Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call to order today's meeting of the Planning Commission for 11/17/2025. Could I a roll call please?

Mr. Snyder.

I am here.

Mr. Wilson. Here.

Mr. Hale. Here. Ms. Sherbrooke. Here. Mr. McKeon. Here. Mr. Young. Here. And Mr. Jasper.

Here. Thank you. I have a set of minutes from November 4. Do I have have a motion or any suggested revisions? Mr. Chairman?

Yes,

Bill. I move that we accept the 11/04/2025 regular meeting minutes as presented.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The chair was aye. Okay. Do we have anyone sign up for general audit participation not associated with any petitions?

No, not for general.

Oh, that's good. Okay. All right. So first up today is a site development plan petition Number 20 Five-02SP, the airport Terminal Building. The staff is Nicole Tremblay, who we're going to see a lot of today.

The agent is, I'm not sure, Mohammadah, Mohammadi. The applicant is Mark Servizio who is the airport director and the owner of the City of Venice. This is a quasi judicial hearing. I have a memorandum somewhere that says that this is a certified public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 11/01/2025 as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. Let me open the hearing and ask the attorney to question Board members regarding any ex parte communications or potential conflicts of interest.

It's a city petition, but I'll still inquire if there's any conflicts of interest, please identify that now. Okay, seeing none, if you've had any ex parte communications that are not presently part of the record, please indicate those and we'll start with Mr. Jasper.

Site visit only. Site visit only.

Site visit.

None. None. Site visit.

None. Thank you.

Amanda, you'll make sure we get speaker cards for everyone. Nicole, good afternoon.

Good afternoon. You're right, you will be seeing a lot of me today. For the record, Nicole Tremblay, Senior Planner for the City of Venice. We're looking at 2502 SP for the VNC Airport Terminal Building. So this would be at 150 Airport Avenue on the same site where the current terminal building is.

It's meant to be a replacement of that but it's not in the exact same location so you'll see that on the site plan. The property is mixed use airport with a zoning of government, and the whole property is 453.8 acres, but this is just taking one portion of that. So again the proposed plan is a new terminal administration building. It will be hardened for hurricanes, it will have conference rooms, offices, flight planning areas, and common areas. There's also a new access drive proposed, so there'll be some additional parking as well and that's gonna be off of Airport Avenue of course.

There'll be new fencing installed around the site. And then for landscaping, there is a landscaping plan on your agenda, but we'll need to confirm with the applicant that I don't believe they're intending to do that because there's no landscaping proposed based on the FAA's rules. They have this advisory circular about wildlife attractants in which they recommend no trees, shrubs, flowers, anything within 10,000 feet of an airport that serves German powered aircraft. So following those rules, we said that they would not have to provide landscaping. So here's the proposed plan, you can see the existing terminal hatched right here.

So here's the new access drive, the new parking and the new terminal building, fencing all the way around and then storm water, you can see some ponds. And here are the elevations. And an aerial map of just this portion, as you know the airport is all one parcel but many areas are leased out, so this is the portion that would be the terminal area. So for existing conditions, we'll look at site photographs, future land use and zoning maps, and the surrounding land uses. Here are some site photographs.

You can see the existing terminal building and the existing access drive. You can't go past the fence, but you can see up to the fence. It would be beyond that, the new building. And then the new access would be kind of over here to the west of the existing one. So here's the future land use map.

You can see this is mixed use airport to the east and west, mixed use corridor across and then government to the south. And then the zoning is consistent with that government all the way around on the airport regardless of the future land use, and then Airport Avenue mixed use zoning across the street to the north. To the north are the Citadel apartments and then to the south is the actual airport itself and east and west are other airport uses, other businesses on the airport. So we'll look at the comprehensive plan and the land development code for the planning analysis. In the comprehensive plan, we do have a strategy for mixed use airport, 129D.

It talks about this area primarily encompassing the non aeronautical areas of the airport, which in this case means not runways or taxiways, which this is not, so that's appropriate for that strategy. Uses would be consistent with the adopted airport master plan, of course the terminal is needed, is consistent with that. And then it provides an intensity limit. The maximum average is 0.35 and then per individual property is one point zero. This building is a little over 4,000 square feet, so that's pretty much negligible compared to the entire airport property.

And then residential is not permitted, but of course this does not propose to add any residential. So related to the comprehensive plan, analysis has been provided consistency with the land use element strategies, with the island neighborhood, and with other plan elements, and this should be taken into consideration upon determining comprehensive plan consistency. Looking at compliance with the Land Development Code. This is government zoning, so there are minimum setbacks only, no maximums. And those would be 20 to the front, eight to the side and 10 to the rear and they have well exceeded those for this project.

Building height maximum by right is 35 feet. They're proposing just under that at 34 feet 10 inches, so they're within that. And then parking in the government zoning, well parking for the airport use I should say is listed as being based on the airport master plan, but there are no parking standards in the airport master plan, so they've provided what they believe they need at 25 spaces. So they're compliant because there is no actual code range to meet there. So these are your decision criteria for a site and development plan.

You all know them but I have them here in case you want to reference them during your discussion. So conclusions related to the Land Development Code. The subject petition has been processed according to procedural requirements for a site development plan. It's been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee and no issues have been identified regarding land development compliance. And so upon review of the petition and associated documents, comprehensive plan, land development code, staff report analysis and testimony provided during the hearing, we believe there is sufficient information on the record for Planning Commission to take action on this site plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have for me.

Thank you Nicole. Are there any questions of Nicole? You.

You. Cheryl let me ask Nicole, it's Kelly. Yeah. We need to then stipulate that there's no requirement for them to have landscaping since it was submitted as part of the site and development plan?

Yeah, think that would be best especially since it was attached to the agenda just so that we are clear that they're not going to be required to comply with that. Thank Okay,

is the agent here? Don't everybody come at once.

Mark Seracio, Airport Director. This is Shane Ingolia. Mr. Muhammad, he's not here today.

But

Shane is with actually the overseeing consulting firm, Wakanda and Associates, has been managing the project for us.

Okay. Anything you want to present?

Good afternoon everybody. Like Mark said, my name is Shane Angolia. I'm a Director with Recondo and Associates. The terminal building that we've been working on and that is proposed for the City Of Venice and specifically the Venice Airport. It is going to provide not just a much needed replacement of the current facility, but it does provide programmatic requirements that are not met today at the facility.

And I think most importantly right now we are continuing to work with our partners at the state and the federal level and we are securing funding commitments around 98% of the total project funding. So we are currently waiting for some letters of commitment. We're going through the grant cycle. So while we have like $6,500,000 secured today, we would like them to commit that the other few million is just paperwork process. So as soon as is awarded and put under contract, I think that the plan itself we have been diligent in working with the construction manager at risk.

We had successful GMP negotiations with them over the last few months. We actually had them come down about $550,000 from their initial price for this facility. So in today's construction market that is a huge number, especially as you look at it from a percentage standpoint for the total value of this project. So happy to take any other specific questions that anybody might have but I think that's kind of a high level highlight of the important. I take it

that savings includes the fact that you don't need to do landscaping. I mean, I was looking forward to 13 trees, 56 shrubs and ground cover, but apparently not, so okay.

I'd like to add that the FAA is really supportive of the project. In fact, for a general aviation airport, normally a project like this wouldn't really be eligible for federal grant funding and they've given us over a million dollars out of the bipartisan infrastructure bill. In fact, we were one of only 10 general aviation airports in the country to get grant money for this type of project out of the

Very good. Federal We also walked in and had this sitting waiting for us. It's a wind plot for the last looks like fifty years. Okay. Which was interesting because I thought the wind came the other way, but what do I know?

That's not from us.

Not from you? Okay. All right, very good. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you gentlemen. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Do we have anyone signed up from the public on this one?

Yes. We have two speakers. The first is Drew Gillette.

All passed.

Okay. Next is Tom Martin. He'd like to come up and you have five minutes to speak.

My name is Tom Martin. I'm a resident at Crosswinds Landing on Airport Avenue. I just wanted to take this moment to discuss it is related to the airport but not specifically related to the building. There has been a kind of a misnomer that's been generated saying that thirteen thirty one that the winds favor that at the Venice Airport. And if you combine thirteen thirty one together, it exceeds the winds of five twenty three combined by less than 5%.

However, I ask that you have distributed to you wind rose, I don't know whether you have it, this one. I have a copy here that has the airport overlay, so it might be a little easier if you wanted to see how that relates to it. But the winds on that wind rose are depicted as the percentage of time that they come out of that direction and then the velocity is the colors are based on the velocity.

Sir, if you'd

like to show that you can put on the camera there.

This

one has the airport overlay overlay on it. So you can see that the winds substantially favor Runway 5. And I just wanted to take this moment to dispute the popular saying that the winds favor thirteen thirty one because the winds favor Runway 5, the city has developed the zoning in the past to protect for Runway 5 commercial and industrial off the end of Runway 5 and the switch to using 1331 predominantly has it go over residential residential areas much closer to the end of the airport runways than they would if they were using Runway 5 which the winds actually favor. The wind rows that you have is from all wind data from 1942, but if you do current data it really doesn't change it much and I can provide that if anybody would like

that. Anything else?

No, that's all. Thank you.

Thank

you. Any others?

No, there is further no speakers.

Okay. Nicole, anything you want to add? Anything you guys want to add? You are good? Okay. Let me close the public hearing. Do I have a motion?

Mr. Chairman?

Go ahead, Kit. Go ahead, Kit.

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as the local planning agency finds this petition consistent with the comprehensive plan in compliance with the Land Development Code and with the affirmative findings of fact in the record moves to approve site development plan petition number 20Five-two SP. Thank you. Do I have

a second? Wait a minute. Oh yes, we need a stipulation on the landscaping.

The stipulation that it doesn't include the landscaping.

And with the addition of a stipulation that there will be no additional landscaping. Good note, attorney.

Yes.

Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second. Mr. Chairman. Dick, we'll get to you on that one. Okay. All right. Any discussion? Hearing none, could I a vote please?

And it's seven zero approved. Thank you. Okay. Next up we've got three petitions dealing with property out in the western part or eastern part of the city. Two of these are legislative but I think we had to do them separately, is that?

Yes, they're different enough we should do them separately.

That's what I thought too. Okay, very good. So the first one up is annexation petition number 20Five-sixAN, the Baker Trust Ewing, What a name. Staff is, Nicole Tremblay, agent is Marty Black and the owner is Brad Baker. This is a legislative hearing.

I have a memorandum that says that this is a certified public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 11/01/2025 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 hearing and I'll ask the attorney to question folks about any potential conflicts of interest.

So yes, if you have any potential conflicts of interest with this petition or the following two that are related just go ahead and please indicate that at this time because I won't be asking again.

None. All

right, I see none, thank you.

Thank you. And again Amanda you'll make sure we get speaker cards for everyone. So Nicole, number two.

Yes. For the record, Nicole Tremblay, Senior Planner for the City Of Venice. We're looking at 25.06AN for Baker Trust Ewing. So this is located at 2327 Ewing Drive The request first is to annex 7.3 acres from the county into the city's jurisdiction. It's currently got a future land use of county rural and a zoning of county open use of state one.

It would be in the Northeast Venice neighborhood of the conference of plan if it were to be annexed. And of course there are two associated petitions for the comp plan and rezone. This 7.3 acres is located within JPA Area 2B Sub Area 2. So that allows for residential and that's the stated intent of the applicant and that would be to develop residential units. Excuse me, so here's the aerial map.

You can see it's South Of Palencia and there are some other single family and sort of agricultural uses to the West. And then to the south is County land, there's Curry Creek, there's some multifamily being developed, and then to the east is another parcel that is part of as well. So for existing conditions, we'll look at the future land use and zoning map, site photos, and the surrounding land uses. Here's the existing future land use map. You'll see these a couple times over the next couple petitions, but right now it is county rural.

There's some city mixed use residential around it and then also county rural as well as county officemultifamily residential to the south. Then on the zoning map, mostly county open uses state and then planned unit development for the city property that is Palencia. So here are some photos today. You can see there's a large FPL easement on the property, so you can see the power poles there and it is there is a single family home. It's a little overgrown right now so you can't see it too well, but it's in this back corner here and then lots native or natural landscape there right now.

So surrounding land uses, I've talked about to the North is Valencia, to the East is Valencia, to the West is other residential, and then to the South is a drainage reservoir directly to the South and then some more multifamily and single family beyond that. So for planning analysis for an annexation, we'll look at the Florida Statutes, the comprehensive plan and the land development code. So in the Florida Statutes Chapters one hundred sixty three and one hundred seventy one provide for adoption of joint planning agreements which is what we have with Sarasota County which allows this to be requested for annexation. It identifies logical candidates for future annexations, defines appropriate land uses for those areas and infrastructure needs and who will provide the infrastructure, it ensures protection of natural resources, and establishes procedures for review of these proposals. So this was processed according to all those requirements in our JPA.

We did coordinate with the county, there were no outstanding comments that I'm aware of and so it is before you for annexation request today. So this is area 2B. It's from I-seventy 5 to Jacaranda Boulevard and there are three sub areas within it. So this is sub area two South Of Ewing Drive and North Of Curry Creek. It's limited to 13 units per acre calculated on a gross acreage basis, so that would be the density that they would be able to apply for.

This part of the JPA is served by city water and county sewer. If they were to do non residential uses, they could not exceed two point zero FAR, although this time we have not heard any intent to do non residential uses. And then it says in this also that the party with jurisdiction over the development shall require right of way be dedicated for improvements to Jacaranda and completed with appropriate contributions from the developer. So that is something that would be dealt with at a later stage plat or site plan, but it is part of that JPA Area two. 2B, I should say.

So consistency with the comprehensive plan, this is pretty much what we just looked at. The comp plan includes the JPA and so that's really what we're looking at when we're looking for comp plan consistency with an annexation. So 2B indicates the density limit, it indicates who will be serving the property with water and sewer, And then as I mentioned, other areas like the right of way would be analyzed with an actual development petition where we know what will be where and where the access will be and all that stuff. So conclusions related to the comprehensive plan analysis has been provided to determine consistency with the Florida statutes Chapters one hundred sixty three and one hundred seventy one, the joint planning and interlocal service boundary agreement between the city and county, and this should be taken into consideration upon determining consistency with the comprehensive plan. Looking at the land development code, with an annexation there are no development standards to meet.

There are simply these six criteria in section eighty seven one point four point two. So in order to approve an annexation, Planning Commission and City Council must find that the application is consistent with the state statute, contiguous and compact, that it does not create an enclave, that it is included in the JPA as being eligible for annexation, that it has access to a public right of way and that a pre annexation agreement addresses the existing uses and any other relevant matters. That pre annexation agreement was executed on July 8 and so the subject petition was deemed compliant and found to be in accordance with all applicable land development code requirements that I just read to you. And so the conclusion upon review of the petition, Florida statutes, comprehensive plan, land development code, Staff Report analysis and testimony provided during the hearing. There is sufficient information on the record for Planning Commission to make their recommendation to counsel on this petition and I'd be happy to answer any questions about the annexation if you have any for me.

Thank you, Nicole. I noticed in reviewing the JPA table in the appendix of the comp plan that there are two broad statements kind of made in there, one dealing with intensity and one dealing with open space requirements. Are those applicable to all three sub areas?

At the end of area 2B?

Well, for example, the open space requirement says at least 4.6 acres shall be conservationopen space. I'm assuming that's for all of 2B not anyone given sub area.

I would think so. Don't see that in the text of 2B so I may have to look back in the comprehensive plan

for I what you're looking got it in the table.

In the table that breaks down each of the summary of them? Okay.

Yeah. I'm assuming that that's

So it would be to be overall.

That's what I'm thinking. Just want to be sure that same way with it's up to 10% of the acreage could be non residential with a far maximum of two point zero.

Yes, so that would be

all of two

point zero. So any open space could have been done with Sub area one for example?

Correct and there's Sub area three that I don't think anything has come in for So yet that's correct.

Okay. And public regulated or public right of way, Ewing Drive all the way through even though it is not, it looks like part of it is a gravel road and part that goes out to Jacaranda non existent or overgrown, one of the two.

Right, it's unimproved but it is platted right away. And that's it could be county improved. Owned? I believe so. I'm not 100% sure about

that though. I wasn't either.

Did not find any evidence of private ownership but I probably have to research a little more on that.

Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Yes,

similar question I think. Can you go back to the

Thank

JPA slide? Thank you. So we're looking at just what is the red box today?

Correct.

Yes. B1 is today developed. And my understanding is that the B1 community also extends to the property that is due east of this particular

Yes. This one right here if you can see my cursor Yes. That's part of the Palencia property which is also all this up here.

So back to access to the public right away. Rather than coming down Claremont Road is the intent that they would come from Jackaronda and doing so would cross over property that is owned by the current Palencia I believe it's called.

Cross through maybe. Cross through.

My understanding, don't have a concept plan or a development plan yet but just in discussion, my understanding is they would prefer to connect to Jacaranda, yes, instead of going around Claremont. But that right away goes all the way through so there would you know I'm sure be a crosswalk or some connection between the two but it wouldn't be using property owned by Palencia.

Okay, so the space then directly east of this subject property is not owned by Palencia, is that what you're

So if you can see the yellow line right here, it's But kind of this is showing the right of way where Ewing Drive exists, I mean would developed. So south of this yellow line is the property owned by Palencia but this part here is the right of way so that's not owned by Palencia.

All right

so they have a right of way to their property which happens to be on.

In between, yes, so it's in between the two Palencia Okay, but there's a right

of way.

All right, thank you. Thank you.

And I'm assuming that while they might prefer to punch through to Jackaranda, it may or may not be the only access point.

Right, we don't have a development plan yet. So I don't know if they've fully explored both options, but that's just I think the preference they would like to go with if that is if it ends up making sense for them.

I know we're always concerned about one way in and one way out, but since we don't have a site plan for that, okay. Any other questions of Nicole at this time on the annexation? Okay, Marty?

Good afternoon everybody. Appreciate your time today.

Got a

heck of a glare on the screen, so let me open this up.

Yeah, the sun comes in.

It feels good on my back though, so. For the record, my name is Marty Black and I am the agent for the applicant who is a contract purchaser, Brad Baker, who is actually a member of our local hospital board and the Baker Trust, he is attempting to purchase this property for future development. Great questions about the joint planning agreement. Eighteen years ago, I helped write it when I was here as city manager, so it always brings back a lot of memories and sometimes not so good ones, so have to go back and review documents. But I wanted to be able to go through and add through that. I've combined a lot of information about the three petitions but I'm only going to hit the slides about the annexation piece

and

then I'll go into some more detail on the comp plan and zoning but you'll see other slides come up but I'll go through those quickly. As indicated, the property is within the joint planning agreement between the City of Venice and Sarasota County. That agreement has been in place now just over eighteen years. It was wholly amended restated in 2010 but was initially adopted in 2007. So effectively this area as well as several others have been identified within the city's comprehensive plan as a future area for development within the city.

So we are effectively implementing from an annexation perspective, bringing these properties into the city, the city will be the provider of water and while the county technically is the provider of wastewater, all the wastewater is actually treated at the city wastewater plant because the county owns a portion of that. I think that's important to understand that from a service perspective, effectively the city provides the underlying services to these areas whether they're in the city or in the county. You've raised some questions about the annexation itself, we actually have three petitions, the annexation, comprehensive plan and then the rezoning, I won't go into those details. The property itself is 7.370.43, you've got a survey that says 7.43 and the property appraiser's office says 7.3, I usually go with the survey on that one. We are within area 2B, which provides that that development area will be medium density resident development up to 13 dwelling units per acre, and it's on the East side of the interstate and South of Border Road.

I'll skip this one here, since that's more future land use. Being within this joint planning area, it has designated density. Eighteen years ago when the city and the county went through the process to identify areas for annexation, we actually spent almost nine months analyzing availability of utilities, what future demands would be, I know over the years you've seen a lot of these come through, but there was a lot of effort to ensure between the city and county there would not be duplication of services, that would be the most efficient means for who would be the provider and therefore who would have jurisdiction over the development that would occur in those areas. Great questions about the right of way, because there were some questions and emails from the residents and it's interesting to go back and look in time. History can shed a lot of light on items.

Border Road, Claremont, Ewing and what is today known as Jacaranda Boulevard were platted in 1927 by a firm, actually it was an engineering firm by the name of Black, McKinney and Stewart, no relation, but they were doing work on behalf of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and a lot of folks aren't aware that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers not only planned with John Nolan the island but they also did planning around the entire Greater Venice area I'll say. And so this area was North Venice Farm, was actually planned by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Platte, so Ewing Boulevard, Clermont border and what is today Jacaranda Boulevard have existed as public right of ways and are owned by Sarasota County since February 1927. So it's going on a hundred years of public ownership of a public right of way and therefore the reason why this property is served, we use that public right of way for access and that's one of the critical conditions or questions that comes up in annexation is how can you annex it, will there be public access and how do you achieve it. You can actually drive through Claremont down Ewing and come to this property onto it.

If you have an all wheel drive vehicle, can actually almost drive out to Jacaranda because there is a power line that runs through there. I didn't run through there because some folks have actually planted some stuff in the right of way. I don't know whether they've received permits from Sarasota County to do that but that's frankly neither here nor there at this point. Future development will determine where the access points will come but I will tell you that water and sewer will come from Jacaranda because that's where the utility providers have indicated it must come from. So the utility lines will come from Jacaranda to serve this property as well as any others that may develop along Ewing because the size of the lines and the service connections are there are dictated by the utility providers, both the county from sanitary and the city by water.

You'll see in here kind of this black and white diagram, that's actually a clip from the Sarasota County Clerk of Court's records from the 1927 plat. You'll see that this parcel is Parcel 28 and it's been Parcel 28 since 1927 and it has been serviced off of Ewing Drive. Over the period of time when the interstate was constructed, parts of Claremont were modified because it comes pretty close to the interstate there, so that's why you don't see, I'll say, if you can see my little cursor here off to the west, there's actually a curve in there and that's because when the interstate was put in, the FDOT and the US Department of Transportation acquired some additional lands, there's actually a storm water pond, effectively what's on a portion of the property there that you can see when you drive through there, there's some agricultural testing facilities on some other acreage, there's actually some home businesses in the county that are in the back and some large structures off of that. The parcel that's part of the residential development, the PUD development that's currently in the city that is to the east, actually was a wetland area that's been preserved as part of that development in the PUD.

I believe that entire parcel actually provides more acreage than the minimum required for this sub area two, To the Chairman's questions about the joint planning area, it actually exceeds that. But I will also tell you that on this piece, if you can see my little arrow, there's actually a constructed storm water pond, an old agricultural pond that's in the property on the north side of it. It places any, what I would call the developable portion of this property roughly over about 300 feet from the property lines of the individual lots that are in the adjoining PUD for any future development that may occur.

And that's a lake not a wetland.

Yes, go ahead.

Thank you.

And that ends my presentation on the annexation issues.

Thank you. Questions Mr. Black? Anyone? Okay, good. Thank you, Marty.

Thank you.

Now audience participation. Folks, we have three petitions today. It would be nice if you could focus on the one that's in front of us. You may want to talk about all three collectively, we will handle it anyway you want to do it. But this first one is just on the annexation, bringing it into the city or not bringing it into the city. The other two deal with land use and zoning. So Mr. Black wants to say something else.

I was just going to say, as the applicant we have no objection to how you take the public comment if you

take them all at Yeah, and I'll do that. I just don't want folks to have to think that they have to speak three times if they're And I would

just want to make sure for the record we're completely fine with that. That's good.

So that's the idea. We don't, if you want to speak three times we're not gonna stop you but it'll make for a long afternoon if we do that. So do we have anyone signed up for audience participation on We the

have four speakers signed up. The first is Maureen Maureen Kelly. She has five minutes.

Thank you. Yes Maureen, there's a little box there and it's got a I'm going have a five on it and right in front of you there between the two microphones. And it will, a little green light will come on when you start and when it gets down to about four minutes and thirty seconds. Up on top. Right there on top.

Press it?

Yeah. No, you don't need to do it.

Oh, okay. Okay.

They do all that. So the green light will come on when you start. When it gets down to about four minutes and thirty seconds, a little yellow light will come on. When you get to five minutes, the red light will come on and I believe there is a timer on there that tells you how you are doing. Okay.

Okay. Don't be that long.

All right. You are up.

I can go. Okay. Hello everyone. My name is Maureen Kelly and I am a homeowner in Palencia Community. I am here today to speak as a homeowner because what we are seeing is a neighborhood which was created just a few years ago.

We were all surprised to see the sign go up on Claremont that let us know there was a meeting here today. It is surprising that they think that a two lane road could go in right in between where we have a poured sidewalk that brings us out to the preserved wetland and it would come right in between us so we'd have no access and we maintain that. This area is just a few feet behind the homes. There's no fencing up there. It's all wildlife and it goes into the preserve.

We don't know the plan if they would put up a fencing or a wall. But it is so close from where the conservation signs are it made us quite nervous to see that they would come right through our property that we go over there. Kids go over there bicycling. The developer had poured a sidewalk several 100 feet down to bring us over there. And then around the preserve itself, there was crushed shell poured all around it for homeowners to be able to walk around there and enjoy that.

This road would stop us from being able to have any access if there was a road going through. We don't know how anyone could walk over there safely with cars and trucks coming through there. I mean, it is not across the street, is right into our property that we presently utilize. Also, you know, the sound from all these cars being so close to us is really a lot of noise pollution right on top of at least eight houses that don't have a fence behind them. So, don't know how all this would work for us.

We just feel like the plan to totally cut us off from our property, which presently we fund to keep this wetland preserve going, we have $6,000 in our budget to maintain it by cutting the lawn over there, taking care of weeds, mitigating the water. We have sand cranes that have nested over there for the past three years besides seeing herons and turtles and ducks, we'd lose all that. And a lot of us bought in for that reason because we have this beautiful little sanctuary over there that we don't want to lose and I don't know how we won't lose it with the road coming right through there. Property is right on the corner there of Jacaranda And Border. So presently there is a four way stop.

It is not that further, much further down that they would be having a road come out into Jackaranda. So, we're just confused in how all that would work for us. You know, it's gonna make it a very busy area and we're a little nervous about that. We just want to thank you for considering voting on this and thinking more about them coming right to our property. I thank you for your time today.

Thank you. Who is next?

Next speaker is Deb Carter.

Okay. Well thank you for listening to us. Our community is really my name is Deb Carter. I am the chairperson for the ecology, lakes and ecology. And I do, I'm speaking for the animals and for our community.

Because, I am here on behalf of many of our residents of Palencia community and we are deeply concerned about the potential extension of this basically of this road being in our property. This road is directly beside us, our neighborhood. Right next to the protected wetlands, preserve. And you know, our community pays $6,000 for that. So it's really right in between.

And I heard what you folks were saying about maybe there is another way instead of hurting our property. And the wildlife that's there. We take really, you know, are very serious about this. This is very harding for us, and I'm very nervous about this whole thing because the wetlands is the home to countless species. And we have to protect the animals here.

The tortoise, the birds, the the sandhill cranes. I mean, all of these animals are being displaced out there from all of these communities that I'm sorry, that they they just think that they can just go into our wildlife and it's just not right. A road a roadway in this location would bring noise, pollution, vehicle track, you know, traffic into our area. It would put, you know, it it would cause a lot of, safety concerns. It won't be quiet.

That's for sure. Because we hear the road of 75 too but you know the ecology is what I'm concerned about and and many of us are. Building the road will put the animals at risk. Wildlife will be struck by animal will be struck by the vehicles because the animals literally cross the street. We see the gators cross our community all the time and we allow them and and we see the ducks and the birds and everything.

So we are asking you humbly asking you, to consider, reconsider this approach that you are doing now. And move it somewhere else. Or away from the wetlands. We do pay it for the sake of the wildlife. Our wet lands and our integrity of our community we serve. Please don't move forward with this. Move it elsewhere. We would appreciate it immensely for considering it. And thank you so much for your time and consideration. This is really important to our community and our wildlife. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Who's next? Next speaker Michelle Davis.

Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Davis. I'm both a resident of Palencia and director of Palencia's community association and I'm here on behalf of our community regarding the annexation, the proposed annexation of applications 25 dash 06 AN and 2508 CP and 25Dash 08 Palencia is not a distant neighborhood to this proposal as you have heard. We touch the subject property on two different sides and what happens on that land will happen in our backyards literally along with boundaries and beside the protective environment areas that we define as our neighborhood. Our response as a community has been clear.

Out of two zero three homes, we've gathered a 196 verified signatures in opposition. In under three days we have gathered those signatures. That level of response shows how deep and urgent concerns about the environment safety and storm water and the compatibility impacts of this proposal. I also recognize the responsibility of this commission to ensure that any annexation or rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan. And it protects the public health and safety and is based on factual complete analysis.

The concerns we raised today speak directly to those duties. First, the Wetland Mitigation Preserve directly bordering this parcel is part of Palencia and our association is its legal steward. The preserve supports threatened species including sandhill cranes and essential to our communities or original environmental design. Disturbing the preserve or reducing the surrounding buffer risks ecological damage that cannot be undone and raises serious questions that environmental stewardship and consistency with the comprehensive plan. Secondly, because Palencia abuts this land on two sides, the proposed extension of Ewing Drive would run immediately behind existing homes and would cut us off from direct access to our own preserve, which we are legally obligated to maintain.

A quiet stable boundary would become a cut through route beginning bringing traffic, headlights, noise into families' backyards. This directly affects compatibility, character and public safety. Third, the storm water and flooding remain among our most serious concern. After Hurricane Ian, the resident on Curry Creek documented a significant flooding from the storm surge. Those photographs shows how vulnerable this area already is during storm surge events and I believe that those pictures have been sent to you ahead of time.

Replacing permeable land with impermeable surfaces such as foundations, sidewalks, driveways and roadways reduces natural absorption and increases runoff into adjacent neighborhoods like ours. The risks become even greater if Hume Drive is redeveloped and paved to connect to Jacaranda. That corridor contains a major drainage canal which has not really been discussed that has historically redirected storm water towards Curry Creek. Narrowing or paving over the canal would remove a key drainage pathway and increases the likelihood of street flooding in Palencia, yard flooding behind our houses, greater storm surge vulnerability and overloaded drainage systems. Florida's planning history shows that once natural drainage patterns are altered, they are nearly impossible to restore.

The long term burden that shifts to the city and taxpayers and that prevents the outcome. Is that outcome now is simply responsible planning. Fourth, the natural vegetation surrounding this partial is critical is a critical sound buffer. It absorbs noise from Jacaranda Boulevard and the Interstate 75. Removing that vegetation would increase noise for residents and disrupt the wildlife within the preserve that depends on the quiet habitat.

This is a direct issue of compatibility and environmental protection. Fifth, removing the green buffer on two sides of Palencia would harm property values and undermine the established character of our neighborhood. This buffer was part of Palencia's original design and the environmental protection framework. For all these reasons and as documented in our petition, we respect fully request that the city deny the proposal of annexation and the residential development. Denied, it's Thank you. Blah blah blah. Okay. Sorry about that.

That's okay.

I had just this much more. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. It's nasty when it goes off, I'm sorry. Okay, who's next?

Sarah Gandella.

There she is.

All right. Good afternoon, Commissioner.

Sure. We didn't get your email till about 01:15 today. So just so Okay. You

yes.

All

right. So good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Sarah Gondella and I'm both resident of Palencia and President of Community Association Incorporated and I'm here today on behalf of our community regarding the proposed annexation. Before I begin, would like to draw your attention to something visible in the room. If members of residents of Valencia could just silently raise their hands that's how many of us are here today on a workday, middle of the day, I have a full time job but I stepped out of it to be here today.

I also want to acknowledge the seriousness of your role. You are entrusted with ensuring that annexations are consistent with a comprehensive plan protective of public safety and based on complete and accurate information. Staff has noted that there is enough information in the record to make a recommendation and we agree and the information clearly supports the Nile. First environmental and physical realities, Palencia borders this parcel on two sides meaning development here would occur directly behind existing homes along our community edge and beside the reserve we are legally obligated to steward. This preserve is an active ecosystem that supports sandhill cranes which are a state threatened species, bobcats, river otters and a variety of wading birds.

While we have not yet formally documented gopher tortoises inside the preserve there's well established population directly across Jackaranda on Commerce Drive making their presence on or near this parcel very plausible. This applicant's materials omit critical facts. They do not disclose that the pond and the parcel is part of a connected water body inside our preserve making it a regulated surface water system under Southwest Water Management District and DEP rules. It cannot be filled or used for storm water. They do not properly identify the 170 foot FPL transmission easement which prohibits structures and major grading but was counted as usable land.

They described Ewing Drive as unimproved open road which does not reach the parcel at all. It ends in a creek and thick overgrowth. There is no drivable or legal access people supporting multifamily density. I'll have a picture of the canal if you want to see it's on my phone. You can see that there is a waterway between our preserve and our main community.

Compounding this earlier this year the waterway between our preserve and main development was dredged with a backhoe through Ewing Drive easement if Southwest Water Water Management District nor Sarasota County did authorize this work we respectfully requested investigation. The timing raises concern that this clearing may have been done to make the parcel appear more accessible than it truly is. The vegetation has since grown back but the disturbance was significant. Several trees within the easement also appear to be heritage trees, heritage pines specifically warranting review by the city arborist. Second, unprecedented density in the surrounding area within 1,500 feet of our corridor is absorbing major development.

So the Stara is 500 I believe it's 300 I believe the numbers here are wrong, it's around 300 single family homes and then around 600 multifamily homes. Aria Phase 3 is 196 homes. Altera Jacaranda is two eighty apartments only 200 feet away. That's more than 1,000 new homes and apartments bringing 2,000 to 2,400 new residents under construction right now. Rezoning this parcel to increase multifamily use would establish the last buffer between single family homes protected preserve and existing high density development.

There is no planning justification for this jump which given the FPL easement and pond that is a part of our preserved lands. Usable land is arguably closer to two to three acres so they have misrepresented the potential tax income of the potential future development. Third storm water flooding and water management during Hurricane E and our area experienced severe flooding near Curry Creek. The land in question plays a meaningful role in natural drainage and ground water absorption. Any development here would dramatically reduce permeability of the ground as was noted by my fellow director.

Additionally the Ewing Drive corridor contains a major drainage canal any effort to widen or redevelop that corridor including for roadway access risks obstructing stormwater flow. Once natural drainage patterns are altered they're extremely difficult and costly to restore and that burden ultimately falls on the city and its taxpayers. Fourth community response and petition as mentioned by my fellow board member Michelle out of two zero three homes 196 total residents have signed the formal petition in less than seventy two hours. Their concerns include potential harm to the wetland mitigation preserve and disruption of protected and threatened species including sandhill cranes. Thank you. That's my time.

Is that the floor, any others?

Yes, there's no further speakers.

Okay. I was wondering whether you were going to come forward. Okay, additional staff comments. Nicole.

Yes, just a couple. Well, first you had asked a couple questions and I didn't have the information in front of me. I gave you the correct answer but I just want to be very confident on the record so you know. Yes, that open space requirement does apply to the whole area too overall. And then the road, Mr. Black already touched on this, but it is 100% a county road. In fact, during the Palencia hearings, was discussed that they would need a right of way use permit to be able to have a sidewalk or any way to access between those. So assuming that's in place, that would be maintained. And if it's not in place they would need to get that regardless of what happens to this property.

So my question to you was going be whether there's any deeded easement?

That I'm not sure. That's something that Polencio you would know need the to

gets mad at me when I do my own research.

Yeah, mean it's something that we can look up in the official records with Sarasota County but they would need to have they would need to take care of that in Polencio to have Yeah, some kind of use that's true. And that right of way by the way is about 66 feet wide so that's more than enough for a standard roadway. So just so you know I don't see any expansion necessary. No one is proposing to alter any of Palencia's owned property. And then one more thing that I know you all are aware of but I just want to clarify, density is measured across the entire property just like it is for any planned unit development that has 50% open space, they still get the full density to be allocated however they wish along the property.

Just want to be clear on that.

Very good, thank you.

Thank you.

Marty, anything you'd like to add?

We get more phones that way.

I thought her phone was part of the record, we get to keep it. No? Okay.

I'm gonna have to figure out how to print mine as well for the record.

There you go.

Again, Marty Black, thank you and I appreciate the comments from the residents. Again this area has been planned for annexation into the city for going on almost twenty years. It's been agreed to by Sarasota County at the time the joint plan agreement was reviewed by the state of Florida and approved. It was one of two in the state of joint planning agreements between the city and county to do effectively a thirty year plan for how the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the community would grow. So I think it served as a model for the cooperation between jurisdictions.

I will also reflect that the city of Northport elected not to enter into agreement and instead they went into a battle and ended up in a charter amendment in Sarasota County that now requires even for annexations in Northport, they have to go back to the county commission and have the stuff, county comp plan, county zoning and then go back to the city and do it all over again. So this was actually a model at the time. Many of you don't know this, but I actually helped write the original Florida growth management laws in the 1980s, it was one of my initial projects here in the State of Florida. So I think this reflects well on the city that you actually planned jointly and cooperatively with the communities around you, Sarasota County in particular. I do want to note for the folks in Palencia, when you look at the plan that was done for Palencia, it clearly shows that the right of way existed.

There's actually a buffer area at the back of Palencia that the sidewalk crosses from their sidewalk. These are from the original PUD plans when it came through, I pulled them out of the record and you see in there, and I'll just zoom it in a little, that dashed yellow line, that's the public right of way that's owned by Sarasota County. The white line was the proposed sidewalk crossing to connect the two communities. Obviously any future development of this parcel will need to respect that that sidewalk needs to be maintained or existed or reconstructed depending on what the permit requirements are for Sarasota County. Frankly, it's going to be up to their standards as to what any future developer needs to do to accommodate or provide that.

Such as a crosswalk?

A crosswalk, it may or may not need to be lit, know, they're flashing lights but we'll have to meet Sarasota County standards because it is a County public right of way.

Gotcha.

And with that, I would just say that we recognize that they have an environmental preserve, it's actually adjoins Jacaranda Boulevard. So when we talk about these types of facilities, it's admirable that the community developer for Valencia set this area aside, but it is wet, just as the area on this property, there is a pond area there that I indicated earlier, that area will remain wet and the power line will remain as a power line. The access to this property comes in just to the east of the power line, actually crosses a little bit into that power line easement. Having done work with and for FP and L in the past, they do allow for those vehicle crossings whether or not the future developer will elect to maintain that or shift it is going to be subject to the city's site and development plan and planning process. But I will tell you and for the benefit of the residents, any structures built on this will be at least 300 feet to the south because of the right of way, the existing improvements that are on this property, So any development that does occur will be to the south of that existing lake that's on the property in the event that it is annexed ultimately by the City Council.

Very good, thank you.

Thank you.

And I just want to say one thing before I close the public hearing. It's nice of you all to think that we have the final decision today, we don't. We make a recommendation to the city on annexations, future land uses and zoning. So there will be another hearing potentially after we're done today. Ours is just a recommendation of what we think to provide input to the City Council. So it's not the final decision, it's whether we recommend or not recommend. At that point, if there's nothing else, I'm gonna close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? Mr. Chairman. Yes sir.

For the, purpose of discussion here and I will follow it up, have some comments to make. Please. After I make the motion.

Alright.

I move to recommend the City Council approval of annexation petition number 25Dash06AN. Do

I have a second?

Second.

Thank you. Discussion?

Yes, I do have a discussion. One thing I've, like Marty said, he's been involved with the United Nations for a long time while I had the the joy of having been part of him for quite some time myself through council and planning commission and and just as a citizen. But one of the common misconceptions that I have come across over all the years, even going all the way back to Venetian Gulf and River Globe, is that, well, if they don't annex it, it won't be developed. Well, that's just isn't true. So, it really comes down to, would we rather have it be developed by the city or would we rather have it be developed by the county and that's what they did years back when they decided what's gonna be the the best way to do it, how's the the best way to divide it up and decide who does it, and that's when they came up with the whole JPA things and the stipulation.

So I just want to take away that it really comes down to many times, I think, you got to be careful what you wish for because quite often I feel like in the city, we require things to be done that isn't always necessarily required by the county. You may find you end up getting far nicer development through the city than you might have through the county. So I just say you you be careful what you wish for sometimes. And what we're voting on right now is strictly whether or not it should be annexed as first vote, that's all it is. There's no site development plan, nothing about what they're going to do, but should it be annexed in? That's what we're voting on right this moment. Those are my comments.

Very good. Anyone else? Yes. Go ahead, Bob.

Yes. Whole idea of annexation is fairly new to me and it's being new on the planning commission. So I don't have the history of of a lot of what has gone before. But when I looked at what has happened in the last few years, when there's a county zoning and then we get the development and the people might not want it, I wanted to know was why didn't the county want it? And so I'm wondering when we let them decide what they want, are we letting them getting the better the deal?

Example might be the new apartments or condominiums that are going in this area and how did the county decide, we'll take that for ourselves. We'll we won't make take it, we might come out way ahead if we put in stuff in there. So I worry about that decision making being made by the county at their, you know, what works best for them. This particular case looks a little bit like that has its possibilities. How did the county decide they didn't want to keep this property and be in charge of what goes in there.

And so that could go for other projects that I've seen come into our area and look at the property development area and I'd say, the county has it, they're letting us take it, why are they letting us take it, why don't they take it, you know. Why why are we being left with especially where there could be higher densities and we don't necessarily want those higher densities and this looks like one that has a potential having higher density than if they were stuck with it and had to had to make the tough decision. So I'm leaning towards not not wanting an annexation when we really don't need it. People don't want it and I just think that this is an example where we could just let them do what they want to do and that's probably not going to they may not do anything because what's being proposed here might be more than they want to. So and there's other locations in the city where that could apply where other developments nearby are being required by the city for a higher level, but because they're coming in as an annexation they'd be getting better numbers of people that they can have in there.

So I'm going to be opposing this.

Okay. One thing to remember, the joint planning agreement was an agreement between the county and the city. Northport probably caused all these because Northport went out and just said we're taking all this. And there was no agreement with the county. And if you drive to Northport, you're gonna see a lot of vacant properties that are in the city limits of Northport.

The county I think said that's not the way we wanna do things. We'd rather have agreements between the municipality and the county as to we're in agreement that this is an area that a city could expand into. It's county property, but it is an area where we could have the city expand into. And when we do that, here's what everybody agrees it could look like, it could look like. But it's an agreement.

It's not one giving up something or one taking something, it's between the two. And when they do that, as Bill said, the city then gets to govern what it looks like and how it would be developed and what services would be derived from that. And I'll be honest with you, the city gets revenue from it because it will be tax revenue for the city. The county could change that property just as easily by rezoning it itself and putting as an accounting zoning on it if it were wanting to do that. But right now it's in a joint planning area.

So it's between the two and as Nicole said, the county has not set any negatives this particular annexation. So I just want to remember this, it's a joint agreement that this is there. It's not one favoring something over another. But they Go ahead, go ahead. Oh, ahead Bob.

Yes, say, well what makes them decide which way to go?

Oh, I think we sit down with them way back when and said here's some areas that currently border on the city and might be potentials for annexation. There are a number on the list of annexations that I don't think will ever occur. We quite frankly probably don't want some of those even though they were negotiated as well here's a potential area. There's a lot of area in South Venice that is on the border that I'm not sure would ever be developed. There's some areas out near whatever that river is out there that my echo on Woodlands that to the east of that that I don't think we necessarily want to develop that either or bringing it into the city.

Can give us a

I I think maybe this is also the question that he's asking is, it's ultimately up these are volunteer, this is a voluntary annexation. Correct. This is the property owner who is asking to come into the Right. We have a joint planning agreement that determines that this is an area where we can as the city annex but it is up to the property owner to decide do I want to be in the city or do I want to be in the county. We wouldn't force them to come into the city, they're coming to us asking asking us to be in the city.

Yes, thank you. And I was also going to add what was much of the driving force was where does it make sense, who can best provide the services to that area. That was the driving force of what was making it

happen. Let me also say that there are six specific criteria involved in annexations and I don't think anything that was presented today causes any one of those criteria on annexations to be brought into question. The one that was the most was dealing with the public right away and we've asked a lot of questions about that. Okay, any other discussion? Hearing none, I a vote please?

Okay, the annexation recommendation is a yes to the city council that we recommend it be annexed six to one. Alright, now the flavors take on a little bit more significance. So the next one deals with what is the future land use that is going to be on this property going forward. So it is done through a comprehensive plan amendment so this is comprehensive plan amendment petition number 20Five-sevenCP, the Baker Trust Ewing. Staff is Nicole, Marty Black is the agent, Brad Baker is the owner.

Again, is a legislative hearing and I have a memorandum that says that this is to certify the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 11/01/2025 as required by the City Of Venice Land Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office. Let me open the hearing and we've already done everything in terms

of conflicts of interest, right? Yes.

Yes, so we're good on that. Okay, so then Amanda is going to make sure we have speaker cards. Number three.

Yes. For the record, Nicole Trimbley, senior planner for the City Of Venice. We are looking at the conference and plan amendment request for Baker Trust Ewing property. The request is to change the future land use designation from Sarasota County rural to City Of Venice medium density residential. Same property size again in the conference of plan this would become part of the Northeast Venice neighborhood.

So as I mentioned they're requesting medium density residential, and they do have the relevant zoning filed to be an implementing zoning district. So the aerial map is the same, existing conditions are the same, so I won't go over those again. Well, let me show you the proposed feature land use map with the change. Here's the existing rural, here's the proposed, it would go to medium density. To the south there's also office and multifamily residential, but that's in the county as we discussed.

All right, so for planning analysis we'll look at the Land Development Code, comprehensive plan and Florida Statutes. So compliance with the Land Development Code, there's three decision criteria for comprehensive plan, future land use map amendment, consider the impacts to the adopted level of service standards, consider the compatibility matrix, and find the application in compliance with all the other applicable elements in the statutes and the comprehensive plan. One of those requirements for the application is a transportation analysis based on three planning periods and that's sort of more general than the one that we get at site plan because it's kind of like a worst case scenario, like the maximum development potential. So they did provide that and our city's transportation consultant did deem that compliant, identified no issues with that, but they will be providing more detailed information as we get to the site plan process. So consistency with the comprehensive plan.

The strategy they're applying for is medium density residential so that supports a variety of residential types, single family attached and multifamily, supports mixed use residential development. And at this time, as I mentioned, they're not proposing any non residential uses, it would just be residential at the density allowed by the JPA, which again was nine point zero units per acre. And then strategy LU 1.2.8 is about the compatibility matrix that I mentioned. So you can see there really is no there are no county future land use designations in our matrix. So the closest one would be the low density residential and you can see that's green there as presumed compatible.

And then there's strategy LU 1.2.16 for mixed use residential because we know this is adjacent to mixed use residential to the north and to the east. And so you can see there it's orange. So that would be an opportunity to consider additional compatibility techniques now or more relevant at the site plan phase, but you can consider them now of course. And we've got section 4.4 in the land development code that discusses those things. So those are things like architectural design, location of the buildings on the site, know, setbacks, locating away from other uses and additional buffering.

So things like that that you all are familiar with could be considered in this case where it's adjacent to mixed use residential. And then for the Florida Statutes, this is a small scale amendment to the comprehensive plan. It's a future land use map change on a small relatively small property. So this would have to meet these 10 criteria or types of data that should be used and that those kind of go into developing the future land use map as a whole. And the statutes also describe what analysis the amendment should be based on and provides nine indicators of urban sprawl and at least four indicators against sprawl should be met by a proposed amendment.

So four that were identified by the applicant that are relevant to this would be directing development to geographic areas that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems, promotes efficient and cost effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services which we just talked about with the JPA, promoting walkable and connected communities, more compact development and then creating a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for non residential needs of an area. So this one does not provide any non residential, but it provides a different type of residential than what's already, directly to the north and to the east and west. So conclusions related to this, staff has provided analysis of the proposed future land use map amendment regarding consistency with comprehensive plan, the land development code, and other relevant city ordinances, resolutions, or agreements. In addition, analysis has been provided regarding compliance with the requirements of chapter 163 of the Florida statutes. And this should be taken into consideration, for your decision on the future land use map amendment.

Upon review of all these documents, testimony provided, we believe there's sufficient information on the record to make that recommendation to City Council. And if you have any questions about the conference of plan amendment, I'm happy to answer them.

Thank you, Nicole. Do you have the slide that you had before that showed the three sub areas of 2B? Yes. You're pretty quick at getting to these. There you go. All right. So if I look at this today, Sub Area 1 Of 2B is where Palencia is today, correct?

No, it's Sub Area 2 and I'm

just No, no, that's the hearing myself one we're dealing with.

Where Palencia is today, Thank yes

you. Sorry.

And if I look at the JPA agreement for Sub Area 1, it allowed up to nine units per acre?

It did.

So this was proposed as a PUD with five or 4.5, I can't remember which, I think it's 4.5 or less?

It's 2.5.

So right now it is 2.5 units per acre there even though the JPA said that they could go to nine.

That's correct.

Okay.

And I did misspeak earlier, I said nine was the maximum here it is 13 for sub area two for the subject property. Sub area

two it's 13, right? But for Sub area one

But it could have been nine for where could have it been nine.

It's down to 2.5.

Yes.

Okay. And I'm sure it has its 50% open space. I think that's why the little preserve area was added to make sure that they had their 50% open space.

More than likely,

yes. Well that's kind of what I recall but it's been many years and it doesn't work as well as it used to. So because it has an acreage less than that which means it doesn't have to do the max, it can do something less than what the JPAs?

That's correct.

Okay. Now your compatibility matrix that you had there, you had two of them?

Yes.

All right. So the first one and I mean look at this morning and I went, I wonder if we were inconsistent. But low density residential is up to five units per acre, correct?

Correct.

And under the MUR one to the right, there's a difference there between whether it's presumed compatible and presumed potentially incompatible between a mixed use residential.

That's correct. Although they as you are pointing out, they have the same maximum density.

Yeah, but the mixed use residential also has the requirement for the 50% open space.

It does, right, which low density

So it's would in my view, I reconciled it that no, there was a difference because of the open space not necessarily just the density.

Possibly, okay.

Because of what you're putting beside it. I sort of remember this but this was written in 2000 and whenever and that's a long time ago. So okay, but so it says it's potentially incompatible. As I recall in the comp plan there are ways to deal with the potential incompatibility.

Yes.

Do you have those anywhere?

They are in the code now. Oh good. It's section one point two point c point eight so let me pull that up.

I'm impressed you know the numbers.

Okay. Can you see it on your screens? All right. So these are the items to review. These top four, density, intensity, heights and setbacks, character or type of use proposed, and site and architectural mitigation design techniques.

And then these are four considerations to determine whether all those things have come together to make the project compatible. That would be protection of single family neighborhoods, preventing commercial or industrial uses in areas where they'd be incompatible with the existing, phasing out non conforming uses and densities and intensities compared to surrounding densities and intensities.

Yes, okay. So since they're not asking at the moment whether it's any commercial or industrial and there's no incompatibilities existing today, non conforming existing today.

Right, once it was given a zoning.

Yeah.

If it was not single family that may become a non conforming use, but right now it's not.

Right. So we're dealing with the first and the fourth one for the most part.

Right.

Okay.

And then just to point out there's section four point There you four which is newer the in the you for? Oh is

that the one

you were

looking for? Okay. These are the special considerations, things that in a situation where you might have a potential incompatibility you can use these tools. So lowering the density and intensity, increasing the building setbacks, adjusting stepbacks which is a step back of the height as you go up stories on a building, requiring tiered buildings, adjusting lighting, noise, mechanicals, refuse and delivery and storage areas, adjusting road and driveways and increasing buffer types or increasing elements of the buffer.

Some of which would be handled at site development plan, but some of which could be handled at the zoning and or land use area.

Sure. I would say density in particular would be one that you could look at now. Any of them you could, but you'll get a lot of detail about the buffering types, the access and all that when you get to site development plan.

Very good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions of Nicole? Okay. Thank you, Nicole. Mr. Black?

Again for the record, Marty Black representing the applicant. So when looking through your comprehensive plan, the available options and considering both the city's surrounding land use as well as the county's surrounding land use, particularly the property to the east in Jacaranda Boulevard and to the South. The applicant is requesting the future land use designation for the moderate density residential that allows a maximum of up to 13. Obviously the zoning and any planning would require that. I do want to indicate because of the size of this property, it's unlikely to be apartments.

I know I've heard that from some of the residents. Most apartment communities are going to want to be in the 180 or larger. In my experience, and I've been doing this going on fifty years, this is likely a townhouse community at those densities and because of the physical constraints of the power lines and the existing pond. You're just not going to get the mass of an apartment type use because you don't have enough acreage to have enough units to support the management of an apartment complex and the amenities that go with that. And I wanted to kind of explore that or at least put that out there from that perspective.

Obviously from a future land use perspective, we don't have an ability to enter into discussions with the city about the stipulations or those types of provisions. We do at the time of rezoning and it may be appropriate then and we would certainly be open and willing to that as we've already indicated in the annexation. The structures are going be at least 300 feet away. There may be other stipulations that could be offered at the time of zoning and we certainly would encourage and would be open to that discussion to address some of the concerns the residents have. The property has been designated for the up to 13 dwelling units per acre.

I do want to reflect because I think in the staff report they show that there is OUE zoning to the south and west of this property on the opposite side of the creek. It's actually today RMF three in Sarasota County that allows the 13 dwelling units per acre and that's kind of kitty corner if you see this slide here. That's part of the property that's the apartment complex that's under construction at the interstate. I do want to indicate that they've been approved for two eighty apartment units and if you do the acreage count, you go, how do they get that if, because RMF three in the county and RMF three in the city are both 13 units per acre. That project though comes in at about 18 to 19 units per acre because Sarasota County unlike the city of Venice allows for half units.

So they are doing units at seven fifty square feet or less to increase the number of units.

Is that also affordable housing there?

It's also affordable housing, so that they receive some

Density bonus.

Some density bonuses but primarily through the size of the units that was able to effectively increase their units. That is however consistent with the joint planning agreement because as the chairman indicated, properties north of Ewing were up to nine, between Ewing and the canal, the canal seen as a natural break was 13 and then it bumps up as you get closer to the interstate to the 18. So looking back at the planning principles if you will, the future land use aspects of it, the idea was to transition from nine to 13 to 18 as you move from, you know, the North to the South and coming from Laurel Road South to border and then border south to the interstate that you become more intense as you got to the interstate location. And I think to Mr. Young's question about why did Sarasota County elect to proceed with that, well the property owner where they're doing the affordable housing didn't come into the City Of Venice for two reasons.

First, it wasn't contiguous. So it doesn't meet the statutory ability to annex into the city. And rather than wait, the county threw out a carrot and says, you can get more units than our zoning allows if you do the affordable housing and you do the half units. So if you look at the motivations behind the apartment complex, that's why they elected to stay in the county. One, legally they couldn't annex because they didn't touch the city limits, they didn't adjoin them, they weren't compact, but secondly Sarasota County offers increases to density that frankly the city of Venice doesn't currently provide.

So they were able to achieve a greater yield and therefore greater financial return on the property. The future land use designation of the moderate density does allow up to the 13 dwelling units per acre. We wanted to avoid any future land use category that anticipate non residential. Even though the joint planning agreement allows for it, we don't think first that there is a market for it, but we also thought it would be more incompatible than a residential use on this property. So that's the thought process if you will behind the request for the future land use.

I think ultimately we're hopeful that we get to a point where we can talk in the zoning about potential stipulations that then might, I won't say make the neighbors to the north happy because I understand their concerns having moved into a community and it's only two years and you wonder what's going on. This property is probably two to three years out from development. By the time it goes through this process for annexation, comp plan zoning and then any subsequent buyer developer has to go through in all likelihood a subdivision planning process which triggers another set of public hearings and reviews and standards. But I think our message to you as the applicant is we are certainly willing to consider additional stipulations. We know legally we're constrained to only do that in the zoning process because the comp plan doesn't allow that, I don't know if most residents are aware of that.

But we think there are aspects of this property that would lend that to it to provide additional assurances that we won't try to fill the lake as an example or try to put something up against border road from a unit or development perspective and potentially even some of the height issues that might come in as part of the zoning. But that's the nature of our request. You do have right across on the east side of Jacaranda Boulevard, one of the most intensive future land use categories in Sarasota County. That corner is actually a future land use designation of industrial and major employment center. It is the most intensive future land use and zoning designation in Sarasota County.

This property is less than a thousand feet away from one of the most intensive developable portions of Sarasota County when it comes to zoning and future land use. And we think this provides a reasonable transition from the PUD and the development of the residential units, the villas in the single family with the 60 foot of right of way and at least 300 feet of separation from any construction that would be possible to provide that mitigation of any potential incompatibility and we would certainly be willing to consider those and in fact anticipate having that discussion with you as part of this process. Thank you.

Questions of Marty? Marty, not to potentially forecast the potential stipulations. You didn't ask for moderate land use on this, moderate residential?

No, because it allows up to the 13, we are looking at the overall what the yields were and frankly with the county having the 19 units per acre across the creek, we want to at least provide some ability to go through that. We're open to less than the 13. I will tell you it becomes difficult to go much lower than that because we're trying to provide for some compact use in there with the townhouses. But there are substantial portions of the property frankly that we can't put units on in any event. So we're trying to cluster them on the developable portion.

Do you have a feel for the amount of acreage that's not usable?

I would say about four acres out of the 7.3, when you look at the, from that perspective I mean with structures because you can have access through the power line and other stuff just like it comes through the middle of the Bisia right now and they've got their crossings through there. But I'm talking about structural areas of it itself.

So less than half. Yeah. Okay, good. Thank you. Anyone else? You. Thank you. Okay. How many folks do we have signed up to talk about the land use?

I just had one person who had signed up, Michelle Davis.

Okay. By all means, we want you to finish.

I think respectfully I'd like to say that I guess we realized that it's a Simon versus Goliath kind of a situation we're in right now. There's a lot of things that are being said that a lot of us are sitting there thinking a lot. We have no idea though of the little details that are involved in this, we just know that our community is being invaded. I that's the way we feel about it. But there's a few things that I wanted to speak upon.

First of all, I wanted to clarify first of all that our canal is on the easement is within the Ewing Street. The canal is on there. We had people come out and show us. So the canal is part would be taken away if they put that road in. So we just wanted to make that clear because that was said that it wouldn't affect that and it would. Sorry, Nicole, but it was, it is. And secondly, we I think earlier someone had said that our documentation hadn't come over before 01:00, but

Well, no, a lot of it did.

Oh, lot of it did.

This last one came at one point Okay,

all right.

I just wanted to make sure that was the case.

No, no, got 20 some others.

Okay. There was some talk about the Homestead Act, the Homestead property tax. Right now on the legislative floor in Florida that the governor has suggested that the Homestead Act would be eliminated. So that might not even be an issue coming in the near future. So that wouldn't even be something for us to be considering with all of this.

Finally, I just wanted to say that for all the reasons that we've talked about today being that our recommendation of not approving the annex has been denied that we maybe ask that you could recommend a few things. A comprehensive environmental impact study on the preserve of the protected species if this is done. A full traffic analysis addressing the capacity and the safety issues of when it is going to be put in the road. A complete hydrology and storm water study including the impacts of Ewan Drive and the drainage canal and using Hurricane Ian as a data point. A community impact study addressing noise, property values and neighborhood character and public safety and or a full transparency with the meaningful resident involvement.

I do wonder when we were buying our property from Doctor Horton was this something disclosed knowing that everybody else who was building around the area knew that this was a potential but we didn't know this and it was just all of a sudden was a sign that showed up in our backyard. So I don't know how to address that. So that's kind of I think all that I wanted to kind of follow-up and say and I do appreciate your time and I hope that you all can understand where we are all coming from with all this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michelle. Just to let you know, all those things that you were asking for, majority of them will take place but at a different stage. Okay. If it gets to that stage.

Okay.

So all those things about environmental and traffic and all that gets much more detailed as we know specifically what might be put on.

Is that public information?

Oh, absolutely and it will be a big another public hearing.

Okay. Very good.

As far as disclosures from D. H. Wharton, if it wasn't required when it was built then it wouldn't have been required to

do it.

Yeah, when we are told look at this beautiful preserve know

Well, that part you got.

In the backyard and you know and I don't know. You thought, okay. So anyway

I remember there was supposed to be a boat dock I think to get on to Curry Creek, something like that. Just saying there are certain flashbacks I get but

Okay. Alright, great. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. For your

Is that all on this one?

That's all we have signed up. Nicole,

any additional? Marty, you want to address any of that?

I just wanted to say that we appreciate, oh, there we go back to green. Thank you, appreciate the residents comments and I encourage them to stick around for the zoning piece where there may be stipulations that will further address their issues.

Okay, very good. Thank you. If there is nothing else, let me close the hearing and could I have a motion?

Chair?

Yes, Mr. McKeon.

Based upon review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as the local planning agency finds this petition consistent with the comprehensive plan in compliance with Florida Statutes Chapter 163 Part two and therefore recommends to City Council approval of Comp Plan Amendment Petition 20 five-seven CP.

Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second. All right. Discussion?

What a nice story. As you could probably tell from my questions, I am having trouble 13 units an acre next door to 2.5 units an acre and I am sure all of you are too that's out there. And kind of the way this works a little bit, the attorney will correct me, but whoever gets there first sort of sets what can happen after that. And it's just the way the comp plan and the regs are designed as it relates to compatibility. So you look at what's existing and then you look at what's proposed and you compare the proposed to the existing.

Your Palencia is the existing and it has regardless of whether it had the ability to do up to nine units an acre, it chose not to do that, chose to make it a planned unit development at a max of 4.5 units an acre and 50% open space. A lot of that was your big lakes that are in there plus the preserve area that you have. The next one coming is this particular one and it can go up to 13 units an acre. Now as Marty pointed out, more than half of that is not really developable in terms of putting a building it. But it's still the potential that I look at this phase.

It's not the actual that's gonna go in there, it's the potential that could go in there. And while the JPA says it could be residential or commercial or other. They are only asking for a land use that is residential. But I cannot support 13 against 2.5, that's where I am. Anyone else?

Yes, Kit. One, I agree. 7.4 acres times 13 is round number 100 units, 96 units.

Yes, there's like 200 And

as Mr. Black pointed out, of the 7,400,000 maybe almost half of it is undevelopable, which to me balances out I think the fear. But I mean as you say, if we approve the request for this, they could go to 13 units an acre. I can't see in my mind how they would and therefore I feel I have the concern that you do but I don't see how they can do it. So that balances me out.

And I would appreciate Marty saying that a lot of the land was not really able to put houses on. Nevertheless, where we sit at this point, we're dealing with maximums and not specifics. We're dealing with generalities on that. 13 times your whatever as you say is about 100 and some units?

Six. 95.

Okay. If I understand the residents input, have two zero five in what's above them. So you're looking at thank you. But they're around 200 versus this and that caused me concern. I asked Marty point blank, they didn't consider moderate because moderate would reduce that to at least nine, it'd be five to nine units an acre. And he did not get to that. Now I'm hearing hints that when he gets to zoning he might think about something less than 13. But nevertheless, when we're dealing with these maximums at this point, there are no restrictions at the land use level. So that's where I'm at.

Bill you? Yeah, I just, one of the other things that I heard from from the audience was the possibility that they might fill in, have to fill in to put that road in part of that water that's there. I don't know that that is the case or not, it hasn't come to that, but we have had it come to us recently where they have filled in wetlands to build something over the top of it and I wasn't happy about that, but we saw it happen. So you know if that's a possibility that would be one of those things that could help make it be more units on the property if part of that got filled in. So that would be a concern to me as well. Else?

Yes. I know the applicant is interested in or has some stipulations he would propose at the zoning So for the sake of consistency, there has been a request for him to well he asked if we could continue this, I would say almost why don't continue this until you hear the zoning application and then open it back up. But I might switch that up and say perhaps we reopen the hearing and just hear what the stipulation on the density would be since that seems to be what you're talking about right now. And then maybe that could factor into your discussion or not on the comp plan?

If I understand it we only have so many choices on future land use.

Yes, but I'm saying you can impose stipulations on a land use category. Can do that. I don't know what they're proposing. So whether that's consistent with a different category or with or you would could stipulate to a lesser density than what is allowed by the land use category.

Okay. Well, everybody knows where I sit. Anybody else want to comment before we get to that? Yes, go ahead Bob.

Yes. There's another case coming before us today has this almost exact situation, so it'd be good to deal with it now on this one. Yeah. I don't wanna see even nine, coming in until that other case is worse, but we have precedents over there that we can talk about later, but

They'll tell you the above that every one of them is unique, is no precedent.

Yeah. So I'll be posing that.

Okay. Else? Do we have agreement we want to hear what they might want to stipulate? Yes.

I would think that would be very So

Marty, I'm going to open it back up, give you a few minutes as part of your rebuttal.

Thank you, that's perfect. Let me say that we appreciate the difficulty of this, we understand it obviously having helped write this twenty some years ago. These are things we live with so you don't want it to be horrible. Venice has always been one of the communities I considered home, raised my two boys here so I don't wanna ever do anything and you all have seen me come before you on other projects where we do the right thing for the right reasons. So I'm hopeful that these suggested stipulations, I've never seen stipulations on a future land use, I've seen them on zoning.

I defer to my attorney.

So we'll go through that. But effectively here are the, I'll call them the three general stipulation categories. The first would be to limit the building height to 35 feet, that's consistent with the overall single family, we intended to offer that as part of the zoning. Second, that there would be a minimum separation of 300 feet of any dwelling units from the north property line of Ewing Drive that makes sure that you don't have any structures anywhere near the existing homes. And third, that we limit the density to a maximum of 60 units.

Six zero, 60 as opposed to the 96 that you do the theoretical maximums under the comp line. And that's also substantially less than the maximum under the RMF three.

So 79 is 63, it would be less than nine?

Less than

nine. Yeah. Part of the thought process and actually I have another case coming up later today, your new land development code doesn't have standards for some uses in some districts.

Yeah, we know that. Yeah. They know that. They They a bunch of them.

I'm sure the public doesn't know. Yeah. So part of the reason we pick these things is because for example if we're anticipating doing townhouses, there's only a couple of districts we can fit them into without coming in and doing text amendments to your code and frankly having applicants do that is time consuming tedious.

I thought we just did on townhouses, may not have gone through the city yet.

So, but that's part of the thought process, I wanted to at least share that with you, if it's something we can do in the future land use category that makes you feel more comfortable, great. I don't if you want to take a break and I can confer with staff. My understanding was we needed moderate to effectuate the RMF3 even with the stipulations, if I'm wrong, I might be wrong, but there's a whole bunch of moving parts as you all know and as the public is learning that we don't want to fall into a hole where we have to end up in front of you on a different request. That's the nature of our request, we think it takes away some substantial fears we hope, but we at least wanted to share that so you have that on the record.

So you would rather request a median and stipulate down to less than nine versus request a moderate?

Part of it is because I may not understand the implementing zoning district limitations in the medium versus moderate sufficiently to worry about what hole we may be falling into.

Okay.

The critical part is to get an RMF three district because we know that works for potential product. And staff can clarify that for me if we give them time. Okay. But that would require I'm

going to ask staff to come up and provide some clarification to that. Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Marty.

Appreciate your willingness to stipulate things. Mr. Chairman, I just going to ask. I know you're going to ask then I'm going

take a break.

I was wondering if you want to take the break so he could talk with them.

Nicole, you need to talk to Marty or are you

Should we take Yeah, we're going to.

I had to and they come up right now.

Well, the big question is going to be, didn't we just do something on townhouses? You need to come up here. Yes. So that we have to have this dialogue on the record.

Last time we met.

I thought so.

So there's something on your agenda later today that pertains just to Knights Trail. Right. That wouldn't affect this.

No. Wouldn't affect that. But I thought last meeting we dealt with We did.

What did we do?

I don't know where that stands whether it's going to the city or not.

But I think that was

Was that Gene Green specific or?

It was about ownership about whether something could be single family attached owned or multifamily.

Yes, think Cherry it was specific to that PUD.

So it was?

The last meeting where we had the Toscana.

Yes, it was rented in Toscana.

Yes, that was just about Toscana.

That was Toscana. I stand correct. All right, why don't we take a recess for five minutes and we'll make it seven minutes to back to 03:30 and you and Marty can talk about implementing districts then we can So finalize we'll recess till 03:30. I'd like to reconvene the meeting, please, if you could take your seats. Thank you.

For the record, Marty, got to ask a question during the break. I just want to put it on the record. It relates to your three stipulations. Number one, you're saying that the building height you would stipulate to be no more than 35 feet? Correct. Which means you couldn't build higher structures to compensate for any density you might lose with the pond and what have you? Correct. Second was that you would have a minimum separation from the property line down south of 300 feet.

Correct.

That would include the pond that is there today thus moving any development to the southern part of your of the property that's there.

Correct. Effectively make sure that the pond stays.

Right, pond stays and all development would be pushed to the south.

There's a little bit of developable area. On the right hand side. On right hand side, but that way make sure that there isn't any.

Is that a potential way to connect to the road or are you thinking about

Might be your connection, it might be a trail or pathway.

And you don't have to specify at this time where that's And going to your third part is to stipulate to a density of 60 units per acre. No. 60 units, excuse me. Not 60 units per acre. My Lord, that would be way too many. 60 units total.

A maximum of 60 units.

Maximum of 60 units, might even be less than that. You're to get that scale. No.

The chairman suggested Mr. Black did not.

I'm just checking to see if I heard everything. Okay. So maximum of 60 units which comes out to a little less than nine units per acre.

Yeah. So let me offer a couple of comments and I'll turn over to Cole.

Okay.

As I've been kindly reminded by staff, one of the issues that we have in your code actually goes down to a section you probably don't read a lot which is the minimum required footprint for structures.

In RMF two,

it's like either 4,400 or 4,800, it's big for townhouses. So that's part of the reason we're driving toward that RMF3 but we can have less units. But there is a process we have to do and I'll let Nicole walk through it because we're willing to do these things obviously. Our goal is to get what we think is a reasonable amount approved. But there's a provision in your comp plan that requires that we ask for this comp plan and zoning together so that you can consider that.

Correct. We're going to do less than nine units per acre, which is a minimum, 9.1 actually in that category. So you to make three findings that we've offered compatibility and other issues to go through that, but I'll turn it over to that.

Okay. Nicole?

Yes. So let me show you this strategy. So density lower than the range provided is permitted for smaller properties less than one acre. However, for another property if they want to request it they can do so through the rezoning process or through a site plan or separately as a conditional use. But in this case the rezoning would be the appropriate place to apply this based on the comp plan strategy.

If you are to grant that you would need to consider these three conditions. Compatibility with all properties within two fifty feet, whether the size and shape is appropriate for a lesser density and compliance with the rest of the comprehensive plan. So those in my opinion sound like what you're discussing but those are the three things that you would need to kind of approve of in order to grant a density lower than what's in the table which you can see 9.1 to 13 is where they'd be with medium, 5.1 to nine point zero is the next one down. So RMF three, the zoning that they need to get the lot size that would work for them, it's not implementing but this part actually it's highlighted here, if a lower density is permitted or granted then the zoning that they have that would be RMF three if you grant it would be considered implementing although it's not listed in the table through your special approval in their rezoning application.

Not to mix an apple and an orange but the other item that we have for this afternoon is along the same lines.

The other rezoning?

Yes.

I believe so.

I believe so too. Stay with me. It doesn't matter. I'm just trying to mentally do that Okay. In my So Nicole.

Yes.

Would the city rather and city attorney, would the city rather see the implementing district or would they rather see the future land use be more direct towards the development? The

stipulations on the rezoning.

Not on the future land use?

No, especially since this process is required to be done through the rezoning. I would think the rezoning would be the best place.

The only thing I'm going to say.

Because I

always have to be clear is that you know your zoning can change through a process so if you are only picking a future land use category because of what you're then going to do in the zoning district, great for this particular property owner or future property owner but I always just have to remind you to keep in mind you can change your zoning district. You could ask to remove stipulation. So I'm not

I would do both.

Can we ask that the stipulation be in both places?

Yes, so there that's what I'm saying. So you don't want to leave one

Hanging on the other.

If important to you that that's why you're making this.

So the stipulations are going to apply to this one and

the next one. Is that what we're saying?

At least when it comes to your density.

Setbacks and height.

I would do all three personally.

Yes, that's where I'm sitting too. So we got to have all three in there.

It ties the hand of any future buyer if there is one developer and the current owner purchaser is comfortable with that.

All right. So we have a motion. If we want to add these stipulations would we have see whether the person who made the motion wants to amend it?

Do we have a motion? We had a motion.

We do. Okay.

Yes. The person who made the motion can agree to include the three stipulations if that person wishes to do so then the seconder can agree to second with those stipulations.

So Kit, I turn to you. Are you willing or do you want to amend your motion to include the three stipulations?

Yes. Can I use your?

Yes. You probably can't read my hand scratching.

We can just refer to the three stipulations as discussed,

right? Correct. I

would like to amend my motion to include the three stipulations as discussed.

Thank you. And Bill or you do?

My second is good.

Still there. Okay. Discussion now. I'm much happier. So from that standpoint, any other discussion? Hearing none, could I have a vote please? At this point, with the stipulations, lowering the building heights or limiting the building height, limiting the setback and reducing the entry, the land use is recommended for approval. Okay. Now we turn to the Zoning Mac amendment number 20 five-08RZ. All the players are the same.

This however is a quasi judicial hearing. Again, have a memorandum that says this is a certified public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 11/01/2025 as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code. Proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. I'm going to open the public hearing and let the attorney question Board members regarding any ex parte communication.

If anyone has had any ex parte communications regarding this application please place them on the record at this time. There at the

end. None.

Thank you.

Alrighty. Again Amanda will make sure we get speaker cards from everyone. Nicole, hanging in there?

Yep.

Okay, go again.

Okay. Well one thing that I just wanted to bring up, you're not going to have to see that process on the next project, I was incorrect. So initially there was a mismatch but you're not going have to worry about that part again after we're done with the Baker Trust Ewing project, just so you know. Okay. Twenty five point zero eight RZ, the request as you know, is to change the zoning from Sarasota County open use as state one to City Of Venice RMF three, now with three stipulations.

So all of this information is the same. Here is the way the future land use map would look with medium density residential. Here's the existing zoning County OUE and the proposed zoning RMF three. Same site photos, same surrounding land uses. So for the planning analysis, we'll look at the comparison of districts, comprehensive plan consistency, land development code compliance, and concurrency mobility.

So the existing zoning is county, So once the property is annexed, it cannot retain a county zoning. But the density on that is very low, one unit per five acres, so that would be a maximum of one unit on this property. The height currently is limited to 35 feet with coverage of 20 and principal uses including agriculture, animal boarding, borrow pits, parks, utilities, crematorium, daycare. So for RMF three, thirteen units per acre of course is allowed by the JPA. The 60 units mentioned would be about 8.2 units per acre.

With the 13, they could have gone up to 95. So the maximum height for RMF three is 46 feet by right, but they've stipulated to 35. Lot coverage would be 40%, so that wouldn't change, they would still be allowed 40%. But as you know, there are significant constraints on the property. And then permitted uses include single family attached, multifamily group living, and minor essential services.

There are some other conditional uses allowed, two family or paired villas, assisted living, bed and breakfast, daycare, cemetery, and major services. At this time, they're only proposing residential. So again, this area would be served by City Water. They would also have County Sewer. The medium density residential strategy we've just looked at in-depth.

We know that RMF three is the only implementing zoning other than gov where it's necessary. But RMF three is the zoning for this district so that's consistent with their request. Their intent for residential use is appropriate for this designation. And there are really no other strategies in the comprehensive plan that relate directly to this request. And so analysis has been provided to help determine consistency with the land use element, with the Northeast neighborhood, and with medium density residential.

So compliance with the land development code, again, are no standards, really development standards to comply with. It's more procedural with a rezone. So it was processed according to the procedure in 87 dash 1.7. The technical review committee did not identify any issues with this rezoning request. And the decision criteria in your packet, I can pull those up if you need them for reference at any point.

They also evaluate compatibility for the rezoning, so they did respond to those eight that we looked at earlier and there are the special considerations because it is property subject to the JPA and it is property adjacent to Sarasota County zoning. So all those other techniques that we looked at with the last hearing about setbacks, setbacks, tiering and those things are also relevant to this property. And they have proposed some stipulations of course to address some of those. So conclusions related to the Land Development Code, the proposed zoning map amendment is compliant, no inconsistencies have been identified with the Land Development Code. And for concurrency and mobility, they are not required to really apply for all of that at this stage because it's not a planned unit development.

So there were no issues raised at this point for public facilities capacity. You know it's aware who's going to be providing each of the services, but the actual trips produced by the number of units and the actual solid waste and all those things that we look at with site development plan will be evaluated at that point. And so upon review of the petition, conference of plan, land development code, staff report analysis and testimony provided during the hearing, we believe there is sufficient information for you all to make your recommendation. Do you have any questions for me?

Any questions of Nicole? I think we're good. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Since it's quasi judicial, this is Marty Black. I have been sworn. I would ask that we just take notice of the comments from the prior hearing as part of this hearing and we agree with the proposed three stipulations and are available for any questions.

Very good. Any questions of Mr. Block? Thank you, Marty. Do we have folks signed up for this one?

Just Michelle Davis and she just said pass.

She passed, so we're done with that. Okay. So no additional staff comments, no additional rebuttal. Let me close the hearing and do I have a motion? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wilson.

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as the local planning agency finds its petition consistent with the comprehensive plan in compliance with the Land Development Code and with the affirmative findings of fact in the record and to include the three stipulations previously discussed, recommends to City Council approval of Zoning Map Amendment Petition 20 five-08RZ.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, could I have a vote please? And again, we're six to one in favor of the recommendation. Thank you all.

Great input from the residents out there, Marty. Good job of responding to the questions and to the comments. I will say when you get down to site development plan at some point, if you get that far, something about that road and the easement slash access that they have to their preserve and something about a ditch and where the water flows, I think all that's going to have to be addressed. But I can't tell whether it's in the right of way or on their property or whatever. So just a heads up for

you. You will get questions.

Yes, you will get questions on that one. Okay. Thank you

all. Thank you. Sure.

Alright. Let's take a minute while you all decide you were going to move out because we have other business to do. Okay. Next up is a zoning map amendment petition number 20Five-48RZ, the Zutnik, if I got that right, Border road. I'm having deja vu all over again.

The staff is Britney Smith. The agent is Marty Black and the owner is TR Zutnik Inc. Did I have that name right? Zutnik, okay. Thank you. This is a quasi judicial hearing. I have a memorandum that says that this is a certified public hearing for this petition was probably advertised on 11/01/2025 as required by the City Of Venice Land Development Code and proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. Let me open the public hearing and ask the attorney to question board members regarding any ex parte communications or potential conflicts of interest.

If anyone has any potential conflicts of interest please indicate that at this time.

None.

Seeing none, if we've had any ex parte communications that are not presently part of the record let's put those into the record at this time. Mr. Jasper, None.

Full disclosure I live in Waterford which is adjacent to this property.

You may remain fair and unbiased to make your decision today based solely on the record presented to you.

Yes. I also live in Waterford adjacent to this property.

And you can remain fair and unbiased to make your decision today based solely on the record presented to you?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

And I live in Sawgrass very close to this property.

And you can remain fair and unbiased to make the decision today based solely on the record. Thank you.

Well that took longer than I thought. Yes. Okay. Amanda is going confirm we have speaker cards. It's Britney instead of Nicole.

I'm give her a break for a second. So Britney Smith for the record planner, City of Venice. I have signed a speaker's card. So today we're here to talk about Zoning Mac Amendment Petition number 2548RZ, Zaknik Border Road. The agent is Martin Black, and the owner is TR Zucknick Inc.