Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Do we need to wait for an attorney?

She should be in shortly.

Okay. Alright. I'd to call to order today's meeting of the Planning Commission for 11/04/2025. Could I have a roll call please?

Chair Snyder.

I am here.

Mr. Wilson.

I am here.

Chairman? Here.

Here. Mr. Young? Here. And Mr. Jasper?

Here. Thank you. I've got a set of minutes from October 21. Do I have motion or any suggestion Mr. Chairman? Yes, Bill.

I move to accept the 10/21/2025 regular meeting minutes as presented.

Thank you. Any second? Second. Lots of seconds, that's good. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair was aye. Okay. Do we have anyone signed up for general audience participation today?

Yes we do. We have one speaker, Dave Lewis.

Okay. Okay. So you're going to be on one of the petitions, okay. Anyone else?

No, there was no other speakers.

Okay, very good. All right then, let's turn to the first petition. This is Plan District Zoning Amendment Petition 25 Dash 01 R Z, Wisdom Townhouses. Staff is Nicole Tremblay, the agent is Josh Law, and the applicant is Meritage Meritage Homes of Florida Inc. This is a quasi judicial hearing.

I have a memorandum that says that this is a certified public hearing, but this petition was appropriately advertised on 10/18/2025 as required by the City Of Venice Land Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. And the attorney is here. Started the meeting almost without you.

Popped up.

You're quick. I'll ask the attorney question board members regarding any communications or potential conflicts of interest.

If anyone has a potential conflict of interest please indicate that at this time.

No.

Seeing none, if you've had any ex parte communications that are not part of the record whether it be

a site visit or something similar, please place that into the record. We'll start with Mr. Jasper.

Yes. Back in March I believe, met with some of the homeowners at Tuscarat Isles over the storm water system, not because apart from the planning commission, but because of my experience at Venetian Gulf and River Club. But nothing was discussed on the Wisdom Project.

Thank you.

None. Site visit only. None.

Site visit only.

Site visit only.

None.

All right. Amanda, you make sure we have speaker cards on everyone. Nicole, good afternoon.

Good afternoon. For the record Nicole Tremblayson, your planner for the City Of Venice and we are looking at 2,501 RZ for the Tuscana Isles PUD for Wisdom Townhomes. So this is a planned district zoning amendment. Amending the Tuscana Isles binding master plan to allow townhomes in Sub Area 3 and adding an access point along Jean Green Road, the owner and applicant are Wisdom Properties and Meritage Homes of Florida. The agent is Josh Law of Morris Engineering.

This affects two parcels that total about 10.5 acres. The future land use of course is mixed use residential and the zoning is planned unit development. So this would allow townhomes explicitly as a permitted use in Sub Area 3. Right now the wording of Sub Area 3 says the full complement of residential neighborhood and commercial and then it lists some examples but townhomes was not one of those examples. So we asked them to add that if they wanted to build townhomes in Sub Area 3 and then there were no standards specific to townhomes so they pulled those over from Sub Area 2 where they did have townhome standards, they're applying to add those to Sub Area 3 and then they need an access point.

So they're also applying for an access point along Jean Green Road to accommodate the development that they would propose through a future preliminary plat petition. There would be no internal access to the property, would just be accessed from the north on Jean Green. They did submit a conceptual plan which you saw in your agenda packet but it was not part of the binding master plan so it would not be binding, it's just for reference of what they intend to submit for their preliminary plat. So this is that concept plan you can see showing a mix of six and eight unit buildings and some lakes and then going over the wetland with their road there. And you can see there's only one access and that is as I mentioned to the north.

So they did need to change the connectivity plan in the binding master plan for Tuscana Isles, they changed that by showing this additional access point. And then they needed to add the townhome standards to sub area three. So these are the same standards in sub area two as I mentioned. The front yard would be 15 feet minimum setback for the structure, 20 feet for the driveway length. For side yards there would be 20 feet between structures, so that's obviously not the attached units.

And then in the rear yard 10 feet for a setback, no less than 30 feet between structures. So that's basically what they're proposing to add to Sub Area 3. Here's the aerial map showing you which two parcels are actually affected So by the current applicant has only stated their intent to develop the northern one but both parcels are part of Sub Area 3 so this change would inherently affect both, someone could come later to develop the southern property for that although that's not their intent at this time. So for existing conditions I'll show a few site photographs, the future land use map, zoning map and surrounding land uses. Here are some photos of the northern parcel, obviously undeveloped.

You can see the drainage there on the bottom photo. And then here's the southern parcel and that's the one that they are not intending to develop at this time but is still affected by the change. So here's the future land use map, you can see that it's mixed use residential, industrial across the street, across Knights Trail. There's mixed use corridor to the north and to the West and then to the south as well and some medium density residential. Here's the zoning map with the corresponding zoning.

Planned unit development, residential, mixed use, there's all types of uses in this area, OPI and industrial as well. So the directly adjacent land uses to the north there is, so for the northern parcel to the north there's proposed multifamily, the Nokomis Groves property that you'll have seen before and that's zoned commercial general with mixed use corridor. For the southern property to the north of it is Tuscana Isles. And then so to the south for the northern property is Tuscan Isles and then for the southern property south of it is Rovello which is residential multifamily three and medium density residential so that's already developed. To the east of both is Tuscan Isles and then to the West is Generation At Venice for the northern parcel that's RMF 3 And 4 and then Triple Diamond Industrial Park two the west of the southern parcel.

So we'll look at the comprehensive plan and land development code for planning analysis. So there are several strategies that deal with mixed use residential future land use. One is about 5% of non residential uses being allowed throughout the PUD. So that was understood when this was applied for and they did include 5% non residential through sub area three but this would kind of allow them to replace eight out of 10.5 acres roughly with residential where it could have been commercial or other non residential. And then potential to use the rest of that 2.6 acres for other residential in the future if they wish.

Then there's the requirement for 50% minimum open space. These parcels were not designated open space on the binding master plan so they did not count towards the 50%. With the currently platted areas of Tuscana Isles they appear to have 58% so they are over the requirement and this does not change that because these were not open space parcels. And then there's the residential density range that is permitted for PUD's and that's one point zero to five point zero. There are originally seventeen fourteen units permitted for Tuscon aisles that fell within that range and there are seven forty seven units unbuilt that are remaining.

So their proposal in the future would be to build 50, of course we don't have that today but that's what they've stated their intent will be. So that would be well under the remaining density allowance, they've got seven forty seven left. So conclusions related to the conference of plan analysis has been provided to determine consistency with land use element strategies, the Northeast neighborhood and other plan elements and this should be taken into consideration upon determining conference of plan consistency. Looking at the land development code, one of the major aspects we consider with a planned district zoning amendment would be unified control. So there are two changes proposed here, one would be adding the townhome use and standards and one would be adding the access point.

So adding the standards is minor, particularly since residential was already permitted in this sub area, it just wasn't specific about which form it would take. So that would be a minor change which typically doesn't require unified control but an access point is a major change. In this case the access only affects that northern parcel and even looking at Sub Area 3 as a whole both parcels are owned by the same entity. So in that case the code says you do not need unified control of the entire PUD, only of those affected parcels. So in this case they did not have to get signatures from all residents or provide unified control in that way, they were able to ask for this based on their ownership of both properties in Sub Area 3.

And there was compatibility analysis provided in the staff report in your agenda packet. Again these parcels were considered through the original adoption of the PUD to be compatible with commercial and residential uses and so this is just a further clarification of which residential uses they would like to place here. But there's still room to analyze compatibility and they have provided their responses to that. So conclusions related to the land development code. The petition was processed according to the technical review requirements for a planned district zoning amendment.

All required evidence of control of the property was provided and there were no issues identified through the TRC review. So these are your decision criteria and there are some extras for a planned district zoning amendment. So the first several are the same for any zoning map amendment. Whether it's compatible with existing development pattern and zoning of nearby properties, changes in land use or conditions upon which original zoning was based, consistency with the conference of plan, conflicts with existing or planned public improvements, availability of public facilities based upon impact on traffic characteristics, impact on population density or development intensity and such that the demand for public facilities are affected. Impact on currently planned and funded public facilities.

Effect on health safety and welfare of the neighborhood and city. Conformance with the requirements of the LDR. Findings of the environmental assessment report. And then one thing to note is that the cost of land or other economic considerations shall not be a consideration in reviewing the request. So those are the standard decision criteria for zoning map amendment and then there are some additional for plan districts.

So it shall be considered whether it's consistent with reasonable expectations of other residents within the plan district in regard to how it would be built out over time, the extent to which it deviates from the approved binding master plan including whether it could be accommodated by a conversion, flex use or other allocation chart. This binding master plan does not have one of those just so you're aware. And the extent to which the alteration will service and or benefit other uses within the district and whether it's compatible with the common scheme of development contemplated in the binding master plan. And so again this was processed according to the procedural requirements and there were no issues with the code identified but those are your criteria to keep in mind. And so upon review of the petition and associated documents, conference of plan, land development code, staff report and analysis and testimony provided during the hearing, there's sufficient information for planning commission to make their recommendation to counsel on this plan district zoning amendment and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have for me.

Thank you Nicole. Any other questions for Nicole? Yes, Pam go ahead.

Nicole during this process were we able to determine whether or not Jean Green Road is county maintained or private?

It is a private road. We had the applicant provide proof that they have permission to access it and they did provide a document showing their rights to access it. We confirmed with the city attorney and felt that what they provided was adequate for us to proceed.

Alright, thank you.

Other questions of Nicole?

Yes, Jerry. Basically, with these change allowing town houses and the access, this doesn't take away any of the present items that could be developed like still could be commercial whatever, right? This is just Correct.

Okay. Yes.

Anyone else? Nicole, in your discussions with them, were there other options discussed related to the access? In other words, the original plan had it connected inside the community.

Right. I believe they had decided with the original developer it has been kind of settled that there would be no internal access. They can probably speak more to the history of that, I think there's a legal history there but they have decided not to pursue any kind of internal access and they are only asking for this one.

This PUD was done many many years ago. My brain is foggy on the total history But of it seems to me this northern piece was originally envisioned to be the commercial part of Toscana Isles with the, I think, look that it might be accessed off a night's trail. In other words if it were a gas station or shopping center or whatever it would be accessed off They Knights chose to go north as opposed to West.

Yes, they did not mention any desire to access off Knights Trail so it it wasn't discussed. We didn't advise advise them one way or the other.

Okay. The area where the infamous weir I'm finding out. Is that part of their open space?

Part of the 50% open space? No, the 58% number that I gave you is just based on the already platted single family areas.

Okay. So none of that is That wouldn't be considered counted. Part they are already at 58% open space.

That's

correct. Had those nice big lakes in there. Okay. I think that's all I've got. Thank you, Nicole.

Thank you.

Alright. Josh Law, you here?

All right, there we go. Good afternoon Planning Commission. My name is Josh Law. I'm a planner with Morris Engineering and I have signed a speakers card. Thanks to Nicole for kind of giving you a rundown of kind of what this looks like and we'll take it from here. So once again this is Rezone 2501 for Wisdom Townhomes.

As to just give a little

bit of general overview here, so this is a planned unit development rezone amendment within the Tuscana Isles. So within this we're asking for two things. To permit townhomes as permitted use within sub area 3 and to amend the connectivity standards map to allow access from Jean Green Road. So those are the main two points that we're talking here today. Here you can kind of see the outline of Tuscana Isles with sub area three outlined in red on your screen.

So did want to get this out of the way and kind of out there first. So this is a concept plan of what could be developed on this. So this concept plan is not part of the binding and master plan and it's absolutely subject to change. But what could be proposed would be a 50 unit townhome division with access off of Jean Green Road. There is a 40 foot building setback along the eastern property line.

There's a 50 foot easement along Nice Trail which we'll kind of talk about which is why we couldn't tag in there. With any development, we have to look at storm water and drainage and any development here would have to comply with the Toscana Isles PUD development standards. So once again I just wanted to give kind of a general overview on kind of what we're looking for here. So once again here's the overview of Toscana Isles. Like Nicole had mentioned, one of the first things we look at is unified control.

Nicole did a good job of breaking it down, however I'll kind of mention it as well that Wisdom Properties LLC owns both of those areas within Sub Area 3, which you can see outlined in red on your screen. The newly proposed access would only be for the northern property along Jean Green Road. And as it states in the code 173E3A, that unified control of the entire PUD is not necessary as long as the affected parcels is only owned by one owner which we are. A little background with Toscana Isles. So this was last previously amended back in 2011.

With that they added around 21 acres to Toscana Isles bringing the entire acreage up to four twenty eight and a half acres. The area they added here was actually what fronts Laurel Road on the South Side Of Toscana Isles. With that amendment they did add a couple development percentages such as they capped the entire Tuscana Isles PUD at four point zero units per acre for the entire PUD. They did instate a maximum number of seventeen fourteen dwelling units and did state the maximum of 5% commercial land uses. This is also at the time where the sub areas were developed such as sub area one, two and three relating to low density single family, low density mixed use residential and commercial uses.

So like I mentioned within Tuscana Isles, they do have development standards which are those eight things on the side of your screen there. So within Tuscana Isles, their development standards talk about permitted uses, density, maximum building heights, yard setbacks, buffers, things like that. And once again they did also talk about the three individual sub areas. So when it talks to these sub areas which I've mentioned a couple different times, I've tried to make this as clear as I can here. We are using technology from back in the mid two thousand's.

So sub area one is everything in yellow which is on the eastern side of the screen. Subarea 2 is everything in the middle in that kind of orange color which is low density mixed residential. And then Subarea 3 which is along the western boundary line along kind of Knights Trail is north, is to the left, is outlined in those red and black squares. So once again when we're talking about Sub Area 3, we're only talking about the areas adjacent to Knights Trail. So I know this is a big slide but I did just wanna kind of mention it and I'll hit it on the next slide as well.

So on the left side of your screen you can see all of the allowable uses within Sub Area 3. So what we're asking as Nicole had mentioned too is multifamily is already allowed, we're asking to allow for townhomes as part of this, as part of the allowable uses. And you can kind of see the site area once again for the northern property line here. So I did want to mention some of the other uses that are already permitted within this sub area. So within Sub Area 3, retail outlets such as sales goods and clothing and appliances could just be straight up developed, we wouldn't have to come in front of the board along with pickup facilities, hotels, motels, private clubs, houses of worship, all of those things are already allowed within Sub Area 3.

So what we're asking for today is to allow townhomes as part of that, as part of those uses. So the proposed townhome use would be less intrusive, more compatible and would produce less traffic than those already permitted commercial uses. So that kind of leads me to my next slide which is compatibility. So townhomes per city standards are considered single family uses. Within Tuscana Isles I've kind of outlined it on the right side of your screen there.

So there is single family uses directly to the east and to the south of what our site area would be. So permitting that use of townhomes would allow single family uses adjacent to other single family uses. With this there would be no change in the future land use of mixed use residential, there's no change in the zoning of PUD. Within the Tuscana Isles development standards, sub area two already gives standards for townhomes so that's on the left side of your screen here. So what we would like to do is utilize those already existing standards from sub area two and just placing them within sub area three.

So they've already been approved and already been utilizing right now. We just want to use them again within sub area three. Last but not least, as I've kind of mentioned earlier, there were some maximum percentages that the latest update gave. So once again the Tuscana Isles PUD is capped at four point zero dwelling units per acre. There's a maximum number of dwelling units of a little over 1,700 and they do provide a maximum 5% commercial uses.

So built within Toscana Isles as it sits right now, that's kind of the left side kind of bullet point set here, there's nine eleven single family houses, 56 multi family houses. So as of right now there's nine sixty seven units built of the seventeen fourteen that are permitted. That comes out to about 2.25 units per acre if you want to look at the overall units per acre wise. And like I said, leaves about seven forty seven units unbuilt. So the proposal of townhomes or to utilize rather, so to utilize 50 of the single family dwelling units for the townhome, the proposed townhome project would give 50 extra units for everything, so 960 family units versus 911.

Everything else stays the same. So your total units built out would be ten seventeen of the 1,700 which comes to about 2.37 units per acre which leaves once again just under 700 units unbuilt within Toscana Isles. When it comes to the residential street and connectivity standards, so this is out of section seven which actually talks about connectivity. So you can see the sub area threes are along Knights Trail Road here and here. What we're proposing is access to Jean Green Road to the north side of the property here.

So access is proposed to Jean Green Road. Access was not permitted from Villa Rossi Boulevard to the development which would have allowed us to tap into Knights Trail. Jean Green Road is private, however an access easement does exist to service the northern property which we have provided information as well to the city attorney which shows that we do have legal access to that. Here I did wanna show you kind of where that access would be so you can actually see Velarasi Boulevard here to the south, this is Knights Trail. You can actually see the stub out where we would have been allowed to come through and access.

However, you know at some point the Toscana Isles plant included connectivity to Villa Rossi Boulevard like I had mentioned. However the Toscana Isles plat at some point was revised and removed that access so we are not allowed to gain access to the South even though it's permitted on the binding master plan. So the only other access that we can go is to the North to Dream Green Boulevard. Once again, just wanna talk about the concept plan overall. So once again just a hit, this is not part of the binding master plan, this is subject to change.

The two things that we're asking for today are to ask for townhomes as a permitted use and to amend the connectivity standards map to allow that northern access. Any development like I mentioned earlier would still have to comply with all the Toscana Isles development standards as you can see on the bottom of your screen there. At this time I would like to invite Carrie McNutt up with environmental because she's gonna give us a little more background from my environmental ideas with this.

About that. Kerry McNutt with Monarch Ecology. I'm the environmental consultant on the project. So I just wanted to give you a brief overview of the environmental features on the site. What you're looking at right now is the wetland map. The property contains 1.65 acres of wetlands and surface waters. We did have SwiftMUD out to review the wetland lines on the property and we did a formal wetland determination, so the lines that you see is what was approved. And that just happened in September 2024. Of the wetlands, we have roughly 0.6 acres of forested wetlands which are the green shaded areas you're looking at and then 0.21 acres of surface waters which is the drainage conveyance you see shaded in blue. And then we also have another green kind of cross hatched area.

What that area is, is actually a mitigation area that was permitted many, many years ago and originally was built in 2006. It was actually part of the development plans for Tuscana Isles and what ended up happening with that area is they ultimately Tuscana Isles ended up impacting a portion of it and modified their swift mud permits so that mitigation has actually been replaced elsewhere on Tuscana Isles. So it's just identified different than typical wetlands. The other thing I just wanted to mention, I'm sure you guys have heard about the drainage conveyance, there is a 50 foot drainage easement that will be maintained as well as the existing concrete structure. And then as far as uplands, we do have some uplands on-site, the majority of it is uplands in fact.

The western portion is open land and then as you can see the wooded areas on the east side of the site consist of pine flatwoods and hardwood conifer mix habitat. There we go, okay. This is just a historic aerial that shows you that drainage conveyance that was built at a minimum dating back to 1974 and the property drains to the west. This is just kind of a zoomed out shot that shows you where the existing watershed divide is, the blue line that you see which is east of our property is the watershed divide between the Myakka River and the southern coastal and again the property does drain west into what we call Cow Pen Canal which then drains further south into Salt Creek and Shacket Creek and then eventually out into Donahue Bay. These are just a few representative pictures of the concrete weir structure I'm sure you guys are aware of and then the culvert crossing that drains under Knights Trail and then the you can see a couple pictures of the actual drainage conveyance.

And again that's all going to be maintained. As far as future impacts with development, one of the things we know for sure we would have to build a road across the existing drainage conveyance and wetland areas. So we would have a covered road crossing to get across and provide access to the site. And we're estimating that would be roughly 0.23 acres of wetland impacts, most of which would be for the road crossing and then we have that really small isolated wetland that's 0.07 acres that would also be impacted. Mitigation would be provided through buying credits from a wetland mitigation bank.

And then in addition to that, we would also be maintaining 25 foot average wetland buffers. Just some other environmental things, we did a preliminary listed species survey out there. The only listed species that was observed was tri colored heron which is a listed waiting bird forging in the ditch and they since that's going be maintained, they would still be allowed to use that habitat post development. Of course we would have to do additional surveys as part of any future permitting dealing with swift mud and coming back to the city of course with any construction plans. And we would also have to do a formal preconstruction gopher tortoise survey in which case if we found any gopher tortoises of course those would be relocated off-site.

And then as far as heritage trees, we did do a formal tree survey and of the trees on-site there was only one that was identified as being a potential heritage tree and the remainder are all pretty small since the site was previously cleared. And that sums it up.

Perfect. Thank you, Gary. At this time I'd like to invite Matt Morris from Morris Engineering up to kind of talk about our master drainage plan for the site.

Good afternoon. Me, Matt Morris with Morris Engineering. I have signed a speakers card. I'll be very brief. Carrie already mentioned there's already been some discussion regarding the Weir structure.

As Carrie mentioned, we are proposing to crossover that same wetland conveyance system there, we'll be using some additional culverts. The intent is still to keep that we're structure in place. We've already actually taken the step in this project, the developer wanted to go ahead and do actual storm water calculations, storm water design, we've made a middle into the water management district already. So we've already modeled and have effectively more or less final storm water design obviously still subject to review by the water management district, review by the city as well for what we've submitted. But you'll see on your screen here just a couple of excerpts from the results from that modeling from the one hundred year storm event just because I know that's at the forefront of everybody's mind here recently on projects with storm water and flooding in various areas things like that.

So you'll see at the upstream limits that would be kind of representative of the Toscana development. Our pre development storm water elevations that we pulled out of the model were at 10.66 and in post development it's the same, so we're not having any adverse impacts on the Tuscana Isles, the water levels remain the same as what they are pre versus post in our site. And then by virtue of having storm water ponds that are being connected into that conveyance system there, we're actually letting some of the water back up from that slough system into our storm water ponds in the higher twenty five year and one hundred year storm events. So you can see that actually down at Knights Trail we're experiencing a fairly significant reduction in the water levels in the post development condition based on the modeling whereas in pre development when the whole site is just sheet flowing directly into that conveyance, we're seeing a water level just over nine feet and then in our post development condition again with allowing some of that water from the conveyance to back up into our storm water system during the higher storms, we're actually seeing that drop down to about a 6.7 foot range, so a fairly significant decrease actually in the water levels as we move downstream from our site.

So again that's all subject to review by the water management district if they have any comments, same thing with the city but we feel pretty good and confident about where we are right now in our storm water

design. You. Perfect. Thank you.

So kind of in conclusion here, so Morris Engineering and Consulting LLC concurs with the city presentation relating to the citing of any LDR codes and comprehensive plans. We are in agreements with staff that the proposed planned unit development rezoning is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, the future development, the land development code, Florida statutes and complies with all the decision criteria as outlined within the LDR. With that, we request your recommendation of approval for this application and my team is available to answer any questions you may have.

Josh, you went over something there that was fairly quick that I want to go back and look at. And that was the PUD versus the preliminary plat. Now if I heard you correctly, the plat was changed to stop access to this area?

I'm going to invite Tyler Van Santen up with Mayor to Chum so he can kind of give a little bit more background I into

knew somebody else would be coming up. Afternoon.

Tyler Van Sant with Meritage Homes, I have been sworn. So I am not going to attempt to recount for you the litigation that went on in the previous years about that, nor will we party to it. We are a contract purchaser of this parcel from Wisdom Properties LLC. In the past, I will recount this best as I know and understand it that going back to the original days of this PUD, which dates the great financial crisis, right, it's a while ago. If you look at the original documents, there was interconnectivity such that this parcel in Sub Area 3 would interconnect down to whatever planned roads were there in Toscana Isles.

At some point in the relatively recent past, I. E, I want to say it was twenty twenty two ish, maybe 2020, something like that. The plat was revised by the existing developer of Toscana and that ingress egress between the parcels was eliminated and furthermore a permit cast wall was built and a common area strip was plotted, severing it. Now there was litigation over that, the judge ultimately ruled that this parcel did not could not get that access back. It's not my place to opine on the results of that lawsuit or why it happened that way.

But at the end of the day that kind of shut the door on that access, which obviously we would have been happy to work with the existing homeowners and figure out that access whether it's in front or behind the gate and control gate structures, but that's kind of neither here nor there, right. It's that access has been foreclosed.

Okay. So part of the issue was the gated access to the rest of the community versus the access?

Yes, we could have solved that. I mean if in the world where the judge said you have to give them that access then we wanted to go that way.

We moved the gate.

We could have probably put

it behind gate, gated our own. I mean it would have been a little complex,

but it wasn't undoable. All right. So if that has been held in litigation, can't have a property without some access to it. Is that right? Okay. The access to Knights Trail, Josh, I think you said something about a 50 foot buffer or something? Yes, there's a

50 foot easement along the western property line that we're not able to cross at this point. So that lonely leaves Jean Green I mean it's

do we have frontage on Knights Trail? Right. Yes, we do. Do we have viable practical frontage to use as ingress, egress? Probably not. I mean if have served on this commission price some time, you've been in the city a while, we just as you might know, we have a development down Rustic Road called Magnolia Whoever has a cell phone or whatever, please turn it off now. Knights Trail is a how did I say this? That corridor has a lot of stuff in it. It does. The city and the county both have infrastructure in there.

Peace River has like a 40 inches water force main. Then let's take into consideration the future widening of Knights Trail, Trail, which then okay, it's going to be a divided median, then you're forced into maybe is this right in, out. Then we've got spacing issues with this is not a huge parcel, It's a relatively small parcel. So then you were into like weird spacing issues between Villa Rossi which is to the South and then you've got Jean Green to the North. So as we looked at it said, we're not talking about a large development here, we're talking about 50 townhouse units. That access to Gene Green is kind of makes the most sense and like you said it is Gene Green is a 60 foot private roadway. It was,

if you go back to

the deed records from long, long time ago, it was conveyed as such. So every owner along Gene Green has pure vested rights to use Gene Green for ingress egress. Including Tuscana Isles? To the extent that Tuscana Isles had property that was adjacent to Gene Green, like the rest of Tuscana Isles, yes, they technically do. Obviously, they handled access off of Knights Trail and other places for the master plan. But in theory they could have had a secondary ingress egress off of Gene Green.

So who specifically owns that road?

We all do.

That's the

way it's written? Yes. So it's a 60 foot private ingress easement that runs over the parcels.

Bill, go ahead.

You went over this with the drainage situation but obviously that's the elephant in the room and that's why you see all these people sitting out here and it's our responsibility to ask questions that they want to have answered. And, the concern is that any kind of development here is, going to affect that drainage and, weir and so forth. I just really want to be very, very specific to the audience as to the other thing is how would building townhomes differ from affecting the drainage of the commercial development that was allowed to be there?

I will answer that briefly and then defer back to the guy that has I've got a law degree, he's got an engineering degree. That's can talk about it a lot, but it's not going to mean much. I mean bottom line is, like Matt showed that it's about pre and post condition, When you're doing storm water, benefit here of we have gone we have already modeled stormwater. We already have an application with SwiftMud. So Matt is not up here saying, hey, we're going to abide by the code and it's going to have to be this. We're saying we've already modeled it. We've already submitted it and it obviously is going to comply and does comply with code and I'll let Matt kind of do his thing about pre and post and actual stormwater model. Thank you.

Sure. Again, Matt Morris, signed a speakers card. To your question regarding a development of townhouses versus commercial or even multifamily for that matter, obviously a townhouse development typically has significantly less impervious area than a multifamily development because multifamily development you're talking a surface parking lot, same thing with a commercial development, you're talking a surface parking lot. So typically you're seeing impervious area coverages between eighty eighty five percent of the site when you're talking multifamily or commercial project as opposed to a townhome project where you could be in the 50% to 60% of the site, fairly significantly less impervious area. Again like Tyler said, what we do we do these models is we run an existing conditions model, we update it based on the best information we have with any kind of new surveys, we go back and look at historical models.

In this case that obviously the weir that's there that's already a known condition that gets modeled in that existing conditions model and a revised existing conditions model again that we've just updated with, hey we went out and did survey and this elevation that we got in our survey is different than what the elevation was in the model, but we're using the actual surveyed elevation. So we have that as our baseline and again those numbers I showed on that storm water slide showed for just those that particular upstream and downstream node that this is what those water elevations are in a one hundred year twenty four hour storm. So essentially the highest storm that from a regulatory standpoint you look at for your design and then we go in and we then modify that model to say okay, we're going to now take away storage, we're going to add our storm water ponds in, we're going to add in our impervious area and with all of our pipes we remodel it again and then we do a comparison strictly pre versus post. So in the case that you saw and like Tyler said, we've actually done that which is something different than what a lot of developers do in most cases when we're sitting up here asking you for approval on the zoning, we're saying, hey, we haven't spent the money yet to take that next step of actually doing an analysis and seeing how this is going to work, but we effectively say we're going to follow your rules, we're going to follow the rules of the state.

In this case, we've already gone through those analyses and that pre versus post shows that upstream again we're having no impact and downstream we're actually lowering the water levels in that one hundred year twenty four hour storm. Josh, can

you put up that conceptual diagram again?

Yes, I think it's up right now actually. Is this the one you're referring to Barry? That will work. Oh, actual site plan?

That one, yes, thank you. So if I understand you correctly, L1 and L3, I'm assuming are Lakes 1 And 3, but

Yes, L1 and we have L2 back behind the other buildings as So we've

got three storm water ponds.

So adding those three storm water ponds, does that reduce the flow over the weir?

I'd have to go back and look at the model if it reduces the flow specifically. I don't have that information handy with me on the flow. But again, from just the elevation of water standpoint, it's not changing anything upstream or downstream, which would lead me to believe it's probably reducing the flow over that weir, but I don't have that information handy.

It's one of the reasons I was looking at that diagram because the weir kinda is in the middle there. Because of what now? The weir is kinda in the middle. Yes. Correct. And if it flows directly west then or if it's being held so that less is going out. But I don't get to see and I don't think your other diagram does either shows the actual drainage

And aspects of we are we've got modeled because we fully understand obviously with our road crossing, we're going to have a large culvert pipe as well to make sure that that flow continues to go through that conveyance system. So that pipe that we've got for that roadway crossing is allowing that flow to continue where it's going and we've sized that pipe appropriately based on the flow that's going through that we're to make sure that we're not constricting that flow in any way. If we were, you would see that number on the upstream side of the node up there, you'd be seeing an increase in that during that one hundred year storm. Again the system set up such that Lake 2 connects into the conveyance and then Lake 1 connects to Lake 3, Lake 3 connects into the conveyance. Again in those higher storm systems, if you looked in the model data, you'd actually see water coming back into those ponds from the slew as well.

So we're effectively looking at the timing of when is the highest flow that's going through the slew, when is our flow leaving our site and we're actually we have volume in our storm water ponds that's allowing water to come back into our ponds to help make up that difference that we've got into again that's why you're seeing that lower water level at the downstream side is because our ponds are such that we're accepting water from that conveyance system into our system. Is the maintenance of that we're your responsibility today

and will it be your responsibility in the future?

I believe that there's an easement over it and I don't know off the top of my head if that easement goes to the county or that's to Toscana and Toscana maintains the easement. Our property does not maintain that easement. There's again an easement there. I'd have to refresh my memory on who that easement has been conveyed

to. So Toscana is maintaining it today through this easement or through the

If they're maintaining it through the

day That would maintain in the

would be the same.

They would still maintain it, correct. Okay. Other questions? Dick?

Yes. My question is maintenance also. Based on some practical experience from Waterford, all these things look good when they are on paper or models. Three, four years downstream, no pun intended, that your sloughs and your ditches and your pardon, ditches to me, tend to become overgrown and water does not flow as well or as you have modeled. So what is your maintenance plan? For example, at Waterford, ours are inspected quarterly and any maintenance that need to be done is done. What would be the plan for this particular thing? It seems to me if we don't maintain it, it's of little or no value.

Absolutely, agree 100%. Maintenance is certainly key on these systems, especially when you have an open drainage conveyance like this. I believe that this system is being maintained, like I said right now with that easement that's over and I believe the Toscana development is maintaining it. Mean our HOA that we'd be forming here, they'd have some maintenance responsibility for as well. So we have not developed a full plan of whether it would be inspected quarterly or annually or how often it would be inspected, but there would be absolutely maintenance requirements for that.

I think that's something that may still need to be worked out a little bit with Toscana on what their maintenance routine is and coming up with something in conjunction with them on how to work those two programs together from a maintenance standpoint. But 100% agree that maintenance is a key and this absolutely will have a maintenance program in place for it.

Thank you. Yes, City Attorney.

I just want to be careful on how reliant we're going to get on this particular concept plan given that it's not being adopted. This could be this, it could be something else. So we're not at the point they're not at the point of being able to tell you exactly where set in stone we're going to have these various features. So just I don't want to lose sight of that that we're up a level and what you're hearing today this would come forward to you again in the future where we'll have those refined details about maintenance and exactly where the storm water ponds are and where they're going to flow where we can dissect and pick apart and analyze at that point.

Yes, got you. We could however stipulate that the concept plan be included?

If they are willing to bind themselves that would bind them to having something that would have to be more or less consistent with that.

Right. Okay. Yes. Thank

you. I just want to be clear. This development would become a part of the Toscano Isles PUD. Is that correct? Okay.

Yes.

So therefore the maintenance, not trying to get any higher, but the maintenance like any other portion of Toscano Isle would I

think what you're asking with regard to the maintenance is more of an HOA question that might be something for Tyler to speak to. But I believe that this development would have its own HOA that is separate, but there may be some interplay with the master.

Once again, I can speak semi intelligently on this. So I do not know the exact maintenance regime for that we're right now. In fact, I don't even know when it was built. Was it built when Tuscana Isles was originally developed? Was it built back in the Happy Valley RV days or whatever the deal was something. I can't remember the name. It had some kind of intriguing name like that. So it might be right now that that we're is maintained through the CDD or the HOA. So Tuscana Isles has its own HOA and they have a district. That might be the case.

I've put that in my notes to research because it's something that as we go towards construction approvals and development plans, we're going to need to be thoughtful about who should be maintaining it. Does it make more sense? And yes, we will have our own HOA. Are not subject to and we will not be part of the Tuscana Isles HOA nor are we part of the Tuscana Isles CDD. But we will have our own HOA.

So we're

part of

the PUD, right. So you have a zoning map that says we're in a PUD.

The

certain lands were submitted to the HOA declaration and certain lands were included as part of the district. This track was not included in either of those, but we obviously will have our own HOA and it might very well be in the future as we work through these issues. It might just it might make a lot more logical sense for this HOA to take over maintenance of that we're which because I mean at the end of the day our townhome owners are going to have as much or more of a vested interest in the maintenance of that in terms of the water flow and storm water drainage.

So did I understand you correctly then, it is not the intent that this parcel would be a part of the Toscano Isles HOA, master Correct.

We will not go down that path. It doesn't really make any logical sense for us or Toscana. Yes,

I'm thinking the same thing.

And just to let you know if it was developed as a commercial parcel, it would probably have its own POA. So if there was a retail center there, they would have a property owners association. But you get back to the same issue of there's a drainage conveyance on the property. There's a weird structure whenever it was built, however it was designed, it's there. And who's in the best position to maintain it for everybody and it's probably our HOA and imagine that's where I'm

not sure everybody out there would agree with you on that based on the e mails that we've received.

Yes, get that they have a vested interest and it's a matter of

And they outnumber you if we're talking about number of units.

They can maintain it.

There's a

cost to maintain I know. It,

It's something to be worked out depending upon what actually happens. Other questions? Anybody? All good? Josh, anything else? I don't believe so. All right. Thank you very much. How many folks do we have signed up to speak today?

We have 13 for public comment.

13, okay. And do all of them get five minutes?

They would all get five minutes.

Okay, very good. So who's first?

First one is Cynthia Grasso.

Cynthia, do you know how this works? You see that little box in front of you there? It's when you start talking that green light is going come on. Yeah. Green light is going to come on. It will run green till it gets to about thirty seconds left in your five minutes, it will turn yellow. When it gets to red, it's going to make a nasty beep and we stop you at that point. So go when you're ready.

All All of the stuff they just explained is way past current today. So I just want to say that the City of Venice plays a vital role in maintaining property values and ensuring peaceful enjoyment for all homeowners. However, failing to fulfill responsibilities can significantly decrease property values, force unnecessary expenses and create tremendous stress and hardship for homeowners. Residents bring many of these to your attention today. Because there's an open space to build upon and possible revenue to the city, it doesn't mean it should be done.

The construction still going on at Southeast and Northwest of Toscana Isles has not yet been determined regarding flooding the weir and the impact these builds will have. You can see from the homes in our community that there is a danger of flooded ratings at AE. I'm sorry. Can I get that up? AE on the FEMA map and these are current subject subject to inundation by 1% annual chance flood event.

It's not a 0.2 as I saw on your website for this development, but it's a 1% high risk chance with mandatory flood insurance required, which I personally have purchased. FEMA states that flood plan management standards should apply. A building project that blocks the natural flow of water in an AE flood zone is highly regarded and likely prohibited under Florida's building and flood plan management regulations. Florida building code and local ordinances state also that the development in F FEMA designated special flood hazard areas including zones AE must comply with the Florida building code and local flood plan management ordinances. These rules are designated to minimize flood damage and ensure that the development does not increase flood risks on properties like Toscana Isles.

The map clearly shows that the only way water can flow out of our community is where the developer plans to build, blocking our natural flow, increasing flooding for extended periods when the water cannot dissipate. The central requirement for any development is that it must not cause any increased flood levels during a base flood event. This is enforced through a no rise certification where there isn't one on the website as well. The property owner or developer must hire a professional engineer to perform a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis proving that the proposed construction will result in a zero point zero zero foot change in the hundred year foot height for adjoining properties. According to the NFIP, if the building is impeding water flow, it can affect the entire community's flood insurance status.

FEMA can cancel flood insurance which would be my insurance for properties downstream or within the affected area of the community if they fail to enforce its flood plain management regulations. I see this fail falling on the city if this project's approved. There is no recourse or there is recourse for members, however, of the community whose free and use of enjoyment is threatened by potential flooding due to construction. Affected residents can challenge the building permits, which is why we're all here today. If we believe the construction violates local zoning or flood plain regulation, especially especially if no proper engineering study or no rise certification has been provided.

Blocking a natural waterfall, especially water flow, especially in flood zone where it can divert water onto other properties and increase their flood risk constitutes an actionable public and or private nuisance under Florida law. You're responsible for ensuring compliance with state and federal regulations. FEMA put out flood maps and guidelines in place when the projects like this could have devastating impact on current homeowners. There's 272 homes covered in the blue area of the FEMA map currently jeopardized today without this build. This is where the city must consider Toscana and ensure the community of 996 homeowners, their properties and enjoyment of such are a priority over one, builder.

As homeowners, we can do our part by protecting our home during an impeding hurricane and by purchasing flood insurance. However, the city must take precautions and stand for the community they have been elected to protect. In summary, I'll say again, a building that prohibits natural water flow in FEMA is unwarranted.

Very good. Thank you. Who's next?

Next speaker.

None of that helps. Of that helps. Who's next?

Gene Roberts.

Hello, my name is Jean Roberts and I live at 313 Palestro in Tuscana Isles. I have many concerns about the Wisdom townhomes. Of course, many is equals one major one which is the flooding of course. I know the Meritage Homes folks here did present a lot of information to you. I did notice a lot of them also said our which leads me to believe that their experts were in house.

So I urge you to please consider that when voting for your choice today and do your research because I believe it could be biased information and also listen to all of us in particular many people did a lot of research to present facts to you today. So what is the benefit of building up against our homes? I also like you to consider that. We see flooding is the main issue and this is due to the following. Tearing out the trees because that absorbs water and also we lose our view that many people purchase the homes for.

And this area here was not built on by our developer or our builder for many reasons. It's the largest builder in the state or in The United States actually, D. R. Horton for a reason. They didn't build there and it had a lot to do with the weir and all the flooding there.

It wasn't a stable ground. They built where we were supposed to have a park in another area, two more houses. I mean they built everywhere they could. And there were a lot of reasons if you think about it, there was some reason why didn't they build there. They will be paving over a mitigation area and she said it was moved to somewhere else but in reality it also like you see on the map, it does go into under the fence and over into areas that are near our homes.

They're going to have to build like they said an area like a bridge over the weir which in our master plan it's not allowed. And there's a reason for it in perhaps doing your research for that. It says that we are responsible for keeping that clean in our master plan. So that's another thing that they would have to change in it. I did hear Tyler say that this private road which if you look up the meaning of private, it doesn't mean owned by the public.

It means it's owned by someone and that person is Gene Green who's probably I don't even know if he's alive to be honest but the company he owns is Ajax. He owns that land, not everyone. Cramming six multifamily townhomes on such a small area of land is going to add a lot of traffic. I think Tyler mentioned something like there's a lot going on in that road. I don't think he wanted to say there's already a lot of traffic on that road.

We don't have a light and it's already difficult to get out. If all this traffic has to come from Jean Green Road which is beyond us, they will now, those 50 townhome residents which is what probably going to be at least 75 cars because most people have at least two cars, 75 to a 100 cars will now turn left off a Jean Greene home and pass our exit. So Dow will have another 100 cars to deal with. Is he going to Meritage Homes going to add a light now? And then we'll have the additional traffic of construction.

Also on Jean Green Road, there is all of the construction, I mean the contract concrete trucks, excuse me, that they will have to deal with and I think that's very dangerous to have those trucks and they're not going anywhere. They're not temporary construction. They're permanently going up and down that road. And there's always a lot of sand and gravel on that road so they're not stopping quickly for those cars that are going to have to come out and turn left. And I think it's very dangerous.

And I think there's a reason why Jean Green is also not welcoming heritage homes. Yet they wanna build on this tiny little piece of property when they can go anywhere in the state, anywhere in the country. But they want that little piece of land where they're not welcome for many reasons. I just wanna say also that voting determines outcomes and we have 967 households times, you know, two people in each home most likely that vote. Please don't allow them to change our master plan and be able to change our living style and put us at risk of losing our homes.

We already have flooding. That little two feet drop that he presented to you in water, it's not gonna change much. It hasn't been tested by a hurricane or major storms. He doesn't know if that's going to work. He even said it hasn't been passed through the master plan or something. Thank you.

Thank you. Who's next?

Speaker is Carlos Quintin Malani.

Good afternoon. My name is Carlo Quinzlani and I'm a permanent resident of Tuscana Isles. All references are the PUD two track 17. I'm challenging the developer's conclusions. Carlos, can you get a

little closer to the mic? Yes.

I'm challenging the developer's conclusions that Track 17 does not contain adequate ecological reasons to prevent development. What you see here is a land acquisition program application for Track 17 submitted to Sarasota County in October 2024. It included flora, fauna, land sensitivity, habitat, sanctuary, wetlands, protected wetlands, failed mitigation areas, solitary drainage channel and soil composition. Approved for consideration, it proceeded to a scheduled and final formal presentation of Track Seventeen's candidacy as a county owned preserve to the Sarasota County Environment Sensitive Lands Oversight Committee on the December 2024 for county purchase or not. Two days prior, I was notified that the owner of Track 17 was not willing to sell in this voluntary program and the presentation offer was rescinded.

More relevant, the county stated that if anything happened to free up the property, they would reinstate the application. This is counter to what they are presenting as there is nothing of worth there or very little of worth that presumes or would want ecological consideration. Secondly, I challenge the developers' minimization of the potential for flooding event as it regards the drainage channel on their property. I quote Wisdom Townhold's decision criteria 1.7.4 Article six, the proposed PUD amendment could, could not would, could be seen to have no impact on the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood or city. 174 was used directly as a quote to minimize this.

As you've heard, the Narrow Channel traversing Track 17 is the only point of water evacuation from water retention ponds. We have nine sixty nine residents holding approximately two zero three acres of water. These ponds also accept rainwater runoff using culverts and sewer lines from properties off-site immediately to south and east of us. Some examples are Revelo, the 711 context, and the roads nearby with storm water volume that will increase with development. In our ponds at Crest, for every foot of water that rises, that is approximately 70,000,000 gallons of water with nowhere to go if blocked.

Consider that. The solitary culvert on the Knights Trail Road is overloaded in a major weather event. Please refer to the photos and documentation provided to this commission by myself. Finally, after Hurricane Debbie, what was supposed to be a forty eight hour recovery window for the ponds, rose two weeks afterwards with flooding on cowpins on the other side and that was with a functioning channel on Track 17 with water rising above sea walls. Off-site inbound water flow compounded this.

Thirdly, no interference or obstruction preventing the legal obligation of the Toscana Isles HOA to clear, maintain and ensure drainage and unimpeded water flow throughout Track 17. From documentation provided by SwiftMud, the Toscana Isles HOA has a perpetual nonexclusive drainage easement rights on the Track 17 Channel from water retention ponds. With it comes to 50 foot wide continual interference footprint. To this day, your HOA manually clears that channel. It is the only point of any outflow drainage from our two zero three acres of ponds.

There's a narrow choke point. The developer is proposing a bridge over that channel that will need to support a two way traffic with significant weight. If unimpeded or unblocked right of easement within that channel and the 50 foot wide zone cannot be guaranteed, then that bridge cannot be constructed. If the proposed bridge construction over the channel within Track 17 restricts or prevents the HOA maintenance and drainage compliance within the plat, then that bridge cannot be constructed. A significant portion of the total acreage of the protected wetlands and failed mitigation area in Track 17 reside exclusively in and adjacent to the channel and proposed bridge construction site.

If that bridge has to further expand its footprint over protected wetlands and its adjacent failed mitigation area, then that bridge cannot be constructed. I read to you again Wisdom's decision criteria. The proposed PUD amendment could be seen to have no impact on the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood or city. Finally, developers petitioned for a main exit and entrance from Jean Green Road. I will only say this, there were more expert people testifying us. They had nowhere else to go. And this is why they picked was an inherently dangerous road. Overwhelming traffic by 80,000 pound trucks.

Very good. Thank you. Who's next?

Next speaker is Philip Trebotti.

Amanda, do you need those for the record? You got it? Okay.

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name is Philip Treprode. I live at 677 Maravia Boulevard, Toscana Isles Community. I was a heavy tractor trailer driver for forty years, twenty years over the road, twenty years in Metro New York area. I am one of the neighbors at the Isles that are against this planned development.

We are terrified of the future flooding problems that will occur if this construction is done that will damage our homes and property. My house is right up against the wall of Track 17. I also have a very specific concern about adding an access point from the planned community onto Jean Green Road. I was a distribution manager for Coca Cola Enterprises in the New York area, as an important part of my job was being part of the vehicle accident board. That reviewed passenger car and commercial truck accidents.

I have seen in my many years of commercial driving horrific accidents involving passenger cars and a commercial truck. Commercial trucks and tractors weigh at least 30,000 pounds, and they carry at least 50,000 pounds of cargo for a total of 80,000 plus pounds traveling at high speed. Most accidents between passenger vehicles and commercial trucks happen because heavily loaded trucks cannot stop in time to avoid a collision. The heavy trucks traveling along Green Green Road carry gravel, paving materials, will not be able to slow down and stop quickly enough to allow passenger car traffic to merge onto this road. Thank you.

I thank you for your attention. Thank you, sir. Who's next?

Next speaker is Peter Carr.

Good afternoon. My

name is Peter Carr. I live at 305 Polestro Street in Nokomis. I spent eight years as a police officer, four as a detective, and subsequently thirty years working for a major insurance commercial auto insurance carrier. I would estimate I had investigated well over 2,000 heavy duty truck accidents. I was also involved in inspection of these vehicles.

I've never driven one, but I've crawled in and out of a lot of them prior doing safety inspections and afterwards. I'm very familiar with how these vehicles operate and the type of damages that they can sustain. I spent just quick look see on Green Road. On the thirty first of this month and on the third on the thirty first, excuse me, of October and the November 3. Approximately 70 vehicles were seen either entering or exiting on the twenty third and almost 82 on the third.

On the third, was between twelve noon and 12:30 and on October 31, it was between 07:40 and 08:10AM. There were very few passenger vehicles. We've seen most of them would enter, it appeared that they were employees of the businesses at the end. Obviously, it's a cul de sac, so these vehicles went in and we never saw them for another half hour. So we have to assume that they're familiar with driving on these roads.

We took some measurements. We used a rolling device, also had a clicker counting the vehicles. They are not exact measurements but they are pretty good estimates. The entrance as proposed appears to be 200 feet from Knights Trail from the intersection. We observed all the exiting trucks were going at a normal speed.

I wouldn't say they were speeding or not, I didn't have a radar gun. However, they were activating their brakes approximately 400 feet from where this entrance is, where the cars will be exiting the townhomes. Using 65,000 pounds instead of 80 because 80 would be a totally loaded truck. They need a good two and twenty feet to stop. This entrance is a 180 feet.

That's worrisome. It's a 180 feet. You're going to have folks exiting, particularly in the morning. One of the major causes of accidents, people are in a hurry. I'm here, I'm looking, oh, I can't make it. Oh, I can make it now, I look back, I can't make it. Somebody's gonna turn out there. And when these trucks rear end somebody, it's not a little fender bender. There's a serious problem here. And if let you may do any changes to this roadway, there's gonna be incidences.

This is really a really a strong risk. I don't see the advantage. What's the advantage of accepting this small townhouse unit with this shoehorned in. I mean, unit has eight units, and we have six, we have one over here, one over there, one over there, all the way around here. You have to build a bridge over the flood plain and weir. All this, it doesn't make sense. What are the advantages to the municipality, the public? I don't see many of adding this. The people in Tucson Isles, we pay taxes. The businesses on that road, I'm sure they pay more taxes, they're all commercial businesses, they pay a lot of taxes.

I don't see the advantages for this. I mean, you and you could go on to DOT, you could pull up all the reasons why accidents occur with trucks, 70 to 80% of them are caused by private passenger vehicles. And those stats could be a little bit maneuvered because there's more passenger vehicles on the road. But these truckers, they have to take, when they get a CDL, they have to go through training, they have to have physicals, they have eye exams, and they have to have them every year. Some of the trucks that are coming in here are the smaller ones that don't require DOT certification.

Small pickup trucks, you've seen them out there on the road, and they are pulling a trailer with concrete and debris and it's going into the recycling area there. Those guys don't have the training. And when those trucks, if they have to do an emergency stop, they jackknife. That's a whole another problem. Thank you Mr.

Corr. Who's next? Thank you.

Vince Hafeli.

Go ahead, Good

afternoon, Vince Haefley, 10772. I'm the president of Ajax Paving. The one thing we can all agree on, Jean Green Road is a private road, but some of the things that we've heard today aren't accurate. One, Ajax doesn't own the road. Tuscana Isle doesn't have access to that Road, and this development as in today doesn't have access.

The property directly across from here to the north that was owned by the owned Nicobas Grove site, they own up to this property line. To the east, Crush It owns up to the Tuscanal property line, and to the east, Preferred owns up to that line, and to the east Ajax owns up to that line. And we all have a legal grant of easement that we've signed to go through and use that property, so that's who owns the road and how that works. There's been a lot of talk about the things that are around this property, but nobody has wanted to talk about the white elephant in the room that's really to the north of the property. Crush it, it's heavy and industrial down that road.

Preferred materials, Ajax paving, Armour Concrete, McCloud Land Services, Titan Concrete, and even the city of Venice now has an easement to go through and use that road to get back into the new pressure station back there. The traffic backs up on this road already, and when you put this subdivision there, now the traffic is going to back up even further to the east, and when it backs up further to the east, it's going to back up further against the homes that are in Tuscana Isles. All of us in the industrial right now are working to do what we can to mitigate and be good neighbors over there. All this is gonna do is put more burden on the neighborhood, and put more burden on us. It's gonna put more burden on your code enforcement, your city manager that has to deal with this, and your police department.

So I really just wanna be on the record of stating that this is not a good use of the land. It's not a safe access point to come out on Gene Green, as you just heard the one gentleman say. You have approximately 200 feet there, a tractor trailer is 60 foot long, so you have room to put about two to three tractor trailers there, and if they sitting there waiting to get out, nobody is even gonna be able to leave the neighborhood anyway. The six unit building that they are proposing on the very north edge of the property is going to be about 50 foot off of Jean Green Road, where all the trucks are accelerating, and where all the trucks are decelerating. They're gonna get all the muffler noise, they're gonna get all the brake noise, they're gonna get all the rattling, they're gonna get they're gonna get the noise.

You know why all of us industrial companies are out there? We are out there because thirty years ago they told us you have to go out there to get away from all the residential. We went out there and we all do our best to abide by the city and the county and the state and federal and all the legal requirements we have to do, the noise ordinance, the air permitting, the storm water. This is just gonna be another burden, if you will, on us. They had a traffic study done.

The traffic study was done in the PM, and the peak traffic is in the AM. In the PM, the traffic is pretty much lit up. The peak hours are in the morning, seven to noon ish. I believe the traffic study also referenced the center turn lane on Gene Green Road, of which there is no center turn lane on Gene Green Road, it's just a two lane private road. So there is nowhere for a truck to stack up in the center turn lane to gain access to Knight's Trail.

Currently, everybody that leaves there has to go south. I mean that will change one day probably when they extend Loraine Road down, but in today's world, everybody leaves there and has to go south past Tuscan Isle to get out of there. So we are just asking you to use some common sense, if you will. Do your due diligence and find out how the access is really going to work on Gene Green Road because there will have to be an easement grant that comes from the property to the north of there. And then they would be expected when they tie into Gene Green Road to be part of, like all of us, have to maintain that road, we have to pave the road, we have to take care of the road.

And I've heard a lot of talk about flooding, and I will tell you that since Tuscan Isles was built, and this is not a bash on Tuscan Isles, our flooding has increased in our corporate office. We've had water in there a year ago that we've never had before, and this will just further add to it. So thank you.

Thank you, sir. Who's next?

Next speaker is Mike Oran, H R A N.

Good afternoon everybody. Some of you know me. Been here for over forty years. I'm the owner of Ajax Paving and I know a lot of history. But the biggest thing is, is just to again go to who owns Jean Green Road, so that you understand, the property owners to the north own Jean Green Road. That's their real estate. They own the real estate. There is an easement for the beneficiaries that border that easement. I'm one of the beneficiaries until it gets down to my property at the end of Jean Green Road which we own. And I have to give them a cloud and Titan, they have an easement on my property.

That's how that works. They have to have a grant of easement from that owner to the north to be able to get even get on a Gene Green Road. I don't know if they have that. The attorney says they do, but I don't think so because I haven't seen it anywhere in any of the records. So it's not it's not been posted anywhere and it's not anywhere in the Sarasota County record book.

Excuse me. As far as the traffic study, I don't know who did the traffic study, but it is so flawed, I can't even hardly tell you how bad it is. So for the city to I don't know how that went went through the city because it's just not it's not accurate. They didn't, they only used 2% heavy truck traffic on Jean Green Road. Well, it's 98% truck traffic on Jean Green Road. It's just the opposite. They've They said there was a turn lane on Knights Trail. There is no turn lane. Knights Trail is a two lane road both directions today. That's what it is today.

I'm afraid somebody will get killed there. That's what I think. I don't think this ought to get there's no way that this thing should be approved. Not coming out to a private road when you got the truck traffic we have, and Knights Trail has got the garbage trucks on it. I mean, there is another 500 trucks going by. It's dangerous as it is today. And so I am looking forward to the time when Knights Trail gets gets improved, that's years down the road. So can't imagine this being approved for any reason. That's all I got to say. Thanks.

Very good, thank you. Who's next?

Dennis Kowal.

Good afternoon. I had some comments written and almost everything that I was going to say has already been spoken to. So I don't want to spend everybody's time repeating what's already been said. Said. I can speak to, there was some discussion about the weir earlier, okay. So all the storm water flows down the canal over the weir and under Knights Trail Road. Toscana Isles does have the maintenance permit for that weir. Okay. We are responsible for maintenance. So we do it now, you know, I don't know how it would work if this property is developed, but currently we're responsible for it.

I would also like to say I heard mention of a culverted crossing for this, isn't that what I heard? I think that's what the engineer said is the road that would go over the canal would be a culverted crossing. That's what I heard. And if that's the case that would create some hardship for us because right now we use mostly resident volunteers to maintain that area. They rent brush hogs.

They go down there and clear everything out. So it's all done by residents. We don't have the wherewithal to, you know, clear out a culvert if that's what's put there. So we really don't want a culvert there. I don't have a lot more to say. We're just asking the city to help us protect our neighborhood. We're concerned about flooding and we should be. We've seen, you know, with Ian, we had street flooding. We were very fortunate not to have home flooding. We don't want to see that. So please help us keep that from happening. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Who's next?

Bernie Pleuard. Okay. And then Dennis Pleuard. Mike Reinhart.

Hi. My name is Mike Reinhardt, Tosana Isles. And basically, the only thing I gotta say is I don't agree with this project because of all the concerns that these people have made, the safety, the traffic, and flooding issues. I know right now it's really hard to get out on Knights Trail from the Sauna Isles and I just think that's gonna cause more of a problem. So when you take this in consideration, just ask you to listen and think about these people's concerns. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. And who's next?

Next speaker is, one second, Marianne Baljuk Duligi.

Good afternoon. My name is Mary Anne Bozic Di Luigi. I reside at 285 Soliera Street in Tuscana Isles and my home is located less than a mile from Track 17. I'm here to object to Wisdom's newly proposed and sole access point from this planned townhome community on Track 17 via Jean Green Road as set forth in their project description. The staff report mentions that Wisdom initially sought access to Track 17 at the north entrance to Toscana Isles via Villareci Boulevard.

I ask this commission to please take notice of the Circuit Court of twelfth Judicial District in and for Sarasota County at case number 2022CA004042NC which granted summary judgment for both the Tuscana Isles Master Association and the Tuscana Isle Community Development District. The court denied Wisdom's motion for summary judgment and stated Wisdom shall take nothing from this lawsuit. That decision dated 09/17/2024 effectively decimated Wisdom's creative assertion of a right to access Track 17 across Toscana Isles Master Association and or the CDD's property. I'm also here to join all the other residents addressing you today to express my concern about the negative impact this proposed project will have not just on our immediate Toscana Isles community but also on surrounding neighborhoods as well. The potential detriment to Toscana Isles maintaining our storm water management system including the weir and outflow canals, there's two, there's a primary canal and there's a secondary canal.

Located on the subject parcel is of paramount concern to all of us here. I respectfully disagree with staff's assertion that Wisdom's newly proposed access to Track 17 via Jean Green Road eliminates any conflict with the existing infrastructure or accessibility. That conclusion ignores the existence of the drainage and maintenance access easement granted to Toscana Isles in perpetuity and recorded in Sarasota County on November 1332, Plaque Book 48, Page six at instrument number 2000121487299. Track 17 is forever burdened by the existence of this storm water management infrastructure. The staff report doesn't take into account that burden and thus fails to safeguard Toscana Al's rights access and to maintain the storm water infrastructure situated on Track 17 including the weir and the outflow canals.

Finally, I assert that Wisdom's response is disingenuous in stating the proposed PUD amendment could be seen to have no impact on health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood and city. I ask this commission to please take into consideration the potential for disastrous consequences should this townhome community be constructed as set forth in Wisdom's concept plan. If vehicular traffic from all but six units of this proposed townhome community must traverse across the outflow canals to use Jean Green Road as the only access point this could or likely would impact the storm water system to the detriment of not only our Tuscana Isles community but also several other adjacent North Venice neighborhoods. This includes but not limited to Rivello, Mirasol, The Goulton, Treviso Grand, Willow Trace and a portion of Venetian River and Golf Club. Storm water from these Toscana Isle neighbors flow through our lakes, our up flow canals and over our weir.

If you deliberate Wisdom's request for the zoning amendment or as you subsequently contemplate any future development of Track 17, I respectfully urge you to consider how such development could potentially put many of our homes and our families in harm's way. I don't think any of us wish for Toscana Isles or any of this our surrounding neighborhoods to become the next Laurel Meadows in Sarasota County. I thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you. One more, is that right?

Yes, last speaker is Sue Perry.

One's hot.

Yep.

Okay. Good afternoon I'm Sue Perry and I live at 227 Tuscaloosa Boulevard, Nokomis, Florida and I do live subdivision. I'd like to just correct a few things. We are a 100% built out. There is no other waiting empty lots that need to be built.

We are a 100% built out. And just for the record, I'd like to get a few things straight that you might not have heard about. Basically Tuscana Isles has been very concerned and I've been working on diligently on a committee to safeguard the community for storm water flooding. And back in November '24 we did meet with James Clinch, Roger Clark, Steve Barron and John Kramer about our concerns with the storm water flooding and under our undersized infrastructure of the weir. Toscana Isles has about six storm water drainage pipes that come into the community and only one that goes out.

Doesn't really seem fair. And we receive about half of the Venetian storm water and if you go down west all of the properties to the corner and then to Susquehanna Isles we receive all of their storm water. And they have just started more projects covering more pervious drainage areas with asphalt and buildings. So many of the storm sewer pipes and drainage channels are too small for the amount of runoff created by recent development leading to flooding. So planned storm water flow has not always been carefully evaluated by swift mud as the residents in North Sarasota have found out the hard way.

And so we're a little leery of what they may approve because they seem to be reactive instead of proactive in looking at the problem before they can before it happens. We hope the city of Venice learns from Sarasota's mistake when approving new development and consider the impact of increased storm water when approving these new subdivisions. Historically there's been poor maintenance of the Weir. Actually there's been no maintenance of the Weir from Wisdom Properties who've owned it all this time. So Toscana Isles has stepped in and done all the maintenance.

So when we basically we take care of that, it's beautiful. It really is. On September 23, I planned a meeting with the City Of Venice storm water engineer Steve Barron's and the new storm water director Ben Quartermaine. Ben Quartermaine told us two things, get flood insurance and do whatever you have to to keep your homes from flooding. Keep in mind that the land that the storm water system for Toscana Isles is in the city of Venice.

And the Weir is also located on Track 17 that's also the city of Venice. But Knights Trail where the water flows under is Sarasota County. So I wanted to get both these guys in a room together and decide okay, who do we go to with our concerns? And still nothing is decided. But now we pointed out that where the storm water exits through the weir, there's another project, Generations Venice on the other side of Knights Trail Road paving over all the drainage areas that are currently soggy.

So with Mayor and had mentioned the lawsuit, the wisdom lawsuit which cost the HOA over $100,000 to defend our easement both breaking through into Toscan aisles and also utilizing our north entrance which they cannot do. And they also have to keep 50 foot away from the wall and I believe it's 50 or 60 foot away from our entrance which wasn't on their plan either. So please consider this wisdom townhome development and think about this information so that Toscana Isles can continue to keep the nine sixty nine residents safe from flooding because TI residents are taking Ben Quartermaid's advice and we're doing everything possible to protect our homes from flooding. Thank you.

Thank you. Is that it?

Yes, that's the last speaker.

Okay. Are there any additional staff comments, Nicole or Roger? I see both rising. No, Roger is rising. Nicole is coming with him. This is good.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Roger Clark, Planning and Zoning Director and I will sign a speaker's card since I'm going to speak now. Just a few things, I want to congratulate everybody for coming here today and speaking that more hands make for better development. So just want to compliment them on that. Just want to clear up a few things. There was mention of a Platt amendment up here a while back by the applicant. I'm not aware of any Platt amendment. I am aware of the lawsuit that did occur that as Ms. Perry indicated, there were judgments that they didn't have the ability to access Track 17 which is what this is across Toscana Isles property.

So that dealt with the interior of Toscana Isles, not the exterior, not the Jean Green Road access. Dealt with the original access that was shown in the connectivity plan that they're asking for modification to. So in our staff report, somebody indicated that we said there was no conflict. What we indicated in the staff report was based on that situation and the fact that this access point was gonna be on Fujian Green Road, there was no conflict with the interior portion of Tuscana House, just wanted to clear that up at that driveway.

So Roger, was there a preliminary plat change?

I'm not aware of any. I'm not aware of any plat change because I would have had to come through the city.

You're gonna say you would have to do it.

Correct. And we looked on the Sarasota County Clerk's website to see if there was actually a modification shown. It looks the same as it always looks. So I don't believe there's any

So the lawsuit was about whether or not they could use what was approved?

The lawsuit was, my understanding was about that access point, access to Track 17 through Tuscana Isles Northern Entrance as Ms. Perry indicated through that and then into the left, which was the original that's what the PUD binding So master PUD plan set

today, right.

And that's what we deal with. We deal with the PUD binding master plan and my understanding that suit was about the connectivity that was originally shown back when the PUD was developed. So it was determined that they couldn't cross to SkyMiles property, was done in the courts, courts, that's fine. But that is where we indicated this new proposed entrance would not conflict with that area because they're not coming into Tuscan Isles because they cannot. So just wanted to kind of clear that up a little bit.

One other thing I want to clear up, there's no you're not proving any development today. I think the applicant mentioned that. This is just a request for a modification of the PUD binding master plan for two aspects, townhomes on this property and that access point. As far as the drainage is concerned, I think the applicant has addressed that. I can't really address that. I know it's gone through our engineering department to the extent that it would during a rezoning of this type. Obviously if things were to get to a site development plan, there would be certainly a lot more review of this details of that drainage facility and how that might be impacted or may not be impacted.

Roger, but the ultimate decision maker on the drainage and whether it's adequate or not is Swift Mud?

Swift Mud, they have to get there, all their permitting has to go through Swift Mud. On the city? The city reviews it and finds it in compliance with the city standards but it does have to get all the permitting, has to come through SwiftMud and our construction plans also would have to be approved through the city, but that would also reflect SwiftMud's approval of of the drainage that's And they cannot, you know, impact. There's 's drainage facilities across a lot of properties that certain that those entities may not have control of but if they have an easement across it, they have the ability to maintain it and as the applicant indicated, hopefully there would be some communication between the new HOA and Descan Isles HOA as to how they might share that maintenance. That's up to them, something we would not have anything to do with.

The traffic study was indicated that there was It included a turn lane. Well, as I've mentioned to you many times in the past, we have several improvements out there that have been identified in the entire city's transportation system that the government allows to be assumed as in place when traffic studies are done because they're going to be charged mobility fees when developments are built and that money that the applicant would have to pay in is to go through, is to go towards those traffic improvements. However, in the meantime, they are allowed to assume them in place.

Yeah. Notwithstanding that, I think what they're talking about is center turn lane on in Gene Green. Correct. Gene Green is a private road. Can the city or the county require a private road to put in a road improvement?

We we cannot expend city or the county has indicated they cannot expend county funds or our city funds on a private facility. How that would occur, we're not sure at this point so.

And we've seen a proposed easement or an actual easement between the applicant here and the property owner of the North?

We have a document that we asked them to confirm that you have access to Jean Gruen Road. They provided a document. We have it here, goes back to I think the nineties?

1979.

Oh, sorry, 1979. Was thinking of another project. 1970 That based on our review and our plotting out of the legal descriptions discussions with staff and the city attorney appears that they have access to that facility. If there's something else out there that we're not aware of obviously we'd be interested in that. But at this point, this document appears to confirm access.

Okay, Ron. Thank you. Anything else?

I don't think so.

Nicole, anything?

No. You're

good? Thank you. Appreciate it. You want to address any items you heard from the public?

Yeah, absolutely. And we'll do our best to get least one by one. That's fine. With the consultants we have here in the audience. So like I guess we'll kind of start with kind of had Roger mentioned right today. The only thing that we're looking at is to allow townhomes as a permitted use in that access point. So what we're going to start off, Matt Morris is up here so he's going give a little bit more detail with the engineering and the Weir system.

Sure. So actually I think the first speaker that came up did actually a really good job of outlining all the steps that we're going to have to go through for permitting on this with how things are reviewed with the no rise. Effectively the analysis that I mentioned that we did with that study is the no rise. That's when we compare development and the post development water levels of the site. So you saw that upstream pre development elevation and post development elevation of the downstream pre development and post development elevations.

So that no rise doesn't matter if we drop any water elevations, we just have to make sure that we're not making any water elevations go up compared pre development to post development. So again, we have done that analysis. I know we're not talking specifically about our design with this particular project, but we've already done the analysis. So I'll mention that we've already done the analysis and we have done it based on the requirements of FEMA, requirements of the water management district, requirements of the city, the whole nine yards.

Does your analysis assume the coverage that the conceptual document proposes? Yes. So if you were to propose something else, a different analysis We'd

have to change that analysis, correct. Okay. So we've provided that. Again this no rise, it was brought up that an engineer has to do that. I am the engineer.

So my company, firm, we are doing that. I did want to mention one of the other folks that came up here mentioned something about in house. I started Morris Engineering back in 2009 myself, 100% owner of the company, have no affiliation with Meritage Homes developer for that matter. So for what it's worth there, I don't believe any of the other consultants that have been hired to work on the project are in any way affiliated with the developer either other than we've been hired to do these analyses and make sure that their project meets the requirements of all the codes and everything there. So again same thing and I think I can't remember Mr.

Schneider if you asked the question regarding the amount of impervious area and things like that for a commercial development versus a residential development. Again, this project is already part of the PD that allows development on here. This development is from a storm water standpoint, less impactful than what a commercial development or multifamily development could potentially be. We've designed our storm water system to accommodate that and obviously we'll have to get all the permits that are required and provide all those analyses to the city and to the water management district to get all of our approvals to actually construct the project.

Okay. Anything else?

I think that's it for Matt.

Sorry, I actually do have one other item. Just regard to the easement again with access easement being able to be provided to Toscana Isles. Aside from our crossing, which again would be a covert crossing, there is still ample room there for that easement to be maintained for Toscana Isles to come in and maintain the flowage through that easement. We've designed our system to make sure that the water is not impeded, there is no restriction in flow and there would be that ability if Toscana Isles shows to continue to maintain it that we would still grant them that access through that easement to maintain that system.

Yes, go ahead Bob. Yes, let me get through this then we'll do that, okay? Go ahead, anything else? Okay,

I believe that's it from our side.

Okay, good. Thank you. How about can I get through the motion or whatever and we'll take one after that? You okay with that? Or do you need? We'll take one now. Okay. Let's recess for five minutes.

We get everybody take their seats.

Thank you much. If there's nothing else from anybody, I'm going to close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. Don't everybody speak at once. Yes, mister Jasper. Okay. Should be the first one.

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the planning commission sitting as a local planning agency finds this petition consistent with a comprehensive plan in compliance with the land development code and with the affirmative findings of fact in the record recommends to city council approval of zoning map, PUD petition number 25Dash01RZ.

Thank you. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Alright. Discussion. Yes, Robert.

I I can't support this after listening to all the folks out here, especially the Ajax folks. Jean Green Road is not an appropriate place for this to be going into. And there's so the compatibility issue along with all the other issues come along with the flooding and all that. The biggest one to me, Gene Green Road just does not seem to be the right place to have traffic go through. Okay. Anyone else?

Ms. Chair.

Let me go with Pam and I'll come back to you dear. There

are things that I like about

this and things that I don't.

I'll start with what I like first. I like the idea of townhomes.

Where do like it?

Was trying to hear you, darling.

Oh, I'm sorry.

There you go.

I like the idea of townhomes being utilized in this space rather than commercial shopping center. It would be certainly less intrusive, less intensive and I would prefer to see townhomes as a residential option for them. What I am as concerned about as you are and that is Jean Green Road. It is a private road today, it is not a paved road and it concerns me given the traffic that I know that goes back and forth across that road. Any individual or smaller vehicles coming into or out of that space concerns me.

I would rather see an entrance off of Knights Trail. I mean ideally I would rather see an entrance out of Tuscalana Isles. But if that is not an option then I would prefer to see it off of Knights Trail. Certainly if it was a commercial, if that's what it ends up being someday, it will more than likely come off of Knights Trail. So that would be my preference.

Thank you. Jerry?

Yes. I sympathize with a lot of the people here about the flooding and so on, but that's we can't do anything about that today. What we're doing today is two things. Number one, in addition to what's already allowed and could be built there without even this meeting, there's commercial, there's multi family and so on. All we're saying here is, or voting on, or considering is, could they also add town houses as an option to be built there.

And I I I think that basically what people are really concerned about that really helps their situation rather than hinders it. Secondly, yes, I've gone up down Jean Green Road many many times living in the Venetian. But basically, since they are no longer allowed to go out the gate of Tuscan Isles, there's there's two alternatives, Jean Green or Nice Trail. But every truck that comes down Gene Green, plus all the garbage truck goes down Nice Trail, so there's actually more difficult to get out onto Nice Trail than it is Gene Green. So they gotta have We can't deny him an access.

So they gotta have one or the other and I I actually say it's probably the less of the evils.

But Jerry, you would agree that whatever goes out Gene Green is going to Knights Trail. What? Whatever goes out, Gene Green has to go down.

That's exactly what I'm saying. So So If they went out Knights Trail, they say Gene Green plus all the garbage trucks is coming. So they got they got a lot more traffic to deal with. Gotcha. Anyone else? Bill. Yeah.

Unfortunately, is a classic one of those, he said, she said, you know, I mean, we are hearing it both ways. I agree with Ms. Scherberg in that I asked the question as I did about the comparison between the commercial and townhomes because I agree, think the townhomes would actually cause less of a problem when it comes to the runoff, and that I know is a major concern there. I also, my concern is Jean Green Road, but as Jerry said, what we're we're talking about today, this is not the site and development plan, this is not when we get down into the real nitty gritty of it, this is, are they able to build townhomes? Quite frankly, I'd rather they build townhomes than the commercial center myself, and I think it would be less impact.

But that's really what we're we're just deciding today, not the nitty gritty of all the details, and we talked about a whole lot more than we probably normally would have for this kind of a situation, but I think it was appropriate to do so. But we have to think about what it is that's before us today as opposed what could come down the road. Thank you. Yes, kid.

I like to sympathize with all the discussion of flooding. But interestingly, you know, we've been here before where, you know, the Ajax and the Crushers and everything are out there. I didn't realize it might have been forty years ago, but that makes sense to me. I agree with Bill the issue before us today, but I am, having heard the discussion, especially from two business people, about their major concern over trucks on Green Gene Road even as it exists today. I'm very uncomfortable, even though I understand that we're not approving the construction, that that those comments really discerned or concerned me.

Okay. Dick, you want to say anything? I'm good. You're good?

It's already been said.

Okay. One of the nice things about being chairman is I get to go last. That doesn't always give me the last words but in this case it will. We're being asked to look at two modifications to the plan development that's out there. One of which the city classifies as minor, that's adding townhomes versus not having townhomes.

The comp plan that they're referencing is the 2010 comp plan. It's been revised in 2017. All of us up here were very instrumental in rewriting that comp plan. The concept of multifamily versus townhomes was something new that we added and made sure that there was an adequate description of those differences primarily as to I can put a garage in a townhome, I have to provide parking out in a parking lot for multifamily. This is kind of weird in that it allowed all of the residential uses that were applicable at the time.

Well, okay. So it's a minor amendment to end the townhouses and I agree with my colleagues, you all would rather see townhomes I believe than you would to see multifamily there or commercial there because as you heard in the testimony today, that's more impervious service that adds more to the potential draining issues that have to be dealt with. And I appreciate our attorneys talking about the conceptual plan that there is not what's necessarily going to be proposed. So all their analysis of storm water drainage and what have you is based on that concept. That may or may not be what comes through.

What they are asking for is can we add down homes? If we say yes, we might do that, we might do something else, we might do nothing. I've sat up here now for way too long, seventeen years or so and we've approved a lot of developments that never occur. So the attorney is right in that we're not really looking at that today. The second amendment though that they're asking, the city classifies as major and I think adding an access road to Jean Green Road is a major change to the conceptual design of that.

I am flabbergasted. You know you are going to quote me so go ahead and write it down. I am flabbergasted that either we had a preliminary plat that was proposed and never come through the city that would landlock. I don't think that ever occurred. Roger said it didn't occur so I don't think that's there.

The fact that a judge has ruled that they cannot cross the boundary is surprising to me because we usually don't landlock properties. And maybe you wanna appeal that decision but that's your choice. But you are left with two choices in that case given that the court case is out there and that is Knights Trail or punching through into Gene Green. Gene Green is a private road. I got conflicting testimony today as to who actually owns that road.

Different stories as to do we have an easement there? How long ago was that easement? Does that easement include any improvements to that road? There is a lot of question in my mind about that private road that's out there. So I am having a hard time for us recommending to the city that they put in a major change to a PUD that allows access to a private road.

I I just can't get past that. So I cannot support that change. Nothing else? Could I have a vote please? Oh and one other thing I want to say before you reveal that, We're only recommending to the city. The city has the final decision authority on this. You all need to come back when it gets down to that, down there no matter what we do here.

Save your notes.

Yes, save your notes and your presentations. Oh, and one other thing. I applaud you all for maintaining that on your own volunteers. That's amazing to me. Well done. Okay. What's the vote? So one yes and six no. Okay. Now you can clap if you want. I know you had it pinned up. We're gonna we're gonna let it get out. Thank you all for coming. Appreciate it. Okay. You wanna we'll take five minutes while you guys if you wanna go. Well, maybe three minutes or a little bit of time here.

Don't have time to get a drink of water.

Okay. Let's, get back to business here. The next step is variance petition number 20Five-33VZ at 2001 The Esplanade South. Staff is Britton Smith. The agent is Sam Hardy and the applicant owner is Edward Hines.

If I got that right. This is again a quasi judicial hearing. I have a memorandum that says this is to certify the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 10/18/2025 as required by the city of Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. Let me open the public hearing and ask the attorney to question Board members regarding any ex parte communications or potential conflicts of interest.

If anyone has a possible conflict of interest please indicate that now. Seeing none, if you've had any ex parte communications that aren't presently part

of the record, please put those into the record. We'll start with Mr. Jasper.

None. No discussion on-site visit only?

None.

Site visit only.

Site visit only.

No. All

right. Thank you. Amanda, you make sure we get speaker cards. Brittany, you've had to wait a couple of hours, I'm sorry.

It's okay. Good afternoon. So we're here today to talk about variance petition 2533VZ at 201 Esplanade South with the owner of Mr. Edward Hines and the agent Sam Hardy with BB Design Studio. So the request is to construct a privacy wall with the bottom three feet being a cement wall and then another additional three feet of decorative aluminum, so essentially a six foot fence.

A portion of it would be seaward of the gulf setback line. The parcel size is approximately 1.558 acres, feature land use, low density residential, the zoning is RSF two and the requested variance has to do with Chapter 89, section 2.114 a. Here's an aerial overview of the property. Project description, again the applicant is requesting relief from chapter 89 section 2.114 a to allow for construction of the privacy wall that is seaward of the golf setback line. This 2.114 is for construction or excavation seaward of the golf setback line and that's what he is asking for relief from.

Here are some site photos of the property. The house itself has been constructed and they are just asking for this variance for the fence. For the future land use, you'll see to the north of the property, we have high density residential, there's a condo that's across the street there and then open space functional that is the beach pavilion for Venice Beach. And to the South and to the east, you have low density residential. And then for the zoning, we have RMF 4 to the North and recreation to the North as well and then you have RSF single family residential surrounding there, so to the east and to the South.

And then all the parcels, the other part of the parcels, those conservation lands. But we're specifically looking at the parcel one that is the residential single family there. So here is the proposed site plan. You'll see outlined in red here, it is the very if you look at

the

very northwest side of the parcel there, there is a section of cement fencing that they are asking to be built right here. That is the portion that is on the seaward side of the Gulf setback line. If you need to see it any larger, do have a printout and I could put it on the overhead.

That's okay.

So for decision criteria for the variance, I won't read them all to you verbatim but you have seven here in front of you that you're looking at and the applicant has given you responses in the staff report to those decision criteria and how they feel that they are meeting them. So for based on the information that's submitted by the applicant and the staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the staff believes there is sufficient information on the record to allow the Planning Commission to take action on Petition Number 2533BZ. Do you guys have any questions on there?

Just one, Britney, just to make sure everybody knows. In looking at that decision criteria, I'm quoting the muni code which says the commission shall based upon substantial and competent evidence make an affirmative finding of each of the seven criteria that are out there. So it's not just a majority of them two or three or All of them. It's all of them have to be met. Correct. Thank you. And the other, if you'll put up that diagram again. So if somebody changed that fence and kind of squared off the corner along that line, that would be okay. It wouldn't require a variance.

That would not require a variance and the applicant has already gone through the letter of non objection for building to the, what it would be the west, sorry, I'm getting directionally confused here. Right. For the construction line. This is the Gulf Beach setback line that we're looking at specifically for the fence.

How much of this is built today?

The house and I think when I was looking at Google Maps, believe the pool but if I'm wrong, the applicant can correct.

Okay. And there is a good purpose as to why this beach setback line has been established?

Correct.

Can you espouse upon that a little bit?

No.

Well, good for you. It took me I had to go read the code again.

Roger is coming.

I I was looking for a shorthand version of The code is pretty A lot of words. Yeah. And I know we picked this code up from somewhere but probably from the Sarasota County. Is there a shorthand version to this Roger?

Can you repeat the question? Important? Well, think that it's always about erosion control. And the Gulf Beach setback line was the original coastal construction control line. That line, the coastal construction control line was moved further inland and is further inland. That's the line she's referring to in her report that indicates they have the letter of no objection that we've issued to the coastal construction control line. However, the city even in the previous code, we maintained the Gulf Beach setback line as a line of delineation that you can't go across. You go across it then you need a variance.

The line actually goes through the house if I read that document correctly.

The coastal line, yeah, I'm not sure exactly where it is but the plans there it may go through. Yeah, looks like it goes through the

Yeah. The one to the right it goes through the house. The other one is Right.

There's actually three lines. There's a general permit line down there as well that's in the middle of the two. Strange how the golf beat setback line did this erratic jog that it does to the right here but I didn't draw it so it is what it is.

Just to make sure I know what we're looking at, I go by the house all the time, there is trees and so forth all the way out to the Esplanade right now as it goes up that side. Where is the fence going to come back through there in regard to that?

The portion of the fence that would be on the other side would go right here, and you'll see that some of the remaining trees that they will still to my knowledge be there.

Okay. So the Esplanade is way over here and it's right back fairly close to the house?

Correct.

Okay. Yeah. The way that it's on the map, it's the way it is.

So

Go ahead. Thank

you, sir. So actually the, I'd like to see the overhead please. So the actual fence that they're talking about, this 36 inch privacy fence, is just that it's a fairly small, not too long, yeah. There, yeah. Okay. Thank you.

And just to clarify, it is like the bottom portion would be cement but there is an additional three feet above that that would be aluminum decorative. So you are looking at a, it's a six foot fence.

Okay. Yes,

Question. Document I'm looking at says a three foot high CMU privacy wall plus a six foot. So would it be nine feet?

No, the fence would be capped at six feet. So the bottom would be the three and then there would be three foot of a decorative Okay.

Do you know the purpose of just a corner wall?

In the applicants responses they mentioned for privacy since the public parking is across the But Street for Venice

with no intention of going further south for example across the remainder of the property. Just that small corner.

I think the question is the variance that's requested versus the actual wall. There's a fence in the wall extends beyond that area that they're getting the variance for. They'd only need a variance for that corner portion. The fence would be larger. The wall and the fence will run a further extent. They just don't need our approval to do that.

Alright. Thank you.

Any other questions? Yes.

Yes, Jerry. Was there any other approvals by any other government entities required to take and Vale across this line of the beach line other than our variance?

So in March 2025, we did an extension on a loan note that was first issued to the applicant in 2022. In 2022, we were still at that point under the old code. With the new code, the setback requirements changed for corner lots, and so the applicant was able to build some of his amenities out a little bit further which is what bumped this fence past the GulfSap Beach line. So the applicant has two loanos, the latest was issued March 2025, but in that loano it is cited that a variance would be required for this portion of the fence and that's why it's here before you today.

Okay, good. Anything else? Dick? I expect

the applicant to answer this question, but I have a very, very difficult time seeing why we need to do the corner fence when there is an angle that cuts across and he would not need a variance, beats all the laws and I don't see that it impacts from my perspective, I don't see that it impacts your property significantly. So my inclination now is to say no thank you to the variance, to be honest. Okay.

Thank you. Mr.

Hardy? Thank you for the record. I'm Sam Hardy with BB Design Studio. I'm the principal architect there. I've signed a speaker's card and I'm the architect on this project.

And so yes, the wall is a standard perimeter wall and gate. It's for privacy purposes. It is a, if you've made a site visit, it's tight site which all of those along the Esplanade are. And but this property is unique in the fact that he, this, it's right along Granada which has, which is unique actually in these residential neighborhoods to have striped parking spaces on on street parallel parking spaces directly in front of the park property. There is also a decent amount of vegetation there as well which has been maintained throughout construction by the homeowner and he's planning on maintaining it as well.

Those are native species that do need to be maintained in a certain way and the home owner is basically committed to maintaining those, he wants his property to be beautiful. But this portion of his property, as if you've made a site visit you can tell, there is very little space around the house and even to maintain his landscaping which he is also adding landscaping to again beautify his property. And holding to the existing Gulf Beach setback line there would be very difficult to have a continual privacy wall and also to be able to maintain decent landscaping. And to be able to maintain access all the way around the house. I would say the actual Gulf Beach setback line, As you know, portion of the CCCL which is the coastal construction control line, which the GBSL and the CCCL run parallel to the mean high waterline.

It is interesting that it does make this jog. Now why it makes this strange jog? You know I cannot attest to that on my professional opinion is they need to reset a straight line along the curve of a beach. So they have it reset and unfortunately it happens to reset directly through the corner of his property which otherwise his property is not impacted by the GBSL otherwise. We have done multiple houses along the coast and the GBSL for the most part does run parallel to mean high waterline.

This is one of the few instances where it does take this strange jog that is not parallel to the coastline. So thinking along those lines, it would be unfortunate for this homeowner to you know have to deal with what may be a surveying you know error or whoops to do that just happened to be recorded. And, but as far as the the wall itself, the intent is for it to be built just like a regular privacy wall on anyone else's property. It'll be block and stucco with precast concrete and welded aluminum to look like wrought iron. It will be beautiful.

So that's the intent.

Thank you. Any questions?

Yes, I just Yes, go ahead.

Just a clarification, go by that all the time. Saw the picture of it there. The vegetation that's there already goes right out to the edge when you get to the Esplanade, the gravel road that you know goes through there. Yes. So that's gonna remain and so the the wall would actually be in that corner, actually kind of be behind that vegetation that's there anyway?

It'll be behind the vegetation, but the because the vegetation, a majority of it does not sit on his actual, in his property line. There's maybe a portion of it, but the majority of it sits between his property line and the edge of road, especially on the esplanade. So where his property line actually sits is actually pretty tight to the house compared to where some of that vegetation is. And if you've been out there the vegetation is a little spotty. So there's some sea grape that is pretty hardy plant, but it does not extend like a solid wall in and of itself along there.

But that's you know, the vegetation provides a little bit of a buffer. But as you know the, I think privacy is important with the parallel parking spaces right there. Not to mention, you have the public beach that is catty corner to this property. It goes along with owning a property right there. So you get the beautiful view, you get to be on the beach, you also are right next to a public parking lot. So there's good and bad. But the owner knew that going in, but having a continual privacy wall is important to him.

Any other questions? Yes, Dick. I just would

like to clarify, I'm not against the wall, I'm against the location of the wall beyond the line. If the wall were to follow the line, have no problem with that at all. I just don't believe that it's necessary for a variation for the corner. So I just want to make that clear.

Thanks for that clarification.

Anyone else? Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Is there

anyone from the audience signed up?

Yes, we have one speaker, Peter Foss.

If you're going to

speak, have to come up. We think alike. We've been trained. These ladies train us.

You train us well.

My name is Peter Foose. I live at 700 Granada Avenue just up the street. And I think it's kind of an eyesore in that corner for other reasons, but I think the assumption is that it will clip be cleared up with vegetation after the building is built. But I also see no reason to deviate that surely is an attractive way to bend around that, that will look just as well as if it was a rectangular corner. It might actually be more attractive to do that.

So I don't see a need for a variation.

Very good. Thank you. Thank you sir. Anyone else?

No.

Okay. Britney, anything additional? Nope. Sam, anything? Good, you're good? All right. Let me close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? A motion? Your things on, go ahead and make a motion.

Thanks.

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as the local planning agency finds this petition consistent with the comprehensive plan in compliance with the land development code and with the affirmative findings of fact in the record moves to approve the variance petition number 20Five-33VZ.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion?

I have a question. I had difficulty hearing the Chief.

Chief voted to approve. Motion was to approve. Any discussion? I got the reason I asked Britney about the criteria is that it does say that all seven have to be okay. I'm having a hard time seeing where the hardship is because the language says results in a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished by a mere inconvenience.

I have trouble with that one. The second one is the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make it possible for reasonable use of the property. As Mr. Hale pointed out, you run along the coastal line there, you don't even need a variance and you could still use the property. So I think it fails on two different criteria here.

Anyone else? Hearing none, can I have a vote please? And one yes and six nos. Okay. Next up and and mister Hardy, you guys are so good at designing things.

Surely you can come up with the design for that problem. Alright. Next step is site development plan amendment petition number 25Dash54P. The city of city of Venice water reclamation facility equalization tank. Now that's a mouthful. You guys had to think about that one for a while. Staff is Nicole Trimbley. The agent is blocking all mess up your last name. Trung. Trung.

Thank you. And Javier Vargas is the applicant. This is a quasi judicial hearing. I have a memorandum that says this is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 10/18/2025 as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. Let me open the hearing and ask the attorney to question board members regarding any ex parte communications or potential conflicts of interest?

If anyone has a potential conflict of interest regarding this petition please indicate that for the record. Seeing none if you've had any ex parte communications that are not presently part of the record please announce those now. Start with Mr. Jasper still.

None.

None.

None.

None. None. Okay

and Amanda you make sure we get speaker cards. Okay, Nicole, you're back.

Yes, I am. Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Tremblay, Senior Planner for the City of Venice. And you're right, it is a mouthful. So we have been calling it Petition 2554SP, the Venice EQ Tank.

It says

a site and development plan amendment since the water reclamation facility is already there and they're just adding this one tank. So the address is 3510 East Laurel Road. The future land use is government, the zoning government, the total parcel is almost 72 acres and their proposal is simply to add the equalization tank. So they can explain the purpose a lot better than I can, but it's to balance the flow, acting as storage of wastewater when necessary and releasing at a controlled rate according to their narrative. It would be an improvement to the city's utilities infrastructure, so it would not be expected to have an impact, a negative impact on public facilities and it's not expected to impact surrounding properties because it is internal to the site.

The closest thing to it is I-seventy 5, it's towards the rear of the site which is already set quite a ways back from Laurel Road. So it's not located near any other uses and there's no new parking, no new access points or any other changes needed to accommodate the tank. So here's the location of the proposed plan. You can see the entrance to the facility is way up here and so as I mentioned it's pretty internal, it's closest to I-seventy 5 and this holding pond. So it wouldn't be expected to impact any of the commercial properties or mixed use properties up here.

Here's an example of what the tank would look like, and here's the aerial map of where the water reclamation facility is. So for existing conditions, I'll show you some site photographs just from the access road. I did not go through the gate onto the site, but also the future land use map, the zoning map, and surrounding land uses. So here's pretty much what you can see from just the road. There's self storage on this road and another industrial kind of company, and so this just happened to be when someone had gone through and the gate was open, but typically this is gated off and so no one can access that except the utilities department.

So here's the future land use map showing that it is government future land use and the zoning map identifies it as government zoning. There's mixed use and there is residential nearby, but again this tank where it's located on the site isn't really creating a new use or access that would conflict with any of those surrounding properties. So surrounding land uses, to the north of the water reclamation facility, not the tank itself but the whole site, there's small scale industrial, there's some residential, there's approval for a pool supply company that has not yet been built. So there's Laurel East and OUE zoning as well as mixed use corridor feature land use designations. To the south and east of the site are Vistara and to the west is I-seventy 5.

So for planning analysis, we'll look at the conference plan, land development code, and concurrency and mobility. So strategy LU one point two point four d is the government future land use strategy it provides for government uses. It mentions that water and wastewater treatment plants require significant mitigation techniques, but as I mentioned this facility is already established and presumably went through those considerations when it was first developed. And so this would just be internal to the site, it's not a new completely new wastewater facility. And for that reason they've not proposed any additional mitigation techniques for this.

And so analysis has been provided to determine consistency with land use element, Laurel Road neighborhood and other plan elements which should be taken into consideration upon determining consistency with the comprehensive plan. Looking at the land development code, it was processed according to the procedural requirements for site and development plans. No issues were raised by the technical review committee and it was consistent with the government uses and zoning district standards. The height of the tank is proposed to be 31 feet three inches and setbacks are greater than a 100 feet on all sides from the property lines of the water reclamation facility. These are the decision criteria that you'd be looking at compliance with comprehensive plan, with the compatibility section, general layout including streets access and mobility, so again those things aren't changing.

General layout of drainage, adequacy of recreation which this does not have of course, general site arrangement and then any other standards including architectural requirements, which again do not apply to this property. So upon review of the petition associated documents, comprehensive plan, land development code, staff report analysis, and testimony provided during the hearing, There is sufficient information on the record to take action on the site development plan amendment petition. And if you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them.

Thank you Nicole. Any questions?

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Yes. Would you like to make a presentation since you're the agent or Mr. Vargas or anyone else?

Good

afternoon. Thank you for having us. For the record, Javier Vargas, I'm the Utilities Director for the beautiful City of Venice.

My name is Locke Trung. I am with Ardura Group. I'm the Florida Water Director. I'm based out of Tampa, Florida.

Mister Trung is a consultant we hired to design this equalization tank and we'll be more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

Very good. So this is a reclaimed water tank?

So it's actually a sewer. It's domestic waste water tank.

Uh-huh. It's open tank as well? It's open tank. Yes sir. Am I gonna need to be worried about the smell of this?

That's a great question. Actually in preparation for this project, we have installed an additional treatment facility that removed the smell from that sewer going into the tank. Actually that has been in place for the last year at least.

As I remember we used to have a little older downtown here a little bit. Yep. Okay. Is this gonna improve my water pressure? I'm sorry? No. I'm sorry, I could You're up here, I couldn't I couldn't resist. It's not gonna improve my water pressure. Okay, I got that now. No, it

has nothing to do with drinking water.

Okay. Very good. Other questions? Anyone? Thank you gentlemen. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you

very much.

Is there anyone from the audience signed up?

Believe the gentleman we had for public comment Dave Lewis. Uh-huh. I don't believe he's still in the room.

That doesn't look like it. Okay. Anything else Nicole? Okay. In that case let me close the hearing. Do I have a motion? Mr. Chairman.

Yes Bill. Based on review of the application materials, staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as a local planning agency finds this petition consistent with the comprehensive plan in compliance with the Land Development Code and with the affirmative findings in fact in the record moves to approve site and development plan amendment petition number 20Five-54SP.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Kit. Any discussion? Hearing none, could I have a vote please? And the answer is seven yeses. Thank you all.

Thank you.

And work on my water pressure. It's coming. Right? You keep telling me it's gonna be improved. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Next up is a text amendment petition number 25Dash69AM, the Historic and Architectural Preservation Board. Membership requirements, staff is Nicole Tremblay, and the applicant is the city of Venice. This is a legislative hearing. Oh, boy. This this certifies the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 10/18/2025 as required by the city of Venice Land Development Code, and proof of publication is filed in the planning and zoning office. Let me open the public hearing. And Nicole, you're up again.

Yes, I am. For the record, Nicole Tremblay, senior planner for the City of Venice. This is a text change that was we were directed to make by City Council. So during a meeting in October, they directed us to change the requirements for HAPB membership. I believe they're having trouble getting members because of their requirement for Venice Main Street membership.

So this would be a change just to that single section that deals with their requirements to make it a preference rather than a requirement that they be part of Venice Main Street. And during that meeting where we were directed to make this change, the mayor did confirm that the city manager had researched whether this would affect our certified local government status and found that it would not. So this is a change intended simply to help broaden the pool of applicants for HAPB and allow some other qualified people to be on there.

If I recall correctly this was a carryover from the old ARB requirement?

Yes, I believe it's been in there for quite a while.

Yes, that's what I thought too. Anything else Nicole?

No, that's it. Do you want to see the actual strike through underlying text? It was on the agenda, but okay.

I don't think we need to. Okay. Any other questions of Nicole? Seeing none, thank you.

Thank you.

Let's see, where am I? Any audience on this one?

No we do not.

That's what Mr. Lodge wants

to say.

Bob might want to say something, I don't know. He sits down there and quotes me on it. Alright, could I have a motion please? Yes, ma'am.

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and the testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as a local planning agency binds his petition consistent with comprehensive plan and in compliance with Florida Statutes Chapter 163 Part two and therefore recommends to City Council approval of text amendment petition number 25Dash69

Thank you. Do I a second? I'll second. Got your good fight over.

Was the second?

There is Mr. Hale. He beat

me by half a second. Did. Any discussion? Hearing none, could I vote please? And that's approved seven zero. Okay. I see Mr. Clark has risen and come forward. Good afternoon, sir.

Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Put you through your paces today. It's been a while since we did that, but

I know. I felt,

know, Barry's fault. We didn't have that while

you here. I know, we didn't have one. He wasn't here, right?

You wait time back to do this.

No, good job on that. It was good to have the input from the public. As always say, better hands make better plans. So I just want to let you know the next meeting is on a Monday, on the seventeenth. So keep that in mind.

I'm trying to throw you off, but that will be a Monday council's meeting will be the next day. So we do have applications for that day. We've got a site plan, we've got rezone, a text amendment and then an annexation comp plan and rezone. So you've got seven applications but only have four projects so it shouldn't be too bad. I did want to, on the heels of the HAPB amendment today, it was questionable whether I was going to be able to be in here today because I was sitting in on a grant committee webinar about whether we were going to get a grant for our next historical resources survey.

Our historical resources manager, Harry Klinkhammer was asked to be on the committee so he couldn't speak to our grant so I had to sit through the webinar just in case any questions came up and no questions came up and then Harry just let me know a little while ago that we came out ranked twenty eighth out of 35 and if the state gets the money that they are identified to get, then we will more than likely get the funds that we need for that. If there's a reduction then it'll come down the line and if it gets to us, great, if it doesn't, it doesn't. But at this point, if they get the funding they typically would receive, we will have a grant and that's to expand our historical resources survey into the Golden Beach and Gulf Shores neighborhoods. So far we've done the Gulf View section which is mainly the downtown and the residents around Venice Avenue. We've also gotten a grant to do the Seaboard and the Edgewood area which we're putting out a request for proposals at this point.

And now it looks like hopefully if everything goes well, we'll get a grant to do the Golden Beach and the Gulf Shores neighborhood. So we are expanding on our historical resource understanding as to what we actually have out there which will give us a better idea of how to preserve certain structures.

Those grants come available based on our being a certified local government, correct?

Those grants come available based on our CLG status with no match. So if you're a CLG member, then you don't have to have a match. There were several grants on there today that I witnessed that had to have matching funds if you're asking, you can ask for up to 50,000, if you have to provide a match, have to provide 50,000 as well. So for us, we asked for a little over $41,000 to do this next one and there's no matching grant. So having that CLG designation is certainly a plus to the city.

I see nothing but good things happening with our merging of those two boards.

No, think they've done an excellent job. It still gets complicated when we get to the architectural portions of it and a lot of times applicants have to come back a few times. We did reduce the meetings by the By the way, they were having two meetings a month or at least they were scheduled to. About half of them were getting canceled, But so we've reduced it now to the second Thursday of each month. So they're one meeting a month. We think that'll work out much better. Very good. Anything else Roger? That's it.

Go ahead, Sure. That

meeting on the Monday, I'm supposed to chair another organization at 04:30 that Monday. You don't see anything like we had today that I would anticipate that being an issue.

One never knows.

Well, so I should prepare someone to be able to take my place.

I don't The only reason I say that is because I see the word airport on here. That's actually for our new terminal building which we're construct going to construct. So I don't that building is already there, we're replacing it.

I'll have a replacement I lined

don't want to anticipate any issues but just because I saw that word.

Thank you.

Anything else from anyone? Comments, concerns, questions? Hearing none, we're adjourned.