Historic preservation board continues review of proposed 3‑story mixed‑use building at 256 S. Nokomis Ave.

The Venice Historic Architectural Preservation Board on Aug. 28 continued consideration of PLAR25‑00193, a proposal to demolish an existing single‑story commercial building and construct a three‑story, predominantly residential mixed‑use structure with two ground‑floor nonresidential units at 256 South Nokomis Avenue. The board set a date certain for continued review on Oct. 9, 2025.

City planner Britney Smith summarized the application and materials on file, saying the parcel is about 0.37 acres, is zoned South Trail 1 and lies in the Venetian theme Architectural Control District. "For the record, I have signed a speaker's card, and I'm a planner with the city of Venice," Smith said as she explained the package and the elements the board should review.

The applicant, Becca Solazi of bDesign LLC, described the design intention as Venetian in character and said the roofline would be a parapet rather than a traditional barrel tile roof. "It's gonna be [a] Venetian style parapet on top of the roof," Solazi said, explaining the project includes tower elements at the corners and parapet moldings intended to screen rooftop equipment.

Board members pressed the applicant on visual massing, the proportion of tower moldings and the lack of offsets in the primary facades. Multiple members said the proposed corner towers and the parapet molding — shown in drawings as roughly 6 feet 11 7/8 inches (about 7 feet) above the roof — made the building read as taller and more vertical than surrounding properties. One board member recommended reducing the parapet height by about 3 feet or using a barrel tile roof, saying those changes would reduce the perceived height even if the floor‑to‑floor building height remains similar. The board also requested additional depth or plane changes in the facades — for example, recessed balcony volumes or 16‑inch minimum offsets that break the long vertical plane — and asked for refinements to window proportions and railing details to better match Venice historic precedent.

Arthur Sawall, who identified himself as the owner, urged the board to consider the three‑dimensional renderings when assessing depth, saying the balconies produce visual variation not always evident on two‑dimensional elevations. Appearing alongside Solazi, he said the team could provide alternative schemes. Planner Smith and staff noted that zoning and structural dimensions (including setback, maximum height and parking) already had been through technical review committees and the planning commission process; Smith also confirmed that the site is outside the Downtown Edge and in the South Trail 1 zone.

Planning director Roger Clark advised the board and applicant on scheduling and advertising rules for continuances. Clark said the board could set a date certain and, because the public hearing was already advertised, the item could be continued to Oct. 9 without re‑advertising. The applicant indicated they could provide revisions for the Oct. 9 meeting.

The board formally continued PLAR25‑00193 to Oct. 9, 2025. A roll call vote recorded the continuance as approved (yes: Mister Watkins; Miss Trammell; Mister Barrick; Miss Derryberry; Chair Beebe). The record showed one piece of written correspondence from Katie Flynn of 444 Darling Street but no members of the public spoke at the hearing.

Next steps: the applicant will return to the board on Oct. 9 with revised elevations and renderings that address parapet/massing, facade offsets, window proportions and simplified railings. Staff will coordinate a date certain with the city to avoid re‑advertising.