FORT MYERS BEACH
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING
MAY 13, 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 Roxie Smith on Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 12:05 p.m..
Members present at the meeting: Roxie Smith, Jodi Hester, Jessica Titus, Hank Zuba, Jane Plummer, Nancy Mulholland, Anita Cereceda and Harold Huber.
Excused absence from meeting: Betty Simpson
Staff present at meeting: Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Dan Folke, Rick Joyce, Jerry Murphy.
II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Invocation was given by Chair Roxie Smith. All present assembled for the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. VAR2003-00015 Willis Beard Boathouse. A request for a variance from Section 26-74(b)(2) that requires a 10 foot setback from the side lot or riparian lines for a boathouse on artificial water bodies to allow a boathouse to have a 2 foot setback. The subject property is located at 120 Albatross Street.
Chair Roxie Smith asked for ex parte communications. Nancy Mulholland visited the property and talked with the owner. Jane Plummer did the same as Nancy. Harold Huber, Chair Roxie Smith and Jessica Titus visited the property with the homeowner not being present.
Mel (?) with (?) Marine Construction on the beach came forward. He is the agent for Mr. Beard. Willis Beard stated he lives at 120 Albatross Street.
Mel indicated the 10 foot setbacks are requested. Due to the pie-shaped angle of the property and the existing slip area approved through prior permits, he would like to put a roof in this same slip area. The only way to add the roof would be to encroach into the 10 foot setbacks. The neighbor toward the bay of Mr. Beard would like to do the same in the future. This neighbor has also signed a waiver.
Mr. Beard indicated his opposite neighbor came over to express she had no concerns with his roof. She felt this would be an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Beard would also like to tile the roof just like his home to increase the value.
Harold Huber questioned the type of roof or sidewalls to be used? Mr. Beard replied that a roof would only be added to cover the boat. He never intended to have an enclosed area.
Rick Joyce, Director of Lee County Environmental Sciences, came forward. His staff does all the review of dock and shoreline permits for the County, Town of Fort Myers and the City of Bonita Springs. Amendments have been done to the Dock and Shoreline Code, which did reduce the number of the variances. Mr. Beard has 60 feet along the canal on the end, which is good and provided a larger riparian to work in. The review required the applicant submit a riparian survey. A riparian survey is the allocation of the water use area to the upland property owner. This fairly allocates the riparian area to each property owner. The variance is being supported and boathouses are fairly typical along the canals throughout the County and the Town and staff did not see any reason for objections.
Hank Zuba questioned if the pier is divided? Is the pier itself an encroachment in the riparian rights? Rick Joyce replied the deck designs are typically called wraparounds. He does not consider this an encroachment.
Hank Zuba questioned if the pier is in compliance and the shelter over the boat sits in the middle, then why would the shelter itself be encroaching? Rick Joyce replied that docks have a different setback than boathouses. The County adopted boathouse as a term based on the state requirements. He confirmed that the boathouse will not extend beyond the boat area or the pier area.
Hank Zuba questioned if there are any safety issues? Rick Joyce replied that he does not feel there are any safety issues. Riparian rights do not have any bearing on the navigation. These are the fair allocation to the waterway.
Harold Huber has concerns that the boat house eves will encroach? Rick Joyce replied the drawing submitted with the variance application only shows the boathouse roof within the open area of the dock. No eve extends over the walkway.
Mel came forward and added that normally there is an overhang of approximately 1-foot. This is the reason they are asking for the 2-foot setback.
Chair Roxie Smith asked if anyone from the public wished to address the LPA.
Bob Simon from Fairview Isles came forward. He passed out information to the members of the LPA. Laws, ordinances, policies, procedures along with zoning are enacted for the common good of all and not just a select few. These are to protect the rights of the majority over those who wish to override the rules for their own use. He added that the property to the west of this property is for sale and those people could care less whether there is a boathouse present. This request for a variance will set a precedent for any other owner of property on canal lots in Fairview Isles. If the property owner is granted a variance it will be difficult for the LPA or Council to deny anyone else the same request. The Development Services Division staff has recommended approval of this request for a variance. However, to his knowledge none of the members of this staff live in Fairview Isles. It is no concern of theirs if this adversely affects the appearance and quality of life in the neighborhood. The granting of this variance will encroach on the ambiance and quality of life in Fairview Isles. This will block the views of some nearby neighbors and begin a trend toward destroying the beautiful clear canal views they now enjoy. He requests that the LPA recommend denial of this variance for the good of all the people.
Harold Huber comments that he takes exception to the fact Mr. Simon feels that they do not care because they do not live there. He added that the LPA lives on this beach and is interested in the entire beach whether they live next door or not.
Bob Simon replied that he stated the staff from the Development Services Division does not live in Fairview Isles.
John Frayman, 12 Sunview Blvd., came forward. He noticed the construction of the roof is setup in the 10-foot easement section on the side of the building on the property. The necessity of the 10-foot easement on most pieces of property is a safety situation. This boathouse roof will completely block this section of easement. He requests that these items are considered by the LPA and refuse the petition.
Art Kruger, 125 Albatross, came forward. He lives directly across the street from Mr. Beard’s property. He knows that the property owners on both sides of Mr. Beard’s property have examined the plans and willingly consented to the construction of this boathouse. He has been Mr. Beard’s neighbor since September 2, 2002. He has made significant and tasteful improvements to his property, which have increased the property value for everyone in Fairview Isles. He cannot see how his quality of life will be affected by a boathouse roof. He respectfully requests that the LPA favorably consider this request as in the best interest of Fort Myers Beach and Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard stated he would not be asking for a roof on his boathouse if he felt it would affect the whole neighborhood. This is a roof that will have the same decor as his home. He feels this will make the section very nice. He has no intentions of living in this area.
Mel came forward and expressed in the Fairview Isle neighborhood there are other boathouses in the canals that did not need a variance as long as they met the 10-foot setbacks of the riparian rights. To him personally, those people in Fairview Isles are able to have a roof because they do meet the setbacks and this one person or others on the end of the canals are unable to have them because they due not meet the setbacks.
Harold Huber commented on boathouse roofs and shadowing the area. Does this infringe on the square footage of shadowing too much area? Rick Joyce replied the County back in 1985 began regulating boathouses and limited them for single family uses to 500 square feet. He feels this is a reasonable code which provides a minimal amount of covering. Mixed feelings exist with shading. Some feel the shading provides great habitat for fish to cool off in. Shading would be a detriment for oysters of clams. They do not allow boathouses in seagrass along the natural water bodies. He does not see a negative effect biologically.
Harold Huber asked Rick Joyce to address the issue of precedent and other examples where this variation has been given. Rick Joyce addressed the issue of precedent. He commented that most of the lots in Fairview Isles can accommodate a boathouse meeting the setbacks. Only a few lots would not qualify and would set a precedent. He is unsure the number of lots to be affected, but he feels the majority of lots would allow for the boathouse without a variance. A few examples have taken place within the County, but this is his first time personally he is before this board. Typically, the docks themselves do not have the setback of boathouses. The only time this would become an issue is on the narrow lots at the end of the canal.
Chair Roxie Smith added a comment was made with regard to setbacks being established for safety reasons. She asked for further comment on this matter. Rick Joyce replied this has been a common thought among zoning ordinances around the country. He has never heard of anything connected to the waterfront with a setback for access for safety or fire equipment.
Jessica Titus does not see how this roof could obstruct anybody’s view. She feels this would be an improvement.
Harold Huber feels this roof is up high enough to not cause a visual obstruction.
MOTION: Made by Harold Huber and seconded by Jane Plummer to recommend to the Town Council approval of the request to build a boat roof.
VOTE: Motion passes unanimously.
Town Manager Segal-George announced that this case will go to the Town Council on June 9, 2003 at 9:00 a.m..
2. SEZ2003-00007 - Schultz Bed & Breakfast. A Special exception for Bed & Breakfast in the Residential Conservation zoning district. The subject property is located at 926 & 932 Third Street.
Chair Roxie Smith began by asking for ex parte communications. Harold Huber went to the property Saturday and he spoke to the lady present and viewed the interior of both buildings. Jane Plummer spoke to the developer. Nancy Mulholland spoke to Mr. Rockwell and Mrs. Shultz. Chair Roxie Smith spoke to Mr. Rockwell. Anita Cereceda spoke to Bob Rockwell and many property owners in the area.
Bob Rockwell came forward and provided drawings for review. Mr. and Mrs. Schultz have owned the two units since 1986 and 1991. These are duplexes with two bedrooms up and two down. They are proposing a Bed & Breakfast. These owners have a great European clientele and love the Bed & Breakfast. This is an ideal location for walking. This is zoned properly and he feels the discussion is in regard to density. They are looking for six units with the owners quarters being left alone. A Bed and Breakfast will not function with two bedrooms and the intent is to separate them. There are presently (3) two bedrooms and the intent is to convert into (6) one bedrooms. A 19x20 meeting room/dining area needs to be established. A sundeck is also being proposed. He showed a before and after drawing.
Bob commented he felt that himself and Mr. Murphy have a discrepancy on how the density is calculated. The density is determined per acre and a formula is provided. He has combined the two properties, which is 100x100. They are allowed by Chapter 34 to use 25 feet of the public easement in the front for calculations. They are also allowed to use half of the canal. For calculations, he is asking to use 100 feet. He feels with these calculations the six unit Bed and Breakfast should be able to be built.
Chair Roxie Smith indicated there appears to be kitchens in the Bed and Breakfast. Is this by design? Bob Rockwell replied the downstairs already had them. These are not full kitchens, but will allow a person to make a lunch time sandwich or popcorn at night. He considers these to be a small efficiency.
Jerry Murphy came forward. Staff supports this Bed and Breakfast concept and feels this is an ideal location. Staff’s concern is with the density. The maximum density allowed based on the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code will allow a maximum number of six units. A Bed & Breakfast concept requires that one unit be occupied by the owner. The staff report recommends five units with one unit for the owners. He is not aware of any case in Lee County where the applicant has been allowed to take more than ½ of the width of the canal which abuts the property. In this case, this property abuts a lagoon which empties into a canal, but the canal as platted as part of the subdivision adjacent is only 50 feet wide. This allows for an additional 25 feet and does not get them to the amount of property that they need to get above the density limitation of six. Staff does not feel it would be appropriate to use 100 feet of the lagoon. He indicated Mr. Rockwell would like to use as much water as he has land. Staff does not feel this is the route they should repeat with where the beach would like to go with density.
Jane Plummer asked if this is a flaw in Chapter 34 which must be considered? Jerry Murphy feels the Land Development Code is very clear which states canal. Bayfront properties or on the gulf would not receive anything.
Jane Plummer questioned why they would limit the use if they would not be increasing intensity? Jerry Murphy replied it would arguably be an increase in intensity. Under the pre-disaster build back policy they would need to comply with the regulations. They could not have the two units on the ground floor and would need to be built up. If the owners were asking to do this the staff’s recommendation would be different. This is not a conversion case.
Anita Cereceda questioned what makes this a lagoon as opposed to a canal? Jerry Murphy replied it is indicated on the plat as a lagoon. The canal is indicated as a canal. The allowance in the Land Development Code for additional right of way specifically states streets and canals. Anita feels this issue may come up again in the future. Jerry commented that staff’s position would remain the same and this will eliminate any future issues.
Hank Zuba questioned how the second condition referring to the owner/operator living on the premises is enforceable? Jerry Murphy replied it is stated twice both in the Land Development code and is specific to this resolution.
Hank Zuba questioned how this request preserves environmentally critical areas? Jerry Murphy does not believe it has an impact one way or another.
Nancy Mulholland asked about the parking situation? Jerry Murphy replied the traffic impact statement was waived. There is quite a bit of parking on site. He provided pictures to show how the existing parking is arranged. This will remain the same for the development of the Bed & Breakfast. The assumption for the Bed & Breakfast is that each guest or couple will come in one car and stay in one unit. All guests should be accommodated with the allowance of one handicapped parking space.
Chair Roxie Smith asked if anyone from the public wished to address the LPA.
Scoop Kiesel came forward. He has lived in the subject neighborhood since 1953. A few questions and concerns exist. He expressed various questions with regard to the number of units, how often people will come and go, commercial kitchen for breakfast and traffic. He indicated this is a busy road and does not need additional traffic. Other questions pertain to the use of a pool service and will there be boat rentals someday, which will create more commercial business in their neighborhood. He does not feel they need any commercial intrusion into this area, which is filled with elderly people. He feels the entire neighborhood could be consumed by rentals. He does not want a motel in their neighborhood.
Ken Lebo from 870 3rd Street came forward. He is familiar with a Bed & Breakfast and has no objection. He knows the property owners and their property is a show piece on their street. This is the only property which has shown an improvement since they purchased the two homes. He does not see how traffic will impact this street. The people who own the property are good homeowners and he does not feel this will impact his property adversely. He feels this property will be a plus and a first class operation.
Mrs. Kiesel came forward and indicated she has lived in the neighborhood for quite some time. She hates to see this turned into a commercial lot. The traffic is bad at that end of the street. She is concerned more people will want to proceed with the same type of project in their neighborhood.
John (?) who lives at 929 3rd Street came forward. They live directly opposite the proposed new construction. He objects to the gentleman who states that no improvements have taken place to other homes on 3rd Street. He spent almost $100,000.00 improving their home this past year. Traffic is an issue and parking is an issue, which get worse each year. He has seen the drawings and feels they are well done. He does feel this would be a favorable addition to the neighborhood, but also understands the concerns of the neighbors. What is the definition of a Bed & Breakfast?
Jerry Murphy replied a Bed & Breakfast is defined in the revised Land Development Code. It means a public lodging establishment with nine or fewer guest units which serves breakfast to overnight guests. A Bed & Breakfast Inn may be located in a single building or in a cluster of separate buildings. He further explained that food service is limited to breakfast and/or snacks and must be limited to overnight guests only.
Bob Rockwell indicated that a Bed & Breakfast is low impact and eliminates additional duplexes, hotel or motel rooms. People stay for the night with small units. The type of people who will stay in this type of accommodate will be limited to a couple traveling around the country or newlyweds. A commercial kitchen is not required. This will only be for a continental breakfast for those staying overnight. More than enough parking exists. He is still asking to have the six units plus the owner’s unit. He feels they are being penalized by the wide canal. They are not trying to increase the intensity. The maximum stay in a Bed & Breakfast is 90 days, but this is not normally the time frame guests will stay.
Jessica Titus reviewed the density will not increase and the intensity will not also increase. Staff is recommending a good compromise.
Jodi Hester questioned how long currently a guest could stay in one of the duplexes? Dan Folke replied weekly rentals could take place. A Bed & Breakfast is like a hotel and can have daily rentals. Jodi indicated the intensity is being increased going from a one week minimum to a one day rental.
Jodi expressed there are other RC districts on the island that will be affected by the B & B ‘s and the daily stays with the intensity increase.
Jerry Murphy indicated this is more intense, but staff feels the code has provided for this type of intensity in these types of districts. Parking is sufficient and staff feels this is an ideal location next to the downtown area.
Jodi is concerned with the old and new concept of a Bed & Breakfast. She has stayed in many B & B’s which were nothing more than a motel. She expressed that this Bed & Breakfast is nine or fewer units and she hopes the LPA remembers this when voting on this issue.
Jane Plummer feels Chapter 34 allows this use and recommended for this area. This is appropriate for this area.
Nancy Mulholland questioned if this Bed & Breakfast is approved will it change the use of the RC district? Anyone else desiring a Bed & Breakfast would need to come before this board and the circumstances would be different. Dan Folke agreed and explained that a Special Exception is like a variance because it is tied to a specific piece of property with a specific development and site plan.
Anita Cereceda explained the nature of a variance or special exception is to give a particular parcel a right or use. This does not set a precedent for the island. Each individual property owner has to come in.
Hank Zuba commented this has been a very interesting and informative dialog. Staff has taken a strong position that the precedent is very dangerous if the 60-foot canal allowance is exceeded. He supports staff’s recommendation. This seems to be a logical use and does not seem to increase density. Chair Roxie Smith agrees with the concept of Bed & Breakfast. She is concerned there is more credit given for the road and water than the actual land. She commented there are other structures which border the lagoon that may try to use the 100 feet of water, if this were approved today.
MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Nancy Mulholland to approve the Schultz Bed and Breakfast request as provided by the County staff’s recommendations with the conditions following: the special exception is limited to a total of six guest units - 3 in each of the existing buildings. The owner/operator must live in the owners quarters whenever guests are present. The parking for the owner and guests must be accommodated within the subject property. Only and no use of right of way parking is approved. Prior to seeking building permits of the proposed new dining with a sundeck above the developer must combine the existing butted lots into one lot of record as part of the local development order for the Bed & Breakfast. Motion amended by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Nancy Mulholland: to allow six units.
Discussion: Harold Huber feels the owners should be given the right to put four units into one building and two into the other, if desired.
Jerry Murphy indicated that staff does not have a problem with allowing the flexibility to have four and two units.
VOTE: Motion passes unanimously.
Town Manager Segal-George announced that this matter will go before the Town Council on June 9, 2003 at 9:00 a.m..
3. DCI2002-00072 Ft. Myers Beach Fire Control District Administration Building. A request to amend the approved Master Concept Plan for a Commercial Planned Development (CPD) zoning district comprised of 0.263+/- total acres of land to eliminate the fence from the required buffers for the development of this parcel as the offices of the Fort Myers Beach Fire control District with a maximum of 3,000 square feet of gross floor area and a maximum building height of 35 feet. The subject property is located at 100 & 102 Voorhis St.
Attorney Richard Pringle came forward who is the general counsel for the Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District. He is present to discuss a pending application for a modification of the existing minor CPD approval for the Fire District administrative site. Sometime ago they came forward and asked for approval of some deviations to allow the District to construct its administrative office building on Voorhis St. While proceeding with the building portion of the project it was found that the buffer areas being 10-feet wide would not support all the vegetative buffering required plus the water retention area and the 8-foot tall fence. The contractor came forward to address the possibility of deleting the fence requirement. If the fence was to be installed, it would be installed in the middle of the bottom of the water retention area. The District Board took official action and discussed having or not having the fence. The Board’s decision was to ask for a change to the approval to delete the fence requirement and replace with the installation of additional vegetative buffering, which has occurred. Staff in its report has added an additional condition to clean up the application from the first time around. They are in agreement with the additional condition. Two requirements also exist and they are in agreement with both.
Hank Zuba commented the original ordinance was approved in 2000. He questioned if the certificate of occupancy required the implementation of the original landscape plan? Richard Pringle replied they built better landscaping than the original plan. A temporary certificate of compliance and certificate of occupancy was received with the requirement they would come back and go through this process. As soon as the final Town approval is received they will get the final certificate of occupancy.
Hank Zuba commented he was surprised the District would not implement a landscape plan when approved at the point of a certificate of occupancy, and implement a new plan without having had the approvals.
Richard Pringle replied he believes they had the ability to install additional vegetation as long as they installed at least the minimum that was prescribed in the landscaping plan. More is ok without any special approvals. The element not constructed on site is the fence. If not approve, they will install the fence.
Harold Huber questioned when the certificate of occupancy was received was there a time frame given to build the fence or what were the conditions? Richard Pringle replied this was a conditional certificate of occupancy, which required them to submit the application to change the approval to reflect the “as built” condition. He asked for and did receive one extension.
Harold Huber visited this site and does not feel there is enough vegetation to prevent the lights from penetrating into the residential neighborhood. He is personally opposed to them eliminating the fence.
Richard Pringle stated that due to the flood zone requirements the building is approximately 14 feet off of the ground to the first floor. The lighting below this is minimal and virtually non existent. He does not believe there is a big issue concerning the lighting due to the lack of negative responses by staff. This was reviewed with staff prior to contemplation of the fence deletion.
Harold Huber has concerns with the automobile lights shining into the neighborhood. Richard Pringle replied that this particular location is not used for the districts meetings. This building was not designed to hold the larger public meetings. This building is used primarily until 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. each day.
Hank Zuba commented on the narrative section, which refers to the approvals from the neighbors. He indicated this is not included in his packet. Richard Pringle indicated all neighbors had sent in letters of approval. They were accidently left out of the packets. Jerry Murphy indicated staff would like a copy for their file.
Nancy Mulholland does not object to the vegetative buffer. She did not feel the landscaping was very well attended too. Chief Markus came forward and explained they maintain their own landscaping. In this years budget they will move forward to having someone maintain the property on a weekly basis. Richard Pringle added there were some issues with irrigation that needed to be addressed. This resulted in the stress of some of the vegetation.
Jerry Murphy on behalf of staff came forward. This is a clean-up issue. This planned development was previously approved and did require a fence. Staff understands that as they entered into the construction it became more desirable to the District and the abutting residences to not have this fence. The residents preferred an enhanced vegetative buffer. Installation problems took place with the landscape and should be rectified soon. Improved landscaping should be seen in the future. Staff is recommending the screening of the dumpster area. The staff report speaks for itself and he will take any questions.
Jane Plummer commented that this is a commercial intrusion into a residential neighborhood. She is opposed to reducing the separation of commercial into residential neighborhoods. She is opposed to eliminating this request.
Jerry Murphy added that this is a commercial intrusion into a residential neighborhood and this is the reason it needed to be a planned development. This is the reason it is limited to one use and is further limited to the Fire District. He commented that the residents were opposed to the fencing and wanted the enhanced vegetation. He encourages the LPA to add a condition with regard to maintenance of the vegetation, if this is of a great concern.
Chair Roxie Smith indicated she attended a function in this area sometime ago. Neighbors did approach her and indicated they would prefer the vegetation over the fence or wall.
Harold Huber takes exception to the fact this was approved with the intention of a fence placement and then once built come back to obtain relief. He does not like being put into this position.
Dan Folke commented on the temporary certificate of completion issued. The Town was approached by the Fire District when they were attempting to get their certificate of completion and expressed their desire to not build the fence. They questioned if this was possible to change. Dan explained this was a specific condition of the planned development and he did not have the authority to waive. They met several times and the staff did agree to issue a temporary CC with several conditions. Letters of no objection needed to be received from all of the surrounding property owners. The landscaping buffer needed to be enhanced, which was completed. He indicated there is no guarantee this change would be approved and if it is denied they would need to put the fence back in.
Harold Huber commented that he visited the property on Saturday. The plantings are sparse. The property needs to be much improved.
Chair Roxie Smith asked if anyone from the public wished to address the LPA? None was heard.
Richard Pringle came forward and indicated there is some commercial in the area across the street. It is their hope the vegetation will become thicker as opposed to a blank wall. This is their goal and intention. They installed the vegetation per the plans prepared by the landscaping architect. They have tried to be good citizens and property owners by complying with the requests of the neighbors.
Hank Zuba questioned if the landscape architect was given a budget? Richard Pringle replied “no.”
Jane Plummer feels the fence is important to the neighborhood and toward the commercial aspect.
Jodi Hester commented the LPA has the authority to require a thicker type of vegetation. The covering of the dumpster was left out and should be completed. She suggests improving the vegetation and maintaining it.
Hank Zuba agrees a living fence is better. A living fence is not present and much time has lapsed since this project was completed. He feels the request for approval of the MCP should be turned down and hopefully they have received a sense of the committee which requires a better landscape plan and improvements.
Anita Cereceda questioned Jerry Murphy if the comments of Jodi Hester can be made into a condition. She asked if it is possible to describe a living fence. Jerry Murphy replied he is unsure that language can be created. He felt they would need to go back and revisit the landscape plan.
Harold Huber suggested a two-year time frame to improve the vegetation. If the vegetation has not improved, they can then move back to the fence. Hank Zuba objects and feels that they have been given two years time with no changes.
Jerry Murphy asked for a continuance until next week to allow staff to work with the District and try to develop a more satisfactory situation.
MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Jodi Hester to continue this case until May 20, 2003.
VOTE: Motion passes unanimously.
4. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to 34-3049 - Temporary permits or Special Exceptions for Welcome Stations
Dan Folke reviewed two options have been presented. The first would take the existing rule, which is to allow for a temporary use for 90 days, or give the option of six months within one year. This was discussed at the last meeting. The LPA requested staff to come up with another option with a possible Special Exception. If this type of option was adopted, it would go through a hearing process and obtain approval through the Town Council. He attempted to define a temporary Welcome Station. He used language from the mobile vending description combined with the idea this is operated by a non-profit organization. The 90-day approval would involve a permit and would not require the Special Exception. An additional option would be approved for up to three years and would require a Special Exception. Requirements in the code for Special Exceptions exist. Because this is a use which is not permanent and multiple parcels are considered it may be reasonable to consider less of a notification distance. Applicants must pay for each person within the 500 feet. He suggests a change to 300 feet.
Harold Huber questioned if the 300 foot is from the Welcome Wagon or from the property line? Dan Folke replied a strap number is given to the property appraiser from the property line. He is unsure if a point in the middle of the parcel is selected or if it is created from the outer edges. Dan will further check into the measurements for generating the lists. He further commented it is probably calculated from the edge of the property.
Chair Roxie Smith asked if the 90-day approval is renewable? Dan Folke replied he has included the same rule as presently in force (once every six months).
Dan Folke added that 90 days to 6 months can be handled administratively. Once a use is being considered for one year or more it becomes a more permanent use and should require approval by the Council.
Dan further explained he has provided some conditions to be met in order to be approved for a Special Exception. He reviewed they must stay in one location for at least 30 days, the Welcome Station must operate a minimum of 5 days per week with a minimum of 4 hours per day, limited signage and language containing hurricane evacuation must be provided.
Jane Plummer questioned if the three-year route is selected, will all locations need to be disclosed at the time of application? Dan Folke replied this is a one time matter. When the Special Exception is applied for you must provide a legal description or survey of every piece of property along with a site plan for the property. This site plan will be available for every property identifying where the station will be located on the property. Authorization from all property owners must be given at the time of the application. At the end of the three-year time period a new Special Exception would need to be obtained.
Chair Roxie Smith questioned what will happen if the property is sold midway between the three-year time period? Dan Folke replied this is a legal question. He felt this would run with the property. Town Manager Segal-George added that it would depend on the arrangement between the Welcome Station and the private property owner. The private property owner cannot be bound by the LPA’s actions.
Harold Huber feels language could be added to state if any of the listed properties change ownership there needs to be a sign off with the new owner. Town Manager Segal-George indicated the loss of a location and trying to add a location that was not originally approved would be the only issue relevant. She felt this could be handled administratively.
Jessica Titus is concerned a person starting a new business who could not afford to join the Chamber, but brought information to the Welcome Station could have their information put out? Dan Folke replied this is up to the operator. He indicated the Town will not regulate the information distributed.
Anita Cereceda commented the majority of the Chamber’s membership is outside of the municipal boundaries of the Town. Will those businesses be promoted within the Town’s jurisdiction? She indicated by definition this will not be allowed. Dan Folke replied the definition is not that restrictive. The reason for a definition is to try to give an explanation of the intention of a Welcome Station. The idea of the Welcome Station is to provide information about businesses and organizations in the community.
Anita Cereceda further commented that mobile vendors are not allowed within the Town of Fort Myers Beach. An exception has been made for the Chamber’s Welcome Station with a 30-day permit that turned a 90-day permit and then turned into an annual permit with a possible three-year approval. She cannot support any of these options. There has never been a not for profit corporation that cannot operate without making money. They must stay in business to promote the not for profit costs. The Chamber of Commerce and the Times Square Alliance formed corporations in the same manner. A cost of membership does exist to the organization. In the cost of membership you are paying for a service that will be rendered to you as a business person from that not for profit organization. She is concerned about the businesses being promoted off island during the slow times on Fort Myers Beach when every customer counts toward the small businesses. She supports the allowance of promotion during specified periods of time during the course of a year. To provide an avenue to establish a business on an annual basis is ludicrous. To allow them to establish a business in random locations throughout any day of any year is setting a really bad precedent.
Jane Plummer commented the amount of people being assisted at these Welcome Stations is a great service to the island. This eliminates calls to Town Hall and cuts back on the traffic being created by trying to locate a particular business.
Chair Roxie Smith questioned if anyone from the public wished to address the LPA?
Bill Van Duzer came forward to express his appreciation to the Local Planning Agency. He thanked everyone for their time and effort given to the paradise they live in.
Don Petruccelli, President of the Fort Myers Beach Chamber of Commerce, came forward. He is present to answer questions. He questioned how many times anyone has come to the LPA to ask to put up a Welcome Station on the beach? They have not asked the Town for a penny. The cost to the Chamber has been a little over $2,000.00 and paid for by their membership.
Chair Roxie Smith questioned if a person came up for directions to a non-chamber member would directions be given? Mr. Petruccelli replied directions would be given. Brochures would only be distributed by those who are members.
Jane Plummer asked what length of time the Chamber is interested in? Mr. Petruccelli replied they are presently utilizing five days a week for five hours a day. The Chamber would like to continue this year round. They feel they need to be on the island for a minimum of nine months per year.
Chair Roxie Smith questioned if the Chamber would accept six months? Mr. Petruccelli replied they would accept the six months, but would not be happy with the decision.
Anita Cereceda commented that the Chamber left Estero Island and now the Chamber wants to come back on the island. The Welcome Wagon has done good things. She feels a Realtor on this board could find them a location, if they felt their presence was required.
Mr. Petruccelli replied the Chamber’s address is a Fort Myers Beach zip code. The reason they left the island was due to having less than 5,000 people visiting their office yearly. Today they get over 5,000 people per month. These folks come to their office prior to coming to the beach and they are directed to the island.
Chair Roxie Smith feels the Welcome Wagon is providing a good service. If it is a good service for 90 days, it will be a better one for one year. The intent of the Chamber Wagon was to promote businesses on Fort Myers Beach and help small businesses during a tough economic time.
MOTION: Made by Jane Plummer and seconded by Chair Roxie Smith to recommend the amendment of the code for the three-year Special Exception for the Chamber Welcome Wagon. Motion amended: by Jane Plummer and seconded by Chair Roxie Smith to include the entire Option Two with the direction of allowing the Chamber the three-year approval.
Discussion: Jessica Titus feels the Chamber Welcome Wagon is one of the best things going, but she does not favor it completely because all are not being served by it.
Nancy Mulholland expressed the same concerns as Jessica along with the length of time.
Dan further explained the intent was to allow someone the opportunity to receive the 30 or 90-day permit, if desired. A longer period of time would require the Special Exception. If the LPA wants everyone to get a Special Exception this would be an option. When they come forward for the Special Exception the LPA has the ability to set a time frame. He feels it better to have two routes (a short term temporary route and for a longer term the Special Exception process.
Anita Cereceda replied that the Chamber Wagon is not the only item being considered. None of this information currently exists in the code. A recommendation is being made to the Town Council to implement a procedure to allow it. She will not support this motion.
Jodi Hester agrees and was trying to create another avenue, so the Chamber could keep their Welcome Wagon. She will not support the motion and feels more detail needs to be created.
VOTE: Motion fails.
MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Jodi Hester to recommend to the Town Council to allow Welcome Stations operated by not for profit organizations that provide information without the sale or distribution of any product or service may be approved for a maximum of (3) 30-day permits within a one year period. Eliminating the length of permit, but adding the Special Exemption clause in #2.
Discussion: Chair Roxie Smith feels it will be more difficult to get people to make a significant investment in their kiosk for only a 90-day period.
Jane Plummer would prefer the range of 30 to 90 days for three times per year. She does not feel a 30-day permit makes a whole lot of sense for the expenses involved.
Chair Roxie Smith feels the businesses need promoting after season. If limited to 3 months it will be cut off at the time it is needed the most.
Dan Folke questioned if the use of the Welcome Station was changed? Is only the 90-day approval being changed to (3) 30-day within one year? Anita replied this is correct.
Anita Cereceda added that the Special Exception clause from option #2 was included.
Dan Folke further added the site plan would need to be submitted and the requirements for non-profit would still be provided. He reviewed option #2 has been selected with the exception 90 days has been shortened to (3) 30 day permits. The option for a Special Exception exists. The three-year approval is not included.
Dan Folke explained there are criteria set up for Special Exceptions. If you meet the criteria you then have a right to the use. Clear criteria needs to be established.
Anita added if it were not for the Chamber she would throw everything out and would not want to be involved at all. She is looking for a way to provide this for the Chamber. This opens the box for anybody else.
Hank Zuba commented the inclusion of the standards for approval as pointed out by Dan, including all the conditions of notification and all definitions of eligible activities seem to be favorable for use with this situation.
Anita added that two public hearings will exist and this will allow for additional work on the definition.
VOTE: Motion passes. ( Several members dissenting, but not identified)
IV. APPROVAL OF APRIL 8 AND APRIL 15, 2003 MINUTES
MOTION: Made by Hank Zuba and seconded by Anita Cereceda to approve the minutes of April 8, 2003.
VOTE: Motion passes unanimously.
MOTION: Made by Hank Zuba and seconded by Anita Cereceda to approve the minutes of April 15, 2003 with a correction.
Corrections and changes to minutes:
1. Chair Roxie Smith - Meeting opened with Chair Betty Simpson. Strike and replace with Chair Roxie Smith.
VOTE: Motion passes unanimously.
V. LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS
Harold Huber - Passed out additional information with regard to the Fire District case. He will also not be present for the next meeting.
Nancy Mulholland - The new parking attendants are very thorough. She has received two tickets.
Hank Zuba - He wished there was a procedure eliminating the passing out of information at a hearing that has not been reviewed prior to the case.
Jessica Titus - Commented on the sandwich sign issue. She added the newspaper indicated the Council received three options. She felt one recommendation was given by this board.
Chair Roxie Smith indicated two motions were given and the ultimate conclusion was no sandwich signs. Town Manager Segal-George and other LPA members did not agree and expressed that sandwich signs were allowed for the entire island.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
Town Manager Segal-George expressed the gentleman present for public comment could no longer stay at the meeting. They provided a written statement with regard to a speed limit on Albatross. She will look into this matter.
VII. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m..
Respectfully Submitted,
Shannon Miller
Transcribing Secretary