Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay.

Call the meeting in order. Could I have a roll call vote, please? I mean a vote. A roll call in itself. Yes.

Chair Wilson.

I'm here.

Ms. Sherberg? Here. Ms. Fresca? Here. Mr. Jasper?

Here.

Mr. Perlogy? Here. And Mr. Hale will be excused with prior approval. And Mr. McKean is absent.

Thank you. I would like to say Mr. McCann did advise me he had a medical procedure this morning and thought he would be able to be here and he cannot so he has requested an excused absence. Can I have a motion to that effect please.

So moved.

We have Ms. Sherberg has made the motion. Do I have a second. And we have a second. All right. Thank you. We have a motion and a second to excuse Mr. McCann's absence today. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed the same. And I thank you very much. We also have a set of minutes from June 2nd, 2026, regular meeting. Do I have a motion in that regard?

Mr. Chair?

Yes.

I move that we accept the minutes of the June 2nd, 2026 meeting as written.

We have a motion to accept from Ms. Sherberg. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Jasper is a second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed the same. And the minutes are accepted. Do we have any general audience participation.

No we do not.

All right. Thank you. OK. That brings us to public hearings. First is site and development plan amendment petition number twenty six dash one three SP Aloha condominium. The staff is Nicole Tremblay. The agent is Jackson Boone. The applicant is the yellow condominium Association Inc. This is a quasi judicial hearing. I do have a memorandum to read. This is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on May 30th, 2026, as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code. Proof of publication is on Violent Planning and Zoning Office. And with that, I'll open the public hearing and ask the attorney to question the board, please.

If anyone has a possible conflict of interest, please indicate that now. No. All right. Seeing none, if we have had any ex parte communications that are not currently part of the record, please disclose those. Start at the end.

I had a site visit. Virtual site visit.

I had site visit.

Site visit. Site visit. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. And we'll confirm we have speaker cards signed. And with that, I see Nicole making her way to the podium. You have the floor.

Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Tremblay, Senior Planner for the City of Venice. We're looking at a site and development plan amendment for Aloha Condominiums today. Okay, so this is 2613 SP, located at 1329 Tarpon Center Drive. Their request is to rebuild the covered parking and add accessory living space above. This request comes from the Aloha Condominium Association, represented by Jackson Boone of the Boone Law Firm. The parcel covers two PIDs, but it's about 1.9 acres total. The future land use is high-density residential, and the zoning is residential multifamily four. It is, of course, in the island neighborhood. So a brief description of their request. They are wanting to rebuild the covered parking that they currently have and add accessory space above. These are not full dwelling units but they're accessory living areas. So each one contains a bedroom, a bathroom, and a closet. And then there's a fifth space that has washer and dryer facilities. So this would increase the number of covered spaces from five to six, and then it would take away three of the uncovered spaces in the surface parking lot. The proposed footprint of this building is about 663 square feet larger than the current footprint of the covered parking area. And then there would also be a new pavement area on the western side of the current parking lot, which would replace two parking spaces and a small landscaping area. So that's the extent of the request. Here's the proposed plan. You can see in the bottom corner here, this is what the floor plan would look like. So there's these four units with a living space, a bathroom, a closet, and this is a washer and dryer area with a sink. So this is a separate area access via staircase. So this is on the second floor. And then here's that new pavement area I mentioned, which currently has a couple parking spaces and some landscaping. And then they're losing one parking space right here because there is going to be an overhang that's, as I mentioned, a little over 600 square feet larger than the existing covered parking. These are the proposed elevations, kind of similar to one of the buildings that's already there. There are no architectural requirements on this property, and it is coastal, so it's regulated by the DEP that they do have to be elevated. So here's the aerial map. You can see Tarpon Center Drive across from Point Whitecap, Whitecap Circle, and then condos to the north and south, and then of course the beach to the west. So for existing conditions, I'll show some site photographs, the maps and surrounding land uses. So here are some site photos. This is the building I mentioned as being kind of similar to their elevations. This is one of their buildings. And then this one over here is another of their buildings. This is the existing covered parking. And this one down here is a view standing in front of the covered parking looking kind of Southwest. here's their existing parking lot where they will they will lose a couple of these spaces in the corner and this little area right here and then one of these diagonal spaces but they are expanding the covered parking by one so here's the future land use map you can see it's high density residential mostly surrounded by the same with moderate density across the street And for the zoning, corresponding zoning, they've got RMF 4 to the north and south, and then RMF 2 across the street, and then you can see some conservation kind of in the area. So for surrounding land uses, I've mentioned these, but specifically to the north is Gulf and Bay condos, and to the south are the Yacht Club apartments, and then those to the east are Point Whitecap. So for planning analysis, we'll look at the comprehensive plan, the land development code, and concurrency and mobility. So for consistency with the comprehensive plan, this is high density residential, so it does support multifamily uses, but I will reiterate that there are no additional units being added, so we did not need to recalculate density. They're not adding density at this point. that's one of the relevant strategies and then there's os 1.9.6 for coastal area developments number five indicates minimizing obstructions to views of coastal areas which has been an important topic with this petition but i will also note that os 1.9.6 is under the coastal high hazard area intent and this plan doesn't fall within the coastal high hazard area so we don't really have code that implements these strategies explicitly especially number five that's underlined there but it is still in the comprehensive plan and it's still something for planning commission to consider if they find it relevant to the petition so conclusions and findings of fact related to the comprehensive plan analysis has been provided to determine consistency with land use element strategies with the island neighborhood and other plan elements and this should be taken into consideration upon determining consistency looking at compliance with the land development code. So the parking will change as I mentioned. They are required to have between seven and 14 spaces according to our code. They currently have 12, they're proposed to have 10, so they were compliant and they will remain compliant although the number is changing. The maximum height for RMF4 is 47 feet with an additional 10 feet for understory parking, but in this case they're building an accessory structure, so the important regulation is that accessory structures cannot be taller than primary. So their existing primary structure is 11 feet 7 inches, as measured according to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection definition for a coastal property. So they're at 11 feet 7 inches and they're proposing 11 foot 6 inches for the accessory structure so that would be considered compliant with the height. Lock coverage, 45 is the maximum. They've got 22% right now and because of that additional square footage they'll be going to 24% so they are still compliant with that. and they currently have a non-compliant side setback it should be five feet for accessory structures right now it's 1.6 and they are proposing to make that compliant by having a five foot side setback with the new new accessory building So these are your eight decision criteria. I'll be happy to go back to these if you need to see them during your discussion, but I won't read them to you now. So conclusions related to the land development code. Subject petition has been processed according to the procedural requirements to consider a site plan amendment. It's been reviewed by the technical review committee and no issues were identified. There was no concurrency or mobility information submitted for this because again, there are no dwelling units and therefore no additional trip generation needed to be calculated. No additional impact to public facilities was expected and all of the agencies that review for these items signed off and deemed this petition compliant. upon review of the petition and associated documents comprehensive plan land development code staff report and analysis and testimony provided we believe there's sufficient information on the record to take action on this site and development plan amendment and i would be happy to answer any questions you might have thank you nicole um on the

slide looking for a slide number i don't see it on a slide where you are identifying the proposed height max 11.6 inches it's my understanding that this structure is intended to the current garage would be removed, and they would build a new structure, and that new structure would actually exceed 20 feet in height. Is that correct?

So the way that our height is measured, according to the code, it can be very confusing, but it's based on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection starting point. So they've set this starting point. Let me see if I can zoom in on this a little bit. here so from the ground yes it does say 22 feet six inches from the actual legal definition of the measurement it's 11 feet six inches and the same would go for the existing building that is two stories right now on the site it's 11 foot seven inches by the legal definition but if you measured from the ground it would be a little over 22 over 22 and a half

OK, now the second question for you. Sure. We're referring to this as an accessory living space. When I looked at the definition of an accessory structure, it referenced pools, spas, gazebos, things like this. Do we have other accessory structures of this nature in the city?

I'm not sure. I've never seen a project asking for this specific type of accessory structure since I've been here, and I don't know necessarily about all the existing condos and multifamily projects that may have been here for many years. This is the first I've seen of this, but we don't have anything that would prohibit them from doing this type of accessory structure. The list that we have is not necessarily meant to be exhaustive. There are different types of sheds or garages or living area over a garage that you might be able to add. And it doesn't meet the definition of an accessory dwelling unit or a dwelling unit. So that's why we call it an accessory living space at this point.

Would it meet the definition of a guest house or a cottage?

No, those should have complete facilities, like a kitchen, living area, bedroom. It doesn't have to be of any certain size, but it's particularly the lack of a kitchen that keeps this from being an independent living unit.

Is this more like a hotel room or a motel room where a refrigerator and microwave could be added?

I suppose they could. I'll show you the floor plan again. they you know you could put anything in this wide open room but they're not intending to have kitchen facilities they could add a mini fridge or something but they're also there are prohibitions on short-term rentals as well so the intent is not for these to become short-term rentals which I think maybe is part of your question could it be used like a hotel and no so this is still a multi-family project

I see. Thank you. Sure.

Yeah, back to intent. I mean, somebody had a vision when we

said hey we're gonna put four bedrooms up there and so I I'm guessing it would be for like overflow for guests for the existing residents I mean is that more or less than that's my understanding I mean I I would let them answer that too but yeah when they reached out to us my understanding is when they have family in town they're not very large units so they may want to have extra space for a guest to stay with them okay

Thank you. Yeah, Nicole, I have a couple of things just want to clarify myself. We got a number of emails that have suggested they could and should build these living units elsewhere at ground level. And I'm really doubtful whether they could be built at ground level out there in that coastal area. Is that really something that would be feasible?

I think there's two different codes that would prevent that. First being the DEP height requirements. So as you saw, the height measurement is a little complicated at the coast, and so they wouldn't be able to start at ground level. They'd still have to start 11 feet up, I think it was. So it wouldn't just be flat on the ground. But then there's also the zoning code. So they are required to have at least seven parking spaces. And if you were to get the same square footage or even similar, I don't know that you could fit the covered parking and the accessory space and still meet your parking and your lot coverage codes. So it's possible if someone drew that up, they could make it work, but we've not seen that, and just my intuition would be that that's going to go afoul.

I tried to figure out a way, and I couldn't do it. Yeah. That's why I asked the question. Yeah. The other thing, too, I'd like to just kind of clarify for the sake of the public and also to make sure I get it correct. Going back to number five that came up that was underlined, as I looked... I looked thoroughly. I couldn't find anything that really guaranteed someone a right to a view. And, you know, as I kind of look at this, and I understand, but the comprehensive plan is the big long-term vision of what council would like to see happen, where it's practical and possible. And then the LDRs, I tried to, create the codes and everything that bring that about and make it happen. But it doesn't say that they're guaranteed to have that, and especially if it's at the loss, the expense of someone's private property rights that do exist under our LDRs, I don't think number five would supersede that. Am I characterizing that correctly?

I believe so we don't we don't have any technical standard any guarantee like you said the code if there was something in the code that said you know you absolutely may not do this then that would be more clear this is something that is a best practice something the city would like to see as you mentioned but it doesn't mean that it removes people's rights to do things that are allowed under the code And there are different ways that these things could be implemented by the code. You saw that when we went through the adoption that something specifically said the code will implement this in such a way and then we did that. This one does not have that same correlation so it is more of a vision or maybe there are more indirect ways that it happens like limiting development in the coastal high hazard area by density and things like that.

i think people could make an argument either way but there's no guarantee that you cannot do something just because of this that's kind of the way i viewed it but i wanted to make sure that i was kind of looking at it the right way i appreciate your verification on that thank you any other questions

Yes, I'd like to ask a question to clarify. How many condominiums currently exist at Aloha condominiums? How many owners are there?

There should be seven, if I'm understanding.

Oh, six. So six owners. And these four units, would they belong to the condominium as a whole to be used as needed? Or would they belong to one of the condominiums and owners?

my understanding from meeting with them is that it'd be individual owners um but again if that has changed or if i misunderstood then they can clarify when they come up for their presentation i believe they're going to individuals i see okay thank you any more for nicole thank you nicole appreciate your presentation thank you and with that mr boone

For the record, my name is Jackson Boone, attorney at the Boone Law Firm, agent for the applicant and property owner, Aloha Condo Inc. I'm joined here today by a resident and representative for the condo, Sean Griffin. civil engineer for the project, Melanie Smith, with Melhaven Engineering, architect Sam Hardy with Beebe Design Studios, and Jim Collins, planner with our firm. Have a slideshow, so get this started. All right, Nicole did a good job going over the high points, answering questions. You all did have good questions that I will get to in my presentation. If somehow I don't or you have a follow-up question, please ask me at the end. The subject property is approximately, it's 6.5, 6.8 acres. it's on the west side of tarpon center drive on the island fronting venice beach in the tarpon center beachfront condo area where condominium buildings were first built back in the 1960s the two-story six-unit building dates back to 1966 and just to the east is what is known as aloha ii that was actually a separate phase of aloha intended at that time That's a single story building that was built in 1967. As Nicole said, future land use designation is high density residential. That's 18 units an acre. Associated zoning is residential multifamily four. That adds the 18 units per acre. That brings with it the maximum building height of the 46 feet by right, and then it has an available 10 feet of parking you could put underneath if desired and then put the 46 above it. Covered the information about the building. Here's the general Tarpon Drive condo area. There's RMF4 to the north. This is the future land use map, isn't a cold touch, but here to the zoning. RMF4 goes to the north and the south along Tarpon Center Drive. And then to the east, there's a small nugget of RMF4. There's a little bit of RSF when you're going there on Gibbs towards the bay. And then Point Whitecap and the Yacht Club have RMF2 zoning. in this general area you can see that there's a mix of height as far as stories in the existing condominium units north of the property is gulf and bay that's a three-story condominium property to the south is the venice yacht club apartments that's single story when looking farther in both directions you can see there's a mix of heights in the existing condo buildings ranging from single-story buildings, as I mentioned, all the way to six floors above parking at San Marco to the south. Our existing building today features a two-story residential building and a covered parking structure along the north property line with additional surface parking to the south. Access is provided from Tarpon Center Drive using a shared driveway with the Aloha II condominium. The proposed site development plan is to replace the existing parking structure. That's essentially highlighted here in the crosshatch in the red where the cursor is. We're replacing that with a 1,814 square foot, two-story detached garage and additional living space structure designed to maintain consistency with the existing residential building. Basically, it's designed to replicate from a look and feel what that existing residential Aloha building is. The number of covered parking spaces will increase from 5 to 6, and the detached structure replicates the existing height of the residential building, actually coming in at an inch lower at the 11 feet 6 inches, consistent with the land development regulations for accessory structures. Compared to the existing cover parking structure, this detached structure reflects an increase of 663 square feet of covered area and it is pulled back from the northern property line to a setback of 5 feet, increasing the current parking structure setback and bringing it into conformance with the LDR requirements. The existing setback for that structure I want to say is about 1.6 feet. This moves it back to be consistent with the code requirement for accessory structures. With this, there's a slight modification to the existing surface parking lot, causing the relocation of an existing palm tree and the loss of three surface parking spaces. However, as Nicole stated, the 10 parking spaces provided is consistent with the land development regulations. The second level of the structure contains the four additional living space areas and a separate laundry room with stairs located on the western side for access. Ms. Fresca, these additional living spaces are designed to function as an additional space for the four unit owners of Aloha, meaning they're actually additional space for those unit owners that are participating in this. So they essentially function in leading to questions you all had. They're functioning as additional room for visiting family and guests. You could use it as an in-home office, a den, a man cave, what have you. These have the bathrooms as stated in the staff report. They do not have a kitchen facility, therefore they are not residential dwelling units, but they also are restricted by the Aloha condominium regulations that they cannot be rented separately from the units. These are basically the four unit owners participating in this are building new rooms that are just a detached function of their existing condo unit. I know the question, particularly anything this close to the beach, regardless of where you live, whether east coast or west coast, there's always a question inherently about, hey, is this going to be an Airbnb, is this going to be a VRBO, et cetera, what have you. In anticipation of that, Aloha went forward and decided to go ahead and restrict these and their regulations that they cannot be rented out separately. They're just an extension of those existing units. Under the RMF4 zoning, the permitted building height for residential structures is 46 feet with the available additional 10 feet of understructuring parking I've mentioned. Because the proposed detached structure is an accessory structure, it must not exceed the height of the two-story primary structure. which from ground level, which is what this building is built due to its age, it's a little over 21 feet, that being the existing Aloha structure. That, however, as Nicole said, computes out to about 11 feet 7 inches, according to the way building height is calculated in the LDRs. In connection with the proposed detached structure, a site-specific wave model was performed with FDEP. This was done so we could actually come up with what's the lowest minimum elevation we could set for this. Doing that site-specific wave model with FDEP, that's consistent with and in furtherance with Comprehensive Plan Strategy OS1965, which Nicole said, whether you want to view that as it's applicable to this or not, taking that out of the equation, whether your opinion on that. The model was done with FDEP in recognition of this, looking at what's a way that we can actually propose this improvement, but have it at the lowest starting point possible. Sam Hardy, project architect, he's available if you have any questions about that specific process that was done with FDEP, but it's very self-explanatory and it's shown on the elevations. As reflected in the staff report, the proposal is compliant with all applicable sections of the land development regulations and no issues have been raised by TRC regarding stormwater concurrency with the applicable facility types for transportation. This leaves us to generally what the big topic, the big conversation point about this is. which is what happens when additions to existing condominium buildings or redevelopment of those sites, whether elective or forced by storm damage, structural issues, or the 50% rule, when that occurs in this immediate area along Tarpon Center Drive. So this is a view looking from the beach. We flew a drone in order to capture certain viewpoints. I like this because it shows both Gulf and Bay to the north. They are our neighbor. We recognize them. They're there to the north. They're three stories. Aloha is two stories here, fronting along the beach. Venice Yacht Club Apartments, you can see to the right, that's the two single-story buildings. And then Sea Villas, I believe that's... It's quarterdeck there, and then San Marco is that seven-story, the six stories over, one floor of parking, all the way on the right of that photo. That gives you a feel of this general immediate area. Using X, X marks our property, starting from the north here, not at the immediate, immediate north, but starting there. Bahia Vista Golf was built in 1970. Golf and Bay was built in 1970. Aloha was built in 1966. Aloha II was built in 1967. Venice Yacht Club Apartments was built in 1961. Quarterdeck was built in 1972, and San Marco was built in 1969. That's kind of an overview of, okay, how long have these buildings been here? Because of that, all of these buildings were built prior to the current FEMA, FDEP, and Building Code regulations requiring minimum first floor elevations designed to reduce or, frankly, eliminate susceptibility to flooding from storm events such as hurricanes. With the back-to-back hurricanes that we experienced in 2024, this beachfront area was battered like never before, and many, if not all, of the first floors of these buildings were severely impacted. For example, the single-story Yacht Club apartments to the south, they were lucky to avoid a complete rebuild of their buildings. I think they're still working on them today. However, at some point, and hopefully not another hurricane, but eventually a number of these condominium buildings will need to be redeveloped and brought up to the current requirements for minimum first floor elevations. using the venice yacht clubs as an example the aqua departments as an example if their existing first floor is at seven feet above sea level so when you hear somebody say grade if you look at the condo plats they'll tell you what the first floor elevation is those are all typically anywhere between seven to eight feet in this immediate area that's grade that's not getting into ffe or f or the design 18 inches above that ffe figure If we use the seven feet above sea level for their ground floor, the new building requirements would place the first floor height for the Venice Yacht Club apartments at approximately 19.8 NAVD. So, okay, what does that mean? That means essentially you're raising that structure almost 13 feet, 12.8 feet to then build that new first floor. So that means you're doubling, more than doubling the height of those existing buildings just to build back the single story structure. Contextually, and I know you hear me say, you know, context is important when looking at things. So in context of this, in context of redevelopment in this area, because of construction costs, the combination of the 46 by right building height and the 18 units per acre density redevelopment of condominium buildings in this area will likely result in more stories being built in the utilization of available density for these properties if available in order to help finance the project so what does that mean if you are looking at rebuilding your existing single story structure and you have additional units allowed under the cop plan In order to help finance your rebuilding of your units, you come up with the money by building additional available units. Well, those typically are gonna go higher. and frankly if you're going to go through the effort of rebuilding and adding more stories you're going to want to keep the upper story view right but if you need to raise the construction cost those upper story views yield more money therefore they likely help you finance the project so you can have your unit that was destroyed or the whole building needs to be redone due to structural issues. to my knowledge this is the first proposed site and development plan of this nature along tarpon center drive for a long period of time maybe even the first one that's ever come in front of the planning commission thinking about when the planning commission was actually constituted for the city of venice i'm 36 years old certainly this is the first time i can remember something of this nature this far north actually on tarpon center drive The closest beachfront redevelopment I can recall is when the Best Western Hotel there on the Esplanade was torn down in 2005 and rebuilt as Belize. And while that's nearby, it's still south of Tarpon Center Drive. It's making this a true first instance this type of proposal has come before the Planning Commission. As discussed, because of the age of the existing condominium buildings and their current requirements to elevate the first floor compared to adjacent existing buildings that have their first floor built on grade, on ground level, development or redevelopment in this area includes an inherent high likelihood current views from units will be impacted. We recognize this proposal will impact southern views for a set of units at Gulf and Bay. We do not dispute that one bit. To the north, assuredly the adjacent second floor units having some and having some impact on a number of adjacent third floor units. Because of the nature of the Gulf and Bay and Aloha properties, any addition to the Aloha property built a code. whether the proposed detached structure or adding an additional floor to the existing building, if they took that effort, would impact and frankly eliminate some southern views from units at Gulf and Bay. There's just no way to avoid that. What we did is we thought, okay, let's, to our best ability, analyze existing views and what is proposed to be impacted with Aloha, the proposed structure, and Gulf and Bay. So the green area shows what we believe has no impact. These are views that are either impacted by the existing building, have no impact by the existing building, have some impact by San Marco or Aloha II, or don't have any impact at all. And then the area in white, the rectangle to the north that you can see that's in between those two green areas, that's where we know there will be some impact at Gulf and Bay. Concerning development or redevelopment, however, and I've mentioned this, The greatest impact that could occur, that frankly at some point in time will occur, is going to be when Venice Yacht Club Apartments, which is outlined in red, will be rebuilt, whether that's to one story or that is utilizing the maximum available 46 feet of building height they have. This also will occur when Aloha 2 apartments, which is again single story, they're outlined in blue, when that is redeveloped at some point in time. Those impacts, when redevelopment is proposed, those impacts will happen. They're unavoidable. We're not shying away from them, but that's the truth of this area, the way these properties are laid out. The goal with this proposal, however, was to design an accessory structure in addition that minimizes the impact to adjacent properties and ties into the area in a compatible manner, which is why the site-specific wave model was performed and the replacement of the existing parking structure was chosen. That allowed us to propose a structure no taller than the existing Aloha building rather than propose additional height on site. With the configuration in the nature of the various condominium buildings along tarpon center drive impacting current views, various unit owners have regardless of condominium building, depending on what property is proposing any type of development or redevelopment. As long as they're bringing their buildings up to code, there will be impact. Frankly, it's unavoidable. Understanding this, the applicant took those steps, did the site-specific wave model, came up with a proposal utilizing the accessory structure building to minimize the impact that could be proposed here. The site and development plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It's compliant with the land development regulations, including the Section 194 decision criteria, the Section 4 compatibility regulations, and the Section 128C compatibility criteria. We respectfully request your approval and are available for any questions you all may have.

Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Boone? Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Boone. Very thorough. I'm still struggling, though, between I think we are on a slippery slope between an accessory structure and a garage apartment. I realize that the intent today is not to include any kitchen facilities, but should the ownership change? if i were one of those owners one of the first things i would do would be to put a kitchen into that it would be easy enough to turn that plumbing from the bathroom so i i that's why i think i'm concerned more that we are on a slippery slope between a garage apartment and an accessory structure i you know i understand that our proposal is what it is um it cannot be

If it was a proposed new residential structure with kitchens, it would have to be built higher. there would have to be a way you would look at either redevelopment of the Aloha property itself, which frankly in my opinion would have more impact on the adjacent property owners. So this is really a way of how can we come up with creating that additional space for those units having the least amount of impact possible. Certainly you're entitled to your opinion and those concerns of the unknown are

inherent but our project is what we have in front of you just one more question then for clarification you mentioned that only four current owners are going to take advantage of these four units in total between phase one and phase two how many units are there

So the, this is only for Aloha. Aloha two was at the time identified as a second phase. That's it's separate condominium association.

I see.

So there are six unit owners for Aloha. Therefore, this is only for four unit owners participating in this project.

So four of the six that are in the front buildings in, in the beachfront building.

Okay. Understood.

Thank you.

Mr.

Was there any opposition from the two out of the six current owners to this project?

To my knowledge, no ma'am. Frankly, this is actually a very unique condominium in the fact that there are a limited number of owners. which gives them the ability to move forward with proposals that it would be much more difficult to say whether you had 20 or you had 200 owners. So to my knowledge, no, no opposition from anybody at Aloha.

So there was a vote taken or a plan made that everyone agreed to?

To my knowledge, yes ma'am.

So I think you implied that the condo docs had built in or are addressing the new structure. So they're going to put those restrictions within those docs as well.

Yes, sir.

So, okay. Um, yeah, I'm just thinking about the previous question about what happens in the future of somebody where the chain, but if it's baked into the docs, can we verify that that,

Yeah, that had they have done something in their restrictions so that can happen down the road or agreed to do that.

Mr. Chair, if I can, I wouldn't get too hung up on their condo documents because we don't have a control over those. Today they could say that, and I'm taking it at face value that that's what they've said they say. It's a small condominium, they could change it. What I would say is that what you're approving today is accessory use, not an apartment, garage apartment, as that's defined in our code. So to the extent you want some additional condominiums, restrictions on that you know i would put that in our in our order i don't know they necessarily need it because again this is specifically stating it's for accessory living space not a garage can we stipulate in our motion that these will remain as you know they're approved as long as they remain as

the units that are described now.

Yes, that's what I would suggest, and their documents hopefully match that up, but if they don't, it's not really anything we can control anyway, in perpetuity.

Right, okay, thank you.

Yes, Ms. Jasper. I'm going to direct this to Jackson, but maybe it should be addressed to our... But if, in fact, there was kitchens put on this and it was used, wouldn't it have to come back for a new...

because now we got additional dwellings it wouldn't have to come back for additional site and development plan approval yes sir that would be not only would i imagine there'd be code enforcement um involved with that and these will all any new any new structure built in the city to a certain extent right i don't know if they would inspect your pergola if you put it up but an enclosed structure like this is inspected by the city permitted has a ceo issued that's, that's the safety belt of knowing that there are no kitchen facilities in there. Now, if the city susceptible, you know, thought that maybe somebody would put a kitchen unit in there later, that's code enforcement. But any addition of what would constitute these of being new dwelling units would have to come back in front of you, because you all have the authority to approve new dwelling units on the site as part of a site and development plan.

Thank you.

Any others? No? Thank you, Mr. Barron. And do we have audience participation signed up on this one?

Yes, we do. We currently have four speakers signed up. The first is Brad Fry. He has five minutes. Yes, you can come up here to speak. Thank you.

Uh, my name is Brad Fry. I'm the president of Balfon Bay condos, and I'm an associate broker with Remax Palm Realty right here in town. Uh, it was interesting just to follow along your questions, uh, to the proposal. I think our biggest concern is, uh, one that we weren't quite aware that this was even a possibility. Like everyone said, since 1970, the landscape has been the same. So now that the landscape is going to change, and unfortunately for us, our building won't even have one view. And the view for 40% of us was in a space that now is going to be covered up. So our concern, one, is now our property values are going to adjust. Because being in real estate, location is very important. And that drives a premium to what you buy. So for me, being in real estate, I have to be very careful now what I tell someone. If they say, you want a golf front view, do I tell them now that, well, today you have one, tomorrow you might not have one. So that's one concern. The second concern is, is this a slippery slope where even we could do a dwelling on our property that would meet the criteria and take the same approach. So once the ball started rolling, does it ever stop? I mean, I guess it's a fine line. Is it a dwelling for storage, for temporary housing? Because all of us only have 890 square feet. So when we have company and guests, it's perfect to add on to that. And the concept's a good concept. I just think in reality, it's just a slippery slope. So I appreciate your time. Any questions or is that just a statement? Thank you.

Next speaker is Tom Talbert.

Vice Chair Wilson and Planning Commission board members, thanks for the opportunity to speak today, and Mr. Clark. My name is Tom Telburn. I'm an owner at Gauphin Bay, 1400 Tarpon Center. Let me begin with some thank yous to the planning department, especially Ms. Tremblay, who answered questions, was extremely responsive, and that's so great to see. We're thankful for that. We're also thankful for the clerk's department who responded to several public records requests that we made and that was done in a timely basis and that's appreciated. Our family's been fortunate enough to be a property owner at Gulf and Bay for 50 years, 5-0. um the location including the view of the gulf has been remarkable and really a blessing uh for us and not on not unlike others probably most others in venice we live in close proximity to our neighbors uh taking a walk out the front door of our uh building and i appreciate the fact that many of you i think all of you said that you made a site visit so thank you for that but as you walk out the front door of our building or the entrance to our building It's about 15 steps to the north edge of the property that we're talking about today, to the current carport that exists. 15 steps from the entrance from our building to reach the parking structure. Of course, the applicant seeks to change that and Ms. Tremblay pointed out the comprehensive plan goes out of its way to address the importance of the city places and coastal. area developments. Minimizing obstructions to views of coastal areas is what the language says and there's much wisdom to this because John Nolan and his plan made the entire city an amphitheater to the gulf.

So we're celebrating gulf views.

The development proposed by LOHA obstructs coastal views and directly is in direct opposition to the written guidance and the comprehensive plan. As I mentioned, because I think that's amplified by the fact that we're so close, 15 steps away from our entrance to the LOHA property. The proposed building will obliterate gulf views of many units on the second floor of our building and significantly diminish views of those on the third floor. And it's developments like this that the guidance about minimizing obstructions was specifically intended to prevent. In fact, you could argue that this is a textbook example of what not to do and sets an unfortunate precedent, as Mr. Fry just mentioned. We essentially would like someone to explain how the addition of the accessory building is so important and urgent that it trumps the city's written guidance that specifically speaks to minimizing obstructions to coastal views. Mr. Boone mentioned that in the future and hopefully not too soon in the future that other buildings on the coast may need to be elevated just based on situation of maybe destruction there we're talking about rebuilding units that are current residential units those would be units of people who actually live there we're not talking about accessory units that would have to go up a second floor in closing let me just say that people have reordered their lives to get a glimpse of the Gulf. With the approval of this petition today, all that goes away. It all goes away in spite of written guidance that's intended to avoid it. and opposes it. But if approved, it all goes away. And instead, it leaves people staring into a building that's over 20 feet high, 80 feet wide, and 15 steps away.

Next speaker is Elizabeth Stannard-Letcher.

Good afternoon. Thank you so much for your time. This is a very emotional time for me and for all of my neighbors who we all know very, very well at Gulf and Bay. I brought a script. Because I was so afraid I would forget something that was so important to my family. My family is original owners from 1969 and 1970 in Venice at Gulf and Bay. My husband and I also bought an additional condominium there 25 years ago. My husband passed away eight years ago, and it was our decision to move to Gulf and Bay as my permanent residence. I am a taxpayer, I am an owner, and an investor in Venice. I live at 310-1400 Gulf and Bay. Mine, along with my neighbors, is directly affected. I, for 57 years, my family has enjoyed looking out over the Southern view of our beloved golf view. And now it's being challenged our family as others, my neighbors who we all know very, very well, chose to invest here to stay here. And we have been greatly impacted by the hurricanes, as you know, and we are still working on and being challenged by those hurricanes, emotionally and building-wise. Respectfully, the construction of this two-story building would be setting the precedence for all of us. We also would then have the opportunity to build a structure that we don't want to build but would If, if, if this goes through, then we also, and others here on the Gulf have that opportunity. I think back to when my, my in-laws bought here as a second home, because it reminded my father-in-law of where he grew up in England, of the jetty of our beach. of our building of everything. Our family has raised generations and multigenerations of children, of grandchildren, of in-laws in our building on the Gulf and have enjoyed looking out and loving every moment that we have been here. So thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

Next speaker is Maria Estelle.

Good afternoon. My name is Maria Estelle and also I own a prop unit at the two units in the building. When at first I heard it was a parking lot, Now I heard they're going to put units without kitchens. These things don't make any sense to me. Also, I'm here because the apartment is just going to be right in front of the construction and it will interrupt the view of the golf. Thank you very much.

There are no further speakers.

Okay, thank you. Any additional staff comments? No, I see none. Okay. With that, I'll close the public hearing. And if I could have a motion and include any stipulations, you might wish whatever. Anyone like to make a motion? Don't all speak at once. Come on. I know someone has a voice.

I will make a motion.

Okay. Ms. Sherberg?

I'll make a motion just so for discussion purposes. I think we need to discuss it, um, based on the review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony and evidence provided during the public hearing. The planning commission sitting as a local planning agency finds this petition complies with the land development code, including the decision criteria and section 1.9.4. and therefore moves to approve site and development plan amendment petition number 26-13SP with the following stipulation, that the provided structure is based on the accessory structure that is defined in the LDRs and that remains so.

Thank you. We have a motion to approve. Do I have a second?

Can I make a friendly suggestion to that? Yes. At the very end, that it not be a dwelling unit. I think that would be the triggering definition that would then include facilities like a kitchen. I would agree.

So just amend it to remain as a dwelling unit.

To ensure that it doesn't. Okay.

So we have a motion to approve with the stipulation that it remain as a not a dwelling unit. Okay. Do I have a second? We can't. Second. Okay, Mr. Jess, we have a motion and a second. Okay. Further discussion?

I'll go first. You have some. Okay. I'll go first. I certainly have empathy for anyone who is impacted, whose view is impacted. I know that, especially when we come here to to live in Florida, whether it be a second home or full time, we look for things like a preserve view or a pond view or the gulf view, if you are that fortunate. And I realize how important that is to all of us. I also realize that we have a comprehensive plan and that the LDRs then, the land development regulations, are more specific on what we should and should not or can and cannot do. The fact is that this particular unit, this space, is in a high-density area, and therefore even more units could be on this property, and they could be much higher than first floor. So knowing that in the future, and I realize I'm only dealing with today's But in the future, I fully would expect this to become multi-height in this space. One of the things I loved about Venice when I found it was that on the gulf itself, you had a mix of high story and low story. I'd like that much more so than what you see at St. Pete, for example. However, I think the LDRs are written as such that I have no option other than to approve it because the LDRs allow it, and only for that reason.

Anyone else? Yeah, I would just kind of add my comments the same way. People have heard me say it many times, but we don't get to just sit up here and do what we feel like doing. We make decisions based on the evidence that's been presented. And I very carefully asked some of the questions that I did for the benefit of the public. to understand the way we do have to look at it. And while I appreciate and certainly feel your pain, and I live not far away, I live very close to the beach myself, I do feel your pain, but sometimes rights are taken that don't really exist. We had one just recently where people didn't want So I'm going to build something taller because they would lose the privacy in their backyard. Well, I pointed out at that time, there is no right that exists that you're going to have privacy in your backyard. Every two-story house that gets built, I look right out my window into my neighbor's next door pool over my six-foot privacy fence, and I can give you examples of that all over. Well, I kind of see this as the same way. People go, oh, we've had that view, so we deserve that view. But that's not really the case. There's people that have private property rights, and those rights are kind of guided by the LDRs. We have to look at the evidence, and we have to make our decisions based on that. and where I certainly can feel your pain. I looked and looked and looked, and there is nothing that guarantees a view. And when someone comes and asks to do something, they could build something much, much taller if they wanted to. It sounded to me like they really went out of their way to be as accommodating as possible. And I know that doesn't ease the pain, but that's the way we have to look at it. Does it meet the code? Are they doing what they're allowed to do? And that's what we make our decisions based on. So that's my comments. Any other comments? If not, say none. Can I have a vote, please? And the motion passes unanimously.

Okay.

And... Next up we do have a text amendment petition number 25 dash 1, 2, a m ldr amendment number 6 and the staff is Nicole trembling. This will be a legislative hearing I do have a memorandum to read. This is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on May 30, 2026, as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code. Proof of publication is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office. And Nicole, welcome back.

Thank you. For the record, Nicole Chamblee, senior planner for the city of Venice. I think I'll go through the narrative, which includes a table of all the changes. And then if you have questions about specific ones, I can pull up the text that corresponds. So we're changing a few sections here. Section one, which is like our administration section. The first change is to clarify the environmental requirements for site plans and plots because there are multiple types of environmental assessments that might apply based on the size of the property and whether it has environmental contaminants. So we're just making that more specific and matching up with that recent decision criteria change that you all saw. the next one is just adding a number we recently had to change the plotting text because of a new state law and in doing that we accidentally eliminated one of the numbers and we had two 1.10s so we're fixing that um and that's all for section one section three In the height exception language, it references compatibility standards. In our initial drafts with the consultant for the LDR update, there were some height-related standards in Section 4 for compatibility that people would have to meet. Those were taken out before the code was ever even adopted, and this part just was never caught that it still had that reference to the compatibility standards for height. So we're removing that. cul-de-sac design is one of the items in section three we want to make that eligible for a design alternative request because several projects recently have requested a t turnaround and as long as that's okay with the fire marshal we don't really have a reason to prevent them from doing that from a planning standpoint so we would like to make that an option for people to request because that seems to be a preference for some of our projects recently Let's see, the next two have to do kind of with yard types and locations. So on corner lots and through lots, right now it says that front yards should be on a lesser street type, but the front yard doesn't matter. It's about pulling your car out of the driveway onto a less busy street. So we're changing that front yards to driveways. And then the next says that the entrance should be in the front yard, or sorry, the front yard should have the entrance and the driveway. and that applies to all houses throughout the city so whether they're existing new doesn't matter and that's not always the case especially for existing homes so then it causes a problem when they come in for a permit review and their driveway is on the side and their front door is in the front so we just want to take that away and just make it the entrance is your front yard not your driveway because your driveway could be side or rear in some cases that might be preferable we don't have a design reason why they're not allowed to do that we've got a reference to variances for pools and front yards it's just not necessary because it's implied that anything you can't meet except for a prohibited use is a variance request so we're just taking that out because it's redundant Three flagpoles per property, right now you can have one and again we've gotten several requests lately to have two or three and we don't really see a specific reason why they could not so right now the code says they can't and we thought to allow them to have up to three if they do want that. These are commercial properties of course that are requesting that. um for signs we have a new sign type non-advertising signs on private property it's a common sign type that we just didn't have in our code and it's not commercial there's they're informational like no trespassing or one way or something like that that could be on a private property Temporary signs, there's a little bit of a loophole right now that we want to close, limiting the temporary sign placement to once per six months. Right now it just says 30 consecutive days, so you could put it up for 30 days, take it down for one, put it up for 30 days, take it down for one. Okay and then parking we had a couple outdated references old old references to the alternative parking plan and the requirements tables. We want to add some rates for bicycle parking for multi-family commercial and office. There's we have lots of strategies in our comp plan and regulations in our code about multimodal transportation wanting to encourage other modes other types of trips you know reduce the strain on the roadway network reduce the strain environmentally but we don't actually have any regulations for people to follow so we came up with some rates based on lots of different comparisons around the country and we thought multi-family commercial and office were the most appropriate uses for that So multi-family would need to have long-term secure facilities so that people can park their bike while they live there and not worry about anything, have it be covered by weather, have it protected from theft. And then short-term would be available at office and commercial. So if employees want to ride their bike to work, if customers want to ride to a store or a restaurant, they would have some short-term facilities available. Those could or could not be sheltered from weather. That could be up to the developer, the property owner. And then we needed to add some standards as well to the design standards section of the parking code just to make sure that they are usable, that they're separated from pedestrians to keep them safe, that they're separated from the roadway, that they're visible and close to the building entrance, and as I mentioned for long term, that they're sheltered from weather and protected from theft. then in 3.8 we've got several changes to fences so one would be to allow design alternatives for height it's moved from section 7 which is our architectural standards which only apply to the architectural control districts so they allowed a fence alternative for height but the main fence code did not We thought it was more appropriate in the overall fence code. So we moved that there, allowing some additional materials for safety purposes. There's two related changes about that, but there are just some uses that require more security, certain government uses, outdoor storage of equipment. things where it's logical maybe an industrial or a utilities situation where you need the three-strand barbed wire which is currently prohibited so in the case where you have such a use you could ask for that And then we do have a design alternative to request a change in the required wildlife breaks. But in those same types of uses, essential services, utilities, things that need to be more secure, there's no option to request complete relief from that break. You still have to provide it somewhere. But if you are attempting to secure a facility, then you could not reasonably have a wildlife break and still achieve that goal. So we wanted to make that an option to ask for a design alternative if you have an appropriate use that would need it. So then this is the same one, just it's kind of in two different sections. So allowing the three strand barbed wire in situations where it's appropriate. and then allowing the design alternatives for fence height above six feet but no higher than eight which is what's currently in section seven for architectural control and then we'll maintain the requirement that it has to be open fencing at a ratio of one to four for front yards in a residential area and then any other type of fence in all other circumstances where you could normally have up to six Okay, section seven, we have two changes. One is just removing that design alternative for fence height because it's been moved. The other is to remove the expiration date for a CAC, a certificate of architectural compliance. That's because they really don't need to be redone unless they've changed the design And sometimes if you have a multifamily project or a commercial project, you have to go through the HAPB process and then you have to go through the site plan process. So by the time you're one year with HAPB is up, it's possible and it has happened that your CAC is already expired. And you're not even approved by planning commission for your site plan yet. So it's not necessarily the applicant's fault. It's just it's a tight time frame when you have to get all these steps done. So we felt that, you know, if they're doing the same project that they were approved for, they didn't need to have an expiration date on that. And then section nine, they're not individually numbered. So I just broke these up into a few different categories. We had to make a correction to the commercial use definitions. They refer back to section 2.4 where the more specific use definitions that you all are familiar with are located. But we used to have two different retail sizes. We had 65,000 square feet or less and then larger than 65,000 feet. square feet we removed that many years ago but then we never renumbered the definitions so we just want to make sure all those references are correct we made some additions to accommodate the bicycle parking rates one for long term one for short term and then one for a bicycle parking space and that is especially for like if you had an enclosed long-term bicycle parking room just to say okay you need this minimum dimension to count this as a space so that people aren't having to stack them on top of each other things like that and then littoral zone we added because it's in chapter 87 for major and minor permits for structures over water but we didn't have a good definition so we added one of those and then we subtracted several things mostly because they're only used in Chapter 88 building regulations, which we don't deal with and which has its own definition section. So we didn't need to repeat them. And in some cases they were different. So we really didn't need them. And then there's a couple that are not used at all. We recently removed halfway house with the certified recovery residences. change that we made to accommodate recent state law so that's no longer in the code anywhere and then that retail sales and service definition that i mentioned we just never removed that so we're doing that now And then we had one other thing we needed to add to mechanical equipment that says, however, such equipment shall not be permitted in front yards, which is how it's always been intended to be, that you can't have your mechanicals in a front yard, but it's not been there. So we weren't able to enforce it when a permit came in and wanted a generator and air conditioner in the front of the house. So those are all the changes we have proposed. I can go to any of the sections you would like to see or answer your questions.

Thank you any questions for.

Thank you under other you're referring to above ground correct you can still have a. Propane tank underground in the front yard for a whole house generator correct yeah this would be something like OK above ground yeah any AC something like that all right second question and that's my last the short term bicycle parking I take my bike to the beach for example.

i'm expected to leave in two hours no it doesn't have to have a time limit it's just a general understanding let me pull it up and make sure it doesn't it's not inadvertently yeah create a time limit but that's not the intention it's just to be um for a few hours yeah it's expected that you're not going to stay the night there and need it to be secured and protected from rain and things like that that you'll you'll lock it up yourself probably at a rack and come back when you're done using that whatever that facility is all right thank you sure any other questions for nicole no thank you for your presentation

Okay. Thank you. Let's see. It doesn't look like any audience, so I don't think we have any audience participation. I'll assume that. Okay. All right. And no need for any additional staff comments, so we'll go past that one. I'll close the public hearing. And can I have a motion, please?

Mr. Chairman? Yes, Mr. Flagey. The Planning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency, finds this petition consistent with the comprehensive plan and in compliance with Florida Statutes Chapter 163, Part 2, and therefore recommends to City Council approval of text amendment petition number 2512AM.

We have a motion for approval from Mr. Filagi, and a second would be Mr. Okay, Mr. Jasper. We have a motion on the second. Any additional comments or questions? Seeing none, can I have a vote, please? And that is unanimous. You have your changes. Mr. Clark.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for enduring all those changes. I think we're in good shape. That was LDR amendment number six. I happen to know that the county, when they redid their code, they're probably in the hundreds right now of coming back and making changes. So we're We're excited we're only to six. There's more coming, but we're doing pretty good. So obviously as we use it, we find things that out of that 600 pages that we missed. So appreciate your approving that. You do have a meeting. Next meeting is July 7th. That will be your last meeting before the break. You will have the second July and the first August meeting off. so we do have a couple of applications two variances on that on that app on that day so um so that'll be uh you'll definitely have a meeting there um other than that i don't have a whole lot to tell you any any updates we do we did have the uh consultants in town this past week they were going around looking at all our parks for the parks master plan so that is moving forward so that's pretty exciting So hopefully they've been great to work with. And yesterday we had a ribbon cutting for our northeast park. So if you haven't been there, It is an awesome facility, so I would definitely check it out if you haven't been out there on Laurel Road. It's really cool. Venetian Golf River Club has adopted the park, so we'll be kept in really good shape, and I think you'll really like it. I can't wait to take my grandkids there, and I know several of the staff can't wait to take their kids there, so it's pretty exciting that we have a new park to go to. So with that, I have nothing else, and have a good rest of the day.

Do we have any comments or anything from the board? Seeing none, I'll let you go home. We're adjourned.