will
there not be gasoline sold there? >> There that I think you're speaking on AAA. We're on item 9A. So, that one was tabled until um the meeting on the 17th of June. >> Okay. Is it Can you tell me is there
going to be gasoline sold there? >> I we don't we tabled it. So, that'll all be covered in the intro to to that. So, I I I don't know that any of us have the answer to that. Um >> Okay. >> If it helps, Mr. Mr. Chairman, the staff
mentioned that the applicant is working on revising the site plan to submit it and maybe if you contacted staff, they can make that site plan available to you, which probably answers your question. >> Okay. Yeah, I was just curious. >> Should be easy to tell whether there's gas pumps or not. >> Yeah, because we're on we're on wells
out there and of course having gasoline is is a concern. So, what what would it when was that pushed off, Tail? >> That's 17th. It' be two weeks from to today. >> Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. Any additional cards, Lori?
>> No more cards. >> All right. I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Member Rice. >> Yeah, I'm ready to make a motion. >> I move for approval of ordinance. What's the number of this ordinance,
Eddie? >> No. Hand out. >> 26. >> Yeah. X. >> Yes. Uh, item 9A currently doesn't have an ordinance number. Um, >> okay. >> Space. Yeah.
>> No, I can just call X ordinance. Um you can call it the aer by a title the aerospace and light manufacturing ordinance item 9A. Now I move for approval of the aerospace uh and defense ordinance um with the following changes
under page um seven the child care I would say in the red portion of a a conditional use permit is not required when a when a child care facility is approved as part
of an approve approved or existing PID or master plan when it is an accessory use to the principal use. I would likewise change the same statement under the parking structure
uh with the same verbiage that may be approved um to existing P or master plan when it is an accessory use to the principal use and then um I don't have a problem accepting
the definitions um as submitted um to the board I guess on page um two of our handout. Um I'll include that as part of the motion.
>> That's it. >> Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. >> Uh member Graham, >> um is there any way member Rice to add uh the thing with the cafeteria so we don't have to go back and revisit this at some
other time? >> Is that an item, Eddie, that would normally require cup? or how how would a caf would a employee cafeteria be handled? Uh, typically >> I can't think of a recent example, but let me just look in this in the use
table real quick to see if restaurants are permitted in the P. I don't believe that they are. >> So, I guess again this is a place that the accessory use would term may come in handy because it's not an open to the public. I don't
think that's the the intention, but >> restaurants are permitted with limitations and conditional use permit in the PID zoning district. The standards for limitations for PID state in the P zoning district,
restaurants must be accessory to permitted uses within the district except as permitted in D standards for conditional uses. >> So, it's we're good already. >> Correct. Okay, >> you good. >> You're talking about the item um that's
in 2B of uh 28210. It's a accessory restaurant andor accessory restaurant to exceed more than 25% of the gross floor area of the principal building or if no building is on site. Such supporting uses shall be no larger
than 3,000 square ft except by conditional use. Is that what you're referring to? >> Uh I didn't see that. Where are you reading that? >> Now this is you're you're looking at the one under downtown mixuse. >> Okay. >> Page. >> I think he's actually looking at different code section that we didn't
get a copy of would be my guess. But >> that's that's correct, sir. So, I was I was looking at the land development regulations uh on municode.com for our current standards for a restaurant. Restaurants and caterers specifically, it's section 28167.
Restaurants and caterers are permitted in the PI zoning district on a limited or conditional use uh permit basis and it states the condition the limitation of it is that it must be accessory to a permitted use within the district. So that would accomplish what you're uh
asking for is would a restaurant, a food court or cafeteria uh be permitted? Yes, it is permitted with that limitation as long as it's associated with a permitted use in the P zoning district. >> Thank you for the clarification.
>> Member Gar, >> I'll make a second to member Rice's motion. >> All right, we have a motion, a second. Any additional comments or questions before I call the vote? Our member Ice, did you have something or not? Are you just ready for the vote? >> No, no, I'm sorry. Okay. >> Could I just ask for clarification? The
motion included um incorporating the definitions that were provided by member Chartman. >> Yeah. Page two. Yes. >> On page two. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um >> question. >> Yep. >> Would you want those definitions or
would you want it to just locate to DoD and FAA >> definitions? I think I think that'll ultimately be what they do with it, but you did a great job of pointing out which one applies to what. So, um, >> commend you for that.
You You got a new role definition provider of the city. So, all right. Roll call, please. Lori. >> Member Graham. >> Yes. >> Secretary Face, >> yes. >> Member Rice, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Scully, >> yes. >> Member Grod,
>> yes. Member McDaniel, >> yes. >> Chairman Eton, >> yes. >> Motion passes unanimously. Um, all right. Back to the agenda. I think we are at the point where we do
the second petitions and requests from the public present. Mr. Johnston, >> my name is Stan Johnson. and I sent you an email today before 5:00 and uh but first of all I want to thank especially
uh the hard work that you did and the struggle that you that you were under in the conditional use permit for the uh project that is uh was on the river that was a that was especially good effort by
Mr. FA Mr. Gard as I think many people were impressed by the uh the that you stuck with it and to find out what was going on. So thank you for that. But the u what I sent you an email is uh about
uh two items and uh uh did did she pass it by around? Okay. >> Yeah, we've got it. So um um I don't have much time left but what the subject is the dishonesty and nonsense
by what the city has done is they've um uh they have a sustainability report that is um that was false and uh it was admitted to be false and it was amended and then the amendment was taken away. So that's one thing I have a problem
about and it has to do with with a very simple thing and that is that water flows downhill and as a as an engineer that's what I say and people it seems to me my my way of feeling about is people aren't really listening and they the um
the city of Titusville has not uh inspected or cleaned the um uh large ditches, canals and so forth that have lead water to the St. John's River and that's that's something that
the city is is supposed to have had done even though it's not on city's property. So, uh, the other thing that has to do with the survey and, uh, it so happens I have a,
uh, a survey that's got red lines on it, number of red lines on it, and I have sheet number four of SNJ plans that has about over 40 red lines on it of errors that continue.
And uh on on this particular uh subject of SNJ Oaks is that the survey uh was discovered by Brad Parish to have a serious error of 3 feet in the width of the rightway of of Elizabeth Avenue. And
yet it's it's um it's the survey has gone to the state board of surveyors and they also voided the survey yet the city did not void it. So, so what I'm saying is that the plans,
this sketch plant and the preliminary plan are all voided because this the survey is way off. Uh so um uh I'm concerned about that and I'm asking for um Tom Tom uh a body to
do something about it. That's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any questions? Thank you. So, uh, may I add one? May I have 15 seconds? >> Sure. >> Okay. 15 seconds. Is is it Okay. I wrote
on on that email that I sent you. I said that uh um uh please be advised that I challenge any Florida PE to dispute any of my below findings. That's all. Thank you. Thank you for the 15 seconds.
>> Member Grant, you have your light up. All right. was getting ready to ask for reports. I don't have a report. City staff, do you have any reports? >> Just one quick announcement that the June 23rd city council meeting is cancelled and that's typical for council. They usually take a recess the
second meeting of June. So, nothing out of the ordinary, but just didn't just wanted to make that announcement. >> Does that create a recess for us or not? >> It could. Would you like to take the second meeting in June off? >> Um, I think we just I think we just tabled something for to the second
meeting in June. So, Uh, city attorney, >> no report. >> Uh, I have nothing other than commend chairman or vice chairman Scully. I was uh absent last meeting and >> trial by fire.
>> He did a did did a great job uh on my YouTube review of his performance. So, uh, I appreciate that and, uh, I feel much better about taking more time off now. So, uh, any members? Member Grod.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Eddie, um, I don't know if other members have the same problem I have, but that's the using the proposed ordinance change tonight where the tables come for visibility purposes. Obviously
that that's kind of kind of kind of bad useless to review it. But more importantly, it's the way it's demonstrated on the access to the internet view your um um agenda share. >> Um when you go to the agenda share, you
look at the table. Soon as you scroll down from the header where you have the zoning districts, you're lost. And I don't know about the other members, but you may as well not send that to me because I can't follow it. And what I think you can probably afford doing, and
I'm not the Excel spreadsheet expert, but I think you can make the header point to each of the pages so that you can see everything on one page view. And if that can be accomplished, I know it'll be as well. It was with the draft on the forms. Thank you.
>> Or color code the squares. Anyone else have anything? >> Remember Rice? >> Yeah. Um, Eddie, it would be nice if we had a little summary of of the things that they come
in front of us, but how city council acted on them. Just a summary that they approved this ordinance with these changes. I'm just more curious about keeping a record of the job that we do and what recommendations have been
accepted and which ones have not been accepted. >> I mean, something we could possibly do or >> the city posts the uh summary of actions from each meeting on I believe it's Facebook and on the website. So, uh you could see the next day what quickly what actions were taken. Could you just maybe
add that summary in in our packet, you know, so we have it having to go look for it every time? Is that >> Or it's usually only an item or two that goes from week to week. If even during this report section if you wanted to just kind of say something that says, you know, the item you considered on
June 3rd, the city council acted on it and they >> Well, I don't want to create a lot of work for you by any means. Okay? If it's just something simple that we can do or or if you just point me in the right direction personally, if I'm the only one with the problem, I'll just tell me where I need to go and I'll go look at it myself.
>> Sure. And we can look into providing that. It's just uh I don't want the commission to feel like you've done a bad job if council doesn't vote the same way that you do. >> There's a different there's a different subset. There's a different role that you provide here. you're providing the
planning and zoning perspective, whereas council as the elected officials are considering all perspectives. And so if you received a summary of action that said that council didn't go along with your recommendation, you mentioned how good of a job you're doing. Um that
doesn't reflect poorly on your your job performance. You're still evaluating the applications thoroughly. >> And and I again we have a very narrow scope at this level where they have a very broad scope. They have to consider staff levels, you know, uh uh how you
pay for things and actions that are taking place and what effects does have politically, socially. Those are all things that they must consider when they're acting on something. So, I don't by any means trying to compare their actions. I just want to see and maybe I'll learn something of the direction
as a group from city council of the policies that they want to steer the community to. That's really why I would like to have that information. >> Thanks. I I do have one other thing. I I
we've been doing such a good or you've been doing such a good job of the little preview image and then for the item that was tabled tonight when reviewing it, it wasn't there
at the beginning of the report. So, uh figured it out. But if by the time this comes before us again if when that's corrected in the packet that we that that format is adhered to it was extremely helpful when it was there.
>> Thank you >> member G. You prompted my mind to a memory back some months ago. I mentioned along the same line that it would help me certainly may help others um that when the staff's presentation is given
the the first page describes what we're about to see and then at the end of several hundred pages you see a map of where this is going to be. >> Yeah. Well, they did they actually did that for a couple reports >> and then it stopped >> and and it's not well I don't know that
it stopped. It's just not in this one. So, but >> so the the cup staff report was was uh sorry was a previous format from uh since it was a an application that had been heard by PNZ previously. Okay. So, it's prepared prior to >> so in the future that can be repagnated
so that the picture of where the location is would follow the initial reading of what this is the staff report and then a map that says where it is as opposed to going through all of the pages almost to the end to find oh it's down here on 407. It helped me a lot.
Um, and then I have to make an announcement and that's what puzzled me about the 17th. I will not be present for the meeting on the 17th. I hope you get a traffic analysis and I know it's in valuable hands here that can take care of looking at to make sure it's a
it's a good project for traffic movement into it. >> Yeah, I'm I'm I'm sure the applicant reviewed the meeting that we had on that property before and understands our issues. So, >> but I will not be here on the 17th. I apologize.
>> No need. It's summer time. We all need it. >> All right. Uh seeing no additional comments, we'll stand at