Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

Jim Bowen. Ed's going over.

Don Suttoth is on Zoom and we should have a motion to approve.

So moved. Second.

Okay, and so do I need to say who the motions were from? It would be very helpful for the transcriptionist. First motion by Jim Dunlap and seconded by Ed Schoonover. And we need to, is Nancy on Zoom?

She is, you need to take a vote on your motion and your second.

Okay, and we need to also vote to have Nancy in also.

I so move.

Second.

Moved by Doug Ekman and seconded by Jim Bowen. All those in favor? Aye.

Is that because he's got us muted?

Possibly.

Now you're on.

No, we can hear you.

We can hear you now. Welcome to the meeting. Good morning, everybody. Also, Anita had an excused absence, so I'll get that on her. Okay, if we'll stand for the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. God, you are the builder of all things. Please guide us towards the best way to take action to accomplish our goals today. Help us to tackle all topics we need to discuss, come up with excellent solutions that are all in the best interest of our town. Amen.

Amen.

Okay. Approval of the final agenda?

So moved. I'll second.

Motion by Jim Bowen and seconded by Doug Eckman. And approval of the minutes with any corrections or?

Can you take a vote on the final agenda, please?

Oh, a vote? Sorry.

You got a motion and a second.

Oh, sorry. Motion. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Approval of the minutes.

So moved. Second.

Wow, we got lots of seconds. Motion by Jim Dunlap and seconded by Doug Ekman. Let's see. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Unanimously. Okay, so we will open up our meeting. We have public comment first. And those of you who want to comment on the cases, we would appreciate it if you would wait for the case so that it goes on record with those cases. If you have anything else you want to talk about, public comment is open. Anybody want to speak?

no seeing no public interest we'll close public comment and move to our hearings okay first i can make a few comments and get a start okay great thank you so on your subject today um you have three items you have a variance a special exception and a rezoning changing the zoning from residential to residential PD. With that said, these items, all three of them, are quasi-traditional in nature, and this requires that your public hearing today comply with some procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in our development code.

So your proceedings today will be

a little bit more formal than the remainder of the meeting. And you must follow some basic standards of due process that requires that certain notices have been given. You must apply the correct standards. And your decisions need to be made on confidence in the kinds of evidence that is provided to you either in written documents or through oral testimony. Your responsibility today is to evaluate this testimony and the information for each of these three quasi-judicial items, and then draw a conclusion regarding what the criteria in your land development code or in state law . So speculation or opinion that's not based on confident facts legally cannot be considered by you when evaluating one of these agenda items. Testimony by professionals who are qualified as experts in a particular area has been considered competent evidence by court as well as testimony by neighbors and residents. Fact-based information, such as minutes, surveys, and reports, or if the testimony personal information and knowledge. So anyone in the audience who is attending, please keep my comments in mind. And when you come forward, please state your name clearly for the record, whether or not you have been sworn in. I also want to remind everyone that the unanimous decision by eligible voting members of the LPA to approve the variance shall constitute final agency action subject to a request by anyone for an additional hearing or review of the matter by the Town Council if that request is received within 10 days by the Town Clerk. Also, for this book 5-15, expand the LPA's authority to approve life-for-life special exceptions to replace a lawful or permitted structure in the DC zoning district that may have been. So before we start on the public hearings, we'd like to go ahead and get a couple items. First of all, I need to ask. Yes, they have been great. Does any LPA member have a conflict of interest on any of these three items that may prohibit you from voting on them? If you could just disclose it at this time so that we can make sure that we have enough people present to review the item.

Anybody have a conflict? No. No conflict.

Um, and that would include anyone for public comment too, during the hearing.

If you think you might just please stand and get sworn in. It doesn't hurt.

Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Okay. And I think we have... Molly, I believe, is present today, who has already been qualified as an expert by you on his knowledge and experience in land use planning and development in the town of Fort Myers Beach. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to have their testimony viewed as an expert in a particular area?

For the record, Jason Green is here also.

We have two people in the audience requesting. Both have been already approved by the LPA, correct? Have you been? Okay, one may not. We might have to call one.

So if you'll step up to the microphone and tell us about your qualifications and background and state your name, please. Good morning.

My name is Greg Desario. I'm a registered landscape architect with David Jones Junior and Associates. I've been practicing recently retired, but finishing up projects, been practicing here in Southwest Florida, Lee County for 40 years. I have given testimony, but it's been several years since I've been here.

I'm sorry, I could not hear you. You were registered?

I am a registered landscape architect in the state of Florida, yes.

So moved. Second. Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Motion by Jim, seconded by Ed. All those in favor?

Aye.

And Jim Ink was the other person that's in the room that's already been pre-qualified by the LPA.

I advise care at this point if you would just read the title of your first variant And let's see if there's been any ex parte communications regarding that.

Sure. Variance 202-60094, 720 Estero Boulevard. A resolution of the town of Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving, approving with conditions, denying variance 202-60094, requesting four variances from the land development code table 34-3 for the property located at 720 Estero Boulevard generally identified by strap number 244623W300400.007D to one reduce the required 25 foot setback by six and a half feet to allow an 18.4 foot front setback, street setback. Two, to reduce the required 7.5 foot side setback along the west property line by one foot to allow a 6.5 foot setback, side setback. Three, to reduce the required 20-foot rear setback by 12.5 feet to allow a 7.5-foot rear setback. For the construction of the proposed single-family residence within the residential multifamily zoning district determined that no variance from the maximum permitted building coverage is required because the submitted site plan demonstrates that the proposed development complies with the 40% maximum providing for conflicts of errors, scripters errors, and servability and providing for an effective date. So does anybody have any ex parte to comment? Um, yeah, Jim done here.

No, ma'am.

No expert. No expert.

No expert. Oh, thank you, Don. Uh, okay. So then let's see. So who is going to be presenting for the town?

Hey, Jason will.

I will, Jason Green.

I said A. Jason will present, but yes, I will. Jason Green. Okay.

Would you like me to? Okay. Do you want to start?

Sure. Thank you for reading all that. Yes, as you mentioned, the request for four variances to the site to accommodate building back a residence. I won't go over all the specifics. You already covered the changes in that. I think most importantly, probably on your page 36, I think, of your packet of 98 is a site plan that can show the comparison between the footprints of the previous and the proposed building. essentially through the analysis that essentially is the choice of the property owner to choose to build a larger footprint rather than to comply with the setbacks. That's why in your analysis it covers the four variances, I recommend denial of those. But staff did include some conditions, suggested conditions in case you foresee that there should be approvals of any of those and we can discuss those conditions. I will have a caveat that says some of those conditions may change depending on which variances if you decide to approve any of them or recommend approving any of them. It's a little bit of a moving target here because there's four. So we may have to tweak a couple of those conditions to adjust to whatever your overall decision is. Now that that's clear as mud, I'll leave it up to the applicant if he wants to go through his Do you have any questions about the four variances or the proposal?

So, I walked the property yesterday and kind of walked off the existing properties that were there to their side setbacks, to their front setbacks, to their rear setbacks. And I'm not finding the request far off from what is existing.

I didn't look at the setbacks of the adjacent properties. They're all individual.

I understand that, but I feel like, I mean, if you look at the picture underneath, okay, on page 28.

Right. So the challenge is that, and we've talked about this before, the challenge that staff has is the criteria for the variances are written, is it the minimum allowed necessary to have something that's buildable, right, essentially. That's one of the criteria, and there's multiple criteria that we cover. Those are what we're stuck with and analyzing. You guys can find different opinions on those if you would like, but things like de minimis makes it challenging for any kind of variance. So that's the starting point when we have to do our analysis.

I have a question for staff.

Jason, I'm looking at page 30 of the packet, and it concerns the variance request for this residence. And it shows several properties around this residence, which I would consider a neighborhood. All the side setbacks and front setbacks seem to be pretty similar in this entire community or neighborhood, however you would describe that.

Yeah, so any of them would have to go through, and I believe Jason, there is probably a variance for at least one of the lots.

There is. It's very, a lot of information here. But isn't it typical for the new comp plan that what we're trying to do with these neighborhoods is build same or similar buildings in different areas of the community?

Not as much as related to setbacks. Unfortunately, yeah, it was a process to ask for those. There has not been a change to these types of, there's not been a reduction or additional setbacks. There are certain administrative things that we've been given tools through the land development code. This doesn't meet those, obviously, and it needs this additional step. For those variances, but no there's not been like a blanket For this type of situation if that's what you mean this all there has been through administrative tools But this goes beyond that which is why they're here.

All right. Thank you.

So follow up on that Jason so Ted's question Would any of these properties that we're looking at in 30 all have to go through the same process? they were trying to rebuild what they currently have with all these variances and

Well, if you look at the analysis, it's doubling the size of the square footage.

I got the difference between that house and that house, just compared to the neighborhoods, back to Jane's point. All of them would have a similar challenge, according to the current LDC, if they weren't what they are.

No, there's a footprint that's buildable. It's a decision of how big that footprint is in relation to that.

But if they wanted to build what's sitting there today... in those existing houses. You can look at the 30 again. They're all sitting with the setbacks that seem consistent with the neighborhood and frankly consistent with the request from the applicant. You don't have to answer because it's theoretical. My point is the observations by both Jane and Ed are it's continuous with the neighborhood. It actually fills out the same symmetry as the rest of the neighborhood has. I understand your point. Okay, good. Thanks.

Okay, any other questions for Jason? Okay, Jim Inc. is going to speak on behalf of himself.

Why is staff and why is board the, especially the board to pick out what, what we're looking at?

So compliments of your angle today, I guess. Yeah, there you go.

As, as I usually do while hopefully they're loading up my PowerPoint presentation, may I pass out copies of it in case something goes wrong?

Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you.

all right for the record james inc i think engineering i've been before you numerous times before discussing what we're discussing and the board has been been very astute if you went out and i know some of you went out and looked at the the property beforehand and did your walk through the 700 block is a very robust block that's being built there's Numerous houses under construction and of those houses that are under construction almost all of them have Variances that have been granted by the board and they are very similar to what we're asking for here so I Don't have that yet. We'll just start What we're here to hear is variance 2026-0094, which there are four variances that we're requesting that were read into the record. And I have to note that we had originally requested variance four, which was for lot coverage. And that was because the times we were here before, we had to not include the access easement in the lot. But staff has now since reversed themselves. We counted it before. We didn't count it on some. Now we're counting it again. So by counting the access easement, we're under the 40%. OK. So it's just a difference in staff of opinions that they've made over time. So what we're asking for is three variances, which is to reduce the front setback 6.6 feet from 25 feet to 18.4 feet. to reduce the rear setback 12.5 feet from 20 feet to 7.5 feet, and to reduce the side setbacks one foot from 7.5 to 6.5, which I'll explain in a little bit. Presentation outline. Oh, good. We got it. What we have is the owner is Milton and Shaw McKelvey. I am here for design and engineering. This home is going to be built by Daniel Wayne Homes, Dan Dodrell, who has built 722, 724, 726, and now building 720, plus a lot of other things on the island. What this request will do, will allow a new home to be reconstructed on 720 of similar footprint to what was there before. As we all know, this was lots that were cut up, not platted, done by means and bounds many, many years ago back in the 50s. Remember it well. I grew up in a firm that did that back in the day and built houses on them and Hurricane Ian took them out. And now we're stuck with these oddball lots and creation of the town and land development code that doesn't really provide a lot of ways to rebuild things. Jason is absolutely correct. If you go by the standard of the code, we have a 596 square foot footprint that would be basically 25 by 25. Yeah. And 30 feet tall. I don't think exactly what the town is looking for. So what we're going to do is we're asking for these variances to be there. And also, as the board pointed out, the home will look very similar to what's already approved. I walk through the request statement of the three setbacks, and we don't have the lot coverage. So I'm going to walk through, as I always do, the five steps. We're going to introduce a product. We're going to do the design assumptions, the variance analysis, our finding conclusions, and then questions afterwards as we go through this. So this is, I believe, the example that Jason was putting out that I put together that says, here's our community. To the south, and we'll call Lestero north even though we know it's not north, to the south is a condominium, high rise or high rise, mid rise, whatever you want to call it, condominium. So I did not show that. And we have these seven lots, and of the seven lots, four have variances. And the four variances is our subject property at 720, which is yellow, and then heading towards the Gulf is 722, which is under construction and almost complete. 724 is the next one towards the Gulf, which is under construction and almost complete. And then 726, which is well under construction on the beach. And then next to it on the big gulfside lot is the one that we were talking about earlier, which is the concrete one with the concrete roof and all of that part. And then back on Astero Boulevard, it's got one under construction that is substantially complete. All of them are similar in size and uniqueness to what we're requesting. Picture pre-end shows all the little houses that were there and a survey. And to note what was there before, because I think historical context and personal property rights and things like that is important, even though it was non-conforming, is LDC says a street setback is 25. Historically, it was 18.4. Rear setback was 20 feet. It was 3.4. The side setback, 7.5 and it was 4.7. And I'd like to note the 7.5, that's in the code that we did and was changed that if a lot is 50 to 75 feet wide, it's 7.5. If it's below 50, it's 6.5. Well, the lot's 50.08 feet. So it's like two inches too wide. which requires the extra foot. And we're kind of saying, well, we'd like to be over on the other side and be at 6 and 1 half feet than the 7 and 1 half feet for just that there. But rules are rules. The buildable area, as was stated before in yellow on the left, that's the 596 feet that you can build on the lot under the Land Development Code, which is very antiquated and hopefully someday we get to update it and have it make sense. And then it also shows the historical house on the angle the way it sat on the property. Should be noted too that the historical house footprint was 1,313 square feet. Postean survey, it's 66 feet deep, it's 50.08 feet wide. Like I said before, it's 3,300 square feet. Current conditions, where the dumpster sits is the lot that sits there. The blue house is the one on Astero, which is 714. The other house, the gray house that's behind it is 722. And the red pavers is part of the access easement that is half on the condominium site to the south. As you can see on the right-hand side, how all the setbacks are very similar. The only difference is one of the houses set back a little more. That was when staff says you have to have some sort of setback from the easement, which they've started from one way, went to another way, came back to another way. So the design that we came up with is this footprint that's there. It's side entry. It does not have car entrance on Astero Boulevard. There's no driveway, which is always a good thing on Astero. The front setback is 18.4, which is pretty much exactly what it is. We rounded off the request to just what you see here at 18.0, but it's 18.4. The side setbacks are 6.5, which, like I said, if we were a couple inches narrower, it would be 6.5. So we think that's a reasonable request. The rear setback goes to 7.5 from 20, which is similar to everything else in the neighborhood. And the footprint actually drops to 1,279. So it's a little bit smaller footprint-wise than what was there from Hurricane Ian. Now, in all fairness, it's got another floor on top of it to meet marketability and that type. So you can see that The left picture that you have there, that's what's on a stair row with a little balcony and some different roof lines. It's right on a stair row. It'll be a real attractive kind of look to it. It shows the bottom breakaway walls, because we are in a VE zone. But it does have breakaway walls similar to the The blue houses that run on the other side of the street on the Bayside, there's half a dozen blue houses, so it'll look similar to that. And then on the right-hand side, it shows the Gulf side, though there's a house in front of it, but there's easements, so they do have partial views to the water. The two sides, the left is what side faces the condominium with the garage off the easement, and then the right side faces to the north. So again, what we're asking for is that six and a half feet on the front, the 12 and a half feet on the rear, the one foot on the sides, and then variance fours is not even being requested. Now our analysis to why is the variance one front setback is the home is not 75 by 100 and 7,500 square foot as required by code. It's less than half of that. So we feel that a variance is required. Reconstruction, we did not cause it because Hurricane Ian took the house out. The proposed setback on the front is what was there before Hurricane Ian. And 714, which was the blue house next to it on Astero Boulevard, they were granted a variance for 12 and a half feet. So we are essentially six feet farther back than that variance that was there. And the 18.4 does not increase the historical non-compliant part of it. Rear setback is similar, lot size, Hurricane Ian, you know, the part of it's very similar to what was there in a non-compliance kind of situation. It's as Commissioner Dunlap said earlier, this is a community. The 700 block is a community. People have gone before us, have got granted these variances. Legally, Jason's correct that every variance has to stand alone on itself. But I think we make an argument that it just makes sense. And I'm all about the common sense. It just makes sense to do this. We're not asking for anything crazy. We're staying within the heights limitation. It's one house. We're not asking for multi-houses. The side setback, the biggest thing, as I've mentioned a couple times, is two inches less width in the house, we would have gotten the six and a half feet. So we think that's equal. There are some of the houses behind us that are at five. So we've kind of tried to keep it as best we could to the code and still make a nice marketable type home that everybody will like driving up and down the street and looking at. Lot four, nothing to say there because we're not doing it. So here's the criteria, the findings and conclusions. There are exceptional, extraordinary conditions, and that's why we're asking for this. The conditions, justified variance, are not the result of the applicant. Hurricane Ian, everybody blames it on Hurricane Ian. The variance granted is the minimum variance. We've really tried to make the home what the home needs to be and keep the setbacks as much as you can keep them. D, the granting of the variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood because it's pretty much similar to what everybody else is doing. And the conditions are unique to the site. Everybody's asking for a little bit more. Five feet here, six and a half feet there, 18 feet there. So it's not where we need to rewrite the code. I think we just on the north end of the island, we just kind of really kind of got to get through this. I don't know the exact number of lots around the north end of the island on the gulf side, but there's only 12 gulf front single family houses. I was amazed. I was doing some research, and I went, well, wait a minute. And I counted them. There's 12. In amongst all the condos, there's 12 on the north side on the Gulf. So that means we've got less than 50 houses altogether on the Gulf side on the north end of the island. I mean, it's amazing that I just stumbled across that. Being an owner of one of them, I was like, okay, that's a good thing to only be one of 12. So we're back to what this request would do. It would allow us to build a house with some variance granted. And the request is real similar to the five of the six surrounding neighbors of ours that have that expectation. So we're not doing anything that a neighbor would think we're not doing something that they haven't already done. So with that, I always put this in front of you, and you always giggle. Suggested motion. And I won't read it. I just have it in there for you to look at. But the three variances that we're asking for, number four is not there. And then number five is subject to the conditions that are basically written right out of the staff report on on there if you're going to approve it here's the conditions we're going to look for we have no issues with that and with that i'm open to questions if you would like questions anyone don

Are you still out there? Okay. Anybody? No questions at this time. Staff, did you have anything else you'd want to present? Okay. We'll open it up to public comment. Anybody want to make a comment on this case? No comment. So we'll close public comment, bring it back to discussion.

I look at this as basically a build back for pre-Eon. With that in mind, I would make a motion that we have found that the conditions for the variants have been established and therefore I would make a request for a motion to approve three variances contained in the in the report subject to the five conditions that the staff has placed on the project.

Okay, the fifth condition is, okay, I was just gonna say I didn't, I have, don't have.

Lot coverage is gone. You want the three conditions listed or?

Well, you said five conditions and he listed four.

No, the staff, staff has five. Five conditions, okay. But there's three variances.

Okay, very good. Second on that? Yeah, me. Jim Dunlap, any discussion?

Can I make a recommendation?

Yes, sir.

Just for clarification, I think you're saying it is that findings and conclusions consistent with section 34-87 of the Land Development Code.

Right. OK. My second's amended accordingly.

Thank you. Any discussion? All those in favor? No, we have to roll call. OK. Jim?

Aye.

Oh, yeah. You were the motion maker. Second?

Aye. Aye.

Ed?

Aye.

Don?

Aye.

Jane? Aye. So this is approved. And so if there are no challenges within the next ten days, you will not have to go to the town council.

So, is that correct? That is correct, Madam Vice Chair. It is a request for an additional hearing.

It is not a like-for-like variance, so it will go to town council.

Okay, okay. I take that back.

Why was that?

And now we'll have to go to town council because it's not.

It's not a like-for-like ask.

Oh, okay. Thank you.

Because they're expanding it. He's correct.

Correct.

Okay.

If you're putting stairs back or something like that, they were in violation of setbacks, that would be the shortened version for this. That was a limited scope of that code section that was added.

I thought that if it was voted unanimously.

No, it's limited to like for like, which does not apply to a single family house. A single family house, it's the structure and the setbacks and such that would be the expedited process.

Jim, did you have a comment?

I'd like to get a little further explanation, if I might, because we've not gone to town council with other ones when we've walked out with a unanimous approval.

Staff?

It's on the request. And so the request did not same as what was there before. So staff have indicated that there are distinctions from what was there before and what is being asked. So it's not the light for life. Sometimes it can get confusing. I understand that we do want to try to expedite these things, but that seems to be the criteria.

Is that a new interpretation? Because the last three or four variances I've done, that has not occurred.

You can go back and double check. If it was not light for light, they should have gone forward. But at this point, it's probably a little late. The milk is probably still. But we will go ahead and go back. Let's just talk offline after the meeting, and we'll try to figure out.

Okay, because, I mean, we had to suffer through the August, you know, the July recess and through staff not agreeing and going back and forth and back and forth. And now we're being hit with a nether delay, even though it's just a few weeks. I don't know how long it would be before we got on the town council agenda. And this is...

I mean the next available one is September 9th That's the first meeting in September, okay another month Yeah another month

Oh, Jim, after the meeting, why don't you and Nancy get together and talk?

I will follow up and try to find out what changed and why it's different than the last at least four that I've done.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, moving on.

One thing, if I can. Jim, notwithstanding that distinction, presentation was well put together and well presented. Very concise. Thank you.

Okay, moving on to SEZ20260109, 6400 Sterl Boulevard. That's the Sunset Condominium. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving with conditions denying special exception SEZ2026019109, requesting a special exception for the property located at 6400 Estero Boulevard, generally identified by strap number 334624W302100.00CE to redevelop two cheeky huts associated paver pathway and a foot wash station Seaward of the 1978 Coastal Construction Control Line within the environment, environmentally critical zoning district. Providing for conflicts of law, and severability, and they're providing an effective date. Okay. So, who will be presenting in this? I will be. Okay. Any ex parte?

None. No ex parte.

None. None.

Doug? I'm done? Done? Okay, and I have none. Okay, so who will be, Jason Green, or Jason Smiley will be presenting. Go ahead, Jason.

Good morning. Jason Smalley, senior planner here with Community Development. So before you today is a request for a special exception for the replacement of structures and paperwork. As Ms. Plummer had mentioned, they're requesting the rebuild of two tiki huts. The proposed areas of those are going to be 12 by 15, I believe. So the staff was able to confirm that prior to the storm that tiki huts of approximately the same size were there. We went back to going back to at least 1998 aerials. So we visually confirmed that. The proposed plan looks very, very similar to what existed before, so the replacement should be for a like-for-like. As I said, what they're requesting is to just put back what was there before, and I believe part of their plan also includes the planting of some bushes to try and mitigate some of the light into the turtle area. That in and of itself doesn't require a separate permit. I only mention it in furtherance of they will be working with Chad as far as any plantings that need to go on in there and to ensure that it meets with the town's dune planting plans and that it doesn't obstruct anything other than light. um so the the applicant's representative i believe is here uh staff is here for any questions that you may have and one point of clarification um this one's a little bit odd 6400 is the address of the building i do want to make clear that the actual strap number that if anybody wants to go look up the information for this is attached to the strap number with the CE at the end that's their common element but there is no address associated with the common element so for shorthand we were referred to it as 6400 or Sunset condo okay thank you um any questions for Jason before we go on okay yes for my own gratification here does a foot wash have a drainage system I will defer to the applicant on whether or not it's just going to percolate into the sand. Usually volumes of that type are inconsequential. But unless, in my opinion, unless they were proposing that they were going to have some sort of chemical storage out there, just the volumes of that small hose there isn't enough to be a stormwater issue, for instance. But I will defer to the applicant on whether or not they decide to do paved drain.

Now, the water part of that, is that considered a utility? Does it need a special permit to be beyond the CCL line?

When they apply for the Florida DEP application, they'll have to assert that they are going to be putting utilities out there, and that'll ultimately be the determination of FDEP.

My understanding is it's fairly de minimis, but they will have to get that approved prior to breaking ground for the foot wash. And if there is no drainage system and the water just, as you said, percolates into the sand, that has no impact on turtles or anything? It's not sufficient volume of water?

I don't think I'm the expert on that one. I would have to defer as far as staff, I think, to Chad for that particular question, but perhaps the applicant can address if that's part of their proposed submittal to FDEP and whether or not they're required to do additional drainage.

Thank you, Jason.

Okay. If the applicant wants to come forward, please state your name for the record.

Again, my name's Greg Desario, landscape architect with Dave Jones and Associates. I'm here representing the applicant as all the board members who are unavailable today for this meeting. I do not have a presentation as far as answer the questions We did obtain an LDO for the subject property. We did obtain a FDEP permit for the Tiki structures and the associated walkways. We did not have foot wash in it when that application was approved. The foot wash is located behind an existing rock wall that's historically been there. So it's actually not out on the on the sandy beach part of the property. But I'm here to try to answer any questions you may have if any questions.

Don, I can't see you.

If that wasn't originally included in your submittals, do you have to resubmit for for the foot wash that I don't know, I may have to

We'll have to defer. We will contact FDEP and verify that. And if it's required, they'll obviously have to submit that.

We would expect that they would amend that if necessary, but in my experience, something like that generally is dealt with by a field permit. Okay. Any other questions?

I have a question. Thank you. all right is anybody ready to make a motion oh public comment is there anybody who'd like to speak on behalf of this closing public comment moving right along to anybody want to make a motion nobody okay well i'll move to uh

Approve SEZ20260109 6400 Estero Boulevard. Approving the build back for the property located at 6400 Estero Boulevard. Estero Boulevard to redevelop two cheeky huts, associated pavers, pathways, and foot wash station. Subject to conflicts of law, Scrivener's error in severability and providing a foreign effect date.

Second, motion was made by Jim Bowen and seconded by Don Sedef. Any comments? All those in favor, roll call.

Aye.

Jim, Don. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

All right. Passes unanimously. This time it is a like by like because it says it in the packet. So if there are no rebuttals on this, it will not have to go to, in the next ten days it will not have to go to town council. So. Okay, moving on to Ordinance 26-13, RPD 20260529, 58-4 and 582 Estero Boulevard, residential plan development. An ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving with conditions or denying the application to rezone a property located at 54-50, I'm sorry, 584 and 582 Estero Boulevard, generally identified as strap number 244623W40060D.017A and 244623W40060D.017H. Fort Myers Beach from residential multifamily to residential plan development to allow the reconstruction of two single family homes above flood elevation and set with seven deviations from the land development code, providing for clarification as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scripters errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. Are there any ex parte that needs to be discussed? Jim?

No.

No, ma'am.

No ex parte. No ex parte. No ex parte.

None here. Okay, so who's going to present? Jason Green?

Yes. Good morning. Jason Green again. As you already read, the application is for the rezoning to RPD, residential plan development. In doing so, they also have a request for seven deviations as opposed to a variance. Deviations are creating development standards specific and unique to this project. And those are also included as part of the master concept plan. Staff report includes a whole history of the subdivision of the lots and the parcels being created prior to the town incorporation and such. Just to keep it short, we have included a list of proposed conditions on the page 98. I'd be happy to discuss those, but based on the applicant's items submitted and review of this, staff finds that it meets the criteria set forth in 3485B and C and 34216D, excuse me, 216.2 of the Land Development Code. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer.

Jason, I was kind of curious why these reductions in setbacks and things like that were okay with you when it's right there next to the next section down of these houses.

deviations have a completely entirely rezoning as a completely entirely criteria to evaluate versus a variance.

Okay.

And just to be honest with you, variances, variance criteria in this code are written essentially to be denied, right?

That it's written to be, because we are giving a variance for something that is not

Right. The old rule is most variances should be denied because hardly any of them meet the criteria set forth. So the difference is this applicant has asked for deviations to the standard code requirements, in this case seven of them, and they're asking for their own unique zoning development standards for this zoning district. Their RPD is their zoning district to this project.

And let me ask what your thoughts are about the

And to your point, those other lots in the beginning or years after the storm, those could have come in and done an RPD also and similarly.

I see. So how do you feel about the 55% of lot coverage when it's supposed to be 40?

Well, they have to provide onsite drainage. So ultimately, the additional runoff can't be forced onto other properties. So that is a criteria for in your land development code right now. So the engineering will figure that out and make sure it complies.

Okay. And there was something that was in the thing about the front setback said it was 2 1⁄2 feet, then it went that it was possibly 10. And what is this front setback? I'll show you where.

I think Jim probably has a very well put together presentation on that. Let me scroll to, you're asking for the deviation? Yes. Which deviation are we talking about here?

It's the front setback. It said 2.5, and then it said 10, which should be 25.

So deviation three talks about reducing the minimum front setback by 15 feet. So it would be from a 25 to 10.

RIGHT. I THINK THE WAY IT WAS WORDED.

MAYBE IT WAS TALKING ABOUT THE EASEMENT OR OTHER ACCESS, DISTANCE TO THOSE?

NO, IT WAS THE FRONT SETBACK. ALL RIGHT. I'LL LOOK FOR IT.

MS. PLUMMER, IF I MAY? YEAH. SO I THINK WHAT JIM IS DESCRIBING HERE IS TWO SETBACKS. IT'S UTILIZING THE 7 1 HALF FOOT BUFFER FOR ACCESS OR, EXCUSE ME, 7 1 HALF FOOT EASEMENT.

Then to meet the 10-foot setback an additional two and a half will be provided from the edge of the right that's on page 86 the front setback 2.5 feet and then the easement no easement and which gives you the 10. I just wasn't, I wanted to be clear on that.

Right, so easements generally are overlaid on property versus. Right, right, right. Public right of way is an example which would be plotted or recorded out and separate from the parcels themselves.

Right, okay. Okay, that was my major question.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I got you now. Yeah, okay.

Any other questions for Jason?

Jason. As far as the coverage goes, is there opportunities for underground storage, offsite storage in some wetland bank or something that when they come in and they make a request that's going to reduce the ability to take care of the required drainage? Is there any alternatives?

Yes, there can be. Just remember there's impervious surface ratios, which has to do with shell, asphalt, other things, and then there's lock coverage, which is more building footprint component. There's a difference between the two, but ultimately I think the code is written for two different things. One, to limit bulk is what the lock coverage percentage is for. And then what you're talking about more is more of an impervious, which combines lot coverage of a building plus the other materials. Those, yes. So the whole goal of that is to provide some open area with a town having also some drainage standards, it helps overcome some additional impervious. But there wasn't, and Jim, I don't think there's a reduction or increase in the impervious overall for this. Ultimately, they would be maxed out at the 67% anyway. Even if the building lot coverage goes bigger, the total impervious is still maxed out at what the code says. So the total impervious doesn't change, just the building size footprint changes.

But overall, for the whole island, the more impervious surface we have, I guess the more potential hazard we have when there is a flood.

Correct, but there is not a request to increase the impervious that's allowed by the code. It's a request to increase the building footprint that's allowed by the code. That's more of a bulking standard that it's a bigger house than would be normally allowed in a regular lot, this kind of thing.

But the coverage itself, I mean, if you have a roof, which is your coverage, That also is impervious, is it not?

Correct. All that goes into the total impervious calculation. So there's no change in the total impervious calculation. I think the important part of what you're talking about is where does that runoff go? Whether it's asphalt, roof drains, what have you. Where does it go? How is it treated? How is it directed towards neighbors or beach or what have you? We have to be careful about that. And a lot of the new developments are finding ways to capture the runoff not just through downspouts and then running it off to the property line. It's whether capturing underneath or following it back through rain garden type of things that we see a lot more of that. But the total impervious, to your point, is the same. By code. It's just the building footprint is being asked to be bigger.

No other question.

Anyone else? Okay, who's going to, Jim, you're going to present?

yes you may hand out your paperwork for the record james ain't been sworn in and qualified as an expert sometimes i don't know why but i have been um a couple things on before i get started on this case to answer a couple of your questions the 67 is impervious by code what i did at my house at 4 30 which we will do here is we use storm chamber systems So we actually build an underground vault system that's connected right to the roof drain leaders so that the water goes straight down underground. There's none of these little funky swales with grass that'll disappear at some point. It's a fabric encapsulated rock with what you would probably think is a septic drain field, very similar, with half-round plastic chambers that has a volume in it that meets the criteria. And that's what we do. Very nice, very easy, and very expensive.

Yeah, I was going to say. One of those things costs.

If I may, as I always pass out my little handouts,

You can give us a group and we can pass them one way or the other. Oops, sorry. I just need two to get me through. OK, sure.

all right what we're here to discuss is rpd 2026-0529 and you're probably wondering why are we doing an rpd on two single family lots there is a logical explanation and it just goes to show you how antiquated codes work and we're not doing variances for two houses The two lots, one on the gulf upland of the 78 line, the buildable line, is 50 by 50. The lot behind it is 50 by 100. We would like to balance the two lots so they make sense, which means we've got to do a lot line adjustment. One of the lots of 50 by 50 will get a little bit bigger. Nonconforming lot getting less nonconforming is a good thing. But the other lot, which is nonconforming, will get smaller. And you can't do that with a variance. You can't make a nonconforming lot more nonconforming. So the only thing we can do at that point is go through the whole RPD process. We have the two lots. We're going to create our own zoning district, essentially. The other part of this is the RPD sits only on the upland lots It does not affect the environmental critical Section of the code below the 78 line that will stay easy. There's no proposals There's no nothing that good that goes down there. So that part stays the same. So that's why we're doing it's one little I problem in the code or uniqueness in the code that that causes us to go through this whole structure and we know we have to go to town council twice and and and all of those items so here's where we are we're at 584 582 astero boulevard so we've moved just couple residential blocks, a 600 block. And now we're at the 500 block up up to the north towards Pink Shelf. And we have the two lots and you can see that 584 is the small lot, but it owns property rights all the way to the mean high water. So it owns all the way to the water. So it looks big, but it's not. And then behind it is the other lot, which is 582. The owner is Colusa LLC. Jeff Grafen, who is in attendance today, is the owner of both lots. So if any questions for the owner comes up, he's available and is sworn in. And then I'm doing, in this one, I'm doing the design planning and engineering. The houses that you'll see are mine also. So what we're doing, as I described, is we're going from residential multifamily to an RPD to nonconforming lots that we are going to make conforming by putting them in our own plan development district. And what it does, the single source that it does, it allows a lot line adjustment. Now, the seven deviations are real similar to the variances that you've seen in other cases for setbacks and those kind of things. But as deviations in an RPD, it's a different criteria. And the staff is correct that we have the right to ask for them. And it's not we're guilty and we have to prove our innocence. And then staff has recommended approval and the applicant agrees with all the staff analysis and conditions. So the request is to rezone 0.19 acres of uplands of a 0.44 acre site, 0.25 acres of environmental critical will not be in the RPD. And there's seven deviations. And as an RPD allows, we've written our own property regulations table. Here's the property. It shows it's there. On the south side of it is a condominium high-rise. There's single-family lots to the north, and then beyond that is another high-rise. So here's just half a dozen lots squeezed between two high-rise condominiums that were built in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. This is an example, shows what the current conditions is and the current codes. It shows the lots that are there and you can see the bigger lot on your right and then the little itty bitty skinny dash line in the middle that's only five feet wide, that is the buildable area by land development code. It's got the two side setbacks, and it's got the front setback and the rear setback, which gives it a five-foot deep track, which essentially, by the land development code, makes it unbuildable. The other lot, the 50 by 50, there's an angled line. That is the 78 line, and then the dashed line shows that there's a little bit of buildable area in there. The reason that it is is we're oriented to that ingress-egress easement, and then a walkway path, a five foot pedestrian walkway that goes through there, which is typical. But what you don't see or what you do see on this one is where the lot line between 582 and 584 is, the easement stops and there's technically only seven and a half feet access to 584. One of the things about balancing up the lots, another one of the criteria we looked at is we're gonna move that lot back so that it has a full 15-foot access without having to go to the neighbors or acquire more easement rights or any of that stuff, make the lot bigger, which is good, and better access. The colored version shows what is proposed. The light green on the left, that's all EC all the way down to the water. I truncated it. It's a lot longer than what it shows. And then the yellowish area with the house on it, that is the 584 with the lot line moved. And you can see it has access to the underneath of the house with parking underneath the house. And then the remainder is the 582, which got a little bit smaller and has a house set on that one. It has various setbacks. To go to Ms. Plummer's comment of the 10 feet, two and a half feet, It's as I mentioned in the previous case, we got into the, where are we officially measuring it from? Are we measuring it from the easement? Are we measuring it from the property line? Are we measuring it for what's there and what's not there? So I'll walk through the deviations of here. One is minimum lot size is 3,720 feet. reduction from the 7,500 feet because in the Land Development Code, you start with residential multifamily guidelines. Even though you're doing a PD, you start with residential and multifamily guidelines. So we have to deviate to go from 7,500 to 3,780 square feet as our minimum lot size. We have to change the minimum lot depth from 100 feet to 50 feet. Because we're not looking at it from Astero Boulevard, we're looking at it from the easement. So we have to do that. Reduce the front setback by 15 feet from 25 to 10. And then the front setback to seven and a half for mechanical equipment. And what that statement is, is if you look at the Gulf front side house, the one on the left, you can see the three ACs kind of up on the top of it, right in the middle of the house. It's not in the access easement. It's not there. We're asking for relief there. It's not really the front of the house, but it's kind of the front of the house. One of the conditions is we're going to have to screen it, so it's not just hanging on the wall. It's going to be integral into the part of the design of the house. It's one of the conditions that we agree with. So it's kind of up there, out of the way, but technically it's in the front yard.

But it's not on the ground.

Not underground, it's elevated. It has to be elevated. We are in a VE zone. so number four is to reduce the minimum rear setback by fifteen feet from the twenty to five because the rear is kind of the side the way these orientations kinda the way they work out reduce the minimum side setback two and a half feet from ten to five so that's what that is increase the lot coverage from forty to fifty five percent uh... earlier Commissioner Bohn said he was worried about that impervious requirement of 67%. So we're only at 55 with what's there. And number seven is to allow the mechanical equipment in the front yard, which I previously discussed. So as we can do in a planned development, we write our own property regulations. We don't have to use Table 34 anymore. This is what governs. And we put the setbacks as we talked about. What we haven't talked about, water body to the Gulf is 50 feet. Well, it's 300 feet out there or something, so we can't go across the 78 line anyway, but we left that the same as multifamily. FAR is not applicable on this. Building coverage, 55%. The height is exactly the way it is. in the neighborhood for single family, we did not ask for any change. And being a single family, there's no buffers required. So we wrote our own property development rights as we've shown in the master plan. Elevations, the Estero Boulevard side, which will ultimately, when somebody builds in front, will be obstructed. But it's still architectural pleasing. The gulf side is on the gulf side. And it does have a pool proposed. But the pool is elevated. So all of it has to be above FEMA regulations. So we've had to squish down the house a little bit because the pool's lower than the floor of the house. But we've been able to do that and stay within the height requirements of the LDC of all the other lots that stay in the residential multifamily. The side of the lots, this is on the north side where the access easement is. Shows the access of the garage accesses to get into the two homes. And then the south side, which fronts back to the condominium to the south, that shows the two homes that are there. And it shows that they're architectural pleasing. They're not just stucco boxes stuck up in the sky. So the request, like we said before, is to rezone it from residential multifamily to RPD solely based on having to move that lot line for lot size balancing. And then the LPDA recommendations out of the code 3421682, the proposed use or mix, you know, the existing property allows for two single families, the proposal remains the same. The sufficient safeguards, the lots were legally created prior to the town being there, as we've talked a lot about this morning. We're still just doing two single family, nothing more, nothing less, no commercial, which I heard a comment before the meeting from a citizen about are you proposing commercial? No commercial, it's two houses, it's all that's there. The proposed deviations for the property regulations are similar to those in historically what was there and similar to those that have been granted by the boards for the other blocks in the 400 block and the 700 block. to the north and the south. And all the other policies about mixed use and commercial and boulevard community, they are not applicable to what we have. So that's the criteria that we've met that to hopefully have you recommend to town council that the project is, Project's a good project. A little unique how we're getting there, a little crazy road, but it ends up with two nice single-family homes to replace the homes that were destroyed. And with that, if there's any questions.

Any questions? Don, any questions out there?

No. Okay.

Okay, we'll open it up for public discussion. Hearing. Anyone in the public wish to speak? Would you like to speak as owner?

I'm Jeff Griefen. I can answer any questions. Were you sworn in? Yeah, I was.

Okay. I'm Jeff Griefen. I'm the owner. I can answer any questions.

Does anybody have any questions for the owner? No questions at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, anybody want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve RPD 202-605-29. And the approval for rezoning application is submitted as consistent with the comp plan, the LDC. And I also say this approval is subject to the 10 conditions in the staff report. I'll second.

Motion made by Jim Dunlap and seconded by Doug Edwin. Any discussion? All those, roll call. Jim?

Aye.

Doug?

Aye.

Jim?

Aye. Ed? Aye.

Don? Aye. Jane? Aye. Passes unanimously. This will go to council on what date?

September 9th.

September 9th. Okay. That is the completion of our hearings. We'll go back to public comment for any other things on the town's business, anything? No public comment? We'll close the public comment. Okay, so, why don't I have my second page of this? Oh, here it is, administrative agenda. how about administrative agenda that's what i just said okay anybody have anything for administrative agenda okay uh lpa members items on reports uh no ma'am no anybody welcome back from summer break yeah

Just one question about the term. I'm a little confused. I think that I'm just filling out Mr. McLean's term, so technically I would be up, this would be the last meeting, right? I would be up in September?

You will still serve through September. September 30th, the seat would be up.

Okay, so through September, I'm good. All right. Nice try, Ed.

Mm-hmm.

okay lpa attorney items no items thank you thank you for allowing me to participate remotely um it really helped me out uh not driving down for a short meeting absolutely community development items for next month's agenda

No. There are several things coming forward. I don't have off the top of my head, but it should be three or four items for next week.

Big ones? Town parking lot.

We're not expecting that to be on the agenda for the first meeting in the month. OK.

There may be a legislative item related to building Moscow inspections. I know staff is working on that new page, but hopefully we'll get that figured out.

And what about Diamond Head? Is that going to be on next month?

I don't understand. It may be. I'd have to go back and look. We've got the rest of this week to get those agenda items done if they're ready.

Unknown. Okay.

Hold on. I've got one you can answer. What is the date that we're looking at?

The 8th. September 8th.

September 8th. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Everybody going to be here September 8th?

I won't, but I might be remote. I'll be in Michigan.

Okay.

But I might be remote. I'll let you know. Okay. I'll let Amy know.

Okay, well, we can adjourn this lovely meeting. It was fun and quick.

So moved. Second.

Motion by Jim Dunlap, seconded by Jim Bowen. Thank you. Oh, all those in favor? Aye.

Thank you. And the time is 1020 a.m.

Thank you.