FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

JANUARY 8, 2002

Town Hall - Council Chambers

2523 Estero Boulevard

FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA

 

 

 

I.        CALL TO ORDER

The meeting of the LPA was opened by Chairman Roxie Smith on Tuesday, January 8, 2002, at 12:00 p.m..

         Members present at the meeting:   Dave Smith,  Linda Beasley, Betty Simpson, Jodi Hester, Harold Huber, Jane Plummer and Chairman Roxie Smith.

         Excused absence from meeting: Jennifer Kaestner

Staff present at meeting: Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Deputy Town Manager John Gucciardo, Dan Folke, Bill Spikowski and Pam Houck.

                 

II.       INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

         Invocation was made by Chairman Roxie Smith.  All assembled and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

III.       PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS

         None.

 

IV.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 11, 2001: DECEMBER 18, 2001

        

         MOTION:      Made by Betty Simpson and seconded by Jodi Hester to approve the minutes of December 11, 2001 with corrections.  Motion passes unanimously.

 

         Corrections and changes to minutes of 12/11/01:

1.  Betty Simpson - Page 2 (3/4 way down page) Beginning with The Land Development code, last line - strike from and replace with form.

         2.  Jodi Hester - Page 5 - Last Motion - strike there and replace with their.

         3.  Betty Simpson - Page 5 - second paragraph - insert “be” in between to and brought.  

                 

         MOTION:      Made by Betty Simpson and seconded by Jane Plummer to approve the minutes of December 18, 2001 with a correction.  Motion passes unanimously.

 

         Corrections and changes to minutes of 12/18/01:

         1.  Betty Simpson - Page 4 - Jodi Hester (?) to be changed to read Linda Beasley.

 

** Town Manager Marsha Segal-George began with some housekeeping matters.  She realized that the Council would be appointing new members last night.  There would be no way that they would be able to handle the cases today.  She asked Dave, Linda and Jennifer to come to listen to these cases today.  Last night the Council reappointed those who asked for reappointment.  They also appointed four new members who should be present at the next meeting.  She delayed the reorganization until that time.   

        

V.       VAR2001-00045 KATHY C. SCHALLER.  A request for 3 variances in the TFC-2 District to allow reductions in the side yard setback, the rear yard setback and the street setback to bring a replaced stairway and porch into compliance.  The subject property is located at 199 Dakota Ave.

         Kathy Schaller came forward and indicated that she was before the LPA approximately one

 

-2-

 

month ago in regards to one deck that was put up.  There was then a question regarding an existing deck, which has been present for approximately 30 years.  The concern was that it was too close to the back property line.  She felt that they should get both variances, so that if the porches need replacing they will be able to put them back to the way they were.  The one new deck is completed.  New railings and new steps were put on the old deck due to them being in sad shape. 

         Pam Houck, Zoning Director from Lee County, came forward.  She expressed that this case was continued from the last LPA zoning hearing.  A third variance request was added, which is the request for the rear setback (17.1 feet) to the rear property line for an existing deck.  The case was the result of a code violation when the front deck facing Palmetto was replaced without permits.  The back deck provides access to the rear unit of the duplex and has been there for an undetermined amount of time.   She has reviewed the case and she feels that there are extraordinary conditions inherit in the existing duplex that the applicant purchased recently.  She has recommended approval limiting it to the condition that it be limited to the existing structure.

 

         MOTION:      Made by Jodi Hester and seconded by Jane Plummer that the LPA recommend to the Town Council approval of the variances with the conditions and findings in the staff report dated December 26, 2001. Motion passes unanimously.

 

         Town Manager Segal-George announced that this case will go to the Council on February 11, 2002 at 9:00 a.m..          

 

VI.      VAR2001-00053 THE FOWLER COMPANY IN REF. TO SNUG HARBOR RESTAURANT.  A request for 2 variances in the Fort Myers Beach Core Area Overly C-1 Zoning District to allow reductions in the street setbacks and number or onsite parking spaces for the development of the property with a standard restaurant with outdoor seating.  The subject property is located at 1131 1st Street.

         Chairman Roxie Smith announced that she has had ex parte communications regarding this matter.

         Ed Kusek came forward and announced that he and his partner Rich Hendricks own Snug Harbor.  He thanked them for the opportunity to share their thoughts regarding the variance request.  Rob Fowler is with him today to answer any technical questions.

         He went on to express that he felt the variance request should be viewed as unusual.  They feel that in this case it may have some merit.  Typically, an applicant is asking for something that is not normally allowed.  This is where they feel their case is different.  They are trying to conform in advance to the intent of Chapter 34 of the revisions to the overlay district zoning.  The existing zoning requires a 25 foot setback from 1st Street and allows for a taller building.  If Chapter 34 was already in place they would not be here asking for a variance.  They find themselves in a bit of a dilemma.  It is their intent to conform with the overlay district.  They feel the entire overlay district is a good one and they strongly support it.  They are also very excited about the upcoming Streetscape this Spring.  If they go ahead with the plans to conform with the intent of the overlay district they are in need of the variance.  If they are not successful in obtaining the variance they are left with the current zoning, which allows for them to build a 3 story structure and mandates a 25 foot setback from 1st Street.  Plan B is not their first choice.  It seems reasonable to assume that Chapter 34 will be pretty much as it is now drafted when it goes for approval to the Town Council.  The criteria for Chapter 34 is consistent with the zoning for the rest of the zoning district that is already in place.  This is the proposed zoning that they would like to be able to conform to now and not the current zoning.  The problem is not knowing when Chapter 34 will be voted on.  However, the staff report does recommend approval of the request with five conditions attached.  Four conditions are reasonable.  They do have a problem with number 2.  It states that they must give up some of their private property rights by granting an easement over the property between the Town’s two parcels.  They do not feel that this is fair. 

         Their plan is to continue the Town’s Streetscape design on to their property.  They will use the same streetlights, trash receptacles, benches, bike racks, etc..  No one will be able to tell where the Town’s property ends and their property begins.  He would like to create a homogenous look for

-3-

 

everyone to enjoy.  This will give the impression of one continuous waterfront area.  It would be business suicide for them to restrict the public from crossing over their parcels to get to the docks.  Public access is the life blood of any restaurant business.  This will never be restricted.

         Why do they object to the easement?  It is very simple.  Since they have no intention of denying access to the restaurant or the rest of all they own on the waterfront they do not feel that the easement is necessary.  They feel that it violates the basic rights as property owners.  It is his understanding that the staff is concerned with the future owners who may not feel the same way.  He addressed this issue by stating that this should not be an issue.  If a future owner wanted to do something other than a restaurant on this parcel they would need to get approval from the zoning and building code process.  They would have a difficult time trying to build anything that would restrict access in the 25 foot setback.  It cannot be done now, so how can anyone feel this can be done in the future.  Restrictions in the future will be even more severe or at least be equal to the way they are now.  They cannot imagine a future owner of the property who would not want to continue operating the restaurant.  This is where the money is.  They would certainly want as much public foot traffic.  He believes that this is an attempt to solve a problem that simply will not exist.  They do not feel that they should be penalized for a future problem that they do not think will happen, and for simply trying to conform to the intent of the overlay district in advance.  They do not want to be forced into Plan B, which is the existing zoning.  He is asking that the LPA recommend approval of the variance with conditions 1,3,4 & 5, and that the LPA will agree that number 2 is an unnecessary permanent restriction on the private property rights everyone hold dear. 

         Harold Huber asked if he owned the property including the high rise and restaurant? Mr. Kusek replied no.  The Snug Harbor parcel is a compilation of a number of parcels.  The condominium building ground floor is owned by him.  The first level includes his office, storage and preparation areas for the restaurant.  He also owns the parking lot with 190 spaces.  There are 31 parking spots across 3rd Street.

         Dave Smith questioned the walkway that he is objecting too.  He asked where this was located?  Mr. Kusek pointed the area out to Dave Smith. 

         Jane Plummer asked what will happen to the existing restaurant when they move to the new restaurant?  Mr. Kusek expressed that they have no firm plans at this time.  It will not remain a restaurant. 

         Rob Fowler replied to Jane Plummer’s concerns.  He expressed that whatever would be done in the old building would have to meet any current zoning requirements at that time.  If additional parking was needed and they did not have it they would need to come before the board with a variance.  There presently would be an excess of parking. 

         Betty Simpson asked what the excess parking would be?  They have an additional 14 or 15 spaces today for the existing conditions. 

         Pam Houck came forward and expressed that before the LPA is a request for two variances.  The applicant has requested these variances to allow construction of a restaurant that would be consistent with the overlay district and the Old San Carlos study.  The restaurant will be a two-story building just over 10,000 square feet.  The site plans have been provided.  Mr. Fowler and Mr. Kusek have addressed all of her concerns except the one of issue pertaining to the pedestrian access.  She feels that there are unique circumstances for the setback variance, even if the ordinance was not going to be amended.  The location of the restaurant is consistent with development that is occurring and has occurred on Old San Carlos and in the overlay district.  She feels that this variance is justified and meets the criteria for the approval of a variance.  The parking variance is tricky. The parking is very confusing because you are dealing with a number of uses.  The parking is not a fixed number when you are dealing with boating activity. 

         She has recommended approval of the parking variance and she has a number of conditions.  She has recommended five conditions.  The variances should be limited to the two-story site plan before the LPA.  Prior to the issuance of a local development order the applicant must have approved and recorded a document that assures binding permanent restrictions are placed on the area identified as E, which is the pedestrian plaza.  The applicant must maintain at least 139 offsite parking spaces for the restaurant and the docking facility.  The old Snug Harbor building use will cease.  Any use that is established must comply with the applicable regulations at the time it is established.  Prior to issuance of a local development order the Town would need to approve the architectural design of the building. 

         Linda Beasley questioned the 139 parking spaces.  Does this have anything to do with the cruise

-4-

 

ship parking?  Pam Houck replied that this is included in the calculation.  This is the total parking they have today.

         Jane Plummer questioned condition 2 and asked what kind of private property rights would be restricted by having this recorded document?  Would he have control and use of the dock?  Town Manager Segal-George replied that this is very similar to what was done in the Pink Shell case.  She is unaware of any other way it would restrict his property rights other than having a recorded document allowing the public to cross the property. 

         Harold Huber went back to if this was granted he would have zero requirements for parking?  Pam Houck replied that he would have zero requirements for the restaurant.  She has recommended in condition 3 that they must maintain a minimum of 139 offsite parking spaces for the boat and restaurant.   She explained that for all the uses presently existing they have the parking for. 

         Jodi Hester has some concerns regarding the reason for the building of the new restaurant. She felt that she remembered a problem existing regarding leases.  Mr. Kusek replied that no leases exist and the reason for the move is strictly because the building is old and it is not feasible to keep it going from a business point of view. 

         Jodi Hester would like to see in condition 3 it stating that the applicant will maintain a minimum of 139 offsite parking spaces for the new restaurant and docking facilities. 

         Chairman Roxie Smith does not feel that any of the members of the LPA are clear regarding parking.  Parking is a number one issue on Fort Myers Beach. She is unaware of how to clarify it. 

         Town Manager Segal-George explained that they would allow them to have zero onsite parking, but you are letting them have shared parking offsite that will address the other uses and provide offsite shared parking for this restaurant. 

         Jane Plummer suggested allocating a number that would be used for the restaurant.  Pam Houck replied that 96 would be too high to require.  45 to 50 may be reasonable.  Jane Plummer feels that they need to guarantee some parking for the restaurant.  Pam Houck suggested adding to condition 3 a minimum of 45 parking spaces will be allocated to the restaurant use.  They could have them identified that they are for restaurant parking. 

         Harold Huber counted 145 seats for the restaurant.  He does not feel that 45 parking spaces is enough.  Town Manager Segal-George replied that you will also have on street parking in this area. 

         Town Manager Segal-George suggested continuing this case.  This would allow for Bill to come in and walk the LPA down San Carlos.  This way they will not have the fear of over allocating. 

         Jodi Hester would be in favor of a continuance.  She feels that they need to look at this deeper. 

         Dave Smith commented that condition 2 is an excellent condition and should be considered today or in the future. 

         Jane Plummer would hate to see this case continued for the sake of the applicant and also the new LPA members coming aboard.  She put out for discussion the idea of allocating 50 spaces for restaurant use and the rest to be used for the mixed uses.

         Dan Folke discussed that Chapter 34 will have a downtown zoning district, and will incorporate the overlay property development regulations.  What has been proposed on this parcel is that there will be two pedestrian plazas, which would be the Old San Carlos right-of-way and the right-of-way under the bridge.  These would be designated as pedestrian plazas.  Within these pedestrian plazas you are not allowed to have vehicular traffic.  The variance that they have asked for in regards to parking is exactly what is being proposed for the downtown zoning district for this parcel.  This parcel would be treated just like you treat Times Square.  The ability for them to have access to the property has been taken away, so therefore they will be allowed to have a zero parking requirement. 

         Tony Agin came forward and expressed that he owns a charter fishing business.  They dock next door at the Matanzas Restaurant.  His concern is regarding parking.  He feels that they should not be allowed zero parking.  They should be allowed a variance to not have onsite parking, but should have to provide offsite parking.  He feels that they do not have enough parking for all the uses.  It needs to be decided if they want to be in the restaurant business or marina business.  If the restaurant business is chosen they must start with enough parking for the restaurant.  He feels that certain parking spaces need to be allocated strictly for the restaurant.

         George Freeland came forward and expressed that he represents  Moss Marine and the Big “M” Casino.  He explained the relationship between the Big “M” and Snug Harbor.  A current lease exists for

-5-

 

two more seasons.  They lease the dock for the boat in front of the restaurant.  In this lease they have the dock, an office below the condominium and two outside lots for parking.  In the lease they have 100 parking spots for the boat.  This allows them to have 300 passengers on the boat for this dock.  This is an old criteria.  If a new boat came into this dock after their lease it would require 150 to 200 parking spots just for a boat at this dock.  He expressed that the LPA needs to keep this in mind.  These spots in season are normally pretty well filled. 

         Dan Folke asked Mr. Freeland which lots he has a lease for?  Mr. Freeland explained the parking lots and spaces to Dan. 

         Jane Plummer asked if the applicant has a time frame to build in?  Mr. Kusek came forward and explained that he does not have a lease on the 80 spaces discussed by Mr. Freeland.  The only parcel he has a lease on is the 31 spaces in the Laundromat lot.  The other are at will spaces.  Timing is what this issue is all about.  The only reason they are asking for the variance is because they want to conform with the intent of Chapter 34, and the entire downtown overlay district concept.  On or before the 28th of February they will be applying for their building permit based on current zoning.                    

         Mr. Kusek asked Chairman Roxie Smith for the continuance.  He see a lot of confusion.  The clock is ticking.  They want to be a party to eliminating confusion. 

         Jane Plummer explained that if this case is continued it will not go before Council until March. 

         Mr. Kusek feels that a continuance is the best way to go at this point.  He would like some time to explore the easement issue.  Town Manager Segal-George announced that this would be continued until February 12, 2002. 

         Jane Plummer asked for Mr. Kusek’s fears for having the easement for the walkway?  Mr. Kusek replied that it is basic real estate value considerations.  They have a full box right now on this parcel.  If anything is taken away something is removed from the box.  They do not feel that this is right or necessary. 

 

         MOTION:      Made by Betty Simpson and seconded by Jodi Hester to continue this case until February 12, 2002 at noon.  Motion passes unanimously.

 

        

VII.     LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS

         Jane Plummer - Wished those that are leaving a fair well and it has been fun.  She is excited about the new people coming on.

         Betty Simpson - Expressed that they will miss Dave, Linda and Jennifer.  She also welcomed the new members.

         Harold Huber - Wished the others well also.  Discussed the five buildings for Bay Beach.  He asked if they needed to have so many units per building?  Town Manager Segal-George replied that they did have the same number of units.  She will check on it.  He has concerns that one of the buildings is much larger. Dan Folke replied that they have submitted a development order for the remaining four buildings.  The plans have been filed with the development order.  He could check on the size of the buildings.

         Dave Smith - Thanked everyone.  It has been a great few years.  He knows that they will do well.

         Chairman Roxie Smith - Thanked the retiring members of the LPA.  It has been a real joy working with everyone.  They will be missed. 

         She went on to discuss the form that was sent to all the canal owners.  How is the response?  Town Manager Segal-George replied that this came from the Marine Resources Task Force.  MRTF will be hosting the committee chairs this month.  The canal project is MRTF’s project.  They are trying to come up with a priority and Captain Rusty came up with the questionnaire.  This was inserted in the Beach Access.  They are receiving a good response.  All responses will go to MRTF and they will come up with a priority list for canals. 

         Expressed that she gets very concerned when the LPA as a group gets confused as they did today.  She does not know how to handle this.  She is glad that he asked for a continuance.  It is unfair to make decisions when they are in the state of confusion that they were.  There is a lot of concern

-6-

 

community wide concerning if there are hat tricks being pulled.  Town Manager Segal-George expressed that Land Use cases are tough.  Conditions are always changing.  If the LPA is confused or uncomfortable the thing to do is to continue the case.  Hopefully, having the meetings televised will allow the residents to see the difficulty and time that goes into making the decisions for these cases.  

        

VIII.     PUBLIC COMMENT

         None.

        

IX.      ADJOURN

         The meeting was adjourned.  No time was given. 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Shannon Miller

Transcribing Secretary