Public Meetings - Venice, Florida

The Venice Planning Commission met on Tuesday, July 7, 2026 (agenda start time 1:30 PM; timestamp 18:15 UTC) in Council Chambers. All seven members were present. The chair certified that both public hearings had been advertised on June 20, 2026, with proof of publication on file. After approving the previous meeting minutes, the commission heard two quasi-judicial variance requests involving construction seaward of the Gulf Beach Setback Line: 26-20VZ at 201 The Esplanade and 26-23VZ at 412 Hunter Drive. Both were approved unanimously. Call to Order, Roll Call, and Minutes Approval - Roll call confirmed Chair Wilson and Commissioners Hale, Sherberg, McKeon, Fresca, Jasper, and Ferlaghi were present. - The commission approved the minutes as submitted. Discrepancy note: the agenda identified the minutes as those of the June 16, 2026 meeting, but Chair Wilson referred to the June 2, 2026 regular meeting; no correction was discussed. Public Comments & Testimony - Kathy McPherson, a neighbor at 109 The Esplanade, expressed concern about losing more of her ocean view to the new wall at 201 The Esplanade. She said the house and landscaping are beautiful and that the wall might not be as bad as feared because existing vegetation already blocks much of the view. - Nancy Woodley, a retired Venice city engineer and project manager of the 2005 beach renourishment project, opposed the 412 Hunter Drive variance. She argued that placing a fence and grass lawn in the beach profile compromises storm protection, interferes with wind-driven sand movement, acts as a barrier to nesting sea turtles, and keeps native sea oats and vegetation from populating the beach. She also stated that the existing fence and lawn sit on public land seaward of the erosion control line and that granting the variance would be unwise in an area exposed to storm surge and coastal flooding. She noted the city has a 50-year U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract to renourish the beach every 10 years; she described the 2025 beach renourishment as currently underway, with the current fourth renourishment estimated at about $20 million and the city paying 10 to 20 percent. She also said the applicant's state permit for the new house was issued in March 2023 and expired in March 2026. - Walt Jennings, a nearby resident who said he uses the wall by the Junda property as beach access, raised concern that the applicant's new fence blocks the end of the wall and leaves only an eight-inch gap. He said he was not questioning the fence generally, but objected to the closure of what he described as his beach access route. Public Hearing 26-20VZ - 201 The Esplanade Variance - Applicant Edward W. Hinz, represented by Jackson R. Boone, requested variances under the Land Development Code (LDC) Chapter 89, Section 2.114 (construction/excavation seaward of the Gulf Beach Setback Line) and Chapter 87, Section 3.1.8(F)(2) (visibility triangle) to complete a perimeter privacy wall. The property is approximately 0.558 acres with low-density residential future land use and RSF2/conservation zoning. Transcript spellings of the owner's name vary (Hinz, Hines, Hens). - Staff planner Brittany Smith said a prior request was denied in November 2025 because it was not the minimum necessary. The redesigned wall has a rounded corner, with a three-foot concrete base topped by a three-foot metal railing, and extends at most 13 feet 8 inches seaward of the Gulf Beach Setback Line. - The applicant argued that the wall merely fills a gap between existing wall posts; that the GBSL has an abrupt northeastern jog on the island that uniquely clips this property, possibly due to a 1978 mapping error; and that the wall would not affect erosion, flooding, beach access, habitat, or public views. He also argued that the visibility triangle should be measured from the curb corner rather than the property corner, because existing city vegetation and beach parking block the sight line anyway. He noted that in unincorporated Sarasota County, a professionally engineered breakaway privacy wall like this could qualify for administrative approval under one of 15 categories, without a variance. - Commissioner Hale questioned whether the wall was needed only for aesthetics and why the variance was not sought before the house was built. Other commissioners discussed whether the hardship was self-created. Commissioner Ferlaghi asked about the visibility triangle's public-safety purpose and the reduction from a 20-foot dimension to 10 feet; the applicant responded that the full triangle fits if measured from the curb corner and that the intersection's restricted movements preserve safety. - Ms. Sherberg initially moved to approve based on a bona fide staff error, but planning staff clarified that this code option refers to an error by city staff and was not applicable. She amended her motion to approve based on a finding that the petition meets each variance criterion in LDC Section 1.13.3. - The commission voted unanimously to approve 26-20VZ. Public Hearing 26-23VZ - 412 Hunter Drive Variance - Applicant Justin Junda, represented by Jackson R. Boone, requested a variance from LDC Chapter 89, Section 2.11.4(a) to allow a four-foot-tall black aluminum fence seaward of the Gulf Beach Setback Line. The approximately 0.6-acre property has low-density residential future land use and RSF1 zoning. - Staff planner Nicole Tremblay said the fence is proposed along the north, west, and south property boundaries and would replace an existing fence installed in 2025 without a permit. After the 2024 hurricanes and a property boundary review, the property appraiser's office used the erosion control line rather than the mean high water line as the western boundary, which left part of the existing fence off the property. The proposed fence would extend up to 110 feet seaward of the GBSL at its southwest corner; the western run is about 105 feet, and the northern segment extends about 61 feet from the adjacent condominium wall. - Staff also reported that a code enforcement case before the special magistrate had been continued so the applicant could pursue this variance; if the variance were approved, the code case would go away once the off-property fence section is removed. - The applicant argued that the fence is needed to enclose the pool and yard, prevent trespassing and people falling from the adjacent wall onto his property, and align with the nearby Valencia condominiums' wall. He said the property's boundary change, not his actions, created the hardship, and that the open four-foot aluminum fence has no impact on beach habitat, erosion, flooding, or public beach access. He confirmed the fence would include a gate for beach access. - In rebuttal, Junda said the wall is on his property, there is no deeded public beach access across it, people have fallen from the wall and trespassed, and he has coordinated with FDEP and the property appraiser. Commission discussion focused on the code enforcement timeline, the safety and security purpose of the fence, and whether a solid wall could later replace the open fence; the applicant confirmed the variance is limited to the four-foot black aluminum fence. Staff clarified that no permit is required for sod, that FDEP controls the area seaward of the coastal construction control line, and that the wall/walkway area appears to be private property rather than a public beach access. - The commission voted unanimously to approve 26-23VZ under LDC Section 1.13.3. Staff and Commission Comments / Next Steps - Planning and Zoning Director Roger Clark said the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for August 18, 2026, with three applications expected: a site plan, a preliminary plat, and a design alternative. - He also noted that the city council's last meeting before its break would include an enhanced version of the CBO consultant presentation previously shown to the commission. Key Outcomes - Approved variance petition 26-20VZ (201 The Esplanade) unanimously. - Approved variance petition 26-23VZ (412 Hunter Drive) unanimously. - Both approvals were based on findings that the petitions meet the variance criteria in LDC Section 1.13.3, not on a bona fide staff error. - For 412 Hunter Drive, the pending code enforcement case is expected to be resolved after the portion of the fence located off the property is removed; the applicant must still obtain the necessary permits. For 201 The Esplanade, the approved variance permits the redesigned privacy wall in its revised, rounded form. - The next Planning Commission meeting is August 18, 2026.

The City of Venice Special Magistrate for Code Enforcement convened on July 1, 2026 at 10:00 AM in Council Chambers to hear cases including old business, new business, and citation appeals regarding code violations. The meeting addressed four cases, resulting in dismissals, continuances, and penalties. Old Business - CEBD24-005 Mildred H. Neary: The city requested dismissal as the respondent had obtained permits and work had begun. The magistrate found respondent compliant with the October 8, 2025 administrative order and warned that future violations of Chapter 88, Section 3.2 would result in a fine of up to $500 per day as a repeat violator. New Business - CEZN25-0008 Justin Junda: The city and respondent agreed to continue the case to September 2, 2026. The respondent has a variance hearing on July 7, 2026; if granted, the fence will be moved within 15 days; if denied, the unpermitted fence parts will be removed within 15 days. - CESW26-001 Hawks Run Development LLC: Code enforcement officer David Lipker testified that on April 7, 2026, the stormwater engineer reported incomplete pond work. Despite notice on April 20, 2026, the violations (cattails, vegetation, debris obstructing stormwater flow) remained as of June 22, 2026. The magistrate found the respondent in violation of Sections 62-1 and 74-297. The respondent must correct the violation by August 1, 2026, or face a fine of $250 per day. The case will be heard on September 2, 2026. Citation Appeals - CEMI26-0019 Jose and Katherine Requeima: The city and respondent agreed to dismiss the case. The respondent paid a $75 penalty ($50 plus forfeiture of $25 appeal fee) within 10 days. - CEMI26-0018 John and Nancy Eiseman: The respondent was cited for watering at 7:00 AM on May 12, 2026, in violation of water restrictions. The city provided notice via newspaper ad on April 15, 2026, and issued warnings for two weeks before citations. Mr. Eiseman argued he was out of the country from May 2-17 and did not receive adequate notice. The magistrate dismissed the citation solely because Mr. Eiseman was not in town during the violation, and ordered the $25 appeal fee refunded. - CEMI26-0023 Samuel George Joynson and Anna McLean: The respondent was cited for watering at 6:35 AM on May 15, 2026. He argued lack of notice and that his irrigation system was partially micro-irrigation (damaged by a hit-and-run). The magistrate found the respondent violated Section 74-48, citing that the notice provided was adequate and distinguishing this case from Eiseman's because Joynson was in town. The respondent forfeited the $25 appeal fee and was assessed a civil penalty of $150 plus recording fees, due within 10 days. Key Outcomes - Mildred H. Neary: Case dismissed; respondent compliant. - Justin Junda: Continued to September 2, 2026, with conditions regarding variance. - Hawks Run Development LLC: Violation confirmed; deadline August 1, 2026; potential fine of $250/day; review on September 2, 2026. - Jose and Katherine Requeima: Dismissed with $75 penalty paid. - John and Nancy Eiseman: Citation dismissed; $25 fee refunded. - Samuel George Joynson and Anna McLean: Violation found; $175 total penalty ($25 fee + $150 fine + recording fees). The meeting adjourned after the last case.

This meeting consisted entirely of a technical test of the city's captioning system. No official business, public comments, or discussion items were addressed. The test was conducted to verify that the captioning feed was functioning properly for participants. Captioning System Test - City staff conducted a live test of the automated captioning service during the scheduled meeting time. Staff read a standard evidentiary statement to assess caption accuracy and latency. - Participants confirmed via email and chat that the captions were appearing, though some initial lag was noted and later resolved. - The test concluded after approximately 10 minutes with confirmation that the captioning system was working adequately. Key Outcomes - No decisions, votes, or official actions were taken during this meeting. The session was purely for technical verification of the captioning equipment.

The meeting on June 29, 2026, was a technical test session focused on evaluating the Lexi captioning system for future quasi-judicial hearings. No formal agenda or minutes were available, and the transcript consists only of staff testing the captioning software and troubleshooting display issues. Discussion Items - Staff tested the Lexi captioning system, reviewing time allocations for public comment, presentations, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. - Technical issues with captioning display were noted and resolved during the session, with participant Roger and Tony experiencing delays. - Staff agreed to contact Dee for further testing steps. Key Outcomes - The captioning test concluded successfully after resolving display issues. - Further testing with Dee was scheduled for the afternoon.

The Venice City Council met on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:13 p.m. (with a lunch break from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) to address a full agenda including a police staffing study, multiple ordinances, a quasi‑judicial appeal, an airport environmental review, and approval of a management agreement for the Venice Community Center. The meeting featured extensive community input on the airport and the 816 Ormond Street development. Recognition - 35‑Year Service Award, Paul Joyce, Master Police Officer – Mayor Pachota and Chief Lisenring presented the award, highlighting his career from Explorer to Marine Patrol. Council unanimously recognized his service. Consent Calendar - Approved minutes of May 26, 2026, and authorized acceptance of a utility easement from Sarasota County and purchase of the Venice Train Depot Lift Station for $10.00. All items passed unanimously. Public Comments & Testimony - Airport Update – Three speakers (Madeline Zubek, Chris Davis, Peter Fasio) addressed environmental concerns, noise, and stormwater runoff. Zubek urged comprehensive testing of Deertown Gully. Davis supported noise monitoring but expressed skepticism about the scope. Fasio praised current airport management. - Appeal Hearing (816 Ormond Street) – Five residents spoke against the six‑unit townhouse project, citing traffic, stormwater, height, and compatibility issues. Appellant David Topian emphasized code compliance but asked for conditions on landscaping and stormwater. Discussion Items - Venice Police Department Staffing Study – Dr. Marshall Jones and Dr. Brandon May presented a 123‑page study. Key findings: VPD is understaffed (current 54‑55 sworn vs. recommended 88 for a balanced 50% workload); calls for service increased 13% (2020‑2024), officer‑initiated calls up 20%; response times in north zone (Zone 7) average 9 minutes, with a 90% increase in calls there; a 2.51 relief factor needed per officer. Recommendations included adding patrol officers, creating a professional standards lieutenant, and expanding detectives from 9 to 11. Council voted unanimously to hold a public safety workshop within 60 days with the consultant. - Airport Update (Staff/CMT Presentation) – City Manager Clinch reported on projects: PAPI lights repair (waiting FAA commissioning), remote tower prioritization, landing fees exploration, and noise abatement initiatives. CMT proposed environmental review: stormwater compliance ($13,560), and optional air quality/dispersion modeling (up to $100,000). Council added soil sampling and approved not‑to‑exceed $200,000 for the environmental package, to be funded from airport enterprise reserves. - Venice Community Center Management Agreement – Staff and VPAC M (Venice Institute for Performing Arts Center Management) presented a five‑year management contract. VPAC M will operate the center with a $280,000 annual fee, tiered pricing for community/nonprofit events, and a goal to increase occupancy from 13% to 28% over five years. The agreement includes a 50‑50 surplus split with the city (credited against management fees). Council approved unanimously. Key Outcomes - Police Staffing Study – Council unanimously directed staff to schedule a public safety workshop (target date July 17, 2026, or earlier) to discuss short‑ and long‑term goals and financial impacts. - Ordinances – First reading approved: Floodplain Management (Ordinance 2026‑07, 4‑0) and Unsafe Structures (Ordinance 2026‑20, 4‑0). Final reading approved: Land Development Code Amendment (Ordinance 2026‑16, 5‑0). - Budget Amendment – Ordinance 2026‑21 (increase revenues/expenditures by $255,000) approved 5‑0. - Resolutions – Emergency Pay Policy (2026‑07), Public Art Fund Endorsement (2026‑12), and Revised Land Development Fee Schedule (2026‑13) all passed 5‑0. - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (816 Ormond Street) – Site and Development Plan for six‑unit townhouse was approved 5‑1 (Councilmember Smith dissented, citing need for more stringent conditions on buffering and drainage). - Airport Environmental Review – Council approved moving forward with CMT’s proposal (stormwater and air quality study) including soil sampling, not to exceed $200,000, with funds from airport enterprise reserves. - Venice Community Center Management – Management agreement with VPAC M approved unanimously, effective October 1, 2026.

The Venice City Council held a budget workshop on June 18, 2026, from 9:00 AM to approximately 1:30 PM to review the proposed FY 2027 budget. City Manager James Clinch and Finance Director Linda Senne presented a draft budget totaling approximately $161.5 million, a 7 % reduction from the prior year. The general fund was reduced by 9 % and eight vacant positions were eliminated. The budget maintains the current millage rate of 3.845 mills and includes a new in-house fleet maintenance fund, a capital improvement program, and rate increases for utilities and solid waste. Council discussed the potential impact of the November property tax reform referendum, which could reduce the general fund by $5.5 million (10 %) if fully implemented. No formal votes were taken; consensus was reached to modify the Venice Beach Pavilion roof project from $500,000 to $150,000 for a refurbishment. The draft budget will be revised and presented again at the August meeting, with final adoption scheduled for September. Presentations and Discussion Items - City Manager Introduction: Clinch outlined a challenging fiscal year with flat property tax revenue (0.07 % increase), a 7 % overall budget reduction, elimination of eight positions (all vacant), and the launch of an in-house fleet maintenance program (3.5 new FTEs). He noted the city will take over seven neighborhood parks and the Venice Community Center without adding staff, and that the property tax reform measure could cut general fund revenues by about $5.5 million (10 %). - Finance Director (Linda Senne): Presented the city-wide budget structure, rate increases (water 5.25 %, sewer 3 %, reclaimed water 3 %, stormwater OM rate down from $8.55 to $6.03, solid waste 3 %), and closure of two funds. She explained that $800,000 from general fund reserves will seed the new fleet services fund. - Fire and EMS (Chief Frank Gidddens): Discussed EMS transport fees, noting a $200 fee increase could raise $1.4 million annually. Councilmember Smith suggested raising fees to reduce property tax dependency. The chief stated 83 % of 9,000 annual calls are EMS-related, and the collection rate is near 80 %. - Police (Chief Andy Leisenring): Addressed the elder crimes detective position (still vacant), the Salvation Army bed program funded via opioid settlement ($65,700 for four beds, 90 % occupancy), and planned e-bike patrols. Council deferred deeper staffing discussion to a June 23 meeting. - Planning and Zoning (Roger Clark): Reported 25 % progress on the Seaboard master plan and swing bridge concept, and that the parks master plan will be delayed to capture seasonal public input. The affordable housing initiative is 50 % complete. - Historical Resources: No significant questions. - Information Technology (Roger Navarro): Discussed a proposed $521,700 backup server for Sarasota data center. Councilmember Weed questioned the cost and requested a cost‑benefit analysis of a cloud alternative; consensus was to keep the item in the budget pending further information. - Human Resources (Alan Bullock): Noted a 44 % increase in health insurance costs driven by high‑cost claims, and described employee loyalty and merit award programs. Council discussed union negotiations with AFSCME. - City Attorney (Kelly Fernandez): Addressed a 28 % increase in legal costs over three years, attributing it to litigation cycles. She stated the retainer has not been increased recently and that overall legal spending is variable. - City Council and City Clerk: No questions. - City Manager: No questions. - Finance: Council thanked Senne for transparency. - Engineering and Stormwater (Jon Kramer): Noted a $150,000 allocation for capital project management consultant. Discussed the Flamingo Ditch phase‑1 design and excavation of a county enclave lot. Stormwater fund fees are decreasing because expenses are lower. - Public Works and Fleet (Ricky Simpson): Described metrics (100 % on‑time response), the new fleet services fund (a service truck with light‑towing capability), and that additional parks will be absorbed via schedule changes and contracted mowing/cleaning. Council approved the Venice Beach Pavilion roof revision to a $150,000 refurbishment. - Solid Waste: Director reported positive feedback on recent schedule changes. - Building Department (Derek Applegate): Explained that four positions were eliminated because the industry is shifting to private providers; the city still oversees through intake and certificate of completion. - Airport (presented by Linda Senne and City Manager): Fuel flowage fee discussions ongoing; $130,000 in property taxes paid on mobile home park. Councilmember Smith asked about funding community‑requested noise walls and landscaping—Clinch recommended first improving airport revenue before discretionary projects. A tenant default letter was sent; negotiations underway. - Utilities (Javier Vargas): Reported 90 % progress on a water master plan and feasibility study for a new water plant (to be presented early 2027). Seven of eight phases of pipe replacement completed on the island; reclaimed water expansion continues. Key Outcomes - Consensus to Modify Venice Beach Pavilion Roof: Council agreed to change the project from a full $500,000 roof replacement to a $150,000 refurbishment, pending updated CIP. - No Formal Votes: All decisions are informal guidance for staff to incorporate into the draft budget, which will be brought back for adoption in August and September. - Future Meetings: The next budget workshop is scheduled for July 8, 2026 (not June 19, as council saw no need for a second day). The police staffing study will be discussed on June 23. - Request for Additional Information: Council requested a cost‑benefit analysis on the backup server project, a breakdown of the “other” $11.2 million general fund line item, and that the fleet service truck description and photo be revised to clarify its light‑towing capability.

The Citizen Advisory Board met on June 17, 2026, primarily to receive a presentation on the city's website redesign project. The board heard survey results, a proposal from Granicus, and discussed future tasks including the parks master plan, bicycle level, and a park renaming policy. Consent Calendar - The board unanimously approved the minutes of the April 15, 2026 meeting. Public Comments & Testimony - No members of the public signed up to speak. Discussion Items - Website Redesign Project: Public Information Officer Lorraine Anderson presented a survey launched at the end of May 2026, which received 404 responses. Key findings: 72% of respondents visit the site a few times a month or only when looking for specific information; the top three reasons for visiting are city news (257 respondents), special events/calendar, and garbage/recycling information; over 80% did not rate the site as "very easy" to navigate. Common complaints included a poor search function, overly wordy drop-down menus, and unintuitive information organization. Positive feedback included the home page buttons and news presentation. - Granicus Proposal: Mike Tashikori from Granicus presented their approach, emphasizing a platform solution, data-driven insights, and white-glove service. The timeline targets a March 2027 launch, with phases including discovery, UX/design, development (including ADA/WCAG 2.2 compliance), training, and launch. The project will also migrate the website domain from venicegov.com to venicefl.gov. An AI-powered chatbot (GXA) will be optional, grounded only to city content. Board member Alex DeFollis asked about including the CAB in user acceptance testing (UAT); Granicus indicated openness to that if city staff approve. Other questions addressed the training approach (train-the-trainer) and post-launch support. - Parks Master Plan Update: City Manager James Clinch reported that consultant GAI has been selected and held a kickoff meeting. They will tour parks and plan to present to the CAB at the August 19, 2026 meeting. Public outreach begins in August, with presentations to the planning commission and city council in September. - Other Future Tasks: Mayor John H. and Mr. Clinch discussed upcoming assignments for the CAB: (1) continuing work on elevating the city's bicycle level to gold, (2) reviewing Venice Code Section 465 on renaming city-owned facilities/parks, (3) the parks master plan, and (4) previous website evaluation. The mayor stressed that the renaming policy should be carefully considered; background information will be provided for the August meeting. Board member Dr. Davis raised environmental concerns regarding the parks master plan, noting the previous plan lacked environmental considerations. He suggested incorporating native plants and drought-resistant landscaping, and proposed an educational program for residents. The mayor encouraged the board to develop its own projects within its purview. - New Member Introduction: Lily, an upcoming high school senior, drum major, and track team member, was welcomed as a new CAB member. Key Outcomes - The board approved the April 15, 2026 minutes. - The website redesign project will proceed with Granicus; the CAB will be kept informed and may participate in UAT testing at staff's discretion. - The August 19, 2026 meeting will include the parks master plan presentation (by GAI) and background on the park renaming policy. Alex DeFollis will also provide a status update on the bicycle level initiative. - The board discussed creating an environmental educational program, potentially in partnership with VABBY and other community groups.

The Venice Planning Commission met on June 16, 2026, in Council Chambers. The commission held two public hearings: a quasi-judicial site and development plan amendment for Aloha Condominium and a legislative Land Development Regulation (LDR) text amendment. It also approved the prior meeting minutes and excused Commissioner McKean's absence. Consent Calendar - Roll call showed Chair Wilson and Commissioners Sherberg, Fresca, Jasper, and Ferloggi present. Commissioner Hale was excused with prior approval, and Commissioner McKean was excused by motion after advising the chair of a medical procedure. - Approved the June 2, 2026, Planning Commission minutes as written. Public Comments & Testimony - Brad Fry, president of Dolphin Bay Condos and an associate broker with RE/MAX Palm Realty, opposed the Aloha proposal. He said the view for 40 percent of his building's units would be blocked, property values would be affected, and approval would set a slippery-slope precedent. - Tom Talburt, an owner at Gulf and Bay (1400 Tarpon Center), opposed the proposal. He said his family has owned there for 50 years, the current carport is about 15 steps from his building's entrance, and the proposed two-story structure would obliterate Gulf views from many second-floor units and significantly reduce third-floor views. He argued it conflicts with Comprehensive Plan strategy OS 1.9.6 on minimizing obstructions to coastal views and called it a textbook example of what not to do. - Elizabeth Stanard Letcher, an original owner at Gulf and Bay since 1969/1970, opposed the proposal. She described the Gulf view as central to her family's life and said approval would set a precedent for other Gulf-front condominiums. - No public comments were offered for the LDR text amendment. Discussion Items Aloha Condominium Site and Development Plan Amendment (26-13SP) - Staff planner Nicole Tremblay presented the request for the roughly 1.9-acre site at 1329 Tarpon Center Drive, which has a high-density residential future land use designation and RMF-4 zoning. The applicant proposed rebuilding the existing covered parking as a two-story, 1,814-square-foot detached garage with accessory living space above. Covered parking would increase from five to six spaces, while total on-site parking would decrease from 12 to 10 spaces, still within the required 7-14 spaces. - The new structure would be about 663 square feet larger than the current covered parking footprint and would be moved from a non-compliant 1.6-foot side setback to a compliant 5-foot setback. Because of the FDEP-based coastal height measurement, the accessory structure would be 11 feet 6 inches tall versus 11 feet 7 inches for the primary structure, although its physical ground-level height would be about 22 feet 6 inches. - The four accessory spaces would each include a bedroom, bathroom, and closet, with a separate laundry room. They would not contain kitchens and would not be dwelling units. Applicant's counsel Jackson Boone said the spaces are intended for visiting family, guests, offices, or similar uses and that condo restrictions prohibit renting them separately. The Aloha Condominium has six owners, and four owners would participate. - Staff stated the Technical Review Committee identified no issues, no additional density or trip generation was created, and the petition met the applicable comprehensive plan and land development code criteria. - The applicant acknowledged that the structure would affect some southern views from Gulf and Bay, but argued that view impacts are unavoidable when aging coastal condominium buildings are brought up to current elevation standards. He pointed to a site-specific FDEP wave model and a design intended to minimize the structure's height and impact. - Commission discussion focused on whether the proposal was an accessory structure or a potential garage apartment. Members noted the lack of kitchens and the prohibition on separate rentals, but also discussed the risk that future owners could add kitchens. Staff and applicant's counsel stated that any conversion into dwelling units would require a new site plan approval and code enforcement. The commission discussed conditioning the approval so the structure remains an accessory use. - Several commission members expressed sympathy for neighbors whose views would change, but concluded the land development regulations do not guarantee a view and the proposal complied with the code. LDR Amendment 6 (25-12AM) - Staff planner Nicole Tremblay reviewed proposed text changes to LDR Sections 1, 3, 7, and 9. Key changes included clarifying environmental review requirements, correcting duplicate and outdated section references, allowing cul-de-sac design alternatives, adjusting front-yard and driveway rules for corner and through lots, allowing up to three flag pools per property, limiting temporary sign placement to once per six months, adding bicycle parking rates and design standards for multifamily, office, and commercial uses, expanding fence-height design alternatives, adding security-fencing and wildlife-break alternatives for appropriate uses, removing the Certificate of Architectural Compliance expiration date, correcting commercial use definitions, adding a littoral zone definition, and prohibiting above-ground mechanical equipment in front yards. - Commissioners asked clarifying questions about the mechanical-equipment prohibition and short-term bicycle parking. Staff confirmed the front-yard prohibition applies to above-ground equipment, not underground propane tanks, and that short-term bicycle parking is not intended to create a time limit. - There was no public testimony on the text amendment. Key Outcomes - 26-13SP - Aloha Condominium: The Planning Commission unanimously approved the site and development plan amendment, with a stipulation that the structure remain an accessory structure as defined in the LDRs and not become a dwelling unit. - 25-12AM - LDR Amendment 6: The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval to the City Council, finding the petition consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in compliance with Florida Statutes Chapter 163, Part II. - Administrative/next steps: The next Planning Commission meeting is July 7, 2026, with two variance applications scheduled; it will be the last meeting before the summer break. Staff also noted progress on the parks master plan and the opening of Northeast Park.

The Historic and Architectural Preservation Board (HAPB) met on Thursday, June 11, 2026, at 9:00 AM in the City Council Chambers. The board approved minutes from the previous meeting with a correction, received a comprehensive presentation on the Edgewood and Seaboard Historic Resources Survey, and discussed potential revisions to facade color regulations. No public comments were made. Approval of Minutes - The board approved the minutes of the May 14, 2026, meeting with a correction regarding a fence height application at 417 Nassau Street. The applicant clarified that the requested fence height was 6 feet, not 6 feet 8 inches as staff had stated, and the requirement to amend application materials was struck. Presentation: Edgewood and Seaboard Historic Resources Survey - Holly Baker of Chronicle Heritage presented the findings of the Phase II Historic Structure Survey for the Edgewood and Seaboard neighborhoods. The survey was funded through a matching grant from the Florida Division of Historical Resources. - Key Findings: 184 historic resources were identified, 143 of which had never been previously recorded. Seven buildings were documented as demolished. The survey covered development from the 1920s through the post-World War II period, revealing a greater diversity of architectural styles (bungalow, Tudor revival, ranch, mid-century modern, etc.) and a concentration of resources from the post-war era. - Notable Resources: The Edgewood Cottage (721 Myrtle Avenue), the Venice Train Depot (recommended extension of National Register period of significance through 1971 and addition of transportation significance), and Union Missionary Baptist Church (404 Warfield Avenue, recommended individually eligible for National Register under ethnic history). - Recommendations: Expand the Edgewood Historic District boundary and extend its period of significance beyond 1928; update the John Nolan Plan of Venice Historic District to extend its significance beyond 1960; and conduct additional survey for resources from the 1960s and 1970s. - Next Steps: The draft report is 99% complete, pending state approval and submission of Florida Master Site File forms for each property. - The board voted unanimously to accept the survey findings. Board Discussion: Facade Color Regulations - Chair Beebe initiated a discussion on Section 7.10.4 of the code regarding facade colors, particularly the current requirement for specific color coverage percentages (75% body, 20% secondary, 5% accent). Board members expressed concern that the percentage mandate is overly restrictive, burdensome for staff and applicants, and inconsistent with historic practices where single or subtle color schemes are common. - The consensus was to remove the percentage requirement and instead allow for either a single facade color (with trim/accent) or multiple colors, with an option for documented historic colors. Staff (Amanda) noted that formal action would require a future agenda item with proper notice. Chair Beebe agreed to place it on the next meeting's agenda for further discussion and potential text amendment. Staff Comments and Other Items - Harry Klinkhammer reported on the successful Local Register Forum held the prior week, with approximately 20-30 attendees. Interest was expressed in the Agile Warum tax exemption program. - Staff indicated that a grant application for the next survey (Gulf Shores and Golden Beach) is pending gubernatorial approval, and a resurvey of Venetian Park will be submitted for the next funding cycle. - A discussion occurred regarding a non-VHP style home in the historic district undergoing full renovation. The board advised staff to evaluate the scope of work and use pre-application meetings to help applicants decide whether to conform to VHP standards or retain the existing style, consistent with past practice. - The next meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2026, with a pre-application for a mixed-use building at 127 East Tampa Avenue.