FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

APRIL 15, 2003

Town Hall - Council Chambers

2523 Estero Boulevard

FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA

 

 

 

I.          CALL TO ORDER                                 

The meeting of the LPA was opened by Chair Betty Simpson on Tuesday, April 15, 2003, at 12:05 p.m..

            Members present at the meeting:   Roxie Smith, Jessica Titus, Betty Simpson, Hank Zuba, Jane Plummer, Nancy Mulholland, Anita Cereceda and Harold Huber.

            Excused absence from meeting:   Jodi Hester 

Staff present at meeting: Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Dan Folke, Bill Spikowski and Jerry Murphy.

                       

II.         INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

            The Invocation was given by Chair Betty Simpson.  All present assembled for the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

III.        PUBLIC HEARINGS

                         

            1.  VAR2002-00054 Elizabeth Chopp Screen Enclosure.  A request for a variance from Table 34-3 to reduce the side setback for a waterfront lot from 7 feet to 4.4 feet to allow an existing slab to be enclosed.  The subject property is located at 3970 Estero Blvd.

            Town Manager Segal-George began by swearing in all witnesses who would be providing testimony in this case.

            Fred Winfield came forward at the last meeting to ask for the variance.  There was a question by the County as to whether the deck to be enclosed was a new deck or an existing deck.  He met with Dave Crabtree after last month’s meeting and he agreed that the deck was a pre-existing deck.   This is an existing deck that was on the home when the people bought it back in 1984 or 1986.  He indicated a couple years back they put new railings on the deck along with a finish.  A wooden deck was built at the back of the house within the setbacks.  He did receive state approval for this deck.  A screen is now desired on the existing concrete deck to obtain more use and get away from the bugs.  It is encroaching on the side line, but was like this since the home was built back in the 60's. 

            Hank Zuba questioned if Mr. Winfield played a role in any of the construction of either deck?  Fred Winfield replied he did with the wooden deck at the back of the house facing the gulf.  The other deck was existing. 

            Jerry Murphy on behalf of staff came forward.  A new survey has been included in the packet that was submitted since the LPA last met.  This shows the Coastal Construction Control Line, which addresses one of staff’s questions from the last hearing.  The building is clearly landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line.  This is no longer an issue.  The first survey plat gives more detail. Under the new Land Development Code the applicant could enclose the majority of this concrete slab.  He referred to the bottom right side, which is the southeast side of the property.  The elevated concrete deck is the area in question.  At its southernmost point it is 4.46 feet off of the property line.  By adding half this distance again inward on the deck and draw a line parallel up along the property line there is just a small triangular portion that would not be enclosed based on what is allowed under the regulations. Staff has not been able to determine when this deck was built, but suffices to say it is non-conforming.  To enclose the entire portion of the deck would be to expand the non-conformity and further blocks any view.  Staff is not recommending approval of the variance.  Staff feels they are able to enclose a sufficient portion of the deck the way it is now under the existing code with the 7-foot setback on the side. 

            Chair Roxie Smith questioned the triangular portion?  Jerry Murphy pointed out and further explained this area. 

            Jessica Titus questioned what view would be obstructed?  Jerry Murphy replied the corridor from Estero Blvd. to the gulf.  This is approximately 10-feet high. 

            Anita Cereceda asked how big the triangular piece is?  Jerry replied it is 2.54 feet along the gulf side and about 8 feet along the property line. 

            Hank Zuba commented on the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances as a result of the applicant.  He asked if this was based on not being able to determine when the deck was built?  Jerry replied this is correct, but also there is not entitlement to enclose a slab that is inside of the setback, whether it is pre-existing or not. 

            Jerry added that there have been no objections filed by neighbors.  Staff’s position is the recommendation of denial.

            Hank Zuba asked if the deck was present when the property was purchased in 1998 would the opinion be different?  Jerry replied that it would not. 

            Betty Simpson indicated several knew the prior owners of this home.  The deck was definitely built before 1988. 

            Jane Plummer does not see that the intensity of the use with the screen is going to make a whole lot of difference with or without a screen than the prior use of this deck.  She indicated there is a need by the owners to have this screen enclosure to enjoy their property.  She feels this is what variances are for.  She is more in favor of allowing the variance because it is a minimum and indicated this would look unfavorable if the small section was unscreened.  She feels the use would be hampered. 

            Fred Winfield showed a picture taken prior to the owners purchase of the property.  He indicated by adding the screen you will not block anything more than is already blocked now. 

            Nancy Mulholland questioned if there has been any thought to screening the part that is on the side of the house?  Fred Winfield replied there is no view of the gulf from this location. It was also indicated part of the triangle would be included in this portion. 

            Hank Zuba asked how close the nearest neighbor’s house is to the deck?  Jerry replied he does not have a survey of this information.  When he went out for his site visit, it appeared the neighbors on the south end on the north are both meeting their current setbacks.  They are at least 7 feet back from the property line. 

            Hank Zuba questioned if the issue of height is relevant to the issue?  Jerry replied the screen enclosure will further block whatever view there may be from Estero across the deck. 

            Hank Zuba asked if the screen cantilevered would this make a difference is the decision?  Jerry added that this could be an improvement.  He is unsure how much of an improvement it would be. 

            Jessica Titus questioned if the allowance of non-conformity would effect future building or variance requests?  Jerry replied if the LPA decided to approve this variance the staff would recommend a condition that the variance be for the existing structure.  If the property is ever redeveloped, it would need to be developed in compliance with the current Land Development Code.

            Hank Zuba questioned Mr. Winfield if he would consider a cantilever?  Fred Winfield does not see how this will affect where the screen would go. 

            Jerry Murphy added the LPA may want to limit the height of the screen enclosure. 

            Jane Plummer asked for the height being requested?  Jerry replied there is not a specific request. 

 

            MOTION:          Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Jane Plummer to approve the variance with two conditions.  The first condition would be that the screen structure not exceed the height of the existing home (gutter height not peak height).  The second condition would be that the variance is conditioned by only allowing the screening construction and any other construction in the future would not be included in this variance request. 

 

            VOTE:              Motion passes unanimously.

 

            Town Manager Segal-George indicated this case will go before the Town Council on May 12, 2003 at 9:00 a.m..

 

           

            2.  COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - Application 2003-1-Text-memo from Bill Spikowski

            Bill Spikowski expressed that this Comprehensive Plan Amendment comes forward each year because it is required by state law.  It is a very routine amendment which takes the capital improvements program from last year’s budget and puts it in the proper form to match the Comprehensive Plan and takes out the previous version and adds the new version.  After public input the LPA is asked to make a recommendation to the Town Council.  Two public hearings will go before the Town Council.  This will then become part of the Comprehensive Plan.

            Chair Roxie Smith asked if anyone from the public wished to address the LPA?  None were heard.

 

            MOTION:          Made by Harold Huber and seconded by Betty Simpson to recommend the change be made to the Comprehensive Plan.

 

            VOTE:              Motion passes unanimously. 

 

IV.        SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS - Memo from Bill Spikowski

            Mike Roeder was allowed to speak for public comment prior to the beginning of discussion on this agenda item. 

            Bill Spikowski indicated Mike Roeder has given a good background as to why they are here.  The Town Council asked for this information to make a decision for those questioning along with those who are not.  The state law was included in the LPA packets in great detail.  This is a much more complicated approach.  He suggested these amendments be done one time per year.  Once the ad is run, it does not matter the amount of cases to be heard.  All changes can be heard at one time for no extra processing or advertising.  He questioned if the LPA would like another level of routine hearings or have them one time per year.  For this particular case, he has suggested option two.  Many of the properties were down zoned in many ways by adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.  He indicated that three or four people with six or eight adjoining lots are in the same situation.  They asked the Town Council if their case could be heard.  There was no way to hear the case then and the Council questioned if there is a way to hear the case without making them wait one year.  Option two would allow some special cases.  The LPA is not required to take any action, but this is the type of matter the Town Council would like to hear an opinion on. 

            Jessica Titus questioned the difference between one time per year vs. handling each situation as it arises?  Bill Spikowski replied once a year the requirements are more complicated, but one ad covers all amendments.   If a small scale amendment is done each month, every month state mandated ads must be run.  The small scale amendments only require two hearings instead of three.  If the Town had four to five per year, he feels the Town will regret this decision.

            Hank Zuba commented if option’s three and four were considered the Comprehensive Plan may be considered irrelevant.  He questioned Bill Spikowski with regard to this comment?  Bill Spikowski replied that the communities who have this type of situation consider their plans irrelevant. 

            Hank Zuba favors option one.  Option two will cause an argument with extenuated circumstances, unless clarification takes place.   Bill Spikowski replied you would like information about the case in order to make a decision, but then it looks like you are presupposing your decision on the case before it has been applied for.  The Town Council could move forward to address those people who came to the last hearing.  This group is not a problem, but going any further could be. 

            Jane Plummer suggested two times per year.  Bill Spikowski replied that this process takes 11 months to complete.  Lee County used to have two per year, but you had people applying before the last set of changes was approved.  He indicated this got out of control and this is where the decision for one time per year came from. 

            Chair Roxie Smith favor option two with stringent enough criteria.  She feels an exception should be made for those people who attended the hearing and were not allowed to be heard. 

            Harold Huber questioned the time, if left at one time per year?  Bill Spikowski replied it is set to  the last day of the calendar year.  It could be any other schedule. 

            Harold Huber questioned if they waited for the once a year, how long would these people need to wait?  Bill Spikowski replied every application in by December 31 would have a hearing in March of April of the following year.  It would not take effect until the following November. 

            Anita Cereceda indicated she could not vote one way or the other at this time.  Chair Roxie Smith feels the same way. 

            Nancy Mulholland agrees with the stringent criteria.  She favors option two to give great leeway.

            Jessica Titus favors option two with stringent criteria.  She feels something should be faster for the owners on Lagoon. 

            Mike Roeder came forward and expressed the formula Bill Spikowski suggested is acceptable and would put a strict limit on the window of opportunity. 

            Betty Simpson was geared toward option two with the stringent criteria.  Due to the comments made by Mike Roeder, she would favor going back to option one and take care of the Comprehensive Plan. 

            Additional discussion took place with the LPA members.  Bill Spikowski reviewed the LPA is leaning toward annual amendments with the exception of those who have objected on the record when the Land Development Code was being considered.  There was consensus received by all LPA members. 

  

V.         DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO MOBILE VENDING REGULATIONS (LDC) TO ALLOW THE CHAMBER WELCOME WAGON TO MOVE ABOUT THE ISLAND.

            D.J. Petruccelli came forward for the Chamber.  He indicated they just received the proposal yesterday afternoon.  No objections to be heard with the exception they would like to see the Welcome Wagon allowed on a permanent basis at various locations.

            Jessica Titus asked where this would be located?   Barbara replied offers from three separate locations on the island have been received.  The first was from Old San Carlos (John Richard) at the old KFC property, Santini Plaza and the other location is Lahaina Realty.  Their intention is to keep it down where it is now at the Santini Plaza.  In about two weeks it would be moved to Old San Carlos.  It will only be moved where people want it.  This would be a convenience to visitors, residents and the businesses.  The statistics show the staff person has assisted 550 people through the month of March.  She indicated they have been very well received by the businesses and visitors alike.  The busiest day for April was the 2nd.  This day alone she assisted 62 people.  The hours of operation are 5 days per week (Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Sunday) opening at 11:00 a.m. and closing at 4:00 p.m.. 

            Chair Roxie Smith expressed by listening to the information provided by the staff at this Welcome Wagon it is geared more toward informational.  Barbara replied this is correct.  Brenda gives out a lot of directions, hours of operation and location of Town Hall.

            Barbara expressed the Chamber would like to operate year round and have the flexibility to move about the island. 

            Anita Cereceda commented that having an individual like Brenda in the Wagon is wonderful.  She asked if anything would be sold?  D.J. Petruccelli replied nothing is being sold.  Barbara added this is strictly information. 

            Anita Cereceda asked if Town information is available or only Chamber information?  Barbara replied when they first proposed this program she indicated they made an offer to the Town that they would be happy to give out any information.  She would like to have brochures on the Film Festival.  Nothing has come forward to date from the Town. 

            Anita Cereceda questioned what offense might a non-Chamber business take to a promotional wagon that is only promoting certain businesses?  Are they promoting the entire area and not any particular businesses?  Barbara replied it is presently to promote their Chamber business members as well as area attractions, which are not members.   D.J. Petruccelli added if someone asks for a list of a specific business their members names will be given.

            Anita added that this is her only objection. 

            Dan Folke expressed that the regulations are written not just for the Chamber, but for any non-profit organization to provide a Welcome Station on private property.  He went on to indicate when the Town adopted the new Chapter 34 on March 3rd one of the new changes was a provision for a new temporary use.  This is contained within the temporary use section.  This came from necessity and was put in to accommodate an existing request for the Chamber Welcome Station.  This would be permitted as an ancillary temporary use and would be allowed in existing parking lots.  Before the code was adopted, a request was made to Council to take a closer look and see if there was a way to accommodate for more than 90 days at a time.  In preparing this recommendation he took a look at similar type uses.  There is nothing completely similar, but are elements of other uses that are regulated to fit in with this Mobile Welcome Station.  This use is limited to no sale of product.  He has proposed rather than limiting to 90 days, an applicant can be permitted to request up to six months per year.  It would be up to the applicant to decide how the six months is divided.  This is still a temporary use.  If this is a matter to be considered as a permitted use, it should not be in this section.  A new section of the code would need to be acquired and he would work with Bill Spikowski to try and find this section.

            Jane Plummer feels there is a need for year round. She questioned if it needed to be kept in a temporary mode what is the possibility of making the location temporary and by having it moved it could be temporary in three different locations with a permit going year round?  Dan Folke replied this is an approach, but in his mind it is not a temporary use.  As an administrator he needs to know where it will be and when it will be there.  The use needs to be clearly defined and what will be on location.  Other requests need to be considered.  He commented that there needs to be a life to the permit and is the easiest way to stop the use.  If a problem existed, a permit could be denied.  He is not comfortable granting an open-ended temporary use. 

            Jessica Titus asked if they could renew a permit every six months?  Dan Folke expressed this would be another option.  It is fee based and could be taken in house.  Presently, temporary permits go through Lee County and the fee is based on Lee County staff review.  As an annual permit they would only have to apply one time per year.  

            Chair Roxie Smith added the businesses on Fort Myers Beach need promoting 12 months per year.  These are not good times for the businesses.  This original idea was patterned after the Welcome Centers as you come into the state.  The whole idea was to promote the Town’s businesses in a down business time. 

            Jessica Titus is concerned about the non-members of the Chamber.  She has a problem justifying a special exception. 

            Dan Folke added that if you will allow this on a non-temporary basis this will be a permanent use and not a temporary use.  You are allowing a private entity to setup a shop without a permanent location.  If you want to have a permanent location year round, he feels you need to setup an office.  He commented this is no reflection on the Chamber.  This matter must be considered for the entire island. 

            Anita Cereceda feels the permanent use will create a pandora’s box situation.  Possibly, a special exception for the Chamber of Commerce should be considered. 

            Dan Folke replied a special exception could be made.  The difficulty would be the Chamber would need to tell the Town specifically where they want to be, because special exceptions are specific to a piece of property.  A life to a special exception can be added with locations and perimeters. 

            Dan Folke reviewed that one of the requirements is that hours of operation must be established and continued with.  The location must be staffed on regular basis. 

            Jane Plummer would be in favor of keeping this in the temporary use category with the temporary use being term of time at a location with a maximum of three moves per year with dates, times and locations.  The no collection could be incorporated, but make a special exception for the Chamber only.  She feels the Chamber offers something for the entire Town and is available for membership to anyone would like to participate. 

            Anita Cereceda is not opposed to the Welcome Station for the Chamber.  She is concerned there will be an outcry against the notion making the Chamber of Commerce an exception to a rule. 

Hank Zuba asked if Jane is concerned with the review of the performance for the Chamber?  Jane Plummer replied this is why she felt it could be renewable at six months or one year.

            Hank Zuba felt a 90-day permit renewable for the next year or six months would be appropriate.

            Dan Folke reviewed the way it is written now you have an option of a 90-day or less permit, which the current rule would apply and could be completed once every six moths or an annual permit could be received.  Within the annual permit a check would take place after 90 days to make sure all is being complied with and could then continue on.

            Anita Cereceda cannot support a year round use that does not currently exist. The issue is the fact that it is temporary.  She would support six months. 

            Town Manager Segal-George expressed that this matter will come back to the LPA for a public hearing.  She commented everyone is trying to deal with this is a generic way, but it is not generic and is all about what the Chamber is trying to do.  The best way may be to do a special exception for the Chamber and let everyone vote up or down.  The same manner can follow for the Council. 

            Dan Folke expressed he will talk with Bill Spikowski to see if this can be an option as a special exception in commercial zoning districts.  It could then be approved for a certain amount of time with a specific location to be provided. 

            Hank Zuba commented on the favoritism that may be shown by a special exception.  Dan Folke replied that criteria needs to be established for a special exception.   If the applicant can meet the criteria, then in order to deny it you must demonstrate it would cause harm. 

            Town Manager Segal-George added she does not want to open the door for mobile vending.  She has been fighting to keep mobile vending off of the island for 7 ½ years.  There are two grandfathered uses on the island.  People try to get this use all the time.

            Hank Zuba feels this matter should be sent back to staff for additional thought.  He is confused with the use.  He does not want to open a door to mobile vending. 

            Jane Plummer would like to see staff re-looked at a special exception for a permanent use with a renewable permit, once per year for the Chamber. 

            Town Manager Segal-George commented that the language drafted by Dan Folke can be brought back plus an option for special exception.  A hearing can be held on both.  The LPA can request just one or the other.

            Jane Plummer would like to see both brought back for a public hearing.  She expressed that they can be looked at separately as opposed to arguing the merits of having them blend. 

            D.J. Petruccelli came forward and expressed it is the Chambers understanding they have 90 days.  Their permit started on February 20th.  What happens on May 20th?

            Jane Plummer asked if this can be extended until the hearing takes place?  Dan Folke replied the current rule is that you get one 90 day permit once every six months.  He does not feel he has the authority to change this rule. 

            Town Manager Segal-George added this must go to a public hearing before the LPA and must go three times in front of the Council.  This could be brought to the LPA in May, but she is unsure if it could get before the Council three times before the break. 

            Dan Folke explained when the permit expires they would need to remove their wagon from the beach.  He feels the Town has done everything possible to accommodate this request.  This is a use that is not clearly defined in the code.  He originally made the decision to allow this as a 30-day temporary use, because this is where it originally fit.  It was then changed to 90-days by the Town Council.  It may need to be removed until the rules are changed this year. 

            Jane Plummer would like to request that every effort be made to hear this matter before the summer break.  This is the best anyone can ask for at this time. 

            Chair Roxie Smith asked if a consensus was received by this board with regard to one or two options?   Anita Cereceda would like to stick with the two options.  Nancy Mulholland agrees and would not like to rush matters. 

            Chair Roxie Smith asked again how many would like to see the two options brought back?  A show of hands was shown.  She indicated the two options should be brought back. 

            Town Manager Segal-George added that this will come back before the LPA on May 20th.  She will talk with Attorney Dick Roosa, but she is unsure if there will be enough time to go before the Town Council in June.  The Council can choose to take additional steps, if they feel they are necessary. 

            Anita Cereceda commented that she would not be present at the May 20th meeting.  She asked if this agenda item could be moved to another meeting.  Discussion took place with regard to the amendment being held on May 13th.  Much more discussion took place with all dates within May.  Dan added that the May 20th meeting could be moved to May 27th.  It was decided the May meetings will be held on May 13th and May 20th.                     

           

VI.        LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS

            Jane Plummer - Questioned the sign at the Beach Shell sign?  Town Manager Segal-George replied this is a change of copy.  Dan Folke added if it is not a change of use or a change of ownership you can change the face of the sign.  Another example would be Charlie Brown’s Restaurant. 

            Betty Simpson - Asked for an excused absence on May 13th.  Mentioned the alternating lights?  Sometimes they are on and sometimes they are off.  Town Manager Segal-George replied they have no control of the lights.  She felt the new changes were being accommodated.

            Questioned the Seaview cottage case?  Town Manager Segal-George replied that the Council denied this case.   

            Nancy Mulholland - Expressed her thanks for the Volunteer Dinner.

            Jessica Titus - Asked if Sprint can be asked to fix up their tower?  (Tape One ended)

            (Tape 2 began) Town Manager Segal-George was discussing the difficult decision to be made with regard to the Chamber Welcome Wagon.  Dan Folke added that all property owners are treated the same. 

            Anita Cereceda - Questioned if the Southwest Florida Chamber wanted to come down to the beach?  This is a small town.  This is what makes the decision so difficult. 

           

VII.       PUBLIC COMMENT

            Mike Roeder came forward to speak with regard to agenda item IV.  He is present on behalf of Fred Paine and several of his neighbors.  He represents six of the land owners representing 11 of the 15 parcels.  He referred to the property down on Lagoon Street.  Bill Spikowski has prepared some suggestions on how to handle small scale amendments at the request of the Town Council.  The state statute allows for small scale amendments to be done at any time subject to the governments approval.  He is present to ask for the LPA to recommend proceeding forward with small scale amendments.  He agrees with Bill Spikowski’s suggestion that applicants who are worthy of special consideration need to be located.  In their case he feels this would apply.  They would be willing to pay a fee, but he asked the LPA to recommend a reasonable fee.  The most important issue is to have some middle requirements that makes sense for small scale beach amendments.  The County has a very detailed application form, but have amendments that have very uncertain consequences.  This type of amendment will not change impacts very much in terms of traffic or utilities.  He hopes a simple form can be provided.  He provided a letter to the LPA, which was given to the Mayor after the last hearing.

            Anita Cereceda asked what type of criteria would make a case special?  Mike Roeder responded in their case it is clear because the properties fronting on Estero Blvd. had commercial zoning for 40 years.  Due to the change in regulations they are back into a residential case.  There is clearly a glitch in the regulations.  Additionally, the land owners are in agreement with the change and have found that the current facts on the ground do not match the application.  He feels if a map amendment comes forward to increase the value of property or expand opportunities these items can wait for a regular amendment cycle.  There is no real history or hardship.    

            Fran Myers expressed that it is the Fort Myers Beach Chamber of Commerce Foundation that owns the mobile station.  She wanted everyone to know that when this was created the intent was not to cause the Town or LPA stress and damage to friendships.  She is ready to ask the Chamber to remove the mobile station from the Town.  She feels it has done some damage.  Chamber’s and Town’s must work together.  She has ordered a case and one half of yellow ribbon.  She would like to tie this Town with yellow ribbon to bring the troops home.  She invited all to tie ribbons and bring good feelings to the Town.       

           

VIII.      ADJOURN

            The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.. 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Shannon Miller

Transcribing Secretary