FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

FEBRUARY 10, 2004

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, February 10, 2004 at 12:00 Noon by Chair Betty Simpson.

 

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

 

            Excused absence from the meeting:   Jodi Hester.      

 

            Staff present at the meeting:               Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Community Development Director Dan Folke, Planning & Zoning Specialist Chris DeManche, John Hagan of Lee County Zoning, Pam Houck of Lee County Developmental Services, Jerry Murphy of Lee County Zoning.

 

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

 

III.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES, JANUARY 13, 2004 and JANUARY 20, 2004:

 

            MOTION:          Motion to approve the minutes of January 13, 2004 was made by Jane Plummer and seconded by Roxie Smith.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was passed by unanimous vote.

 

            MOTION:          Motion to approve the minutes of January 20, 2004 was made by Roxie Smith and seconded by Jane Plummer.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was passed by unanimous vote.

 

IV.        PUBLIC HEARINGS:

 

            1.  DCI2003-00046 Peter & Susan Lisich in ref. to Abaco Beach Villas.  A request to rezone 11,761 square foot +/- parcel from Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to Residential Planned Development (RPD) to develop five 4,250 square foot multi-family units (total square footage of new building will be 21,250 square feet) with deviations from LDC pre-disaster buildback provisions, setbacks, floor area ratio requirements, connection separation, buffer from mean high water line and the building height to allow building height not to exceed 68.1 feet above base flood elevation and 6 stories.  The subject property is located at 131 Estero Boulevard.

            The case was read by Chair Betty Simpson and the meeting was opened for Public Hearing.  Anita Cereceda verified with Town Manager Segal-George that her previous involvement with the case while serving on the Council did not preclude her from participating.  It was determined that there were no ex parte communications by any LPA member. 

            Charles Basinait with the law firm of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes and Holt came forward representing the applicant.  He also introduced Carlton Rifle, a local land use planner, and architect Joe McHarris.  Mr. Basinait stated that the purpose of their appearance before the LPA was to request rezoning that would allow for the demolition of the existing five-unit building and the construction of a new five-unit building which will include five larger units.  Nine deviations from the LDC are also being requested.  As a point of clarification Mr. Basinait provided the following figures as referenced in the Staff Report:  Current building of three stories, 4,640 sq. ft. with parking included; 4,130 sq. ft. without the parking area.  Requested building, 25,550 sq. ft. with parking included; 21,250 sq. ft. without parking. 

            Mr. Basinait introduced Carlton Rifle, who came forward on behalf of the applicant.  He produced exhibits and handouts for use in his presentation.  Mr. Rifle described what currently exists on the property and the properties surrounding it, including existing land uses, and also permitted and proposed uses of surrounding properties.  He described the immediate area at the north end of the island as a mid- to high-rise neighborhood and referred to redevelopment of the adjacent Pink Shell Resort which will include seven-, eight-, nine-, and ten-story buildings.  Mr. Rifle also cited changes in various areas of the Beach.  He displayed photographs and other exhibits indicating various buildings, existing, proposed and those proposed for removal to illustrate the changing scale of the area.  He then showed exhibits of the proposed building on the subject property, explaining that the actual footprint of the building will not be determined until the architectural work is finalized.  Mr. Rifle expressed the opinion that a Comprehensive Plan is a general blueprint of how the community sees itself at a given point, but that it should remain flexible as evidenced by the State’s requirement that the Plan be reviewed every five to seven years.  He referred to the Land Development Code as the more specific instrument for determining land use, providing for deviations.  He acknowledged that public and private interests must be balanced in granting deviations and said he believed the application would be consistent.

Mr. Rifle referred to the Comprehensive Plan and enumerated the goals and objectives that the applicant feels are met, describing the proposed improvements and additions applicable to each.  He also itemized eleven anticipated benefits that the applicant believes will result from approval of this application.  Mr. Rifle proceeded to refer to each of the nine requested deviations and state the applicant’s case with reference to each.  It was asked whether these deviations were the same as provided in the members’ packets and whether Staff had seen the same ones.  John Hagan replied that they appeared to be the same and that he would be able to read through them quickly.  Mr. Basinait explained that they had been copied from the Staff Report for ease of reference.  Mr. Rifle referenced conversations with Planning Consultant Bill Spikowski regarding computation of square footage and floor area ratio (FAR).  Based on these conversations he said the applicant disagrees with the Staff Report with respect to application of the FAR requirements.  At this point Ms. Cereceda objected to Mr. Rifle’s reports of what Mr. Spikowski had said and stated that she would prefer having Mr. Spikowski present in person to testify.  Mr. Rifle went on to cite references to density and intensity with respect to dwelling units versus square footage.  He read into the record a letter from Metro Transportation to Mr. Basinait signed by Robert Price, EIT Project Consultant, concerning trip generations. He pointed out the rationale for applying different criteria to residential and commercial usages in relation to units versus square footage. Mr. Rifle explained how the applicant believes that allowing construction of larger units would be  incentive to upgrade older existing structures and bring them up to code, and an overall benefit to the community, also saying that the applicant asserts that intensity will not be increased due to the larger units, which he said will more accurately reflect today’s taste, standards, and expectations.  He then presented the applicant’s case with respect to rebuttal of specific items in the Staff Report, referring to his earlier comments with respect to the requested deviations. 

            Mr. Basinait introduced Mr. Joseph McHarris of McHarris Planning and Design for the purpose of describing and explaining the architecture and how it is compatible with the adjacent structures at that end of the Island, and also the interior of the proposed units.  Mr. McHarris came forward, specifying that his firm specializes in residential planning and design.  He described the existing residence as an outdated wood structure with programmed spaces that do not meet the current need of today’s residential design.  Without having done a current code analysis, he assumed that the building is not up to current codes.  He described the surrounding area and stated that the subject property is not in a conventional residential setting.  Mr. McHarris referred to an exhibit showing the design of the proposed new structure, which he said is designed to maximize the views and potential of the site.  Parking at ground level would be screened and landscaped; ingress and egress would also correct the existing pull-off conditions.  He described the architecture as a blend of Florida and Bahama style.  He used the term “massing,” which he explained is the way the building is positioned and takes up the space on a site.  When designing a building he said the attempt is to make sure that the mass is appropriate for the style and theme of the building and to the neighborhood.  With respect to the five units, he explained that each will be three bedroom, two bath with dining room, family room, study and laundry, with porches and lanais, which he said are programmed to meet the market demands of today’s buyer and are fairly standard for this type of environment.  There is a pool that all five units would share with ground floor cabana space on the same level as the parking and an interconnected walkway for pedestrian circulation.  Of concrete construction, the building would provide each unit with two entrances/exits, a fire system, modern elevator, and would be designed to meet all codes including hurricane codes.  He said the proposed building would result in not only increased safety, but also a nice design for the community.  A question was asked about the location of the cabanas at ground level, and it was stated that each unit will have one cabana, and that the size would be 5 X 10, a changing room/bathroom facility. 

            Mr. Basinait referred to the dock replacement issue, removal of the existing six docks and replacing them with a floating structure with five slips, which he acknowledged would have to be applied for separately due to the various permitting requirements.  The applicant describes this as a public benefit.  This is not intended to be part of the application under consideration today.  He also referred to the Staff Report in which there is lengthy discussion about whether the existing units are dwelling units or guest units as part of a hotel/motel.  Mr. Basinait explained that prior to 1995 it was RM-2 zoning; in 1995 it was rezoned under which twelve hotel units were permitted in the rezoning resolution.  The building was not renovated until 1999, when a request was made to amend the CPD zoning, resulting in reduction of the number of units back down to the original five units, and the rezoning resolution now refers to the structure as an existing five-unit multifamily building.  Under the circumstances, he feels that this is a gray area but offered the opinion that it may not make much difference.  He asked for the opportunity to cross examine some witnesses, and also for the opportunity for rebuttal at the end of the Staff presentation and any public input.  The Chair acknowledged that he would be permitted to return after Public Comment. 

            Mr. Huber asked whether the seven units that were removed under the above referenced rezoning were transferred to another property that the applicant also owns, and Mr. Basinait replied in the affirmative that they were transferred to the Casa Playa Hotel.  Mr. Huber also asked whether the existing structure is operated as a hotel/motel, and Mr. Basinait replied that it is run as a transient apartment complex in accordance with the State licensing.  Mr. Huber asked whether the proposed building would be run the same way, and Mr. Basinait was unsure whether it would necessarily be the same.  Mr. Huber observed that a 4,000 +/- unit would not likely be rented on a daily basis, and it was established that from CPD to RPD would preclude rental on a daily basis.  Mr. Huber verified that the intent was to build it as a condominium and asked whether they would be individually owned; the reply was that they could be.  Mr. Huber asked if the applicant would agree to a condition that none of the units would ever be divided, and Mr. Basinait replied in the affirmative. 

            Jessica Titus asked for identification of a permitted building, which Mr. Basinait explained was permitted under the 1995 zoning, but was never built.  He also referred to multistory buildings in the surrounding area, using exhibits.

            Ms. Cereceda recalled the history of the parcel and summarized the zoning change from five units to twelve and back to five again.  She also recalled that she had voted against it and agreed that hotel/motel rooms versus dwelling units is irrelevant, but wished that question had been asked in 1999.  She further observed that at that time there were no projects such as the Pink Shell renovation under way to assist in justifying the request.  Ms. Cereceda pointed out that while the number of units will be the same, the number of bedrooms will triple, and she asked Mr. Basinait to explain why the applicant does not feel this will have an impact.  She said that traffic is not an issue to her.  Mr. Basinait expressed the opinion that the number of people in residence will not necessarily increase with an increased size of unit.

            Ms. Simpson asked how many parking spaces there would be under the building, and she was told ten, two for each unit. 

            John Hagan introduced his Staff Report dated January 30, 2004 into the record as Staff’s analysis of this request.  He pointed out several changes on that Staff Report:  (1) On Page 1 of 11 there is reference to a buffer from the mean high water line that was requested as a deviation, however, with the adoption of the new Chapter 10 of the LDC this is now eliminated; (2) also on Page 1, under the existing zoning and land uses, the references to Matanzas Pass to the north and to the east as Commercial Planned Development were inadvertently reversed; (3) on Page 2 of 11 under Deviation Number 1 where it references a FAR of 2.17, the Master Concept Plan references the FAR of 1.85, there is a discrepancy which he will explain later; (4) on Page 10 of 11, the second part of the last sentence, Staff actually recommends denial of all nine deviations, and the wording should be changed to read “1 through 9.”  Mr. Hagan referred to the figures presented by Mr. Basinait and advised that the numbers he intends to use will include parking.  There is a 4,640 sq. ft. building on the site, including the garage and the parking, and applicant is proposing a six-story 25,550 sq. ft. building, 68.1 feet high, first story over parking, which Mr. Hagan said he considers an increase in intensity.  He questioned the applicant’s statement that intensity does not apply to residential units in view of applicant’s request for a traffic impact statement.  Chapter 34 of the LDC which measures intensity by FAR and by building coverage was cited, as well as Section 34-633 which he said clearly states that another measurement of intensity is the FAR.   He said the existing building has an FAR of .39 and the proposed FAR is 2.17 which in Staff’s opinion is an obvious increased intensity.  With respect to the issue of whether or not to include parking, without parking included the proposed building still has an FAR of 1.81, which is clearly higher than presently existing.  Staff feels the intensity of the proposed building will be increased and is therefore inconsistent with that policy of the land use plan.  With respect to the heights of other surrounding buildings, Mr. Hagan referred to Policy 4.C.4 which deals with building height and called attention to the portion thereof which includes view corridors as a determining factor.  He said there will be no view corridors in the applicant’s plan.  He said that Staff feels that a six story, 68.1 feet high building is too big for a .27 acre parcel.  Referring to Policy 4.B.1 which speaks of overbuilding, he said that Staff feels that either FAR, with or without parking, is overbuilding for the site.  He said the property must be developed under the RM regulations, which allow a 1.2 FAR.  He addressed the deviations which he said had been properly requested in accordance with the process, but said that due to the large size of the building versus what is now existing on the site, Staff feels there are too many deviations, and the deviations that are being requested are not in the public interest.  Reasons for denial of each deviation are explained in the Staff Report.  With respect to the Matanzas case which Mr. Rifle mentioned, in which there were 22 deviations, Mr. Hagan pointed out that this was a pre-existing case in which the deviations were carried forward.  Key deviations to which Mr. Hagan called attention were Deviation 1, the FAR, which he had already discussed; Deviation 2, to allow five units larger than the existing units, which range from 940 to 1,740 sq. ft. as provided by the applicant, and Staff feels that the requested 4,250 sq. ft. for each of the five proposed units is too much of an increase; Deviation 5 which refers to the setbacks as set forth on the Master Concept Plan and also refers to “incidental use,” which Mr. Hagan felt was too vague, plus the two-foot setback eliminates any view corridors; Deviation 6 which refers to the height of the building, and Mr. Hagan observed that the size of the units is driving the height of the building with no public benefit for creation of such a high building; and Deviation 9 asking for a deviation from the pre-disaster buildback policy of Chapter 34, which Mr. Hagan said also refers to FAR and building coverage.  He addressed discrepancies between the 1995 resolutions and current resolutions with respect to definition of the units and called attention to the definition on Page 4 of the Staff Report, which he read.  Mr. Hagan also acknowledged that the applicant had withdrawn the floating dock portion of the application as stated earlier by Mr. Rifle.  Mr. Hagan also pointed out that Ms. Kim Trebatoski, Principal Planner with the Division of Environmental Sciences is also present and available for questions.

            Ms. Titus asked what cost would be for a building like this, and Mr. Hagan said he had no knowledge of this.  Joe McHarris gave a figure of $200 (per sq. ft.?) and qualified the reply with specifications.  Ms. Titus verified with him that a figure of $250 to $300 would be reasonable.

            Dan Folke came forward to clarify some of the remarks in previous presentations.  He referred to FAR as a measure of intensity and the proportion of the building in relation to the size of the lot.  He said this is why parking is included, everything underneath the building is measured.  For the buildback policy parking is not included in order to prevent parking area being converted to living area. 

            Nancy Mulholland asked for clarification of hotel/motel versus transient apartment.  Mr. Hagan referred to Chapter 34-1801 Section E which refers to hotel/motel and bed & breakfast.  The current units are registered as a transient apartment with the DBPR; however, he was unable to find a definition.  There was discussion about whether the applicant currently pays Tourist Development Tax, and it was determined that this is not a matter of public record and could not be determined. 

            Hank Zuba verified with Mr. Hagan that the current use is nonconforming.  He asked how many units would result if it were redeveloped to conform.  Mr. Hagan said under present regulations there would be two.  Mr. Zuba also referred to earlier statements that the FAR does not apply in residential cases.  Mr. Hagan replied that in his opinion it does apply.

            At this time Ms. Simpson opened the meeting for Public Comment. 

            Charles Mason Ramsey, Jr., a part owner and resident of  100 Estero Boulevard, Unit #633, came forward and referred to a petition which he said had been seen by the Council and LPA members.  He expressed the opinion that there would be more signatures if all the owners had been here.  Mr. Ramsey said the applicant’s proposal had been discussed at length and that they were strongly in favor of the proposal.  He said there would be no obstruction of view and think it is an excellent plan for reasons stated in the petition.

            Robert W. Haller of 100 Estero Blvd., Apt. #635, came forward and referred to his personal letter of February 4, 2004 to the LPA and wanted to be sure it had been received and entered into the record.  He described the situation at his condominium with regard to permanent residents and rentals and referred to the above mentioned petition.  He further addressed the issue of precedent and asked that the members consider this in making a decision.  He foresees that owners of the proposed condominiums will likely be residents rather than renters and believes that the traffic and density would be reduced from the current use. 

            Carl Bradley of 100 Estero Blvd., Unit #535, came forward and expressed the opinion that the proposed building is entirely compatible with the neighboring structures. 

            Public Hearing was closed at this time.

            Mr. Basinait again came forward and referred to Staff’s opinion that this would be overbuilding.  He asked that the LPA “think outside the box” and observed that easy decisions are not always the best decisions.  Referring to Mr. Hagan’s and Mr. Folke’s remarks about FAR, he pointed out that regulations provide a mechanism for deviation therefrom under the proper circumstances and cited the Section 34- 3237.5 of the LDC referring to pre-disaster buildback, which he said is being complied with.  Concerning view corridors, Mr. Basinait disagreed with Mr. Hagan and described the adjacent tennis court and park which will remain.  He pointed out that one of the gentlemen who spoke during Public Comment noted that he is unable to see the bay with the present structure.  Regarding hotel/motel versus dwelling units, he disagreed with Staff’s interpretation that the units comply with the definition of hotel/motel and referred to the requirements of previous and present Codes.  With respect to Ms. Mulholland’s question about transient apartments, Mr. Basinait provided a printout of the on-line application with DBPR for registration and stated that the applicant has a license and pays the Tourist Development Tax.  He said the units are inspected and the DBPR tells the applicant how the units will be registered.  Moreover, he said there is a definition of transient apartment and also a definition of hotel, in the application, both of which he read, expressing the opinion that the application does not meet those definitions.  He pointed out that State and Town definitions will not necessarily be the same, stating the opinion that for the purpose of this application it does not matter how the applicant is currently registered. 

            Ms. Cereceda referred to the property’s history and the fact that five hotel units turned into twelve RM units, of which seven were relinquished.  The applicant now wishes to return to five residential units, and she questions whether this is the proper number.  The previous resolutions were discussed. 

            Mr. Zuba referred to Exhibit B and the references to multifamily versus hotel.

            Mr. Folke advised that Staff included this in the report because of the buildback provision.  He said a motel is available for daily rental, and a dwelling unit is not.  Density is calculated in different ways for motels and for dwelling units, which is why these issues were considered relevant.  He referenced the Carousel case. 

            Ms. Cereceda pointed out that she anticipates this will be the first of many such requests. 

            Ms. Segal-George recalled that unit calculations were included with the Pink Shell by the County, and characterized as hotel units at that time.

            Ms. Houck explained that there was not a multiplier in the initial Pink Shell planned development under the County regulations.  She agreed that rental on a daily basis constituted a hotel.

            Ms. Segal-George did not recall any discussion when the seven hotel units were transferred that the remainder became something else.  She said she intends to pull minutes from those cases before this case goes before Council.

            Exhibits read into the record in order of testimony at this time were:  Exhibit #1, the aerial photograph; Exhibit #2, referred to by Mr. Rifle as the Pink Shell Building; Exhibit #3 the White Sand Construction; Exhibit #4, more White Sand Construction; Exhibit #5, completed White Sand; Exhibit #6, proposed development and currently permitted development; Exhibit #7, the Master Concept Plan (actually labeled Exhibit #2); Exhibit #8, the full size copy of the landscape plan; Exhibit #9, the reduced copy of the landscape plan; Exhibit #10, the letter from Metro Transportation Group; and Exhibit #11, the building elevation.

            Ms. Mulholland said she can see justification for increasing the size of the units, but this much of an increase seems excessive to her. 

            Ms. Titus agreed that the proposed building is too big and would be opposed to the side setbacks because of the view corridors.

            Mr. Zuba said he cannot support the project because of intensity, the increase from three floors to six, and from 4,000 sq. ft. to 24,000 sq. ft. He also cited residential versus hotel/motel and the nonconforming use.  He expressed the opinion that two units would be appropriate for the site and also addressed the issue of setbacks. 

 

            MOTION:          Motion to deny the application was made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Hank Zuba.

 

            DISCUSSION:   Ms. Cereceda expressed to the applicant the hope that before the case goes before Council a modification can be made so that Council can approve it.

            It was asked how this motion differs from what was done on the Carousel case, and Ms. Segal-George explained that the Carousel case was continued to a date certain because the applicant had so requested in order to come back with a different proposal in accordance with the LPA’s wishes.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was passed by unanimous vote.

 

It was noted for the record by Ms. Simpson that Jane Plummer had left around 1:00 P.M. and was not present for much of the presentation nor for the vote.

 

Ms. Segal-George advised that this case will go before Council on March 8th, 2004 at 9:00 A.M.

 

A recess was taken at this time.

           

            2.  DCI2003-00065 & ADD 2003-00136 Seafarer 1997, Inc., in ref. to Seafarer’s Village Mall.  A request to amend the Master Concept Plan (MCP) for the Commercial Planned Development (CPD) for Seafarer’s Village Mall to add signs, to approve additional deviations for signs, to change the use of an existing Restaurant (Cabasca’s) to a Bar, and to increase the outdoor seating area and existing on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages associated with an existing Restaurant (Chiggies) by 260 square feet.  The subject property is located at 1113 Estero Blvd.

            Ms. Simpson read the case and opened the Public Hearing.

            Joerg Wiebe, the applicant and President of Seafarer 1997, Inc., came forward.  It was determined that Ms. Cereceda had had ex parte communication with the applicant on this case.  Mr. Wiebe recalled that he has been asked several times for a signage plan, which he did not provide because in his experience he anticipated that it would have to be changed.  He said he is planning to close the parking underneath the building and is concerned that patrons to Seafarer will not have a right turn in or a right turn out of Seafarer’s onto Estero Blvd. and will thus be discouraged from coming to his establishment.  He presented a sign package and indicated the locations where he requests signage, explaining that the intent is to avoid confusion.  Also included was a sign on which events taking place throughout the building would be promoted.  Mr. Weibe also explained his request for additional seating on the second floor breezeway in front of Chiggie’s which he described as 4 or 5 tables with 15 or 16 total seats in approximately 260 sq. ft. to be used as a smoking area.  He also explained that he was asking for a change to Cabasca’s, which is 2,811 total square feet, contrary to the Staff Report which says 600 sq. ft.  He wanted to convert Cabasca’s to a bar and lounge where smoking is permitted.  He said the entire building is non-smoking, and this results in cigarette butt litter outside.  This would reduce the food to a maximum of 10 per cent, using the 4 COP liquor license instead of the 4 COP SRX and allow smoking.  However, Mr. Wiebe asked to amend his request to allow him to choose either Tradewinds or Cabasca’s for conversion to a lounge or bar, as he can only do one of the two, and once the conversion was done he would not change it.  He explained the CPD allows a 70/30 ratio of liquor to food instead of a 51/49, and he is requesting to go to a 90/10 ratio.  Ms. Segal-George pointed out that the case had been advertised as it had been requested in accordance with requirements, and it would not be possible for the LPA to consider something that had not been advertised at this time.  She explained that the case could be continued and re-advertised if the applicant so wishes.  The applicant said he understood.  With respect to the Staff Report, Mr. Wiebe called attention to the fact that restaurants serving liquor do not necessarily close at midnight, and asked for permission to remain open until 2:00 A.M.  He also pointed out a misunderstanding with respect to signage; Staff was under the impression that applicant was not in compliance with the CPD because he had not torn down the McDonald’s sign, which he said was untrue because there is a sunshine period that applies.  Mr. Wiebe said he took down another sign within the 30 days, which was in compliance with his CPD.  He also had a question concerning compliance with the sign ordinance and offered to remove some signage in exchange for what he is requesting. 

            Ms. Cereceda verified with Mr. Wiebe that he would prefer to delete that portion of his request until it can be advertised.  Ms. Segal-George provided procedural advice and observed that there is some urgency with the sign issue.  Mr. Wiebe added that time is of the essence with respect to Chiggie’s as well.  There was discussion about when the Cabasca’s/Tradewinds case would come before the LPA and Council if it were split off and re-advertised, and Mr. Wiebe said he was in agreement with what would occur.  There was consensus that this would be done.

            Ms. Cereceda questioned Sign #5, and asked if it would be a bulletin board.  Mr. Wiebe described it as a three-dimensional wooden board 14 ft. long X 3 ft. high with large blank spaces under each day in which entries can be made for the various events.  She also questioned the location of Sign #3, which is proposed to be on Crescent Street.  Mr. Wiebe explained that he has no jurisdiction over the McDonald’s/Helmerich sign.  It was determined that it has four more years under the Sunshine Law unless McDonald’s leaves early, which Mr. Wiebe said is a possibility.

            Jerry Murphy of Lee County Zoning came forward to give the Staff Report, using a projected presentation of the site.  He referred to the non-compliance issue, the general appearance of the project, and the request to expand the project by increasing outdoor seating.  He also referred to the sign package provided by the applicant.  He explained that under the LDC each business is allowed 32 sq. ft. of signage, handing out copies which included examples of what to do and what not to do.  He said the applicant’s requests fall into the latter category and, using his pictorial presentation, described various signage around the building.  Mr. Murphy acknowledged that signage is necessary to indicate that there are businesses in the rear of the building.  He described what Staff is willing to approve.  He also said Staff considers it reasonable to approve the request with respect to Chiggie’s.  He recommended also continuing the sign issue until the applicant can quantify what is needed.

            Mr. Murphy was asked why he had accepted an incomplete package, and he replied that there was urgency on the part of the applicant to come before the LPA in February which he was attempting to accommodate.  There was also concern expressed that the previous Development Order has been ignored in certain areas such as landscaping.

            At this time the meeting was opened for Public Comment.  There being none, Public Comment was closed and the applicant asked to make final comments.

            Mr. Wiebe said he took exception to being portrayed by Staff as non-compliant and recalled that most of the signs were there before the CPD was approved and described which ones they were.  He said it was his understanding that they were grandfathered in.  He described his efforts to alleviate vandalism in the parking area, some of which have been destroyed and pointed out that if landscaping had been installed it would also have been destroyed due to construction.  The employee and paid parking areas were also described by Mr. Wiebe.  He also said he was never notified by Staff that his application package was considered incomplete and objected to its being identified as such.  He feels he is in complete compliance with the CPD and would like to proceed with improvements. 

            Ms. Segal-George said she felt there were problems on both sides and some miscommunication, and that Mr. Murphy and Mr. Wiebe should meet and discuss the request sign by sign so there is something specific to put before the LPA.  She suggested  moving the Chiggie’s issue forward if the LPA so desires, scheduling a meeting with the applicant and Staff during the next 3 weeks when Mr. Wiebe will be in town to prepare a complete sign package, and continue it until Mr. Wiebe returns.  It was agreed that the sign issue and Cabasca’s/Tradewinds issue would both be continued until March 16th.  She felt that it would be beneficial to take the time to reach an understanding on both sides.  Ms. Segal-George and Ms. Cereceda explained to Mr. Wiebe what he needs to provide in terms of a complete plan rather than simply request additional signage. 

            There was discussion about the issue of Chiggie’s which was recommended for approval by Staff.  The noise ordinance enforcement issue was also brought up.

 

            MOTION:          Motion was made by Harold Huber to approve the outdoor seating at Chiggie’s limited to the square footage requested and continue the balance of the request until March 16, 2004.  Motion was seconded by Jessica Titus.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was passed by unanimous vote.

 

Ms. Segal-George advised that this issue will go before Council March 8th.

           

V.         LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS:

 

            Anita Cereceda asked what would be discussed about the noise ordinance at the February 17th meeting.  Ms. Segal-George replied that Mr. Feeney has been doing some research and would present some of the issues discussed with Council.  She said it would be a preliminary discussion on the noise ordinance.  Ms. Cereceda advised that she might not be able to attend this meeting, and Ms. Segal-George advised that other items on the agenda are a draft of outdoor display of merchandise, and two possible historic designations.  Ms. Segal-George advised that for the remainder of the year there is a heavy workload.

 

            Harold Huber recalled attending the Town Meeting at Santini Plaza where Royal Pelican made a show of support for their problems.  Mr. Huber said that he is President of EBIA and is going to attempt to help them.  One of their issues is the 5-foot setback, and he asked about application of that setback with respect to their property line.  Mr. Folke recalled some conversations about this and explained that it is presumed that a dock will come off a seawall, so there is no setback requirement from a seawall; therefore the 5-foot setback does not apply in this case.  Mr. Folke further explained what would be required.

 

 

 

 

 

            Town Manager Marsha Segal-George pointed out that in March the LPA meetings are supposed to be the 9th and the 16th whereas Staff is asking they be changed to the 16th and the 23rd and eliminate a meeting on the 9th, which is also election day.  There was general agreement with this change.

 

VI.        PUBLIC COMMENT:      None.

 

VII.       ADJOURN:                    Meeting was adjourned at 4:05 P.M.

 

           

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Patricia L. Middlekauff

Transcribing Secretary