Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission grants variance to allow metal multipurpose building at 240 Base Ave E
Summary
The commission approved a variance to the Venice Historic Precedent architectural standards to permit a metal multipurpose building and broader redevelopment at 240 Base Avenue East, despite neighborhood concerns about compatibility and building type.
The Venice Planning Commission voted 6-1 to approve Variance Petition 25-22VZ for 240 Base Avenue East, allowing an exception to the Venice Historic Precedent (VHP) architectural standards in the Airport Avenue zoning district to permit a metal multipurpose building and associated redevelopment.
Attorney Jeffrey Boone, representing applicant Walt Katonis of Technology Development Properties LLC, told the commission the 0.74-acre property is “run down” and that the owner bought it in 2020. Boone said the applicant seeks a multipurpose building (approximately 7,500 square feet when completed, with roughly 5,100 square feet currently under roof) to host robotics, drone testing, community maker-space activities, equipment repair and other club or nonprofit uses. Boone argued the VHP architectural cost and standard make new construction infeasible and said 34 parcels occupy the Airport Avenue zoning district and only one parcel comes close to VHP compliance.
Katonis described the project as a phased, community-oriented facility: “This is our field,” he said, explaining he envisions volunteers and educational activities, indoor drone testing and repair workshops and space for community groups such as the Suncoast Reef Rovers. He said the property would be cleaned up, existing structures demolished and a new unified building constructed to serve multiple uses.
Several neighbors spoke during public comment. Lou Anne Wood and other speakers said redevelopment would be a “breath of fresh air” and praised the applicant’s community focus. Other residents, including Peter Zay and Deborah Anderson, questioned compatibility with nearby residences, asked for more detail about intended uses (for example FAA research or engineering work), and raised concerns about the metal building aesthetic, longevity in storms and ongoing maintenance. One resident noted a $250,000 trust transfer in the property history and suggested that could cover architectural treatments.
Planning staff told commissioners the variance request was limited to architectural standards; uses allowed on the property remain those permitted by the Airport Avenue zoning. Staff confirmed the application packet and testimony provided sufficient information for the commission to act and reviewed the variance decision criteria with the commission.
During deliberations several commissioners said the proposal would be an improvement to a deteriorated site and could provide recreational and educational opportunities for youth; one commissioner said the commission’s comprehensive-plan goals seek broader architectural change in the district but that a variance process exists for cases where strict compliance may be infeasible. Chair Snyder voted no, stating concern about departing from the comp plan’s architectural direction; the motion nevertheless passed 6-1. The commission recorded the approval and the applicant may proceed to the site and development plan stage as required by the LDRs.
