Venice council hears appeal of Village at Laurel and Jacaranda site plan; affected‑party status granted

Venice City Council on a quasi‑judicial appeal heard competing testimony about a proposed commercial center at the southwest corner of Laurel Road and Jacaranda Boulevard — the “Village at Laurel and Jacaranda” site and development plan, petition 22‑40‑SP — and granted affected‑party status to resident Gary Scott.

Nicole Trumbly, senior planner for the City of Venice, told council the application was submitted in February 2022 and is part of the Milano planned unit development (PUD). The developer, Border and Jacaranda Holdings LLC, proposes two retail buildings totaling 61,375 square feet, under the rezoning limit of 70,240 square feet established by the Milano binding master plan amendment. The plan shows 328 parking spaces where 201 would be required, maximum building height of 42 feet with the proposal at about 30 feet 8 inches, and about 1.4 acres reserved for future development that would need its own site plan approval.

Why it matters: council is conducting a de novo review of a planning commission approval; its decision must be based on competent, substantial evidence about consistency with the comprehensive plan, the land‑development code and the Milano binding master plan. The issues raised at the hearing — intensity of use, safe ingress and egress at Laurel Road, and stormwater/drainage — are the same topics that were litigated during the prior rezoning proceedings and are cited in the appellant’s materials.

Staff and technical review: Trumbly told council the petition was processed under the city’s Chapter 86 procedures (the code in force when the application was filed), reviewed by the Technical Review Committee, and found technically compliant with the applicable development standards. She said the transportation impact analysis and the city’s traffic consultant confirmed compliance with required mobility and concurrency standards. She also said city engineering reviewed the drainage submission and found it compliant with requirements; the applicant holds a permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD).

Applicant presentation and stipulations: Jeffrey Boone, attorney for the applicant, and Pat Neal, the applicant representative, summarized the plan and told council the planning commission approved the site plan 6‑1. Boone said the applicant is not seeking variances or design alternatives for the site plan; the proposal, he said, conforms to the PUD and the city code. Boone listed five stipulations the planning commission included in its approval (shielded parking lights, full security camera coverage of parking, restriction on overnight parking, no gas stations/pumps, and landscape buffers required by the Milano PUD amendment) and said the applicant remains committed to them. He also said several stipulations had been negotiated with the Venetian homeowner association prior to the planning commission hearing.

Traffic/access debate: Traffic access at Laurel Road was a central topic. Frank Domingo, the applicant’s transportation expert for Stantec, said the project team applied for an administrative variance with Sarasota County in October 2022 to permit a traffic signal at the intersection used by the Venetian Gulf and River Club; the county denied that variance because the intersection did not meet signal warrants under the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Domingo said the county would not accept an appeal of that denial and has repeatedly declined to add a signal or other traffic control at that location. He testified that a signal would be safer but that Sarasota County is the permitting authority for Laurel Road and has declined to require one. Council members and residents urged the county to consider alternatives such as a HAWK or other pedestrian/safety improvements; Domingo said design changes for the Laurel Road widening project could incorporate additional safety measures, but they would require county agreement and funding.

Stormwater/drainage debate: Drainage and stormwater modeling drew sustained technical dispute. Sean Lyons of AM Engineering, the applicant’s civil engineer, testified the site was designed to the 100‑year event (10 inches in 24 hours per county criteria) and that the stormwater system was sized based on county watershed models, Swiftmud/SWFWMD permit requirements and the city’s review. Lyons said the on‑site conveyance and the off‑site control structures were sized and inspected and that the applicant’s design exceeds the city’s 25‑year requirement.

Appellant and independent review: Appellant Gary Scott and neighborhood representatives presented separate engineering concerns and submitted additional technical materials. Jennifer Menendez, a licensed civil engineer retained by neighborhood interests, testified she found discrepancies in the hydrologic model used to evaluate post‑development runoff to downstream Pond LL‑7 and connected wetlands. Menendez said the key issues she identified included inconsistent starting water surface elevations between the existing‑conditions and proposed‑conditions models (a roughly 1.1‑foot datum difference), a reduced weir opening in the proposed model, and use of peaking factors and rainfall inputs that she said understate how rapidly runoff would reach the pond from the paved site. Menendez recommended an independent ICPR/ICPR‑type model review by an engineer experienced with the watershed model and estimated about 20 hours of review work (she estimated roughly $5,000–$10,000) to validate the inputs and outputs.

SWFWMD permit and review timeline: City staff confirmed the applicant has an issued SWFWMD permit; Menendez and other speakers said they had asked SWFWMD staff to review alleged errors and that agency staff said they were looking into some of the documents that were submitted late in the appeal. City staff and the applicant noted limits on the city’s ability to require county action for Laurel Road access and described SWFWMD as the permitting authority for regional stormwater standards.

Public comment and local impacts: Several residents from the nearby Cielo community testified about observed flooding following Tropical Storm Ian and other heavy rains. A Cielo resident, Lee Dube, described roadway and common‑area inundation on Cielo streets and urged council to consider that the neighborhood’s wetlands and ponds had been overwhelmed during recent storms. Those comments were presented as on‑the‑ground context for the technical dispute over whether the project’s proposed drainage scheme and the downstream ponds will prevent increased flood risk to adjacent properties.

Formal action recorded: Council granted affected‑party status to Gary Scott on a motion by Councilmember Smith (second not specified) and an electronic vote that the clerk recorded as unanimous (6‑0; one member absent). The grant of affected‑party status allows Scott to participate in the hearing, cross‑examine witnesses and submit evidence as an appellant to the planning commission’s approval.

What council did not decide today: At the point of the provided transcript the council had not yet taken a final vote on the site and development plan; the hearing remained in evidence‑gathering and testimony phases. Staff advised council members that any final denial would require a written order with specific legal citations; any approval would be a de novo determination of consistency with the city’s comprehensive plan, Chapter 86 decision criteria and the Milano binding master plan. Council members were repeatedly reminded by city counsel that the decision must be evidence‑based and not made on popularity.

Next steps: The hearing record includes testimony from planning staff, the applicant’s team and the appellant’s experts, plus written exhibits. Council will continue to take evidence and will either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the appeal after considering all testimony and documentary evidence; that decision will be appealable to the circuit court.

Quotes: "The site development plan before you meets all of the requirements of the city's land development regulations," Nicole Trumbly, senior planner for the City of Venice, told council. "We are requesting no design alternatives, modifications, variances, conditional uses, special exceptions," said Jeffrey Boone, attorney for the applicant. "A traffic signal would be safer," Frank Domingo, the applicant’s traffic engineer, testified, while also noting that Sarasota County denied the applicant’s variance request and controls Laurel Road access. "I saw that there were errors in the model," Jennifer Menendez, an independent civil engineer retained by neighborhood opponents, told council.

For readers: Council is conducting a de novo appeal hearing that will ultimately require the members to weigh the city’s technical reviews, expert testimony from both sides and evidence in the record against the Chapter 86 decision criteria and the Milano binding master plan standards before making a final, appealable determination.