FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

MARCH 23, 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 23, 2004 at 12:00 Noon  by Chair Roxie Smith.

 

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

 

            Excused absence from the meeting:   Jodi Hester, Hank Zuba.

 

            Staff present at the meeting:               Town Manager/LPA Attorney Marsha Segal-George, Community Development Director Dan Folke, Planning & Zoning Specialist Chris DeManche, Nettie Richardson, a Senior Planner with the Lee County Zoning Department, 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 Anita Cereceda.

 

III.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES:        None.

 

IV.        PUBLIC HEARINGS:                

 

            1.         COP2003-00155 PRISMATIC CORP., in ref. to Times Square Coffee Shop.  A request for a Special Exception for consumption on premises (2-COP) of alcoholic beverages with outdoor seating in conjunction with a café.  The subject property is located at 1035 Estero Blvd.:

            Ms. Smith read the case and asked Ms. Segal-George to swear those who wished to give testimony. 

            Herb Atkin, the applicant and owner of the Times Square Coffee Shop, came forward.  He explained that he intends to offer espresso, bagels, cappuccino, nice desserts, and beer and wine.  Quick breakfasts will be available in the morning, and light sandwiches for lunch and in the afternoon, plus desserts in the evening.  They would like to be able to serve wine with the desserts.  Beer will not be the main focus.  Ms. Smith explained the application process to the applicant, who was not familiar with the procedure. 

            Ms. Plummer said she had not visited the site and asked for a description of the actual location, which was given.  The applicant replied that it was about 300 square feet in size, probably less with the addition of a bathroom, and that the seating will be almost entirely outside.

            Nettie Richardson, a Senior Planner with the Lee County Zoning Department, came forward to give the Staff Report.  She provided an aerial photograph showing the location of the proposed café.  The Land Development Code includes provisions that are the reason this public hearing is required; namely, the site is within 500 feet of Lynn Hall Park, and outdoor seating with consumption of alcoholic beverages is being proposed.  The application is for approximately 10 tables, with a seating capacity of no more than 42 seats, and the hours of operation would be from 8:00 A.M. until midnight, 7 days a week.  There would be some music and entertainment.  Parking is not required because they are in the Downtown Zoning District.  Ms. Richardson referenced a parking agreement that the owner of the building, Ms. Beverly Primo, had entered into with the Town in September 2001 including 8 on-site parking spaces, the location of which she indicated.  There were specific conditions with respect to employee and patron parking in conjunction with this agreement.  Staff finds that this proposed café would be consistent with Policy 4-B-6, and the special exception request is consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the existing uses in the area.  She further found that the request will not cause any damage, hazard, nuisance or other detriment to persons or property, and will be in compliance with all the general zoning regulations.  Staff is therefore recommending approval of the request, with 8 conditions:  (1) That the Special Exception is limited to the consumption on premises of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the outdoor seating and is limited to a 2-COP license; (2) that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant must obtain a yearly permit agreement with the Town that would allow the placement of the tables and chairs in the Times Square area; (3) indoor seating is not approved as part of this Special Exception; (4) the consumption on premises for the outdoor seating is limited to the area shown on Exhibit B, however, the area is not shown to scale on the exhibit; (5) the outdoor seating is limited to the 10 tables with a maximum seating capacity of no more than 42 seats; (6) legible signs must be clearly posted for the areas that are not approve, stating that alcoholic beverages are prohibited beyond that point; (7) lighting of the outdoor area will be shuttered and shielded from the surrounding properties; the hours of outdoor seating will be only from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 midnight, 7 days a week; and the entertainment is limited to recorded background music between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 12:00 midnight, 7 days a week; and (8) prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the use, the applicant and the property owner must comply with the provisions of the Land Development Code, Sections 14-71 through 14-79 relating to protection of sea turtles.

            Ms. Plummer asked how the number of outdoor seats to be approved was determined.  Ms. Richardson replied that the regulations do not provide a calculation, and Ms. Segal-George replied that this formula was established by the Town for uniformity.  It was pointed out that the applicant’s place of business is recessed, allowing more usable space.  There was a question about empty space adjacent to Local Color, which it was explained by Ms. Segal-George is an easement, and it was determined that the tables could not overflow into this empty space. 

            Ms. Smith had a question regarding what constitutes a “legible sign.”  It was observed that all establishments in the area have such signs on their perimeters.  The signs were described, and Ms. Smith expressed the desire to have more attractive signs.

            Ms. Smith verified that no members of the public had been sworn to give testimony in this case.

            The applicant came forward to add that he lives on the Island with his family and considers it is home.  He feels it is one of the few places left to raise his children in a small town atmosphere, and he is not only attempting to make a living, but to create a way of life.

            Ms. Plummer asked about the designated parking spaces, and Mr. Atkin related his understanding with respect to how they were allocated.  She also asked if the bathroom will be open to the customers, and the applicant replied that it will be.  She also asked how the garbage and refuse will be handled without a back area, and he replied that there is considerable space between the buildings that is fenced off and not in public view with several trash receptacles.  In response to a question, he replied emphatically that he expects to be able to contain odors. 

            Ms. Cereceda asked when the applicant intends to open, and he replied as soon as possible, explaining that the coffee machines were expected at any time.  He hoped to have his CO by the weekend.

            Ms. Mulholland asked whether the applicant agrees with all the conditions recommended by Staff, and he replied in the affirmative, adding that he would like to have 2-seat tables instead of 4-seat tables.  The agreement with the Town for seating was addressed, and it was determined that this could be done quickly without going to Council. 

            Ms. Simpson asked whether there would be an outdoor counter for walk-up service, and the applicant described the proposed indoor counter service.  He explained that as the business grows he would like to add an outdoor counter.

            Ms. Smith addressed the attractive sign issue, and the applicant agreed to attempt to design something pleasing.

            Ms. Cereceda advised that the applicant’s business was the subject of positive comments by neighboring businesses and expressed the opinion that it will be an excellent addition to Times Square and will take the Square into another direction.

 

            MOTION:          Motion was made by Ms. Cereceda to approve the request, seconded by Ms. Simpson.

 

            DISCUSSION:   It was verified that the motion includes a more aesthetically pleasing alcoholic beverage sign, and the conditions in the Staff Report.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was carried by unanimous vote.

 

Ms. Segal-George advised that this will be before Town Council on April 19th at 3:00 P.M.  It was again clarified that the separate agreement with the Town on the outdoor seating does not have to go before Council.

 

            2.         DCI2003-00065 SEAFARERS VILLAGE MALL.  A request to amend the Master Concept Plan (MCP) for the Commercial Planned Development (CPD) for Seafarer’s Village Mall to add signs, to approve additional deviations for signs, and to change the use of an existing restaurant – Tradewinds to a Bar/Cocktail Lounge.  The subject property is located at 1113 Estero Blvd., 401 Madison Court.

            Ms. Smith read the case and verified that 401 Madison Court was a typographical error in the agenda.  Those wishing to testify were sworn by Ms. Segal-George.

            Joerg Wiebe came forward and identified himself as President of Sunshine Foods, Poly Foods and Seafarer’s, all of the companies involved in the case.  He recalled that he had been an applicant before the LPA previously and was returning with more specific requests.  He would like to convert Tradewinds, which is on the 3rd floor of Seafarer’s, to a bar and lounge, referring to the previously approved CPD with lower liquor to food ratios.  He is now requesting 0/100 food/liquor for Tradewinds, leaving Cabasca’s downstairs at 51/49. He explained that his request resulted from difficulties with a 3rd floor restaurant; it is difficult to find, and families do not like to go upstairs with small children.  With respect to smoking, the upstairs location is the one least likely to affect any other establishment and is the primary reason for the requested change.  The second part of his request is signage for the parking lot which he has already discussed with Town and County Staff.  He identified signage which is proposed and that which will be removed upon approval of the request.  He related experiences with respect to a parking lot at the site.  He is requesting signage to direct customers to the parking and to identify the establishments.  He stated that if necessary he will withdraw the sign showing weekly events. 

            Ms. Cereceda referred to Item C under Conditions, referring to limitations on live entertainment.  She then clarified the meaning of “acoustic” with Mr. Folke and Mr. Wiebe and expressed concern with the wording of this condition.  Mr. Folke explained that this referred to a unique situation at Dusseldorf’s, and that all other live bands are indoors on Fort Myers Beach.  It was noted that the language refers to the entire CPD.

            Ms. Simpson asked for clarification about blocking the entrance of the parking lot until after 4:00 P.M., which Mr. Wiebe provided.  He explained that he plans to convert the space under the building to a store in September, which will eliminate that access to the back of the building, and he is conducting a test to see how the businesses are affected.  This is why he is requesting approval of the signage which will direct patrons to the parking.

            Ms. Plummer asked if a temporary sign would be acceptable, and Mr. Wiebe pointed out that many of his customers are tourists who are visiting for the first time and would not know about the businesses without signage.  He explained the traffic situation in that area.

            Ms. Smith related personal experiences with traffic in the Crescent Street area.  Mr. Wiebe explained what is intended with respect to automated entrance and exit to the parking lot.  Ms. Cereceda stressed that the chain must be relocated, and asked when the automation would be installed; Mr. Wiebe replied that the automation will be installed after the approval process and the signs are built, which he estimated would be at the end of Summer.

            Ms. Plummer pointed out that the chain is not visible from the street and is causing a problem.  Mr. Wiebe explained that there had been a yellow banner which had been stolen.  He agreed to replace the banner.  It was agreed that temporary signs would not solve the problem.  Mr. Wiebe also agreed to attempt to obtain a second parking attendant to relieve traffic backups.

            Jerry Murphy of Lee County Zoning came forward to present the Staff Report.  He called attention to 2 plans, one submitted by the applicant electronically, Attachment E, and one referenced in the Staff Report, Exhibit F.  He referenced Condition #5, which converts Tradewinds from a 70/30 establishment to a Bar/Cocktail Lounge and limits the maximum total number of outdoor seating to 1,086 sq. ft. and the hours of operation for the outdoor seating from noon to midnight.  Any additional on-premise consumption in this project will require a public hearing.  He also referred to Condition #6, which specifically speaks to the outdoor seating and notes that if approved, on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages, except in Tradewinds, would be limited to no service during the period 12:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M.  The distinction is that Tradewinds does not get to open until noon because if approved, it will not be a restaurant.  With respect to Condition #8, he explained that this carries forward the change that the buildings be constructed to previously approved architectural standards.  Condition #9 speaks to all of the signs, and Attachment D shows all the signs proposed by the applicant.  Staff’s Exhibit E indicates the signs that Staff is recommending for approval, which would provide for a uniform style and color scheme for the different businesses within Seafarer’s.  Mr. Murphy referred to the Master Concept Plan and the various sign locations.  He stated that Staff is not recommending approval of the weekly sign.  Sign #6 is no longer being requested by the applicant.  Sea turtle issues were also researched.  He also called attention to Condition #15 and the deviations that follow it to reflect what is required under the current Code.  He said there was no problem with allowing a phase change to include Phases 2, 3 and 4.  Landscaping is being suggested in conjunction with the new signs. 

            Ms. Plummer asked whether all 16 pages of signs had been approved.  Mr. Murphy explained the exhibits, calling attention to Attachment B.  He also entered color copies of the Power Point presentation into the record.  The parking and traffic situation was discussed at length.  Construction and design of the signs also came under discussion, plus landscaping.

            Ms. Cereceda asked for clarification about the hours of operation, and Mr. Murphy explained the reasons for limiting Tradewinds if the application is approved.  He pointed out that noise was a factor in Staff’s recommendation.

            Ms. Simpson had a question about the attachments, particularly the weekly activities board.  Mr. Murphy verified that #6 had been withdrawn. 

            Ms. Smith asked for public comment.  Seeing none, the applicant was requested to come forward.  He explained his rationale for the design of the signs.  Mr. Huber reiterated an earlier objection to pole signs.  There was general discussion about the design and dimensions of the signs.

            Mr. Wiebe asked for a change to Condition #9A and referred to Attachment B which identifies existing signs.  He pointed out that he has no jurisdiction over the McDonald’s sign and cannot remove it, so this must be removed from that condition.  He said that the other signs identified for removal will be removed by him within 30 days.  Mr. Murphy agreed to strike the words, “and Helmerich Plaza” from the condition.  Mr. Wiebe also referred to the hours of operation and asked for permission for Tradewinds to remain open until 2:00 A.M., explaining that the 3rd floor location avoids a noise problem.

            Mr. Huber had a concern with the height and elevation of several signs which then came under discussion.

            Ms. Plummer asked Mr. Wiebe if he will be improving the landscaping around Helmerich Plaza in the near future.  He replied that he has made some improvements, pointing out that the Town owns much of the surrounding property.

            Ms. Cereceda asked the reason for the change in phases, and Mr. Wiebe explained that this would provide him more flexibility. 

            Ms. Cereceda observed that the only point of disagreement appeared to be the hours of operation, requiring Tradewinds to close at midnight.  It was pointed out that the applicant had provided adequate reasons for the change, particularly with respect to smoking. 

            Ms. Plummer returned to the issue of temporary signage.  Ms. Smith again observed that she is not sure this is appropriate for the LPA to address.  Mr. Folke interjected that the issue of a temporary sign could be taken up at the time the application goes before Council.  He did not feel that this should be part of the LPA’s recommendation to Council, but could be handled as a recommendation to Staff.  There was consensus that this was preferable.

            Hours of operation came under discussion.  Mr. Murphy advised that there is no outside service at Seafarer’s at all after midnight.  Hours of operation of other establishments in Times Square came under discussion.  Ms. Segal-George said she did not recall approval of any outdoor consumption of alcoholic beverages after midnight.  Comparison with The Lighthouse was made.

 

            MOTION:          Motion was made by Ms. Cereceda to approve the Seafarer’s Village Mall application with a change eliminating the words, “and Helmerich Plaza”;  the sign on Page 5 of 15, 8 of 15, 7A, and the 40 sq. ft. needs to be modified to the appropriate number as completed by Staff and Applicant; Page 8A would be eliminated, and the sign package would be amended to reflect those changes.  Staff will make the changes.  Motion was seconded by Ms. Plummer.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was carried by unanimous vote.

 

Ms. Segal-George advised that this case will go before the new Council April 19th at 3:00 P.M.

 

A short recess was taken at this time.

 

V.         A DISCUSSION OF SOME POSSIBLE ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT OF THE “DISPLAY OF OUTDOOR MERCHANDISE” CODE AMENDMENTS:

            Mr. Folke reported that the ordinance will be before the LPA on April 20th and recalled that last month the proposed changes had been discussed.  He explained that personal services such as barber and beauty shops and hair braiding differ from retail.  While the proposed rules were going to allow hair braiding and henna tattooing outdoors, these services must now be performed indoors because of an influx of these ventures and temporary signage.  Ms. Segal-George added that there had been complaints of tattooing taking place in inappropriate locations.  Hair braiders must also be licensed by the State.  Ms. Plummer asked for a definition of “inside” with respect to a slant lean-to.  Mr. Folke advised that the one existing slant lean-to is considered outdoor.  Ms. Cereceda invited everyone to come down and see what is currently legal and illegal in the area where her business is located.  Several members recalled the position of John Richard to allow no outdoor display of merchandise.   Various types of violations and undesirable practices were also discussed.  Ms. Cereceda observed that many businesses are utilizing outdoor space for which they are not paying rent, to generate income.  She also pointed out that transient vendors are taking business away from permanent business owners who pay property taxes.  She suggested leasing space to outdoor performers and hair wrappers, charging them a $5,000.00 seasonal permit, with the funds used to benefit permanent businesses.  Mr. Folke suggested eliminating signs on outdoor displays altogether. 

            Ms. Plummer expressed a preference for lighting around the trees in Times Square.  It was explained that vandalism is the major problem. 

 

VI.        LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS:

 

            Ms. Cereceda pointed out that she was upset with the position that all land use issues, no matter how big or small, start with the LPA and proceed to Council.  If any significant changes are to come about after leaving the LPA, if Council does not approve and asks for changes, it should be sent back to the LPA.  She cited the recent application by Peter Lisich.  Ms. Segal-George pointed out that there are costs involved to the applicant, and it is Council’s decision whether or not to send something back to the LPA.  Ms. Cereceda observed that this was the reason she wanted to table the Carousel case. 

 

            Ms. Mulholland reported on the Pilot Club Walk for Mental Health on Saturday starting at the Surf Club at 7:00 A.M. to Bowditch Point and back.  Money is being raised for the Alvin Dubin Alzheimer’s Resource Center and the Ruth Cooper Center for Behavioral Health Care.  She invited everyone to walk and/or make a donation.  Several members agreed to participate later in the day.

 

            Mr. Huber announced that he will be away from April 20th to May 20th. 

 

            Ms. Simpson described how the Spring Break youth have been causing problems.

           

VII.       PUBLIC COMMENT:      None.

 

VIII.      ADJOURN:                    Meeting was adjourned at 2:40 P.M.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Patricia L. Middlekauff

Transcribing Secretary