Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You broke it already. Somebody set the alarm over here. Fantastic. I'd like to call to order today's meeting of the Planning Commission for 02/17/2026. Could I have a roll call please?

Chair Snyder. I'm here. Mr. Wilson.

I'm here.

Mr. Hale.

I'm here.

Miss Sherberg. Here. Mister McKeon. Mister Young. Here. And Mister Jasper.

Here.

Kit contacted me and said he needed to go out of town. He asked his attendance today be excused. Is there any objection? Hearing none, we'll excuse Kit for today's meeting. I've got a set of minutes for February 3. Do I have a motion or any suggested revisions?

Mr. Chairman?

Yes.

I move that we accept the 02/03/2026 regular meeting minutes as presented.

Do I have a second? Second, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, Chair was aye. Do we have any one signed up for general audience participation today?

No, we do not.

All right. So then we'll turn to the first petition which, Brittany, I'm going to run these two together. Okay, thank you. We have a design alternative petition number 2555DA and we have a site development plan petition number 2513SP. They both deal with Venice Isle.

The staff is Britney Smith, the agent is Becca Saladzi. Hopefully, I got that right. And the applicant owner is the Venice Isle LLC. This is a quasi judicial hearing. I've got a memorandum that says, this is certified certified public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 01/17/2026 as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. So that applies to both hearings. So let me open both and ask the attorney to question Board members regarding any ex parte communications or potential conflicts of interest.

We may

have already done this at the last hearing, I'm just going to go ahead and do it again. If you have any potential conflicts of interest please place those in the record at this time. Okay, seeing none, if you haven't had any ex parte communications that are not presently part of the record please disclose those. Start with Mr. Jasper.

Site visit only. Site

visit only. Site only.

Thank you. You. Amanda, you'll make sure we got speakers' cards. Let me turn to Britney. I'm having deja vu all over again. But

Here we are.

Here we are.

Good afternoon everyone. Britney Smith for the record planner City of Venice. I have filled out a speaker's card. So we're here today to look at site and development plan petition number 2513SPVeniceIsle with the agent of Becasseldes with B Design LLC and the owner applicant Venice Isle LLC. For some general information, the property is located at 256 Nacomas Avenue South.

The request is to construct a new three story multiuse building. The approximate parcel size is 0.379 acres with the future land use of mixed use downtown and the zoning district of South Trail 1 and the Island neighborhood. Associated petition is 2,555 DA. This is for the proposed construction of a new three story mixed use building. For the Ground Floor, there would be two commercial retail spaces, one two thousand one hundred and fifty two square feet and the other one eleven sixteen square feet and garage parking for the residential tenants.

On the 2nd And 3rd Floor of this proposed building, there would be seven residential units ranging in size but totaling 12,361 square feet. The CAC was issued by Hapbee on 01/02/2026. This is an aerial map of the project. And here's a site plan showing the general layout on the property there. These are the elevations again that were approved by the Historic and Architectural Review Board.

For existing and proposed conditions, we're gonna look at the future land use, the zoning maps and the surrounding land uses. So this is the future land use map showing that to the North there we have mixed use downtown, to the South we have government to the East, and to the West, we have mixed use downtown. For the zoning map, to the North, we have South Trail 1. We have government to the South, and to the East we have South Trail 1, and to the West we have Downtown Edge. So the North is professional offices, the South is the library at the cultural campus there, to the East is Farley Funeral Home and to the West there are townhomes.

Planning analysis, we're going to look at comprehensive plan consistency, the land development code compliance, concurrency and mobility. So for comprehensive plan consistency we looked at strategy LUIS 1.1.2 mixed use downtown. The project is mixed use including the upper storey residential and the ground floor commercial. In this strategy, medium to high density residential uses are permitted and commercial offices are envisioned on the Ground Floor. Residential density range is 9.1 to eight dwelling units per acre.

This proposed project in front of you today is at the max of that at 18 dwelling units per acre. The nonresidential intensity on average for the parcel would be a FAR of 0.65. The proposed FAR for this project is 0.4. So conclusions of finding a fact with consistency with comprehensive plan, analysis of the land use element strategies applicable to mixed use downtown future land use designation, strategies found in the island neighborhood and other plant elements been provided and this analysis should be taken into consideration upon determining comprehensive plan consistency. For land development code compliance, this was processed with the procedural requirements contained in the code and reviewed by TRC.

The proposed plan outside of the requested design alternatives has been reviewed for compliance with regulations including but not limited to parking setbacks, land area height, lot coverage, lighting and landscaping requirements. Responses to land use compatibility analysis and decision criteria have been included in the staff report and are in the agenda for your review. Here's just a brief overview of the land development code compliance looking at what the required setbacks are, the building height and the parking. You'll see here the side and the rear setbacks are both alternatives so I'll get into that a little bit later but as far as the front setback and the building height and the parking, the applicant is compliant with those land development code standards. So in conclusions of finding a FALQA compliance with the Land Development Code regulations, the site and development plan has been reviewed and deemed compliant by the TRC and any issues identified during TRC review process have been addressed through this process.

For concurrency, utilities, public works and engineering have all confirmed compliance for the applicant's proposal. I'll leave this up here just for a second so that you can look at those numbers. For concurrency mobility, no issues have been identified regarding adequate public facilities capacity to accommodate the development of the project per section five of the land development code regulations. The applicant has provided a traffic impact analysis with proposed peak hour trips of 31 peak hour trips which is below the threshold for a traffic study and no issues have been identified. In conclusion, upon review of the petition and the associated documents, the comprehensive plan, the land development code regulations, staff report and analysis and testimony provided during the public hearing, there is sufficient information on the record for Planning Commission to take action on-site development plan petition number 2513SP.

Would you like me to go straight into reading the design alternative presentation?

Sure thing.

Okay. Okay. So for design alternative twenty five fifty five d a for Venice Isle, the request is for relief from chapter 87 table 4.5 for perimeter buffer, Section three point one point eight point b point one point a for driveway location, and Chapter 87 Table two point three point five point one for setbacks. I will not read all of that again to you but these are the citations on one slide. For the perimeter buffer requested design alternative, this is mixed use neighboring traditional zoning district which requires a buffer type of one.

Due to the proposed building design, the property layout, and the required parking, a design alternative has requested for no perimeter buffer or is identified on the plan set, it it would be a two foot buffer that is comprised of crushed shell, which wouldn't really meet the requirements of any of our perimeter buffers, so that's why I'm saying no perimeter buffer here. And that area is outlined in red here on this graphic. For the design alternative requested for driveway location, the code requires a minimum of 20 feet from the center of the driveway to the property line for nonresidential and mixed use districts. The design alternative is a request for a 17 foot setback. However the measurements exceed 20 feet as depicted on the site plan.

So I just want to go ahead and say that this design alternative is not needed. So this one, don't think about this one so much. Meets the requirements. So for setbacks, the required rear setback is a maximum of 20 feet for South Trail 1 and a side setback maximum of 15 feet. The applicant is requesting a 45 foot rear setback to the West and a 29 side setback to the South.

So for comprehensive plan consistency strategy LUIS 1.2.1 mixed use downtown. The project is in mixed use including the upper story and ground for commercial. They were within the proper density range and the proper FAR. Conclusions of finding a fact with comprehensive plan consistency analysis of the land use element strategies applicable to the mixed use downtown land use designation strategies found in the island neighborhood and the plan elements have been provided and this analysis should be taken into consideration upon determining comprehensive plan consistency. As we look at a design alternative, these are the decision criteria.

I'll read through them really quickly. Whether the design alternative is consistent with the stated purpose and intent of this LDR with the comprehensive plan. Two, whether the design alternative will have a material negative impact on adjacent uses and if so whether the applicant proposes to mitigate the negative impact to be created by the proposed design alternative. Three, whether the design alternative will permit superior design efficiency and performance. Four, if applicable, whether the design alternative is necessary to preserve or enhance significant existing environmental or cultural features such as trees, scenic areas, historic or architectural sites, public facilities and similar.

And last here, number five, whether the design alternative will result in a negative impact to the adopted level of service of public facilities. So for conclusions of finding a FACT compliance with the Land Development code, the subject petition has been processed with the procedural requirements of Chapter 87 to consider the design alternative. In addition, the petition has been reviewed by the TRC and no issues regarding compliance with the land development code were identified. So upon review of the petitions and the associated documents, comprehensive plan, the land development code, staff report and analysis and testimony provided during the public hearing, there is sufficient information record for Planning Commission to take action on design alternative 2555DA. Do you guys have any questions?

Thank you, Britney. Any questions? One for the lawyer. So we approve something that is not needed, is that? How does that work?

If it's truly not needed then there would be no need to approve it.

But it's likely to be included with the other two? Yes,

I mean there's no harm essentially in proceeding forward the approval of something that is not specifically needing its own approval.

Okay.

Is that lawyerly enough for you?

It's getting close.

Kind of like either which way, know there's no harm in moving it forward.

Okay. And I take it they had to jump through some hoops to do this design alternative and then found out later that it wasn't needed? Correct. Somebody went out and measured? Okay. And I'm assuming they didn't need a certificate of destruction or demolition because it's not a historic building.

I believe that they still do need that and that would be in processing a different permit they would need to get before they could get started.

Okay. That's still done by HAPI as I recall. Yes. Yeah, okay. Any other thing, anything else? Okay, do we have the applicant here? Who's ever coming? Or both of you? I don't know. We have two seats. Three of you? You have to fight over the seats. Good afternoon.

I'm an applicant.

Arthur Sowal, owner. If you

press the little button down there to make sure that turns green.

You got it?

Yeah, there you go. Okay.

Arthur Sowal, owner. Thank you.

Anything you want to present?

I think she did an excellent job of presenting everything. She always does. Yes. Any

questions of anybody? I just want to say the design looks really good. I know you probably had to go through a bunch of with the historic board. Many times did you go through, two or three? Three. We don't

want to answer that.

We plead the fifth. I get you. Yes, when they the balconies and everything else that is associated with that looks very nice.

We're anxious to get going on it.

Yes, I can understand. Because

it doesn't look nice right now. Never did.

I went down and looked at it and there's not a buffer on there today next to the No, no buffer right now.

No, right.

Very good. Anything else? Thank you.

Thank you.

We have anyone signed up to speak today from the audience?

No, we do not.

None on this one? Okay. Then I'm going to close the hearing or both hearings. We need two motions, one on the design alternative and one on the site development plan. Mr. Chairman? Yes, Mr. Wilson.

You turned on here. Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as the local planning agency finds this petition complies with the design alternative criteria Section 1.11.3 of the Land Development Code and therefore moves to approve design alternative petition number 20Five-55DA.

Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second. You, Gary. Any discussion on the design alternative? Hearing none, could I have a vote please? And that's approved six-zero. Well, yes, with one missing. And now do I have a motion on the site development plan petition?

I can do that again if you want.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay. I Okay. On review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as the local planning agency finds this petition consistent with the comprehensive plan in compliance with the Land Development Code and with the affirmative findings of fact in the record moves to approve Site and Development Plan Petition 20 five-thirteen SP. Thank you. Do I

have a second?

Second, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, could I vote please? And that's also approved. Six year. Okay. Moving right along. Next up is a site development plan petition number 2462SP for Panda Express. Staff is again Britney Smith. The agent is Matt Bienda. Hopefully that's right. And the owner is two thousand and one Laurel LLC. Again, this is a quasi judicial hearing. Let me open the public hearing and ask well, wait a minute. Somebody left out a step.

I got a memorandum that says this is to certify the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 01/31/2026 as required by the City Of Venice Land Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the Planning and Zika office. Now I'll open the public hearing and ask the attorney to question Board members regarding any ex parte communications or conflicts of interest?

Anyone has a possible conflict of interest, please indicate that now. Seeing none, if you've had any ex parte communications that are not presently part of the record, place those into the record.

Start with

Mr. Site visit only. Site visit only.

Site visit only.

Site visit

Site visit only frequent

customer. Not

of this one though.

No, the other one. Yes, okay.

Amanda, you'll make sure we get speaker cards. Britney, it's going to be a busy day for you.

Yes. So again, Britney Smith for The Rock planner, City of Venice. I have filled out a speaker's card. So today we're looking at site development plan petition number 2462SP for Panda Express. The agent is Matt Yada and the owner is two thousand and one Laurel LLC.

The address is 2001 Laurel Road. The request is for a construction of Appendix Press and associated facilities. The parcel size is approximately one point zero point six six acres with the future land use of mixed use corridor and the zoning of Commercial General and the Laurel Road neighborhood. So the building is proposed to be 2,700 square foot. The property has retained its CG zoning which is an inactive zoning district.

There is an alternative parking plan which is 33% over the parking maximum which requires approval by the planning commission through this petition. This is an aerial map of the project on where it's located in Venice Crossings. Here's the site plan showing the general layout of the site. And in the agenda packet, I have the full elevations. They're all kinda somewhat similar.

So on here I just put the front elevation for your review giving you the ability to see the height of the building and a little bit of the design features here. We're gonna look at existing and proposed conditions. We're gonna look at the future land use and zoning maps and the surrounding land uses. So surrounding to the east, to the north and to the west, we have the future land use of mixed use corridor. And then to the south, we have moderate density residential.

For the zoning map, we have the property surrounded on the east, the north and the west with commercial general zoning and then across the street we have the government. So as you know the the land is cleared out there so everything is vacant, it's been graded. So everything again to the east, the west and the north there are all part of the Venice Crossings development with the Laurel Nacoma Street being that Sarasota County zoning of government and moderate use or moderate density residential to the south. For planning analysis, we'll look at comprehensive plan consistency, land development code compliance and concurrency and on. And lot a on.

Project is in the Laurel Road neighborhood. And Nonresidential uses are limited to commercial and institutional professional, and this project is for a commercial use. The intensity and density has a FAR of 0.5 that is averaged and designation wide of one. This project has an FAR proposed at 0.06, so it's well under the allowable FAR for the parcel. Conclusions of finding a fact with consistency with comprehensive plan analysis of the land use element strategies applicable to the mixed use quarter future land use designation strategies found in the Lowell Road neighborhood and other plan elements has been provided and this analysis should be taken into consideration upon determining comprehensive plant consistency.

For land development code compliance, this has been processed with the procedural requirements contained in the code and has been reviewed by TRC. The proposed plan has been reviewed for compliance with but not limited to setbacks, land area, height, lot coverage, lighting and landscaping requirements. As mentioned before, this does have an alternative parking plan which is requesting over the maximum that the code has for parking. And responses to land use compatibility analysis and decision criteria have been included in the staff report and agenda for your review. And here's a few looks here at how it's meeting the code standards.

And then you can see the parking down there at the bottom with the minimum being 11 and the maximum being a twenty seven and thirty eight being requested by the applicant. So for conclusions of finding a fact with the land development code regulations, the site development plan has been reviewed and deemed compliant by the TRC, any issues identified during the TRC review have been addressed through this process. So here for your review for concurrency, the county services are provided, the potable water sanitary sewer by the county. Public works and engineering have confirmed the drainage and the solid waste. So concurrency and mobility, no issues were identified regarding adequate public facilities capacity to accommodate the project for section five of the land development code.

The applicant has provided a traffic impact statement showing the comparison of what's approved for Venice crossings and the impact of this project, which is thirty five p. M. Peak hour trips. It has been reviewed by city staff and the traffic consultant and is deemed de minimis and compliant. So upon review of the petition and associated documents, the comprehensive plan, land development code regulations, staff report analysis and testimony provided during the public hearing, there is sufficient information on the record for Planning Commission to take action on-site development plan petition number 2462SP. 2462SP. Do you have any questions for me?

Question? Go ahead, Beth.

Thank you. I'm looking at the, I believe it is the alternative parking.

Yes.

Information that we reviewed. And I'm looking at the traffic flow. It appears as though there are three entrances and exits. One of them is showing arrows pointing west towards a do not enter area and a temporary blocked area. So I'm wondering are we actually using three entrances and exits or only only two?

I can look into that a little bit further or the applicant can address that question for It's

the west what appears to be an entrance that says a temporary Jersey barrier and right adjacent to it is a do not enter area where cars would be moving out after they've received their food. So I'm just interested in the flow of traffic.

Can you bring it up on the screen while you got it there?

We go.

So I can you see where I'm pointing? This is what you're talking about right here. And I don't know, the applicant can speak to that further that may be there until the parcel next to it is further developed.

All right, thank you.

I see 15 or 16 signs with a total of what appears to be 149 square feet were within the boundaries of sign each?

Yes.

Okay. It's a lot of signs for I guess the driveway.

It's a

lot of signs.

Creates a lot of them. Very good. Any other questions? Thank you. Thanks. Is the applicant here? Ah, there he is.

Good afternoon. Garrett George with the CSO. I represent the applicant. I guess I can start, so I have nothing further to add to staff's presentation. Think she did a great job covering it. To address the circulation question, so there is nothing currently proposed to the west of the site. There will be cross access across all of those outparcels. We just don't know what's going be there yet, we're going block it off because they'd driving into a dirt lot. But in the future there will be access both to the east and west and then out the north to the main parking lot.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Ahead. Excuse

me. The layout that you have here, is it similar to the one on 41 South of the city?

Very similar. They are very prototypical.

Second question if I may. The traffic flow information used to justify the additional parking, is that similar to the information that was used in the traffic study?

It was used in the traffic study and we do these programmatically across the country in 30 plus states. And so I mean that's what they typically ask for just based on their operating data.

And one more if I may. On your sheet CO3-four which shows the plan for garbage and delivery. I noticed with the delivery truck, one of the red lines runs over an island in the parking area. And I want to know is that a mistake, does that mean the truck needs that much room to make it through there?

Off the top of my head, the red lines are the outer limits of the bumper. So it's not actually the wheels not crossing over, it's just the bumper overhang.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Do we have anyone from the public signed up for this one? Anyone from the audience on this one?

No, we do not.

All right. So let me close the public hearing. Do I have a motion?

Mr. Chick.

Yes, ma'am.

Based on review of the application materials, staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as the local planning agency finds its petition consistent with the comprehensive plan in compliance with the land development code and with the affirmative findings of fact in the record moves to approve the site and development plan petition number 20Four-62SP.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, could I have a vote please? And this one is also approved, six-zero. Okay. Next up, we've got three petitions associated with the same project. The first two I believe are legislated. Can I do those two together or do you want them separate?

You can go ahead and do them together. I mean they're fairly different but

I'll do them separately. One thing. So the first one is an annexation petition number twenty five dash nineteen a. M. This is Soleys at Venice. Staff is Britney Smith, the agent is Jackson Boone and the owner is P3LAF Chalets at Venice LP.

I like it when they give me a

mouthful of stuff to say. This is a legislative hearing. I have a memorandum that says that this is to certify the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 01/31/2026 as required by the City Of Venice Land Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. Let me open the hearing and ask the attorney to question board members regarding any potential conflicts of interest.

Yes, if anyone has any potential conflicts of interest regarding this property's application to follow it please place that on the record at this time. Have Okay,

very good. Britney.

Okay, so again Brittany Smith for the record, planner City of Venice and I have filled out a speaker's card. So today we're here to talk about twenty five nineteen A. N. Chalets of Venice, the applicant P3LAF Chalets at Venice LP and the agent is Jackson Boone of Boone Law Firm. The address of the property is 282 North Auburn Road.

The request is for annexation of 10.1209 acres into the city's jurisdiction. The future land use of the property currently is Sarasota County moderate density residential with the proposed future land use of mixed use residential. The zoning currently is Sarasota County open use estate or OU E1 with the proposed zoning of planned unit development in the Pine Brook neighborhood. The associated petitions are 2520CP and 2521RZ. So again this is for proposing to annex the 10.1209 acres within JPA Area 7.

The applicant intends to develop a residential unit. The petition as mentioned before, we have two petitions, SCP and the rezone that are running concurrently and the pre annexation agreement was approved by City Council on 02/10/2026. This is an aerial of the property here. It is a portion of this PID along the northern boundary here. For existing conditions, we'll look at the future land use map, zoning map, site photos, and surrounding land uses.

So for the existing future land use map, you'll see that to the North we have a low density residential, and then to the East and the South we have Sarasota County moderate density residential and then to the West we have mixed use residential. And then proposed future land use map here is showing that proposal of the mixed use residential that the applicant is requesting. The existing zoning map shows that to the north we have Sarasota County RE To the East is Sarasota County residential single family, moderate density as I mentioned before. And then to the south we have OUE1 with the proposed map showing the proposed zoning of planned unit development. Here is a site photo showing the currently vacant property.

And to the north, the subdivision there is Venice Acres, that is within Sarasota County. To the south is the remainder of subject parcel, which was a radio station. To the East is the subdivision of Venice Ranch and to the West is the city subdivision of Sawgrass. For planning analysis, we'll look at Florida Statutes' Comprehensive of plan and the land development code. So chapter one hundred sixty three and one hundred seventy one of Florida statute provide for the adoption of joint planning agreements and interlocal service boundaries.

The JP identifies lands that are logical candidates for future annexations, defines appropriate land uses and infrastructure needed in providers, and ensures protection on natural resources, and establishes procedures for timely review and processing. Consistent with these statutes, the JPA provides procedure for annexation of lands into the city. Here we're showing a GPA area seven which is what pertains to this property. Area 7 is Auburn Roads neighborhood. The land use adopted in the City Of Venice comprehensive plan for this area has a maximum of five dwelling units per acre and non residential uses shall not be permitted in this area.

The development shall be served by City Water and City sewer. So consistency with the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan includes the JPA. JPA Area 7 indicates that density of five dwelling units per acre. The property will be served by City Water and Sewer and future analysis of consistency with subsequent petitions. I know we do have application in for this property for a preliminary plat that you would be seeing next down the line.

So in conclusion of finding in fact consistency with comprehensive plan analysis has been provided to determine with Chapters one hundred sixty three and one hundred seventy one of Florida statute. The joint planning and interlocal service boundary agreement between the city and the county and this analysis should be taken into consideration upon determining comprehensive plan consistency. Compliance with the land development code, the city's land development code section 80 seven-1.42 provides instruction regarding annexation of lands. The planning commission and city council must find an application for an annexation demonstrates consistency with state statute regarding annexation, contiguous and compacted property, that the application does not create an enclave, that the property is included in the annexation areas that has been determined to be an existing enclave and that the property has access to the public right of way and our pre annexation agreement addresses the existing uses and other relevant matters has been executed. Conclusions of binding of black and compliance with the land development code, the subject petition complies with all the applicable land development code requirements and the pre annexation agreement again was executed on February 10.

So in conclusion, upon review of the petition, Florida statutes, comprehensive plan, land development code, staff report analysis and testimony provided during the public hearing, there is sufficient information on the record for Planning Commission to make a recommendation to City Council on annexation position number 2519AN.

Thank you. Any questions? Yes ma'am.

Thank you. Brittany could you go back to your slide, the JPA Area seven slide? Yes. Thank you. The highlighted in green area is Blackburn Canal. To the north of this property is the county and to the south will become the city if this is annexed in. Who, you may not know this, but who will retain ownership or responsibility for Blackburn Canal in that space?

So I can't speak to the north with that being on the county, but I can say that in the plan unit development binding master plan that the applicant has submitted through the rezone, it does show that that area is being preserved as conservation open space which is what I would see in this JPA area seven. So they have a fence that would be going in to the south side of this boundary and with the appropriate wildlife breaks in it as well that would maintain that area as conservation open space.

Conservation I would assume, but what I'm concerned about is the management of it because it is a major water thorough fare when we have heavy storms and whatnot. And it's a challenge in some of the other communities that we have. That's why I was asking. All right, thank you. You're welcome.

Mr. Chairman? For you about Curry Creek, go ahead. Yes.

While we're on this slide, the double negative at the bottom, I sometimes have double, double negatives. That means we're only going to build residential units there. It says it's a non residential shall not be. So to me that's a double negative. Wanted to make sure that was a yes.

Yes. So again, with the rezone petition, there is a binding master plan since it's a planned unit development and it is providing only residential uses. There are no non residential uses that are proposed.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Brittany, was there anything of significance or I shouldn't say significance, something that sticks out or is unique in the pre annexation agreement? It wasn't included in our material side and I didn't go back to try to find it but.

One of the stipulations that was kept in there and the applicant can maybe speak if I'm incorrect or I can come back and correct myself, but they did have a stipulation in there to maintain agricultural uses.

To allow those agricultural uses?

Just until they would

Until they start to work.

Yeah, until they would get that that they would still have that in Okay.

Seen Nothing else? Okay, Mr. Boone. Gonna have you guys up and down. Times.

Yeah I was joking with her that she should pass these off to Nicole, seeing if she did the first three. But for the record Jackson Boone, attorney at the Boone Law Firm, agent for the applicant. I am joined here by a large project team, but I'll introduce them when we get to the comp plan amendment application that seems to be more applicable there. Brittany did a good job hitting the high points here, just wanna reemphasize some of those for purposes of the record. The subject property, it's approximately 10.12 acres.

It is located there on the East Side Of Auburn Road. County future land use designations, modern density residential, county zoning designations OUE one. OUE one is typically that Holdover county zoning, moderate future land use density future land use designation that coincides with your RSFs, you may be able to do even in the county there as long as you don't exceed the density. It's bounded by Sarasota County to the North, Venice Acres subdivision to the East, Venice Palms Subdivision in South, which is the remainder of this parcel. The parcel itself in total prior to this split was the iHeartRadio parcel with the radio towers.

I actually have been out there before, I had a friend growing up who lived in Venice East and when the creek canal was dry, you could walk over and make it onto that property. And then on the western side is where it has its contiguity with the city of Venice, that is the Sawgrass Subdivision. Property is located in Area 7 of the JPA with Sarasota County, that means it's identified for future annexation with the city, pre annexation agreement, petition annexation were approved last week at City Council, so February 10, as Brittany stated in her staff report. That led us to be in front of you all today. We had to wait for that to occur before we could come to planning commission with our what we call the bundle where when you propose to annex, you have to have a comprehensive plan amendment and a zoning application as well.

That way you don't wind up with any more properties that have been annexed into the city, but don't have a city future land use designation or don't have a city zoning designation. Area 7 of the JPA, Brittany kind of pulled this up, but I'll use the overhead again. Covers 25 acres here, Here I'll flip it around, it was upside down. Let's see. And I've outlined that in red, so that's the 25 acres, and then I've used this blue line here to identify the general boundaries of the subject property.

So again it's about a little over 10 acres of that 25 acres of JPA Area 7. It meets all of the criteria as far as it has access to Auburn Road. We'll get into this later with our comp plan amendment and with the rezoning, but as JPA Area 7 specifies, no non residential uses permitted. That was at the time that the city and the county entered into So the radio towers were already there or the county allowed them to move forward in conflict with the JPA. But as far as that relates to us today, those radio towers, the non residential use are not part of our application.

And then the question about the pre inanization agreement, it's standard for property owners that have property in the county that is undeveloped but typically an improved pasture land. They have cattle, you do that for tax purposes and essentially all of the property owners want to keep that going until they actually have permits in place where they can then convert the property towards a developed state. So that's a typical provision within the agreement regarding the continued non agricultural use for a time certain. Properties contiguous to city boundaries, already mentioned that. It's reasonably compact, does not create enclaves, pockets or finger areas, meaning it's consistent with the Florida Statute 171 requirements for unionization and it's consistent with the city's comprehensive plan as far as how it relates for unionizations and it's compliant with the city's annexation decision criteria.

We respectfully request your recommendation of approval. Thank you. Any questions objection?

Okay. Do we have anyone from the audience signed up for this petition?

Yes we do. Susan Caro and she has five minutes.

Okay.

Hello, I'm a resident of Sawgrass, which is going to be deeply impacted by this community. I just want to make sure that you are taking into consideration Auburn Road. The traffic from Auburn Road is going to be tremendous when Mike Miller's community gets built and now another community on Auburn Road is going to be built. The other thing I have a worry about is you are using city water. City water is, you know, there's a finite amount of it, and this is just another community using city water.

And I worry about it for our community because places like Grand Paradiso, they told them they out of water and I'm afraid they're going to run out of water if they build too many communities. So these are the two things I'm worried about.

Very good, thank you.

There's no further speakers.

No further, okay. Any additional staff comments, Britney? No, no. Jackson, you want to address any of that? No. No, okay. Therefore let me close public hearing. Do I have a motion?

Mr. Chair. Yes. Mr. Jasper. I move to recommend the City Council approval of annex petition number 25Dash19A.

Thank you. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Thank you. Any discussion?

Well, go ahead. Just if I can make a comment. Please do. I always look forward to hearing. We always hear about the amount of water and if you build and so forth, but people do have the idea, I hear it all the time that if you don't annex something, nothing is going to be built there and that's nothing could be further from the truth.

It's a case of is it going to eventually get developed by the county or is it going to eventually get developed by the city. If it gets developed by the county, they still come down and use our roads and our facilities and all the things we have and we get no tax dollars out of it. If it's developed under the city, we can say it needs to have street lights and roads that are so big and sidewalks and we get the tax revenue. So I'd just like to clarify, if you don't annex something, doesn't mean it's not going to

get developed. Thank you. And I'm sure we're going to talk about water and traffic coming up here in a couple of petitions. All right. If there's nothing else then could I have a vote? Okay. So we're recommending to City Council approval of the annexation, six to zero. Next up is the future land use map amendment petition number 20 Five-twenty CP. Same location, same players. Again, is this a legislative hearing.

I have a memorandum that says, that this is to certify the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 01/31/2026 as required by the City Of Venice Land Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office. Let me open the public hearing. Do you need to check again? No, okay, we're good. Then Britney, let's go again on the future land reuse map.

Okay. Britney Smith for the record, planner, City of Venice have signed a speakers card. We're here today to talk about 2520CP, The applicant, P3LAF, Chaletz at Venice LP, agent Jackson Boone, Boone Law Firm. Address is 282 North Auburn Road. The request is to change the future land use designation from County Moderate Density Residential to City of Venice Mixed Use Residential.

Parcel size is 10.1209 acres. And the associated petitions are 2519AN and 2521RZ. The request is for a future land use designation of mixed use residential. The property currently has a Sarasota County FLU of moderate density residential. Aerial map of the project, looking at existing conditions, we'll look at future land use maps, zoning maps, site photo and surrounding land uses.

I won't spend a lot of time going over the exact things again, but you'll see to the North we have low density residential to the South, moderate density residential and mixed use residential to the West. And the proposed future land use map is showing that mixed use residential request. Existing zoning, you see there RE to the North, RSF to the East, and OUE one to the South with residential single family to the West. And the proposed zoning of PUD. For planning analysis, we'll look at land development code compliance, comprehensive plan consistency, and Florida statute compliance.

Compliance with the land development code section 1.5.3 1.5.3 of Chapter 87 includes the following decision criteria: A, the city shall consider the impacts to the adopted level of service standards when considering any proposed comprehensive plan amendment B, the city shall consider the compatibility matrix in the comprehensive plan and its subsequent impact on the possible implementing zoning designations, and the application must be found in compliance with all other applicable elements in the comprehensive plan and Florida statute 163. So here's the overview of Area 7 allowing for that five units per acre and the service by city water and sewer. Consistency with the comprehensive plan, this is in JPA Area 7, limits that density to five dwelling units per acre. We looked at strategy LU 1.2.16 for mixed use residential. I went through each of these elements and you have staff comments here that have been included in the staff report addressing limited existing and proposed properties zoned or proposed to be zoned in the PUD.

I just went through here, you have staff comments showing that this project is consistent with the intent and the strategy. Consistency with the comprehensive plan figure LU-nine established the compatibility matrix between MUR and existing future land use categories. You'll see here that MUR and low density residential and moderate density residential are considered to be compatible. Looked at strategy LU 1.2.17 for mixed use residential open space connectivity, and the proposed project provides connectivity for both open space for residents and wildlife. Florida Statutes 163, it's a small scale amendment review process.

Contains 10 criteria that should be used to develop the FLU map and its amendments. Statute 1636.8.8 describes what analysis the amendment should be based on, and Statute 163.3177.6A9 provides nine indicators of urban So in the staff report, you'll see the applicant responses to each of these elements for their project. Conclusions of finding a fact, staff has provided analysis of the proposed land use amendment regarding consistency with the comprehensive plan, the land development code and other relevant city ordinances, resolutions and agreements. In addition, analysis has been provided by staff regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of Chapter 163 of Florida Statute and the analysis as provided should be taken into consideration upon determination of the proposed future land use amendment. So in conclusion, upon review of the petition, statutes comprehensive plan, light development code, staff report analysis and testimony provided during the public hearing, there is sufficient information on the record for Planning Commission to make a recommendation to City Council on future land use map amendment petition 2520CP.

Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Chair? Yes. Turn to Michael. Is appropriate time for me to

raise this question. I've noticed that in other areas along Auburn, specifically by Fox Lee, the one we did a month or so ago at, Edmonton and Auburn Road, they all had densities that were much reduced from what was allowable. And most the most recent one, the one in Edmonton, I think it's Zerbek property. They had a stipulation that reduced it down to where what it is. And these other places like the one near Foxley, my water, my community sawgrass, we're at 2.2 per acre.

And so this allows five and I wonder at some point we wanted to get down to what we were doing in the other locations. At what point should we talk about that?

Probably at the zoning level. At the zoning level. But I don't know, Brittney you agree?

I do have some talking points when we're going to do comparison of the zoning district, the OUE and then the new zoning district. I have a comparison table that we go over in the rezone.

Yes. So I'll be able to come up on the next.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes.

Well, to point depending on the will of the Board, I mean what kind of density you want to see could be relevant at the comp plans as a legislative decision. So it's always the easiest time to be able to discuss and make determinations on your vision for what the property would be if it comes into the city?

Yes, we're kind of bounded though by the JPA agreement though.

Yes, you have to stay compliant with the JPA. I was just pointing out in general when you're looking at questions of density, it's the comprehensive plan that's the best time to start that conversation.

Is now?

Seems that we don't have much choice below. Below.

Are talking about the comprehensive plan amendment now. Yes, taking into consideration any limitations you have, JPA or otherwise.

So if we wanted to move towards an agreement with the builder, the developer to put stipulation in there to the lower number of homes as was done on the one at Edmondson. This is the time to talk about it?

This is the time to talk about your comprehensive plan amendment designation what that should be taking into consideration any limitations that may exist on what the options are.

But there's nothing lower than low density residential on a comp plan.

I'm just saying.

Nice of you to say that.

This is the time. It's not really relevant. Talk about it.

I always want to bring the conversation up because sometimes we push conversation down and our, your hands get tied further. Not to say there aren't things that are limiting you at this point but.

Yes, can understand your point. But we're kind of limited by the JPA agreement and there's no other that I know of future land use less than five acres, but.

Yes, that's correct. So the JPA limits this property to being the five dwelling units per acre. So currently this property is a little interesting because the future land use on it, the moderate density residential for Sarasota County actually sets the density to being between two to five dwelling units per acre, which isn't really consistent with the OUE one density requirements that they have, but I do feel it's something worth noting that this application requesting to come in with a density of 4.25 is really in that range that the future land use designation that the county has on it right now already?

Nice discussion, not sure if it's relevant.

I'll talk about it again on the

re rezone. When you get to zoning then I can we can talk about it.

Got you.

Okay, Mr. Chair. Yes. So the fact that the JPL changes

what we can do. The joint planning agreement sets the boundaries as to what can be done.

Versus the other locations that I referred to. Correct. So this is the time that the discussion should be held about well, are you saying we can't lower it? Not as far Not even by special stipulation?

Not as far as the future land use, you could do it when we get to zoning.

Okay. Because I know there's opposition in Sawgrass against this whole project.

So And JPA resigned a long time ago.

Well, didn't have any sand until this came up. There'll be another bite at the end. Okay.

Yeah, well then maybe we can talk about the JPA too. So just to give context to those who may be listening as well who aren't as attuned to what's happening. So the JPA is our formalized handshake agreement with the county that has been in place for quite a long time now about if a property is going to annex into the city under what conditions it can be annexed. And so that is a limitation that overrides all of what the city does as far as our planning opportunities and if there was a desire to do something different than what's in the JPA then that would be a conversation that would have to occur between the City Council, the Sarasota County Board of Commissioners and that's rarely done in a couple of circumstances I can think of small tweaks that have been made to the JPA but pretty much that is an agreement that is it is set, there is no opportunity for applicant to do something different or the city to do something different or the county really to do something different unless this conversation happens at the elected official level and the agreement is formally revised.

Whether these people had a say in it back then or not that's the document we live with today.

And I'm assuming nothing in the pre annexation agreement last week dealt with any of this?

Nothing within, oh with that the City Council approved, no the pre annexation agreement doesn't modify and couldn't modify what the JPA requires.

Okay, any other questions of Britney? Okay, thank you. Mr. Boone?

Alright. Again for the record, Jackson Boone, agent for the applicant. I'll introduce the remainder of the project team I have here with me now, now that we're in the comp plan amendment application. I have Matt Strauss and Andy Peluso who are representatives for the applicant. I have Alex Krauss, PE Josh Law, planner with Pape Dawson Jim Collins, planner with our firm Becca Bond, PE Transportation Engineer with Kimberly Horn and Carrie McNutt with Monarch Ecology.

Established the general property facts in 10.12 approximate acres there. We've now talked about the JPA, we understand the density as set forth in the JPA as far as parameters. As far as adjacent future land use designations, now that we're talking about okay, here we are with a future land use designation as part of the comprehensive plan amendment. County low density residential, that's no greater than 1.99 acres, that's to the north, that's the Venice Farms Subdivision or Venice Acres Subdivision. County moderate density residential, as Brittany stated, that's two to 4.99 units per acre, that's to the west and to the south of us, currently that is our designation.

So that's that two to 4.99 units per acre density pursuant to the county's moderate density residential future land use. And then to the west is the city mixed use residential future land use, that is what our proposal is. That has a density range of one to five units per acre. Here, and hopefully this isn't upside down anymore, alright perfect, I was having a hard time. Here's a zoomed out version of the future land use map to give you all a little bit of context for the area.

Again, I have highlighted, outlined the parcel here in red, I'll zoom in a little, but I don't wanna lose this larger snapshot while I have it. So, and I'll get into this more in the zoning level, but here I like having both a, what I'll call a zoom out and then a zoom in, so you can understand both neighborhood context, and then immediate area context. So here you have the Sawgrass PUD, you have what I call the Auburn Road, East Venice Avenue area, and you have Valencia Lakes here, this is Venice Palms in the county, this is Venice Acres. So we have this little piece here, and now I'll show you the closer, my zoomed in map. And I'll back that out a little bit.

So here here we go. Here's the general area right here. So this is in the city, this is low density residential, that's your one to five. This is your medium density residential in the city, that's your nine to 13. Now these are those, you you have a mix here in these areas of different lot and unit types, and I'll make sure I'm gonna get into that.

You have in this whole general area a mix of single family detached, which is Sawgrass, Venice Acres, Venice Palms and Valencia Lakes. You have single family attached, which is Auburn Hammocks, Fountain View, and Vista Del Lago, and then you have the garden style multifamily condominium developments, Auburn Lakes, Tuscany Lakes and Mirabella. Overall, this whole area we're looking at right here, you have a future land use designation density range of anywhere from one up to 13 units per acre. Our requested mixed use residential land use designation again provides for that density range of one to five units per acre, that's consistent with the JPA as we have discussed. That density range itself is in harmony and compatible with the surrounding area, both if we're looking at just the city of Venice, but also if we're looking at Sarasota County.

Figure LU nine, this is in the staff report, it identifies for a comprehensive plan amendments presumed compatibility and potential incompatibility. It has a presumed compatible for the mixed use residential future land use designation with adjacent low density residential, that's saying okay MURs presumed to compatible next to low density residential, as you can see right there, to the one to the five units per acre, and also moderate density residential, which is the five to nine units per acre. So that's presumed compatibility per figure LU19. These density ranges per the associated future land use designations, whether in the city or county bound the property on all four sides. However, and this, I don't wanna say this is necessarily on point, but it is something that as I was preparing that occurred to me.

If you look at the figure LU nine, and I'll show this in it's in the staff report here, you know, and we, these tables are, they provide guidance, they don't provide whether something is exact or not. But, and this this is more of a zoning thing, but I do wanna make this point now. So you look at this compatibility and presumed incompatibility, I would argue that MUR adjacent to medium density residential, which is not the case at hand, but at minimum should not be presumed potentially incompatible, because frankly there are many instances of properties with PUD zoning being either adjacent to that nine to 13 unit acre per range, or they have development within themselves within the MUR designation that exceeds the nine to 13 and up to 18 and beyond based upon how the density is clustered in that PUD. So I just wanted to make that point that this table, you know, it provides guidance. I would say it does no harm to us here, but as far as applying it, and particularly looking at it in the immediate area, you can see where we have that medium density right next to the MUR.

So I just wanted to call that out. Consistent with the requested MUR future land use designation is a proposal to rezone the property PUD. You all are aware of that, we have the application bundle, we have to provide that. So okay, the question is, what's the difference between an RSF or a PUD? The PUD in itself, it has the binding master plan, meaning we are providing standards that we're proposing to go in front of the city for its consideration.

With that binding master plan is the minimum 50% open space, which is dedicated to the city. That's a greater total than what is required in the RSF zoning districts. But it also allows a proposal for establishing development standards. And I'll get into this, I'm gonna touch on this again in the rezoning, but a PUD zoning allows for the opportunity to propose a product type tailored to the market. So you could either say, hey, the market is demanding, people are really interested in this type of lot, but that's not exactly what your RSF two or what your RSF three lots are.

Well how do we go about creating that? The best way, the true way to do that if you can is through a PUD application, that's what we have for you today. That proposal and this is really again more zoning, but we're talking comp plan, future land use and comp plan level here, That furthers intent HG11 and strategy HG111 concerning the promotion and provision of a range of housing options. Now as far as looking at the applicable criteria for the future land use designation proposal here for MUR, we are consistent and compliant with all the applicable land development code criteria. Staff has reviewed this, that's one of the decision criteria, reviewing the proposal for any potential impacts to the various level of service standards, that's your water, that's your sewer, that's transportation, there have been no issues raised by the applicable review departments on the city side.

This proposed comprehensive plan amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan including strategy LU1216 concerning MUR, already mentioned the housing intent and strategies. It's in compliant with the applicable sections of the chapter one three Florida statute requirements. That's about urban sprawl, let's not proliferate urban sprawl. I would call this infill development, the city's comp plan in the land development code for whatever reason only allows infill development to be something that's a half acre or smaller. So I would argue this is infill development, if you look at it, it is infill development.

But this meets the intent of what the JPA is trying to do and we respectfully request your recommendation of approval. Thank you.

Thanks, Jack. Any other questions? Thank you. Do we have anyone sign up for audience participation?

Yes, we do. We have one speaker, Julie Valo, and she has two minutes.

My first question is, since the homes are going to be raised, what provision is being made for the excess water to drain especially in the tower area since we've had some issues now when we have heavy rains? That's my first question. Second question is the drain pipe going across North Auburn Road going to be enlarged to handle the excess runoff because when we have heavy rains, the water can't drain fast enough? The third question we have is we have issues now with the Blackburn Canal overflowing during torrential rains, especially during hurricane season. Since you're planning on building 43 homes along the canal, what is your solution to help this problem?

I see this development causing more problems like the Philippi Creek area in Sarasota. And my fourth question is, why aren't the homes all one level since the homes that are abutting this development is Venice Palms where I live and they are when we are all one level?

Very good. Thank you. Is there anyone else?

No there's not.

Okay. Brittany, any additional staff comments? No. Jackson, you want to address any? No. Okay. Let me close the public hearing. And do I have a motion

Directors Board materials, the staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as the local planning agency finds its petition consistent with the comprehensive plan and in compliance with the Florida statute chapter 163 part two and therefore recommends to City Council approval of the future land use map amendment petition number 20 five-20CP.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Sure, I'll second. Thank you. Any discussion?

Go ahead. It seems that we're really tied by the JPA to not be able to do what we're doing elsewhere on Auburn Road. So if we have to have a way to get it like we have done, the council has done elsewhere on Auburn Road, we can't have the JPA. We cannot agree to an annexation. From what I can tell from the discussion, and I've and the other situation that we had with an annexation, we were being forced to do something because everybody wants to satisfy the county.

And I don't feel that we should have to do that. JPAs to me are becoming shouldn't be the be all and the end all of everything that we do in Venice. So I don't see how I can support this, anything to do with the annexation, because it will prevent us from doing something like having the developer have a lower density. We are all pretty much under two homes in that area. All of us saw grass in that area and the one near Fox, Fox Lee and the one on Auburn Road and that intersection right across from each other.

And that one agreed to about two homes per acre. And that seemed fair in a stipulation. We can't do a stipulation, what I'm hearing in a place that's a JPA. Am I incorrect in that?

You could do a stipulation on the next application if you would like to. So That's dealing with zoning. What? That's going to be dealing with

the zoning. So that's the time we could get some movement on the density at Auburn Road. If you want

to make a stipulation amendment, I would suggest you do it on the next petition.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any other discussion? Could I have a vote please? Okay. So the amendment is approved six-zero.

Now let's turn to, the zoning map amendment petition number 2521RZ places the same players of the same. This, however, is a quasi judicial hearing. I have a memorandum that says that, this is to certify the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 01/31/2026 as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. I'll open the public hearing and ask the attorney to question Board members regarding any ex parte communications or potential conflicts of interest.

If anyone has had any ex parte communications that are not presently part of the record, please disclose those at this time. We'll start with Mr. Jasper. None.

None. None.

None. Okay.

Brittany, last one for you today.

Last one. Brittany Smith, Smith for the record, planner, City of Venice, have signed a speaker's card. We're here today to talk about 2521RZ Chalets at Venice with the applicant being P3LAF Chalets at Venice LP and the Jackson agent or the agent is Jackson Boone of Boone Law Firm. Address is 282 North Auburn Road with the request being changed the zoning district from County open use Estate 1 to the City Of Venice planned unit development. Again, this is their signing a City Of Venice planned unit development zoning designation on the property as the applicant intends to develop residential units and have a PUD binding master plan.

The aerial map showing the portion of the parcel that is affected by this action. Existing conditions, look at future land use map, zoning map, site photos and surrounding land uses. So here's the existing future land use map and the proposed future land use map. The existing zoning map and the proposed zoning map. With the surrounding land uses against the north, we have Venice Acres, which is a county residential conservation estate planned unit or RE2 with the future land use of county low density residential to the South.

Have vacant, which is county open use of state one with future land use of county moderate density residential. To the East, we have the Venice Ranch subdivision, which is county residential single family, future land use moderate density residential. To the West, we have Sawgrass, is residential single family and a future land use of mixed use residential. Planning analysis will look at comparison of districts, comprehensive plan consistency, land development code compliance and concurrency concurrency and mobility. So here we're looking at standards for OUE one as they compare to the PUD for density with OUE one that is one dwelling unit per five acres.

As previously mentioned, the future land use for moderate density residential that applies to this property has that range of two to five dwelling units per acre. The proposed PUD would be capped at five dwelling units per acre per JPA Area seven. So you're looking at with this OUE zoning for the 10.12 acres, there would be potential two units on the property with the proposed PUD zoning, you could have up to 51 units, but the applicant has decided to bring that down to 43 units in order to meet the open space requirements for the project. You'll see pretty similar height comparison here with the only difference being in PUD, you could have a 47 with height exception. You'll see the setback differences here and then the principal uses.

These are just a few examples of the principal uses. I will say that the binding master plan is specifically looking at single family detached, so that's what would be the permitted use for the PUD. Consistency with comprehensive plan, we look at of course that JPA Area seven, we've been over that. And strategy LU 1.2.16 for mixed use residential, you'll see in the staff report I go through and I give each of the components of that strategy along with the staff report showing that this project is consistent and meeting the density range as they're proposing 4.25 dwelling units per acre, which is under that five dwelling unit per acre requirement with the JPA. Then if we go down and look at minmax percentages, I just want to highlight the open space because they are providing a 50% minimum.

I have a staff comment here that the applicant has met the open space requirements at 50.4 with 64% of that being held in conservation open space, which it has a minimum of having to have 50%. So you'll see that they've exceeded that and 12% being functional open space, which I think the minimum is 10. And no commercial use is proposed through this action. So consistency with comprehensive plan continued here, looking at that figure LU9 showing compatibility with MUR, low density residential and moderate density residential. We also looked at strategy LU 1.2.17 for mixed use residential open space conductivity or connectivity and just highlighting again that there is connectivity to open space provided to both residents and wildlife in this petition.

So conclusions of finding a fact with consistency with comprehensive plan analysis has been provided to help Planning Commission determine consistency with land use element strategies applicable to the future land use designation and strategies found in the Pine Brook neighborhood element and other plan elements. For compliance with the land development code, this has been processed according to procedures in Chapter 87, Section 1.7. No issues were identified by TRC. The decision criteria contained in Chapter 87, Section 1.74 applicant responses are in staff responses are in the agenda packet and in the staff report as is the land use compatibility. Special considerations in section four do apply since this is a JPA area and it is bordered on three sides by county zoning.

I can go over those with you really quickly if you'd like. So some suggested techniques for mitigation in Chapter 87, Section four of the code say that some of those mitigation techniques that you could consider are lowering density and intensity, increasing building setbacks, adjusting building setbacks, requiring tiered buildings, adjusting on-site improvements to mitigate lighting, noise or mechanical equipment, adjusting road and driveway locations and increasing buffer types and elements. So I would say that the density is lower than the permitted density for the JPA at that 4.25. Additionally, the applicant has provided the plantings of what you would typically see in a buffer type two, but they have extended the width of that buffer to 25 feet, which is more than the required 10 feet of a buffer type two. So in conclusions of finding, in fact, compliance with the land development code, the proposed zoning map amendment is considered to be consistent and no inconsistencies have been identified with the land development code.

For concurrency here, you will see that we have compliance confirmed by utilities for public water and sanitary sewer, compliances confirmed by public works and engineering for solid waste parks and rec and drainage. For mobility, our traffic consultant has reviewed there's an estimated impact of 48 p. M. Peak hour trips. There have been no issues identified regarding adequate public facilities capacity to accommodate the development and this is considered a de minimis traffic impact.

So in conclusion, upon review of the petition, Florida statutes, the comprehensive plan, the land development code, staff report and analysis and testimony provided during the public hearing, there is sufficient information on the record for planning commissions to make a recommendation to City Council on zoning map amendment petition 2521 RC. Any questions?

Thank you, Britney. You said you were going to have a table for a comparison of densities? Might as well get it up there.

So go back up here. So in the comparison of the zoning districts I have here, this was the OUE one having that one dwelling unit per five acres. Again understanding that the future land use is a different density requirement with that range of two to five dwelling units per acre, so that's not necessarily what I would consider to be maybe the appropriate implementing district, but I don't know much about Sarasota County and how they do that. And then with the proposed density, the JPA would take precedent here in that five dwelling units per acre.

Got you. You also had a table relating to the TRC and the mobility? Yes. Okay. So they're saying that where there's plenty of water in Sanitary's water?

Correct.

To deal with that? They're saying the drainage is fine?

Correct.

And they're saying that it's a de minimis amount of traffic impact?

That's correct. Okay.

Any other questions of Britney at this point? Okay. Mr. Boone?

Again for the record Jackson Boone, attorney at Boone Law Firm here in Venice, agent for the applicant. Sorry, must have tapped that and knocked it off. But kind of picking up where we left off, but certainly don't want to delay getting into the PUD plan itself. So in this area, and there's a natural, I anticipated this, there's a natural inclination to think about what has happened in the past whether you wanna consider that to be recent or as far as when Foxley Farms started and we were involved with the initial effort for Foxley Farms, working for Foxley Farms on the other side of where I typically sit. But there seems to be a natural inclination of okay, well this happened there, therefore that must be apples to apples.

Here part of what I'm going to give to you all in my presentation is how what we have in front of you today is different. So for our proposed PUD plan, we have the binding master plan, which you all had the opportunity to review as part of your staff report, but I'll bring it up here on the overhead. Here's the plan. Again, the binding master plan establishes development standards, provides that minimum 50% open space to be dedicated to the city. Here our binding development master plan proposes a 43 lot single family detached community, with a private right of way featuring sidewalks on both sides of the street, a 25 foot landscape buffer with a fence around the perimeter of the property, and a pervious walking path for residents on the north side of the property.

The building height is limited to 35 feet or two stories, minimum lot size is 3,600 square feet, setback standards are 20 foot front yards, five foot side yards, and 20 foot rear yards. The private right of way standards does include a modification to the section three twelve D standards, that pertains to the length of a dead end street. This does include a, it's called a hammerhead turning movement at its terminus. This has been reviewed by the fire department with no issues raised about that as far as maneuverability. Access is provided here off of Auburn Road.

As you mentioned, Chairman Snyder, the 43 single family units generated proposed forty eight PM peak hour trips. That qualifies as a de minimis transportation impact, therefore no full blown traffic study is required due to that minor amount of trips. The transportation impacts however have been reviewed by the city's transportation consultant and there have been no issues raised. As reflected in the staff report, the minimum 50% open space for the PUD has been provided with the respective 10% functional open space and 20% conservation open space standards achieved. You can see that and saw that with the different shades of green on the plan.

Storm water is collected and managed here in the two storm water lakes that are on the western side of the site. That water is collected and then it is just discharged to Blackburn Canal. Ms. Sherberg, your question about maintenance of Blackburn Canal, we confirmed that that is maintained by the county. That was our hunch, but we wanted to make sure we knew.

So that is a county maintained storm water facility. We are not able to go in there and push dirt and alter the grade of the canal, we're bound to how the county wishes to maintain that facility. That means they maintain it here adjacent to our property, and they maintain it as it continues off of my sheet going in both directions. The 25 foot perimeter landscape buffer, it includes a six foot PVC fence. Here that fence is located more towards the interior of the property, which means the landscape plantings are placed towards the outside of the fence.

I consider that to be a better aesthetic relationship between where the landscape plantings are and the fence, and that impacts both the west the eastern, southern and northern boundary, but also there with its frontage to the west along Auburn Road. The 25 foot landscape buffer provides the required plantings of a type two buffer per the code for this project, however it is more than double that required width, 25 feet as opposed to 10. The increased perimeter buffer width in combination with the proposed setback standards helped to increase overall setbacks from the lots and units themselves on the property, providing additional compatibility measures and furtherance of Section 4.4 B and in compliance with the Section 1.28 C land use compatibility criteria, which evaluates matters such as building heights, setback and site design criteria looking for compatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods. These separation distances from the property boundaries to the nearest lots are approximately 90 feet and 150 feet to the east, approximately 53 feet to the North, about 50 feet to the South, and then about 42 feet to the west before you factor in the 80 foot wide plus or minus right of way of Auburn Road.

While the side yard setback standards are attributable to the proposed housing product type, the 20 foot front and rear setback standards meet or exceed the setback standards for the adjacent residential neighborhood. That means whether you're in Venice Acres, or Venice Palms, or Valencia Lakes, or Sawgrass, we looked at that to see how those setback standards related, they meet or exceed those standards of those other communities. Those rear setback standards for our property, what they do is they help continue with creating more distance from the perimeter of the property to where the housing is located. The proposed maximum building height is 35 feet, that's consistent with the adjacent neighborhoods as well, another measure that helps move towards furthers that compatibility. The 43 single family detached lots, what they do, they reflect a modern push by the market for a detached unit that doesn't share any side walls.

Essentially it's an evolution of your villa product. These narrower lots have become popular in the market in recent years for both the type of unit they provide and their market rate price point. Frankly, I anticipate the way that condominiums have changed with the new passages in state law, more expensive to keep a condo unit, it would be much more advantageous to have essentially what you get in that condo unit but it's its own separate building. That's kind of that market demand that these lots and these unit types are meeting. They provide that market rate price point that folks are looking at and they can be found in neighborhoods throughout the county going from the northern boundary where Waterside At Lakewood Ranch is, to the middle of the county where Sky Ranch is and down to the South where Welland Park is.

Now what's interesting is those are what we consider to be newer communities coming out of the ground. Obviously they would have the different types of lots and product types that the market is demanding at the moment. But I also looked in the city to see, okay, are there lots like this in the city? These lots you can find them in the Northwestern section of Tuscan Isles, which was the newer section that was built and they're also being currently built in Vistara, they're South Of Laurel Road. So we do have similar lot types there within the city as well.

What's unique about these lot types though, is that these lot types are designed for two storey units. So they're they're taking and and what I'll get back to this, but with the diversity of housing options we have in what I consider to be the Auburn Venice Avenue area in general, really using Blackburn Canal, it's just natural separation. As far as when you look at it and you move south, there are a plethora of different housing options, you have your single family attached, single family detached, and your garden style multi family condominium buildings. These product types aren't there yet. Hopefully these do get approved and they are there, but they're not.

So this is a new product type being proposed that it furthers the intent of comp plan policy HG one one and strategy HG111 where it calls for providing more housing types, more options for prospective residents, creating product type that is at additional price points meeting the market demand. Now we certainly have talked about density at the comp plan level here, now we're at zoning. But again wanting to touch on density. So the proposed 4.25 units per acre density is within the five unit per acre maximum density as established by the JPA, and it's consistent with the proposed MUR future land use designation for the property, including furthering strategy LU one-two-sixteen-four, which calls for providing a variety of residential density ranges, but not exceeding the five units breaker. So that means in PUD's, even though there may be a number of PUD's that in total are built out at an average of two, three units an acre, that means PUD's themselves should not be looked at replicating that same density.

You look at it on a case by case basis and frankly here says we're providing a variety of density ranges. So I would argue that means to push for a variety of density ranges within PUD approvals themselves. Emphasizing this again, staff has reviewed this application for concurrency for all applicable facility types, no issues have been raised. So that means they're looking at it from, they did it for a comp plan which means what could be the maximum built there and they've looked at it from a zoning perspective with our 43 proposed lots. They've analyzed both of those scenarios, have not raised any issues regarding concurrency.

Okay, wanting to share, I'll pull up an aerial here. This is the zoning aerial of the immediate area. And so if we're gonna use Blackburn Canal as that natural dividing line, it goes right here. So just starting here, we have RMF two, PUD, RSF two, RMF one, Old County Holdover OUE one, which means it does not have City Of Venice zoning designation yet, adjacent to RMF two, RMF three, RMF RMF three, RMF two, and so on and so on. And I'm not here to argue that, okay, it should be zoned RMF two because it's right here or it's right here.

We have a zoning proposal that is consistent with the parameters set forward with this property at a density much lower than these RMF districts. But the notion of, okay, we've seen two units per acre here, therefore it shall be applied there. There's RMF two and RMF three immediately to the south. And if you would zoom in, if I had an aerial closer that looks at the separation of here, these lots here at Sawgrass back up against the PVC fence, whether that's Sawgrasses or it's this developments, and then there's a drive aisle and the buildings are right there. So the argument that because this is what my community looks like, it should be applied here and nothing else, people are valid in having that opinion.

I'm not saying that their opinion is invalid, but from purposes of a land use perspective, especially in consideration with the myriad of product types and densities in this area, I would argue that a five, if we went up to five units per acre if it makes sense, that would not be out of place. Now it's incumbent on the applicant to have a plan that makes sense, but if we're just talking numbers, you know, RMF two, RMF three, we're talking close to 10 units an acre here, that's not what our proposal is. You know, I looked at it in anticipation of this potential question, it's a 3,300 feet, give or take, maybe a little bit more from the northern boundary of our property to the southern entrance of Foxleaf Farms. It's about 1,100 feet from our property where the entrance is, to this RMF 2 right here. So it's twice close to three times the distance to get to Foxley Farms, where all of that understandable conversation, application, so on, have taken place.

But we're in what I consider to be a different area as far as feel and how it's developed out at Auburn Road. The proposed rezoning and PUD plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan including strategy LU twelve sixteen, intent HG 11, strategy HG one one one concerning the promotion and provision of a range of housing options. It's consistent with the Pine Brook neighborhood standards. It's consistent with all of the applicable sections of the land development code, including the section 153 decision criteria and the Section 2,245 A PUD standards. We respectfully request your approval and we're available for any questions you may have.

Thank you Jackson. Can you keep that document up there for second? Can you, does it go further south? Do you have all of Sawgrass? No, the other way. You don't have all Sawgrass?

I may have one that captures it but it might not be a zoning level or the zoning data

is all there. Well, was more interested in how the lots layout. As I recall, the North Western part of Sawgrass is not separated like they're much denser as part of that.

So I was looking what in Sawgrass, I believe it was built out in certain phases by different builders and so I know in this immediate area, you have a consistency of general lot widths here and then this stretch right here you can see by just that detail alone. There are some of them. They're a narrower lot width. But that's a different product type than what we have here. So that's not an apples to apples but you can see within their own community that they do have different lot types.

Yes, almost all the PUD's have different lot types that are out there. I know the Venetian does, we have different size houses and multifamily parts and what have you, from that standpoint. Okay. Other questions? Chairman? Yes, Rich.

The rear setback include the lie and swim pools? They must be 20 feet from the or am I allowed to build a lie that gets me within five feet of the backyard?

So that is a good question, Mr. Hale. As far as what the it would have to be qualified as a structure and I believe that is that changed. So it used to be I believe 36 inches, it might be 18 inches above grade as far as whether something is qualified as a structure. But I can we can ask planning staff and get back to you on that as far as how they would interpret that to implement or be how that relates with this rear setback standard. Yes, sir.

Chair.

I'd like to get a sense, well first of I'll backtrack a little bit. When you started speaking, you talked about Fox Lee. It's really Casado Oaks that they finally worked out a density that was acceptable to the city. And then one property across from Casado Oaks kind of matched that in the stipulation that they put on. It's all around two units per acre.

Where I live, it's 1.99 in sawgrass and that's a lot of sawgrasses in that range. So you're up at four plus. Is there any room there for a stipulation to lower

No sir, our plan in front of you is what we have proposed.

Okay. Other questions? Jackson, just for my own education here, Blackburn Canal, does it flow north or does it flow south? I couldn't tell and it might vary in whether the I rain is out

will give you Maybe

it flows both ways,

I don't know. I did hear somebody from the crowd say neither direction, which would be jokingly about the maintenance standard. But Well, if

it flows north, it's going into Curry Creek and Correct. If it flows south, then that's maybe a different story, but I don't know which way it flows.

My assumption would be that it is going to flow towards the West, whether that means it's traveling north and or then going not.

The Gulf somewhere or the other?

Yes,

sir. Okay. Because some of those flow back to rivers that go south to The Gulf, I can never keep track either. Okay.

Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. One comment. My memory may be wrong, but I thought the property at Auburn and Edmondson wound up at about five units per acre.

It's a

10 acre piece of property and I thought we approved somewhere around 50 units. So we're at five, not two, is my personal memory. I may be wrong.

Mr. Chair?

Yes,

sir. That was revised stipulation, which I had nothing to do with. I was pleasantly surprised to see that we ended up and I don't know how we got there, but when it came to the city council, it ended up at a lower number than what we were at.

Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Jackson. Is there anyone signed up for audience participation on this one?

Yes, have two speakers. The first speaker is Susan Heisen. She has five minutes.

Good afternoon. My name is Susan Heisen and I appreciate being here and able to speak today. I live in Sawgrass so we are directly impacted by this potential community as it is right outside of one of the gates that enters into Sawgrass. I have concerns about property. Number one, the density that does concern me.

The density affects Auburn Road, particularly as Auburn Road goes towards Venice Avenue where you get to the stoplight, you've got the turns and all of a sudden you're adding to four more houses to that. When Mr. Brown was speaking about the higher density, is closer to the Moose, it is closer to Venice Ave, it really doesn't affect the greater part of Auburn Avenue which this development will along with Kusada Oaks. Also, I want to address the burden on Blackburn Canal. I think it's real because Blackburn Canal, as we were just talking, starts at the Mayaka.

Mayaka flows into Curry Creek. Curry Creek is filled in by Blackburn Canal, continues all the way to Donovan Bay. When you talk about the flow going the other way, that's when you all of a sudden get a flood surge. It will flow the other way. Development, any development, and we've added a lot of development out there on Curry Creek and on Blackburn Canal, it has a direct impact all the way downstream.

That's become a problem because it's managed by the county and the city and different developments. There's no one manager of Curry Creek and that's problematic when we come into hurricanes and big storms. So I'd like to point that out. Also, I appreciate the potential density issue but there is also a piece of property just to the south of that which has two radio towers which the owner has. There's no saying those radio towers are going to stay there and they're not going to come back to us with additional construction of a similar manner with another PUD or a continuation of one similar to that.

That will add another component of density. And I think we need to look at that even though it's not there. But if I'm building a house and I have empty property behind me, do I want to own that property so that I can stipulate what's going to happen to it? Yeah, I do because otherwise there's no guarantee and that's what I say with those two particular towers. Also, other issue is the maintenance of Blackburn Canal.

Again, I'm going to address it one more time because I think it's so important. If the county is addressing maintenance of Blackburn Canal, North Of Auburn or East Of Auburn Road, Sawgrass technically you know, the county takes care of sawgrass or city. I'm not sure which one it is. I think it's county. It's stipulated in other things.

But then it goes directly into Curry Creek. Curry Creek is not maintained by the county or the city at that point. Then you go further down and again, there are several samples going down Curry Creek and I think you are dealing with a flood issue potentially that's problematic. So when you look at the houses that are actually built on the Blackburn Canal there, I was counting as I was looking at the development map, almost 50% of the houses are directly abutting Blackburn Canal. And my question is, how much flow is going to go there and how much flow is going to go into the drainage ditch along Auburn Road which fills when we have big rains and runs right along that development.

So those are my concerns and I appreciate you taking the time today to listen to me. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Who's next?

Next speaker is Richard Clapp. He also has five minutes.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I too, like, Ms. Heisen, am a resident of Sawgrass, and I'm not going to go over the same ground she's gone over because she said it well and she said it right. As a resident, in this community, in virtually any community, the people look to the Planning and Zoning Commission as their first line of defense in protecting the value of their homes and the community that they live in. I'm not here to tell you how to do your job because your job is to do it within the parameters set for you by the law.

But you're here to use your judgment and your wisdom theoretically to make the right decision, not for a developer, not for a lawyer of long standing or a law firm of long standing, but for the community in general and the community as a whole. In listening to the presentation that was made, that's a great presentation, very lawyerly, very well done. But if you remember the words of Mark Twain, I believe he said that figures lie and liars figure. And we've all heard the terms gaslighting now. And when you look at the maps that were presented to you, they're all true, completely true.

And the densities, completely true, I think, sort of, except. It makes a big difference as to what you are considering within the geographic area of how these densities are being figured. The bottom line is, using your judgment, if you drive out there, you're going to see that the people that are primarily impacted are the people living in Sawgrass. Now the people that are living in the higher density areas to the south are there, of course. But their properties, for the most part, empty into or entrance and egress, for the most part, is not onto Auburn Road, but onto East Venice Avenue.

The maps show a little green area or a large actually, a very large green area of Sawgrass, which was almost completely ignored. And what's happened along Auburn Road, it's been touched on by some of the people on the commission, are the fact that the commission at least at one time recognized that lower density was a good idea in this area. Ms. Eisen referenced Blackburn Creek and she's right. Blackburn Creek flows into Curry Creek and Curry Creek along with Blackburn Creek are major water diversions within Sarasota County and certainly within the city of Venice.

Any new roofs are going to add water to the Blackburn Creek. It can't be avoided. Curry Creek right now is at the point of severe stress. It's going to go over its banks, if not this year, next year or the year after. In in the not too distant future, it's going to be a flood zone or it's going to flood, period, zone or otherwise.

And Blackburn Creek, as I said, feeds into Curry Creek. Not maintained none of this area is maintained by one particular governmental entity. It's not the county, it's not the city, it's the city and the county. And at least according to the city, part of Curry Creek is to be maintained by Sawgrass, which we disagree with. But if it were to be determined that we had to maintain Curry Creek, we certainly would dam up the end of Curry Creek that's being flooded by Blackburn Creek.

And then we would have real problems, wouldn't we, in certain areas, but maybe not so much in Sawgrass. So this is a really good place, a really good time for this commission to use your judgment as to what can and should be built here. It can be done better. It can be done without as much density, But it certainly can be done better and when you take a look at how the water is being diverted, the response was essentially, we're just going to put it in Creek here. We're going to just put it in Blackburn Creek and away it will go.

That's not the way it works. When it comes to the traffic, you put that number of houses in there, it's going to increase the traffic on Auburn Road. Not for the people that drive onto Venice necessarily or who exit their homes onto Venice directly, but for those who enter and egress into Auburn, I'm done. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

There are no further speakers.

Is there anyone that's it? Thank you. Brittany is rising. So we do have additional staff comments.

Just a clarification or an answer on response to Commissioner Hale's question on pools. If there's not a set standard that's in the PUD, then we would revert to the code. So there's, I believe, like 20 foot backyard in there and there's no specifications on how the pool would be set back. So you would defer to the code and that would be five foot. Okay. And then Mr. Young, then with the Zucamiq stipulation, there was a reduction in City Council bringing that down to 26 units, which I believe is 2.5 dwelling units per acre.

Mr. Clark also rises.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. For the record Roger Clark, Planning and Zoning Director and I will sign a speaker's card now that I'm going to speak. I just want to give you a little background on the JPA. JPA has been in place since 2007.

The reason that came together is because the county got concerned about annexations mostly being done by Northport, not by the city of Venice, some 22,000 acres, 3,000 of which was ours. And encouraged us to meet with the county and discuss a joint planning agreement with them. And through that process, it's called a joint planning agreement for a big reason because it is joint planning. That's a county and the city gets together and looks at different areas and determines what type of development would be acceptable in those locations. And we determine also through that agreement who's gonna serve those developments when they come about by water and sewer.

This property was in the original JPA, 2007, was identified for, through an agreement between the city and the county was identified for up to five units an acre. The land use they've asked for here today, they've approved is up to five units per acre. The zoning they're asking is also consistent with that. And I would also point out that Brittany had indicated that the county's land use on this property is two to five units. So it's within the same range.

So I just wanted to give you a little background on how the land use is identified. This property has to be in the city of Venice because another part of the JPA indicated that it would be served by city water and city sewer. Which means you have to be in the city to get those services. And I can tell you that that was a misunderstanding at the beginning of this project. They actually tried to go to the county and we're pretty close to moving forward whether for approval or not.

And the other statement I wanna mention as well is what Mr. Wilson said that we, and we hear this often and I just presented this as strategic planning that if you don't develop it, it won't be developed. And I showed a map that day that showed how the county is developing around us. So yes, we don't develop it, it won't be developed, it will be developed. As Mr. Wilson indicated and as I just mentioned, they were close to moving forward with being developed through the county anyway. I just wanted to bring up some of those points and the fact that we have indicated that we haven't found any issues in the comp plan or the zoning that would be an issue for this project.

Roger, while you're there, just so people understand the impact of this development on Blackburn Canal. If I understand what Swift Mud's requirements are, you can't have a bigger impact than what you have today when you end up with development.

Yeah, I get a little, I've gotten myself into trouble in this statement in the past and I'm gonna caveat this by saying I'm not an engineer.

There you go.

And I do not know storm water and that's not my job. I'm planning and zoning. We have engineers that have reviewed this. SwiftMud is the governing agency and they have to get a permit through SwiftMud. But the general rule is that yes, pre development runoff is to match, the post development runoff needs to match the pre development runoff and that's as far as rate and volume. And that's the general rule, there's a lot of intricacies that go along with that, that's why I'm caveating my statement. But this has been reviewed by engineering and they will need to go to SwiftMUD to seek permitting.

Yeah, that was my general understanding of that as well. The second thing is, so this flows to Curry Creek. It's still my understanding that Sawgrass is responsible for maintenance of Curry Creek as it flows through them?

Once again, we're getting into the engineering realm but that is my understanding that I think it's been identified as the county on one side and the city on the other and Sawgrass in the middle. I understand that Sawgrass disagrees with that. That's something that has been discussed in our engineering department so I'm not sure exactly where that status is at this point. Not totally resolved then? My understanding, that area that goes through Sawgrass, I wanna say resolved I think, I don't know that there's any different information that's come forward to contradict what we already understood.

So what the city understands is too responsible is what it stands today?

That's what my understanding is. Very

good. Any other questions to Roger while he is here? Jackson, you want to address a few items?

Again for the record, Jackson Boone, agent for the applicant. Roger touched on the storm water already kind of, but wanted just to emphasize the so at a zoning level, you still have a preliminary plat plan application that has to be applied for and approved by the city before any development activity could take place out there. So here today we're at zoning, there's a preliminary plat application that's required and it has to come in front of you all for approval before anything could take place. But with that is the storm water that's reviewed by the city storm water department. And then you also have SwiftMUD who has to review and approve an ERP permit application.

The ERP permit here has already been applied for, so it's already in the review process. Both of those approvals have to take place before anything can happen. It's not as simple as it was said that we just stick our storm water into Blackburn Canal. It has to be professionally engineered and designed and approved by the appropriate authorities. And then again just on transportation, there was discussion of Auburn Road.

Again we have a proposed transportation impact of forty eight p. M. Peak hour trips that's been reviewed by the city's transportation consultant with no issues that have been raised. That forty eight PM peak hour trips is technically considered a de minimis impact. With that, I just want to thank you for your time today and respectfully request your approval of the rezoning. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any questions of Jackson? Okay, thanks. If there's nothing else, I'm going to close the public hearing. Do I have a motion?

Mr. Chairman?

Yes, Mr. Wilson.

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as the local planning agency finds this petition consistent with the comprehensive plan in compliance with the Land Development Code and with affirmative findings of fact in the record recommends to City Council approval zoning map amendment petition number 25Dash21RZ.

Thank you. Do I have a second?

Second, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Any discussion? Mr. Young, if you wanted to offer an amendment, you could do so at this point?

I would like to see a stipulation to get it to get the density and it's not compatible with where it is now. Get the density down to what it is and the other agreements the city council made with similar situations on Auburn Road. The Casado Oaks and the Kretz Neck properties were all reduced down to the range of two, three homes per unit. And as mister Clapp said, every roof adds to to water going in to that area, and we wanna keep that down. And if we can get a similar agreement on this, it could be workable.

What stipulation would you offer Mr. Young? 2.5.

Okay.

So that's your

that's what we have. But your amendment

is to put a stipulation of 2,500,000,000 units per acre. Do I have a second on this? It fails not having a second. Okay. So then can we have a vote please on the motion?

So, it's approved five to one. Okay. I'm going to turn to Mr. Clark then for any comments to us from the Planning and Zoning Department.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You were supposed to be here this week.

Well, know, some people just can't make up their minds. So I'm still here.

I don't know. Okay. Well, I do want to mention that, that at the last meeting, Mr. Schneider gave a very good report. Many of you were there and heard the report and he had some really good comments to share with City Council, your agenda for the year, which is a little different than other boards. You deal with what comes forward and was approved obviously. So it was a good presentation and we did surprise Mr. Snyder with a little token of appreciation from the city that we got. I think we bought that thing like two or three years ago and we had to have it modified because he's like Michael Jordan of Planning Commissioner.

I wanted to ask the city attorney whether they violated announcements,

minutes announcement or the did

just They surprise was not supposed to be there. It wasn't on the agenda.

They are authorized to surprise their outgoing chairs.

See. Small print in the sunshine. I just wondered about that.

I specifically asked for that not to be on the agenda. So we wanted to surprise you. I hope we did. I hope you like it.

I did. Thank you.

We do have the other plaque that goes in it too that we had to have changed.

I was wondering why there was a second plaque in there

and I went, It just get was the a from an earlier date. And it had a different logo on it too.

It did.

We did deal with that as well.

It did.

But we're happy to give that to you. And we appreciate your many, many years of service.

Very nice presentation you made, Roger. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Even Bob did a nice job in the newspaper.

He did. He did. You do have a meeting on the third, March third will be your next meeting. We've got four applications, two projects, four applications on there. We've got a site plan and a design alternative similar to what we had today and a comp plan amendment and rezone. So you will have a meeting on March 3. And I do want to clarify one thing that was made in the first application today, didn't have time, wasn't quick enough to get down here, but the first project you saw it in on Comus Avenue will not have to go back to the HAPB for a certificate of demolition. It's not 1926, not on the register.

Yes, didn't think so since it wasn't on the register, but I thought I'd ask.

Yes, just wanted to clarify that. Fair enough. That's all I have today.

Okay. Very good. Any comments by planning commission members?

Yeah. Can I just make Yes? Go ahead. Yeah. I just since we're we're out there looking right now for a couple of new members we have to replace you with. I just just want to reiterate for the people that are still sitting out in the audience. It really is the responsibility of this board to make decisions based on the evidence that's presented. Our personal opinion has nothing to do with it, quite honestly, your personal opinion has nothing to do with it. It's what does the evidence show. So, you know, if everything shows that the water is okay, the traffic is okay, the setbacks are okay, We may hate it, but we got to vote for it.

And conversely, it may be something we really want and if it doesn't meet the standards, we have to turn it down. That's the responsibility of this board and I just hope everyone understands that and as we seek some new members, it's really important for them to understand. That's the way it operates. Thank you.

Well, love it when you do those and I don't have to. That's really good. Thank you. Any other comments for Planning Commission members? Hearing none, we're adjourned.