FORT MYERS BEACH
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING
MARCH 16,2004
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, March 16, 2004 at 12:10 P.M. by Chair Betty Simpson.
Members present at the meeting: Jodi Hester, Harold Huber, Nancy Mulholland, Jane Plummer*, Betty Simpson, Roxie Smith
Excused absence from the meeting: Anita Cereceda, Jessica Titus, Hank Zuba
Staff present at the meeting: Town Manager/LPA Attorney Marsha Segal-George, Community Development Director Dan Folke, Planning & Zoning Specialist Chris DeManche
II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: All those present assembled and recited the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was given by Roxie Smith.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, FEBRUARY 10, 2004 AND FEBRUARY 17, 2004:
MOTION: Motion was made by Roxie Smith and seconded by Nancy Mulholland to approve the minutes of February 10, 2004.
DISCUSSION: It was asked whether Marsha Segal-George should be listed under Staff Present as LPA Attorney rather than Town Manager, and Ms. Segal-George replied that this does not matter. Ms. Simpson had a correction in the next to last paragraph on Page 4 in which the figure of $200.00 was determined to be per square foot.
VOTE: Motion to approve the minutes as corrected was passed by unanimous vote.
MOTION: Motion was made by Roxie Smith and seconded by Jodi Hester to approve the minutes of February 17, 2004.
DISCUSSION: It was noted that Jane Plummer left the meeting early, but was present for the Historic Designation hearings. These items had been taken out of order and were addressed before she left. The order of the minutes reflects the original agenda. On Page 3, where Mr. Feeney refers to ANSI standards, he was unsure whether the “S” in this acronym stood for the word ”Sound” or “Scientific”.
VOTE: Motion was passed by unanimous vote.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Request to amend the Town of Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the designation from Mixed Residential to Recreation. The subject property is located at 216 Connecticut Street.
Community Development Director Dan Folke reported that there were three proposed amendments on the agenda, and there will be a fourth one next month. The first two concern Town-owned property. He explained the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan concerning revisions to Future Land Use categories. No text in the Plan is required. He provided Staff Reports for each of the three requests and described the vacant parcel of .42 acre at 216 Connecticut St. The Town purchased the property with the intention of retaining it as open space or a neighborhood park, and it has also been used for overflow parking when there have been events at the Mound House. He cited the proposed Recreation category as coming under Policy 4.B.8 which describes recreation as the appropriate category. This would remove density and preclude residential development. Presuming approval by Council, the next step would be rezoning. Mr. Huber asked a question about changing the parcel back to residential at a future date in the event a future administration wished to do so. Mr. Folke explained that another amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be required, but it was verified that there is no time limit, other than the State limitation on small-scale amendments to two per year. Ms. Hester asked why it could not be left as it is. Mr. Folke replied that rezoning would allow creation of a neighborhood park and show the Town’s commitment to reducing density on the Island. She also asked whether this would allow the lot to be paved for parking. Mr. Folke replied that putting it into the Recreational category would not preclude using the property for parking, but that it would probably remain as green space, with parking on the grass. There was discussion about what would be required in order to approve paving.
*Jane Plummer arrived at this point.
Mr. Feeney called attention to Policy 4.C.10 that deals with map amendments. He said that it would now be appropriate to call for a motion, and two findings that were included in the Staff Report.
The Chair asked for public input at this time. Brad Hill came forward and asked for clarification about earlier discussion on the necessity for public hearings. Public Hearing was closed at this time.
MOTION: Motion was made by Roxie Smith and seconded by Harold Huber as per Mr. Folke’s remarks.
VOTE: Motion was approved. Those voting in the affirmative were Harold Huber, Roxie Smith, Betty Simpson, Jodi Hester and Nancy Mulholland. Jane Plummer abstained from voting because she was not present for the entire presentation of Staff Report and discussion.
2. Request to amend the Town of Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Mixed Residential to Recreation. The subject property is located at 4600 Estero Blvd., 4610 Estero Blvd., and 4650 Estero Blvd. (Newton Beach Park).
Mr. Folke described the property which is .8 of an acre and referred to the Staff Report and Exhibit B, which is a map. He said that this is similar to the previous request but differs in that there is a specific development plan for the Newton property. Under agreements with Florida Communities Trust and Lee County, which assisted with funding for the purchase, the Town is required to put the site in a category that will preserve it as a park and removes development rights from the property. He added that all the reasons cited under the above case apply to this one as well, and called attention in his Staff Report to Policies 4.B.13, 10.D.3 and 10.F.3. He also referred to findings on Page 2 of the Staff Report and referenced Section 34-92 of the Land Development Code and Policy 4.C.10. Mr. Folke advised that the next step will be to rezone the property, and in response to a question expressed the opinion that a Planned Development might be appropriate.
The meeting was opened for Public Hearing at this time. There being no public comment, the Public Hearing was closed.
MOTION: Motion was made by Ms. Hester that the LPA recommend the applicant’s request to change the Future Land Use Category from Mixed Residential to Recreation with the findings and conclusions on Pages 2 and 3 of the Staff Report. Motion was seconded by Ms. Plummer.
VOTE: Motion was approved by unanimous vote, Harold Huber, Jane Plummer, Roxie Smith, Betty Simpson, Jodi Hester, and Nancy Mulholland voting aye.
3. Request to amend the Town of Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the designation from Low Density to Boulevard. The subject property is located at 111 Bahia Via Drive.
Mr. Folke explained that the third case is privately initiated by the property owner. Ms. Mulholland and Ms. Hester reported that they have had ex parte communications in the past with regard to this property. Ms. Plummer also reported having spoken with the property owner in the past. Mr. Folke recalled some conversations on the property that had taken place about a year ago in which affected property owners were advised that if they wanted to return to commercial zoning they would be required to request changes to the Future Land Use Map accordingly so that they could seek changes to the zoning. This parcel was previously zoned C-1 but was changed to Low Density Residential a year ago. He has met with the applicant and discussed the Staff Report with him.
The applicant, Brad Hill of 111 Bahia Via Drive came forward and explained that when he purchased the property it was C-1 and later changed, and he sees this as taking away his rights to potentially sell the property to the existing Shell Station in order to combine the two properties in the future, as referenced in the Staff Report. He explained that he is not requesting any increase in density, but asking for a return to commercial zoning in the event he decides to sell the property for commercial use in the future. Mr. Hill referred to pertinent portions of the Staff Report which speak to the appropriateness of combining the subject parcel with another commercial parcel.
Ms. Plummer asked whether he had attended the hearing at which the zoning was changed. He recalled that there was one other applicant at that hearing, and that parcel has not been acted upon. It was verified that Council had suggested following this procedure.
The Staff Report was presented by Dan Folke. He explained that the other property is on Lagoon Street and will come to a hearing next month. There were other properties in the Town with a similar situation. He described the parcel and indicated its location on a map which he provided. He also described the difference in the two categories and the restrictions applicable to the Boulevard land use category. Mr. Folke pointed out that changing the land use alone does not give the right to develop property, but that rezoning would be required and permits applied for as a Planned Development. He cited Policy 4.C.10 which speaks to public interest and gave some examples of how approval of this request would in fact be in the public interest. He expressed the opinion that changing the land use category at this time would be speculative and primarily in the interest of the property owner. Mr. Folke replied to a question by Ms. Mulholland by saying that he does not find any potential harm to the public by approval of the request, but that his test is whether approval is in fact in the public interest. It was asked whether the applicant had expended any money with respect to his application, and Mr. Folke replied that there was no fee involved. Ms. Plummer asked how expensive it would be to present a Planned Development, and Mr. Folke replied that this could cost approximately $3,500.00. She expressed the opinion that the applicant’s rights have been taken away by last year’s rezoning, and she was uncomfortable with requiring him to incur such expense to restore the original zoning. Mr. Folke cited the provisions and intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Any future development will still require a Planned Development. Ms. Smith verified with Mr. Folke his statement in the Staff Report that this parcel could not sustain any development on its own because of the small size. Mr. Hill provided clarification to a question by explaining that it was his understanding that at one time the 7-11 and his property were all one parcel. Ms. Hester expressed the opinion that the applicant’s property rights had been taken away when the property was rezoned after he purchased it. Ms. Plummer said she agreed. Ms. Mulholland stated that she now disagrees with this position because the property now cannot be developed under the Comp Plan without going in for a Planned Development and rezoning.
At this time the meeting was opened for Public Hearing. Seeing no public comment, the Public Hearing was closed. The applicant was asked for further comments.
Mr. Hill disagreed with Mr. Folke’s position that he was trying to make his property more marketable. He said he is trying to regain what he had at the time of purchase. He also described the properties and conditions that surround his residence.
Mr. Folke commented that if the amendment goes through, the next step will be rezoning. He cautioned that approving the amendment does not fully restore property rights, because of the requirement for a Planned Development.
Ms. Simpson said that she agrees with Mr. Folke’s comments with respect to following the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Ms. Plummer pointed out the difference in value between commercial and residential property and expressed the opinion that the applicant has had something taken away from him.
Mr. Huber observed that it will likely be someone other than the applicant who returns with a Planned Development, but agrees that something was taken away and is in favor of giving that back to him.
Ms. Hester recalled Mr. Hill’s appearance before Council when the rezoning was accomplished last year. She expressed preference for approving the request at this time rather than in the future when it might become more difficult.
Ms. Smith remarked that she favors granting the request.
MOTION: Motion was made by Ms. Plummer to recommend the applicant’s request that the Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map be amended to Boulevard on the property at 111 Bahia Via Drive. Motion was seconded by Harold Huber.
VOTE: Motion was passed by a vote of 5 to 1. Those voting in favor were Harold Huber, Jane Plummer, Roxie Smith, Jodi Hester, and Nancy Mulholland. Betty Simpson cast the opposing vote.
Ms. Segal-George advised that applicant that this case would go before Council in May.
4. FMBHD2004-02 Newton Beach Cottage and accessory structure located at 4610 Estero Blvd. A request to designate Newton Beach and accessory structure as an historic resource.
Ms. Simpson read Case FMBHD2004-02. Mr. Folke recalled that the designation report had previously been provided; copies were furnished the members who asked for them. He stated that nothing has changed in the report since it was presented by Gloria Sajgo at an earlier meeting and that the procedure contained in Chapter 22 of the Land Development Code is being followed by conducting this public hearing. A Notice of Action to Designate a Historic Resource and also a resolution were provided in the committee members’ packets. Mr. Folke stated that if the LPA agrees, a motion would be appropriate to adopt the resolution with its findings and that the property is consistent with Chapter 22 of the Land Development Code and the requirements for Historic Designation.
The meeting was opened for Public Hearing at this time. Seeing no public comment, the Public Hearing was closed.
Mr. Huber asked whether the intention was to move this cottage. Ms. Segal-George advised that the subject cottage and the garage will definitely remain on site. Mr. Folke pointed out that after designation, any further additions or modifications to the building can only be done with LPA approval.
V. LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS:
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT:
VIII. ADJOURN:
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia L. Middlekauff
Transcribing Secretary