Venice’s future ought to be true to form

    Betty Intagliata and her colleagues in the Venice Area Historical Society, with the backing of the Florida Humanities Council, deserve our gratitude for their continuing efforts to help inform us on how to preserve and enhance Venice in the Nolen spirit.

    The speakers’ visuals displayed attractive neighborhoods, city centers, community spaces, rejuvenated distressed areas and more. If Venice City Council members and city staff want similar successes, it is possible to find people and places to guide them.

    Five members of council attended at least part of the seminar. Mayor Fred Hammett and council members John Moore and Bill Willson, admirably, stayed the entire day. Hammett’s and Willson’s comments at the meeting’s end, however, suggested they might have confused, to some degree at least, the comprehensive planning process, however worthy Venice’s has been, with the specific planning suggestions the speakers presented.

    The key concepts presented involve a city determining what it wants for a given area, not reacting to piecemeal proposals by developers. The comprehensive plan, at best, is general. It needs to be followed by development of a “form-based” code for specific areas.

    These modern codes use three-dimensional images of several desired outcomes to give choices to and guide developers. Adding some pictures to the Venice comp plan is not enough.

    Keynote speaker Bill Spikowski, now in private practice, brought examples from his experience, including as director of Lee County’s growth management department.

    Development of Naples’ “Fifth Avenue” shopping district and Fort Myers’ beach revitalization began with proactive city or county elected leaders, the city manager or, in one case, a business group, getting experts to work with city planners to design the essential character of an area — e.g., three-story (42-foot) height limits (Naples), landscape and street design, open spaces, etc.

    Spikowski said this kind of design begins with streets, blocks and public spaces. Then, a three-dimensional plan is developed using modern graphic technology that provides a “real” view of what results might look like. Developers work within this framework.

    Frank Starkey spoke of developing his family ranch (more than half has been preserved in natural state). He created a street grid, planning around a town center, open areas, mixed-use shopping and residential areas including a pattern of closely located houses, condominiums and single-family dwellings — all of it low scale, four stories or less. His work is one model for Venice to emulate in the North Venice area.

    Bruce Stephenson, a Nolen expert, mentioned that density could be accomplished without height. Council member John Simmonds asked how high a building needed to be to have a density of 18 units per acre — Venice’s maximum except for affordable housing. The panel all gave examples of two- and three-story attractive buildings that met or exceeded that density.

    Don Martin, an urban designer who led Winter Park’s award-winning planning division, discussed development of that city’s “main street.” As I listened, I could not help but regret that Venice did not follow this planning model when considering Mike Miller’s proposal for commercial mixed-use zoning. Even now, it may not be too late for the city to bring in a design consultant like Spikowski or Martin.

    If Mr. Miller would agree to work with the urban designers familiar with Nolen’s concepts to help modify his plans, the city might avoid another development that will, in the future, haunt those responsible for its approval. Council should assure the Nolen legacy will be preserved.

    While this suggestion might seem impractical at first, given the money and effort spent on Miller’s planning, I think there is a good chance his proposal will need to be substantially modified after review by a thoughtful council. It is too high — 85 feet; too dense — about 100 units per acre; and will create parking and traffic problems. (Even the developer on the panel, Starkey, told me 85 feet is too high for the location.)

    City council approved a CMU zoning that three members felt was too vague. The experts I spoke with agree.

    It is, in a sense, the opposite of what should have been done. The city should have used experts to help design the parameters of what it wanted.

    Obviously the developer and his attorney, who drafted the proposed zoning, wanted it vague with no limits on height or density, feeling they could convince a lay council to approve more than any experts on “town planning” would ever recommend.

    The opportunity still exists to turn down this zoning request at planning commission or council, and create a more informed plan that will lead to something everyone can be proud of.

    On a broader basis, council should also use experts familiar with Nolen’s vision and modern town planning to design a new form-based land development code that could provide alternatives for specific areas the city wishes to develop.

    Don O’Connell has made such suggestions in a number of meetings. His recommendations, although supported by the experts, have been brushed aside.

    I hope the opportunity to learn, presented by VAHS, will lead to a better Venice.