City Council - Regular Meeting

Alright. Is this on? Tony, are we on? Good morning everyone. We will start with our roll call, Madam Clerk.

Mr. Engelke. Here. Mrs. Frank. Here. Mr. Howard.

Here.

Mr. Smith.

Here.

Mr. Weed.

Here.

Vice Mayor Bolt.

Here.

Mayor Pachota.

Here. We have a special guest in the audience today that's going to lead us in the pledge after the invocation, captain sergeant from the coast guard. So madam clerk if you'll lead us in the invocation and then she can take the pledge.

Lord father, we ask you to give your blessings to the men and women who serve on the council. We thank you for their skills and the energies they bring to their duties and for their willingness to set aside other obligations in order to serve our community. We thank you too for the families, colleagues, and staff who support them in their important work. Amen.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Best start to a new year is a bunch of fun presentations. So we will get started with my friends from the Coast Guard. If you want to join me up front, Chief Liesenring, I'll join you down front.

Alright, I promised I wouldn't mess it up so we've got Captain Sergeant, it's two ranks so I'm a little captain sergeant from the US coast guard, we've got chief waters and then we've got master chief Naker. That was my test for today. If we could get Brett Woodworth and his family along with officer Paul Joyce, master patrolman Joyce. Sure. We can have Lieutenant Sausage too.

Okay, Thank you so much for having us here today. Again, I'm Captain Corey Surgeon, I'm the sector commander for US Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, so all of Western Florida is what we oversee and then Chief Derek Waters and Master Chief Keith Naker are here to support this as well. But this is a really unique opportunity and one of the most awesome ones I would say and hopefully it was a surprise, Officer Woodworth because that was the goal. But it's not too often that we get to formally recognize one of our partners in law enforcement and this is a unique opportunity that I get to do today.

Officer Woodworth and I'm gonna read it more in this award but you and the Venice Police Department and all of our partners here across the state of Florida are essential to what we do in the Coast Guard from search and rescue to law enforcement, even pollution response and all the inspections and things that we have to do. Honestly couldn't do it without you, we literally don't have enough people to do it to cover the massive size of the coastline. So it's essential that we have your support and you went above and beyond during one of these very little nerve racking cases that we had but it ended up being very successful in large part due to Europe. So I'm gonna go ahead and read this formal award. Okay, Certificate of Merit to Officer Brett Woodworth, the Commander of United States Coast Guard Sector St.

Petersburg takes great pleasure in presenting the Coast Guard Certificate of Merit to Officer Brett Woodworth, Venice Police Department in recognition of your exceptional initiative and support to Sector St. Petersburg Search and Rescue Planners November 2025. During this time you provided material assistance crucial to the prosecution of a search and rescue case for an overdue 26 foot center console vessel with eight persons on board. Upon initial report to the coast guard the vessel had been missing nearly twenty six hours with the vessel's voyage plans unknown. Due to the amount of time elapsed and uncertainty of the planned voyage the initial search area was expansive spanning more than 600 square miles in the Gulf Of America.

While conducting your own investigation overnight, you identified a social media video that the vessel's captain posted the morning of departure. Observing a compass in the video displaying a heading of two twenty, you relate it to Coast Guard sector St. Petersburg planners allowing them to refine the search pattern of an aloft aircraft in real time. This crucial detail led to the plane locating the vessel approximately 30 nautical miles west of Boca Grande, Florida less than two hours later. All eight people were recovered in good condition and returned safely to Venice, Florida.

Your dedication, professionalism, unwavering support of an active commitment to the maritime community most heartily commended and are in keeping with the highest traditions of The United States Coast Guard. This certificate is awarded to officer Brett Woodworth executed this January 2026 signed for the commandant CA Surgeon Captain US Coast Guard Commander Sector St. Petersburg.

I just want everyone to think real quick. Think real quick about how easy it would be to turn that over to the coast guard and not go and investigate somebody's social media and look at finite details like a compass heading. Think of think of the the above and beyond that this officer did to find that little tidbit of information that led to the successful saving of eight people. Just think of that for a minute, it's boggling.

And I will say just to add a little detail to that, we literally, we have amazing planners but we have to have some information in order to enter into our systems in order to precisely plan those searches and without a little bit and we didn't know anything about where this vessel was going, we didn't even know who might be on the vessel, it was all speculation. So this was a crucial detail and honestly it saved us and it saved those people and it's nothing short of amazing. So again, thank you so much for what you do each and every day but thank you for your constant support of the Coast Guard, thank you to your family for your support of him and all that he does and thank you to Venice and the community here.

Now Captain traditionally what we do is we will give Brett the microphone but we will not give Paul the

microphone. That's

a good call. Okay.

I would have recommended the same. Okay, great.

I don't have much to say other than thank you to Paul for his mentorship and everybody that has supported me, my wife and being on the Marine unit does require a lot of off duty time and everything else. Again thank you to my wife for her support while doing that. Thank you to the council and mayor for the honor and

the privilege to serve for

the city and the community in whole.

Chief only.

Alright, sorry, sorry Paul. Yeah again, thank you Brett for your efforts, dedication. I've been on many search and rescue operations throughout my career, and I've seen how many of them turn out. So his efforts led to a successful conclusion and saving of lives. And also I just want to thank Captain Surgeon and her team. Captain made it clear when she took command at Sector St. Pete that she was going to continue to be a strong partner, the US Coast Guard to be a strong partner with local law enforcement, and that has proven to be true over and over again. So thank you for you and your team. We work very closely with Station Cortez, so we're very appreciative of that as well. So thank you for honoring Brett and for being here today.

The only other thing I want to highlight, no he can't have the microphone, if you take, turn that off real quick, maybe it's up there. If you take a moment to just look in the back of the room, okay, when we have a call like this that comes in, it's all these folks up here, but it's the Sarasota Sheriff's Office, SPD, FWC, SITO, there are so many different organizations that come together at our Marine Operations Center to do these search and rescue events and and it is incredible. I mean the massive amount of people that have to respond quickly. The fire department has their boat now, we've got a lot of resources because we're like an epicenter to The Gulf when it comes to these types of events and we have the jetty and we have access. So I think it's very important for our citizenry to understand the resources, but the ability that we give these resources to have a command post, to have a place to stage, to be ready and go out and conduct these search and rescue events.

So God bless our VPD, our Coast Guard, thank you guys so much in the back of the room for being here and supporting your colleagues. And of course Paul's family and SITO, thank you guys for being here as well. Just keep doing a good job. Alright. Thank you. No, no, no. I want that microphone back. I want Paul to get it. It's your show. Thanks.

Ten more months, ten more months. Okay, I'll bring down the City Manager next and if I could get our City Engineer, John Kramer. And if we can get Jeff Hackett and any family that might be here.

Congratulations. How do I follow that up?

Ten years of service, that's how you follow that up. That's phenomenal. All right. Let's come in a little closer so that we're center. We give James the microphone first, but then you'll have your opportunity. Paul still will not have the chance to have the microphone.

Thank you, sir. Well, good morning everyone. I'm James Klintz, city manager here. And it is my distinct honor today to recognize Jeffrey Hackett for ten years of service here at the city of Venice. This one's very special to me Jeff because we got to work together for several years and I got the privilege and honor of hiring Jeff ten years ago. So it's been a a good run. It's amazing how quickly time flies. So it's hard to believe ten years ago we were working together in the hot stuffy upstairs of engineering, working in the attic for many years. And we've renovated since then. And Jeff has an office upgrade, which is well deserved.

But Jeff serves as our engineering stormwater technician too, which is a really important job here at the city of Venice because he's responsible for inspecting both our public and private development projects that are happening throughout the city. And Jeff focuses actually on the Eastern portion of the city, which is where the bulk of the development has been happening. So Jeff's been a really busy guy. And his responsibility includes making sure all of the new construction is installed at the highest quality, that it's meeting our specifications and standards, and really protecting our residents both that are there today and coming in the future. So we appreciate everything that you do every day, Jeff.

It's been some great accomplishments over the years. And I think I would sum up your position by saying you like to trust but verify when it comes to contractors because we have to make sure they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, Right? That's right. That's right. Beyond his professional excellence, Jeff is very devoted to his family. He has wonderful wife Laura, and they're proud parents to daughter Caitlin and son Dylan. And also a loving stepfather to Jordan and Connor. And whenever possible, enjoys the great outdoors, camping and fishing and spending time with his kids. So a lot of fun things. And in addition to serving here at the city for a decade, Jeff is also a decorated veteran of the US Army.

And Jeff served as an army ranger, and we are very, very thankful for his service to this country, and then choosing the city of Venice to work at. So thank you Jeff. On behalf of the city, we are looking forward to many more successful years, and congratulations on ten years of service with us. Congrats.

Thank you. Pleasure working with you. Congratulations Jeff. Would you like to share a few words?

Yeah,

ten years ago I came to the city not really realizing what I was getting into. And it's been an enjoyable ride. I couldn't have asked for better people to work for, better community to work for, and it's been my pleasure to work for the city of Venice.

Thank you, Jeff. Congratulations.

Okay. Corey, if you wanna come up.

Alright.

And then we'll get Elena Hopper and family.

Come on down, guys.

Good morning.

Excellent. Thank you mayor. Alright. So we we get to celebrate some really great things this morning. And one of our favorite things that we celebrate every year is our annual holiday card contest. And this tradition was started by former city manager Ed Lavalli, and we are proud to be continuing this great tradition. Just so you have a little bit of the background, the way it works is every year, miss Heather Young and her students put together holiday cards. And we had over about a 100 submittals this year. Really impressive. And it was the most challenging year we've ever had to select a winner.

But it's a very organized formal process organized by Courtney Crane. There's a committee that forms. I had to recuse myself actually because my daughter submitted a card. That's very official. But Elena, your card rose to the top. And for good reason. It is really spectacular. You're a very talented artist and we're so proud and happy to present you today with a framed version of your card here that you can hang on your wall for many years to come. Stickers and you've got cards to distribute to your friends and family. So thank you, congratulations, and would you like to share any words with the crowd today? Thank

you to my school for supporting me and my family. They have supported me through my artistic years, ten years of my art art believing.

Thank you Elena.

And I do wanna thank principal Wilson and missus Young for their support with this program over many years now, and we look forward to many more successful years of partnership. So congratulations Elena, and I hope you have an awesome rest of your week. Thank you.

I know you weren't prepared. It's ten more months and and then you'll have a new mayor and you can Okay. I'm gonna let you guys hand these to the recipients when I call them up. Okay? So if you just come up here and we'll kind of scoot a little towards the center with you two. See I'm even choreographing, it's a lot of Okay. So let's do our first one. We're going to bring up Advanced Asphalt of Southwest Florida. Do you guys want to present that to anybody who's here from Advanced Asphalt? Absolutely.

These are holiday parade awards for the judge's choice. So if they are not here we'll just go ahead and hang on to it and we'll make sure that they get it. These folks, you know they participated in our holiday parade this year and this has nothing to do with the council or city staff. This is all done by the Toastmasters Club, believe that's the judging. Okay. And the next one is Sailor Circus. Okay. That's okay. We might find one to give out. Venice Theater.

Alright. Nobody from the theater. Christian School. Okay. We're actually giving you the other three plaques So as you can hang those up.

You. That is great.

Right. Take And your

I don't have as many folks here. So if you wanna say a few words, you're more than welcome to.

Yeah. Well thank you so much for the opportunity to to do the parade at Venice. It's amazing. Thank you. Yes. I think bringing the good news, that's what we want for is so important in today's world with all the chaos and everything that is going around and we're just so thankful that the city supports us and so Venice Christian School is very grateful to be part of Venice. Thank you all. Thank you.

And thank you. Perfect. Affordable Golf Cars of Venice. Alright. And then Summit Excavating and Land Services.

Alright. Second

one. And then for those of you that don't know Bob and Sue have been coordinating our holiday parade for what is it ninety years? No it's not It ninety

will be twenty five this year.

Twenty five years so. You. Then if you want to say a few words, I'd love to Well, give you the

my name is Emily. I've been a Venice native born and raised here. I started with the parade back in 2000 actually when I was a student in Sailor Circus. So I have years of parade coordination and participation under my belt and one of my husband and I started Summit in 2000, we wanted to give back to the community and we love the parade, we've been doing it for three years now so we're very grateful, thank you. Thank you City of Venice.

And we're glad to have you.

Thank you. Thank you guys. Without your participation and the folks that came in, you guys from Venice Christian, our parade wouldn't be what it is. And without the Hebert's coordinating it and our community coming together, mean that is iconic in our community. Everybody knows the Venice parade. So thank you so much.

And we know you're moving. Anything

you guys wanna say?

Oh, just

Yeah. Let's give you a microphone.

I'll always talk about it but we we're so proud.

It's okay. Just just just collect yourself and then and then Yes. Keep going.

So proud of that parade at the peep the people that participate, people that come. Anyway

And we're proud of you. We couldn't do it without you.

I get so emotional. But do you want say?

I'll try not to cry. I think the the thing that that impresses the both of us is we've we've done this for twenty four years I guess. I thought it was twenty five but like mayor says probably ninety. Think the important thing about this year's parade was of course the centennial, the other thing is that all of the units with the exception of the city locomotive were made handmade here locally. Even like asphalt did the Santa and the workshop, Santa float and sailor circus every year puts on their their big production and and this year with with ships with all these front end loaders, whatever you call all that stuff, all decorated and flashing and then it's Christian.

It's it's nice to see that people make these things. They don't go out and buy it. They buy the light bulbs I guess. But the rest of it they put together and they spend some of them spend a lot of time doing this and we're very happy about that and proud to be part of it.

Is that good enough? When people ask, I usually tell them, know, Bob and Sue are in their thirties, but the parade has has definitely, you know, given them a few extra years, so.

Susie is 30. Susie is 30. Yeah. Yeah. Oh boy. So I Thank

you guys.

But thank

you all

for participating.

Okay. And now we'll keep Mr. Clinch up here and if I get Jim Yalverton and John Perkins if you're here. And then if the Vice Mayor would like to join me up front. On James' side? Yeah. And then if you want to just hold that for Jim. Okay. Because you'll be next after me. Alright.

Whereas in 1872, the Nebraska Board of Agriculture established a special day to be set aside for the planting trees and whereas this holiday called Arbor Day was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska. And whereas Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world and whereas trees can be a solution to combating climate change by reducing the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cutting heating and cooling costs, moderating the temperature, cleaning the air, producing life giving oxygen and providing habitat for wildlife. And whereas trees are renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires and countless other wood products. And whereas trees in our city increased property values, enhance economic vitality of our business area and beauty of our community. And whereas trees wherever they are planted are a source of joy and spiritual renewal.

Now therefore, I, Nick Pashoda, Mayor of the City Of Venice, on behalf of the Venice City Council, do hereby proclaim 01/16/2026 as Florida Arbor Day in the City Of Venice and urge all citizens to celebrate Arbor Day to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands and urge all citizens to plant trees to gladden the hearts and promote the well-being of this and future generations. So Jim, I'll let you as our arborist say a few words if you'd like to.

Well, I would just like to thank Mayor and Council and city manager for all the support we get. We couldn't plant trees without the support of these folks up here. So we really appreciate it. And thank you for recognizing Arbor Day for us. Thank you.

Any word? Thank

you. I just wanna say thank you to John and Jim for their support over many years here. You know we value trees so highly in this city and it is a high priority to this board and and to pass boards. And because of that, we've established and thanks to Jim's hard work over the years, some really amazing tree programs in this city that did not exist before Jim came on board and we created the arborist position. And then John making sure that our trees are healthy and well maintained and John recently got a promotion too.

So he's moving up the ranks, so we'll have a new tree person soon. But the work that they do every day really makes a difference here in this community. And even though we've been impacted by storms and lost a lot of trees over the year, we're fighting the good fight, getting them back and getting them back up to full strength. So thank you for what you do, we really really appreciate it.

Thank you. Okay, with that we will come back at 09:45. Okay. We are back and we are now at the audience participation portion of the agenda which will be limited to one hour. Speakers are not to address council members individually.

Any person making personal impertinent or slanderous remarks who becomes disorderly may be barred from the meeting. This is an opportunity to provide the City Council with your comments. City Council will not respond to any questions or comments during this time per the City Code and the members city staff may follow-up with you if it's appropriate. Any documents shown during audience participation or part of the meeting must be given to the clerk for the official record. Madam Clerk, who is our first speaker?

Our first speaker is Joan Farrell.

Former Councilmember Farrell, good morning and welcome.

I'm Joan Farrell and I'm speaking about Ellen Larson, the Yoga on the Beach instructor who has been back in town since November and her classes have been largely disrupted by a sexual offender, not a sexual predator. A predator has been convicted more than once. However, I'm gonna clarify, please understand that many times when someone finally does get arrested, they've committed the same crime multiple times and they finally just got caught. So so there was a seventeen day streak as reported in the gondolier in which he did not disrupt. This might be due to the fact that he was Baker acted last week.

Eilin was able to talk him down last Friday in a rather strange conversation but it worked out well. However, on New Year's Day, she was returning from visiting a friend and she was driving by the Friendship Senior Center which is a very safe place usually. She decided that she needed to walk the dog and so she did and returned to her car and about a half hour later and was horrified to see that her passenger window had been smashed in and that the donation bag that she had was removed as well as donations for pets for vets. So about $300 I could be off on that amount. So very unsettling.

It's possible that she was tracked with a tracker on the car and I advised her to get with the police and find out what these trackers look like and I talked to officer Kim evidently they are very small and find out where they are at, if it's still on there. And it was just a very disruptive thing. That happened around 2PM in the afternoon at the Friendship Senior Center. But mostly I want to talk about the meeting that occurred in December. Representatives from the city manager's office, Venice Police Department and the Sarasota County Parks And Recreation met on Venice Beach at about 2PM in the afternoon.

So there weren't any students there. As you can see, can we go to the screen? That's how many students she has when that's kind of a full house thing that was evidently taken by a drone or airplane or something. At that meeting, the three groups, VPD, City Manager and Parks and Rec, decided that really what she needed to do to really get protected would be to move about 40 or 50 feet closer to the lifeguard stand and almost on top of the beach volleyball. As you can see, this is a large group and not easily moved, okay.

And there is another area way down the beach that's big but there is no parking lot. So this is really the only option for her. And she has been there for eighteen years, eighteen years will set a precedent by any standard. You can be a common law spouse I believe in about three. So she has first dibs on this and that's just the way it is.

You can see the huge number of people, we've talked about the economic impact, she feels alone now that she is on her own, okay, because she said she is not going to move 40 feet, get surrounded and have to bring out cones every day and put up a sandwich board with a whole bunch of rules just to get protected. That's preposterous, it's ludicrous. It's as if the police will say, I won't protect you here, only if you're over there. Police are tasked with protecting all the citizenry anywhere they're at in the city of Venice morning, noon and night. That's all I had.

I think this tomfoolery needs to end and that City Council needs to step up and resolve this problem now. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments Madam Clerk. The next speaker?

Our next speaker is Dennis King.

And Madam Clerk, two or five minutes? Two or five minutes.

I'm sorry, think he's five minutes.

Pardon me? Yes, am.

You'll have five minutes. Good morning and welcome.

Good morning. Mayor Peshoda, Vice Mayor Bolt and members of the City Council. I'm speaking with regard to the agenda item 20 six-four 72 later for the Venice Municipal Airport Master Plan update. My name is Dennis King. I'm a Venice property owner living near the airport and I've been I based an aircraft here since 2012.

I currently serve as President of the Venice Aviation Society, VASI, a non profit organization with more than 500 current and recent members, which includes local pilots, aircraft owners, local aircraft aviation businesses, flight instructors and students and aviation enthusiasts. Vassy is dedicated to promoting safety, sustainability and positive community relations at the Venice Airport. I'm also representing another hat is EAA Chapter twelve eighty five of which I'm a past president and it's focused on aviation education, innovation and outreach. Finally, I'm a former board member of the Gulf Shores Association in my neighborhood group whose members actively address airport noise issues. Vassy and EAA actively work to dispel some really incorrect myths that are out there Local pilots don't care about noise, public safety or our community with extremely few exceptions.

All of our members are committed neighbors who prioritized responsible operations. So there's a few initiatives here we want to promote. First one I want to mention is, you probably heard it all, the fly friendly procedures to reduce noise. We developed those procedures, Vassy did back in a number of years ago and at our own expense including preferred calm wind runway use and turbojet recommendations and ongoing education via signage, broadcasts and outreach to enhance compliance and minimize impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. And I think we've gone a long way in getting some it has to be voluntary according to FAA regulations.

The compliance is getting better and better, but we still have a ways to go. A lot of the people who are not complying are airplanes that fly in from training schools and things like that as well. Pilot safety, we're obviously committed to safety and we encourage the city to support the establishment of a control tower. And that's being evaluated in the master plan and it would improve efficiency and adherence to procedures without increasing overall traffic volume or attracting larger aircraft. And something I don't think people understand is the size of the aircraft that can fly in here are determined by the Venice runways and the class that they are.

It's based on how long they are and other things. That's not going to change if a tower is here. And to my knowledge, it would have no impact the tower would have no impact on aircraft size using the airport. So I think a lot of people think, hey, we get a control tower, we're going to be Sarasota one of these days. No, it can't happen here.

We also promote local student education. EAA Young Eagles flights are every month for children free airplane rides ages eight to 17. We foster flight training and flying to build the next generation of safe pilots and we provide student and public outreach through our sponsorship of Airport Day. Put this on your calendars, the airport day this year is the same day as the Agape Pi Day is March 7 and we're going to be giving airplane rides. So put that on your calendars.

The other thing we do is we do local student scholarships. Both Vassy and EAA provide annual scholarships to Venice High School students through that really great organization out there at Rotary Futures. They do an incredible job, make our part of it easy. And I'll just say it does have an impact. By the way, it's impressive to award those scholarships and look at the caliber of students that are out there.

Anytime you're worried about the next generation not knowing anything, go to Venice High School sometime. Our scholarships have been productive. We recently heard from high school graduate Sutton Montgomery who said, the scholarships EAA and VASI, we both gave him a scholarship, awarded me in 2021 helped me attend the Embry Riddle Aeronautical University where I graduated in December '24 with my degree in aeronautical sciences. Since then, I've acquired my certified flight instructor license and joined the Mesa pilot development program where I accumulated the one thousand hours for his ATP air transport rating. Now this is a big deal.

I now have a class date in March with Mesa Airlines. I'm going to ask

you to wrap up your comments if you can. Okay. Anyway,

this scholarship thing is working. So two additional interests we have here is we would like to promote a Venice Aviation Center with a dedicated facility airport sponsored by EAA, it'd be available to multiple aviation and basically any other public group which would enhance our community outreach and provide a venue for pilot safety workshops, educational programs.

This point I'm going ask you to leave your comments with the clerk and she can provide us all a copy. But at this point your time is up, okay? Okay. Thank you. Okay. With that we will move on to the consent section of the agenda. All matters listed under the consent section are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion unless an item is removed by a council member. There will be no separate discussions of these items. If discussion is desired by a council member, the item or items will be considered and voted upon at the end of the consent section. With that, are there any items the council would like to withdraw from the consent section? Okay, seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor. I move to approve items on the consent section. Seconded by Mr. Howard. And we'll go

all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anybody opposed? Passes unanimously. We are now on to council action and discussion. We have 20 six-four 70. Chair Efron from the Citizens Advisory Board is going to provide the annual report and request council approval of 2026 proposed agenda priorities. Mr. Efron, if you'd like to come forward and give us your presentation, we are very excited to hear from you today and thank you very much for being patient and waiting. I know you've been here for an hour, so thank you for that. At least everything that you were here for was exciting things, so.

Thank you. First, may I say to council happy New Year to all of you and thanks for all of your service and also in those comments and congratulate council person Frank for the birth of a beautiful daughter. And speaking of infancy, I must tell you that the Citizens Advisory Board is going into its second year. We're still in our are proud And speaking we of children, I must mention the father of of the CAB, the CAB, the first president of the organization, put us in the right direction and that is council person Weed, and we thank you for that. Although you abandoned the family to take another position.

I feel personally very good about this organization and certainly counsel when you decided to have this and condensed the various advisory groups, you were also uncertain about how this would be launched. We have tackled some issues which have taken a great deal of work and time. There has been for this committee great attendance and participation. People show up and participate which I know was a concern with many of the other committees. They have been very dedicated to the various task at his hands and have had an openness to listening to others.

I would also like to thank the city manager, mister Klench, all the staff, especially those who are here, clerk for your wonderful guidance. Kelly, you have been absolutely wonderful. And to Amanda Hawkins also from the clerk who's done a tremendous job of corralling me as president and guiding me with that. One of the things, excuse me, in front of you have a report sharing basically what we have done and what we plan to tackle. One of my old annoyances is when someone does a PowerPoint presentation, they read everything on the screen.

So I'm not going over the report with the assumption that you spent last night reading the report, what then as compared to watching the Steelers getting their butt kicked. We are very, very proud of what we have done especially with our post hurricane report. We have worked on providing advice and direction to councils such as naming of the park or the blessings of appropriate levels for the bike path, bike program. We're enthusiastically looking forward to the web design and the park master plan. The only part that I want to reiterate on the report is the concerns and challenge.

It is tough to deal with the sunshine laws, but they are what they are. People coming from different places, but somehow we have been able to work as a team and get the job done. We have a term that we have used called the ringmaster. The ringmaster is a person who has volunteered and said that they will be in charge of coordinating the process. I think you know that Doctor.

Davis did a stellar job when it came to the hurricane report. She was the ringmaster. We have another ringmaster who has already started with the web. I must also digress for a moment and say we are so blessed with having a high school student who very engaged. And I have always been a little leery of well, sometime they sit there.

This young man has done a tremendous job and I wanted to thank Venice High School for having them. He is in his second year. I don't know if I will be around when he is president of The United States, but some of you will be and will they remember the day that Roger Effort predicted that. For me, of course, it has been an honor to serve as president. From so from an idea that is germinated from council, this committee is working, and appreciate all the advice that some of you have given.

I appreciate the guidance that the mayor has given us and he has been at all the meetings and has helped us with some alignment. I hope that the city, the cab is considered to be an integral part of the city operation and will continue their work in the future. The other comment that I wanted to make is that one of the things we like to see is public participation and having people attend and speak at our meetings. I will also say that the staff for the city has been very good. And again, we are trying different things and one of the meetings we had that a staff member, I won't mention Mr.

Clinch's name, wanted to interject, he wanted to look over a report before we finished it and he has been great. Well, we basically said to him, stay in your lane. That is we want this report to be thoroughly from the citizens. We got input. And so I need to tell the public that the Citizens Advisory Board is in fact the thoughts and conclusions that the Citizens Advisory Board has provided.

So in terms of the future, may I leave my final comments to the city council to all of you to first thank you. And then to say to all of you in terms of the CAB, bring it on, we are ready. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Efron from the council? Alright, we will go with Ms. Frank then me.

Wonderful. Thank you Mr. Efron. I just wanted to comment, thankfully we didn't have an active hurricane season this year but I know the very extensive work that went into the hurricane after action report and while we weren't able to comment from the dais when it was initially presented, I have every confidence that come next hurricane season if there is any need to put those solutions into action that our staff is truly fully equipped to take recommendations and so I wanted to thank you, Doctor. Davis and the entire CAB for the extensive amount of time and energy that went into that report and I have faith that our staff is going to carry that document.

It's going be a living breathing document that continues to evolve over time. The one other comment I had is I look forward to the parks updates, the parks master plan that's on your horizon for the future. I know there's a lot of action up in North Venice and then obviously with Wellfield, especially curious on how that continues to evolve the conversations with the county. And so in advance I appreciate the extensive work that the CAB will do to make sure Wellfield and our other parks that are developing right now become the best that they can be. So thank you for your work on that.

Thank you.

I'll just say a few things. I can definitely show up to the meeting and say these comments to the whole Board, but I want to make sure that it's said from the dais that I really appreciate all the work that you guys are doing. This was a very daunting task when we actually sat, the charter officers and I at the direction of council to try to merge the other boards and come up with a board that would suit all of the responsibilities of the other boards, but also trying to keep you guys on track and give you a solid mission that you can you can run forward with. You guys have done a phenomenal job and yes, there's always growing pains like you said, you are in your infancy and this is a new board, but you know, you guys have definitely made it a lot easier to work with you in in being concise, in keeping your meetings on track and asking for clarification when you need it. So I really do appreciate all of the effort.

Mean, I watch you guys, you are trying really hard every time you guys meet, even outside of those meetings, the amount of time and effort you guys put into it. I won't single out Doctor. Davis, but I will single out Doctor. Davis, I mean, I know she puts in countless hours of extra time and as you mentioned Mr. Heeney and his involvement as a student, he still finds a lot of extra time to put in.

So the entire board and a lot of you folks are still working and you're doing this of your own free volunteer time and I just my hat off to you of course. The one thing I will say about the presentation today is I really do appreciate you guys over time receive legislative referrals from us and then you give us some that you may think are appropriate for the board. And we had a pretty big list and you guys have done a pretty good job of kind of bringing that down to something a little bit more concise, wrapping some of your items up into your standing priorities which I think is great. It simplifies this so that it's easy for even the public to take a look at and say, okay, these are the three things or four things that they're going to be working on this year. So I'm very happy with what you guys are presenting today.

I am going to make a motion when we're done with questions and I couldn't do it without you guys bringing us a document like this that makes it so easy to push forward. So again, thank you for taking your time out of your morning to be here. Know you've got plenty of other things to do, maybe a golf course or something like that, but no, I do appreciate you being here and giving us that report. And I know you could have spent an hour on accolades, but I think you hit it on the head with staff's involvement, but also the board. I mean, they have it can be tricky a lot of times. Everybody has got a direction they want to head in and trying to keep everybody wrangled as you say, know, just my hats off to you thank you I for

wanted to say that the only thing I am missing today is a standing ovation from me to my fellow members who have made it so easy for me and they have been at all meetings, participated, have done their job. So you have nominated them and appointed, you put together a all star team and I am very honored to serve as the chair of that group.

I do miss being able to talk to Mr. Weed way more freely than we can now. So I will say that. I mean you're great and all but you know I do miss talking freely to Mr. Weed. Anything else from the council for Mr. Efron?

No. Thank you.

Madam Clerk, anybody signed up to speak? No. All right. And with that, I'm going to go ahead and move that we approve the proposed citizen advisory board agenda priorities A, B, C and G. If you look, you'll see that D and E and F have kind of been wrapped up into their standing priorities. So my motion is to approve the priorities A, B, C and G. Second. Seconded by vice mayor Bolt. Any council discussion? Seeing none, then we'll go ahead and do an electronic vote. Madam clerk, if you can ready us for that electronic vote. Council members, when your lights are flashing, you can indicate your vote. And Madam Clerk, can tally and display. Passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Efforts.

Thank you. Have a nice day. Keep up your great work.

Okay.

We are now on to public hearings. Ordinance is first reading, ordinance number 2,020 six-one and, this is a quasi judicial procedure and the public hearing is now open. Madam Clerk, can you read the ordinance by title only please?

An ordinance amending the official zoning atlas of the City Of Venice, Florida pursuant to zoning map amendment petition number 20 five-48RZ to change the zoning designation of the property generally located at the Northeast Corner Of Auburn and Border Road South Of I 75 from Sarasota County open use rural to City Of Venice residential single family three providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict here with providing for severability and providing an effective date.

Okay. And if there's anyone out in the audience that wishing to speak, please go ahead and go to the back of the room and complete the speaker card check-in at the kiosk in the back of the room and staff is available to help you if you need that. Madam Attorney, if you could go ahead and inquire as to conflicts of interest or ex parte communications.

If anyone has a potential conflict of interest, please indicate that at this time. Okay, seeing none if you've had any ex parte communications that are not part of the record presently then I ask that you disclose those. We'll start with Mr. Engelke.

Yes, I view the Planning Commission meeting November 17 when this was discussed.

I also viewed that and made a site visit. Nothing.

Site visit. Site visit.

Site visit.

Nothing.

Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have any written communication?

No, we don't.

All right. Then we will go ahead and start with the staff presentation.

Good morning, Britney Smith for the record, plan here at City of Venice and I have signed a speaker's card. Happy New Year to everyone, welcome back. So we're here today to talk about Zoning Map Amendment, Petition number 2548 R Z, Zucknick Border Road. The agent is Martin Black and the owner is TR Zucknick Inc. For a little bit of general information, the address is Northeast Corner Of Auburn And Border Road, South Of I-seventy 5 with the request being rezoning from Sarasota County Open Use Rural or OUR to the City of Venice residential single family three.

The parcel size is approximately 10.73 acres with the existing future land use of low density residential and the zoning of Sarasota County OUR. This was in the Pine Brook neighborhood. A little bit on the project description. This request again is to change the zoning of the property from OUR which is the Sarasota County zoning allowing one dwelling unit per 10 acres to the City Of Venice residential RSF three zoning district which allows density of one to five dwelling units per acre, which is an implementing zoning district for low density residential. The number of units for this would be 54 dwelling units and the Planning Commission has recommended this to City Council in the November 17 meeting with a vote of six yes and one no.

This is an aerial map the project showing its general location. A site photo of the site as it exists now. We're gonna look at the existing and proposed conditions. We'll look at the future land use and zoning maps and the surrounding land uses. So here's the future land use map showing that the property is low density residential.

To the west, you'll see mixed use residential. To the south, you'll see low density residential. And then to the north and to the east of the project is a very wide span that is the I-seventy 5 Corridor. Here is the existing zoning showing the OUR and the proposed zoning showing the RSF 3. To the South, you have RSF 3.

To the North and the East, you have again the I-seventy 5 Corridor. And then to the West there, you have a PUD or planned unit development. Surrounding land uses, I won't go over the zoning and the future land uses, we just looked at that on the map. But to the West you do have Waterford and to the South there is an approved residential development which is Casada Oaks. For planning analysis we're gonna look at comparison of existing and proposed zoning, the comprehensive plan consistency, and land development code compliance.

So for comparison of existing and proposed, the OUR zoning is intended to retain an open character of the land. This is a county zoning, this is a city property so rezoning is something that we need to do anyways. The uses in OUR are all listed here, I won't go into all of them but the top one here is agricultural production, crops, livestock, animal boarding. For RSF three, you'll see the uses, our single family detached dwelling, manufactured home dwellings, daycare, group living, essential

So

slide. Next next the

looking

acre, so you will see that change. There are lot width requirements that come with RSF three at 75 feet. And you'll see that the yard requirements are slightly different between the OUR and the RSF three. Building heights would stay consistent at 35 feet and building coverage with RSF three is 35. Looking at comprehensive plan consistency, look at strategy LU 1.2.3B for low density residential, which supports single family detached and attached residential and establish and maintain single family areas neighborhoods.

And then I looked at strategy h g 1.1 which is housing, but the city wants to promote a range of housing options to ensure residents have different options that meet their economic circumstances and their seasonal status and special housing needs that they may have. The proposed project provides the option of different housing types which may provide those in the community with housing options that are consistent with strategy. So in conclusions of finding a fact with consistency with the comprehensive plan, analysis has been provided to determine consistency with the land use element strategies applicable to low density residential land use designation, strategies found in the Pine Brook neighborhood and other plan elements and this should be taken into consideration upon determining comprehensive plan consistency. For land development code compliance, this application has processed with the procedural requirements in Chapter 87, Section 1.7 of the LDC. In addition, this petition has been reviewed by the city's TRC and no issues regarding compliance with the land development code have been identified.

In the staff report and your agenda attachments, there are the responses to compatibility and decision criteria for your review. So in conclusion, upon review of the petition and the associated documents, comprehensive plan, land development code, staff report analysis and testimony provided during the public hearing, there is sufficient information on the record for city council to make a decision on zoning map amendment 2548RZ. Are there any questions for me?

Mr. Smith?

Thank you, Mayor. And thank you for your presentation.

Yeah.

You said that this is the correct implementing district and appreciate that. Is it the only correct implementing district or

is it It is not one of so the for low density residential you can have anything through RSF one to RSF three as an implementing district.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Howard?

Is the 54 units, is that proposed or is that what's available on this 10 acres?

That's what's proposed by the applicant.

Thank you.

Mr. Vice Mayor.

Brittany, refresh my memory. We've talked about this property before and I believe at one point they were requesting a significantly higher number.

Yes, that's a great point. So this has been before planning commission before as a project called Fox Cove with a different applicant. They were requesting a comprehensive plan change and a rezone. They opted to withdraw the rezone and stop after the comprehensive plan changes were not approved by the Planning Commission. They were asking for a change to moderate density residential and they were asking for a significant amount more of units.

I believe it was 74 units that they were requesting. And so this petition that is before you today consistent with low density residential and significantly less units.

Wonderful. Thank you for that info. Anyone

else? Okay. Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

We will move on to the applicant presentation. Mr. Marty Black, and you'll have twenty five minutes sir.

Again, officially happy new year and congratulations on the one hundred year anniversary. It's interesting I had a conversation during the break with a couple of folks having been city manager here, it's kind of nice to see the one hundred year anniversary so congratulations again. This petition is different from the last petition. I'm here actually representing the current property owner, Mr. Zucknik, who actually has owned the property since the time I was city manager, which is why I reflected on that piece, I remember him annexing into his property twenty some plus years ago.

I did make a comment, was asked during the break, during the planning commission, it said I've been doing this for almost fifty years, I went back and checked my numbers, it's actually forty six. And folks say you can't be that old and I admitted that I actually graduated college when I was 16 because of some issues with integration of schools in Buffalo and some mistakes made by a judge in putting us in the wrong grades. I've been doing this longer than I care to admit, but I don't think I'm that old, so I'm going continue to be young. This petition is a comprehensive plan consistent rezoning request for RSF 3, it is a 10.73 acre site. A little bit about the history for the last couple of years, Mr.

Zucknick has actually worked closely with the Venice Police Department and the Sheriff's Office because there had been a homeless camp on this site and attempted to get rid of it and go through it and ultimately, unfortunately, there was a massive fire on the site which is why it looks the way it does now. Much of the vegetation was burned and trees were destroyed. It actually set up a latrine and a fire camp and were cooking and living there, basically creating a nuisance and it took constant police and private owner activity but ultimately that has been cleared off and it has not returned but that led to some of the provisions. Mr. Zucknick is the current owner.

Did have the property under contract with the prior applicant who did seek to amend the city's comprehensive plan and seek a much higher intensity of the site. Our proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan at RSF three limits. It's a maximum of 54 units. We've actually not done any site planning or subdivision so the final yield and all of that is going be subject to the city subdivision process as we go forward. The prior request was for 72 units, this is roughly 25% reduction from the prior request or 18 fewer units.

It is consistent with the surrounding zoning pattern, there is RSF three and the mixed use residential that allows similar intensities of development. This site is a little different than those other parcels because of the magnitude of the frontage along I-seventy 5 and you do have existing man made storm water ponds that are on the site that we believe will act as a foundation for future storm water treatment and capacity at the time that it moves forward for future development. The request does support your land use strategy for single family developments within the City Of Venice. The prior request would have allowed multi family or other developments that frankly we are not seeking at this time, so this would be consistent from a look and feel with the other single family residential areas in the community, particularly in the Border Road Auburn, Pine Brook neighborhoods. Are not looking for frankly the zoning doesn't allow townhouse development, so this will be a single family community when it's ultimately developed and therefore complements the development pattern that exists in the area.

And I'm available for any questions.

Any questions from Councilman? Okay, I'll start us off. I'm a little concerned and you kind of brought this up as the frontage on 75. I don't understand why the RSF three versus a lower density given that frontage 50 units on that property is going to be pretty intense from a compatibility standpoint, very concerned.

We actually looked at this from what the prior applicant had suggested was to do a noise wall around that, so we anticipate a similar provision and that was actually supported by the adjoining neighbors in Pine Brook as it will benefit the golf course community, ultimately potentially sawgrass but primarily the Pine Rack. So we think any development of this site will require noise wall to be built and we've had that discussion with city staff to ensure that compatibility. But you do have, if you do fewer, it actually becomes less desirable because then you're talking about a much higher price point. So it's that balance between what would the market support versus spending the dollars to do the compatibility along the interstate with a noise wall.

And when you say the surrounding neighbors, are you indicating all of the surrounding neighbors or just Waterford in particular, Sawgrass as well, who exactly is all of the surrounding neighbors?

So during the community workshop meetings and also at the planning commission meetings, we had discussions with the neighbors in support of adding that noise wall and now for a number of years, they've been attempting to get FDOT to do that. As a new development, we would be doing that on our property, we'd have to get DOT permits obviously but we would not be seeking a state project, it would be part of the future development of the

site. Mr. Engelke?

Regarding the noise wall, this is one thing I do have a question on. Is this just for your property or would this noise wall extend beyond the limits of your property?

We would only be able to do that on our property because we don't only control the other property but as we've had discussions with the neighbors, they believe that that would help push DOT if you had a private development do that to help support their request that they've made to the Department of Transportation to extend the wall along that border with Pine Brook, particularly as the interstate has been widened in the last decade or so.

Anyone else? Okay. Alright. Then with that, Madam Clerk, you have anybody signed up to speak? No. Okay. Then I'll give a chance to staff for a final comment or rebuttal. Okay. And then as well to the applicant if you have any final comments or rebuttal.

None at this time.

Okay. Then with that the public hearing is now closed and I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Ingleke. Based on

the evidence on the record, I move that ordinance number 20,261 be approved on the first reading and scheduled for final reading.

Seconded by Vice Mayor Bolt. Any council discussion? Mr. Weed?

Thank you Mr. Mayor. Yes, really wanted to open this discussion. I hope we have an open discussion and some participation on this. I do have some concerns with the elevation of this land, the existing use of it for drainage, the proximity to I-seventy 5, it seems that this property is kind of being shoehorned in there.

And I am just really curious on the other council members' thoughts on that. I appreciate the fact that density has been lowered but I still just have a concern with a property that has the special characteristics that this property has of having that intensive use of it. Thank you.

Alright, we'll go with Mr. Howard next and then Vice Mayor Volt.

I tend to agree with co counsel Weed. The challenge with RSF three is the range is one to five. So across the street, you've got less than two, Waterford around three. We were challenged with density across the interstate. So it's not the first time that we've been challenged over the past probably two years with shoe horn, I like that term, it feels like backfilling or infilling and trying to put too much into one spot.

I'm also concerned about the flooding, proximity to interstate and I think if I've read there, 7,500 square foot per lot I think is what I noticed in the presentation. That's pretty tiny. So, yeah, I'm having struggles with the density. Mean obviously something's going to go there. This is two times in the last six months it's been before council, this being this piece of property. Thanks Mayor.

Vice Mayor Bolt. Thank you.

Yes, I commend the owner and Mr. Black for trying to move forward with something that fits more into the realm of what we're looking for. It's unfortunate because it's the development took place and now all of a sudden there's this one little triangle. But all that being said, I have concerns as well. I know there was traffic concerns during the last discussion, local people were concerned about more traffic, more traffic.

However, we always have to remember that we are a property state and this gentleman owns this property and has a lot of rights as to what he can do with it. So I have concerns but I also have confidence in our planning commission that they will help them through the rough time that they're going to have trying to figure out whether to build walls or how many units to put in there etcetera, etcetera. So I think from our standpoint, this meets the criteria that we have and I feel like we have to go ahead and move it forward. Thank you.

Ms. Frank did okay, Ms. Frank?

Thank you. Yes, I agree with my colleague, Mr. Vice Mayor Bolt. Just regarding the surrounding area, the reality that this property will be developed, I think residential makes a lot of sense in that area. I know there's concerns about its proximity to 75 but if I understood it correctly in all reality, the zoning that it currently has with the county, they would be able to develop one to 10 units there and we're looking at bringing it into the city obviously that being a benefit to the city and allowing them to develop single family in that area. I think it makes a lot of sense to have city zoning and I'd like to see it move forward. Thank you.

Mr. Engelke?

I'd like to echo my two colleagues up here regarding the residential. This is a distressed area or distressed piece of land because of location along 75. But I also have confidence that our site planners and our site planning procedures will make it so that it's going to be acceptable to us. So I think I have to move forward with the change here.

All right, and then I'll just sum up. Understand everyone's concerns and appreciate that. I just don't feel that it has to be RSF3. I think that I do appreciate that it's coming down in density request from the previous application, they're independent and I know if we're quite where we need to be on density for me to be comfortable approving it. So I just can't vote in favor today, but I'm hopeful that we can get to a proper zoning at some point. And I do understand the market concerns and with that, I wish you the best of luck but I can't be in support today. All right, with that we will go ahead and move to a vote. Madam Clerk, if you can ready us for an electronic vote please.

Mr. Mayor, before you actually tabulate that, would it be okay to reopen potentially for continuance because obviously we've the first time we've heard these items and so we can talk through the clients, see if there are ways to go through this because obviously we've annexed the property into the city and we will need a city zoning to move forward with any development. Madam Attorney, we haven't closed the public hearing and we do

have some votes submitted. So how would you like me to proceed with this request?

It's up to counsel's discretion if you want to, well, I don't know if he necessarily needs to reopen the public hearing. If he wants to make that request you can consider that. Now you have a pending motion so you'd have to it's really counsel's discretion whether you wish to rescind the pending motion and take up a consideration of a motion for continuance or you wish to proceed forward with the motion you have pending.

Would you like to rescind your motion Mr. Vice Mayor Bolton

Actually I think that was me.

Were you the motion maker, I'm sorry.

I will rescind.

Okay. All right. So then we can go ahead and rescind the motion and then I'll need a new motion to continue.

You could continue that to your next meeting would be great.

That was going to be my question is what the continuance request was.

Mr. Vice Mayor, I move that this issue be given a continuance until our next meeting.

Second.

Seconded by Ms. Frank.

And just for clarity that's February 10.

Okay. Any counsel discussion? Okay. Then Madam Clerk, if we can go ahead and do the electronic vote. Council members, when you're ready, you can indicate your vote. Alright, Madam Clerk, you can tally and display. Passes unanimously. With that, we'll go ahead and take a 10 break and we will come back at 10:45. Okay. We are back.

Alright, I believe we're on to twenty twenty six-two. We'll

open

the public hearing. Madam Clerk, you read the ordinance by title only please.

An ordinance of the City of Venice, Florida amending the code of ordinances Chapter 87 Land Development Code by amending Table 2.3.11 Knights Trail Development Standards and Table 2.3.13 mixed use districts use table. Pursuant to text amendment petition number 20 five-57a. M. By allowing single family detached, single family attached and two family dwellingpaired villas as a permitted use in the Knights Trail Mixed Use District and adding associated standards to the Knights Trail development standards table. Providing for repeal of all ordinances here with providing for severability and providing an effective date.

Madam Clerk do we have any written communication?

There were none.

Okay, we'll go ahead and start with the presentation by staff then.

Okay, good morning. For the record Nicole Tremblay, Senior Planner for the City Of Venice. And I would also like to wish you all a happy New Year and a big congratulations to Ms. Frank and your family. So we are looking today at a petition to change these standards in the Knights Trail zoning district as well as the permitted uses.

So this request is to add single family detached, single family attached, and two family impaired villas as permitted uses were currently prohibited in Knights Trail mixed use. And then they've also proposed some associated standards, building placement and lot standards and eliminating some of the form based code requirements as those don't work for single family development. So I put some comprehensive plan strategies in here for you all to see, so these are the ones that apply to this area. 1.2.9c is the mixed use corridor. It supports mixed use form based code and a campus style design.

However this request is for single family townhouses and duplexes so they wouldn't be using form based code but they would still be required to meet the density range for mixed use corridor in the future as well as the non residential development percentage. So we do have those minimum and maximum percentages in our comprehensive plan and there's a minimum 20% non residential development for this area. So if they were to provide single family uses in the future they would still have to meet those standards. And then strategy LU 1.2.11 is for mixed use development principles and that's kind of what guides the mixed use districts. They should be arranged in a compact and pedestrian friendly form and they should be deemed compatible internal to the mixed use area.

Looking at the land development code, there are three requirements for amendments to the LDR, the narrative, the consistency with the comp plan and a copy of the original and the strike through underline which they did provide. However I do want to let you know that there was an error in the applicant materials for the permitted use table. So I'll show you that now. So when planning commission saw the proposal, this item right here, single family detached had not been struck and replaced with a p for permitted. However that was the applicant's intent, the staff report, the ordinance, the legal notification and everything did reflect their intent to do this but this was missed in their materials.

So if this were to be adopted on second reading, this is how it would look, a p here rather than an x for permitted, detached, as well as the permitted, attached, and two family dwelling impaired villas. So that would be one change to incorporate into your motion if you were to approve this. I can also show you the development standards tables. Let's see, here are the proposed changes to the standards. So the existing standards would apply to non residential and multi family developments.

Single family detached would have setbacks more consistent with our typical single family development and a slightly smaller lot width and only a maximum lot coverage rather than a minimum. And then for a single family attached and two familypaired villas, the same setbacks although with a zero side setback as the buildings are going to be attached. And then smaller lots because the nature of townhomes are to be on smaller lots, individual lots as well as just the maximum rather than a minimum for lot coverage. And then these are the requirements of form based code that would be, they'd be exempted from basically if they were doing single family development because the encroachments along the frontage are more for a commercial type of development and mixed use, commercial or office or multifamily. And then the entrances, we would not expect that all single family entrances would be oriented towards the Main Street on Knights Trail, that would not be typical for a single family development.

So they've proposed to remove that requirement for single family as well. So that is pretty much the extent of their request and I 'd be happy to answer any questions you may have about these changes.

Any questions for staff? Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Alright we'll move on to the applicant's presentation.

Good morning for the record, Marty Black. Just want to indicate that we concur with the city staff comments and the planning commission's recommendation for approval. I apologize that we somehow missed the table of permitted uses because we went back in a couple of adjustments. We had it in some of the materials but not in the initial but obviously we had it in the development standards for the single family so that was the intent to provide that. This request, we've worked closely with the other property owners and their agents through the Boone Law Firm that are in the Knights Trail District and appreciate their comments and assistance as we've looked at that to make sure that each of the property owners in this area could participate in that process.

Your comprehensive plan at a very high level does support a variety of housing types. Primarily the reason for this is we can do this development today as a condominium but we thought it would be better to also include the option to plot these as individual homes for a number of reasons. One, with the market with some of the national builders that have come to the city, their ability to look at it corporately, they look at a plot as a single ownership with the land and the house going together as opposed to a land plot where you own some air rights, you have the ability to place it on there but it's not transferred the same way from a title perspective and that becomes difficult. Your comprehensive plan already provides that in the mixed use corridor that dwelling units may be conveyed through common ownership, subdivision planning or condominium. So what the intent of this proposal is, is really to activate that second item, the subdivision planning through the city's regulations rather than only going through the state.

So it would trigger the planning commission review and the city's planning process in order to achieve this. I would note that you currently permit these types of uses in some of the other Knights Trail districts but you also do not have development standards that allow you to build it. So effectively because we're able to get the consent of a couple of the owners to make this change, we suggest that the Planning Commission might be a good format to look at the other nitrate districts where this use is allowed and add them. It appears just to be an oversight and I think that's really what we're trying to do here is correct that. So with that, you have the three permitted, the three Ps.

We actually presented the same slide at the Planning Commission on how we all missed the ordinance, we did and then staff has already gone through the changes. These development standards are similar to what you see in some of your other residential districts, we can apply with that. We left the requirement for the architectural and some of the other standards that we believe reflect the design intent for the City Of Venice but we really removed items like requiring that every single family home front on Knights Trail Road, which is not practical. But having the commercial and the multi family front towards Knights Trail is appropriate so we left those intact for the other types of development within the district and we're available for any questions.

Any questions for the applicant? I don't see any, thank you sir. Alright, Madam Clerk, we have any of you signed up to speak?

We do.

Okay. Who's our first

speaker? Jeff Boone.

Alright. Mr. Boone, you'll have five minutes. Good morning and welcome.

Representing a nearby property owner. In the technical name of the property owner slips my mind at the moment, but it's the property that is at the Northeast Corner of Jean Green Road and Knights Trail. So it's south of the property that Mr. Black. And in a nutshell, this proposed amendment allows for property owners who want to buy a townhome to actually own it outright as opposed to being part of a condominium where you own the inside of your building and common areas.

What would be developed there would be exactly the same, no difference at all, it is simply a matter of allowing greater flexibility and ownership. And the current market is there are actually people who prefer to live in townhomes, but they really want to own it. And that's really what this is about. It's very simple and and that's really all that I need to say on this and certainly hope that you all, we have had other clients in other places in the city run into the same issue. So this is a needed change in our view.

Again, what ends up being developed there looks exactly the same. If you go inside the unit, it looks exactly the same. It's the same number of people. It's the same everything. The only difference is single family owner being able to own it as in essence like a single family home. Thank you.

Madam Clerk, anybody else signed up to speak?

That was it.

Okay. Then with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor. I move that ordinance number twenty twenty six dash zero three be approved on first reading and scheduled for final.

Did you say zero three or zero two? Two. Zero two. Okay. And seconded by Mr. Engelke and we'll go ahead and do council.

Sorry, just to clarify, you included with the revisions that were presented by staff?

Just restate it.

I move that ordinance number twenty twenty six-two be approved with

revisions. Prevented. You. All right, Mr. Weed.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. Actually my statement is actually a question to the City Attorney. We recently spent quite a bit of time discussing townhomes on the property that Mr. Boone referred to off of Gene Green Trail. I am curious what effect this change in rule would have on that application that we had previously denied?

I'd actually ask staff to chime in because I think that it's a different depending which property we're talking about, think that's a different zoning district.

Yes, Attorney Fernandez is correct. That's a different property and different zoning. So Mr. Boone was speaking of one that is Knights Trail zoned and that one is actually part of a PUD, it's part of Tuscana Isles. That one's to the South of Gene Green rather than the north.

Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate that information.

Okay, anybody else? Alright, then with that Madam Clerk, if you'll ready us for an electronic vote. Council members, when your lights are flashing, you can indicate your vote. Madam Clerk, you can tally and display. Passes unanimously.

And now we are on to twenty twenty six-three. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. And Madam Clerk when you are ready if you can read this ordinance by title only please.

An ordinance of the City of Venice, Florida annexing certain lands lying contiguous to the city limits pursuant to petition number 20Five-six80 and by Mary L. Clark, trustee of the Clark Family Trust into the corporate limits of the city of Venice, Florida and redefining the boundary lines of the city to include said addition providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict herewith providing for severability and providing an effective date.

And Madam Clerk, do we have any written communications?

There are none.

All right, then we will start with the presentation by staff.

Mr. Mayor just before we start since we have three applications, I'll just ask now if there's any potential conflicts of interest for any of these applications. Thank you.

As the city attorney mentioned there are three applications here so I'll give the most detail about the property with this one and then kind of condense for the rest. So this is an annexation petition for Baker Trust Ewing to annex 7.3 acres into the city's jurisdiction. The address is 2327 Ewing Drive. It's currently got a future land use of Sarasota County Rural and a zoning of Sarasota County open use estate and there are two associated petitions. So this property is within JPA Area 2 b sub area 2 and the applicant intends to develop residential units on the property.

I'll go into more detail about what JPA Area 2 says in a moment. And here's the aerial map, you can see this property has a single family home on it, it's south of the Palencia PUD and is currently within the county of course. So for existing conditions we'll look at the maps, future land use and zoning, site photos and the surrounding land uses. So here's the current future land use map. It has a rural designation, there's mixed use residential in the city to the North and the East that's Palencia.

To the West is more Sarasota County rural and then to the South is county officemultifamily residential. Here's the current zoning map with county zoning, county open use estate, residential multifamily in the county to the south there and then PUD zoning in the city. Here are some photos of the site as they exist today. It is, there's lots of vegetation, there is a house that you can kind of see in the bottom left but it's mostly undeveloped. So here are the surrounding land uses.

To the north as I mentioned is Valencia within the city. To the South is a drainage reservoir that's in the county and then further beyond that is a multi family project. To the east is an open space parcel for Valencia and then to the west is residential that's within the county. So for the planning analysis for an annexation we'll look at Florida statutes, comprehensive plan, and the land development code. Chapters one hundred sixty three and one hundred seventy one of the Florida statutes provide for adoption of a joint planning agreement which we have done many years ago with the county and the JPA identifies the lands that are candidates for annexation, it defines appropriate land uses and infrastructure needs for those properties, ensures protection of natural resources and establishes procedures for timely review and processing.

So we have followed procedures and consistent with the state statute the JPA does provide this ability to annex land into the city for this property. So this is in JPA area 2B sub area two as I mentioned. You can see sub area two outlined in red on the map. Area 2B allows in sub area two thirteen units per acre. It also defines for all three sub areas that the total square footage of non residential uses would not exceed two point o FAR and that the development would be served by city water and county sewer.

Area sub area one of this is basically all of Palencia as you can see and then sub area three is still within the county but that does allow up to 18 units per acre based on the JPA whereas this is 13 and the applicant has actually proposed to reduce it even more than that which we'll talk about with subsequent petitions. So consistency with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan includes the JPA so typically when we're talking about annexation consistency with the comp plan we're referencing how consistent is it with the JPA. It indicates the density limit for sub area two, it indicates the city water and county sewer as the service providers and then we will do further analysis of consistency with other strategies of the comp plan as subsequent petitions come in and become more relevant. So conclusions related to the comprehensive plan, analysis has been provided to determine consistency with chapters one hundred sixty three and one hundred seventy one of the Florida statutes, the joint planning agreement between the city and the county and this should be taken into consideration upon determining consistency.

Looking at compliance with the land development code there are six criteria that an application for annexation must meet. One is consistency with state statute, two is contiguousness and compactness of the property, three that it does not create an enclave, four that it is included in the annexation areas of the JPA or is already an enclave, that it has access to a public right of way and that a pre annexation agreement addresses existing uses and any other relevant matters and that that agreement has been executed. This was reviewed by the technical review committee, no issues regarding compliance with the land development code were identified and the pre annexation agreement was executed last year on 07/08/2025. And so upon review of this petition, Florida statutes, conference of plan, land development code, staff report and analysis and testimony provided during the hearing. We feel there's sufficient information for you all to take action on this petition and I'm happy to answer any questions about the annexation.

Any questions for staff? We'll start with Mr. Smith.

Thank you for your presentation. And I certainly favor the joint planning agreement in the areas that have been designated for future annexation that were carefully considered. I have these two questions. Is the annexation conditioned upon approval of the subsequent two related items?

Well the code does require that if you annex a property, you obtain a city future land use and zoning. You don't have to approve the ones that they have requested I suppose but they would need to seek a comprehensive plan amendment and a zoning map amendment if they were to be approved for annexation.

Right. But we can vote and annex it and then the next two items are completely separate and not Correct.

They used to stand on their own.

Still annexed, okay. And then second question, how many areas of the city are served by County sewer? That just seemed an oddity to me.

That is an excellent question. I don't know off the top of my head but I can research that and get back to you. Do you want to know about just the JPA? I'm assuming that they're all in the JPA. So I can find that out for you after these these hearings.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Okay, then we will bring up the applicant for his presentation, Mr. Black.

Again for the record, my name is Marty Black and I did sign related speaker cards for each of the three items. I'm going to go into similar amount of detail on this first one to kind of set the table for the annexation and subsequent petitions because I think it's beneficial for everybody to see these. I will start by saying that we had a number of residents to the north appear at the Planning Commission and for those of you either who attended or watched, because of some unique issues with the JPAs and the annexation, we had to go through a rather complex process in order to address residents concerns and I think that's why today, while we had a full house at the Planning Commission, we don't necessarily see the same thing here because we've tried to respond to their issues in a positive way. This application goes back to the joint planning agreement areas. There's an existing man made pond on the north side of this property and the developable area is really along the south side that adjoins the historic old cut ditch, what's called Curry Creek, it was really a farm ditch that was dug back in the early 20s.

This property was actually planned by John Nolan. He is most famous for doing all of his work on the island of Venice, but he actually planned what was referred to as Venice Palms and those other areas for the brotherhood of locomotive engineers. Historically this has a deep history and the engineer of record was actually named black but of no relation. So just wanted to provide a little history there. The property is served by Ewing Drive.

Ewing Drive is a county platted right of way. It exists along portions of it as a dirt unimproved road and any future development of the site will require permits from Sarasota County to pave and put utilities along the roadway. Mr. Smith you had a good question about utilities, primarily I'll say almost exclusively the areas to the East of I-seventy 5 in the city limits are served by Sarasota County lines for sanitary sewer through the agreement that was made with the Sarasota County and the City Of Venice, but all of the wastewater is actually treated at the Venice wastewater plant. So it was kind of a negotiated piece back when the joint planning agreement was set up because the county had participated in the development of the wastewater plant and effectively owns capacity and they are using that to repay their participation in the construction of that plant to serve those areas.

They had not made a similar investment in water infrastructure, so you see this odd split, but I'll tell you places like Tuscano Isles and other areas along Knights Trail and Laurel Road, they have a city water bill and they pay for county treatment of sewer and then the county effectively is a conduit into the city's wastewater plants. Long story but it's odd, it's different, I'm not sure that there are many like in the state but there are a few. For the annexation, recognizing some unique aspects of this, we actually had to play gymnastics with your comprehensive plan because your joint plan agreement sets a range of nine to 13 acres or units per acre. We were able to work through with the Planning Commission and the public to propose stipulations to the comprehensive plan amendment in rezoning that are complementary to this annexation that limit building height to 35 feet to kind of keep that single family residential character and that all structures would be set back a minimum of 300 feet from the existing homes in Valencia so that there is a good separation and buffer and limit the overall density to 60 units.

With the moderate density residential, it would have been substantially higher than that, almost a third higher. So we substantially reduced that and the only reason we're able to do that is you have a policy in your comp plan that allows us if we make this request at this time, to actually reduce it below your minimum. Because otherwise your minimum would apply and we'd have to do more units, we wanted to be good neighbors for the future development of this, so we made a special request during the planning commission hearing that's actually before you today. It kind of gets lost in all of the technical aspects, but effectively we're asking for less than what the joint planning agreement says we should do. And that's to improve the compatibility with the adjoining areas.

With regard to the overall area, it actually will be served an entrance off of Jacaranda Boulevard in all likelihood because of the proximity and that's where the easiest availability of utilities are. There is a power line easement that runs along the West Side. There will be no development allowed under that other than access and potentially storm water. But frankly the existing pond that's on-site is probably oversized for what ultimately may be required to treat any development on the southern portion of this property. I would like to highlight a number of items with the surrounding area, obviously you have the county OUE and you have the city PUD to the north with your mixed use residential.

The area though is substantially under development even in the Sarasota County portions. You have industrial future land use that's implemented by the Sarasota County major employment center, which is a high intensity development allows not only the industrial warehouse uses, but multifamily up to 18 units per acre. And then you'll see this lighter orange here to the left which is kind of kitty corner from the site, that is an RMF three zoning that has a 13 dwelling unit per acre. However, unlike the city of Venice, Sarasota County provides incentives for more intense development. That site is actually approved and is under construction, actually part of them are completed for over two eighty total apartment development.

And one of the legitimate questions we had from the public is why aren't you developing in the county and part of it is getting the county water across and further up Jacaranda. But secondly, frankly the current owner and the buyer didn't want to do that level of intensity of development next to single family homes on Ewing Drive. We just think this needs to be a transitional piece, likely will be townhomes just along the southern portion which is why you have the big separation that would come in off the site. So you have the city PUD, you have the site here off Ewing Drive which was proposed for annexation. This area is transitioning to Sarasota County RMF three which allows up to 18 dwelling units per acre and with the county 's provisions where you count half units if it's seven fifty square feet or less, you can actually do twice that.

So you're looking in the twenty to thirty range for units per acre effectively and then you have the county MEC major employment center which is primarily already One of the questions we have through annexation is, is it available for public road? There was some confusion by some of the existing residents off of Ibiza Lupin Court. Ewing Drive is a county plotted roadway and it has been that way since the 20s. When Nolan laid it out, it was actually provided as a public roadway. So we do have access to that.

One of the concerns they raised is they have a pedestrian, don't if you can see my little arrow that crosses Ewing, they actually obtain county right of way use permits for that crossing and that crossing will have to be respected for any future development of this site. I want to provide this full detail because if you looking at annexation, we got to talk about the other jurisdiction that's going have permitting authority is going to be Sarasota County for the wastewater and for the road access. And with that, just a quick snippet, there is the site as it was planted in the 1920s shaded in green. You will see Ewing Drive still exists along this area. It did change a little bit over time when they put in the interstate, they took part of it for Claremont.

So the normal block that would have existed back in the 20s got shaved out to the west of this when they put the interstate in. Otherwise, the lot and block pattern is pretty similar to where it was laid out in the 1920s. And with that, we'd ask your approval of the annexation and we're available for questions.

Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Smith, we'll start with you.

Thank you. Just wanna make sure I understood what you said. I asked you to repeat it really. The joint planning agreement has a minimum and you are going below that minimum density as a part of this annexation agreement?

As part of the rezoning and the comprehensive plan amendment, I think it may be one of the first times you see in the comprehensive plan stipulations but we thought that gives the public two layers of added protection. It's not just simply the rezoning quasi judicial, it triggers the legislative authority with the conference of plan stipulations which gives you as the elected board more discretion to say no if someone tries to come in, in the future and do more.

Okay. No, I appreciate that particularly obviously. You mentioned of course I did drive down that dirt road all back in there And but you said that the access would be off of Jackaranda but then you also said that they have to pay, the county would have to pay Ewing. So help me understand all of that.

The county will actually require that the developer pave that roadway and put the sidewalks in to meet the county standards out to Jacaranda.

The full length of

the full this site to the east. It won't require us to go back to the west.

To the west, okay. And then lastly if I can ask this, you showed us there is a large drainage pond on this property, is that right?

That's right.

And that pond would be adequate to drain what's planned to be built here but does that drainage pond in effect serve other properties as well?

No, not really. There is not any culverts that take water into the site and the site actually provides a pop off through the adjoining wetland which is in a conservation easement to the east as part of the development of Valencia.

Okay, so a large lake there that's DOT controlled is what it says on that lake.

This lake here that's on that site is not under DOT control, that's private.

No, I'm saying the other one, guess is to the west.

There's one to the west, that's correct. That's the drainage pond to the west that's for the interstate. That's just off this aerial actually. Let me see if I can show you different area that may have that. I don't know, yep. Don't know if you can actually see that here. There's a pond, I believe, I believe in here across the

It's a significant Right in here. Fenced off, yeah. Okay, thank you.

This is the pond right here that you're referring to. So this is Ewing Drive that runs through here, see where my little white arrow is, here's the interstate and where the road turns north on Claremont, there's the fenced in area with the pond that's DOT.

Okay, thank you.

I should have put my glasses on, I've been able to see better.

Any other questions for the applicant? Madam Clerk, do have anybody signed up to speak?

No, I don't.

Okay, then we will close the public hearing. And all understand the motion.

Mr. Mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor. I move that ordinance number twenty twenty six-three be approved on first reading and scheduled for final.

I would second that.

Second by Mr. Smith. Any council discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, if you can ready us for an electronic vote. Council members, when you're ready, you can indicate your vote as soon as the light is flashing.

And Madam Clerk, you can tally and display. Passes unanimously. We will move on to Ordinance number twenty twenty six-four. Public hearing is now open. And madam clerk, if you could read that ordinance by title only, please.

An ordinance of the City Of Venice, Florida amending the twenty seventeen to twenty twenty seven City Of Venice comprehensive plan future of land use map and associated pages pursuant to petition number 24 zero seven c p to change the future land use designation of specific real property located at 2327 Ewing Drive from Sarasota County Rural to City Of Venice, medium density residential providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict here with providing for severability and providing an effective date.

And Madam Clerk, do we have any written communication?

None.

Okay, then we'll start with the staff presentation.

Okay, thank you. So this is the associated conference of plan request to assign a City Of Venice medium residential future land use to the subject property. Okay, you've seen all the maps, here's the existing future land use map just to remind you currently it's county rural. It would go to city medium density residential. The existing zoning would change from open use estate to RMF three and we'll talk about that with the next petition.

Site photos are the same, surrounding land uses are the same. So we'll look at the land development code for our comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan consistency and statute compliance. So these are your decision criteria for our comprehensive plan future land use map amendment. Shall consider impacts to adopted level of service standards, consider the compatibility matrix and find the application in compliance with all other applicable elements in the comprehensive plan and Chapter 163 of the statutes. In addition transportation impact analysis is required for a future land use map amendment along three planning horizons.

They have provided that, the city's independent transportation consultant has deemed it compliant. There will also be a more specific study presented when they get to the point of development because this is sort of a maximum development scenario that they provide with the future land use map amendment. So I mentioned that the compatibility matrix is one of the key criteria, one of the decision criteria for a future land use map amendment. So the matrix you can see below here, we've got MEDR, medium density residential is what they're proposing. The rural and OUE around it is most similar to our LDR, we don't have rural so there's nothing in the matrix to compare that to.

But our lowest density is the low density residential. So that would be deemed to be presumed compatible. The office and multifamily to the south, the sub area three of the JPA that allows up 18 units per acre that would be comparable to our high density residential which also is noted to be presumed compatible in the matrix. Next to MUR which is the PUD Palencia, MEDR is listed as potentially in incompatible and there are mitigation strategies in the land development code for any potential incompatibilities that could be applied now or in the future at the point of plotting. However, the applicant has proposed stipulations which they did kind of preview with the last petition but I'll go over more now.

So the building height would not exceed 35 feet. There would be a separation of 300 feet to the north to the next next property and then density would be limited to a maximum of 60 units. So that would be more in line with the moderate density residential, they'd be in their density range for that which you can see in this matrix actually is presumed compatible. So that's something to consider based on their request for a lower density. So the Florida statutes provide a process for this future land use map change, this is considered a small scale amendment.

So there are criteria and types of data that should be used to develop the future land use map and then there are nine indicators of urban sprawl. The statute requires that at least four indicators against sprawl be met by by a proposed development in order to be approved for future land use map amendment. So four that have been identified as relevant here would be directing or locating growth and land development in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on the natural resources and ecosystems, promoting efficient and cost effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services, promoting walkable and connected communities and creating a balance of land uses based on the demands of the population. So conclusions, staff has provided analysis of the proposed future land use map amendment regarding consistency with the conference of plan, the land development code and other relevant city ordinances, resolutions or agreements. In addition, analysis has been provided by staff regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of Chapter 163.

This should be taken into consideration as you determine consistency with the conference of plan. I would also like to say you talked about it a little bit in the annexation petition but there is a provision in the comprehensive plan that allows the applicant to request through a rezoning petition lower density than provided in the comp plan. So that minimum is actually not in the JPA, I was hoping to correct the record on that during the last hearing but it's not in the JPA, it's in our comp plan. It's in the low, moderate, medium and high density residential strategies. So this going below the the minimum in that, they're allowed to request that from you through this process.

And so upon review of the petition statutes, conference of plan, land development code, staff report analysis and testimony, we believe there's sufficient information on the record to make your determination and I will answer any questions you may have.

Any questions for staff? Mr. Weed?

Thank you Mr. Mayor. The existing pond that is on the property, is there anything that protects that pond from from back filling? Is there anything that you know protects its status as a pond or is it just land that currently happens to be covered by water?

As it, to my knowledge is not a wetland or not been deemed a wetland, there's nothing in the comprehensive plan that prevents them from changing it. When they come to do a plot or a site plan they would need to provide storm water analysis and mitigate all their storm water disruption on-site. However there's nothing legally preventing them from changing that pond. They have provided a stipulation as I mentioned to have a 300 foot separation between development and the property to the north, so there is an implication that they would leave that part of the property the way that it is mostly but currently there's no strict requirement not to touch that pond in any way.

A follow-up question on that, the 300 foot setback is that for structure or does that also prohibit parking or other use of that area?

The motion by Planning Commission was written to include 300 foot separation from buildings. However, there's I would not expect there to be a parking lot on this property as they've indicated they're interested in doing townhomes. So typically the parking would be in front of or beside the units.

I understand, I'm just kind of being double advocates for saying what could happen to this property on a future developer that if the current owner does not end up developing it.

So thank

you very much for that information.

Mr. Engelke?

Yes, thanks. Some of the questions of Mr. Weed, I understand the questions. But are they for what we're doing now or would that be more of a site development plan? In other words, we're not really approving or disproving wetlands or acreage and all that kind of stuff that would be under the site plan? Just a clarification please.

Yes, that's correct. I would expect this to come in as a plat and I understand that when approving a comprehensive plan amendment you want to know what the plan for the future is. But those issues would be dealt with on a technical code compliant basis when they came in for a plot.

Okay, anybody else? Alright. Thank you. Thank you. We will hear from the applicant now, Mr. Black.

Again, for the record, Marty Black and I have signed the speaker card. Great questions and follow-up for the conference of plan item. Let me help a little bit with some of the questions. Let me see if I can pull up the appropriate area. Here we go.

This request is consistent with the implementing policy that allows us to request a lower intensity development as part of the application with the current rezoning petition. I would say because the JPA provides that this should be a moderate density that effectively we're, while I mean the language that allows us may not be in the JPA, the implementing language is in the comprehensive plan, I see them as traveling together which we appreciate the city attorney clarifying we could do stipulations on the comprehensive plan to address some of the site issues, Council Member Wee and Council Member Smith have raised. This water body that's on there is classified by the water management district as an other surface water, which means if we want to use it for storm water, we have to go through and permit it in the future for any future development of that site. The 300 feet, you'll see these are effectively the units across the north here and really part of the property a little bit to the west. But because of the property line and the power line easement, the 300 foot separation, we measure that to come down here to the extent of the existing pond.

So I think staff is correct. We anticipate development will be in here and that will likely be townhouses, townhouses put a parking space in a garage typically in the unit or in front of the unit. Frankly from a market perspective, we are going want those units to have a back view of the water that faces the pond and then the other units will have a back view that faces Curry Creek and your cul de sac will come down between the two rows of buildings. So just to preview that for the conference of plan side, the intent is to allow us if we are required through the permitting to reshape or somehow modify that pond for water treatment. You may or may not be aware, the water management district has imposed higher standards as of the end of last year.

So the pond as it exists today will need to have some work done to it to meet the new requirements both from what has to be planted in there and how it needs to be shaped and how it needs to be functioned. It wasn't designed to meet current standards and certainly not designed to meet the standards as of last quarter. So we do anticipate there will be some work in there but it will not be structural and it will not be parking. If it needs to, if the council is more comfortable, we're certainly comfortable saying that the 300 feet includes a prohibition against building or parking on the site because it makes no sense for us to fill a pond to put structures on, that's part of the reason we reduced the overall intensity is that's about all we can get and we don't intend to come back and ask for more. It will be developed with a single cul de sac and two rows of townhouses on each side.

So if that addresses some of the questions or concerns, we're certainly willing to accommodate that as part of the overall compatibility concerns for the community.

Any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you Mr. Black. Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Alright, we will move on to public comment. Madam Clerk, anybody signed up to speak?

No.

Public hearing is now closed. I will entertain a motion.

I would move that based on the evidence in the record, I move that ordinance number twenty twenty six-five be approved on first reading, scheduled for final reading, but with the additional requirement that we've just discussed which is that there will be a prohibition on building or parking in the 300 foot buffer on the north side of the property?

Think the number was 24.

Have It been twenty twenty

It should for your motion. Before Mr.

Smith. 2026. 2020 okay.

I'll tell you what the stipulation language is presently so we'll need some specificity if we're going to move forward with that motion. So right now how it's worded in the ordinance is there will be a minimum setback of 300 feet from any dwelling unit to the north property line along Ewing Drive.

I would suggest for building or parking be added as a clause after that.

That would be my intention.

I will second that.

Seconded by Mr. Ingleke. Council discussion?

Mayor, if I can. Just want to say that's commendable that the parties have worked with the neighbors and apparently satisfied them with these additional agreements such as the 300 foot buffer, such as the density concessions and so I commend them for that and I urge my colleagues to vote for this. Mr. Weed?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of different items. One just and the testimony I've heard, one of my main concerns of this property is that the the medium density seems to be kind of heavy. This is a not unique but a special piece of property with a lot of water uses on it.

You've got access both north and south of water. Just the number of units on that acreage just seems rather intense to me. My second question and it was, and I apologize this probably should have come up in the staff comments. On the comment on Florida Statutes 163.317768, it says small scale amendment review process. The third section there says it provides nine indicators of urban sprawl and requires at least four indicators against sprawl be met by proposed amendment.

And I just don't see that these four relevant indicators have been met. And I have a concern about that. And it is rather lengthy but it provokes efficient and cost effective provision, extension of public infrastructure, walkable connected communities, and that just seems kind of glossed over and I have a concern that that is not being appropriately addressed. And don't know if staff cares to comment to that or not but that is an issue I have with it.

Okay. Anyone else on council? Okay. Then with that we'll move to electronic vote. Madam clerk, you can ready us for that vote.

And Madam Clerk, you tally and display. Alright. Passes six to one. We'll move on to ordinance number twenty twenty six-five. This is a quasi judicial procedure. Public hearing is now open. Madam Clerk, if you could read the ordinance by title only please.

An ordinance amending the official zoning atlas of the City Of Florida pursuant to zoning map amendment petition number 25Dash08RZ to change the zoning designation for the property located at 2327 Ewing Drive from Sarasota County Open Use Estate 1 to the City Of Venice Residential Multifamily 3 providing for appeal of all ordinances in conflict here with preventing for severability and providing an effective date.

Okay. And if anybody would like to speak on this item, please indicate your request by checking in at the kiosk in the back of the room. Staff is available in the back of the room to help you if you should need it. Madam Attorney, if you could inquire us any conflicts of interest or ex parte communication?

We handled conflicts of interest already. So if you've had any ex parte communications that are not presently part of the record, please indicate what those are at this time. We'll start with Mr. Engelke.

I viewed the Planning Commission meeting online on November 17.

I also viewed the planning commission and made a site visit.

Planning commission. Site visit? Planning commission site visit.

Site visit. None.

Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have any written communication? No. Okay. And we'll do a staff presentation.

Thank you. Okay. So we're looking at the rezoning request for this property. Actually before I begin, can I answer a couple of questions that were asked? So Mr. Smith you asked about the County Sewer and there are 6,000 properties in the city served by county sewer. We receive about 1,400,000 gallons of wastewater from the county per day out of the 4,000,000 that we're treating. So that was the answer that I received from the assistant utilities director, I wanted to share that. And then to Mr. Weed, we can look more in-depth talking about the Florida statutes is something that actually we'd be happy to look at with you outside of a hearing.

But is up to you all to determine whether the indicators are met. We're not saying that they do meet everything when we provide these, we're saying these are some options for you to look at and determine whether they meet them. But there are more than the ones that I listed in the Florida statutes and they are something to consider because it is important to prevent sprawl, to prevent properties you know developing at low densities all throughout the city and taking up more of the natural resources and space than they need to. So I appreciate you looking into that and we would love to continue that conversation. So looking at the rezoning request here for this property, they are proposing to change the zoning from county open use estate to City Of Venice residential multifamily III.

And again they intend to develop residential units ideally as townhomes. So all the existing conditions are the same, here's the future land use map as proposed to the petition you just heard. The existing zoning shows open use as state and would be changed to RMF three. Surrounding land uses are the same. So for planning analysis we'll look at the comparison of districts, the comprehensive plan and land development code.

So the existing zoning is OUE. They would not be permitted to keep that zoning of course because it's a county designation. So while it may not be completely relevant, here are the standards for OUE. The density limit is one unit per five acres, so the maximum they could have is one unit. The height would be 35 feet, the lot coverage would be 20% and principal uses are residential agriculture, animal boarding, borrow pets, things of that nature.

So the proposal for RMF three would limit the density to 13 units per acre per the JPA however they have further limited themselves to just 60 units rather than the 95 that they would be able to get through that 13 units per acre. The height for RMF three is 46 feet by right with 10 feet available for understory parking, however, through the stipulations they have also proposed to limit themselves to 35 feet by right which is what they would currently have today. Lot coverage for RMF three is 40% and the permitted uses include single family attached, multifamily, group living and essential services with some conditional uses for other types of residential and group living. So consistency with the comprehensive plan, again the JPA is part of the comprehensive plan and we went over that with the annexation petition. Then strategy l u one point two point three c is for medium density residential which supports a variety of residential types including single family attached as the applicant has proposed as well as multifamily.

It's the appropriate implementing zoning district for medium density residential so their request is consistent with the petition you just heard and then their intent for residential development is also appropriate for this designation. There were no other strategies in the land use element or the Northeast neighborhood which this would become part of that were relevant to this proposal. So analysis has been provided to help Planning Commission and now council determine consistency with the land use element strategies applicable to the medium density residential future land use designation strategies in the Northeast neighborhood and other plan elements. Looking at the land development code, this was processed according to the procedures in chapter 87 section 1.7 for a zoning map amendment and there were no issues identified by the technical review committee. For this petition they do have to respond to the land use compatibility analysis.

Those responses were in your staff report and the agenda packet. And the special considerations in section four of the land development code do apply here because this is a property subject to the joint planning agreement and it's adjacent to Sarasota County zoning. So there are special considerations for compatibility that we would apply when they come in for a plat or a site and development plan on this property. And those include things like setbacks which they're already proposing, a large setback, architectural design and some of those mitigation techniques that you that we've talked about many times in the past and I have a copy of those if you want to see what those would look like that we would apply when they come for the plot. Conclusions related to the land development code, the proposed zoning map amendment has been deemed compliant and no inconsistencies were identified with the land development code.

So upon review of the petition, the statutes, the conference of plan, the land development code, staff report and analysis and testimony provided during the public hearing. There is sufficient information on the record to take action on the zoning map amendment petition. Do you have any questions for me?

Any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Then we will move on to the applicant presentation.

For the record, Marty Black and I have signed a seat speaker set effectively being sworn for this judicial hearing. Let me bring this slide up real quick here. The one thing I would like to add, and again this dates me, but believe it or not, these Florida statutes that deal with urban sprawl, I was part of the original group back in the 1980s that wrote this statute. Effectively just to give you the background on it, it was intended to require more intense development where water and sewer were available, so that you didn't have the conversion of property prematurely into a sprawling large acre developments on wells and septic tanks. The intent of the statute initially was to require cities to begin providing urban infrastructure, Venice was already doing that in order to provide that.

We will meet some of the other provisions for example dealing with walkability because we have to provide a sidewalk out to Jacaranda as part of the county right away permitting and obviously have some interconnectivity possibilities with that. Because the city has the PUD to the north that's effectively a gated community, there's not an ability to interconnect with it. So those are private roads and streets and sidewalks, but we will have access out to the public area. We will be served by central water and sewer and meet those urban intensity standards. That's part of the reason the state will review this through the expedited small scale plan amendment.

But again, do not anticipate any issues. As part of your consideration of the rezoning, just on the stipulations, we do consent to amending this rezoning to include the clause that that separation includes structures and parking as well. So that's a matter of the record going forward and thank you, that's the end of the presentation.

Any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you very much. Madam Clerk, do you any sign up to speak? No. Any final comments from staff? Final comments from the applicant? Hearing is now closed. And all I understand a motion. Motion.

Mr. Mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor. Based on the evidence in the record, I move that ordinance number twenty twenty six-five be approved on first reading and scheduled for final.

Before we have a second, would that include the revision to stipulation number two?

I knew that was coming. Yes, that includes the revision to stipulation number two.

Thank you. I will second.

Seconded by Mr. Engelke. Any counsel discussion?

Mr. Howard? I'd like to applaud Marty and the property owner working with the city. I wish we had more developments where we were sensitive to the residents, the property itself, access, looking at all globally rather than just trying to infill with how many units we can stack in a postage stamp size piece of property. The fact that you maintain your building height at 35 to 300 foot setback and density of 60, it just feels right.

And actually during all this process, I didn't realize that the big five or six buildings wrapping around what looks like two single family residences between this subject property and I-seventy 5 chose to not, annex into the city because of the density. They build more apartments, sticking with the county. That was, I learned something new that day. So that's it, Mayor. Thank you.

Mr. Weed. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to thank Mr. Black for the education and the clarification on these fraud rulings. I was reading that saying this is not compatible and I unfortunately was after the vote but I appreciate the clarification, education, the background on that. That made that answered my questions and I appreciate that effort. Thank you.

Right. Madam Clerk, if you'll make us ready for an electronic vote. Council members, when your light is flashing, you can indicate your vote. Madam Clerk, you can tally and display. Passes unanimously.

All right, we will break for lunch and come back at 01:15. Okay. We are back, and we are on to ordinances. Final reading, ordinance number two zero two five dash three six. This is a quasi judicial procedure and the public hearing is now open.

Madam clerk, if you could read the ordinance by title only, please.

An ordinance amending the official zoning atlas of the City Of Venice, Florida pursuant to zoning map amendment petition number 25Dash46RZ to change the zoning designation of the property generally located at 2001 Laurel Road from Commercial General to Laurel West providing for repeal of all ordinances and conflict here with providing for severability and providing an effective date.

If anyone wishes to speak, please check-in at the kiosk in the back indicating your request to speak and there is a staff member back there if you should need the assistance. Madam Attorney if you could inquire as to conflicts of interest or ex parte communications since the last hearing.

We don't need to handle conflicts of interest again, but if anyone has had any ex parte communications since the last hearing, please place those on the record this time. Start with Mr. Engelke. None.

None.

None. None. All

right. And then Madam Clerk, do we have any written communications since last hearing?

No.

All right. If we can get a staff update, if there is a staff update? Okay. And any questions of staff by counsel? Okay. We'll move on to the applicant. Do you have an update?

Good afternoon. For the record, Jackson, maybe the agent for the applicant. And property owner, just a quick update. Some of you all, I know you were in attendance at the Planning Commission last week. So this property involves a parcel within the Venice Crossings Commercial Center, the preliminary plat approval, subsequent amendments to that preliminary plat have been approved, reviewed by not only city but as it pertains to transportation.

This was discussed at length particularly for that Home Depot site and development plan that was approved last week at Planning Commission. Coordination with Sarasota County Schools, with Sarasota County Transportation and with DOT overall about traffic relating to this project. I know we're one little small chunk here today. We're talking about a 1.15 acre parcel within the overall 83 acre commercial center. But there was very good discussion at that hearing including comments from Planning and Zoning Director, Roger Clark, about the extensive coordination review that's taken place with that 83 acre commercial center parcel.

So I know there's been discussion about a master plan and so on and so on. And I really felt that point that the commercial center, the preliminary plat that governs this 83 acres is the master plan. I thought that was really driven home in an effective manner last week at the Planning Commission. So I did want to just bring that up. I know that was a topic of conversation at least at the first hearing.

We touched on last week that the preliminary plat is that's the master plan for transportation, that's overall generation, trip distribution, external access points, it's the master plan for storm water, it's the master plan for landscaping and buffering for the perimeter. So all of those desired coordination elements for the project in total. And then each individual piece in that 83 acres has to comply with that overall, what I'll call the master plan, the preliminary plat. That's the planning and the review that's gone into this overall site. Now again that's 83 acres here today, we're just talking about 1.15 acres.

But I wanted to emphasize that for you just since that had occurred between first reading and second reading. Again, this is a requested rezoning to Laurel West, that is an implementing zoning district per the comp plan for the mixed use corridor future land use designation. The staff report has no concerns about that zoning district next to districts or other nearby zoning districts. We do not have any concerns about that obviously, we're the ones proposing it. And then also the kind of the elephant in the room about okay, a potential proposed use even though we're only talking about the rezoning.

There are no concerns about the potential proposed use for this site that are raised by the staff report as well as far as relation to the existing adjacent zoning or the existing adjacent uses. So I just wanted to bring that up for you all. I am available for any questions you may have, but wanted to provide that update between first reading and now here second reading for this rezoning.

Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Ingokey?

Yes, thank you. This is more of a clarification. I did attend the Planning Commission meeting the other day but this overall was all talked about but not specific project. So I just want to put that on the record that I would have had extra communication but I did not look at it as being germane to this unit but that's for the record only.

Any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you so much. Madam Clerk, you have anybody signed up to speak?

We have one individual, Steve Carr.

Okay, Mr. Carr, good afternoon and welcome and you have five minutes, sir.

Good afternoon, mister mayor and city councilors. I would like to start by wishing you all happy happy and hope you had a happy and healthy and safe holiday season and it moves well into the new year. And to miss Frank, congratulations on the addition to your family. I would agree with the most recent speaker. A number of issues came up last week at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the Home Depot application.

To their credit, they've resolved a lot of mainly transportation issues, which a lot of folks that have mentioned things to me have indicated. So that was really quite nice. There is one and again my opinion, one thing left that was called for in the traffic analysis and that was improvements to the intersection at Pine Brook Road and Laurel Road. But regardless, is a county and state owned and maintained area. So at this point, not something that's being considered by the city of Venice or by the county to get done.

But that's one piece that has not yet been identified as being completed. But that will come up another time. So again, my name is Steve Carr, chairperson of the Central Venice Coalition. I'd like to also let you know that I'm here today to offer my opinion regarding the rezoning request for the car wash at the Venice Crossings Commercial Center. My first comment is pertaining to the project narrative.

I'll put that up on the screen. I've highlighted the last paragraph, proposed rezoning to Laurel West will not significantly change the allowable uses or intensity of the development on the site. And it's my contention that that is not accurate at this moment. Going to this sheet here, looking at the difference between the CG and the LW permissible concepts or items that are available and the difference in height, in my opinion points out that there is a definite possibility that the options for prospective homeowners or property owners in that area will be expanded by the approval of this rezoning and open up that LW zoning district. I also want to point out another thing, a second comment is that over the years, there has been probably numerous groups that have worked on the LDRs, not only developing them but making changes to them.

But up to this point, none of them have included car wash as a permissible use. There has been planning commissions work on city councilors, community members, everybody. So obviously this has been a consideration when those groups when they have done their work, but none of them have picked that to be a permissible use. In the version of from 2018 to the ones approved in 2022, it is now considered not permissible, but it could be a conditional use. And in my opinion, again, the land development regulations are a set of standards for the City Of Venice.

And in some cases, any exceptional or unique situation may be addressed with approval of a conditional use. On such cases as previous projects, the hospital, medical buildings, church, theater, there were unique circumstances where changes in zoning or approval of a conditional use made sense. But in this case, since there are several car washes in the vicinity, there does not appear to be a unique conditional use relative to this request that would warrant the zoning change. The applicant simply wants to create or operate a car wash, and a car wash by itself I don't believe is the unique conditional use. Therefore, given that there are no special conditional uses relative to this application that would result or warrant a rezoning change, I would encourage the counsel to deny this request.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Madam Clerk, anyone else?

That was it.

Okay. We'll allow for a staff rebuttal or final comments.

Britney Smith for the record planner, City of Venice. I just wanted to note that this is the rezone petition that is in front of you and not a conditional use petition.

Thank you.

And

Mr. Boone for your rebuttal or final comments.

All right, again for the record, Jackson Boone, agent for the applicant and property owner. I'll do my best to be brief here. I will use the overhead though, just to respond directly to a couple of comments about concerns about intensity and height, or what I picked up on. And obviously it's well understood Mr. Carr is not a fan of the car wash use.

He has every right to his opinion. He doesn't have to be a fan of a potential car wash. He spoke against the conditional use which was approved by the planning commission for the car wash, so I'm not surprised he's still voicing his opinion against that potential future use. But as it pertains to the intensity, so this is from your staff report, and intensity is measured in FAR, floor area ratio. They are identical between CG here in Laurel West, and then building height.

So yes, Mr. Carr is correct that building height, you have 46 feet by right in Laurel West as compared to the 35 plus an additional 10 by right in CG. However, you can get a conditional use request up to 85 feet approved, if you can get it approved in CG, same as you could get 75 feet by height exception, which is the new conditional use request for additional heights in the city. So you actually have an availability to go higher in CG as opposed to Laurel West. That being said, I called it the elephant in the room, but I'll mention it again because this is a rezoning not in site and development plan with a proposed use for implementation.

But if we're talking about a potential car wash site and development plan coming forward, I think we all can understand logically what those look like. They don't have two story or three story car wash facilities, they're single story. So to me I think a concern about potential building height is it's a concern on his end, but I don't believe that's a real concern here in my opinion. That being said, this is an implementing zoning district per the comp plan. This rezoning meets all the applicable criteria in the land development regulations, including the compatibility analysis criteria, and we respectfully request your approval. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, then with that, I'll close the public hearing and, entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Vice Mayor.

Based on the evidence in the record, I move that ordinance number twenty twenty five-thirty six be approved and adopted.

I'll second.

Seconded by Mr. Ingleke. Any council discussion? Mr. Weed?

Thank you, Mayor. Actually I'm gonna ask a favor of my colleagues. When this was first presented, I listened to all the evidence, saw everything that was presented, and I quite frankly thought it was gonna be a seven zero vote in favor. I obviously was wrong.

It was a

four to three vote. And since we are restricted on discussing things out of official meeting, I would really ask, honestly ask my colleagues to educate me, to tell the reasoning, and I'll start. What I see here is a property that has a zoning. The long term comp plan says that it is eligible for the Laurel West zoning and this appeared to be just the first tooth in the cog of changing all this over to LW. So I thought it was a very illogical situation.

I am not a fan of car washes, but unfortunately at this point in time also we are not talking about car washes, are about rezoning. We are not supposed to consider the car wash. So looking at the long term plan, looking at the LW as a permissible use, this apparently being the first cog in those steps, I went, yeah, does this get approved? And disclosure, as my colleague stated, I also was at the planning meeting and heard all about the Home Depot which did not address this parcel. So I did not feel feel that was apartheid communication.

But it did educate me into the fact that no, not all these parcels are gonna go LW. Home Depot is staying as it exists. It was a very hard vote at the last meeting for me and I would just ask my colleagues to indulge me if they can kind of give me their their thought process on how they came up with their solution. Just educate me into the thought process and help me out in my determination on this vote. Thank you. Anyone else?

Okay. And Mr. Angoke?

I guess my thought process was because I voted in favor for this before. It's not dissimilar to what we already have. And it's not like a car wash we're putting in the middle of Venice Avenue here. There's compatible or there's and this is where I have to maybe be re educated from our staff on zoning versus conditional use, but I'm going with the actual zoning. What's it kind of like around there and a car wash to me is not dissimilar from a drive through restaurant, maybe a auto repair store or something along those lines with traffic with the idea.

So that was my thought process. It's to say, hey, how do I get from here to there? So I just wanted to respond because you asked and that was my thought process.

Ms. Frank?

Yes, in response to my colleague Mr. Reed's inquiry and you know I did vote against this. I think I mentioned in my comments at the first reading that I too was torn specifically because the city stated you know they would like to see this parcel and its surrounding area all become consistent with Laurel West but as we've discussed that's not necessarily the case and you know on this particular rezone request it is indeed a rezone it's not pertaining to the end use but it's become very clear to us in the presentation from the applicant that the only reason why they need the rezone is indeed for the car wash use and you know it's within our authority to approve or deny a rezone request and we continue to hear feedback from our community that there's a plethora of storage units, there's a plethora of car washes and why I as a City Council member don't take privilege in telling private land users and owners what to do with their property. At the end of the day the applicant is asking something of us and I don't feel comfortable approving a rezone request that is only needed to allow for a car wash use.

Mr. Smith.

Largely agree with Ms. Frank. My concern was that we want this entire Venice Crossing to follow one zoning and not to have individual parcels within picking and choosing what's owning in order to get whatever they want individually within it. And that was the reason that I was opposed to it. And I would like to see the entire thing proposed as Laurel West actually and so it's kind of odd that I'm not in support of it but it's because they retained the option of doing many different things and then what little they didn't get, they asked for this particular parcel to have a different zoning.

That was my thinking Mr. Weed.

Vice Mayor Volt.

Thank you. I am just kind of going back and looking at some of the notes from the Planning Commission meeting and because I don't think I was at that one, I can't remember. At any rate, it seems to me that this is not the first opportunity around where we've had to readdress a particular parcel from a zoning stand point. If we stand by and say, everything is going to be under this zoning, it seriously prohibits landowners from doing some of the things that they want to do. Now I think I would be remiss if I said I loved car washes because that's not true.

But by the same token, I think that what is happening in that area has gotten expansive and so now you look at it more from a standpoint of common sense of what do the people need in that area, does this fit in or does it not. I don't necessarily want to make that decision but unfortunately it falls in our hands. So I think that just from my own thinking and I respect what you're saying by the way, I don't think you can take a large parcel and expect that the whole thing is going to stay in the same zoning. I think there's always going to be exceptions. I think we've seen that a million times in things that we've done over the last even year that there's always exceptions and the reason for those exceptions are whatever they are, but as long as they fit the parameters of the LDRs and the comprehensive plan etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, it sort of puts us in a box that we it is really in the best interest of the city to go ahead and move forward, at least in my opinion.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, if you'd reorder Mr. Weed last and we'll go with Mr. Howard next.

Thanks, Mayor. It's interesting that the I know we're not here to talk about car washes, we're here to talk about rezoning. But ironically, one of my conferences I went to had a section on environmental and I couldn't remember the last meeting. So I went back and looked at my notes and car washes was one of them and we all want to protect our environment, at least I do. Our our water, our vegetation, all things that makes Florida, Florida.

And so my position, and I won't talk about car washes even though that's not what we're talking about. I'm not a I'm not pro or or con against them, but if you go look at the information that's out there about hand washing your cars, it's it's not a good thing for the environment. When you wash a car, mean, it's it's just a plethora of stuff that come off of those things like wool, grease, road grime, rubber, hydrocarbons, blah blah blah. And if you're washing your car in your driveway, that's gonna flow down the driveway in the storm water, find our lakes, our rivers, our coastal areas, the outflows, or it'll go off the side of your driveway into the ground and find its way down to the water sources. So, my thought process from this is more environmental.

I I could I'm not a big fan of car washes either. And they seem to be, I guess they're profitable because they're everywhere. They're like storage units as to Mrs. Frank's comments. But from an environmental perspective, I think car washes are better for our environment than hand washing your car in your driveway. Go look it up. I mean, all the facts are out there. So I agree with Vice Mayor Poe, and I agree with Mr. Smith that there is probably no one size fits all. But I do also agree with mister Inglekey that I'm going to get to you Rachel and you mayor.

This this development is going to be a plethora of services and, I'm not quite sure sometimes as mister Weed said, some of these decisions are very difficult to make decision. And what's the best thing for the greater good? Personally, I'll take a car wash over you washing your car in your driveway any other week. Thank you, Mayor.

Mr. Weed?

I just want to offer my sincere thanks to your willingness to participate in this, to share your thoughts and I appreciate it greatly. Thank you very much for indulging me. Thank you.

All right. Madam Clerk, we'll go ahead and do an electronic vote. And you can tally and display. And it passes five to two. Okay. The next ordinance we've got ordinances number two zero two five dash three seven three eight and three nine. They will be rescheduled and renoted due to an advertising error. So with that, we are moving on to resolutions and we are at resolution number twenty twenty six-two and this is a resolution of the City Of Minnesota, Florida renaming the Centennial Park Gazebo.

Skipped one Mr. Mayor.

Did I miss one? No, I did miss one, okay. Well, let's go back a little bit in time. Alright. Page 11 of 14, we are at ordinance number two zero two five dash four five. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing and Madam Clerk, if you'd like to read that ordinance by title only please.

An ordinance of the City of Venice, Florida amending the code of ordinances chapter 87 land development code section one point one point three historic and architectural preservation board pursuant to text amendment petition number twenty five dash six nine a. M. By changing the board's requirement for a Venice Main Street membership to a preference. Providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict here with providing for severability and providing an effective date.

And Madam Clerk, have we had any written communication since last hearing?

No.

Okay. Is there an update from staff since last hearing? No. Okay. And do we have any public comment?

No one signed up.

All right. Then I'll close the public hearing.

Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Vice Mayor.

I move that ordinance number twenty twenty five-forty five be approved and adopted.

Seconded by Mr. Howard. Any council discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, if you'll ready us for an electronic vote. Council members, when your lights are flashing, you can indicate your vote. And Madam Clerk, can tally and display. Passes unanimously. Alright. Now we can go on to resolutions. Resolution number twenty twenty six-two and I'll open the public hearing. And Madam Clerk you can read the resolution by title only.

A resolution of the City Of Venice, Florida renaming the Centennial Park Gazebo to the Robert and Susan Vetter Gazebo and providing an effective date.

All right and any council members have any questions for staff? Okay. Madam Clerk, we have anybody signed up to speak? No. Public hearing is now closed.

Mr. Mayor.

Ms. Frank. Mrs. Frank.

I move that Resolution No. Twenty twenty six-two be approved and adopted.

Mr. Weed, guys are second together. That was a tie, I'd have to have a little flag or something. Okay. Any council discussion? All right, then Madam Clerk, if you'll ready us for an electronic vote. And tally and display the vote, please. Passes unanimously. Alright. We are on to Resolution 2,020 six-one. Public hearing is now open. And Madam Clerk, if you could read the resolution by title only please.

A resolution of the City of Venice, Florida vacating a portion of existing right of way locating at 661 South Tamiami Trail as recorded in Plat Book five, Page 29 public records of Sarasota County, Florida and providing an effective date.

Do any council members have any questions for staff? Mr. Howard?

Yeah, I'd appreciate that. This is the property I think right behind Gold Rush, is that the location? I was trying to figure out exactly what the easement was and what we're vacating and I got as close as Fairway and Guild and 41 and I couldn't figure out exactly what I was looking at.

Sure. My understanding is this is that. We're We're going be do able that. The Southwest of to the existing right

of way.

So they left the right of way along the East Side Of 41. And so these properties have been systematically vacating that vacant portion of right of way. And the only real issue that staff has had throughout that process is ensuring we have an easement to protect our utilities that are in there. So we've done this on other properties along this corridor. And also in your agenda today is a utility easement to make sure our utilities are protected in that area.

Thanks for that.

Anyone else? Alright, Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to speak? Nope. Public hearing is now closed.

Mr. Mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor. I move that resolution number twenty twenty six-one be approved and adopted.

And I'll second.

Seconded by Mr. Engelke. Any council discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, if you're ready, yes for an electronic vote. Council members, when your lights are flashing, you can indicate your vote. And Madam Clerk, you can tally and display. Passes unanimously. All right. We're on to new business, utility easement. I'll just go ahead and read this one. Authorize the mayor to accept utility easement between six sixty one Southamiami Trail Inc. In the City Of Venice. Madam Clerk, you have any signed up to speak? No. I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Engelke.

I move to authorize the Mayor to accept utility easement between 661 South Tamiami Trail Inc. And the City Of Venice.

Seconded by Vice Mayor Bolt. Any council discussion? Madam Clerk, if you'll ready us for an electronic vote. And tally and display. Passes unanimously.

Alright, we are on to presentations. We will go ahead and bring up Shane Angolia and Estelle Boudesou and Associates, or Rakondos and Associates, if you guys want to come up and do your presentation on the airport master plan progress. Nick, name wasn't on here. I'm sorry. I can't I can't You give him a new title and now he thinks he can do anything.

Now that I made a big deal out of it, probably should state your name for the record though.

Yes. My name

is Nicholas Dumas, airport director for Venice Municipal Airport and I just wanted to do a quick introduction for Estelle and Shane. They are experts in planning. And they're going to give you guys hopefully a short presentation and answer any questions that you may have about the process for our airport master plan. So with that I will hand it off to Estelle and Shane and they'll guide you along and explain where we're at now, how we got here and our steps going forward.

Okay. Before I hand it off to them, Mr. City Manager.

Thank you, mayor. Just to tag on to that introduction, wanted to kinda let council know first thank you for taking the time today. This is a pretty robust, presentation, for good reason because this project is really significant. It's been going on now for just over a year and we're only about halfway through it. So the timing for this presentation today was intentional because this team is starting their public engagement process which they'll be talking about here in a little bit.