FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

JANUARY 14, 2003

Town Hall - Council Chambers

2523 Estero Boulevard

FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA

I. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting of the LPA was opened by Chairman Betty Simpson on Tuesday, January 14, 2003, at 12:40 p.m..

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

Excused absence from meeting: None.

Staff present at meeting: Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Dan Folke, Tony Palermo, Jerry Murphy and Pam Houck.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Invocation was given by Chairman Betty Simpson. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

III. REORGANIZATION OF THE LPA AND DISCUSSION OF LPA MEMBER TERMS

MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Harold Huber to continue with the same structure of the LPA with Roxie Smith and Betty Simpson as alternating Chairman of the Local Planning Agency.

Discussion: Betty Simpson and Roxie Smith accepted and expressed their thanks.

Jodi Hester prefers a Chairman and Vice Chairman. She would like to see Roxie Smith remain as Chairman.

Nancy Mulholland questioned the position of Betty Simpson and Roxie Smith. Betty Simpson replied that she has enjoyed being Co-Chairman. Roxie Smith agrees and felt this has worked well over the past year.

Town Manager Segal-George commented that from a clerical position the Co-Chairman positions are acceptable.

VOTE: Motion passes 8 to 1. Jodi Hester dissenting.

Jodi Hester began by going back to the original Council minutes with regard to LPA member terms. The January 27, 1997 Council meeting lead to the appointment of Bill Van Duzer and John Mulholland for a one year term. Both reappointed from 1/97 to 12/99. Roxie and Jane have a December 2003 ending term. Betty, Jodi and Harold have a December 2004 ending term. Jessica, Anita, Hank and Nancy do not have ending terms. She discussed that one person is needed for a January 2004 ending term and three people with either January 2003 or January 2005/2006. Confusion exists due to replacements coming in.

Town Manager Segal-George commented that four appointments were made last year with no terms assigned.

Jodi Hester commented that three terms would have been expiring December of 2002. This has past. She proposed that these can expire December of 2005 with an appointment of 2006.

MOTION: Made by Jodi Hester and seconded by Anita Cereceda to have three December 2003 expiring terms expire on December 2005 with appointments of January 2006. (Motion withdrawn)

Discussion: Town Manager Segal-George proposed that no adjustments be made for this year. The fix will come in January 2004, January 2005 and January 2006. One additional person needs to expire in December of 2003. The other three will move to December of 2005.

It was decided Nancy Mulholland will expire in December 2003. Jessica, Anita and Hank will be moved to December 2005.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DECEMBER 10 AND DECEMBER 17, 2002

MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Jane Plummer to approve the minutes of December 10, 2002 with corrections.

Corrections and changes to minutes:

1. Hank Zuba - Correct spelling of name under Pledge of Allegiance to read Petty Officer First Class Jeff FitzSimons.

2. Hank Zuba - Page 3, paragraph 7- Correct the spelling of “additional.”

3. Jodi Hester - Page 2 (top) - Strike “ the histories which follow.” Replace with “the histories included with the application.”

VOTE: Motion passes unanimously.

MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Jane Plummer to approve the minutes of December 17, 2002 with corrections.

Corrections and changes to minutes:

1. Hank Zuba - Page 6, Strike maybe and replace with may be.

2. Anita Cereceda - Page 6, Strike Bert/Harris and replace with Bert Harris.

VOTE: Motion passes unanimously.

V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1. Case Number VAR2002-00042, Daniel W. Hahn Swimming Pool. A request for a variance in the RM-2 zoning district to allow a proposed swimming pool and deck in front of an existing residence to be located 10 feet from the street right-of-way where accessory structures must meet the minimum required 25 foot street setback per LDC Sections 34-715, 34-1174(b) and 34-2191. The subject property is located at Gulf Beach Road.

Daniel W. Hahn came forward. He began by indicating no change in the setback is being requested. An error in the document exists. The owners are willing to recognize and conform to all the existing setbacks in effect. He indicated that they wish to put the pool at the front of their residence due to lack of space in the backyard area. The owners do feel that this conforms with the neighborhood. Surrounding motels have pools located in these areas. The pool is largely desired by himself and his wife for therapeutic reasons. Sufficient room in the front of the property will accommodate parking. The owners plan to adhere to all safety regulations, which includes fencing. No objections to corrections will be denied, as long as they are reasonable requests. Esthetically this will enhance the appearance of the property. Additional landscaping will be provided. The owners will work in harmony with anyone.

Harold Huber questioned why the owner is present if a variance is not being requested? Dan Folke replied by asking to have a pool in your front yard between the principal structure and right-of-way requires a variance without it being part of the development order.

Pam Houck added the only exception would be abutting water on the rear property line.

Nancy Mulholland drove to the property. She asked for further clarification regarding the parking. Daniel Hahn replied that they are only required to provide six parking spaces. The gulf side of the lot has space approximately 80x45, which is sufficient to park six cars. Parallel to Gulf Beach the setbacks are 25 feet, but it can be used for parking. This area is 55 feet long with space for six cars to park.

Daniel Hahn added he purchased the property 2 ½ years ago. The property was in poor condition and they have made many improvements both mechanically and esthetically.

Jane Plummer questioned Mr. Hahn if he lives on the property? Mr. Hahn replied that he does.

Tony Palermo, Senior Planner for Lee County, came forward. The issue here is whether a swimming pool in the front yard of this property would be enhancement or detraction from the neighborhood. Also, whether parking and buffers from surrounding properties are appropriate. The applicant will not be asking for any relief from the setback requirements in the front. The property is surrounding to the north by the Gulf Echo Motel, to the east is the Estero Beach Club Condominium, to the south is a triplex residence and to the west is the only commercial property, which is the Estero Beach Condominium. The remainder of the surrounding land uses are residential multifamily. Staff has recommended approval of this variance. The conditions for approval contain the following: 1. All portions of the pool, pool cage and deck must be setback a minimum of 25-feet from Gulf Beach Road. The applicant has indicated a pool cage is not part of this request and can be part of the conditions. 2. The variance is limited to a swimming pool, pool cage and deck with the structures being setback a minimum of 7 ½ feet from the property line to the north and 27 feet from the property line to the south. This is a multifamily project and the side setback must be a minimum of 10 feet. The owner has not asked for relief from any of the setbacks, so he would like the condition of 10 feet rather than 7 ½ . The 27 feet to the south is to accommodate the parking. 3. Vegetative buffer for the front of the property to buffer from Gulf Beach Road.

The criteria for a variance are as follows. Staff believes the applicant has met the criteria as conditioned. There are exceptional extraordinary conditions or circumstances inherit to the property. This is an irregular shaped lot without space available in the back. The applicant did purchase the property in 2000 and did not construct the residence in its current condition.

Hank Zuba commented on the fence or screening for the pool. Tony replied that the Land Development Code does allow for the building of a screen around the pool, but it does not mandate this approach. The applicant has indicated he is not interested.

Hank replied that he felt the County did require, for security purposes, a screen or fence. Tony replied that Hank is referring to a minimum 4 foot locking fence surrounding the property. When the applicant comes in for a Development Order he will need to comply with these rules.

Hank Zuba asked for Tony’s opinion with regard to the current parking and proposed parking in terms of safety and design? Tony replied the applicant still will have room for the six required spaces. Two additional spaces could be utilized. This will not change the current way the property is exited.

Hank Zuba questioned if this will have any impact on the way the street will drain? Tony replied these issues will need to be addressed during the Development Order process and permitting.

Beverly Grady with Roetzel and Andress came forward representing Cheryl Martin and Bobby Myers, owners of the Gulf Echo Motel. This motel is adjacent to the property requesting the variance. Sue James is the Manager of the motel, who will also be speaking and sharing several photos with the LPA. She hopes that the LPA has had the opportunity to do a site inspection and view the property. The notice of the hearing arrived Thursday of last week and the request has caused a concern of the owner of the Gulf Echo. The owner does object to having a pool in the front yard and object to the location due to this being so close to the sleeping rooms. The subject property is 8,627 square feet and the staff report reflects three units on the property. The three units are far in excess of what can be built today. The criteria has been reviewed and the obligation is on the applicant to establish the criteria can be met. The owners of the Gulf Echo do believe this has been done. These rights once granted will travel with the property. She indicated this is not an irregular lot and it is not unique. There is no entitlement to accessory uses and the entitlement should not be considered. The pool is detrimental to other properties when the sleeping room are immediately adjacent. She referred to the site plan from the file and indicated staff did not like this approach and suggested a change with the parking. It is not clear how the parking will be arranged. A pool could be designed and relief could be granted for the backyard. It is incumbent upon the property owner to use the space they have and use the backyard, which is the appropriate location for pools. This will cause adverse impacts on the neighboring property, in particular the Gulf Echo Motel.

Sue James, Manager of the Gulf Echo Motel, came forward and described her photographs. Their concerns are with noise and parking. The motel sleeping rooms are 5 ½ feet from the property line. This is a small family run business with 14 units. This has been considered the senior motel. People come to this location, because they retire to their rooms at 8:00 p.m.. to sleep. Their pool rules indicate no swimming after sunset. Certain rooms are considered “quiet rooms”, which are those that abut to the property where the proposed pool is being considered.

Joellyn Reckwerdt came forward. She and her husband are the property owners directly to the south of this property. She pointed out errors in the staff report. The owners do live in the downstairs apartment. She felt the changes in the staff report should have been made prior to this morning. She indicated there is a utility easement on this property serving both the subject property and her property. She does want to be sure this will not be an issue should construction take place. The Gulf Echo Motel pool faces Gulf Beach Road and not Gulf Lane. Consideration should be taken to the location of the pool heaters and pumps. Linda and Dan Hahn did a wonderful job cleaning up the property, but they may not always be the owners.

Elsie Volpe came forward. She and husband are owners at the Estero Beach Club. The change with the Hahn’s is wonderful. She is comfortable that Mr. and Mrs. Hahn would comply to all requests. Concerns lie with who may have this property in the future. They do not want to see the property go back to the condition prior to the purchase by the Hahn’s. She hopes everyone can work this out and continue to have a favorable relationship.

Daniel Hahn addressed the parking issue. Parking will be provided across the front and up the side. The same parking setup is at the Gulf Echo. He suggested parallel parking, which would provide space for six spaces.

Tony Palermo made clear the Local Planning Agency is not approving a site plan. This is the approval of a variance to allow a swimming pool in the front yard instead of the backyard. The applicant will have to come in for a Development Order to get a swimming pool to be placed in a different area, because requirements with the side and front setbacks will need to be met along with the parking issue. Neighboring property owners have commented on pool hours and it would be the best judgement of the LPA to make limitations with use of the pool.

Jodi Hester questioned if a reasonably sized pool could be placed in the backyard? Tony replied not without addressing the setback issues. He would rather have a pool that does not have to violate the setbacks.

Hank Zuba questioned the issue raised with regard to the notice being sent out late? Dan Folke replied that the notices sent out for zoning cases are courtesy notices and are not required by the Land Development Code. Legally the case cannot be continued because of a failure to notice. The zoning signs need to be posted 14 days prior. Advertising of the public hearing must and did take place. The owner of the motel has an address out of state and this is the delay. He does believe the notices were sent in a timely manner.

Hank Zuba asked for clarification on the points made by Joellyn Reckwerdt. Tony replied many of the issues raised were judgement calls. He feels a swimming pool is not a bad use for a property. Neighbors should expect pools to be constructed. He feels this is a unique piece of property and a unique area. He would not recommend this in an area of more single family residences.

Harold Huber feels the neighbors are trying to force their opinions on the property a little too strongly.

MOTION: Made by Harold Huber and seconded by Jane Plummer to approve the request as per the staff report with the three stated conditions. Condition four to be added to include that the owners will mark the six parking spaces. (Motion Amended) Condition five will include the operation of the pool will cease at 10:00 p.m.. (Harold Huber withdrew Condition Five due to lack of a second)

Discussion: Anita Cereceda added that a variance is a request that has strict requirements in order to be granted. It is not meant to be an accommodation of someone’s desire. The finding and conclusions in the staff state that there are exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances inherit to the property. She indicated that this is not true. The applicant simply would like to build a pool in their front yard. She finds nothing exceptional or extraordinary about this. The owner purchased the property knowing the configuration of the property. Surrounding property owners are objecting. She will not support the motion.

Jodi Hester does not agree completely with Anita’s comments. She does not believe she can support the motion for many of her comments.

Nancy Mulholland concurs with the two previous remarks. She feels the neighborhood objections may be elevated with some additional work on the pool location.

Jane Plummer feels this is very compatible to others in the neighborhood.

Chairman Simpson has concerns with the hours. She feels sunset is restrictive.

Jodi Hester commented on the pool hours. This is next door to a hotel or condominium and should be considered. If the variance is granted because surrounding properties are commercial it seems reasonable that a sunset limit can be in place for the pool hours.

Jane Plummer is against restricting pool hours.

VOTE: Role Call Vote - Roxie Smith, abstain - Harold Huber, yes - Jessica Titus, yes - Nancy Mulholland, no - Anita Cereceda, no - Jane Plummer, yes - Jodi Hester, no - Hank Zuba, no and Chairman Betty Simpson, no. Motion fails.

Town Manager Segal-George indicated the applicant can go before the Council on February 10, 2003 or withdraw, rework and come back.

2. Case Number DCI2002-00044, Diamondhead Island Beach Resort, L.C. in ref. to Diamondhead Island Parking. A request to amend a CPD to add employee parking for Diamondhead Beach Resort as a permanent use. The subject property is located at 1999 Estero Blvd.

Jerry Murphy came forward and indicated the applicant has requested a continuance on this case. The applicant is trying to work this project out in conjunction with the new Land Development Code regulations, which are proposed for adoption. Staff has no objection to this continuance.

MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Jodi Hester to continue Case Number DCI2002-00044, Diamondhead Island Beach Resort, to a date certain of March 11, 2003.

VOTE: Motion passes unanimously.

VI. LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS

Roxie Smith and Betty Simpson - Thanked everyone for the vote of confidence.

Town Manager Segal-George - Discussed next weeks agenda.

VII. PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

VIII. ADJOURN

The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m..

Respectfully Submitted,

Shannon Miller

Transcribing Secretary