FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

FEBRUARY 17, 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 17, 2004 at 12:17 P.M. by Chair Roxie Smith.

 

            Members present at the meeting:        Jodi Hester, Nancy Mulholland, Jane Plummer, Betty Simpson, Roxie Smith, and Hank Zuba.

 

            Excused absence from the meeting:   Anita Cereceda, Harold Huber, Jessica Titus.      

 

            Staff present at the meeting:               Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Community Development Director Dan Folke, Planning & Zoning Specialist Chris DeManche, Gloria Sajgo of Lee County Planning Department, Director of Public Services Matt Feeney.

 

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

 

III.        PUBLIC COMMENT:

            Jean Matthew came forward and referenced a letter concerning the agenda item about designation of a historic site next to the library.  She requested that this issue be sent back to Subcommittee for more thorough discussion as she did not feel that committee had sufficient time to consider all the aspects of the issue; this is the first instance in which Historic Designation is being recommended over the protest of the owner.  She referred to the process of Historic Designation and asked that the issue either be sent back to Subcommittee or dropped. 

            Leroy Hommerding, Fort Myers Beach Library District Director, came forward and referenced his written comments.  He expressed concern about having committed taxpayer funds to purchase the property in question for use to further the mission of the library.  He described how the library has struggled with the inability to increase square footage because of lack of sufficient parking.  Dr. Hommerding called attention to problems with scheduling events and serving the public at the library due to the parking situation.

            Public Comment was closed at this time.  Ms. Smith asked and received the LPA’s concurrence to move Item VI.1. FMBHD2004-01 to the top of the agenda.

 

NOTE:              Both Agenda Items VI.1, FMBHD2004-01 and VI.2, FMBHD2004-02 were taken out of order and disposed of at this point.

 

IV.        DISCUSSION OF DRAFT – OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE:

            Ms. Hester expressed surprise that no members of the public affected by this ordinance were in attendance, and it was pointed out that there had been public workshops on the issue and three Public Hearings.  Mr. Folke described the appropriate procedures for introduction of the proposed amendment to the Land Development Code which would eventually require a Public Hearing at the LPA and two Public Hearings by Town Council.  He observed that normally there is no public participation on an agenda item before it goes to Public Hearing.  He will make an extra effort to notify the public before hearings are held.

            Dan Folke described the proposed changes, referring to background information which he presented.  Questions have come up over the definition of “raised porch” and other issues, and the LPA is being asked to take another look at this ordinance.  He provided summary notes from the two public workshops, August 13th and August 27th, 2003.  Merchants felt that it was important to have outdoor displays of merchandise in order to draw attention to their businesses and demonstrate the kind of merchandise they carry, especially for retail establishments outside of Times Square.  Suggestions for improving the ordinance by providing greater flexibility were also presented at these workshops.  He summarized the proposals contained in his February 11th, 2004 draft.  There was discussion about what constitutes a patio and the definition thereof.  Mr. Folke explained that there are different colored pavers in Times Square that designate the location of property lines for enforcement issues.  Mr. Zuba asked about future enclosure of porches and patios.  Mr. Folke pointed out that current regulations require new buildings to be built up to the property line. The question of access under ADA requirements was brought up by Mr. Zuba.  Another question by Ms. Plummer concerned liability issues with respect to non-permanent structures left outside in the event of a hurricane.  Mr. Folke suggested including language similar to the welcome stations and jetski equipment.  He showed photographs illustrating six different types of display equipment:  Carts, garment racks, specialized display racks, freestanding mannequin (which would include hanging and linked mannequins), table or shelf, and freestanding product display.  Garment racks and tables/shelves would only be allowed on raised porches in an attempt to avoid a “flea market” appearance; the other 4 types could be placed on either a raised porch or on the pavement.  Types of merchandise appropriate to the various types of display equipment are also specified in the draft.  Equivalencies of the different types were also discussed in terms of what would be permitted; e.g. 7 flamingoes.  Mr. Folke was complimented on his efforts.  He then pointed out that the above applied to private property, and proceeded to refer to the use of public property for outdoor displays at Times Square and Old San Carlos.  Ms. Segal-George recalled that historically there was an unwritten regulation limiting outdoor displays to what was sold inside and expressed concern whether such limitations are possible or appropriate.  Mr. Folke also pointed out that sub-leasing is impossible to enforce.  Ms. Segal-George advised that she prefers not to involve herself and Staff in managing privately owned businesses.  Mr. Folke explained that in order to place a display on public property, a business would be required to obtain vending rights from the Town, which is similar to the restaurants’ lease of public property for tables.  He recommended that an annual fee be established at Council, which would require an applicant to describe their venture, which would provide a means of control.  There was discussion about the category into which hair braiders and temporary tattoo artists would fall.  Mr. Folke is recommending limiting these uses to private property.  It was established that the hair braiders and piercers do not require licenses and are not regulated by the State.  Mr. Folke advised that this will be set for Public Hearing and notices published. 

 

            MOTION:          Motion was made by Jane Plummer and seconded by Jodi Hester to send this to Public Hearing.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was carried by unanimous vote, 6-0.

 

Mr. Zuba recommended providing the photographs at Public Hearing, and it was agreed that various exhibits would be made available.  Ms. Segal-George described efforts that resulted in good turnouts at the workshops.  She said the business people seemed to understand the balance between appearance and their objectives. 

 

V.         DISCUSSION – NOISE ORDINANCE:

            Ms. Segal-George provided background on the noise ordinance situation.  She said that several businesses requested temporary relief because they felt they were being unfairly targeted, but that Council did not prefer to do anything temporarily during Season.  Matt Feeney had discussed some new technology in which case she said there may be opportunities to take a different perspective.  Mr. Feeney proceeded to give a presentation, which he had previously given to Council.  He said that a short-term solution would be to eliminate the commercial decibel limits of 72 and 60 between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. in the Downtown zoning district.  The present ordinance provides that the violation is always from the receiving property, so a homeowner outside of the Downtown zoning district those limits would still apply; the business owners in the Downtown area could make as much noise as necessary during the entertainment hours, but if the sound exceeded into the residential area they would still be in violation.  He explained the measurement of ambient noise and how this would apply to enforcement.  He also called attention to the fact that each increase of ten decibels sounds like double in sound volume to the human ear, leaving little room for adjustment in the noise ordinance.  With respect to long term solutions, he referred to solutions in other communities.  One such solution was averaging.  Another was an average sound substitute, involving construction of a barrier.  A third approach was to measure the area and identify the dominant type of background noise and find a way to remove it from the observations.  He suggested that a professional sound consultant might be hired to do a study; preliminary estimates are around $50,000.00 for such a study.  His recommendation would be to look at corrections for ambient noise.  Ms. Smith inquired whether it would be appropriate to expect the entertainment establishments to share in the cost of such a study, and Ms. Segal-George pointed out that the Times Square committee made a recommendation that the Town pay for it.  Mr. Feeney also cited mixed uses in the entertainment area.  It was established that the Town does have equipment for monitoring sound and that citations have been written using these measurements.  Mr. Feeney explained the options to the LPA depending upon their intention.  Ms. Segal-George observed that she has attended Times Square committee meetings and feels that they need a clear definition of what they want and the identity they want in that area, referring to different types of entertainment that may or may not be appropriate.  Mr. Feeney summarized the options as (1) no limit, which is inappropriate because there are residents in the area; or (2) raise the limit, which would require an expensive study and specific recommendations for specific properties, and is not considered appropriate inasmuch as the Town’s standards are similar to the vast majority of other communities.  Enforcement is complaint-driven, and it was explained that there have been numerous complaints from various sources.  Ms. Plummer asked whether the Town’s standard for quiet noise was based on a community like Miami where there is a lot of activity, or on a quieter community, in which case she said she felt it would be reasonable to raise the standard.  Mr. Feeney explained that our curve is based on ANSI (American National Sound (or Scientific) Institute, which is a standard used in most communities.  Ms. Segal-George pointed out that historically, music is a part of Fort Myers Beach’s culture and has traditionally been used to attract customers.  She described other communities in which the sound is contained inside, and observed that much of the loud music comes from retail establishments on the Beach, not the restaurants.  She felt that using piped-out music to entice people inside may no longer be appropriate or necessary.  Ms. Plummer expressed preference for controlling this type of use rather than restaurants.  Mr. Zuba asked Staff to review the LPA’s options again for clarification.  Ms. Segal-George replied that we can do nothing; send Mr. Feeney to the Times Square Committee to start a dialogue; and perhaps have a joint meeting with the LPA and the Times Square Committee. 

 

            MOTION:          Mr. Zuba made a motion to form a smaller subcommittee rather than a joint meeting of both entire committees to discuss and document the case.  Motion was seconded by Jodi Hester.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was passed by unanimous vote, 5-0.  Jane Plummer had left prior to the motion.

 

VI.        REQUEST TO FILE HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS:

 

            1.         FMBHD2004-01, Birkenstock Sandal Shop, 2709 Estero Blvd.:

            Gloria Sajgo came forward and described on the process of Historic Designation.  She

explained that the Library had applied for rezoning on this property, and one of the questions to be considered was historic significance.  After discussion at the LPA/Historical Subcommittee, it was decided to send the issue to LPA due to its importance, the fact that the LPA will also hear the rezoning application, and the buildings are planned to be demolished.  In order to expedite the process, the issue was brought to the LPA today.  She pointed out that if the issue were remanded to the Subcommittee as Ms. Matthew suggested, the zoning would also be delayed.  She also referred to her report which had been distributed.

            Jane Plummer observed that she also serves on the LPA/Historic Subcommittee and questioned what constitutes taking the issue forward if the property owner does not wish to do so.  She understands that this is possible and has been done once previously with the Mound House.  She observed that this is not a comparable situation because the Town was in the process of attempting to purchase that property which includes both a significant historical structure and a significant archaeological site.  Ms. Sajgo pointed out that the Subcommittee is not a decision making body; if the rezoning is approved the buildings will be demolished; and the owner is pressed for time.  Ms. Plummer said she had a problem going against the property owner’s wishes when they purchased the property for a specific purpose.  She expressed concern with dramatically changing the possible use at this time.

            Hank Zuba disclosed that he had consulted with Town Manager Marsha Segal-George and had also met with the Library Director a number of weeks ago.  He asked Ms. Sajgo whether in the future an applicant would be eligible for grants or other types of funding.  She replied that the Town has just approved a Historic Grant Program and that the applicant could phase a restoration of the two buildings if they so chose.  Mr. Zuba asked about the amount of funds available, and Ms. Sajgo explained that the total amount of the fund is $40,000.00 and there is at least a 50 per cent match.  In response to a question about state or federal funds, Ms. Sajgo expressed doubt that such funds would be available.  There was also discussion about historic tax credits.  Mr. Zuba observed that the LPA is considering not only the historic aspects but also the applicant’s request for a zoning change that would result in additional parking lots on Estero Boulevard. 

            Ms. Smith observed that the building belongs to the public, and that this is a public/public situation.  She recalled that this had been discussed at length at the Subcommittee, and that it was forwarded to the LPA because to do otherwise would have been making a decision, which is not the Subcommittee’s job.  She also mentioned that she had received calls from a number of people on this issue. 

            Ms. Sajgo explained that the issue came up because there is a question on the zoning application about whether there are any historic resources on the property.  She also explained that the Library purchased the property knowing it would require rezoning, which is not automatic.  She pointed out that the issue was not brought forward in an attempt to halt demolition of potentially historic buildings but rather because of the rezoning request.  She also mentioned that the Library has no alternative plans for the property, and that there would be some additional parking without demolition of the buildings.

            Betty Simpson also recalled the discussions at the Subcommittee level concerning the parking problems at the Library and other solutions that had been researched, including possible use of the adjacent church parking area.  She also recalled that the Subcommittee had discussed other possible uses the Library could make of these buildings.  There was discussion with Ms. Sajgo about the interior of the buildings and whether renovation would be possible.

            Ms. Smith said she is very active and interested in historic preservation on the Island.  She also said she is very much aware of the fact that when the Library purchased the property they had no idea that something might change that would affect its proposed use.  She felt that this would be infringement on property rights. 

            Dan Folke recalled that he had been at all of the Subcommittee meetings for 2 ½ years and observed that the Subcommittee has discussed many times the issue of whether to designate only with the consent of the property owner.  He gave procedural guidance to the LPA, pointing out that time is important because of the zoning request and suggesting that at this meeting the focus should be not on the parking or other potential uses of the buildings, but on whether or not this is a historic resource that the Town needs to preserve. If so, the issue shall be forwarded for Public Hearing.  Ms. Sajgo added that the Public Hearing is where additional information would be presented and a final decision made.  She also stressed that while she appreciates the importance of the Library, it is important that the LPA look at the applicant objectively and imagine how they would react if the applicant were a Wal-Mart, particularly since this case will set a precedent.  She encouraged taking the matter to Public Hearing where everyone will have opportunity to speak.

            Nancy Mulholland expressed a desire to hear more about the zoning request and whether the two could be combined.  Mr. Folke explained that the Subcommittee had decided to settle the Historic Designation issue prior to the rezoning hearing.  He and Ms. Sajgo did not believe the rezoning could be considered until the historic issue had been decided.  It was pointed out that a site plan is included in the members’ packets.

            Mr. Zuba asked Staff to elaborate on the description of the type of architecture of the buildings in question and an estimate of how many such structures there might be on the Island.  Ms. Sajgo was unable to provide an estimate.  The Pink Shell Cottage and the Schmidt Cottage were given as examples.  She explained that this was an extreme architectural style that caught on with the public after WWII.  Mr. Zuba also asked about the consequences of being on grade. 

            Ms. Hester expressed reluctance to go against the owner’s wishes.  She said that from what has been presented she does not feel that these structures are of great historical significance.  She would not be in favor of taking the issue to Public Hearing.  Ms. Sajgo pointed out that by sending the matter to Public Hearing, the LPA is making no decision; Ms. Hester acknowledged this but said that sending it forward would constitute encouragement of potential designation without the owner’s wishes.

            Jane Plummer agreed with Ms. Hester in that there is not sufficient historical significance and that there is not sufficient justification to prevent an owner from using the property as they intended when it was purchased.

            Ms. Simpson felt that more information was needed.  Ms. Segal-George explained that this is not a Public Hearing, but the first step in the process.  Mr. Folke described the process that would be followed for Public Hearing if the LPA were to forward it.

 

            MOTION:          Motion was made by Jodi Hester to find that there not be a Public Hearing, that there is insufficient evidence to designate the subject property as a Historic Resource, and that the LPA find that it is not necessary to preserve it.  Motion was seconded by Jane Plummer.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was carried by unanimous vote.

 

Ms. Segal-George pointed out that the rezoning case would now move forward and asked whether the next item could also be taken out of order.  This was agreed.

 

            2.         FMBHD2004-02, Newton Beach Park Cottage, 4610 Estero Blvd.:

            Ms. Sajgo explained that this Historic Designation request is only for the parcel containing the historic cottage and garage.  The other two buildings would not be affected.

            There was a question about the eventual disposition of the Newtons’ home, which Ms. Segal-George explained.  She described efforts coming out of the Newton Beach Subcommittee to move the structure to Bowditch Point for use as a community theatre.  There is preliminary interest at County level, and grant funding is being researched.  The house will be removed from the property in any event, but it will not be destroyed.  The condition of the cottage was discussed, and whether any rehab efforts had an effect on the historical aspect.  Ms. Sajgo expressed the opinion that the cottage retains enough historic character to be designated.  Water damage also came under discussion.  Ms. Segal-George described a tour of the properties with Staff and the Seniors Group from Bay Oaks last week and possible uses for the other buildings.

            Ms. Mulholland verified that the LPA’s vote would be to forward this to Public Hearing, and it was also pointed out that the Town is the owner and is on record as being in favor of designation.  Mr. Folke observed that one of the Management Plan requirements for funding from Florida Communities Trust is the Historic Designation of this cottage under the Town’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.

 

            MOTION:          Motion was made by Jane Plummer and seconded by Hank Zuba to send this case forward to Public Hearing.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was carried by unanimous vote, 6-0.

 

Ms. Segal-George advised that the date of Public Hearing will be March 16th, 2004 at noon.

 

Chair Smith called attention to the fact that Ms. Hester was present and had also been present for the vote on Agenda Item VI.a, FMBHD2004-01.

 

VII.       LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS:

 

            Jodi Hester apologized for arriving late but said she was stuck in traffic for an hour.  She observed that it gave her the opportunity to notice signage.

 

            Roxie Smith said she has heard a rumor that the LPA will be readdressing the sign issue particularly with respect to sandwich signs.  Ms. Segal-George replied that she is not aware of this.

            Ms. Smith asked if the LPA could suggest an issue to the PSTF for their consideration, and she was told that this is appropriate.  She recommended a safety brochure for bicycling aimed at both residents and tourists as a useful tool,  relating a near accident that she had witnessed this morning.  Ms. Segal-George agreed to take the suggestion to PSTF.  Bicycle and traffic safety was further discussed.

 

            Dan Folke advised that the sandwich sign issue would not be coming back anytime soon, but it expires on May 31, 2005 if not modified or readopted prior to that date, as specified by Council. 

 

            Town Manager Marsha Segal-George provided advance notice that there is a heavy workload for the LPA between now and June. 

 

VIII.      PUBLIC COMMENT:      None.

 

IX.        ADJOURN:                    Meeting was adjourned at 2:55 P.M.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Patricia L. Middlekauff

Transcribing Secretary