Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Rock and roll. Like to call the meeting to order welcome everybody back from the summer hiatus good to see you back and I have a roll call vote please vote roll call please.

Chair Wilson. I'm here Mister Hale here. Mister Burke here Mister McKeon here. Mister Prescott. Mister Jasper here and Mister for here.

Okay, I have a set of minutes from July 7th, 2026, a regular meeting. Do I hear a motion?

I move that the minutes be approved as written.

We have a motion, Mr. Jasper, to approve. Do I have a second?

Second, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, Mr. Hales is second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed the same. And the minutes are approved. Do we have any general audience participation signed up.

No we do not.

Okay, thank you. That brings us to the public hearings. The first one is site and development plan amendment petition number 26-11 SP Mavis tires and brakes. The staff is Brittany Smith. The agent is Justin Napolitano. This is a quasi-judicial hearing and I do have a memorandum to read. This is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 8th 1st 2026 as required by the city of Venice land development code proof of publication is on file and planning and zoning office. And with that all open public hearing that I have the attorney question the board members, please.

Hi board members pleasure to be here. First question is, is there a conflict of interest that anybody wants to disclose. All right, let the record reflect that there's no conflict of interest. Second question is, is there any expert take communication that anybody would like to disclose at this time? No. We can just say no on the record and go one by one.

Is site visit on? None. Site visit only?

Site visit only.

None.

Site visit only.

Perfect, thank you so much.

And I will confirm that the speaker cards have been signed. And with that. Brittany take it away.

Good afternoon. Brittany Smith for the record planner for the city of Venice and welcome back everyone from break. Today we're here to look at site development plan petition number 2611 SP for Mavis tire and auto. The agent is Justin Napoliano and the owner is Robert Franco. General information, the address for this property is 205 Holstein. That was recently changed, so everything that came in was for 2001 Laurel Road, but we did update that address. This request is for the construction of a minor vehicle service center and associated improvements. The parcel size is approximately 0.98 acres with the future land use of mixed use corridor with the zoning of the commercial general and the Laurel Road neighborhood. This is a proposed 7,095 square foot Mavis tire and auto. The property retained its CG zoning, which is an inactive zoning district. But as you all know, almost everything in this development has retained that CG zoning. Here is an aerial map of the property. And here's an overview of the site plan. Here are the proposed elevations for the project. Now we'll look at the existing and proposed conditions, the future land use, the zoning maps, and the surrounding land uses. So here's a picture of the future land use map showing to the north, to the east, and the west. This is mixed use corridor. And then to the south, it's moderate density residential. For the zoning map, you'll see to the east is Laurel West. That's where future car wash will be going. To the north and to the east, to the north and the west, we have CG. And then across the street there to the south is government use. It's the Laurel Nokomis School. So surrounding land uses just general overview to the north that CG land is primarily still vacant. To the south, we have Laurel Nokomis School. To the east, the future car wash. And to the west is still a vacant commercial. For planning analysis, we'll look at comprehensive plan consistency, land development code compliance, and concurrency and mobility. So for a comprehensive plan consistency, we looked primarily at strategy LU 1.2.9.C corridor. I have just a few of these up here in the staff report. I have more of these listed. So in the corridor, it's envisioned to be located in support of the island neighborhood, Laurel Road corridor, and Gateway and Knights Trail neighborhood. This project is located in the Laurel Road neighborhood. Non-residential uses are limited to commercial and institutional professional. This project is for a commercial use. And then you'll see intensity and density. This project has an FAR that is 0.19, which is well below the allowable FAR for this area. So in conclusions, I'm finding a fact with consistency with the comprehensive plan analysis of the land use element strategies applicable to the mixed use corridor, future land use designation strategies found in the lower road neighborhood and other plant elements have been provided. And this analysis should be taken into consideration upon determining comprehensive plan consistency. With land development code compliance, this was processed with the procedural requirements contained in the code and reviewed by TRC. The proposed plan has been reviewed for compliance with regulations including, but not limited to, setbacks, land area, height, lot coverage, parking lot lighting, and landscaping requirements. All these requirements were met. Responses to land use compatibility analysis and decision criteria have been included in the staff report and in the agenda for your review. You'll see here the development standards where the applicant is exceeding the required front setbacks and side setbacks, rear setbacks for the property significantly. And they're well under the building height allowed for them, which is 35 feet, and they're coming in at 22.5. And then they are meeting and within their limits for the parking range. So conclusions of finding a fact with compliance with the land development regulations, the site and development plan has been reviewed and deemed compliant by the technical review committee. Any issues identified during TRC review have been addressed through this process. And looking at concurrency utilities, so potable water and sanitary sewer are county services. So while I have the estimated impact in here, the applicant has been coordinating with the county on those parts of this. And solid waste and engineering has confirmed drainage, and those were with the city, and compliance has been confirmed. So for concurrency and mobility, no issues identified regarding the adequate public facilities capacity to accommodate the project in Section 5 of the Land Development Regulations. The applicant has provided a traffic impact statement against the approved trips in Venice Crossings, which is 1,208 p.m. peak hour trips, and the impact of this project is 22 p.m. peak hour trips, so they're still well within the allowable And both the traffic consultant and our office is keeping track of where we are with those trips, so this is well within. So in conclusion, upon review of the petition and the associated documents, the comprehensive plan, land development code regulations, staff report analysis, and testimony provided during the public hearing, there is sufficient information on the record for Planning Commission to take action on site development plan petition 2611SP. Are there any questions for me?

Any questions for Brittany? Anyone? Nope. Seeing none. Thank you, Brittany. And could I have the agent, please?

Good afternoon, everyone. For the record, my name is Justin Napolitano, and I'm with Kimley Horne. I'm the engineer of record on the project. I think the presentation that Brittany just did was great. The only thing I wanted to note for the board is this project did have to get a conditional use approval, which came in front of you all and was approved on June 2nd under 2610CU. I think that's the only other information I needed to add to the presentation, but other than that, I have no other additional information, but he has a big questions.

Question is this one is this project similar in size and design to the one you have on 41 in South Venice.

It is possible because they are prototypical I was not the engineer on that location specifically to know the ins and outs, but they do have a pretty prototypical design.

Thank you. Thank you sir, thank you. Anyone signed up for audience participation on this one?

Yes, we have one speaker, Steve Carr, and he has five minutes.

Good afternoon. My name is Steve Carr. I'm the chairperson of the Central Venice Coalition, and I just really have one question wondering if it could be asked how the applicant will be disposing of used tires. and if they will be uh stored outside and if they will be before disposal and uh if they will be outside will they will they be in some fenced area or penned area so that they would be not not that visible for the community driving by and within the uh commercial complex thank you thank you mr carr that's the only one on that one okay uh any additional staff comments no thank you

With the agent like to have a rebuttal.

So on the tire storage, there's no outside display of tires within the building they have a special tire storage area so you want tires line around the site. for visually unappealing driving past it or just a safety issue having tires around for disposal. They do throw the tires out in the dumpster which is screened per city of Venice requirements and if anyone has any questions regarding oil disposal as well they have a container within the building so there's no oil gain dispose in the dumpster itself they have a third party coming to pick it up and dispose of that. Thanks appreciate that welcome.

With that I'll close the public hearing and do I hear a motion.

Mister chair, yes, Mister Jasper based on review of the application materials. The staff report and the testimony and evidence provided during the public hearing the planning Commission sitting as a local planning agency finds this petition complies with the land development code. including the design decision criteria in section 1.9.4 and therefore moves to approve site development plan amendment petition number 26 dash 11 SP.

We have a motion to approve by Mister Jasper do I have a second. We have a second from Mister McKeon. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none could we have a vote please. And it passes unanimously. Congratulations. Okay, moving on to the next one. We have, next up is preliminary plat petition number 26-03PP, Knights Trail Subdivision. The staff, again, is Brittany Smith. The agent is Jackson Boone. This is a crazy judicial hearing and then I have a memorandum to read. This is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on August 1st 2026 is required by the city of land development code proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. I read that. With that, I'll open the public hearing. And would the attorney question the members, please?

Does any member have a conflict of interest that they'd like to disclose at this time? No. Let the record reflect that there's no conflict of interest. Is there any ex parte communications anybody would like to disclose? And if we can just begin at that end and work our way this way.

Site visit only. None. None.

Site visit only.

Site visit only.

Site visit only.

Thank you.

Thank you. And you'll confirm the speaker cards have been signed. And with that, Brittany, welcome back.

Thank you. Again, for the record, Brittany Smith, planner for the City of Venice, and I have filled out a speaker's card. We're here today to talk about Knights Trail subdivision preliminary plot petition number 2603PP. The address is 2100 and 2413 Knights Trail Road. The request is subdivision with a mix of single family and single family detached dwelling units. The owner is CSP Grand Oaks Venice LLC. The agent is Jackson Boone of Boone Law Firm. Parcel size is approximately 60.44 acres with the future land use of mixed use corridor and the zoning of Knights Trail and Knights Trail neighborhood. A little background on the project. The preliminary plot for Knights Trail subdivision is 229 single family units, 116 townhome units. This parcel had a prior approval as 2230SP Nokomis Groves with 630 multifamily units. You'll also recall this came back last year and was rezoned from Commercial General to Knights Trail District through ordinance number 202534. Access to the development will be provided from both Knights Trail and Jean Green Road consistent with the access configuration approved under prior development approvals for the site. This is an aerial map of the project. You see it right there at the corner of Knight's Trail and Jean Green. And it's a little hard to read. There's a lot of detail in here, but here's a copy of the preliminary plot. And here are the proposed elevations. Since this is in Knights Trail, they have to provide some elements of Venetian historic theme, so you'll see some of those elements highlighted here, just giving a general idea of how they would be integrating those elements into their buildings. For existing conditions, we're gonna look at site photographs, future land use map, zoning map, and the surrounding land uses. So here are some site photographs of the project. The first picture, actually the first picture is off of Jean Green Road facing north, and the second picture is from the center of the property off of Knights Trail Road and facing east. Future land use map here, you'll see to the north we have mixed use corridor and then we have an industrial on a portion there to the north and the property that is on the east side is also an industrial. To the south we have mixed use residential and then over to the east we have county rural. Zoning map again to the north you have a Knights Trail and then you have PID or planned industrial development. Slightly a little bit of it there is at the north and then you'll see there's also some there on the east and to the south you have planned unit development and then the Sarasota County zoning of OUE 1. So the north is currently agricultural grazing land and cement plant. To the south, we have Toscana Isles. To the east is active and industrial use, Crush It. And to the west, we have single family detached on that county property. So for planning analysis, we're going to look at comprehensive plan and land development code and concurrency and mobility. Consistency with the comprehensive plan, we looked at strategy LU 1.2.9.C corridor. This is moderate to medium density residential. Those uses are permitted, that is what this project is providing. Strategy LU 1.2.13 mixed use development transition perimeter compatibility standards are in place for this area and are being applied through this project. And we looked at strategy LU KT 1.1.1 mixed use corridor. The proposed density of this project is 5.71, which is well under the allowable maximum of 13 dwelling units per acre. So in conclusions, I'm finding a fact with comprehensive plan analysis has been provided to determine consistency with the land use element strategies and the Knights Trail neighborhood and other plant elements. And this analysis should be taken into consideration upon determining comprehensive plan consistency. When we're looking at compliance with the land development code, this was processed according to the procedural requirements for preliminary plot. It was reviewed by the TRC, no issues were identified. I do want to highlight here, type three perimeter buffer has been applied where it's applicable, just to go into that a little bit further. Where it's a budding and industrial type 3 has been provided. So again, this is a mixed-use district and a type 3 Buffer is what would be required next to a traditional zoning district type 3 has also been provided along the southern and the eastern property boundary and Access again to the development will be provided from both Knights Trail and Jean Greene Road which is consistent with the access configuration of the prior development approvals that have been before Planning Commission and City Council. Here are your decision criteria. They're listed, I'll leave them up here for a second for you, but I won't read them all out. So in conclusions and finding a fact with compliance with the Land Development Code, the proposed preliminary plot is compliant and no inconsistencies have been identified with the Land Development Code. So for concurrency, here you'll see the estimated impact and the compliance that has been confirmed by each applicable department. For mobility, this is estimated to be an impact of 258 PM peak hour trips and compliance was confirmed by a traffic engineering consultant. So in conclusion of findings of fact with concurrency and mobility, no issues have been identified regarding adequate public facilities capacity to accommodate the development of the project per section five of the land development code regulations. And for mobility, the applicant provided traffic analysis that was reviewed by our city's traffic consultant and no issues were identified at that time. So in conclusion, upon review of the petition and the associated documents, the comprehensive plan, the land development code, staff report and analysis, there is sufficient information on the record to take action on preliminary petition 2603PP. Are there any questions of me?

Any questions for Brittany? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Brittany. Could you go back to the surrounding land uses that slide? Thank you. I just wanted to point out for the record that to the south, there's not only Tusconus Isles, and you referred to this earlier, there's also a vacant parcel there that was before us in November previously. So there are really two areas, if you will, south of there. Correct. My second question is, when we reviewed that smaller parcel last November, we also discussed the impact of a community coming up to a private road and have we received permission to for a city's community to access that private road.

And to my knowledge, that access was under consideration for the prior approvals for Nokomis Groves, and that approval was ultimately passed. And I know that when we were looking at that other one that the issue came up again. But as it pertained to this, this approval had for a greater development, I believe it was over 600 units, been approved. I don't have the details on that access agreement and maybe the agent could give you a little bit more information on that than I can. Thank you.

Any other questions for Brittney? No? Thank you, Brittney. Mr. Bowen?

Thank you. All right, good afternoon. For the record, my name is Jackson Boone, attorney at the Boone Law Firm, agent for the applicant and property owner, CSP Grand Oaks Venice Land 1, LLC. I'm joined here today by Kevin Chenoy, representative for the applicant, project engineer heather wurtz with absolute engineering and jim collins planner with our firm britney did a good job giving you all the high points and for the majority of you you all have seen the iterations of this property with land use applications going back to 2022 when the entitlement efforts started As you are aware and as mentioned, we came in front of you all and then went to the City Council and obtained an approval of a rezoning last year in order to take this property from the CG that those entitlements were approved under to the Knights Trail Mixed Use Zoning District, which is what the preliminary plat is provided for pursuant to those regulations. Ms. Sherberg, just quickly, a couple good questions that I did anticipate. about uh this project in relation to the last land use hearing you all had that southern vacant piece is part of tuscana isles so that's actually a considered a commercial slash mixed use out parcel that's our that's part of tuscana isles that's separate and distinct from our property so that's not some random third party floating out there it's within the pud itself And then as Brittany mentioned with access, and I'll get to it in my presentation, really no change in access based upon what the prior approvals were. So no issues in that respect. So here's some property information. Again, just for the record, it's 60 and a half acres, more or less. Future land use is mixed use corridor. Zoning is Knights Trail. Prior approvals, we had the preliminary plat. That was for the entire acreage. that had a self storage component approved multifamily which incorporated the site development plan and then commercial uses on site. The same development plans for the multifamily and it had to commercial out parcel future development tracks with the main entry off of nights trail that was 630 multifamily units that was on about 53 and a quarter acres that density of the multifamily was 11.8 units per acre. With that mixed use project, the traffic study that was reviewed and approved with that, that had a trip generation of 703 PM peak hour trips. So again, here's an aerial property looking at it today. You can see to the north, that's what we refer to as the cows and turkeys property before it started its entitlement process. But that's your Knights Trail zoning. That northeastern and then to the east, that's the PID industrial area. that's crush it there immediately to the east and then to the south you can see the built-out portion of the tuscana isles pud that southern fronting linear out parcel strip that's also part of the tuscana isles pud and then to the southwest that is a combination of both the teg and the generations property those are multi-family And then immediately to the east, that is county OUE. That is existing single-family large lots homes. Based upon everything that's going on out in that area, the anticipation is at some point that will turn over and take a different form. But that's county OUE today. This is the future land use aerial map. Brittany covered that. Here's your zoning map. Basically just the same information I shared with you. And then here we have information for our proposed preliminary plat. So the proposed preliminary plat features 338 single-family units. There are 222 single-family detached units and 116 single-family attached townhome units. features a centrally located stormwater pond, amenity center, sidewalks on both sides of the internal streets. The proposed density is 5.7 units per acre. That's consistent with the strategy LUKT111A density range for the mixed-use corridor future land use designation areas in the Knights Trail neighborhood. Here's the plan. You can see that centrally located stormwater pond. You can see that main access still there off of Knights Trail. There is that secondary access there off of Jean Green Road, consistent with the prior approved site and development plans and preliminary plat. I'll get to this as the plan sheets, you know, Brittany make the reference to with the data. It's kind of hard to get a good single sheet. Look at it. I'll get to individual sections and quarters as I go through here. But one thing that you can see the townhome, the single family attached area resides in that northwest quadrant. Then the amenity center is just south of there. And then the balance of the property is the single family detached area. Um, the proposed pm peak hour trips for this preliminary plat because of the change from the mixed use with the multi-family the commercial and the self-storage this residential only preliminary plat pm peak hour trip generation is 258. so that's 258 trips compared to the 703 that have been approved already I'll get to where you can start seeing this in quadrants. This is that northwest quadrant where the townhomes are located. As Brittany mentioned, lot dimensions and setbacks are provided consistent with the Knights Trail development standards. These include minimum lot widths of 40 feet for single-family detached and minimum width of 20 feet for the single-family attached townhome lots. As we start getting into the single-family detached areas, it's hard to pick up at this scale, but there is a variation. There's a mixture of 40 and 50 and 60-foot wide lots for the single-family detached. It's really a mixture of 40 and 50s, and then the corner lots where you have the turn around the street, those lots are 10 feet wider to encompass that turn. That's where the 60-foot lots come from. This is the southwest quadrant. You can see here this is the single-family detached. and then here the southeast quadrant more of the same for the single family detached as touched on in the staff report buffering is provided consistent with the section four five a in table four five requirements with type three buffers that's fifteen feet wide and six foot fence located around the western southern eastern and eastern portion of the northern boundary I'll go back here this is that north East quadrant you can see here where the type 3 buffer is placed where required and you can see how it transitions from where required with the fence to where not required farther to the east. However, even without the requirement for the type 3 additional landscaping is provided as shown here along that northern boundary where the type 3 is not located. this was already shared, but we have our architecture here in the Knights Trail Zoning District. You have one of the architectural requirement standards where there are specific items you have to meet, and then you get to choose two of the other various Venice Historic President items to meet in your architectural elevations for the product so here you can see we're providing these demonstrating consistency with a specific Venice historic president standards highlighting tile roofs stucco and other building features such as core bells and entries covered by projecting roofs. back to this project because of the history stormwater has been designed consistent with the prior approval and as those requirements have evolved between 2023 and today designed consistent with the city requirements and we actually have an erp approval from swift mud so stormwater's design consistent with all the applicable requirements up to date Certainly. This preliminary plat has been reviewed by all applicable staff departments. No issues have been raised and concurrency has been confirmed for all applicable facility types. This preliminary plat is consistent with the comprehensive plan, including strategy LU 129C, strategy LU 1213 regarding compatibility, strategy LUKT111A regarding density, and it's compliant with land development code, including the section 12C8 compatibility analysis criteria, the section 45A mixed-use perimeter buffer standards, and the section 110C decision criteria for preliminary plats. We respectfully request your approval, and I'm available for any questions you all may have.

Thank you.

Any questions for Mr. Boone?

Yes, Mr. Jasper. Two, if I may. Once the developer leaves, who becomes responsible for the stormwater management system?

So my understanding is that that is all handled by the Community Development District. That has been approved, which is, I know there was some question about the name previously. My understanding, the name of that is the Grand Oaks CDD.

Okay, second question, if I may. I had a little trouble with the illumination plan, I couldn't, my computer was not compatible with it. Is there some illumination at both the exits? Particularly on Green Jean Road, that's gotta be very dark at night.

I can tell you that the illumination is provided consistent with the code per the staff review. I do have a copy of the lighting plan with me if you'd like me to share it, Based upon the review, it's consistent with the code requirements.

My computer wasn't compatible with the background.

Mr. McCain?

Mr. Boone, I have absolutely no issue with the access off of Knight's Trail. I think we had a long discussion on this kind of access. I'm talking secondary. on Green Gene Road when Ajax Paving has some major, major equipment coming down there. uh my concern would be uh like i say not with the uh knights trail but i have some significant reservations on the secondary access or exit yes yes sir and understood here simply we're just maintaining consistency with the accesses that have been previously approved

And I think it's important to note too that because of this compared to the prior approvals, again, I highlighted the PM peak hour trip generations, the difference between what would be generated with the prior approval of the 703 PM peak hour trips as compared to the 258 here, I think helps mitigate that. Everybody is right to have their opinion and your concern. is well founded for you, but I think we're helping to mitigate those concerns and any potential traffic matters by reducing that PMP hour trip.

This middle kind of going along the same lines, I guess if if I'm out is right Monday's we originally this was approved for 630 units and I assume market conditions have driven it to a different type of housing units and it was before so now it's dropped down to where it's 345 so we're looking at 285 fewer units than what was originally approved.

uh am i correct on that yes sir actually even less there's 338 total units here i know the staff report reflected at 345 that's because as we got through the process we dropped down from 229 single family detached to 222 single family detached but your point is well made it is a substantial reduction from a unit count thank you any other questions for mr boone

The plot plan here is very very busy but appears is there the chain link fence on the outside of the buffer so so long the road. The shows of chain link thanks and everything's mixed there so it's hard to determine.

Yes, Sir, I'll I can confirm that as far as how. the chain link fence and final condition I know that our buffer has our own fence were required to install.

So I can confirm that I can I get back to you in the rebuttal with that answer would you like to know for sure that's fine and when you're doing that it looks like that chain link fence continues across the secondary outlet. I'm to Jean Green Road so actually has a chain link thanks cross. You'd almost assume it's an emergency exit.

Correct. There's no intention to have a fenced-in ingress-egress point. So Jim can...

Since I have it beside the Speaker's card.

We'll get you afterwards. Okay.

Can you hear me? The chain link fence on the plan is an existing chain link fence that'll be removed. It's a six foot PVC fence that's proposed.

Yeah, correct. Anything else? All right, thank you, Mr. Boone. Do we have any audience participation signed up for this one?

Yes, we do. We have one speaker, Mike Oren.

Hi, I'm Mike Horan. I'm the owner of Ajax Paving. I've got 100 acres down at the end of this road, and I've been out there since it was county property since 1992. Excuse my throat here. Again, Jean Green Road, it says on here, it says 60 foot on the map. At the bottom where it says Jean Green Road, it says 60 foot private right of way. This has slash with public access. I'd like to have somebody confirm that that's a true fact. I don't think it is. If it was, we'd have bicycles down there, kids running around down there. It's a private road, and you have to have an easement to be on that road. And I'm starting to become an easement expert here. So I would like to have somebody prove to us that that is a public access, because I don't think it is. That's one thing. The other thing is, if you have access, it has to be in your easement and in your property description, that's in your property description, and I'm going through it right now, that they would have to have approval from us to be able to access that road. Just because they think they can, I don't think they can, not without everybody up the line approving it for it, because that's gonna change the way we have to drive our trucks down that road. There's not gonna be a stop sign there. and my fear is here's my fear you have families in there some little girl is going to ride her bike out there and she's not going to look and we're not going to be able to stop so that's my whole concern i have no problem with their entrance off a night's trail but that pro that's going to be a problem there it's going to be a problem for the people it's going to be a problem for everybody involved and so that's my complaint that's all i got to say thank you for the time appreciate it thank you mr oran

Do we have any additional staff comment?

the record roger clark planning and zoning director i just wanted to reiterate i know mr boone did but about that that second parcel on and uh to the south of gene green road is part of the tuscan isles pud there's a separate parcel but it is part of that As far as the Jean Green road access, I'll defer to the applicant on that, but I know that we had paperwork with the last application that determined that all adjacent properties have access to that roadway, and there's never been any evidence put against that.

So we have that.

Beyond that, I know that Brittany hit on it. There's a buffer that is required adjacent to the industrial areas. I do want to stress that this is residential next to industrial. And especially in that southeast quadrant, there is active industrial right next to a concrete crushing facility. So there is a 15-foot buffer there with a 6-foot high wall and some significant landscaping. But that will be, I just wanted to kind of stress that fact so you were aware of that industrial next to residential.

As the secondary was approved in the previous application now we have a new plan in front of us is that it is that not a point of discussion it automatically approved in even though we have a different plan for us.

No, it is certainly a point of discussion. I think the applicant's just indicating that this was approved prior and they're assuming it would be approved again, but it certainly is a discussion item for this application.

Thank you. Any others? Thank you, Roger. Oh, you got one? Wait.

I just make a comment. If I had my druthers, I would love to have a stipulation put on that that secondary exit and entrance is closed off for safety purposes. And I'd rather have that voluntarily done than us trying to, you know, strong arm. But anyway, a comment.

And I just want to put something on the record as well. And of course, if we ask the applicant and they want to do it on their own accord, then that's fine. But to put a condition, if they have access, if there is paperwork that they have legally access to, have that access point. And we would need substantial competent evidence from the code that somehow that access point violates our code. In order for us to really put it on there, I understand the concerns, but from a legal point of view, we would need that on the record.

Thank you. Mr. Boone?

All right, so again, frankly not too surprised about the access just because it came up with the Tuscon Isles PUD out parcel conversation. However, here we have the access rights piggybacking off of what the planning director, Roger Clark, just shared with you all. And I certainly understand Mr. Horan's concerns, operating a business back there, their type of business, what have you. Frankly, it's just we have those rights. The secondary access is required by the code for the number of units. So it's not just a discretionary, we want to have it there for the sake of having it there. Um, I do think again, the reduction in the unit count plays a large part in here and the concern is that you will be having so many more extra people who do not even visit this road today and there may be an issue. Um, well, we're reducing the amount of people from a unit count standpoint. No question. Um, and for Mister McKeon your your question about if we could close it off so certainly we can't restrict access there we have to have that for our plan in front of you to be compliant with the code. But the I was curious what you meant by close it off was that an actual close it off and abandon that access point or is that restricted in some other type of manner.

I would say back at you. And by that, I'm not trying to be flippant. If a gate going up and down could effectively make that safe, that might be okay. But now living in a community right next to where you all are, those gates, you can get around those very quickly. intellectually and emotionally, if it were to be closed off, I would like to have no access, whether it's a chain link fence or something other. But that's my personal desire. And I understand that you've had some prior approvals.

But according to what our attorneys have said, we can't change it. If they're required to have that second access, then it's not a discussion. Correct.

For the level of access, I know that it's required by code to have that there, but can it be just an emergency access? Like I've seen in other developments where they'll have a gate and it's for emergency only, like if there's something going on and they need to open it up, it has to be there and I understand that, but can it be?

My understanding is this has to be a full access point. So while, and again, understanding you'd like to, what's a way that we can limit this as far as vehicle usage? I think the dynamics of the site, if you think about, okay, if you're driving on Knights Trail and you're turning right to get into the site, The main entrance there to get into the site is off Knight's Trail. And thinking even further about vehicle maneuvers and human nature, the left to get out of the site, there's a dedicated left at the main entrance to get out. Because you think of people coming to the site, but think of people also leaving the site and the points they're going to leave from. The left-hand turn for a resident within the project, if they need to go south, and unless they're taking the cut, unless they're going to the dump like I did on Saturday, or they're gonna take the cut through under the interstate on Rustic Road, the majority of the people leaving the site are gonna turn south. Now they could get onto Jean Green and be with all of the other traffic coming from the uses that have access rights to Jean Green, or they can stay in the project site itself and have their own individual left turn out. I think human nature is going to compel a decent amount if not the majority of the folks in the site to use that left turn out. And I think the entrance For the most part, people are going to go to the main entrance. Now, we can't restrict anybody from which ingress, egress they use, but I think as human nature starts to take hold, how people will come to and leave the site, I think it'll function sufficiently. It's been reviewed by the city staff. There haven't been any issues raised, so we're confident it's designed in a manner that will work. Mr. Jasper.

Yeah, you mentioned that one of the major differences is the previous one we had back in November was part of a PUD.

i think actually that had less units in it than this one does so being part of a pud does that make it i can't understand how that makes it safer than being part of a this project i i think the and i i i won't try to surmise what part the access questions for the pud was but understandably and i do i understand where mr haran is coming from um i think it's just a reality of property owners that have rights to the same road.

Any other questions, Mr. Boone? Thank you, Mr. Boone. With that, I hope... Roger. Roger.

Yeah, I just want to indicate, I heard just a minute, I don't think there might have been a little confusion as to what the attorney was saying and what you took that as. As I told Mr. Jasper, that access point is definitely a discussion topic. I heard Mr. Chairman say it may not be because of what the city attorney said, but she was talking about access rights to that road, I believe. that there would have to be evidence in this hearing that they do not have access as far as we know they have access but i want to point out that that certainly is a discussion point but there the applicant is also correct that you do have to have a second access point due to regulations that require that due to the number of units that are on there but there may be another location where that could occur so i just wanted to make sure you understood that is a discussion point of this application thank you sir

And I see no other questions.

Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. And do I hear a motion? Okay. Mr. Oberg?

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony and evidence provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission, sitting as a local planning agency, finds this petition complies with the Land Development Code, including the decision criteria in Section 1.10.1, and therefore moves to approve preliminary plat petition number 26-03PP.

I have a motion to approve a mission where you have a second the second was Mister Hale is the second of emotion a second is there some discussion.

Sure yeah, let me just comment on the difference that I see and I'm looking at the plat as I say this. My major concern. on the prior application that we saw for Toscana Isle was the distance between Knights Trail and the entry into that proposed development. It was probably less than 100 feet. So it was a very quick turnaround that someone could turn off of Knights Trail at the prescribed speed limit and immediately turn into any vehicles entering or exiting that area. When we look at the one that is before us today, that back entrance is much further down the road. I don't disagree that it still poses a risk on that road because of the industrial activity that is east of it. But in my mind, it is a safer entrance exit than the previous one that we saw in November. So for that reason, I'm in favor of this, although I would prefer not to have it at that location. But I still feel that under the circumstances, I will vote yes on this.

Thank you. Mr. Zaspar?

Yes. Well, I kind of feel a little different than Pam because basically with it being down in the center, the trucks are actually going to be going faster than they would be pulling up to Nice Trail. So until I'm convinced that there is no other secondary entrance to meet our code other than on to Jean Green Road, I can't support this. Okay.

Okay. Any other comments? Seeing none, can I have a vote, please? And the motion passes. Okay.

Yes.

Okay. Next up is design all turn it to position of petition number 26 dash one 7 the a Venice crossing signs the staffers Brittany Smith and this is a crazy judicial hearing I do have a memorandum to read. This is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on August 1st 2026 as required by the city of s land development code proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. With that, I'll open the public hearing. And can I have the attorney question the members, please?

Have any member have any conflict of interest that they'd like to disclose on record? Let the record reflect. There's no conflict of interest. If anybody has any ex parte communication that they'd like to disclose.

Site visit only.

None.

None.

Site visit only.

None.

Site visit only.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

And we'll confirm the speaker cards have been signed and we're seeing a lot of you today.

Yes case of the record pretty spent planner for the city of Venice, I have a lot of speakers card this petition is for design alternative petition 2617 da for the Venice crossing signs of the agent is Alvin Ramos the owner applicant is 2001 Laurel LLC. General information, this project is located off 2001 Laurel Road East. It's requesting alternatives for monument sign standards in section 3.5.3.B.2.3.A, B, and D for Venice crossing signs. The parcel size is approximately 82 acres. It's in the mixed use corridor. Commercial General and Laurel West are the zoning districts within this property and it's in the Laurel Road neighborhood. Here's an aerial map of the overall project. We're hoping any day that all the individual parcels will be processed through the property appraiser and we'll have some better imagery here for you in the next following petitions. Project description, requesting relief from those monument sign standards. One of them will be an increased width and square footage on the large entryway monument signs. Those two were noted on the preliminary plot, so they are familiar and their location was approved. Then we'll be looking at smaller monument sign measurements for the out parcels. We would be requesting here that those signs be at a more minimum standard than would be in our code typically to provide consistency and aesthetic appeal from the road. That everything is more similar and at a smaller scale. And then thirdly, increase monument sign width of the two gas station signs. And I will go into each of these things individually. Here is the overall sign plan. Here, if you look all the way along the bottom there, The majority of those are the smaller out parcel signs with the exception of D1 and D2. Those are your large, those are the actually the gas station signs and then the monument signs are A1 and A2 on that site plan. So here we are looking at those two large monument signs where they're requesting relief from, I won't read the whole thing to you, it's a lot of stuff going on there, but here they are requesting relief on the width of the monument sign and they are requesting relief from the square footage that those signs can have. For the two primary entrance monument signs, these features are intended to provide enhanced project identification. These are two large scale box stores and they do typically have larger signs. So this is a request that we would see as being consistent with the scale of the development. And then here are those smaller out parcel signs, allowing greater flexibility in sign design while maintaining effective identification for the individual out parcel users. This would be providing consistency with the overall development and aesthetic. And then here, this would be the price changer signs for the two gas stations. We don't have the actual application or proposal in for Walmart yet, but they bought that parcel back there. And we're foreseeing in the future that this would be something that they would need. The other gas station that was on the sign plan was the race track, which we do currently have an active application in for. What they are requesting here is simply just a wider monument sign. If you're adding in the illuminated area and the price changer at the bottom, they're still meeting the square footage requirements for the sign face. So this is just simply a width issue with this one. For planning analysis, comprehensive plan consistency, land development code. This is the mixed-use corridor. Subject property is located within the Laurel Road MUC designation, which supports the mixed use. signage requests the design alternatives are limited to signage and they don't affect the land use density intensity or other site design standards and Venice crossing was previously found consistent with the comprehensive plan through preliminary plot 2516 PP and related approvals and the proposed signage alternatives they remain consistent with that determination So for conclusions of finding a FACWA consistency with comprehensive plan, the analysis of land use element strategy is applicable to the MUC future land use designation. Strategies found in lower neighborhood and other plan elements have been provided and this analysis should be taken into consideration upon determining comprehensive plan consistency. Conclusions of finding a fact with the land development code. These are design alternatives, so that's why they're here in front of you, because they don't 100% meet the design standards for monument signs. So that's why they're having these requests. But the petition has been processed with the procedural requirements for a design alternative, and there were no issues found during the TRC review. So in conclusion, planning upon review of the petitions and the associated documents, comprehensive plan, land development code, staff report analysis, and testimony provided during the public hearing, there is sufficient information on the record for the Planning Commission to take action on design alternative petition number 2617DA. Do you have any questions for me on this?

Any questions written in this one, thank you Brittany I really appreciate this sign layout it's very helpful gives us a great idea of what is coming in where it's coming my question was really related to. The Home Depot area will there be a sign. on their far east road, you know, it's in quite a bit from Laurel Road. Will there be a sign in that back right hand, it's gonna be the northeast section?

So I would look at this site plan coming in front of us today as just covering some of the general sign elements. I can't recall off the top of my head But I do believe that Home Depot had a couple signs that were already approved through their site and development plan. I can look up that information and give it to you- That's okay. Later, but this one is specifically showing their larger sign faces that will be at the entryways.

Fronting Laurel, primarily. Correct. All right, thank you.

Mm-hm.

Any others from Brittany? Seeing none, thank you, Brittany. You're welcome. Mr. Ramos?

Thank you.

I am John and I'm not Mr. Ramos but I'm with the owner developer so I'm kind of sitting in in his place he can attend today so I'm happy to take any questions I'm not sure if there are is there anything much more to say these are entry signs at the two entrances we have two lights out there you might be aware one exists in front of the school and our Our western entrance is at that point across, so that's where one of these signs will go. And the exact same sign that you saw will go at the eastern entrance, which is still to come. But we're installing a new light, actually just getting ready to probably start that work right in front of where the reserve apartments are on the south side of the road. So those two entry points will both have signals and both are proposed with these

uh for these two entry signs for these two large box folks that are on the north side of the site as you're probably aware thank you sir any questions for the petitioner no thank you sir you're welcome we have any audience participation signed up on this one no we do not all right thank you roger

Getting a workout here today. For the record, Roger Clark, Planning and Zoning Director. I just wanted to make a comment that we appreciate the developer working with us on this. We were a little concerned about the number of out parcels that we're going to have down Laurel Road. And to be honest with you, we could have 15-foot tall monument signs at all of those parcels. So I really want to compliment the developer for his being willing to work with us on this and requiring these smaller signs on each of those parcels. So I just kind of want to let you in on that.

Okay. Thank you, sir. And I doubt there's any rebuttal to that. With that I'll close the public hearing and I'll entertain a motion. Mr. McCann.

Excuse me. Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony and evidence provided during the public hearing, the planning commission sitting as the local planning agency finds this petition complies with the design alternative criteria in section 1.11.3 of the land development code and therefore moves to approve design alternative petition number 26-17DA.

And so we have a motion to approve by Mister mckeon to have a second. The sheer burgers a second we have a motion on this second. And the discussion on this one. Seeing none can have a vote place. And the motion passes.

Yes and whoops.

Okay, how are we all doing? Can we continue on here? Does anyone need a break? Are we okay? Okay, we'll move forward. The next ones, we have Venice Executive Storage. There's two of them here. They're both quasi-judicial. So I'm going to go ahead and do both of them at the same time. The first one is site and development plan petition number 25-25SP, Venice Executive Storage. The staff is Nicole Tremblay. The agent is AM Engineering, LLC. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, and I'll read the memorandum. This is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on August 1, 2026, as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code. Proof of publication is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office. And then I will move on to conditional use petition number 26-19-CU, Venice Executive Storage. Again, the staff is Nicole Tremblay, AM Engineering. It is a crazy usual hearing and I read this memorandum this is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 8th 1st 2026 is required by the city of Venice land development code proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. With that I'll open the public hearing for both of them and how the attorney question the members.

Are there any conflict of interest that any members would like to disclose at this time? Let the record reflect that there's no conflict of interest. Is there any ex parte communication? And we can start from left to right.

Site visit only. None. Site visit only.

Site visit only.

Site visit only.

Site visit only.

Thank you.

Thank you. And we'll confirm that the speaker cards have been signed for both of these. And with that, Nicole, welcome.

Thank you. For the record, Nicole Tremblay, Senior Planner for the City of Venice. So it's my turn to welcome you back from break. I know it's a long agenda, so thanks for sticking with us. And if we haven't said it yet, welcome to our Assistant City Attorney, Carl Armstrong, who's taking over officially today, and we're happy to have her. So, okay, two presentations. We'll do two separate motions, but I'll tell you all about it at once. 2525 SP and 2619 CU for Venice Executive Storage. the address for this is 3508 knights trail road they are wishing to develop a 26 unit self-storage facility and the conditional use comes because self-storage is a conditional use in our code for the laurel east zoning district the owner suncoast executive storage we have john perry here from am engineering the parcel is about two and a third acres in the mixed use corridor feature land use with laurel east zoning in the laurel road comprehensive plan neighborhood So here's the aerial map. So it is address Knights Trail Road, but actually on the map, this road says Laurel. So that's a little confusing, but it is south of that intersection of Knights Trail and the main Laurel Road East. You'll see it's outlined in black with project area and then hatched for phase two. That's because this is a site and development plan amendment. The original was several years ago. I'll get into that on the next slide, I think. But this is phase two. So the previous plan was 0814 SP for a CVS, which is now Dollar Tree. the original site plan shows that area being developed and this area as future development so they are coming back for future development they plan to have two buildings of equal size so 13 storage self-storage units each and then they've got an alternative parking plan proposed so that was in your agenda packet and that does have to be considered by planning commission and we can do those administratively if they are only 25 percent under the requirement but this is actually 87 percent they're proposing to have two permanent spaces and the rest to be temporary loading in front of the storage units just based on the type of use so that's there for your consideration and then the conditional use as i mentioned just needs to come along with this because self-storage is not permitted by right it's only permitted by conditional use in this zoning There's nothing special in the use definitions or in the Laurel East zoning about self-storage. No special conditions they have to meet, but it is up for your consideration whether the use is appropriate for the area. so here's the proposed site plan you can see these are the two permanent spaces they've proposed and then they're showing loading essentially or what they've called temporary parking spaces parallel to all of the storage units 13 units each this is the existing phase one where the dollar tree is now and they'll have some landscaping around and then this large pond here in the rear of the property if you're looking from Laurel Road although it's accessed from this smaller road Here are the elevations. So in the Laurel East District, they're required to have three different elements of the Venice historic precedent. One would be roofs, one is facades and exteriors, and then the third is other decorative elements. so you can see these are not actually red it looks like it when it's small but when you zoom into the plans that's hatched to show you the different distribution of materials to show how they're meeting those those three requirements So for existing conditions, I'll show some site photographs, the future land use map, the zoning map, and surrounding land uses. Here's some site photographs. This is the boundary kind of between phase one and two, Dollar Tree here and subject property here. Looking at the subject property from Dollar Tree. um right across the street from this property is another self storage called public storage here's the view looking towards laurel road and knights trail intersection and then the subject property you can see our posted sign there so it is it is currently vacant Here on the future land use map, it's pretty much all mixed use corridor in the area. Farther to the east, there's some open space functional and mixed use residential. And then the zoning map shows Laurel East. There is one property that's still county zoned over to the east there, and then some recreational and PUD. surrounding lane uses to the north as we've talked about Dollar Tree retail the South is vacant all the way at the end of the road is government but directly to the South is vacant East is vacant and then West is self-storage the public storage use so we're planning analysis we'll look at the comprehensive plan the land development code and concurrency and mobility So this is MUC mixed use corridor, which is envisioned for the Laurel Road corridor. Non-residential use is limited to commercial and institutional professional. Gives an intensity limit of 1.0 per individual property. Typically developed using form-based code, although this is not really a form-based code type of use, it's not required, that's just typical in the strategy. And then there's something about Laurel Road corridor being the only place we can have large scale commercial. This is not what we would consider a large-scale commercial. The FAR is only 0.3, so it's well under that 1.0 maximum, and it does meet the Laurel East development standards. So as I said, it's not form-based code, but it meets the standards set out by the zoning district. So that's what we're looking for. Conclusions and findings of fact related to the comprehensive plan analysis has been provided to determine consistency with land use element strategies, the lower road neighborhood and other plan elements which should be taken into consideration upon determining consistency. So looking at compliance with the land development code, sorry, that should say Laurel East, but the requirement is to have a range between 15 and 61 spaces. As we've talked about, they've got the alternative parking plan showing two permanent and 26 temporary. maximum height would be 35 feet they are at 22 feet 11 inches lock coverage they're well within that range at 30 percent and the setbacks are also compliant 15 is the minimum for the front they're at 16 feet 3 inches 10 is the minimum for the side they're at 21 and for the rear the minimum is 10 and they're at 15. so these are your decision criteria which you all may remember changed recently but not to an extreme degree it was mostly some wording changes so these are the new ones if you need to see them in more detail when you're making your decision i'll be happy to bring those up for you and then same with the conditional use criteria there's only three of these so a little bit easier compliant with the comp plan compatibility and any special requirements which as I mentioned there were none set out in the zoning or in the use definition So conclusions and findings of fact related to the code. These petitions have been processed according to our procedural requirements to consider site development plan amendment and a conditional use. They've been reviewed by the TRC and no issues regarding compliance were identified. And then looking at concurrency and mobility, you can see here that each of the relevant agencies has confirmed compliance with concurrency requirements in our code. And then the estimated impact for transportation is 5 p.m. peak hour trips. So that does not rise to the level of requiring a full transportation impact analysis. but they did provide their traffic analysis showing how they reached that determination of 5 p.m. peak hour trips, and our city's traffic consultant did confirm that that was compliant. So conclusions and findings of fact related to concurrency and mobility. No issues were identified by the technical review committee regarding the site development plan request, and there's no concurrency related to the conditional use, so that was not a concern there. So part of the of the petition the associated documents come with the plan land development code staff report analysis and testimony provided we believe there's sufficient information to take action on both the site development plan amendment and the conditional use and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mister Jasper yes in our code is there any definition that separates parking from temporary parking.

I'm not that I'm aware of we have loading spaces but temporary parking isn't really something that we have a definition for it. Thank you thank you.

As for I go to the elevation. I was just as a security is the design comment that is on the bottom right here is in the middle is that. There's one pedestrian door for an overhead door. Is that the design of the storage facility? Are these doors here?

These right here?

Yes. I believe so. Is that correct?

I believe so. Let me try to pull up.

The only reason I ask is it looks like it's designed for... It's going to be a storage facility. Right. Not like... We're not going to run, like have individual businesses?

Like internal, oh no, no, no. It's only self-storage, like you're in it, you put your stuff in it, that's all. Interesting design. I can pull up the actual elevations if you want to see it more closely, it's just not very good zoomed in here. No, it's just. Okay.

Sometimes when you see that design it's. Understood, yeah. Okay.

No, that would not be the intent.

Thank you. Any other, yes. I have a question.

Ms. Sherbert. Thank you. I've never used a storage facility before. so i'm not familiar with how these operate but i'm very interested to know why there are restrooms inside each storage unit is that normal or are we or is this intended for someone to possibly live there no so they're not intended to be residential units um

I don't know if that's just meant to be an amenity if you're there for a while loading and unloading your stuff, but we would not be allowing people to live in these units.

Okay, all right. It doesn't look like there's a shower, but there's definitely a sink and a toilet, so I just thought that was odd, and I wondered if that was the norm in other storage facilities that we've seen. I haven't seen this before.

I don't recall seeing in any of the recent ones we've done, but we also wouldn't necessarily prohibit them from having it. Just like you said, it wouldn't be allowed to be a dwelling unit just because of that. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for Nicole? No? Thank you, Nicole. Thank you. We have the agent.

Okay. Okay. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is John Perry. I did sign a speaker card. Um, okay. I'm with AM engineering. I'm the engineer of record. for Venice Executive Storage.

This facility is a self... Sir, could you get a little closer to the mic? I'm having a little hard time hearing you. Thank you. Okay, sorry. Thank you.

Venice Executive Storage is a self-storage facility that is not permitted under loyalty zoning without conditional use approval. With this presentation, we hope to demonstrate that this development is compatible with the surrounding area. On this first slide, we see that this site is located at the intersection of Knights Trail and Laurel Road East.

I know Nicole did a great job

presenting this, so some of these slides will be a repeat. Okay, thank you. This is an aerial view to the west of our site. There's an existing two-story public storage facility. There's also, to the south, there's an existing stormwater facility that serves both Dollar Tree and our site. It provides the required treatment and attenuation. We've already received SWFMUD permit approval. Again, the existing zoning is, let's see, I forget, open use. Let me see. No, it's Laurel East zoning. That borders the entire facility. The future land use is mixed use corridor, which also borders the entire facility. Again, you already saw this architectural rendition. The view to the south is from Knight's Trail. And then there are no ground mounted signs. The only signs are the lettering, individual lettering that's affixed to the wall that's on the outside of the facility. The view to the north is when you drive into the facility, you see, this is what you see. Basically the doors and the, so each actually, I'm looking at this There's 13 units in each building. There's two buildings. So if you look at the doors, one door serves each unit. I'm pretty sure. Okay. Here's the site plan that you already saw. Again, there are two buildings, each containing 15,253 square feet for a total of 30,506 feet. Again, 13 units in each. There are two permanent parking spaces on the outside of the gated entry. There are also 26 temporary parking spaces aligned parallel to each unit. An alternative parking plan was submitted. with the site's S&D development package. There's also an existing two bay dumpster on the north property, northeast property corner. That's accessible from the proposed site via a five-foot concrete sidewalk. Now we have a separate entrance for the site. There's also an existing entrance going to the Dollar Tree. And there's also, per the Covenants, I guess they're called the Delacoration of Restrictions and Reciprocal Easements document, there's a driveway easement across that entrance that a dumpster or a bill can use to access the dumpster. Also, we submitted a lighting plan that's compliant with city code to shows there's very, I think it says 0.0 foot candles shining on the adjacent residential properties. Again, here's a landscape plan. This landscape plan shows there's a 15-foot wide landscape buffer to the south, east, and west. There are shrubs and trees proposed in all those areas. The site will be fenced in with a plastic fence on the southerly and easterly property line. That's required because those are residential properties, so you need to have that. No fences on the north side because that's a commercial development, and then the west side is Knight's Trail. Let's see, so in summary, this project is compliant with all applicable elements of the comprehensive plan. This project is compatible with adjacent properties and other properties in Laurel East District. There are no special requirements beyond the conditional use approval for the self storage facility. Projected weekday PM peak hours, peak hour trips is five. There are no adverse impacts to adjacent street as anticipated because of the low traffic volume. The stored materials at the proposed facility will not affect public health. The proposed land use and density and intensity is comparable to surrounding facilities. That concludes my presentation. Are there any questions?

Any questions? Yes, Mr. Jasper.

Originally, I've read about, I think this was, or something like this was planned several years ago, and is this basically a condo type situation where they were going, I know that was probably a plan years ago, or are these going to be rental spaces?

I think they're, I think they're for purchase. Yeah, I think they're for purchase. They are for purchase, yes.

Okay, so that is a change. Secondly, I believe the question was asked about restrooms and so on, the intent. These are fairly high-end type things where people would store maybe high-end boats or collector cars or something like that. So would possibly the restrooms be there? Somebody might spend a period of time, not staying overnight or anything, but a period of time working on polishing and this type of thing? Is that the intent for the restrooms?

I think it's just an amenity, the restrooms. Again, I'm under the understanding that this is all short-term parking, like the temporary parking in front of the unit. So I don't... I don't anticipate the tenants, or not really tenants, but the people that own the facility, they're not going to be there just dropping off their personal belongings and picking them up. The owner is here. He could possibly provide a clearer answer to your question.

We can have a gentleman come up so we can answer questions.

His name is Steven Voigt.

State your name and then later we'll let you sign up as a speaker. Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon, my name is Steven Voigt and I am part of the development team for the project. And yes, the idea of the half bathroom in each unit is if there's a protracted work project going on by the, you know, owner of the unit, they do have a restroom. We don't have a common restroom that way. We built, this is the fourth one of these projects we've built in the Sarasota County area. The very first one we built, we did not put a bathroom in each unit. We had one common bathroom, and that was the biggest disaster of the entire project. So in subsequent projects, we're putting a, one private bathroom inside of each unit so if you are there you're working on an rv or a car or you build a little woodworking shop in the back behind your your car or whatever it is that there is a restroom for you to use in your unit and the other question i heard about the doors that are on the units on either the front facade of each building, there is a overhead 12-foot wide, 14-foot tall door for an RV or something of that to access the unit, plus a man door, and the condominium documents expressly restrict any overnight or residential usage of the facility. It's purely for personal storage.

Thank you, sir. Any other questions? Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate it. We have any audience participation signed up for this one.

No, we do not thank you.

See any additional staff comments. Okay, we're good. All right and should be any rebuttal them with that I'll close the public hearings and I need to do these in 2 separate ones. The first one will be for the site and development plan and doing her motion. Mister can.

Based on review excuse me based on review of the application materials. The staff report and testimony provided evidence provided but during the public hearing the planning Commission cities local planning agency finds this petition complies with the land development code including the decision criteria in section one point nine point four. and they're more therefore moves to approve site development plan petition number 25 dash 25 SP.

We have a motion to approve by Mister can do I have a second. Second Mister Mister Hale seconds, OK. We have motion a second. Any additional discussion. Can I have a vote please. And the first one passes unanimously. Now that moves us on to the next one, which is the conditional use petition 2619-CU. Do I hear a motion?

I'll do it, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Ms. Sherberg?

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony and evidence provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission, sitting as a local planning agency, finds this petition complies with the conditional use criteria in sections 1.8.3 of the Land Development Code, and therefore moves to approve conditional use petition number 26-19CU.

Okay, we have a movement to approve by Ms. Sherberg, and then we have a second by Mr. McKeon. Any further discussion? Seeing none, can I have a vote, please? And that one also passes unanimously.

All right.

And that then moves us on to text amendment petition number 26-32AM, mailed notice and public workshop requirements. This is a legislative hearing. I do have a memorandum to read. This is certified the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on August 1st, 2026 as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code. Proof of publication is on file in Planning and Zoning Office. And I will open the public hearing. And can we confirm that the speaker cards have been signed? And we have Nicole back. Welcome again.

Thank you. For the record, Nicole Trimbley, Senior Planner for the City of Venice. This is a pretty small text amendment. So in May, City Council, whoa, City Council directed us to change the mail notice requirements and the public workshop requirements. So, sorry, the documents keep crashing. basically the change is to go from 250 feet to 500 feet so that more people in the surrounding area will be notified and then the other change is to go from the option to have fully online or hybrid or in-person neighborhood workshops to just in-person required and then if they want to have hybrid they can have an online component to potentially get more participants but someone representing the project has to be there in person so those are the two changes they're only in it won't let me show it to you i'm sorry but they're only in section 1.2 for the review procedures that's the only section that's affected by this and that's what council is hoping to see but if you all have any concerns or changes you want to make suggestions we are open to those as well Thank you.

Any questions for Nicole?

I'll just say I'm glad to see this. I always felt that 250 feet was just too small, too short. So I'm glad to see it extend to 500. Great. Thank you.

Okay.

And my comment, too, I think in person is very important. I always think there should be someone present.

Yes. That would be nice to have. Thank you very much.

All right. Do we have, thank you, Nicole. We have any audience participation signed up on that we do not already. And I'm assuming we have no additional set comments and I'm going to close public hearing and could I have a motion please. Mister chair.

Yes, Mister Jasper the planning Commission sitting in the local planning a sitting as a local planning agency finds this petition consistent with the comprehensive plan in compliance with Florida statutes chapter 1, 6, 3, part 2 and therefore recommends the City Council approval of text amendment petition number 26 dash 32 am.

We have a motion to approve a Mister Jasper do I have a second. Mister mccann. I second the motion. Any further discussion? Seeing none, can I have a vote, please? And that one also passes unanimously. All right, and with that, Mr. Clark.

Kind of a longer agenda than we usually have, but did an excellent job today. Do wanna let everybody know I did see our former chairman yesterday. I was actually off yesterday. I was in Sarasota doing something. I went to Chick-fil-A, which I'm hoping to avoid when it gets much closer because I'll weigh 300 pounds. But him and his wife walked in, and I'm like, wait a minute, what are you doing here? And they were down here doing some renovation on the house, and then they're going back north because he said it's way too hot down here. But I did see him. But I wanted to let you know your next meeting is September 1st. we do have three applications two projects three applications we have a variance and then we have a site plan and a design alternative for the next meeting uh i want to welcome you all back as well hopefully you had a good a good break and also want to welcome carla to the to the big chair up here so uh it's great to have her up here i did want to let you know that the consultants for the parks master plan will be at the citizen advisory board meeting tomorrow to do a presentation on what they've been doing and kind of an overall uh view of their of how the project will be going forward they will be coming to you as well next month so you'll get that presentation again but if you wanted to hear them tomorrow they will be presenting there at two o'clock is that meeting i also want to let you know that the ajax appeal that you all uh approved is going to city council at their first meeting back which is august 25th so that appeal is coming up so just want to let you all know that make you aware of it other than that i have nothing else unless you have any questions for me any questions for roger no thank you sir thank you any comments by the planning commission saying none i think we can call it a day