Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves Venice Isle mixed‑use building and design alternative
Summary
The City of Venice Planning Commission approved a three‑story mixed‑use building at 256 Nokomis Ave. S. (site plan 25‑13SP) and its related design alternative (25‑55DA). Staff reported the project meets land‑development standards and estimated 31 peak‑hour trips; commission votes were unanimous (6–0).
The City of Venice Planning Commission on Feb. 17 approved a three‑story mixed‑use building proposed for 256 Nokomis Avenue South, moving forward both the site development plan (petition 25‑13SP) and the associated design alternative (25‑55DA).
Planner Britney Smith summarized the proposal as a 0.379‑acre development with two ground‑floor commercial spaces (approximately 2,152 sq. ft. and 1,116 sq. ft.) and seven residential units above, totaling 12,361 sq. ft. of residential floor area. Smith told the commission staff and the Technical Review Committee reviewed the application for compliance with the City of Venice Land Development Code and found the plan generally compliant. "There is sufficient information on the record for planning commission to take action on site development plan petition number 25‑13 SP," Smith said.
The staff presentation addressed comprehensive‑plan consistency (mixed‑use downtown designation), code compliance (setbacks, building height, parking and landscaping), and concurrency; Smith reported the applicant’s traffic analysis estimated 31 peak‑hour trips and that no public‑facilities capacity issues were identified. On the design alternative, staff described requests for perimeter buffer relief and an adjusted driveway setback but noted measurements on the plan showed the driveway exceeded the 20‑foot centerline requirement and that the driveway relief may not be needed.
Owner Arthur Sewall spoke briefly in favor of the project and commissioners complimented the design and historic review process. After closing the public hearing, a commissioner moved to approve the design alternative and the commission approved it by voice vote (6–0). The commission then voted to approve the site and development plan petition 25‑13SP on the record and staff findings (6–0). The chair noted one commissioner was absent for the meeting.
The approvals allow the project to proceed to permitting and any required construction permits; staff noted additional permits (for demolition or other work) could be processed as appropriate. The Planning Commission’s votes were recorded as approval recommendations/actions for City processes where required.
