VENICE – The city of Venice will take a two-pronged approach in response to a citizens' initiative to collect signatures for a petition to launch a referendum designed to repeal new land development regulations.

On Tuesday, the City Council agreed with a recommendation by City Attorney Kelly Fernandez to retain outside legal counsel to research a provision in the Venice charter that a committee of five residents is using to challenge the land development laws.

On a separate tack, City Manager Ed Lavallee sent a letter to Frank Wright, chairman of the group known as Venice Unites, as well as the other four members – Lisa Jarvio, Judith Cross, Betty Intagiata and Patricia Shreeve – about meeting to “specifically define the objectionable elements" of the land development rules "and determine if we might resolve some or all of the issues.”

Previously: Venice residents get OK for petition on referendum to repeal land development rules

In June:Council gives initial approval to new land development rules

The petition drive started while the council was on summer break, so Tuesday was the first time Fernandez could explain the ramifications of the petition process.

Venice Unites must collect 2,228 signatures from registered voters, which would exclude non-resident snowbirds and county residents, for the referendum to be eligible for the November 2023 ballot.

That effort started in earnest last weekend. As soon as the petition with a sufficient number of signatures is submitted to City Clerk Kelly Michaels, the new land development regulations would be suspended.

“We realize it just gets more and more complex, the more you think about it,” Fernandez said.

The chief complaints about the new rules center around height regulations.

The new rules allow for, among other things, buildings as tall as 35 feet in the downtown historic district – with the height measured to the midpoint of the roofline, and another 7 feet for features such as chimneys or elevator shafts.

The previous standards allowed for 35 feet in height measured to the top of a structure and an unlimited height for added features.

Over the objection of many residents who spoke at public hearings, the midpoint standard was adopted so architects could create three-story buildings with a gabled roof instead of a flat roof.

Other height-related concerns include a limit of 75 feet in a new Downtown Edge District that includes several blocks with John Nolen-era homes, and commercial development with potential regional attraction in a planned-unit development.

That last objection was raised in response to developer Pat Neal’s plan to build a shopping center at the intersection of Laurel and River roads.

Neal, as a precautionary measure and to preserve his vested rights, submitted a site plan for that center – rumored to be anchored by a Publix – under the old land development regulations.

That means the petition and referendum would have no impact on that potential development.

However a petition submission would affect a variety of regulations regarding building codes and flood plains – and even the zoning for a proposed five-acre park in Northeast Venice.

Lavallee and Fernandez are expected to meet with the members of Venice Unites before the next council meeting on Sept. 13.

“Our intention is to try and see if we can mitigate some of the discontent on the issues they will raise,” Lavallee told the council. “If we can successfully put together some language that is agreeable to them, we will bring them back to you for consideration.”

Fernandez noted that technically any revisions to the new land development regulations would have to pass through the Planning Commission first.

The council rescheduled other actions tied to new land development regulations – dissolution of the Architectural Review and Historic Preservation boards and appointment of members to a new Historic and Architectural Review Board – until the Sept. 13 meeting as well.

The push for the referendum grew from a suggestion of Mayor Ron Feinsod and is detailed in Article IX of the Venice City Charter.

Feinsod, who had pushed for a delay in the votes to approve the new ordinance, said that the council ignored clear and specific concerns raised at the two adoption hearings. He was the member to vote against hiring a special attorney for the issue.

“Because of the scope, the massive overreach of what this is, we would be irresponsible if we did not really move forward on finding out what the legal ramifications would be should this go forward,” Council member Helen Moore said. “We need to be prepared to go forward.”

In addition to talking with Venice Unites, Lavallee said the city would develop a fact sheet to address rumors and inaccurate interpretation of the ramifications of the new development rules.

Council Member Mitzie Fiedler said that she could see the frustration on the faces of people who spoke at the public hearings – a process which generally does not include an answer from council members.

“We were just listening for five minutes and they sat down,” Fiedler said.

She said that the process was less inclusive than the one used to receive public comment on the 2017 comprehensive plan, which had dozens of meetings – many of which allowed residents to use stickers to express their preferences.

She noted that city staff members are already planning to offer updates to the land development regulations on sustainability and affordable housing, which offers a suitable opportunity for the regulations to be modified and not scrapped.

The last time residents attempted to put a referendum regarding land development rules on the ballot occurred in 2000, when five residents sought to challenge the city’s annexation of the 1,092-acre Henry Ranch, now developed as the Venetian Golf & River Club.

Council Member Rachel Frank made the motion to hire an outside attorney though her initial reaction was to let the referendum process happen.

She later said that Venice Unites was trying to keep Venice in the 1970s – the last time the city’s development rules were subject to a major revision – then added, “We have to retain legal counsel because they have threatened the city.”

Earle Kimel primarily covers south Sarasota County for the Herald-Tribune and can be reached at earle.kimel@heraldtribune.com. Support local journalism with a digital subscription to the Herald-Tribune.