FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

JUNE 15, 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, June 15, 2004 at 12:00 P.M. by Chair Anita Cereceda.

 

         Members present at the meeting:       Anita Cereceda, Jodi Hester, Harold Huber, Bill McCarthy, Jane Plummer*, Robert Simon, Betty Simpson, Jessica Titus.

*Arrived late.

         Excused absence from the meeting:    Hank Zuba.   

 

         Staff present at the meeting:               Town Manager/LPA Attorney Marsha Segal-George, Planning& Zoning Specialist Chris DeManche, Gloria Sajgo of Lee County Planning, Wes Morrison with Lee County, Pam Houck, Zoning Director, Jerry Murphy of Lee County Zoning.

 

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

 

III.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  None.

 

The Chair requested that Item V. be heard at this time, and there was consensus that this be done.

 

IV.      PUBLIC HEARINGS:

         1.       VAR2003-00077, Denise Loomis Garage Variance.  A request for a variance from Table 34-3 of the Town of Fort Myers Beach LDC that requires a 7.5 foot setback from a side property line non-waterfront.  The variance request is for a 10 inch reduction in the side yard setback.  The subject property is located at 185 Jefferson St.

         EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:  Ms. Cereceda read the case title and asked for ex parte communication.  Mr. Huber advised that he had visited the property this date and spoken with the owner; Ms. Simpson advised that she had spoken with the applicant; Ms. Plummer said she has not spoken with him since the last time she disclosed; Ms. Titus spoke with him and took some pictures.

         Ms. Loomis came forward and was sworn.  She explained the history of the accessory structure in question, the slab of which was poured in 1977 prior to their purchase of the home in 1997.  She described the structure, the use she and her husband have made of it, and some alterations that they had made.  After being cited for code violations, they obtained bids from architects and engineers to have plans drawn for the purpose of obtaining permits, as well as a survey of the property.  She said they applied for their permit in November 2003, but shortly thereafter were notified that they did not meet the setbacks and would be required to apply for a variance.  She noted that the zoning in her neighborhood has been changed to Residential Conservation, which provides more flexibility for variance requests than single family zoning.  She expressed disagreement with the County’s suggestions for compliance and referred to documents she had provided, including a copy of the LPA’s recommendation dated December 17th, 2002 which was effective March 3, 2003, as well as a letter from Bill Spikowski providing clarification.  Council subsequently adopted changes without Public Hearings.  She noted that a freestanding building can be closer to the property line than one attached to the main structure, as they have done, expressing the opinion that this does not make sense.  There are similar existing structures in her neighborhood, and are not encroaching beyond the original footprint of the freestanding structure of 1977.  She referred to photos which she had previously presented.  She emphasized that they are attempting to retain the original appearance due to the historic nature of the home.  

         Ms. Hester asked when the roof was attached to the house, and Ms. Loomis replied that it was done in 2000.  In response to a question, Ms. Loomis explained that the original structure was a screened porch with aluminum posts, which they replaced with 2 6X6 columns and 3 4X6 columns to give more structural integrity.  She further explained that the carport has never been an issue and that this structure is intended to become a single car garage.  To enter the garage it will be necessary to drive through the carport.  Ms. Titus said she had taken pictures and asked when the carport was built; Ms. Loomis estimated it was built in 1977.  Distance from carport to the property line was discussed.  Mr. Huber added his observations about the location of the carport to the property line. 

         Wes Morrison with Lee County came forward representing Staff and presented the Staff Report.  He clarified the memo in the packets stating that the requested variance is the result of a building violation; when the violation was issued the roof and electrical work had already been done in July of 2003. Staff now understands that the proposed garage will remain on the existing foundation of the freestanding building but still does not believe that granting the 10 inch variance would be consistent with the LDC.  He recalled discussion at the previous meeting about the existing concrete pad and gave the opinion that the request does not meet the required criteria.

         Ms. Plummer asked whether, if the structure had not been made sturdier, they could have obtained permission to enclose the walls.  Pam Houck, Zoning Director explained that a variance would have been necessary in that event also, and it would have been reviewed under the same conditions.  Ms. Titus asked if they would be in compliance if they removed the section of roof that connects the structure to the main house.  The reply was that a freestanding structure would be in compliance, and several members expressed concern that this does not make sense.  Ms. Houck pointed out that the setback difference pertains to principal structures versus accessory structures.  Ms. Hester verified that prior to the rezoning the side setback was 7.5 feet.  Ms. Segal-George advised of a conversation with Former Mayor Dan Hughes, with whom the applicant had previously spoken.  She recalled that there was a brief period of time in which the setback was 5 feet, before it was changed back to 7.5 feet on the advice of the Town Attorney, who considered it a scrivener’s error.  Mr. McCarthy verified with Ms. Houck that the roof portion attached to the house was done without a permit.

         Ms. Cereceda opened the meeting for Public Hearing at this time.  There being no public comment, Public Hearing was closed.

         Ms. Loomis was asked about a neighbor’s reaction to the work that had been done, and she referred to a letter from that neighbor presented at a previous meeting, as well as 2 other neighbors who are full time residents.  She pointed out that there is another roof just like hers in the neighborhood.  Ms. Plummer verified that the roof had been attached to the house to provide stability for the structure and also for the protection of tools and appliances.  It was also verified that the date of the original structure was 1926. 

        

         MOTION:       Motion was made by Ms. Titus to approve the request for the variance.  Motion was seconded by Mr. Huber.

 

         DISCUSSION: Mr. Huber advised that he had visited and inspected the structure and described what he had observed.  He expressed the opinion that it would be futile to move the wall in 10 inches, which was his reason for supporting the motion.  Ms. Hester pointed out that the LDC and Comp Plan do not provide for emotional decisions.  She expressed the opinion that in revisions, there should be provision to allow de minimus variances. She cited the 5 conditions that must be met to grant a variance and stated that they have not been met.  She expressed disagreement with the law, but pointed out that it must be followed until there can be a correction.  Ms. Plummer said that since the structure was built in 1927 with an existing slab and structure that would have been permitted as an accessory structure, she is supporting the motion because attaching it to the house makes it more sturdy.  She observed that this is an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance and agreed that it is more beneficial to the neighborhood to have the structure enclosed.  She also noted that there were no objections from the neighbors and expressed the opinion that it is an improvement to the neighborhood and to the house.  Ms. Cereceda asked the motioner and seconder to reevaluate their motion, emphasizing that she agrees with Ms. Hester that while there are instances such as this one in which it appears appropriate to make an exception for such a small number of inches, the LDC and Comp Plan must be upheld.  She asked Ms. Titus to give reasons for 1 through 5, which she proceeded to provide.  Number 4 has already been addressed.  The exceptional condition is that it is existing.  These exceptional circumstances are not the result of actions taken by the applicant.  As noted by Mr. Huber, to move the wall 10 inches would remove it from the foundation and its structural supports.  Ms. Segal-George was asked to put these discussions into proper format.  She explained the criteria for pre-existing exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions.  She said she does not have sufficient criteria for #2.  There was discussion about pre-existing definitions.  Ms. Houck suggested that in the event of approval, it be specified that approval is limited to that existing structure.  Motioner and seconder agreed to amend accordingly.

 

         VOTE:          Motion was carried by a vote of 6 to 2; Jodi Hester and Bill McCarthy cast “Nay” votes.

 

Ms. Segal-George advised that this case will go before Council on June 30th at 9:00 A.M.  Ms. Cereceda noted who had cast the 2 “Nay” votes on the motion, adding that those voting in favor were Jessica Titus, Jane Plummer, Betty Simpson, Anita Cereceda, Harold Huber and Bob Simon.

 

         2.       DCI2003-00079, Buccaneer FM Beach, LLC in re:  Suncoast Tide.  A request to rezone 1.1 +/- acres currently zoned Commercial Resort (CR) to Residential Planned Development (RPD) under the pre-disaster buildback policy and transfer density and intensity from several parcels to another; with deviations from the following LDC requirements:

                  (1) From LDC Section 10-285, which requires a minimum connection                         separation of 250 feet to allow connection separations of 96 feet and 80                    feet; and

                  (2) From Section 34-934 and Table 34-3, which limit building height to the                            30 feet and 3 stories, to allow 48 feet and 4 habitable stories over one story                    of parking; and

                  (3) From LDC Section 34-1807 and 34-3237, which allow interior square                      footage to be exchanged under the buildback policy on a square foot for                           square foot basis provided the total interior square footage of the rebuilt                          dwelling units does not exceed the interior square footage of the previous                            dwelling units, to allow 5,765 additional square feet for a total of 26,000                     square feet of interior space.

         The subject properties are located at 4864, 5335, 5350, and 5354 Estero Blvd.

         EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:  Ms. Cereceda read the case and did not ask for disclosure of ex parte communications. 

         Beverly Grady of the law firm Roetzel and Andress came forward representing the applicant, Buccaneer Fort Myers Beach, LLC and was sworn.  She explained that the purpose of the rezoning request is for a 16-unit multifamily in a single building located at 4864 Estero Blvd. to be called Suncoast Tides.  As part of the request, all of the development rights on 5335, 5350 and 5354 Estero Blvd. are requested to be transferred to the Suncoast Tides parcel which currently has the Buccaneer on it.  She described the “sending parcel” with respect to the Code and advised that the 3 parcels, .58 acre, referred to as Azure Tides, together with easement for pedestrian access to the beach, are proposed to be voluntarily offered to the Town to comply with the Comp Plan.  She referred to the current density and intensity of 29 units, 27 guest units and 2 apartments which could be replaced if destroyed by storm, plus the 14 Azure Tides units.  Approval would result in reduction to 16 dwelling units. 

         She introduced Rick McCormick, a Florida licensed architect and an expert in planning and codes who has appeared before the LPA and Council many times previously. Mr. McCormick came forward and identified himself as President of R. J. McCormick Architects, Inc.  Ms. Grady verified that he had prepared the report presented at the LPA hearings and provided to Council today, which Ms. Grady said was an evaluation of the existing properties and the application.  She referenced the Master Concept Plan and a number of exhibits prepared by Mr. McCormick.  Ms. Grady also introduced a representative of Metro Transportation, which prepared the Traffic Impact Statement for the application; (she asked that Council recognize the team members as experts in their respective fields) Mr. Greg Desario, a landscape architect with David Jones & Associates.  She respectfully submitted that the application is consistent with the Town Comp Plan, and that the Staff Report should have stated that Council can find this application consistent.  She cited the 3 issues that must be addressed to Council’s satisfaction:  (1) the transfer policy; (2) the height policy; and (3) the intensity/density issue under the pre-disaster buildback.  She stressed that the applicant dramatically reduced the density to 16 units after conferring with Staff.  She described the existing structures and how the proposed structure is intended to comply with the CCCL and FEMA regulations.  Ms. Grady explained that with respect to the transfer issue, this is consistent with the Town’s policy and its own interpretation of this provision which permits transfer of density and intensity.  With respect to building height, 4 stories over 1 story of parking are being requested, and she again stressed the decrease in density and intensity.  Ms. Grady referred to 5 points in the Staff Report which she addressed.  (1) Transfer must be found to be clearly in the public interest as determined by Town Council:  She described the parcel to be conveyed to the Town with the existing structures demolished and the site graded, and she also referenced dune restoration and landscaping as public benefits; (2) The sending parcel and receiving parcel be in close proximity:  Rick McCormick will testify that the distance between the parcels is 1,790 feet, and  she referenced an earlier case approved by the LPA in which the distance was 1,900 feet; she also referenced LPA Resolutions 99-2 and 99-3 and the corresponding Town Council resolutions 99-7 and 99-8 as previous applicable cases which had been provided to Staff but not included in the Staff Report; (3) The transfer must be based upon allowable density:  Ms. Grady pointed out that the Town has consistently interpreted this as permitting lawful density, whether built or unbuilt units, to be transferred, citing previous cases which were found consistent with the transfer policy and entering LPA Resolution 99-20 and Council Resolution 2000-07 as evidence;  (4) Approval must take place during a rezoning process:  This is the reason for the request, and (5) Binding restrictions must be placed on the property from which development rights are taken:  This property is being given to the Town for perpetual and ultimate control.  Concerning building height, she referred to surrounding properties which are equal or taller to the proposed structure.  She said the LDC specifically states that hotel/motel units can be converted to dwelling units.  It states that if over density, the pre-disaster buildback policy must be used.  Ms. Grady referred to the density/intensity issue in the Staff Report and pointed out that the LDC allows conversion of hotel/motel to dwelling units, referring to the pre-disaster buildback policy.  She referred to 2 cases previously heard by the Town which contained this issue and entered these cases into the record.  Ms. Grady stressed that there is no mention of the use of square footage to determine density or intensity in the Comp Plan.  She also made reference to the total square footage being requested versus what would be allowable under the buildback, emphasizing the overall reduction in number of units.  She pointed out that there is no formula for conversion of guest units to dwelling units.  She entered as Exhibit 3 the Whitecap Case, and LPA Resolution of 2001-19 and Council Resolution 2002-04, and Staff Reported dated 11/13/2001. She described the requested deviations required under the LDC.  She also referenced the Key West Courtyard case, which she pointed out was to her knowledge the only case under the pre-disaster buildback provisions that has been heard by Council under the new LDC, and presented arguments explaining how that case applies to this request.  She entered as Exhibit #4 the LPA Resolution 2003-12 and Council Resolution 2003-20.  Conversion rates were referenced.  She recalled meeting with Staff and reducing the height request from 7 stories, 6 over 1 to 5 stories, 4 over 1 which she said is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.  Density was reduced from 38 to 16 units, after which they met with Staff and anticipated that they would receive an approval for recommendation.  She again reviewed the tests for a deviation and introduced the remaining members of the team.

         Mr. McCormick, President of R. J. McCormick Architects in Fort Myers, presented the elevation exhibits and described the architectural style and components of the proposed building.  He also showed the site areas showing the CCCL and the seaward components that will be demolished.  He also explained the flood criteria, with which the existing buildings do not comply.  He also described the Azure Tides parcel from which the buildings would be demolished and the site intended to be given to the Town.  He also presented the Master Concept Plan and the deviations.  He referred to the parking situation and described the deviations with regard to entry and exit points.  He also described a large view corridor between the existing Seaside and the proposed building, and referred to the heights of adjacent buildings.  Mr. McCormick provided dimensions of the building which would contain 16 units in 4 stories over parking, explaining that the units are of different sizes.  He addressed the issue of density/intensity, giving specific dimensions of the existing and proposed buildings, as well as the number of units contained in the existing buildings.  He also provided statistics on water and sewer usage by the existing units and estimated that the usage in the proposed 16 units would be approximately half.  He expressed the opinion that the radio created would be less than the ratio at Key West Courtyard, which the Council approved.  He said he has personally visited all of the buildings and taken inside measurements, which he provided.  He expressed the opinion that it would be in the public’s interest to allow demolition of the existing buildings at the Buccaneer and Azure Tides sites and replacement with the proposed structure.  He also made reference to the FAR allowable under the Code.  Mr. McCormick also illustrated some examples of what the Town could do with the 3 parcels that constitute the Azure Tides, such as parking, a small park, a future EMS or City Hall, and a crosswalk for pedestrian beach access.

         Ms. Plummer asked for the sizes of the 2 lots, which Mr. McCormick provided as 125 X 90, 125 112.

         Ms. Titus was concerned about the Azure Tides easement, as she has personal knowledge about the property and the property owner’s intent at time of creation of the easement.  Ms. Grady gave some options for the Town to consider concerning the use of this easement.

         Rob Price of Metro Transportation group commented on the traffic implications and presented a traffic analysis which they had performed on May 20th.  He compared the trip generation units of the existing usage with the proposal by use of charts and reported that in his professional opinion a decrease in trip generation of 60 per cent is anticipated.  He also referenced the removal of an access point on Estero Blvd. 

         Ms. Cereceda pointed out that handouts are much more valuable if presented in advance of the meeting, and suggested that they be presented to Council prior to their meeting.

         Greg Desario, a registered landscape architect and Vice President with the firm of David M. Jones, Jr. and Associates in Fort Myers, presented a colored graphic of the landscape plan which had been furnished to Staff.  He quoted from portions of the LDC with respect to dune restoration and other issues, with which he said the application complies in his expert opinion.    Mr. Huber obtained clarification that the CCCL was shown on this drawing.

         Ms. Cereceda asked whether the existing seawall would remain, and it was explained that it connects to seawalls on adjacent properties, and there may be problems with removal, although this was the original intent.

         Ms. Grady concluded the applicant’s presentation, reserving the right to respond to any comments from the public and the Staff Report.

         Mr. McCormick asked for the overall building height from ground to top of spire, and Mr. McCormick explained that this would be approximately 60 to 70 feet.  He does not have exact scale measurements.

         Ms. Cereceda asked about the water draft and asked on what day the estimate was taken.  Mr. McCormick explained that the calculation is for sewage, and the presumption is that the same amount of water is being used, and that the figure given was an annual average including both occupied and unoccupied days.  This was obtained from Ink Engineering and an application for a Lee County Development Order. 

         Jerry Murphy came forward on behalf of Staff and was sworn.  He said that although the Staff Report contained some errors, he wished to enter it into the record as Staff’s testimony in this case.   He began by observing that this is what developers want to build on Fort Myers Beach, and clearly it is not what was perceived in the LDC as what the Town wants to see developed.   With regard to the transfer, Staff does not agree that the properties are in close proximity and he has not been convinced that it is in the Town’s best interest to allow this transfer.  Mr. Murphy called attention to the fact that Chapter 34 was adopted subsequent to some of the earlier case decisions.  He said that Staff’s interpretation of the LDC and the direction from Council and the LPA in the past is that larger projects are not necessarily beneficial and also read from a description of what he called “the quiet center.”  He expressed the professional opinion that the transfer of density is not appropriate in this instance and that 16 units are not appropriate on this half acre parcel.  He disagreed with the testimony concerning adjacent tall buildings, pointing out that there are many tall buildings on the Beach and it is not necessarily prudent to allow more for this reason alone.

         Ms. Titus was asked what they would be allowed to build without transfer of density, and Mr. Murphy replied that on the half acre parcel they would be allowed 6 units per acre under the Comp Plan, or 3 residential dwelling units or up to 6 hotel units depending on conversion factor, and they would also be allowed to build back what is there now if approved through the Planned Development Process, which is 27 guest units and 2 multifamily units.

         Mr. McCarthy observed that he had been a draftsman, and if he did not include all elements in his height computations they would be returned to him.  He asked why they are not included in any of the applications.  Mr. Murphy explained that ornamental components are not measured as part of overall height.  He added that such ornamental objects are encouraged for aesthetic purposes, and the height is measured to the top of the floor that supports the roof.  He pointed out that this would not be habitable space. 

         Ms. Hester brought up the Key West case and asked for a Staff opinion on this case.  Mr. Murphy explained that Key West Courtyard was one of the first buildbacks, originally requesting a deviation for additional square footage for which Staff did not recommend approval, while the LPA did.  At Council hearing it was withdrawn because upon examination it was discovered they did not need a deviation.  The total square footage was discussed, and Mr. Murphy advised it was higher density than what would be allowed under the Comp Plan for a new project.  He estimated that two would have been allowed, 4 were approved, which was a reduction from 15 guest units.  Mr. Murphy pointed out that the project can be approved by the LPA, although Staff is recommending denial.  Mr. Murphy acknowledged that he could have “a little planner’s remorse on Key West.”

         Mr. Simon noted that he had an objection to the entrances and exits because this is a busy area.  He remarked that there would be no way to assure that drivers would use the proper access.  Mr. Murphy replied that Staff did not support that deviation in view of the number of units.

         The meeting was opened for Public Hearing at this time.  There being no public comment, the Public Hearing was closed.

         Mr. McCormick again came forward and addressed the height of other buildings in the “quiet zone.”  He mentioned other structures surrounding the subject property to make the point that the visual environment is multistory buildings, and the proposed project would fit in.  With respect to Mr. Simon’s comment about entry and exit, he pointed out that it would be difficult because of the 45 degree angle to reverse direction and use the incorrect driveway.  He also stressed that they have worked on the Beach for some time and have always attempted to be consistent with surrounding architecture.  In this instance he decided to use parapet roofs, and would reluctantly agree to remove the spires.  

         Ms. Grady observed that the landscape plans and traffic impact statement had been part of the application.  She also emphasized that the Publix is directly across the street, pointing out that creating only one access point would eliminate much of the landscaping.  If the Town prefers, this can be accomplished and this deviation eliminated.  She also referred to the adoption of the Code and LDC, stressing that people must be able to rely on how the Town interprets its own regulations and citing the “close proximity” issue.  She summarized the benefits of the proposed project and emphasized that they Key West conversion factor had been provided them by Staff, which is why they expected this application to be consistently treated.  She presented and read from Exhibit #5 concerning interior square footage from some earlier Council minutes.

         Mr. Murphy again came forward and pointed out that the LPA does not have to grant every deviation that is requested.  He said the LPA would be well advised not to grant deviations that allow projects to get bigger than would be allowed under the regulations as they exist for new development.  He recommends denial of the plan as proposed.

         Mr. Huber expressed his objection to the building height, acknowledging that there would be a reduction in density but observing that there is a height limit that must be observed.

         Mr. Simon expressed several concerns, including the 2 accesses, and also concurred with Mr. Huber that the height is a problem in this particular development.  He was also concerned with the transfer of units from 1/3 of a mile away, and with the Town’s potential use of 3 properties which are across the street from each other, taking the property off the tax rolls.

         Ms. Hester observed that there is an opportunity to build a higher building in the pre-disaster buildback plan if needed to replace the guest units.  She also observed that there is no way of transferring guest units to dwelling units, and she recommended that this be addressed in review and revision of the Comp Plan.  She did not agree with the traffic study but concluded that under existing regulations there is no latitude to approve this project.

         Ms. Simpson expressed concern with taking the properties off the tax roll and what the Town would do with the properties.  She noted that there had been a newspaper article pointing out that guest units are being lost to development, while motels are still needed.  She agreed with Staff concerning height limits in the “quiet area.”  It was her interpretation of the intent of the Comp Plan was to limit tall buildings and to preserve the existing character of the Town. 

         Ms. Cereceda asked Ms. Segal-George for interpretation, recalling that she had voted against Casa Playa and stating that she hates to see a viable project taken off the list when perhaps after review of the Comp Plan there would be more flexibility for projects of this type.  She noted that there are many projects coming forward that use the same rationale which are continually being denied.  She asked whether it would be appropriate to continue this case to a future date after Comp Plan review.  Ms. Segal-George recommended making a motion and taking a vote, and sending the case to Council.  She acknowledged that there were articles and editorials in the news media but cautioned against putting an applicant into a suspended mode pending an event unknown.  She noted that Council has 6 cases to deal with this month, 4 of which are pre-disaster buildbacks.  She recommended creating a climate in which the Council, the community, and property owners could react, rather than putting the issue to the side.  Ms. Titus noted that others had been given the opportunities to come back with a revised plan.  Ms. Segal-George pointed out that the issues of concern will be discussed at the Council hearings, and if this case is not heard by Council on the 28th, it will not be heard until fall.  Ms. Plummer said she agreed that it should be sent forward inasmuch as there would be an option for the applicant to request Council to send the case back to the LPA.  She did agree that this would be a decrease in density and intensity, and that the existing buildings are obsolete.  She also addressed the issue of the Azure Tides property, pointing out the monetary and public value of the parcels. 

 

         MOTION:       Motion was made by Mr. Simon to recommend denial of the applicant’s request, including the Staff Report.  Motion was seconded by Mr. McCarthy.

 

         VOTE:          Motion was carried with “Aye” votes from Jodi Hester, Betty Simpson, Harold Huber, Bob Simon, Bill McCarthy, and Anita Cereceda; Jane Plummer and Jessica Titus voted against the motion.

 

Ms. Segal-George advised that the case will go to Town Council on the 28th of June at 9:00 A.M.  Ms. Cereceda encouraged Ms. Grady and others who make presentations to the LPA and Council to attend the Public Hearings to share insight.

        

V.      DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION ON AWARD OF HISTORIC GRANTS:

         Gloria Sajgo of Lee County Planning came forward and reported that with $40,000.00 allocated by Council for these grants, there were requests totaling $85,750.00.  Ms. Segal-George introduced Ms. Sajgo to the 2 new LPA members and explained her contractual relationship with the Town.  Ms. Sajgo presented the grant applications, explaining that the LPA/Historic Subcommittee had reviewed and voted on these recommendations on May 26, 2004.  There were 5 applications submitted, but Item #4 was withdrawn.  She explained the conditions of these grants, including the requirement for historic designation.

         The first request was from St. Raphael’s Church, which has already been designated a Historic Resource, and their roof has already been done, but the sidewalks, new handicap access and painting are still required at a total estimated cost of approximately $59,000.00.  She is recommending $20,000.00 to redesign the existing front entrance, which is not original and which is deteriorating, and to partially replace the sidewalks.  She explained that redesign of the front entrance, which is not original to the building and is deteriorating, in a manner consistent with the character of the building, and also providing better handicap access, would be a benefit.  She pointed out that the sidewalks are essential to the St. Raphael’s campus and need to be replaced because they are no longer smooth and are not in compliance with handicap requirements. 

         The second request was Fort Myers Beach Cottage at 3127 Estero Blvd.  She said Staff does not feel that this structure fits into the program, explaining that the cottage was built in 1939 and appears original; however, the owner has asked for waiver of the property taxes for 15 years in exchange for donation of the cottage to the Town at the end of the 15 year period, or earlier, with the Town paying for all relocation costs.  She said the applicant indicates payment in full of 2004 property taxes. The TRIM notice indicates total taxes of $2,834.00 per year with only $155.00 to the Town.  Ms. Sajgo said it was not felt that this project fell under the scope of the program. 

         With respect to 1412 Harbor Court, Ms. Sajgo advised that this property would probably qualify for Historic Designation, however, the applicant did not provide any backup documentation to substantiate his request.  His project will cost $70,000.00 and $40,000.00 is being requested, but she advised that there is no basis for approval.  She is recommending that the applicant rework his application for resubmission next year.

         Regarding 251 Pearl Street, which was built in 1948, she said that it would qualify for designation under the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and that the applicant is requesting grant assistance for structural work to prevent water damage.  She explained that water collects under the house, and applicant is requesting to elevate the structure.  Ms. Sajgo described and provided dimensions of the applicant’s proposal, which she said is still within FEMA guidelines.  Project cost estimated by Flint & Doyle is $41,500.00 and the request is for $27,050.00 She advised that Staff is recommending $20,000.00 in grant assistance to elevate the current building to no more than 10 feet above the existing grade, or 12.8 inches above sea level. 

         Staff is recommending a total of $40,000.00 in grants out of a total of $85,000.00 requested, and the total project costs were $170,000.00.  She pointed out that one of the applicants, the owner of 251 Pearl St., was present.

         Mr. Huber asked whether 251 Pearl has yet been designated, and Ms. Sajgo explained that it has not, but the property owner has agreed to have this done.  He is aware he will not receive reimbursement for the work until he obtains the designation.  Mr. Huber verified that the 2 grants totaling $40,000.00 have been budgeted by the Town and earmarked for this specific program.  Mr. McCarthy verified that this was funded by the Town.  Mr. Simon advised that he has visited 251 Pearl St., and that surrounding homes are at ground level.  He expressed concern about the benefit of the Town providing a private homeowner $20,000.00 to elevate his property and stated his opposition to this request. Ms. Sajgo expressed the opinion that 2 feet of fill would not impact adjacent properties, and also explained that the house is worthy of preservation from a historic standpoint.  Ms. Simon reiterated his concerns and maintained his opposition.  Ms. Hester asked what would happen to the additional $20,000.00 in the event the entire $40,000.00 is not spent this year, and Ms. Segal-George advised that it was intended to carry over funds that were not used each year.  Mr. McCarthy asked what historic designation of this property would be based upon, and Ms. Sajgo explained that it had been built in 1948 and is a typical beach cottage.  She added that the wood frame architecture is what makes it significant. 

 

         MOTION:       Motion was made by Ms. Simpson to accept the Staff recommendation of $20,000.00 in grant assistance for the redesign and construction of a new handicap entrance, and replacement of the existing sidewalk, at St. Raphael’s Episcopal Church.  Motion was seconded by Mr. Huber.

 

         VOTE:          Motion was carried by unanimous vote.

 

* Jane Plummer arrived at this time.

 

         Ms. Simpson recommended that the LPA accept the Staff’s recommendation for no funding at 3127 Estero Blvd.  It was established that no motion or action is necessary on items for which no funding is being recommended.

 

         MOTION:       Motion was made by Ms. Simpson to approve the Staff Recommendation of $20,000.00 in grant assistance in order to elevate the current building to no more than 10 feet above grade or 8 inches above sea level for the property at 251 Pearl St.  Motion was seconded by Ms. Titus. 

 

         VOTE:          Motion was passed by a vote of 6 to 2, Bob Simon and Bill McCarthy casting “Nay” votes.

 

Ms. Segal-George advised that this will go before Council at their last meeting on June 30th.

 

VI.      LPA MEMBERS ITEMS AND REPORTS:

 

         Jessica Titus explained the reason for her last vote was because she had been confused about the motion, but also did not want it to go before Council with a unanimous denial. 

 

         Jodi Hester commented that she would like to have had the exhibits to study earlier.

 

VII.     PUBLIC COMMENT:  None.

 

Ms. Segal-George noted that Jerry Murphy would be coming to work for the Town in July.  There was applause at this announcement.  

 

VIII.    ADJOURN:              Meeting was adjourned at 2:43 P.M.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Patricia L. Middlekauff

Transcribing Secretary