FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

DECEMBER 9, 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 on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 at 12:05 P.M. by Chair Betty Simpson.

 

            Members present at the meeting:        Jodi Hester, Harold Huber, Nancy Mulholland, Jane Plummer, Chair Betty Simpson, Jessica Titus, Hank Zuba.        

 

            Excused absence from the meeting:   Anita Cereceda, Roxie Smith.    

 

            Staff present at the meeting:               Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Community Development Director Dan Folke, Lee County Planning and Zoning Representative John Hagan.

 

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

 

III.        MINUTES:          November 18, 2003

 

            MOTION:          Motion was made by Hank Zuba and seconded by Jane Plummer to approve the minutes of November 18, 2003.

 

            DISCUSSION:   Ms. Simpson had a correction in the second paragraph on Page 3:  the word “bind” should be changed to “find,” and the word “sent” should read “send.”

 

            VOTE:              Motion to approve the minutes as corrected was passed by unanimous vote.

 

IV.        PUBLIC HEARINGS

            Chair Simpson invited Town Manager Marsha Segal-George to make comments on these cases at this time.  Ms. Segal-George advised that some of these cases are continuing, and it was requested and agreed that these be disposed of first.

            The third case on the agenda, DCI2003-00034, RPD has requested a continuance until January 2004.  It was requested that this case be continued to a date certain, which would be January 20, 2004 at 12:00 noon.  It was determined that a motion was required for this purpose.

 

            MOTION:          Motion was made by Jane Plummer and seconded by Jessica Titus to continue this item as requested above.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was approved by unanimous vote.

 

            Ms. Segal-George advised that the second case on the agenda, and deferred to Pam Houck of Lee Copunty Developmental Services, who reported that the applicant is requesting a continuance to a date uncertain.  The applicant is going through a procedure to vacate a portion of the property that is part of the canal easement, and when that procedure is completed the applicant will return with the variance request.  There was a question concerning whether, since the continuance was to a date uncertain, the applicant would be required to submit a new application, and Staff replied that in granting a continuance, there would be no need for the applicant to reapply and be charged additional funds.  Notice will be reissued when the case is resubmitted.

 

            MOTION:          Motion was made by Nancy Mulholland and seconded by Jane Plummer to approve the continuance as requested above.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was approved by unanimous vote.

 

Town Manager Segal-George pointed out at this time that there were a number of people in the audience, and called attention to the fact that the only case to be heard by the LPA at this meeting is number 1 on the agenda, LaForce and Risinger in reference to 307 Fairweather Lane.  Carousel will not be heard until January 20, 2004, and the Fred Parker Screen Enclosure at 401 Madison Court will also not be heard today.

 

            1.         VAR2003-00069 LaForce & Risinger in ref. to 307 Fairweather Lane.  A                                  request for variances from LDC Section 10-174(3)b, Section 10-291(2) and                            Section 10-296(k) to allow the property to be subdivided without the requirement                             that the lots abut and have access to a road and existing road right-of-way or                                     easement and to eliminate the cul-de-sac requirement.  The subject property is                              located at 307 Fairweather Lane.

 

            All those wishing to give testimony in this case came forward and were sworn.  Ms. Simpson explained the public hearing procedure to the applicant and witnesses.

           

            Diane Kubicek came forward as the current owner of the submect property.  She stated her desire to obtain a variance to develop on three platted lots that do not meet minimum size requirements.  She has read the Staff Report and intends to address the conditions recommended therein.  She feels that all the requirements for a variance have been met: (1) This will not threaten the health, safety or welfare of the owners of the abutting properties; the street ends at this property, and she believes the cul-de-sac would actually be detrimental. There is an easement recommended in the Staff Report that would benefit the two proposed lots and have no negative effects on other properties in the neighborhood;  (2) The requested variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it converts three low-density lots that do not meet the requirements into two that are more than the required density; (3) There will be no undue burden on public facilities; (4) Requiring construction of a cul-de-sac would require undue expense on her part and would restrict developable land.  She felt that her proposed development would actually provide better access for fire department emergency vehicles.

            Harold Huber asked whether there is any structure on the property at present, and was told they are three vacant lots.

            John Hagan with the Lee County Division of Zoning introduced the Staff Report dated November 24, 2003.  Approval is being recommended with conditions.  This is a Chapter 10 variance from the development standards versus normal Chapter 34 variances.  The criteria are different.  The applicant’s proposal is to combine three platted lots approximately 50 X 100 feet, or approximately 5,000 square feet each, and also some vacated right-of-way, and create two larger lots.  He referred to Exhibit B which shows the existing three platted lots and Exhibit C showing the proposed two lots. One lot would be 8,220 square feet and the other, 8,614 square feet.  These two lots would be considered nonconforming lots of record which could go through the minimum use determination and possibly end up with three single-family residences on each lot.  However, the applicant is proposing two residences on these lots.  Based on these findings and conclusions, Staff feels that the applicant meets the requirements for a Chapter 10 variance.  He referred to certain dimensional requirements of Chapter 10 to build a road and a cul-de-sac which would require the applicant to go through a Development Order process which would be a very complicated process; Staff did not feel it would be beneficial to impose this requirement.

            Hank Zuba referred to Condition 3 and the access easement and asked if this is the same as the vacated road easement.  Mr. Hagan replied that this is the most appropriate place for such an easement, giving access to both lots.  It was verified that this would parallel with the existing driveway next door.  Mr. Hagan was not aware of any utilities that would be involved; the old easement was vacated long ago, but that if there were it would be more advantageous to have them located in the new easement.  In reply to a question by Mr. Zuba about access to the second lot, Mr. Hagan referred to Exhibit C of the Staff Report and explained that this would be a continuation of Fairweather Lane in the area of the vacated right-of-way.  The intent of the easement is to make sure there is recorded access when the property is subsequently subdivided and sold, and Mr. Hagan explained how the process would work.

            Mr. Huber asked whether Fire District approval would be necessary to eliminate the cul-de-sac requirement.  Mr. Hagan said it is not a requirement, but one of the conditions included in the Staff Report is for a letter from the Fire Department signifying concurrence.  There is no turn-around at present, so he feels this will be favorable when the applicant provides such a feature.  Mr. Hagan has discussed this with the applicant, and she is aware of this requirement.

 

            Ms. Simpson asked for public comment at this time.

 

            Harlow Hadley came forward and asked what would be the intended use for the combined lots.  He was not familiar with the conditions in the Staff Report and was concerned that they may be used for condominiums.  He would be unhappy with a structure being built next to his residence in view of the recent increase in his taxes. 

            Mr. Hagan addressed this question and referred to Condition 7 of the Staff Report, which limits the two lots to a single-family residence on each lot.  Additionally, for density purposes the lots only have enough area for one dwelling unit per lot.  He also referred to Condition 5, which refers to any storm water runoff that may result from construction on the two lots, which provides that any runoff must be contained on site.  This was included to protect the neighborhood.  Ms. Segal-George pointed out that this was three lots which will now be reduced to two lots. 

            Mr. Hadley was also concerned whether there were any height limitations with respect to the single-family dwellings that would be built on these lots.  Ms. Segal-George replied that there is a single-family height restriction on every home on the Island.  It was determined that this would be three stories including the flood elevation, or two stories over parking, and 30 feet from flood elevation to the inside interior wall.  Anything over the top of the interior wall is limited to architectural appurtenances such as cupolas and non-habitable spaces.  No rooftop decks would be permitted.

 

            There being no further public comment and no questions of the applicant, the item was returned to the table for discussion.  Jane Plummer stated for the record that she did have a conversation with the applicant and that she is the property owner next door to this property.

It was verified by Ms. Simpson that Ms. Plummer owns the adjacent lot to the right facing the property.

            Mr. Zuba said he supports the proposal with the conditions outlined because it is a reduction from three lots to two, a reduction in potential development.  Access has been addressed by the conditions in the Staff Report to his satisfaction.

            Ms. Plummer advised that she had received several calls from other neighbors on the street which were in favor of the applicant’s plans to reduce the lots from three to two and to build single-family homes.

            Ms. Segal-George advised that the findings and conclusions in the draft resolution will be changed to match the Staff Report to conform to Chapter 10. 

 

            MOTION:          Motion was made by Jane Plummer to approve the recommendation made by Staff including Conditions 1 through 7, rewritten to conform to Chapter 10.  Motion was seconded by Hank Zuba.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was approved by unanimous vote.

 

This item will be heard by Town Council at January 6, 2004 at 3:00 P.M.  This concluded the Public Hearing portion of the agenda.

 

            2.         VAR2003-00064 Fred Parker Screen Enclosure.  A request for a variance from                Section 34-638, minimum waterbody setbacks.  The applicant is requesting a                           reduction in the canal setback from 5 feet to 40 inches.  The subject property is                              located at 401 Madison Court.

 

            See above motion.

 

            3.         DCI2003-00034 Ecoventure Carousel, Ltd.  In ref. to Carousel Inn RPD.  A                               request to rezone 0.73 acres from Residential Multifamily and 0.96 acres from                           Commercial Resort to Residential Planned Development (RPD) to develop 24                                  multiple-family dwelling units in 2 multiple-story buildings with a deviation from                              the LDC pre-disaster buildback provision to allow 24 dwelling units and 88,000                                +/- square feet; a deviation from the LDC building height limitations to allow                                    building height not to exceed 67 feet above base flood elevation and 7 stories,                           and Special Exception to allow construction of a pool deck seaward of the                          Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) in the Environmentally Critical (EC)                                  zoning district.  The subject property is located at 6230 Estero Blvd.

 

            See above motion.

 

V.         LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS:

 

            Hank Zuba asked about when the request for continuance of the Carousel case had been received and how notification was made.  Ms. Segal-George said that this had been placed in the members’ mail boxes.  There was discussion about the process inasmuch as the meeting agenda had already been prepared and published when the request for continuance was received.

 

            Jessica Titus asked about vacating the land for Madison Court and inquired whether each individual has to have it vacated separately.  Ms. Segal-George replied that it is possible for a number of property owners to do this together.  Dan Folke added that in this case the applicant would like to accomplish this as soon as possible, within the next three to six months.  It would probably take longer to get the other property owners included, but it does make sense to do them all at once, and he anticipates this will be brought up when the matter is before Council. 

 

            Nancy Mulholland inquired about the red cones throughout the La Playa parking lot.  She said that every parking place is marked with a cone and asked whether there were any codes that address this, as she considers it unsightly.  Mr. Folke said there are standards for seasonal parking lots which would apply, but this may have been approved by special exception or grandfathered in.  Staff will look into this.

 

            Harold Huber asked Staff for advice how cases such as the Carousel should be handled when members are requested to meet with applicants individually for a private presentation.  He expressed concern about applicants attempting to influence votes and said he had declined such a request.  He recalled that this case had been presented previously in which he had expressed preference for one building rather than two.  Ms. Segal-George felt that it would be more appropriate to make such comments with their attorney present. Applicants have the right to contact the LPA members, but members have the right to accept or refuse as they wish.  She offered several suggestions as to how this might be handled, including instances in which the members have not reviewed the Staff Report.  Ms. Plummer said that she prefers to have the opportunity to walk the site with the applicant, as this helps her understand the applicant’s proposal.  Ms. Simpson agreed but cautioned that such meetings be for the purpose of gathering information and not offering comments.  Mr. Zuba expressed concern that the Carousel’s request for continuance would result in additional information not previously furnished to the LPA and requested assurance from Staff and Ms. Pam Houck that such information would be provided.  Ms. Segal-George agreed that there should be continuance if last-minute information is offered that has not been reviewed by the LPA.  There was discussion about the importance of this case and its potential to be precedent-setting.  Ms. Segal-George expressed the opinion that there will be more complicated cases coming to the LPA in the future and that it will be well for the members to be prepared.  Exhibits will continue to be considered as long as they do not change the request.

            Mr. Huber also referred to an article by Jean Matthews on Vice Mayor Terry Cain in the Sand Paper in which there was a reference to no new condos on Estero Boulevard.  He felt that this should have referred to the height ordinance.  Mr. Folke added that height restrictions and density caps would apply. 

 

            Hank Zuba advised that he would not be at the next meeting.  He also complimented Staff and all who were involved in the Town Hall Meeting.

 

             Betty Simpson also commented favorably on Mr. Zuba’s acting as moderator at the Town Hall and had positive comments on the meeting.

 

            Town Manager Marsha Segal-George reminded everyone that next week, December 16th, is the Holiday Lunch at 11:00 A.M. after which there is one item on the agenda, which is discussing the Historic Preservation Grant program. 

            Last night’s Town Council meeting addressed eight short-term or immediate traffic solutions which had been prioritized by the consultant, and the Council moved forward on all of them.  She described some of the solutions which had been adopted and said that they will be implemented as soon as possible and evaluated to determine whether there is any impact.    Ms. Segal-George also described some discussion that had taken place regarding Estero Boulevard and the sidewalks regarding right-of-way and sight lines.  She pointed out that there is confusion with the public inasmuch as the County owns Estero Boulevard right-of-way.  She also mentioned the status of the alternating traffic light and reported that this had been a positive effort.

 

VI.        PUBLIC COMMENT:      None

 

VII.       ADJOURN:        The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 P.M.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Patricia L. Middlekauff

Transcribing Secretary