FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

October 21, 2003

Town Hall-Council Chambers

2523 Estero Boulevard

FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA

 

 

I.          CALL TO ORDER:         The Regular Meeting of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency was called to order by Acting Chair Roxie Smith on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 at 12:00 noon.

 

            Members present at the meeting:        Jodi Hester, Harold Huber, Nancy Mulholland, Jane Plummer*, Roxie Smith, and Hank Zuba.  A quorum was present.

 

* Arrived late

 

            Excused absence from the meeting:   Anita Cereceda, Betty Simpson, and Jessica Titus.

 

            Staff present at the meeting:   Bill Spikowski, Community Development Coordinator Dan Folke, Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Matt Feeney.

 

II.         INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:  The invocation was given by Jodi Hester.  All those present assembled and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

III.        MINUTES:          None available.

 

IV.        DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS:

            Bill Spikowski reported on the LPA’s draft of Chapter 34, Land Development Code.  There was a workshop in June 2003 at which there was not a full LPA but the consensus was to make another attempt to arrive at residential design standards.  It was decided to take this up after the Summer break and formulate a strategy.  He referred to several items which had been furnished to the members:  (1) A house plan book reprinted recently by the Department of Community Affairs entitled House Plans for Traditional Neighborhoods.  There are many house plan books on the market; however, there are not many stilt home designs available, and while the plans are not suitable for Fort Myers Beach, the concepts are.  (2) A chapter from a law book used by attorneys who represent land owners and/or local governments which deals with abuses of discretion, or cases which deal with some kind of variation on the overall rules.  He uses this book when writing variance criteria and felt it would be helpful to the LPA in making decisions that would hold up legally.  His question was whether the LPA wished to continue the direction of the first draft, which was primarily concerned with the front of the house that faces the street, regardless of style, or the entire house and its appearance from the canal or side.   The rules will be different from the original draft if the side and back are to be considered.  (3) A short article by Jonathan Burnett written for people who are writing regulations for new communities.  The author spends much of his practice writing and dealing with regulations.  (4) An article by Joel Russell who is a planner and land use attorney working with communities and conservation organizations.  Many of the regulations available on the Internet and elsewhere were written several decades ago and may not be pertinent to Fort Myers Beach.  (5) A magazine article that was written from an anti-regulatory standpoint.  The regulations drafted earlier and sent to Council were not intended to achieve uniformity in his opinion. 

            Roxie Smith stated that in reading the material she realized that most of it does not apply to Fort Myers Beach and has personally debated whether or not this is needed.  If design guidelines are adopted she feels they must be tailored specifically for Fort Myers Beach.  Mr. Spikowski agreed.  Ms. Smith is also concerned with a fairness issue in the event of rebuilding or remodeling.  She asked about a possible optional buy-in. 

            Mr. Spikowski discussed potential complaints that commonly arise in such situations.

He addressed such issues as setbacks, floor area ratios and garages, which he believes is the most important issue.   To illustrate the discussion about porches and garages he distributed a photograph of a house in Bokeelia that is being remodeled.  Some houses in this area are being remodeled with enclosed additions instead of porches on the second floor effectively recessing the garage door.  This is allowable due to a change in the way the County interprets setback regulations.  He feels that key issues are recessing the garage door, single versus double garage door, and having a porch or balcony on the front.  He felt the drawings in the code were also confusing and caused people to have the impression that uniformity was the goal.  It would be possible to write the regulations so that the upper floor of the structure could be expanded but not the garage.  There could be different setback regulations for the living area and for the garage.

            Mr. Huber asked about a particular group of houses and how far the garage doors were set back.  Mr. Spikowski said they were not identical and he had not measured, but he estimated 8 or 12 feet.  He said that many communities who have rules like this make them go back 20 feet.   He wrote the draft as 10 feet because we have small lots and trying to find a way to mitigate it by allowing the house to come forward.  Mr. Huber pointed out that 10 feet is not enough for a room.  He felt it should be 12 or 14 feet to allow construction of a room.

            Jane Plummer reported that she had taken some pictures which she had not printed and was surprised at the number of differing styles.  Out of the 20 she photographed she did not see any two that were exactly alike and none were conforming to the criteria being discussed.  There was discussion about the garage setback and the resulting usable garage space being limited.  Ms. Plummer gave Mr. Spikowski several addresses to illustrate her report.  Mr. Spikowski said that a parked car takes 200 square feet, so if there are 1,700 square feet on ground level there should be no problem depending upon arrangement of the stairway.  Ms. Plummer was concerned about also being able to store such items as jet skis, trash cans and toys so that these items aren’t left outside where they become eyesores or missiles in the event of a storm. 

            Mr. Zuber thanked Mr. Spikowski for the information and said he found it helpful.  He had a question regarding single family versus multifamily.  He also asked about landscaping and streetscaping.  Mr. Spikowski had not addressed this and said it would not end up being in this code.  About half of design review literature is about historic districts where there is a known or desired style.  It is more difficult trying to deal with existing eclectic neighborhoods that have been built over a long period of time.

            Mr. Spikowski said his original reason for proposing the FAR was to make the setbacks smaller.  By making the setbacks smaller however the size of the house is increased.  With the societal trend toward bigger and more lavish houses, he was concerned about what would happen.  By allowing the setbacks to be smaller and capping the total square footage of the house it is his view that the houses will be more varied and interested rather than just larger.  The parking and setbacks are inevitably related. 

            Ms. Smith observed that in one of the articles she read that porches are becoming a thing of the past because of lifestyle changes such as TV and air conditioning.  She believed that on Fort Myers Beach a porch that faces the street would be added only because it was a requirement.  The use of bay windows such as in the pictures submitted by Ms. Plummer was suggested. 

            Ms. Plummer stated that when she made a computer search of new construction for properties less than 2,000 square feet and more than 1,300 square feet she found 5 under 1,500 square feet and 8 under 2,000 square feet.  She posed the question whether regulations are necessary in view of current land costs.  It was felt that residents would be more receptive to options than to arbitrary regulations. 

            Mr. Spikowski stated that he had wanted the members’ input before preparing another draft and believes he has what he needs to proceed.

           

 

 

V.         DISCUSSION OF FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND          THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT THAT EVALUATES OUR     COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IDENTIFIES CHANGES THAT ARE NEEDED (THE            EAR PROCESS, MANDATED BY STATE STATUTE):

            Mr. Spikowski stated that there are two subjects to consider:  (1) Are there any items in the current Comprehensive Plan that the LPA wants to recommend that Council amend during the coming year?  (2) The evaluation and appraisal report as per his memo of October 13, 2003 which is a task assigned to the LPA by the Land Development Code.  Whether the report is a major or minor project is at the Town’s discretion.  Since the Plan is new it is his opinion it should be a minor matter.  EAR is in two parts, one year looking at the Plan and the next year amending the plan.  There are some major changes in the current Plan of which the pre-disaster build-back is probably the most important.  There are certain things that are required under the statute.  It does not have to be addressed today but the first step must be addressed fairly soon.  Once the major issues are identified they must be written out and dealt with individually. 

            Mr. Huber stated that feedback is needed from Staff because they receive the complaints and comments.  Mr. Spikowski said that he maintains a list and expects other Staff will have input as well. 

            There is a methodology with which Mr. Spikowski is familiar that deals with affordable housing using 2000 census information.  He is not sure how applicable it will be to Fort Myers Beach.  Comparisons were made with Sanibel, which started its program in the 1970s.

            Mr. Folke asked Mr. Spikowski to give an outline of the EAR and how he feels the LPA should proceed.  Mr. Spikowski said identification of priorities should start in the spring because discussion of issues to be considered is the most important part and he feels sufficient time should be allowed for this.

 

VI.        LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS:

 

            Harold Huber readdressed the sound issue from the last meeting and felt that the use of surround sound might be a solution. Ms. Segal-George replied that a sound engineer is being sought for consultation.  This will be paid for by the Town but she feels the applicants should have done their own research before coming before the LPA or the Council.  Matt Feeney is working on this in the hope that there will be input prior to the public hearings in November.  Mr. Feeney said he has spoken with a number of sound engineers who specialize in this kind of work. 

He described their method of operation in coming up with their recommendations. 

            Mr. Huber was concerned that there no mention of parking spaces in reference to an increase in room size.  Mr. Folke agreed that there was not a discussion of the impact of the changes in the Staff Report.  However, he believes that what they have existing meets the requirements for the different size rooms.  Ms. Segal-George pointed out that the Town’s procedures differ from the County’s and that in view of pressure to present a case there may be times when a complete report is not submitted.  Staff is working to correct this.  There was general discussion to the effect that the sound issue took precedence over other important issues and that the overall discussion on this request was not adequate.  There was general agreement that the members had not been satisfied with the outcome.  Ms. Segal-George reminded the members that they have the option of asking for a continuation whenever a hearing departs from the main issue or otherwise goes out of control.  There was general discussion expressing dissatisfaction with the conduct and outcome of these hearings and how this can be remedied in the future.

            The issue of creating standards for handling the sound issue was discussed at length.

 

            Nancy Mulholland (Inaudible.)

 

            Ms. Smith reported that on November 4, 2003 the LPA has two cases to hear.  Mr. Folke stated that these were the setback variance on a deck and a special exception for a commercial parking lot.  Ms. Segal-George said that on November 18, 2003 there will be the Public Hearing on Chapter 10 of the LDC.  The Carousel case has been added also.  In reply to a question about Junkanoo, Ms. Segal-George replied that last week she heard rumors of properties being sold from Times Square to Surf Club including Azure Tides and Buccaneer.  She is also hearing rumors of properties being bought to transfer densities to other properties.  Other rumors were discussed.

           

VII.       PUBLIC COMMENT:      None.

 

VIII.      ADJOURN:        The meeting was adjourned by Acting Chair Smith at 2:05 P.M.

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Patricia L. Middlekauff

Transcribing Secretary