Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call to order today's meeting of the Planning Commission for 03/03/2026. Could I have a roll call please?

Chair Snyder.

I am here.

Mr. Wilson?

Here.

Mr. Young? Here. And Mr. Jasper?

Mr. Jasper called me last night, said he had bit of a medical issue and was not going to be able to attend today. I asked that his absence be excused. Any objection? No. Hearing none, thank you. I've got a set of minutes from February 17 to have a motion or suggested revisions. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir.

I move that we accept the 02/17/2026 regular meeting minutes as presented.

Thank you. Do I have a second?

Second. Oh,

that was a tie. I will it to Dick. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, chair was aye. Do we have anyone signed up for general audience participation not associated with any application?

Not for general, no.

Thank you much. Then we'll turn to the public hearings. The first one, can we do both of these together? Thank you. First one is dealing with the Ajax site improvements. We actually have two petitions. One is a design alternative petition, number 20 Five-61DA. The staff is Britney Smith, the agent is Annette Boone and the owner applicant is MAH Venice Investment LLC, that's a mouthful. And the second one is the site and development plan petition number twenty five forty SP, same players, same thing. These are both quasi judicial hearings.

I have memorandums that say essentially the same thing which is that this is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 02/14/2026 as required by the City Of Venice Land Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. With that, I shall open the public hearing and ask the attorney to question Board members regarding any ex parte communications or potential conflicts of interest.

We'll start with conflicts of interest. If you have a potential conflict of interest please indicate that at this time. None. Okay, I don't see any. If you've had any ex parte communications that are not presently part of the record, please disclose those. No. Sorry, Mr. McKeon.

None. Site visit only.

None. Thank you. Site visit only.

Amanda, you'll make sure we get speaker cards. Let me turn to Britney. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Britney Smith for the record planner, City of Venice and I have signed a speakers card. Just double checking it's okay that I read these together and I'll start with the site plan since that's got the more detailed overview. Okay. So this is site and development plan petition number 2540SP for Ajax site improvements with the agent being Annette Boone of Boone Law Firm and the owner applicant MAH Venice Investments LLC.

The project is located at 50504 Jean Green Road with request being to amend the existing site plan for proposed improvements to certain portions of the property in order to accommodate expansion for the company and updating or replacing buildings. So the parcel sizes, the overall parcels, one of them is 24.61 acres and the other is 69.4 acres, but the specific project area that we're looking at encompasses approximately 10.3 acres. The future land use is industrial, the zoning is PID in the Knights Trail neighborhood. Associated position is 2,561 DA for the design alternative. A little bit of background on existing conditions.

This is for proposing improvements to that 10.3 acre portion of the property to allow for the expansion and updates in the replacing of existing modular structures with permanent structures as well as one new structure on the property. Realigning the entry driveway and the traffic flow, adding necessary signage and formally pave and stripe the area. Additionally, storm water retention is being provided to account for the new areas that would be paved. So we did have a signage plan that came in past the review period. There are two buildings that have signage, so I would just say at this time that the signage would be approved through the sign permit and not necessarily this petition that's in front of you today.

Building 1, which is the expansion of the existing headquarters or office, would crossover an existing easement or easements. The applicant is working with all applicable parties that hold an interest in those easement and they will be proposing a stipulation that would need to be read with this petition in order to move forward. The stipulation would need to be part of your approval of the petition. There is also alternative parking plan that is included with this petition that would allow for 45 parking spaces to be held in the eastern industrial portion of that 10.3 acres. Here's the aerial map of the project.

When you're looking at these two green areas, we're really down at the very bottom in the southern portion. It's kind of an odd shaped parcel down here that 10.3 acres. Here's the site plan for the project showing the additional buildings and the new expanded parking areas as well as the relocation of the access easement. To make it a little bit easier to see where the new buildings are, I've outlined where they would be going in red. So you'll see Building 1 there that crosses through that portion of easement, Building 2 which is the laboratory building and then the other three buildings which are existing modular structures that would be made into a more permanent structure.

Here are the new proposed building elevations for Building 1, the office headquarters. These are the elevations for Building 2, the laboratory. Building 3, and then Buildings 4 And 5. For existing and proposed conditions, we're gonna look at the future land use, the zoning maps, and the surrounding land uses. So here for the future land use, you'll see that the property is industrial.

To the south of the property, we have government and industrial or PID. To the East, we have rural Sarasota County, it's a water detention pond. To the West there is additional industrial lands and then to the North is industrial land as well. And here is the zoning map showing to the East OUE one, to the South Government and PID, and then to the West still PID and to the North PID. For planning analysis, comprehensive plan consistency and land development code compliance and concurrency and mobility.

For comprehensive plan consistency, we looked at strategy LU 1.2.4 for nonresidential, which sets the FAR for PAD at a maximum of two. The FAR for this proposed project is 0.04, so well below the maximum limit. We looked at strategy LU 1.2.4C industrial which supports industrial uses located in the city on individual lots or parts of industrial park which this does. We looked at strategy LUKT 1.2 or 1.1.2 industrial existing lands and that the city shall protect the existing and industrial land uses and properties within this neighborhood to provide city and region with a diverse economic base. So for conclusions in finding a fact with consistency with the comprehensive plan, analysis of land use element strategies applicable to an industrial future land use designation, strategies found in the Knights Trail neighborhood and other plan elements have been provided.

This analysis should be taken into consideration upon determining comprehensive plant consistency. Looking at land development code compliance, this was processed with the procedural requirements contained in the code and reviewed by the technical review committee. The proposed plan outside of the requested design alternative and alternative parking plan has been reviewed for compliance with regulations including but not limited to use, setbacks, land area height, lot coverage, lighting and landscaping requirements. Responses to land use compatibility analysis and decision criteria have been included in your staff report and agenda for your review. And I just have to put this out there and mention even though the site is existing, it is neighboring Sarasota County zoned land and the following mitigation standards are as follows.

It includes lowering density and intensity, increasing building setbacks, adjusting building setbacks, requiring tier buildings, adjusting on-site improvements to mitigate lighting, noise, mechanical equipment, refuse and delivery and storage areas, and adjusting road and driveway locations and increasing buffer types and or elements of the buffer type. Looking at the development standards that are in place and how this project is complying with them, you'll notice the setbacks for the front and side and rear setbacks are 25 feet, and all of the buildings exceed those standards as provided. The building height maximum is 46 feet. From the point of measurement, all of the buildings meet that height requirement. And for the parking, all the administrative parking spaces are within the allowable code limit.

It is just that eastern portion for fleet and vehicle storage that exceeds the code would allow for two to four spaces for that eastern and industrial area and what they're asking for is 45 spaces with that alternative parking plan. So in conclusions of finding a fact with compliance with the land development code regulations, the site development plan has been reviewed and deemed compliant by the TRC. Any issues identified during TRC review have been addressed through this process. For concurrency, the applicant has provided that all of the concurrency measures have been reviewed by utilities, public works and engineering and they have been confirmed as compliant through the TRC review. So 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 code.

The applicant has provided a traffic statement showing that site and development plan amendment generates traffic that is de minimis at eighteen p. M. Peak hour trips. This has been reviewed by city staff and the city's traffic consultant and no additional issues have been identified. So in conclusion, upon review of the petition and the associated documents, 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 the Planning Commission to take action on-site development plan petition number 2540SP.

And I will open up the design alternative. So in going into design alternative twenty five sixty one DA for Ajax site improvements, The agent and the owner are the same. The request is for relief from chapter 87 section three point eight point three point b point five for wildlife fence breaks and chapter 87 section three point nine point three point a point eight for lighting fixture heights. Again, here is an aerial overview showing again that we are in the southern portion of these larger green hatched areas. A little bit of the description as mentioned, the applicant is requesting two design alternatives, one of them being for the wildlife fence breaks and the other being for the lighting fixture heights.

So for the wildlife fence breaks, which is chapter 87 section three point eight point three point b five. The code requires 25 foot wildlife breaks and fencing and walls so that none will so that it will exceed no more than 500 continuous linear feet without a wildlife break. The request is for no breaks in the fencing as the applicant states that doing so would negate the primary function of the fencing which is to provide security for their equipment and to provide the appropriate safety measures including compliance with insurance and best practices in the industry. The image here is showing the green area that would be fenced in. There is on-site currently if you're out there, there there is a significant amount of fencing which doesn't have breaks so the request isn't abnormal.

So for the request for lighting fixture heights, the light fixture height max for perimeter or for the parking area requirements is 30 feet within the center of the parking area decreasing to a height to a range of 12 to 15 feet at the perimeter of the parking area. Due to the nature and the scale of the vehicles that would be operating on the property, the applicant has requested that the light fixture heights be greater looking at 30 feet at the perimeter of the parking area as the 12 to 15 feet doesn't make sense with the scale of the vehicles that would be operating on-site. So we looked at the future land use zoning map previously when we were looking at the site plan, so I'm going to move over that. With the planning analysis, we're going to look at comprehensive plan consistency and land development code. So we looked at a lot of the same strategies as we did for the site plan.

I looked at strategy LU 1.2.4c for industrial which supports industrial uses located in the city. The strategy LU one point one point two for industrial lands existing, the city shall protect the existing industrial land uses and properties in the Knights Trail neighborhood. The requested design alternatives are allowable under the code and still meet the intent of these strategies. So in conclusions of finding a fact for consistency with the comprehensive plan, analysis of the land use element strategies applicable to the industrial future land use designation, Strategies found in the Knights Trailheaven neighborhood and other plan elements have been provided and this analysis should be taken into consideration upon determining comprehensive plan consistency. We're looking at design alternative criteria.

I have them listed here. Number one, whether the design alternative is consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the LDR and with the comprehensive plan. Number two, whether the design alternative will have a material negative impact to adjacent users and if so, the applicant proposes to mitigate the negative impact to be created by the proposed design alternative. Number three, whether the design alternative will permit superior design efficiency and performance. Number 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 and archaeological sites and public facilities or similar.

And number five, whether the design alternative will result in a negative impact to the adopted level of service of public facilities. So in conclusion of finding a fact in compliance with the land development code, the subject petition has been processed with the procedural requirements of chapter 87 to consider a design alternative. In addition, the petition has been reviewed by the TRC and no issues regarding compliance with the land development code have been identified. Upon that review of the petition and the associated documents, comprehensive plan, land development code, 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 design alternative petition number 2561DA. Are there any questions for me?

Thank you, Britney. Are there any questions? Yes, Pam.

Thank you, Britney. In your previous presentation you mentioned easement parties and also the applicant. The owner is the applicant. Who are the easement parties?

So for the specifics of this, I'm going to let the agent go into it a little bit further. It's my understanding that there are four easements that are currently affected by this. There are she'll go over the affected parties. Sarasota County is one of the holders and there's another one on there. They have a proposed stipulation for maintaining access for all the associated parties.

Thank you. Any other questions? Brittany, you said the signs are not part of this approval. Does that mean it's going be done administratively?

So we can do it through the sign permit, we can look at that. I did get a sign plan in for one of the buildings. I believe it was a day ago. From my brief glance at it, it was consistent with the code. However, there is Building 2 which also has a sign on it and I didn't get any information on that. And it is not an unstandard practice if we don't have this information, it just wouldn't be included in the development order but we would be able to process that under the signed permit.

Okay, so that's a permit that Roger approves? Okay. And I'm assuming everything that we do here in terms of this expansion is not impacting their open space requirement? No. Okay, very good. Any other questions? Okay, thank you, Britney. Annette or Annie, I'm not used to calling you Annette.

Good afternoon planning commissioners. I'm gonna pull up my presentation here. All right. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Annie Boone or Annette.

I'm the agent for the applicant Ajax and I'm an attorney with the Boone Law Firm. Also in attendance we have two representatives for Ajax, Natalie Woody and Mr. Mike Horan and we also have the project engineer Greg Fischer with Fischer Engineering and we also have Len with J2, I didn't Anderson, right? That's correct. You all just received a very thorough presentation from Brittany so we will try not to be too redundant but we'll provide a little more detail and reiterate why these applications do satisfy all requirements for your approval.

So we'll get started. Here are two side by side aerials to orient you all to the location of the property. The Ajax property is made up of four parcels but those subject to this site and development plan and design alternative application. It's the blue and green parcels here on the right and these parcels they're located at 50504 Jean Green Road. Jean Green Road, it's eastern terminus actually ends at the border of Ajax property and these are located in historic industrial area of Venice and the staff report noted the two parcels they're approximately together 94 acres in size but the area of these parcels subject to the site development plan proposal really is approximately 10.3 acres.

And the zoning designation is planned industrial development. The future land use designation is industrial and they are located in the comprehensive plan Knights Trail neighborhood. Here's a little zoomed in the zoomed in aerial to show you where site or the part of the property subject to the site and development plan is. Surrounding or I guess let me go back because the Ajax property it is surrounded on all of its borders by either industrial property or property owned by the city or county. And just a little bit of information about Ajax.

They are a local asphalt company. They were established in 1981 and have been operating in Venice since 1998. Their corporate office is located here in Venice and I think important to note not only are they an integral part of the local business community but they have a long standing commitment to supporting causes and organizations here that make up our community. And the use and operations on-site, asphalt manufacturing and paving and then also the accessory business commercial uses incidental to the primary industrial use. And so as I noted this being where Ajax headquarters are, what is really driving the site and development plan proposal is well one, a need and desire to better organize and define the existing uses and operations on this portion of the property and also to expand some office space to provide and allow for orientation and training for corporate employees.

So here is the site and development plan and through the site and development plan and design alternative applications Ajax is proposing to improve its property to update, replace or expand buildings, modify the access for safer and more efficient traffic flow, pave and stripe parking for safety, efficiency and organization and then add storm water associated with the paving. They also will provide certain utility improvements and accommodate and permits city access to its water booster pump station which is located to the south. So starting with the buildings that are being proposed through this site and development plan, there are five total however there's only one true addition because of the other four buildings, one is an expansion to their office, their main office building and then the other three are going to replace existing buildings and I'll go I'll address each one of those. So starting with Building 1 which is located yes. All right.

This is Building 1 here on the eastern portion of the property and as you see it's gonna be an expansion their existing office space and I have the elevations here. And then Building Number 2 which is located here, this is used for research and design and the elevations are here. Building Number 3 located here this will be an office building and then Building 4 is a scale house to replace the existing scale house and Building 5 that's the one true addition that'll be a storage building. I'll run through the elevations again Building 1, Building 23, and then 4 And 5. So a big component of this site and development plan is the relocation of the access drive, the current access drive across Ajax's property and so you can see here on their site plan the existing access drive it begins at where Jean Green Road terminates here and it goes in a northeasterly direction across Ajax property until it turns to go directly north.

What Ajax is proposing through the site and development plan is to reorient this access drive or relocate it so that it'll just continue from Jean Green Road to extend easterly across their property and then turn here and goes due north. And so the the main purpose for relocating this existing access is to improve the traffic flow and circulation for safety, efficiency of their and efficiency of their operations and it's also necessitated by the expansion of their office building. As Brittany noted, there are so the existing access does serve as an axe or their property owners to the North hold easement rights access rights to use the existing drive to access their properties. So as part of this proposal we will be amending those easements to make them consistent with the access proposed through this site and development plan. And so part of your approval today will include a stipulation and really all that the stipulation is intending to do is to ensure that the existing access remains open to those easement holders while Ajax is constructing the new access drive and other improvements.

So until such time that the new access is fully constructed, permitted, and open to use, the existing access will remain open. Once once the new access is open we will then be able to record those amended easements and close the existing access. And so here this just details how Ajax intends to phase its construction with the improvements outlined in blue to be phase one and the improvements outlined in green to be phase two. So moving to parking, another big component of the site and development plan. There has been an alternative parking plan presented which was reviewed by staff in advanced.

Currently most of the parking is to an aerial here so you'll see it's mostly done in this unpaved, unimproved area and so through this site and development plan parking will become more defined and organized. This is part of improving the traffic flow and circulation on-site and but through this alternative parking plan there is additional requested because industrial has a very low maximum parking count and but Ajax has need to for the vehicle and equipment storage to be used or to utilize some of this parking but also the additional parking will serve as overflow parking for their corporate events for training and meetings on-site. And so just a little more detail here to the west, this large parking lot area will be for office use and employee parking, vehicle and equipment storage. I'm sorry I said the west. This is the east.

I am directionally challenged. The east here the east is this supports the existing operations also in the north of the property so that is one consideration to keep in mind too. Here over to the east, this is where the back to the parking plan as you see they're adding the darkened parking areas. This will support the expansion of office space and relocate building office building. So that is the parking.

Moving now to the design alternatives. There are two design alternatives requested. One is for fencing surrounding the large parking lot to the east. Got it right this time. And the second design alternative is for lighting fixtures in the parking lot.

So to start with the fence design alternative, section 3.83 b five requires wildlife breaks and fencing for fence fencing that extends beyond 500 linear feet. Well continuous fencing is necessary around this parking lot area for security and safety but also for insurance compliance. There will be no negative impact to wildlife movement as you saw in the zoomed out aerial there is a large expanse of the Ajax property that is unrestricted by fencing. This should not interrupt or really materially impact the current wildlife movement in the area. Moving to the the lighting design alternative, section 3.93 a eight this requires perimeter light fixtures to measure in 12 to 15 feet in height.

This would be a decrease from the maximum height of 30 feet that is allowed in the center of parking lots. Well Ajax is requiring this design alternative due to the size of vehicles on their site and just the utility and operation or the operations and the need for uniform height a uniform height of lighting fixtures. I do want to note that section 3.91 a, this is the purpose and intent of the lighting code section. It says that the purpose of the lighting code is to ensure exterior lighting is designed, installed, and maintained to provide safe, convenient, and efficient lighting while minimizing adverse impacts on adjacent properties. And this request and proposal meets that purpose and intent very completely.

The trucks are the trucks on on Ajax property average twelve twelve feet in height therefore obviously lighting fixtures that exceed 12 to 15 feet would be necessary to accommodate those vehicles and I just want to go into a little more specific too, specifics about the lighting fixtures. So there's two different heights proposed, number four and number three. Number four are located in this parking lot, this parking lot, and this parking lot and these are going to measure 20 feet in height. Parking lot light fixtures designated by number three will measure 30 feet in height and these are in the this parking lot area here. And so I note that just because Ajax is limiting the number of the tallest lighting fixtures just to where they really need it so they are asking for a design alternative but they are doing so in a limited nature to ask for what they really need.

And of significance, the photometric plan which was reviewed by staff it shows that the foot candles are compliant with code standards so there's no adverse impact from these taller lighting fixtures and then even further those lighting fixtures, all perimeter light fixtures will include external glare shields to prevent light spillage. So that those are the design alternatives. Again this is the site and development plan here. So moving to compliance and consistency with the comprehensive plan and LDR for the site and development plan. It is compliant with all applicable elements of the comprehensive plan specifically strategy LU one point two point four C, the use and the FAR comply, also strategy LUKT 1.12, it satisfies the intent of the Knights Trail neighborhood.

In terms of the LDR, decision criteria 1.9.4 those responses were provided in the staff report. Staff reviewed, found them consistent without any issues. Section 1.2C8, the land use compatibility analysis similarly that's provided and where we provided those in the application, they're also in the staff report with our responses, staff reviewed, found them consistent without any issues. The concurrency and level of standards or level of service standards have been met and all development standards are satisfied with the design alternatives taken into consideration. And moving to for the design alternatives, these also are consistent with the comprehensive plan and they also comply with the LDR specifically that your decision criteria section 1.11.3.

There's no material negative impact on adjacent uses and these the design alternatives requested will permit superior design efficiency and performance and there's no negative impact on adopted level of service for public facilities. So with all of that said and under consideration, we respectfully request your approval of the site and development plan and design alternative applications.

Very good.

Here Thank to answer any questions.

Thank you. Very comprehensive. Any questions of Annie?

Yes. Excuse me, Chair. Hello. Commissioners, when you are speaking or asking questions, can you be sure to make sure that your microphone is as close to you as possible pointed towards you.

Are you having a hard time picking me up? That's unusual for me, but okay.

Thank you.

You are welcome.

I have two questions. One regarding traffic. First of all, let me say that it's really great to see that a local company is in a position to expand. So I commend you on that. My concern with traffic is when you did the study, I assume you used the current number of vehicles going in and out of your driveway.

What's going to happen in three years? You guys are investing a significant amount of money and growing that says to me your product is going to be used by more people, therefore you're going to have more trucks or repeat traffic going in and out of your driveway. Was that at all considered? And my concern is that while it's not adjacent to your property, there is a significant residential piece of property that your trucks drive by every day. You're currently, your peak, you're telling me it's 18 trips, that's one every three minutes going down that driveway.

And I was wondering if it's how much you think it's gonna grow and two, do your drivers still use engine braking to slow down as they are coming into the driveway creating an excessive amount of noise?

Those were many questions in one. I want to start and make clear that this proposal, the expansion is really just of their office building and that's to accommodate orientation and training for corporate employees and the other site improvements that relate to their operations and traffic on-site, that's just to organize and better define the existing operations and the existing intensity on-site. Through this site and development plan there's really no proposed increase in intensity of site operations beyond that that would be felt by you know seasonal corporate training and orientation type meetings.

Second question if I may. Sure. Relates to water drainage. There was a new swale created. Could you point that out to me please on the site plan? Old eyes didn't find it.

Okay. And I will, I may have Greg come up because he'll definitely be better able to answer your questions. I believe it's here but I will let him

Okay. Actually the aerial

Oh okay.

I can

let me see if I know how to. Is this good? Does that work?

Yes.

Okay. Can I'll switch chairs.

Okay.

Sorry, just for the record, my name is Greg Fischer, civil engineer on the project here. The swale that you would be speaking of would be this swale. I believe this is the one you're talking about adjacent to the county's pond. It's that small in the grassy area.

And its purpose is to direct water north, south? South. Okay.

And it does act as a buffer for that, for the large lake to prevent, it's kind of a buffer to keep the lake pristine and clean.

And the water after it gets into the lake continues to flow south?

Well, far as the lake, mean we're not touching the lake in any way as far as discharging to it. We're discharging to that swale far to the south of the parcel right in that area. Okay.

Thank you. Yes. I have a question for our lawyer if I may.

James do. You're on a roll.

Are you? Sorry. Are you satisfied with the conditions they put on for the stipulation?

For the easement? So staff shared with me the draft stipulation. There's been some modifications that occurred before the version you saw today. So I am okay with the version that you saw today.

Okay, thank you. Can the stipulations wait until the site and development portion or do you want them on both or?

Just needs to be with site and development.

Site and development, yes.

Very good. Any other questions? Anyone? Very good. Thank you. Do we have anyone from the audience signed up for this one?

No, we do not.

Okay. Brittany, any additional staff comments? No. Thank you. In that case, let me close the hearing. Now we'll need two motions. First on the design alternative and second on the site development plan.

Mr. Chair?

Yes, Kit.

Based on review of the application materials, staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission, sending us the local planning agency, finds this petition complies with the design alternative criteria in Section 1.11.3 of the Land Development Code and therefore moves to approve design alternative petition number 20 five-61DA.

Thank you. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Thank you. Any discussion? Hearing none, could I a vote please? And the answer is the design alternative is approved six to zero. Now the site development plan petition, do I have a motion?

Mr. Chairman?

Yes, Bill.

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and the testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as a local planning agency finds this petition consistent with the comprehensive plan in compliance with the Land Development Code and with the affirmative findings of the fact in the record, moves to approve, including the two discussed stipulations, Site and Development Plan Petition No. 20 five-40SP.

Question two stipulations. I think there were four in part, is it just Well,

how the applicant broke it up today was into four separate sentences, but it's one stipulation.

Including the stipulations.

There you go. That will be helpful. Do I have a second?

Second that

Mr. Thank you, Pam. Any discussion? Seeing none, could I have a vote please? And that one's approved six zero. Okay.

Alright. Moving on to

Triton. Is it Triton? I assume it's Triton Industrial. Now we have two petitions. We're gonna have to do them separately.

One is a legislative, petition, and the other one is a quasi judicial petition. The comprehensive plan amendment petition number 25Dash-63CP, is a legislative petition. Staff is Nicole Tremblay, the agent is Annette Boone and the owner is Triton Holdings and Development LLC. I've got a memorandum that says that this petition, this is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 02/14/2026 as required by the City Of Venice Land Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the Planning and Zoning Department. Let me open the public hearing and turn to Nicole.

Okay. Good afternoon.

For the record, Nicole Tremblay, Senior Planner for the City of Venice. And we're looking first at the comprehensive plan amendment, 2563cp for Triton Industrial. This property is located at 490 Substation Road and their request is to change the future land use designation from high density residential to industrial. It's about two acres, currently zoned residential multifamily one in the Gateway neighborhood and they filed an appropriate associated rezoning petition to go to industrial as well. So the intent is to develop multi tenant light industrial buildings.

Right now there's a single family residence on-site but it is high density residential and multifamily on our zoning map and future land use map. So they are planning to redevelop. Here's the aerial map. You can see this property is along Substation road to the south. There is Triton, or sorry Turbine Weld is the property immediately west.

To the North is Southern Stamping and then there's some residential around as well as the Knights of Columbus Meeting Hall. So we'll look at some site photographs and the maps. These are some photographs of the site as it exists today. You can see in the top left there that's Turbine Weld next door and then the house on the property you can see is I'm not sure if it's in use or not but they do intend to redevelop that. So here's the existing future land use map showing high density residential.

There's high density residential in the area as well as other industrial. So with this petition they would be changing to the industrial future land use. And then here's the existing zoning map. Right now they're RMF one but they are proposing the corresponding zoning district of industrial. So as I mentioned surrounding uses include Southern Spring and Stamping, some residential, Knights of Columbus Hall and Chirbanweld.

For planning analysis for a comprehensive plan, future land use map amendment will look at the plan itself, land development code and the Florida statutes. So the designation they've chosen is industrial. This supports industrial either on individual lots or within a park like a PID. There can be manufacturing storage and warehouse or distribution uses including outdoor storage, agricultural and then supporting uses for the industrial like childcare, offices, storage, things like that. In the Gateway neighborhood there is also a strategy regarding redevelopment of properties.

We must consider the coastal high hazard area, strengthen multimodal connections to the island, encourage different uses one of which is limited light industrial, encourage mixed use, pedestrian oriented uses, require installation of pedestrian realm features, and place utilities underground where feasible. So those are mostly site plan issues except the uses are being set now through the future land use and zoning changes. So conclusions related to the conference of plan analysis has been provided to determine consistency with land use element, with the Gateway neighborhood and with other plan elements and this should be taken into consideration upon determining consistency. For the land development code, there's really no technical code for us to review with the future land use map amendment request but you do have three criteria to consider which are here and they involve level of service standards, the compatibility matrix, and compliance with other applicable elements in the comp plan and the Florida statutes. This petition has been processed according to the procedural requirements to consider a future land use map amendment.

It's been reviewed by the TRC and no issues have been identified. Consistency with the Florida statutes we look at Chapter 163, the discouragement of urban sprawl. And so I put the full response in here but you can see all of that in your staff report. So regarding public services, projects already in the City of public services are available and concurrency review would happen with site and development plan submittal. They would be required to have a sidewalk to provide environmental impact studies and although it's not currently used for agriculture or open space, that's one of the considerations for discouraging sprawl that you not take over open space lands.

So this is not that. The existing high density residential accounts for just 0.012 of all the land in the city but industrial is also a pretty small percentage of our city, just 0.047%. So that's just some information for you all to know about the distribution of our future land use designations. So it's kind of an uncommon use to have industrial. You can see it's less than point 1% of the city and it could provide some economic diversity that's part of what the discouragement of sprawl asks about.

Okay so with nothing else upon review of the petition and associated documents, comprehensive plan, land development code, Florida statutes, staff report analysis and testimony provided during the hearing, We believe there is sufficient information on the record for Planning Commission to make their recommendation to counsel on this future land use map amendment. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them.

Yeah, you knew I was going to have questions. Your staff report did not include the

compatibility matrix. Compatibility matrix, yes.

I assume it's applicable at this phase as with all the other phases that we take on these kind of projects. Is that correct?

It is. I can bring it up for you in just one second. Well, have

to go find it, so that's okay. Okay. It says it's presumed incompatible.

It would say potentially incompatible, Potentially, yes. So with the high density residential that's nearby, yes.

Right.

And when we get to potential ways to mitigate that, that'll come at site and development plan not at this stage?

That's correct. I mean you could always place stipulations on maybe a rezone petition for what you want to see in the site development plan but you can also wait until the site plan and see what they're going to do, require any additional techniques at that time. It's up to the Planning Commission.

Okay. And this request is asking us to choose between two things that the city desires.

That's true. It's yeah.

Because if I remember correctly, this part was given the high density residential, that's 18 units per acre potential out there. Not only it is a place for that but also as a potential place for affordable housing. I thought we had one or two potential requests in that area.

Yes, we do have one project that's already done, Parkside Cottages and then we've got another in review actually to the south of this property. Okay. So it is an area that has been focused on for possibly affordable housing and definitely higher density.

At the same time, we don't have a lot of industrial places left.

Exactly.

And with what we're contemplating on seaboard, which I think states that there could be no new industrial This that's in is one of the few places left that an industrial use could be.

Yeah, there's a real tension there in the two categories Yeah, that know that's

why you highlighted it in Okay. The Well, for the record those are both competing desires out there. Okay. Any other questions of Nicole on the comprehensive plan amendment? Pam?

If you would just remind me concerning the road that approaches it.

Is

this a city street or is this a private street?

It is privately owned.

Privately owned by one individual company or by multiple?

Multiple and to various parts of the road as far as I understand. It's a complicated ownership situation. Thank you. And

who's responsible for maintenance?

That I don't know. I'm not sure. I can say Hang

on, hang on, hang on.

If they were to develop this property it would be a similar situation to the Parkside Cottages I imagine where they did, they had to install a sidewalk but I believe that project actually chose to pay into the fund for funds in lieu of sidewalk construction.

Right.

But that would be probably their the extent of their responsibility at this point. I'm not sure that intricacies of the ownership.

Given that it's privately owned does the city have any enforcement mechanisms to ensure that that road meets standards by which I'm thinking code enforcement but?

Well the city has standards for roads. I don't know that they're being enforced on these private roads unless they were to come and want to redevelop the road at which point engineering would be involved and they would make sure that they were meeting those, excuse me, standard details. I don't know that they would go and force anything today but I could be wrong with that. I'll find out some more information about that for you.

So what I'm looking for is there a city mechanism to periodically review not just this road but any private road that is in the city because we have others. Sorry.

Okay. Yeah.

Roger Here we go. We'll get to it now. We'll get to it now.

For the record, Roger Clark, Planning and Zoning Director. I'm gonna put on my best Kathleen Weeden hat from back in the day, our previous Now you are. Sitting in here and basically the city has nothing to do with this road. It is a private road. It is owned by multiple entities along the road. I could say pretty much everybody along the road would be responsible for maintenance of this road. So there is nothing that the city, there's no involvement that the city has in this road. There's been in the past, obviously the city has been requested to take over this road but that has never risen to any level interest for the city to do that.

So as far as the potential road improvements required for this

kind

of development, who insures those?

The property owners that are building on that road that we've talked about today would certainly be part of that discussion, but that discussion would have to include everybody that has access to that facility.

So all of the potential owners of that road?

Yeah, it's a private road that is owned and maintained by the adjacent property owner.

So the applicant is not necessarily responsible for the improvements of the road, Everybody who is an owner of that road.

Everybody is

responsible, yes. That's very interesting. Okay. Other questions of staff at this point? Okay, thank you. Annie? Looks like you get to work hard today.

Good afternoon again. For the record, Annie Boone, Boone Law Firm, agent for the applicant, Triton Holdings. Have here in attendance the, applicant and property owner, mister Simon Beamster Bower. Let me just get this up. Alright. I know we're breaking up the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning but they really go hand in hand.

Know I wish I could do them together. No no, they let them.

Procedurally but I'll just again start on I know Nicole gave you all a great presentation so I'll try not to repeat too much but here this is the property it's 490 Substation Road. It's really two parcels here located along Substation Road which is a private road accessed from the 41 Bypass. The property is approximately two acres in size, has the current zoning designation of RMF 1, future land use designation of high density residential, and it is located in the Gateway neighborhood. Also important to note, this is a historic light industrial area of the city. And so just a little more information about the surrounding properties we have here to the west, this is Turbine Weld.

It's also an industrial zoned property and it's used for an industrial use. Again to the north also industrial use Southern Spring And Stamping, they're here to the north on the Northwest side also this parcel here Northeast is vacant. Here this is a residential parcel owned by corporation. Here to the east we have the Knights of Columbus. This does have residential zoning but it is used in a commercial manner.

And then here to the south, south, this property is currently undeveloped but it's owned by Family Promise and the applicant, the property owner and Family Promise have been are aware of each other's development proposals have been coordinating or I should say development intent. The existing conditions and operations of this property, so it is used by the applicant in connection with his contracting business which is a light industrial use. It also has office and administration administrative business uses which are accessory to and associated with the primary industrial use. So through the comprehensive plan amendment and also the rezone, the applicant is seeking to bring its prop the property's future land use designations into compliance with the existing use which also would allow the property to be improved and redeveloped. The applicant does intend to file a site and development plan if the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning are approved.

So this comprehensive plan amendment, it's a small scale comprehensive plan amendment and the proposal is to change the future land use designation from high density residential to industrial. This proposed change, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan intent and strategies. As the staff report notes, the Gateway neighborhood includes a variety of uses and including industrial. This proposal is harmonious with that. And the industrial future land use supports the existing use as well as and is complementary to the adjacent uses.

Redevelopment of this property would be possible with the future land designation change and the comprehensive plan supports those redevelopment efforts. This proposed future land use designation change is compatible with the surrounding properties. As already noted, this isn't an the historic and current uses are compatible with this proposal being industrial and light industrial use is what is existing on the property presently and what was existing by the prior owner or how it was used by by the prior owner. And this is an historic area for industrial uses in the city. There are still many present and op or there there are those that are present and operating still.

And also areas you already noted, there is a lack and a need for light industrial and warehousing properties in the city of Venice and this property is is well suited and appropriate for such use being that that's how it's currently being used and there are adjacent properties being used in the same manner. So but even more future land use designation change and rezoning would allow this property to be improved through a site and development plan and allow it to be a first class industrial site. There was a transportation analysis was performed and reviewed by the city as part of this application and there were no issues or concerns identified. So in summary, this proposed comprehensive plan amendment it satisfies all of the Florida statute requirements specifically

section

163.3177 responses were provided as part of this application. Staff reviewed those. No issues noted. The proposal is also consistent with all applicable elements of the comprehensive plan. You did bring up the compatibility matrix and it does say presumed not presumed.

Potentially.

Potentially incompatible. However, there are already in this area adjacent residential future land use and industrial future land use and those have been coexisting for a long time without any issue. This property is currently being used in that manner. There has been no conflict, no issue with the existing uses. And so this future land use change would facilitate and allow property to be brought into compliant better compliance with the comprehensive plan.

This proposal also complies with all relevant sections of the LDR specifically section one point five point two and one point five point three, one point five point two being the specific application requirements, one point five point five point three being your decision criteria. So with that said, we would respectfully request your recommendation of approval for this comprehensive plan amendment.

Thank you. Do have any questions at this time? Yes, Pam.

Thank you, Annie. One question. Today it's being used and it sounds like in the same manner that it will be used in the future if this passes today. Is this just a renovation of the property? When I drove onto it, could see it's just a couple of acres, raw land, parking wherever you can. So are we renovating this and increasing the business? Would that would increase the traffic? Or what are what are their plans?

So the intention is if the comprehensive plan amendment and rezone are approved, the applicant does intend to redevelop and improve the property because as you noted it has a lot of potential but it is currently being used in connection with this contracting business. What I wanted to get to there as part of the transportation analysis for this proposal, as you know for comprehensive plan amendment transportation analysis have to analyze the maximum development potential but what the analysis performed was based upon what is reasonable and more likely being that this is a two acre site and there are so let me let me go into a little more detail and back up. The maximum development potential for industrial has a two point zero FAR but in reality that's not possible given inherent constraints of setbacks, buffering, storm water retention. And so what the analysis took into consideration was a conserved still a conservative analysis but what what is more practicable and possible and so it was based on instead of a 173,000 square feet which is the maximum FAR two point o, it was based upon 16,000 square fraction of that. So I don't know if I directly answered your question but hopefully that.

You did. Thank you.

Okay. You're welcome. Oh and mister Collins has

Thank you. Okay.

That that would be helpful and more persuasive too. So thank you, mister Collins. So then the transportation analysis. So the the PM peak hour trip total for 16,000 square feet of industrial is is two. Two trips and that sorry. Eight. I was looking at the end. Eight and the maximum PM peak hour trip for multi family for residential is 19. So a difference of nineteen and eight. Helps put things in context between It does. Thank you. Intensity.

Any other questions? Anyone? Very good, thank you. Do we have anyone from the audience signed up on this and did they specify between the comprehensive plan amendment and the zoning?

Yes, she did.

Okay, have

one speaker, Will Anna Powell.

Okay.

Okay. So you prefer to speak at rezoning? Okay.

Why I asked the question. Okay. So none on the comprehensive plan amendment.

Then no speakers.

Very good. Thank you. Are you well, I don't know you

We have you on the rezone.

You're all good with that then? Okay. Just wanted to make sure. You could have two opportunities if you wanted but. All right, so Nicole, any additional staff comments? No? Thank you. Let me close the hearing. Do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion.

Yes, Pam.

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 its petition consistent with the comprehensive plan and in compliance with the Florida statutes chapter 163 part two and therefore recommends to city council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment petition number two five dash 60 three CP.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Kit. Discussion?

Yes. You want

to do it or do You I am not going to do do it. I have

to say I can't remember the last time sitting up here that I have been torn in two different directions, as I am on this one. Going all the way back to when I was on council which is pushing twenty years now, I was worried about affordable housing and where we're gonna have places to put people, you know, when we needed workers and they built things like Welland Park that are gonna take all the workers away, I worried worried about that happening and I still worry about that. And yet I also understand that area has industrial around it and there's very few places and we did, we eliminated you know industrial out of the Seaboard area. So you know, there is a need for that as well. My biggest concern is there's no answer for it is you know who's going to maintain that road.

Now if they put in affordable housing chances are that's going to use a little bit less you know traffic on the road as opposed if they put into an industrial type thing, but it may be, well I don't know, it depends on what they put in, what type, either way, there is going to be more demand on that road and then I look at it as well who's more likely to be the good steward, a commercial business that's in there that says we really need that road so we better do our our part and help pay for it or is there going to be residents that are in there and saying well, we need this road but somebody is supposed to provide a road for us. I mean, this is really a conundrum here. I mean, I am torn and torn. They both have right answers and they both have wrong answers. I would sure love it if somebody could tell me who is gonna step up and be really nice and take care of that road so that if we put something in there, people are gonna be able to get to it, whichever it is.

So I'm I'm I'm really

I wondering what to understand and I tried with Roger to see if there were ways that the city could potentially use the word force, some oversight of that road And I too am torn between the two uses out there. I know when we went through the comp plan update, this was a discussion that went on in that area that's there. What I come away with is that we're not the final decision authority on this. The City Council is the final decision authority on this. We make a recommendation or don't make a recommendation.

So the motion is to recommend the City Council approval but the final decision on this, I hate to pass the buck but that's where it's going to end up is with the City Council. So that's where I stand.

As one who has lived on what I referred to as an undedicated roadway, I know the difficulty in handling private roads. So when I was in Cincinnati, I lived on an undedicated road and it was not easy. But we formed a coalition of owners on that entire road and as a result paid significant sums to keep it paved and and maintained. So that's what I would among hopes that whether it's turbine weld or Triton that all of the parties who are owners of this road, this collectively, they form a coalition and figure out a way to pave it and maintain it because I agree with you. We have homeowners who live on that road.

There's a community as you approach it on the South Side. There's quite a few homes there. So it definitely requires some attention to it and I hope that in the future some attention will be given to it.

Very good. Anyone else?

I clicked my button. Hold on, click.

So nobody, I

don't look at this anymore because they just chime in when they want to help.

So yeah, I just wanted to comment on the private road situations and said in earlier and I just want to don't want us to get too distracted on that because we don't have requirements for what that private road needs to look like regardless of what the use is out there and we need they need to demonstrate access. The primary purpose that staff retains a lot of this information about the status of the road is to ensure that the applicant has the appropriate access to the road. But how that is maintained and I'm sure there are, well I'm pretty sure there are some agreements out there but whether those are followed or not followed and who pays for what that's really won't be our business and can't be our business as a municipal entity in this situation for a private road.

So no code enforcement would even be applicable?

Correct because it's private and that's one of the reasons why it hasn't become a public road and then in the past my knowledge is because for them to turn that over to a public road the property owners would have to bring it up to city standards which is quite different than what is out there presently. So as a private road and staff can correct me if I start getting too far afield and saying something incorrectly, it's an access issue but how that road looks functions and operates is really up to the entities that along that road and their respective uses and how they want to see the road function.

I'm homing in on your concept of private code enforcement goes into private property all the time to say that you're not in compliance with the code. You're saying there's no code to be in compliance with?

For the roadway? No, not that I'm aware of, no.

I got it. Okay. Anyone else? Thank you. If not, could I have a vote please?

Yeah. Approved six zero. Alright. Let's go to the zoning map amendment petition. These are the same players. Staff is zoning map amendment petition 25Dash64RZ for Triton Industrial. Staff is Nicole Trimbley. The agent is Annette Boone, and the owner is Triton Holdings and Development LLC. It's a quasi judicial hearing. I have a memorandum that says that this is certified the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 02/14/2026 as required by the City Of Venice Land Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office.

I'm going to open the public hearing and I'll ask the attorney to question board members regarding any ex parte communications or potential conflicts of interest.

I presume there's no conflicts of interest since we just had a similar application but confirm that anyone has a potential conflict of interest please place on the record seeing none. If you've had any ex parte communications including site visits that are not presently part of the record then please disclose those start with Mr. McKeon.

None. None.

Site visit.

Site visit. None. Okay, thank you. Again Amanda we'll make sure we get speaker cards. Nicole?

Alright. For the record, Nicole Tremblay, senior planner for the City of Venice. Since we've already seen a lot of this information, I'll skip a lot of the duplicated items. So the request here is to change from residential multifamily one to industrial. So this is the appropriate implementing district for the industrial future land use.

Photographs are the same. Maps are the same. You can see this is the this would be the approved future land use map with industrial and then this would be the approved zoning map if this were to be approved by Council. So looking at the planning analysis for rezoning, nothing really changes with the comprehensive plan. It's still the same strategies that we looked at before.

So we have analyzed the land use element, the gateway neighborhood and other plan elements to give you information to determine consistency. So looking at the land development code here's just a comparison of the districts. I know there's a lot of text on here but you know RMF one is multifamily so it allows different types of multifamily, group living, things like that. No intensity but there's a density of 18 units per acre. There's a minimum lot area and width but these lots are existing.

And then setbacks, the front yard would be 20 feet, side 12, rear 10, and a waterfront yard would be 20 feet. The maximum height in RMF one is 35 feet with 10 feet for understory parking or 46 with the 10 feet by height exception and maximum building coverage on the lot would be 35%. So for industrial zoning the uses permitted are warehouse distribution, light industrial and advanced manufacturing, research and development, storage, major vehicle service wholesale, commercial parking lots, tattoo parlors, fortune tellers, taxidermists. So there's all kinds of things here, appliance repair, microbrewery, university. So some of these are things that would be you know bringing heavy trucks and materials and then some of them are not.

So there's a range of what they could do in this zoning district. There's of course no density limit because there are no units allowed under this zoning but the intensity is limited to two point zero FAR but as the applicant mentioned there's not it's not very likely that they would reach that two point zero but that is their maximum. Yards 15 feet all the way around, maximum height is 46 feet by right, 75 by exception, and then maximum building coverage is 80% for this zoning district. So you have eight decision criteria for a zoning map amendment. I won't read those to you but if you need to look at them later I've got this slide for you.

And then the final part of the decision criteria for a zoning map amendment does state that financial considerations cannot come into play with your decision. Okay, so the subject petition has been processed with procedural requirements to consider a zoning map amendment. It's been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee and no issues regarding compliance have been identified. Upon review of the petition associated documents, conference of plan, land development code, statute, staff report analysis and testimony provided, We believe there's sufficient information on the record for Planning Commission to make their recommendation at council and I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you Nicole. Questions? So the big difference here is we're changing uses from residential to non resident.

Exactly.

And if I'm hearing correctly, the impact traffic wise is more for residential peak units than it is for non resident.

That's correct.

And while it's zoned residential today, it has an industrial use on it today.

Yes. I'm not sure the details of what the property owner does right now but I know that. I'll

ask in a minute.

So

but that's kind of what we're facing here.

Exactly.

Okay. Very good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. Annette? Annie?

Hello again. I'm laughing to myself because Barry, I feel like you're reading my notes because your summary points are mine. Yeah.

I just want to get them on the record because I'm not the final decision authority and I like the final decision authority to know what they're up against.

Alright. Okay. Moving to the rezoning, I will go. You already are aware of where where the property is located, surrounding properties, comprehensive plan amendment request. Now for the rezone.

So the proposed rezoning request is to change the zoning designation from RMF one to industrial. And as noted and again the property is currently being used for a light industrial use and should the comprehensive plan amendment and the rezone be approved by council then the applicant does intend to redevelop and improve the property with a similar similar to the existing light industrial use. So this this request it is complies with the land development regulations and it's consistent consistent with the comprehensive plan. As far as the comprehensive plan is concerned as the staff report notes, this rezone proposal is consistent with the Gateway Neighborhood Redevelopment Vision which includes industrial uses. And this proposal complies with LDR section 1.2 C eight the land use compatibility analysis.

Our responses were provided application,

part

of your staff report, staff did not note any issues, and section 1.72 specific application requirements all these were satisfied. Section one point seven point four your decision criteria. It's compatible with the existing development pattern and zoning. The existing use is light industrial which is so approving this rezone request would bring the existing use into compliance with the zoning designation. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan.

There are no noted conflicts with existing or planned public improvements. It doesn't negatively impact the availability of public facilities with for the development potential possible. There's no negative impact on health safety and welfare would improve those. It conformed it's in conformance with all other applicable sections of the LDR and Chapter 89 of the city's code. So as far as Substation Road being a private road, understand that's a big concern or I shouldn't say concern maybe a little too strong but it is there are a lot of questions that you all have surrounding that.

However, you know the proposals before you today are just about changing land use designations, future land use designation and the zoning designation. And so really the appropriate time to dig into and consider substation road and providing sufficient access to the property that's going to be at the time of the site and development plan proposal and it's not materially relevant to the narrow questions before you all today. It is important but it would and it will I guess what I was thinking is that even if we weren't proposing or requesting to change the land use designations that issue still would would be out there so that is going to be addressed at the time of site development plan. Hopefully if these are approved we will then be able to provide you all with the information that will satisfy you for an approval. Anyways moving on, so in summary, the proposed future land use and zoning designation Anyways, changes, they satisfy all requirements of the Florida statutes.

They're consistent and compliant with the city's comprehensive plan and land development regulations. In summary, this property it's located in a long standing and existing light industrial area of the city. The property's current use and prior use or the current use is prior use was industrial. There is a lack of property in the city suited for industrial use and these proposed designation changes are only asking for the future land use designation and zoning to be made consistent with the existing use. This proposal is logical and compatible and can be found to be in the best interest of the city or of in property owner.

So in conclusion, respectfully request your recommendation of and I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Can you describe a little bit more what the current use is today? Other words, what kind of business is it?

Yes. So it is currently being used in connection with the property owner's contracting business. So it's used the structure on-site is used for supporting office and administrative use. It also uses the property for storage of materials and equipment. So that's the current use.

When you say contracting business, is this building contracting? Marine company, okay. You talk more we're gonna make you fill out a speaker card and come So up you can whisper in Annie's ear or whatever.

Doc and Pier, okay.

However, once rezoned, all of the applicable uses that are associated with industrial that Nicole read would be available.

That is correct but the property owners represented that he intends to improve it in a manner that's consistent or that is similar to the existing light industrial use. He's not going to come in with the tattoo parlor or taxidermist or

See that makes a difference.

But regardless again going back to another point I want to reiterate is that the industrial uses certainly the light industrial uses will have much less impact on the road in terms of trips than a residential, certainly high density residential use would and generally less impact to the surrounding area.

Yeah, get that part. Would they be willing to stipulate to just the light industrial use that they have today?

I don't believe and I think I need to I would need to I think the answer is no because I think there's an intention to improve the property. The property if you have done a site visit it certainly has potential to be improved and I think there is a desire to do that and perhaps have a multi tenant use but it will be of industrial nature similar to the existing contract business use.

But you're talking multi tenant use?

Yes.

Okay.

Any other question? Okay, thank you. Now who signed up to speak on this petition?

We have three speakers. The first is Jamie Nachowski. Nachowski. Nachowski.

Okay. Good afternoon. Can you hear me okay? Yeah. Okay. I just want to start by saying I'm not an attorney. So I a lot that I don't understand but I do feel that we should be heard. You speak a little closer? It better there? Okay.

So I am a resident of the Substation Road corridor and I'm here to respectfully oppose the requested future land use and zoning amendment for 490 Substation Road. In connection with the contractors current business, I keep hearing that being said and that wasn't part of my notes earlier, but I do keep hearing that being said and I'm a little confused as to when you do something without permission, how does that gateway you into getting permission to do it? That property was not zoned for light industrial use and if he's using it for light industrial use, I don't see that as a gateway for him to continue, number one. And when we did the aerial view, cars were in that lot, that lots been being cleared, saw cars. From what I've understood and I've heard them say that they're going to do the you know construction type business and it's been brought to my attention that there is going to be more traffic for people bringing their equipment and storing it there.

So trailers and that type of thing, okay. Substation Road currently does serve residential homes and other businesses. And to my understanding it is not maintained by the city. It already is experiencing significant deterioration including large potholes and ongoing safety issues. Children walk that road to go to the school bus every morning and there's no sidewalk.

And with the potholes, there's cars weaving all over the place. And we do not have a great plan even though it was nicely said how it would be great if the bigger businesses that are bringing the heavier traffic on that road that is breaking down that road would comply and help out, but it's not happening. There's the road is not being maintained. We fill potholes in our from our little subdivision. We try to get out there and fill potholes that are happening right in front of our place but I mean using a cup to empty out a sinking ship.

So I just wanted to bring that to the attention from people that haven't seen it. The requested change from residential to industrial use will inevitably increase heavy vehicle traffic on a roadway that was never designed or structurally constructed to support that level of load bearing use. In addition, this area is located within a flood prone zone, which raises further concerns regarding storm water runoff, roadway, subgrade stability and the continued reliability substation road as an emergency access route during storm events. Under Flores concurrency and resiliency requirements in Chapter 163 land use approvals must ensure that transportation infrastructure and evacuation routes remain adequate to support the impacts of new development, particularly in flood prone zones. So I'm all for development as long as it doesn't outpace structural design.

I do need to challenge Ms. Annette Boone on the existing issue saying that that roadway is sufficient for the traffic that's on it currently and that it is functioning properly with the existing industrial that we have on that road. It is not functioning properly with what is on that road. And the to the point of once you zone this for industrial, it can be made any industrial that falls within that. And that is exactly what happened down the end with the other building that now has this massive warehouse on it. And now we have tractor trailer trucks going down that road all the time. And this is

a broken road. Okay.

I feel that approving this request without a first addressing roadway maintenance responsibility, structural capacity, traffic impact, and storm water mitigation effectually shifts the infrastructure burden onto the existing residents who rely on this corridor for daily and emergency access. I'm not opposed to development that out I am opposed to development that outpaces the infrastructure required to support it safely. And it also it was mentioned many times that the transportation analysis and I did not find that that was reasonable max development conservative analysis. Can't believe that anyone analyzed that road and

said Thank that you. That was a

right, thank you. Who's next?

Next speaker is Willian Appel.

Is this good?

It's good.

Okay. I'm here today because I do oppose the rezone application by Triton Industries Industries. I'm sorry. Substation Road is and has been in a state of disrepair for many years. I'm a property owner and it is not repaired. It is not maintained. I give kudos to the people that go out there and you know, residents and fill potholes because nobody else will do it. All the business owners at the end don't seem to think a problem. That road cannot sustain more truck and commercial traffic than it already has. And along with that, there are families and small children that live on the road.

They walk their children to the bus stops. There are other events. Cars and trucks speed up and down that road all the time. The the police, of course, with it being, you know, not being public and it's a private road, it's not too much that they can do with that because I've thought several times of calling. Along with the increased traffic, the noise will also increase and many other things with the rezoning.

The proposed rezoning is not compatible with the residential community especially since there are additional housing units being proposed which means more foot traffic, more children, more more families. While I understand if approved the developer will have to submit the analysis that they need. I'm confident that that developer is giving an unbiased and thorough job. Our small community is wedged between Venetia hotel and other commercial sites at the end of the road which already generates more traffic than is acceptable and to increase that with commercial traffic is unfair to our community and to other residents. As such, I respectfully ask the application for rezoning of 490 Substation is denied.

Very good. Thank you. Any others?

Next

Yes, please. Okay.

Hi. My name is Susan Armellini. Do you want me to spell it? Yes, please. A r m e l l a n I. I didn't have any notes before I sat down, but now I do. Okay? Okay. So I saw these plans very, very thorough, comprehensive. It was great. The map though, when they showed the map, I think the one thing that they didn't point out was there's actually four residential places in there. You know, we pointed out the industrial, but we kind of forgot about the residential. And I think that's really important. What I also didn't see in the plan is how the developer is gonna be a good steward, is gonna be a good neighbor. Okay?

I know what my community pays to maintain the roads. I've been there three years. I would think as part of the plan, Triton would already know what they pay. If they don't if they didn't mention it, maybe they're not paying anything. I know that our community pays, and I know that my husband has personally gone out and filled those potholes.

I heard that the city has no concerns over the traffic. We kinda do. From a personal perspective, I've been there three years. I've been a resident. In my subdivision, there's about 80 of us, 80 different residents. I think probably on the street, I heard them refer to some residential, but I think probably there maybe is a total of a 125, a 150 different homes in there. I walk my dog every day on substation. I ride my bike. We have people in our community who are in wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs on that road. There are certain times we avoid that road because of traffic.

You the between the potholes and the road, and, yes, it's a private road, but we already have the traffic there. So when I hear about safety, safety is definitely a concern. We have children going to school, riding bikes. We do not have sidewalks as they pointed out. I'd like you to invite you to drive down substation and drive down during the peak times. Okay? When you're voting on something, I'd like you to experience it. Go drive down substation before you approve this and see what we are seeing. We have hotel traffic. We have people going in and out.

You know, when I when I sat down, I saw your vision. First thing I saw from my chair, maintain Venice as a vibrant, charming, historic community in which to live, learn, work, and play. And I ask that you vote now so that I can share your vision where I live. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

There are no further speakers.

No further speakers? Okay. Annie, you want to address any comments you heard?

All right. Thank you all. Yes, just to respond to some of the comments you all just heard. I guess importantly, Substation Road is a private road so it's not under the city's jurisdiction or obligation to improve it. But the state of Substation Road being that it's private and privately owned by all of the property owners along Substation Road.

The state of it and the burden of it is not entirely the applicant's fault or responsibility that's shared by all of the property owners along Substation Road so that that is an issue that really is not before you today. It does not bear on or relate to the future land use or zoning designation changes. So I hope you would keep that in consideration when you're making your recommendation today on this this free zone. And there was a comment relating to storm water runoff and impacts from storms and as you all know when properties go through a site and development plan process and there's engineering done that will analyze the impacts and always improve and be able to address any deficiencies. So that's always a good thing.

Let's see. Again there was a comment relating to the transportation analysis and just want to reiterate that this future land use and zoning change will actually reduce the trip number and therefore impact on the road comparing high density residential to light industrial use. I think that's those are all the responses I have.

Okay. Thank you. Nicole, any last minute staff comments? Thank you. If there is nothing else, I am going to close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? Yes, no? Pam? Mr. Chair. Oh, Kit, go ahead.

Based on the review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as 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 and record recommends the City Council approval of zoning map amendment petition number twenty five-sixty four RC. Thank you. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you. Discussion? Mr. Chair. Yes.

I kind of feel like I am being asked to make a decision which way do you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I am going to be disappointed with myself no matter what decision I make, so I'm always spouting off all the time about making decision not on our opinion, but what's the evidence, you know, dictate, but here here we're being asked to change it from what it is to something else and we made it what it is after an awful lot of discussion and and, hand ring and and really, you know, what's the best thing and where do we want to guide it, how do we want it to go, and they made a decision that how they wanted it to be. So to change it from that, I need to have a lot of really hard evidence that there's a makes sense to do it and it's legally justifiable and all the things and in my mind, I haven't been convinced that we should change it from what we decided it should be after a lot of thorough discussion. And I'll be unhappy with it and some reasons for that, but I have to make a decision based on something.

I'm not convinced that we should change it from what we decided it should be. Thank you, Bill. I can't support this simply because when you're talking about zoning, you're talking about uses. All that other stuff, that flooding and traffic and whatever does come into play when we talk about site and development plans. Sometimes it comes into play in other areas,

but primarily on zoning, We are dealing with uses and as Nicole pointed out in her presentation, you have the residential uses and you have the industrial uses. I mean the residential uses, we can see what those are, they are residential. They are at a certain density level which is one of the highest ones that we have in the city although this is at RMF one as opposed to RMF four, but be that as it may. The industrial uses include everything that's on there. So when you look at rezoning a property to industrial, if you don't limit the kinds of uses that could be out there, then any of those uses that Nicole pointed out that are in that description are available.

And unless somebody wants to stipulate that they are not going to do some of those, I can't support this. So that's where I am at. It deals with uses. Anyone else? Sir. Yes, go ahead, Kidd.

Again, you know, the concerns that have been expressed were primarily about the inadequate inadequacy of the road. Now I go to a weekly meeting out at the hotel and when I leave the hotel, I go out substation road to get to the highway. So I have at least a reasonable sense, though it's not probably at peak time. You know, I also try and use, you know, some common sense in my brain. This might be the root wrong word, but, you know, it's sewn right now for housing, but it's been used for the foreseeable past as best I can tell as light industrial and quite frankly what looked like very light industrial because it wasn't largely developed.

I agree.

So it is one of those, I'll use Bill's conundrum as to what to go. But, and if we wanted to put a stipulation on to what it should be, for example, it will remain light industrial to the extent of now I I would have a hard time and I'd look at all of you all. What what words could I use to have it basically maintain the way it is even if it is more more developed. In other words, just rather than one building there, have a couple of buildings. I think we're all perplexed, but I, on the bottom line, I'm in favor of it.

And it would be nice if the owner wanted to specify that he's going to do basically what is there now, maybe a little newer, more modern, maybe a couple of buildings. But quandary, I'm in favor of

it though. Okay. Anyone else? Yes, Pam.

I'm having a hard time denying this given that we just recently approved Turbine Weld. So that was an improvement that came through maybe within the last year or so. This property is immediately adjacent to that. I totally understand the concern of the roadway, but that is not something that we should consider when we are looking at this zoning amendment. I agree with Mr.

McEwen that the property has been used probably as light industrial. It's a believe it's a two acre lot. It has a lot of vehicles already parked on it. There are some boats parked on it. There's a single family home that's on it. I would imagine that business is being conducted out of that home. What he has in mind for the future should this pass will come through on a site development plan. But I I cannot deny this based on the fact that we just approved turbine weld. So I don't have any basis to deny it. And that we approved what is immediately adjacent to him.

And I totally understand the concern around the residences there and the residential communities. I totally understand that, especially since I've lived on that type of a road before. But I have to it I will also say it concerns me that as a city, we find ourselves in this situation or we have businesses or residential properties that are in this situation. I don't feel that this is fair to anyone. So I would encourage the city maybe to rethink some of this. This shouldn't be a factor but I know for some it is.

Anyone else? Dick?

I'll just quickly do have expressed my yin and yang. I think we could find myself saying we live they live on a road or that road is one owned by everybody and owned by nobody is where I come out of it. And I don't know changing the zoning helps and or hurts. It all depends on the attitude of whoever moves into that piece of property. Would a homeowners association be more inclined to improve the road than a single individual? I don't know the answer to that. So I'm in a quandary also, but I intend to support the change.

Okay. Robert, anything?

Yes.

Turn your mic on.

I'm going to support it.

I'm going turn the

mic on. Sorry. Hardly would do it.

Yeah, I it comes down to industrial versus residential to me. Residential is so many more people than industrial and that's gonna contribute to the substation road traffic. So I don't wanna make that worse because residential would be going in there.

If there's no one else, I always get the last word. Or at least I try to. I understand what you're saying, Pam, and others as it relates to the impact on the road and what have you. What bothers me is the multi tenant aspect of what might be coming and when you're approving a zoning now, you don't know what those multi tenant users are going to want to put in there. So if it were just the one use, that's one thing.

But since they've talked about multi tenant users in there, then I'm dealing with uses and all of the potential uses that are out there. And if I were them, I wouldn't want to stipulate to a limitation on that right now either. But that's the decision that we make here and that's the recommendation that we make here. Again, final decision is with City Council. So I'm where I'm at with if all those uses are available there, that's not what I think.

I'm surprised somebody from the, is it Knights of Columbus is not here since that's the next door neighbor, but they are not here. And I am surprised, nah, sorry, I can't take any input. I am surprised that you pay money into a maintenance of a road and don't get it maintained. I don't know where your money is going to. Obviously it goes to some group that's supposed to maintain the road but obviously that's not happening and that's something that the lawyer tells us we can't really pay a whole lot of attention to.

So anyway, that's where I'm at. Anything else? Could we have a vote please? And we have two no's and four yes's. So that's a recommendation to counsel to approve but you'll have another opportunity to talk to counsel. Okay? That's all in terms of petitions. We are going to do a little bit more business here if you would like to stay. If not, Mr. Clark, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, sir.

Let's see. Next meeting, threeseventeen. We do have an application on that meeting of the text amendment on that one at this point. So we will be having a meeting at the next meeting. Mr. Snyder, I think this could be your last meeting.

It is apparently.

We have some

Well, unless they choose not to deal with the folks that they have Exactly. They might have in front of them.

Correct. Yep. So we'll see how that goes. If that is then we probably should carry him out of here on our shoulders or something like that.

That'd be nice.

But we appreciate your service once again. I want to reiterate that.

Thank you.

Just a few things that I want to give you some updates on. The Seaboard Master Plan is moving along. As I've indicated previously, we're dealing with Phase one now. I actually have a meeting with the consultants every two weeks to see the progress that they're making. We have a meeting of the technical working group is coming up this Friday and that's the group of citizens that we and stakeholders that we put together the last time when we did the master plan and we've got most several of the same people this time but a few new ones and they've had one meeting so far and it gives the consultant kind of some folks to bounce their ideas off of.

But they've done some good analysis, some road design for the new road and those kind of things. So it's getting exciting. So we'll be meeting with them this week. The Parks Master Plan, we did just yesterday, the selection committee did select a consultant to work with. Obviously we have to go through contract negotiations and those kind of things to get them on board but we have gone through the process.

So hopefully we'll have a consultant on board very soon for the Parks Master Plan. Interesting today that we talked about Ajax which some of you who have may been here a long time, I think we would have seen a lot more people in the crowd maybe fifteen years ago or more but but didn't see a whole lot today. So that was to me interesting considering what we've gone through in the past with those industrial uses up there which by the way, Ajax did indicate I think they've been there since '98 which would be prior to any residential occurring up there. So those uses have been there an awful long time. So that was kind of an interesting situation.

I do understand your struggle with this Triton Industrial. Difficult, Mr. Schneider and I kind of talked about it, know, it is. And as Nicole indicated in her staff report that, you know, we don't have a lot of high density residential, we don't have a lot of industrial. So it was a difficult situation for you today but I think you weighed pluses and minuses.

I think you made a good decision so we'll see where that goes from here. But I do feel your pain today and I saw your pain but you did good work today. So I think that's all I have. And Mr. Schneider, if this is your last time sitting in the chair then once again, you very much for your contribution and your mentorship to not only the board in the city but myself. Thank you.

Thank you, Roger. I'm told it is likely my last time sitting in the chair. Council may decide otherwise. They're taking my iPad and and even my power cord today. So And they turned my mail off.

Last week, I had to have that reinstated so I'm getting a message here that it may be time to go. I don't know how that's not so subtle but I am getting it anyway. It's been a pleasure. It's been a tremendous learning experience for me. It has allowed me to exercise my brain in something different, which is always a good thing.

I'm I'm I'm told I could have passed the certification for being a planner after we did the comp plan. I don't know if the guys from Kimberly Horn were being nice to me or not or whether the previous director was being nice but nevertheless, they thought I could pass that given the amount of time I put in on that one and to put more time in on the LDRs was just ridiculous. But I enjoyed both of them. I felt like I've had a major impact on the city and I also feel like I drive around town and I say, yeah, I did that one and I did that one and we approved that one and and what have you, so that gives me a sense of thing. There are very few that I go, oh, we shouldn't have done that.

There's very few that that I run up against that.

You see the new bell tower go up at the

Catholic Yes.

Well, somebody plugged it into the building so I don't know. Agreed. Today was a tough one given what we had gone through on that area of the Gateway neighborhood and I know the hours we spent looking at all those properties in there and what might turn out of it and it's rare that I pass the buck, Mr. Bolt, to city council but you guys get paid money, we don't. So you get to deal with it, okay, as it stands from that point.

You all have been terrific, those of you who sit up here. You've been you've been terrific although you scared the hell out of me for about nine months every time you sat beside me. I'm glad they moved you down there. And the staff at the clerk's office have been wonderful. You guys facilitating me doing it remotely, you've been terrific.

And particularly Amanda keeping me straight on all these things in the minutes and what have you. So that's been very helpful. You guys back there and you, thank you. You have been great and that includes Amy who is I don't see back there but and the others all the way through. Particularly the lady who updated my documents and has all the map stuff and she's terrific. Kelsey? Kelsey, yes. Yes. I don't always remember all the names.

We have a good staff in the planning department.

Yes, you do. You have really good staff. On that, unless there's something else. I

want to blow some smoke up. Alright. I noticed I didn't say the last part.

Please don't. Tuesday. I

just wanted to say, you know, I had the nine years on council. I think I've got that about here. And I have to believe from my limited experience here in the city, not like what Bill has, you and mister Lavalle probably played the two most significant impacts on our city, bringing it from Mayberry Of The South, which when we would visit thirty years ago, that's a gondolier would say that, to where we are at I think basically a very solid modern city and that's planning and zoning and everything you did and I know the hours you put in on not while you were here getting But since thank you and it's been enjoyable.

Kid, it's been a pleasure working with you. That's for sure. Anything else?

Well said, Kid. Well done.

If nothing else, we're adjourned. Somebody somebody