Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

In order, can I have a roll call, please?

Okay, I have a set of minutes from September 15th, 2026, regular meeting. Do I hear a motion?

I move that the minutes be approved as submitted. We have a motion to approve.

We have a motion to approve the minutes by Mr. Jasper. Do I have a second? Okay. Mr. McKee in seconds. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed the same. And the motion passes unanimously. Okay. Do we have any general audience participation?

All righty. Okay. Presentation. I wasn't aware of that. Okay. Public hearings. We have a site and development plan petition number 26-18SP, Chipotle at Venice Crossings. The staff is Brittany Smith. The agent is Mark Mueller. The owner is John Lappins. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. I do have a memorandum to read. This is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on September 19, 2026, as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code. Proof of publication is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office. Okay, and I'll open the public hearing. And

Site visit only. Site visit only. Site visit only.

And you'll confirm the speaker cards have been completed. And with that, Brittany, take it away.

Move it up just a little bit. There you go. Thank you.

Any questions for me? Yes, Ms. Sherbrooke?

Thank you. Could you go back to elevations? Yes. Thank you. At the very bottom, it indicates that that is the south elevation, which would be the wall that is facing Laurel Road. Is that actually the south elevation?

That's when I wanted to make sure that we didn't have a solid blank wall on Laurel Road. All right, thank you very much. You're welcome.

Thank you. Mm-hm. All right, anything else? No, thank you, Brittany. And we have the applicant here. I do, sir.

You're off easy. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Any audience participation signed up on this one? All right. And I assume no additional staff comments. And no rebuttal then. I'll close the public hearing. And do I hear a motion? Mr. Chair.

Yes, Mr. Jasper. Based on review of the application materials, the staff report, and testimony and evidence provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission, sitting as a local planning agency, finds this petition complies with the Land Development Code including the decision criteria in section 1.9.4, and therefore moves to approve site and development plan petition number 26-18SP.

We have a motion to approve by Mr. Jasper. Do I hear a second? Mr. McKeon, this is second. Any further discussion? No, seeing none, can we have a vote, please? Yes. And it passes unanimously. OK, next up, let me clarify with Brittany here when she gets down here. Are you OK with doing all four of these simultaneously, or you want me to do them separately?

Okay. I figured that would be the case. So I'm going to bear with me while I open all of these up. We will need to have separate votes on each one of them, though, at the end. Okay? So next up is design alternative petition number 26-36DA, Texas Roadhouse, Adventist Crossings. The staff is Brittany Smith, the agent is Mark Miller, the owner applicant is John Lappins. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. I do have a memorandum to read. This is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on September 19th, 2026 as required by the City of Venice Land Development

Site visit only. Site visit only. Site visit only.

OKAY. AND WE'LL CONFIRM SPEAKER CARDS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. AND WITH THAT, BRITTANY, YOU HAVE A LOT TO COVER.

Any questions at this point? No? Continue on, Brittany.

How close would be the nearest residential homes to this establishment?

And across the street, across Laurel Road, that's also commercial?

Any other questions? No? Thank you, Whitney. Good on you.

So I'm going to go back to the LED lighting, if I may. Could you clarify where the, I'm imagining string lights on all sides of the Texas Roadhouse building. But then you mentioned that we couldn't really see where they would be in those pictures. Could you clarify where those LED lights would actually be?

We can have the agent give us a little more information on that when they get up here.

We're missing out on the conversation. I don't know what's being just... Okay. Okay.

So if I could ask the question, if the lighting is pretty typical, why is there a variance needed?

No, okay. Thank you, Brittany. Can we have the agent come up, please? If you could kind of take them one at a time the same way so I don't get lost.

I have a question about the height exception, but it's really related to the flag. Do you, I'll put it Texas Roadhouse, abide by the U.S. flag protocol? Is it illuminated at night? If it is, is it illuminated 24 hours a day? Do you turn it off when you guys shut down for business? If half staff is requested, do you half staff the flag? I have no idea what the protocol is for the Texas flag, so I'll stay away from that.

Yes, go ahead. I had a question on the variants also, but I can wait if someone else.

I was just going to follow up. You know, it is a requirement if you're flying a United States flag, if it's up 24 hours and there are lights, it's lighted 24 hours. And I think that's what you were asking. That is a requirement.

I have a question on a variance related to the LED lights. The lights are white, as I understand it. That means there are three LEDs there, red, green, and blue, that are illuminated together to create white, which allows you, to make almost any color you want. Is there any intent to change the color with holiday? Do we get red for Christmas and a different color day? Do we get orange for thing? And do we get them to flash because of their LEDs? They can certainly be modulated essentially at any frequency you would like to.

Thank you. So there would be no problem that there was a stipulation to that effect? That there was a stipulation to that effect that they not be flashing and they not be anything but white?

So if I may, I have maybe a procedural question. Since the LED lights and the flag poles are in one petition,

I thought that the LED lights variance petition had the flag poles on it as well.

Okay. Any other questions? No? Thanks, sir. Appreciate it. So let's see if I can keep these in the right order in there. Oh. Welcome back, Brittany.

Well, the first one we're going to do is design alternative petition number 26-36D.

Well, that's what I was just going to call for, audience participation on that one, right? Okay.

So the first one we're doing is the design alternative petition. Is there anyone signed up for audience participation on that? Okay. All right. And we already had additional staff comments on that one. Any rebuttal by the agent? I don't believe so, no. Okay, so the first one then on 2636DA, the Texas Roadhouse Adventist Crossings. I'm gonna close the public hearing on that one. And do I hear a motion?

We're doing the design alternative first.

Yeah, we're doing the 263060. You got it? Okay. Sure. Mr. McCann?

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony, and evidence provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission, sitting as a local planning agency, finds this petition complies with the design alternative criteria in Section 1.11.3, of the Land Development Code and therefore moves to approve design alternative petition number 26-36-D8. Okay.

We have a motion to approve by Mr. McKeon. Do I hear a second?

And Ms. Sherberg seconds. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, can I have a vote, please? Okay, and that one passes unanimously.

So the next one up that we're going to do is height exception petition number 26-37-HE. Let's see, we have that one. Is there anyone signed up for audience participation on that one? Okay. And any additional staff comments? Seeing none, so no rebuttal. I'll close the public hearing. And can I have a motion, please? Ms. Shearberg?

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony and evidence provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission, sitting as a local planning agency, finds this petition complies with the height exception criteria in Sections 1.12.3 of the Land Development Code and therefore recommends to City Council approval of height exception petition number 26-37HE.

We have a motion to approve by Ms. Shearberg. Do I have a second? Mr. Jasper is a second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, can I have a vote, please? And that one also passes unanimously. Okay. And that will bring us to variance petition number 26-38VZ. Do we have any audience participation on this one?

All right. And no additional staff comments, no rebuttal. I'll close the public hearing. And can I hear a motion, please? Okay, Ms. Fresca.

So based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony and evidence provided during the public hearing, the planning commission sitting as the local planning agency finds that this petition does not meet the variance criteria in section 1.13.3 of the land development code. And therefore moves to deny variance petition number 2638VZ.

Okay, we have a motion to deny. Do I hear a second?

So it is... It does not satisfy... That is... the city code in section chapter eighty-seven section three uh... section eleven section fifteen prohibits outline or strip lining on corners eaves ridges fascia or other portions of buildings but also with in terms of the variance there is a decision criteria and if we want to just take a second for miss fresca to be able to read it to let me know which one she is using so if you can just give us a second i'm going to pass her the computer and show her all the criteria for a very just take a brief recess yes we just have a five-minute recess while

Okay, we have a motion to deny. Do I hear a second?

For purposes of discussion, I will second the motion.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Any discussion on it?

All right. With that, let's see, any audience participation signed up on this one? Not on the various. Okay. And with that, then, I'll... Close the public hearing. And just for point of clarification, the motion has been to deny. So in this particular situation, a yes vote denies, a no vote allows. Can I have a vote, please? And in this case, there are, oops, what happened with mine? Oh, I hit the wrong one. Yes, could you clear that? I'm sorry. I just missed it. Can we vote again, please?

My bad. okay in this case there were two to deny and there are five to allow so the the motion fails and what do i need to do at this point we just need a new motion on the floor if i could have someone do a new motion for us please sorry about that

based on a review of the application materials the staff report and testimony and evidence provided during the public hearing the planning commission sitting as a local planning agency finds this petition meets each of the variance criteria in sections 1.13.3 of the land development code that led to the design or construction that does not comply with the LDR and therefore moves to approve variance petition number 26-38VZ.

Second. We have a motion, and we have a second by Mr. McKeon. Any further discussion? Yes.

Mr. Hale? My concern with this variance is I think I've heard two stories, but that might be my problem. The story I saw in writing was we're doing this because we've got trees in the way and it's needed to make it see us. Now, if you're driving down Laurel road and there's a 40 foot flag illuminated all the time and the roadhouse is there with a green sign in the front of the house and you're driving with ways and it tells you where to go. I don't buy the tree sign, but now it's because it's part of their trademark. So I felt I was getting two stories. And I don't know which story they really

Anyone else? No? OK, seeing none, can we have a vote, please? Okay, so we have two nos and five yeses, so the motion passes. Okay, and that will bring us to site and development plan petition number 26-21SP. Do we have any audience participation signed up on this one?

Thank you, Mr. Carr. Okay. Any additional staff comments?

Thank you, sir. Any other rebuttal by the agent?

All right. With that, I'll close the public hearing. And do I hear a motion?

I'm sure there's going to be some discussion. Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony and evidence provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission, sitting as a local planning agency, finds this petition complies with the Land Development Code, including the decision criteria in Section 1.9.4, and therefore moves to approve site and development plan petition number 26-21SP and the alternative parking plan. Height of flag poles will be determined by the City Council decision on the height exception petition number 26-37HE. Thank you.

We have a motion to approve, Madam Sherberg. Do I hear a second? Second. And Mr. McKeon is a second. We have a motion and a second. Do we have some discussion?

The details of how they arrived at the parking request of 173 spaces is included in our packet. If you simply take 62 tables, regardless of whether they are, they would see two or four or more. Just assume for a moment that everyone at that table came in one car. Then when you take a look at the number of bar stools, there are 14. Let's just assume that seven couples come. So there you've got 62 plus seven, not to mention the 50 employees. already over the 80 maximum that we have so we know we're going to have to exceed that maximum if we want texas roadhouse there is really what it's going to

Yes, Mr. Jasper. Yes, I think that basically limiting parking spaces on the interior to control traffic on the exterior would be somewhat of a unique system. And again, if it's popular, that's it. People are going to find a parking spot, so they're going to park in another spot that's not on Texas Roadhouse. So limiting parking spots I don't think is going to solve traffic problems on Laurel.

And I agree with those comments. Actually, I also look at We're not going to control the traffic on the outside, and as we heard from Mr. Dlockett, its capacity is okay. It's been approved already as far as the traffic. When I look at it as the number of spaces, this whole area is all a commercial area, and it's every one of those stores and so forth that's got its parking around it, and I look at it as... I look at the place, it's off in the one corner there. There's nothing around it that is really going to impact from, oh, look, there's too many cars. I just don't see that happening in this

I would like to, what I hear you guys saying, summarize, it goes back to a Yogi Berra. Nobody goes there anymore because it's too busy. So that's what I understand is really happening. Without having an appropriate number of parking spaces, they're going to probably lose business, which I don't want them to see happen. I don't like the white lights, but I don't want them to go in trouble either.

Okay. With that, let's see. Oh, we already did all that, so I need a vote. And that one passes unanimously.

OK. We managed to get through that? I didn't get too confused.

Okay, thank you very much. Any comments from the commissioners? Well, seeing none, enjoy the rest of your day, and we're adjourned.