Facebook decided to just delete my original scoop Facebook page, after it was hacked.  Like my new page so that you can continue to get the news and scoop, by clicking — >> here

 

 

Venice Unites and the City of Venice meeting produces no results, just threats

Francesco Abbruzzino, The Uncensored Report, LLC

 

 

I wanted to learn more about Venice Unites and their LDR petition.  So, I reached out to the group and asked them what the sticking points between the group and the City of Venice are, with hopes that they will solve this in the conference room versus the court room, as Ron Smith said while speaking to the council.

 

For some back story.  The group started a petition after the council passed the revised LDR’s.  The reason was that the council did not get enough public input and did not listen to a rather large group of residents.  They have several concerns, which were emailed over to me today.  A few members of the council villainized and chastised this group for daring to organize a petition, voting to hire an attorney.  Keep in mind that the petition process was put in place for this very reason.  When enough residents have concerns with the council actions and voting process, they can use this vehicle.  The council may not like it, but it is a necessary vehicle to ensure checks and balances.

 

There are six issues that Venice Unites has concerns with and is hoping to work with the city to resolve, versus having the courts decide.

 

  1. Venice Ave District – Height limit of 35 ft to the peak of the roof, no exceptions. Under the new LDR’s, the city kept the 35’ height limit, but changed the way it is measured.  Under the new LDR 35’ begins halfway to the midline of a sloped or peaked roof.  So, the building can be higher than 35’ and still be considered 35’.  The new LDR’s continue to allow 10’ additional feet and 20% of that total for appurtenance, if approved.   The city council states they have lowered the building heights downtown because they have put a cap on decorative options like chimney’s, which the group does not agree.
  2. Edge District – Exclude from the district the 200 block of Pensacola, Ponce de Leon and Milan, and the Venice Hotel.
  3. Retain separate status of the ARB and the HPHPB boards
  4. Provide the establishment of a new historical district upon the majority vote of property owners
  5. Gopher Tortoises – Chapter 89, sec 2.2A Applicability, change to read: A Wildlife and Habitat Protection Assessment shall be required for all development petitions that include new development on undeveloped areas.
  6. PUD’s
    1. Section 2.2.4.5 (7) the reference to “several neighborhoods” shall be stricken, making the reference to “a neighborhood”. Add back into the LDR the language of the old LDR, “the district is not intended for use by major or large scale commercial or service establishments”.
    2. Section 2.2.7 Traditional District Use Table should indicate that any commercial development within a PUD shall be neighborhood in scale, and limited to 20,000 s.f.
    3. Section 4.1 compatibility – not all incompatibility uses can be mitigated
    4. Section 1.7.3 (B) – We believe 100% approval standard is unreasonable and suggest instead 80%.

 

According to Venice Unites, after their meeting with the city, they have found that heights were in fact increased on Pensacola and Milan because they are part of the new Downtown Edge District.

 

So, where does the city and Venice Unites stand after their meeting?  Well sadly I must report that the meeting really did not produce any results.  Instead, according to the group there were more alleged threats from the city that even if this group gets their referendum, nothing will happen.  The city took a lot of notes and offered no concessions, according to the group.  At this point the group plans on continuing their successful push for signatures on their LDR petition.  They are at the Venice Library every Saturday from 10 – 4.  You can find more information on this group at https://www.veniceunites.com/.

 

If only the council would have involved the public with more input, through public workshops throughout the past three years, all of this could have been avoided.   The council could have heard the concerns of the residents, prior to rushing through a pro-developer LDR.  I am not sure all their six issues above would have been resolved, but some may have and more importantly there would have been dialog, which appears did not exist.  Now we have an LDR program that may be suspended if the group gets enough signatures, which is a very real possibility.  The council has already voted to hire an attorney to tear through the petition process and attempt to end it and that is just the beginning of the legal fees.  If this issue goes to court, it will only cost the city more.  I call on the council to take the high road and put their egos away.  As Ron Smith stated the other day before the council, solve this in the conference room, not the court room.

 

Thoughts?