BOCA GRANDE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD BOCA GRANDE COMMUNITY CENTER, WOMAN’S CLUB ROOM

131 1ST STREET WEST, BOCA GRANDE, FL 33921 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2017

10:00 AM

AGENDA

The meeting agenda and backup materials for the cases are available starting January 11, 2017 at the Lee County DCD Planning Section located at 1500 Monroe St., Ft. Myers, FL, the Johann Fust Community Library, 1040 10th St W, Boca Grande, FL, and online at www.leegov.com/dcd/events.

1. Call to Order/Roll Call/Review of Affidavit of Publication 2. Election of Officers 3. Approval of Minutes – December 14, 2016 4. Special Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Cases:

A. COA2016-00170, 574 5th Street, Boca Grande FL 33921 - Request to construct a

pool and pool case on the property. B. COA2016-00181, 360 Gilchrist Avenue, Boca Grande FL 33921 - Request to

construct a pool on the property. .

5. Items by the Public; Committee Members; Staff A. Beach Access Signage, Public Information Item

6. Adjournment – Next Meeting Date: February 8, 2017

A verbatim record of the proceeding will be necessary to appeal a decision made at this hearing. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Lee County will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities in its services, programs, or activities. To request an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication or a reasonable modification to participate, contact Janet Miller (239) 533-8583, Florida Relay Service 711, or jmiller@leegov.com. Accommodation will be provided at no cost to the requestor. Requests should be made five days in advance. To receive agendas by e-mail, contact jmiller@leegov.com.

BGHPB

December 14, 2016 Page 1 of 8

AMENDED

MINUTES REPORT

BOCA GRANDE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD

WOMAN’S CLUB ROOM, BOCA GRANDE COMMUNITY CENTER

131 FIRST STREET WEST, BOCA GRANDE, FL 33921

DECEMBER 14, 2016

10:00 A.M.

MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT:

Bill Caldwell III, Chair Peter Blackwell, Planner, Planning

Paul Eddy Sharon Jenkins-Owen, Principal Planner

Susan Hanafee Corris McIntosh, Asst. Cty. Atty.

Rebecca Paterson Janet Miller, Recording Secretary

Dana Robinette

Guerrino Savio

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Tim Seibert, Vice Chair

Agenda Item 1 - Call to Order – 10:00 a.m./Review of Affidavit of Publication

Mr. Caldwell, Chair, called the meeting to order and asked for a roll call.

Susan Hanafee, Dana Robinette, Paul Eddy, Bill Caldwell, Becky Paterson, and Guerrino Savio were

present.

Ms. Miller, Recording Secretary, noted she had gotten a response from the Attorney’s office stating the

ad and affidavit for this meeting was legally sufficient and we could proceed with the meeting.

NOTE: For the audio recordings for this meeting, go to:

http://www.leegov.com/dcd/committees/committeesearch. Once the page pulls up, click on the blue

hyperlink that says “Boca Grande Historic Preservation Board (BGHPB).” There will be an audio

recording for each item to help keep the recordings from being too large for the public to open.

Contact Janet Miller at 239-533-8583 or jmiller@leegov.com if you need assistance.

Agenda Item 2 – Approval of 11/09/16 Minutes

Ms. Hanafee referred to a sentence on Page 6 of 10 that reads, “Ms. Hanafee stated that the footage is

part of the setback.

She noted that it was a question not a statement and asked that it be changed to, “Ms. Hanafee asked if

the footage is part of the setback.”

Ms. Hanafee made a motion to approve the 11/09/16 BGHPB meeting minutes with the above

correction, seconded by Mr. Savio. The motion was called and passed 5-0.

Before beginning the public hearing portion, Mr. Caldwell reviewed the procedural rules.

BGHPB

December 14, 2016 Page 2 of 8

Agenda Item 3 – Special Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) Cases

A. COA2016-00121 Berg Residence, 271 Gilchrist Ave., Boca Grande, FL 33921

Request rehabilitation of the existing residential home.

Mr. Wittmaak from Design for Life stated he was representing the applicants. He gave an overview of

the renovation project.

Mr. Blackwell stated this case was continued from last month’s meeting to address some issues. The

outstanding item is the access issue for the rear of the property. It is currently accessed from Whiskey

Row, which is a 10 foot right-of-way. The property fronts Gilchrist Avenue. At last month’s meeting,

there was interest expressed to have the access from Gilchrist Avenue instead of Whiskey Row. Mr.

Blackwell stated that as a result of that, he contacted staff at Lee County Department of Transportation

to discuss the possibility of accessing directly on Gilchrist. DOT staff stated they prefer the access

remain off of Whiskey Row since Gilchrist is the main road for that area. They want to keep accesses

to a minimum for that road. Since the property has always been accessed from Whiskey row and the

applicant is not proposing any changes that would affect that access, staff recommends approval of this

project. Mr. Blackwell referred to the guidelines in Chapter 22 of the Land Development Code and

noted there was a 70 day window for the approval of COA cases. The clock starts from the time the

packets were first delivered to the Boca Grande Board for the first meeting. Because of this, if the case

were to be continued again, we would not be able to have the meeting because it would extend beyond

the 70 day window. Once that 70 day mark is reached, the case is automatically approved. Therefore,

Mr. Blackwell noted that today was the last chance for the Board to approve or deny the case. If it is

not handled at today’s meeting, the case will essentially be approved.

Mr. Caldwell opened this item for public comment.

Mr. Peter Soderberg stated he represented several residents along Whiskey Row. He clarified that the

neighbors key concern is what they consider a parking lot that is directly across from the other

residents. It is a 58 foot wide lot on the west side. He stated it was principally occupied by a

hardscape driveway. He noted the hardscape was two cars deep and almost the entire width of the

parking lot. He felt you could easily fit 6-7 cars on it. To him, having a parking lot in the back of a

home did not seem in keeping with the historical character of downtown Boca Grande. The neighbors

would like to see a two car wide driveway as will be seen on the next project to be discussed to help

reduce the chance of the house being used as a rental or having many guests generating traffic on

Whiskey Row, which would exacerbate existing safety and access issues on Whiskey Row. He stated

that when he has guests, they have to park on 3rd

Street, which he does not find to be too much of an

inconvenience. Mr. Soderberg stated they do not object to the renovations taking place on the

property. They are only concerned with what they consider to be a “high capacity parking lot” on this

property.

Mrs. Barbara Lynch stated she owned the property with David Berg. She stated she did not have a

parking lot. It is a driveway that has been in place for many years. She acknowledged having more

space to park than Mr. Soderberg because he only has a garage, but not a driveway. When she and Mr.

Berg come to Boca Grande, she felt they were like most residents where they park their vehicle and

use their golf cart to get around. From what she understood, the previous owner used to host parties

that people would walk to, but she and Mr. Berg live in the home by themselves and have no plans to

host parties. They might have a guest from time to time, but they do not use their cars, would not be

taking up a lot of room, or causing trouble. In addition, once the project next to them commences, a

BGHPB

December 14, 2016 Page 3 of 8

wall will be installed diminishing some of her and Mr. Berg’s property. They will have a little space

for greenery, a space for one car, and a space for a golf cart. Mrs. Lynch stated she was surprised to

hear Mr. Soderberg complain about her driveway because he was having work done on his home and

some of the work trucks were parked in the alley and some parked on her private property. Mr.

Soderberg did not have them park on 3rd

Street.

Mr. Eddy suggested adding a grass strip in the middle of the driveway and the driveway itself could be

shell or stone. This might litigate some of the safety and parking concerns of the neighbors.

Mr. Savio stated some of the neighbor’s concerns will be addressed with the next project. Regarding

this particular project, he felt comfortable approving the project as presented due to the size, the fact

that it is not a new house, and it is not being increased in size. He would welcome it if the owners

installed grass or sod as Mr. Eddy suggested in order to improve the look of what the owner considers

a driveway and the neighbor’s perceive as a “parking lot.” Mr. Savio noted that it was only a 50’ wide

parcel so he did not personally consider it to be a parking lot. Mr. Savio stated he has a similar

situation on his property where you can park 2-3 cars, but there is a limit to what can be parked there.

He hoped the neighbors would be satisfied with the solution that might take place with the next project.

Mr. Caldwell agreed with Mr. Savio’s comments. Since the building has been there for many years, he

did not see how the Board could deny the request. In addition, he noted the renovations will be a

major improvement from what is currently there.

Mr. Savio made a motion to accept the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Ms.

Paterson. The motion was called and passed 6-0.

B. COA2016-00055, Ducharme Residence, 291 Gilchrist Ave., Boca Grande, FL 33921

Request new residence on vacant lot.

Mr. Tim Krebs, Architect for the project, stated that at last month’s meeting the neighbors objected to

the garage entering from the alley from Whiskey Row. The owner has agreed that, if possible, he

would also show the design for the garage entering on 3rd

Street. Although this does not match the

Boca Grande guidelines or staff’s recommendation, it is still acceptable to both himself and the

applicant. At last month’s meeting, discussion took place about the owner giving up a few feet of his

property to open up the mouth of the alley. The owner has agreed to this request. The wall will be

moved to open up the alley. The entrance to the garage will be on 3rd

Street and there will also be open

gates on 3rd

Street to conceal the garage (shown in the rendering).

Ms. Jenkins-Owen stated that staff has changed their position and finds this new proposal consistent

with the Boca Grande Design Guidelines based on the fact that this is a special situation. The structure

is on the corner so it is a corner lot. This project is the same as the Kenan project which is to the west

of this property. They also have access off of 3rd

Street south. Also, the properties on the north side of

the road also have access off of 3rd

Street. Ms. Jenkins-Owen noted that she also consulted with Lee

County DOT and the beach people. They do not have any problems with granting access off of 3rd

Street. She explained that the 70 day rule also applies to this case. This is the last opportunity for the

Board to make a decision on this case. Otherwise, it will be automatically approved in 70 days.

Due to a question by Ms. Paterson, Ms. Jenkins-Owen confirmed that the 70 day rule applies even

though this application is being amended because it is not a new application. It was only amended

pursuant to last month’s meeting.

BGHPB

December 14, 2016 Page 4 of 8

Mr. Soderberg thanked the applicants, County staff, and the Boca Grande Board for encouraging a

resolution of the neighbor’s concerns. He felt this was an elegant solution. The neighbors have no

objection to the golf cart access being off of Whiskey Row. He thanked everyone for listening to the

concerns of the neighbors and stated it gives them faith in the process.

Ms. Lois Weir Burdge also thanked the applicants and welcomed them as a new neighbor. She

thanked the architect as well and felt they had done a great job.

Ms. Robinette asked what percentage of the lot was covered by the house.

The Board noted it was 52.3% shown on the site plan.

Mr. Eddy made a motion to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Ms.

Hanafee. The motion was called and passed 6-0.

Mr. Caldwell stated he thanked the applicant for their generosity in including the extra land in the

alley.

C. COA2016-00128, 13th

Street Boat House, 1361 13th

St. E, Boca Grande, FL 33921

Request permanent roof on existing boat slip and replace stairs and landing.

Mr. Tom Shaw from Giffels Webster engineering, stated he was representing the applicants. He noted

there is a roof over the northern slip now, but it is not a permanent roof by nature. It is an awning

structure. The application involves removing the awning structure on the north slip to put a more

permanent roof over the same slip. To stay with some of the unique architectural features of the

property, they elected to put a small dome awning in front of the permanent roof over the northern slip.

They are trying to get the maximum height on the roof. They are allowed to do this because it is in the

water and most vessels today have towers and so forth. They decided against carrying over a flat roof

because it gave a very plain appearance. There was also no advantage to bringing in a vessel if you are

going to put on a lift with a small tune topper on it. They went with a 6/12 pitch matching the roof to

the main residence. They are also willing to keep the character of other boat house parts such as

siding, and roofing materials. Mr. Shaw noted he had several meetings with staff to make sure it was

Zoning and Building Department code compliant. No variances are requested.

Due to a question by Ms. Hanafee, Mr. Shaw stated the property to the south is both public and private.

Ms. Hanafee stated she had noticed boulders there yesterday.

Mr. Shaw stated the boulders would have been placed there by County staff.

Ms. Jenkins-Owen stated this was a non-contributing property. The applicant will have a fixed roof,

not a retractable roof. It matches architecturally with the rest of the roof, which is a gable metaled roof

with hardy siding. The little dome shape piece is made out of sunbrella. Staff found the proposal to be

consistent with Chapter 22 of the Land Development Code and the Boca Grande Design Guidelines.

Mr. Caldwell opened this item for public comment. No public comments were received.

Ms. Paterson stated the proposal looked fine to her.

BGHPB

December 14, 2016 Page 5 of 8

Mr. Eddy stated there was a bonus with this project because we are not only getting a tasteful

permanent structure, but they are repairing the seawall. This will not only benefit the existing

property, but the properties that abut.

Ms. Robinette made a motion to accept the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr.

Eddy. The motion was called and passed 6-0.

D. COA2016-00179, Kenan Residence, 300 3rd

Street, Boca Grande, FL 33921

Request demolition of guest house, construction of garage addition, and relocation of stairs.

Mr. Leif Kallquist, Architect for the applicants, explained they were in the second phase of the project

which entails bringing the rest of the site in alignment with the character of the site. The request is to:

1) Demolish two structures currently on site (a little shed and the guest structure). The guest structure

appears to be an original 1925 era structure that has been modified and added onto over the years. It is

not visible from the street; 2) expand the southern end of the existing two-story garage a few feet; and,

3) remove the interior stairs, which does not allow for parking of current size cars inside the garage

itself. This forces cars to be parked onto the street. He reviewed the renovations. All elements and

materials will match in kind. Mr. Kallquist stated their goal is to reduce the lot coverage, remove the

clutter on the back of the site, and turn the backyard into a nice landscaped courtyard.

Ms. Jenkins-Owen stated that the applicant was planning to demolish the guesthouse and the heater

shed and also make an addition onto the garage. Staff first looked at the cottage that was built in 1925.

When it was designated as a historic structure in 1986, the focus of that was the main residence. The

only photo shows the wall from Whiskey row and the top of the roof. When staff began looking at the

regulations under Chapter 22-204(d) regarding demolitions, they felt this proposal met the test for

being allowed to be demolished. The building has been altered many times. There are no permits

showing those changes/additions. When it was originally constructed, it was 500 square feet, but it is

now 850 square feet. It has changed dramatically, so it is not the same building as it was in 1925.

Regarding the garage, staff felt it also met the test, which is outlined in the staff report. It is consistent

with Chapter 2 and the Boca Grande Design Guidelines.

Ms. Paterson referred to the old Mary Valasco house purchased by the Wagschal’s. It took them 8

years to get a demolition permit to demolish that structure which had been altered significantly to the

point where there was no structure holding the roof up. However, they were not allowed to demolish it

because it was a contributing structure. Ms. Paterson stated she had a fundamental problem with

allowing this demolition. To her, if the structure was built in 1925, then it meets the test. The

alterations might have taken place before 1984. She did not understand why it was okay to demolish a

contributing structure.

Ms. Jenkins-Owen stated she struggled with this too and would defer to the Board. However, the staff

report does outline what the measuring points were based on the regulations.

Mr. Eddy stated it was evident that this is a lot coverage issue. To him, tearing down the 1925

structure is to remain in compliance with the lot coverage.

Ms. Jenkins-Owen stated it would bring them closer to compliance with current regulations.

Mr. Eddy asked how much the main residence would be expanded.

BGHPB

December 14, 2016 Page 6 of 8

Ms. Jenkins-Owen stated the main residence would not be expanded under this request. They will lose

the density they are allowed to have on that property. They are currently allowed to have 2 units per

the regulations. If they take this structure out, they are only allowed to have 1 unit per. She also noted

the applicant worked closely with the neighbor to the south (Peter Soderberg) to make sure they were

happy with the revisions. Mr. Soderberg is happy that this structure will no longer be right up against

his property. The whole argument for staff was that when this designation was done in 1984, the

structure was not considered to be a contributing structure.

Ms. Paterson stated that just because it was not mentioned, does not mean it was not the intention to

designate it historic. If someone has a guesthouse on a contributing property and it was built in 1925,

it makes sense that it would have been there intention that the guest house be contributing as well. In

addition to that, it is currently designated as “contributing.”

Ms. Jenkins-Owen stated she could argue that 500 feet of it is contributing, but it has been altered

many times.

Ms. Paterson stated that you are allowed to have additions to contributing structures. It does not mean

they lose their designation of “contributing.”

Mr. Savio stated that Ms. Paterson has a fundamental problem with the demolition of the 1925 guest

house and he had a fundamental issue with the previous proposal that the Board approved in April or

May when the surface of the house was increased by 38%. He referred to the Boca Grande Design

Guidelines where it says “It should be remembered that loss of character is just as often caused by a

cumulative effect of a series of actions that would seem to be minor interventions. The renovation that

was previously approved included a new addition on the south side, renovations to the first and second

floor, on the Gilchrist side of the house they replaced the existing roof with another roof, 3-5 new

windows were put on the west and north side of the house, they moved 8 windows to new locations,

they added 10-12 windows. 90% of the inside of the house was being demolished and built

somewhere else. The staircase leading upstairs was being relocated. The old house was relocated and

lifted 4-6 feet. The landscaping was completely damaged by all of this. In the second phase, one of

the two remaining structures is being demolished. The other is still being renovated and it is a

beautiful house, but Mr. Savio did not feel he was here to approve beautiful houses. He was here to

protect whatever historic structures are left in this district. With all the renovations, he felt there was

nothing left that was historic except the bones of the structure.

Ms. Robinette stated all the Board members feel strongly about protecting these historic buildings.

Cottages are very common to the larger homes of the area. This property has a two-story house with

two cottages that are important to the area as they are completely original. She was in favor of keeping

those cottages.

Ms. Hanafee asked if the cottage could be restored back to its 1925 status.

Ms. Paterson stated it’s original state could not be determined because it was not documented. She

noted that even though it was not documented, this does not mean it is non-contributing.

Mr. Caldwell opened it to public comment. No public comment was received.

Mr. Eddy referred to the Master Site File which mentions having pictures of the cottage.

BGHPB

December 14, 2016 Page 7 of 8

Mr. Kallquist stated the file had nothing in it except the picture of the wall and roof. It does not take

into account any of the additions. There are no dimensions or descriptions.

Ms. Paterson stated that one of the former owners was George Palermo who is an architect from

Sarasota. He was the one who leveled the floors that was over the cisterns. He also did a lot of

structural foundation type work to it. She believed he would at least be able to convey what the

cottage was like when he received it. He might even have some old plans that he used himself.

Mr. Soderberg was not present when this item was opened to the public, so the Board allowed him to

speak.

Mr. Soderberg spoke in favor of the petitioner. His home is immediately to the south of this property.

When they exit the northside of their home, you see the roof and a little bit of the side of the building.

Mr. Soderberg stated he always wondered how this structure was allowed to be built. There is only

about a foot between that house and the wall. There is a window on the east side of the building that

looks directly out to the wall. He doubted it was anyone’s original intent to have a wall there. To him,

having windows looking out 4 feet and 1 foot to the side is not a contributing structure.

Ms. Paterson stated she doubted the wall was there in 1925 and that everyone needs to re-evaluate

what contributing means. It does not mean pretty or functional. It means it was built when it was built

in a historic district.

Mr. Soderberg stated the Board has approved new projects that markedly increase the density.

However, in this instance, the applicant is planning to put more greenery on Whisky Row, which he

felt was highly attractive versus keeping this structure as is which does not seem to add to the historic

character of the community. Putting more greenery along the southern boundary will give more

privacy to the applicants and the neighbors so he was in favor of it.

Mr. Caldwell stated he did not particularly like a structure that is within a foot of the property line.

The proposal before the Board reduces the density. If this guest cottage is demolished, he did not feel

it would set a precedent. The overall project will be very nice without the little cottage. He noted

there was flexibility on this Board to approve the demolition, especially with staff’s recommendation.

Ms. Hanafee stated she visited the property yesterday and to her, if you cannot identify what the

original cottage due to additions and renovations that have taken place over the years, it no longer is a

historic structure in her view. This structure has been changed so markedly that it removes it from

being historically viable to the community. The shed looks almost like a mobile home trailer. She felt

it would be better to have it removed so they can focus on restoring the truly historic structure.

Mr. Bruce Kenan, applicant, stated that in an abstract sense it is considered historic because it was built

before 1941, but we live in a practical world. He stated the building was barely habitable because of

its proximity to the wall. The building does not have a practical use. It may match the abstract

requirement, but it does not match the practical one. The house had wonderful characteristics to it

which are being restored and maintained so that it will last another 100 years. However, he did not

feel the guest cottage had enough historic value to be maintained. They have an opportunity to use that

space to put a beautiful garden there similar to what the library has down the street.

BGHPB

December 14, 2016 Page 8 of 8

Ms. Paterson stated that when this historic district was established, Ms. Gloria Sajgo held a meeting in

the Community Center. During that meeting, Ms. Sajgo noted staff had inventoried every single

property in the historic district. Some properties were listed as contributing and others were non-

contributing. When it came to contributing structures, Ms. Sajgo stated “anything goes.” The reason

for that is because there were often no permits, no setbacks, they were vernacular, many have no

design features, and they used whatever materials were available, which at the time they had to be

brought in by the railroad. This historic district was developed in a haphazard way, but it is who we

are. The Board is here to protect and preserve historic structures. It is irrelevant to her if it is a funky

little guest cottage.

Ms. Hanafee made a motion to approve the project as recommended by staff. It failed for lack

of a second.

Ms. Paterson made a motion to approve the garage modifications, but that the demolition of the

guest house be removed from the application, seconded by Mr. Eddy. The motion was called and

carried 4-2. Ms. Hanafee and Mr. Caldwell were opposed.

Ms. Jenkins asked if the motion included the removal of the heater shed. It is not an attached structure.

Ms. Paterson amended her motion to include the demolition of the heater shed, seconded by Ms.

Robinette. The motion was called and passed 4-2. Ms. Hanafee and Mr. Caldwell were opposed.

Agenda Item 4 – Items by the Public; Committee Members; Staff

Public - None

Committee Members - None

Staff - None

Agenda Item 5 – Adjournment – Next Meeting Date

The next Boca Grande Historic Preservation Board meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 18,

2017, at 10:00 a.m. in the Woman’s Club Room.

The meeting adjourned at 11:17 a.m.

COA2016-00170 MCGINNIS POOL: SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT

FOR THE BOCA GRANDE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD JANUARY 18,2017

PROJECT ADDRESS: 574 5th St. East STRAP #: 14-43-20-01-00066.0170 DESIGNATION: NON-CONTRIBUTING

SUMMARY The applicant proposes to construct a pool and brick paver deck with concrete footing. A screened pool cage will also be constructed to enclose the pool deck and rear of the residence. The existing rear lanai porch will be expanded with a 3 foot wide walkway and enclosed with a 36 inch high railing. The existing screening on the porch will be removed.

STAFF FINDINGS AND KECOMNIENDATION Staff finds that the proposed construction conforms to both the Boca Grande Design Guidelines and Chapter 22 of the Land Development Code.

Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board:

Make a finding that the proposed pool and deck are in compliance with the Boca Grande Historic District Design Guidelines and LDC Chapter 22; and

Approve the Special Certificate of Appropriateness for the subject property pursuant to Chapter 22 of the Lee County Land Development Code as provided in the site plan dated 7/18/2002 for the following:

o construct a 3 foot wide walkway around the existing screened lanai porch with a 36 inch high railing and remove the existing screen panels;

o construct an in-ground pool with pumps and pool heater; o construct an interlocking brick paver deck around the pool; o construct a concrete footer around the deck perimeter to support new lanai frame;

and o construct a new aluminum screened lanai frame around the deck to contain the

pool area and existing rear portions of the house.

STAFF ANALYSIS Subject Property The property is located at 574 5th St East. Bradley Avenue is on the east side of the property and a single family residence abuts the western side. To the north is 5th Street with a golf course on the other side of it. Abutting on the south side is another private residence.

Existing Conditions The property is currently developed with an occupied single family residence constructed in 2004. The rear yard is empty apart for some perimeter palm trees. Two large palm trees have been removed to make way for the proposed pool. The house is currently being repainted inside which does not require a permit. The rear yard is not visible from either the front along 5th Street or from the side along Bradley Avenue.

Page 1 of 2

Requested Changes The applicant proposes .to make the following changes to the property:

Construct a 3 foot wide walkway around the existing screened lanai porch with a 36 inch high railing and remove the existing screen panels.

Construct an in-ground pool at grade with pumps and pool heater.

Construct an interlocking brick paver pool deck around the pool. Construct a concrete footer around the pool deck perimeter to support new lanai frame.

Construct a new aluminum screened lanai frame around the pool deck to contain the pool area and existing rear portions of the house.

Design Guidelines for the Boca Grande Historic District Only five design guidelines are applicable to this project. Guideline 2.4 states that proposed projects should maintain traditional setback patterns. Porches, decks, solid fences or other additions should be located to respect traditional patterns or visually preserve the traditional front setback and additions or screened service areas should be located to the side or rear of the front setback. The screened pool cage is limited to the rear yard and does not affect either the front or side street elevations or setbacks.

Guideline 2.7 states that decks should be as unobtrusive as possible. Railing should express a line and spacing similar to existing balustrades. The duplication of historic styles such as widow's walks should be encouraged only where this type of architecture was traditionally found. The railing on the proposed walkway will fit the existing style of the building. Neither it nor the pool deck will be visible from the street.

Guideline 2.8 states that paving materials and patterns should respect traditional patterns on the block. The proposed pool deck is of paver brick which is similar to driveways, walkways, and pool paving elsewhere in the historic district. The pool cage is of bronze colored aluminum similar to many pool cages found in the historic district. The proposed walkway for the existing lanai porch is of similar materials to the lanai and house.

Guideline 4.1 states that contemporary styles should be harmonious in form, material, and scale with the character of the block or district. The proposed deck uses pavers, which are commonly used throughout the historic district. The scale of the paved deck area is in keeping with the lot size. The proposed pool cage will not extend beyond the back yard of the house and will not be visible from the front or side streets.

Guideline 4.5 states that projects should use similar building materials to those used historically for all major surfaces. The materials for the proposed project are the same as or similar to materials used for pool decks and pool cages throughout the historic district.

CONCLUSION The proposed pool and paver deck complies with the Design guidelines for the Boca Grande Historic District and with Chapter 22 of the Land Development Code.

Page 2 of 2

COA2916-00170, McGinnis Pool, 574 5th Street

COA2016-00170, - - McGinnis Pool, 574 5th Street

Feet _I

Front (north) elevation on 5th St

Northeast corner seen from 5th Street and Bradley Avenue

Eastern view of subject property on left side of picture Seen from Bradley Avenue

Back yard looking west

I

Current screened lanai on back of house

Existing western end of house to be outside proposed pool cage

L Rear of house looking northeast

k Rear yard looking east

COA2016-00181 BOCA GRANDE 360 LLC POOL: SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT

FOR THE BOCA GRANDE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD JANUARY 18,2017

PROJECT ADDRESS: 360 Gilchrist Avenue STRAP #: 14-43-20-0 1-0001 6.0040 DESIGNATION: NON-CONTRIBUTING

SUMMARY The applicant proposes to construct an in-ground pool and brick paver deck in the rear yard of an existing residence.

STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the proposed construction conforms to both the Boca Grande Design Guidelines and Chapter 22 of the Land Development Code.

Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board:

Make a finding that the proposed pool and deck are in compliance with the Boca Grande Historic District and LDC Chapter 22; and

Approve the Special Certificate of Appropriateness for the subject property pursuant to Chapter 22 of the Lee County Land Development Code to construct an in-ground pool and an interlocking brick paver deck around the pool as provided in the site plan dated 9/19/16.

STAFF ANALYSIS Subject Property The property is located at 360 Gilchrist Avenue. Gilchrist Avenue is on the west side of the property but the property is accessed via an alleyway on the east side. To the north is St. Andrews Church. Abutting on the south side is a private residence. The property is currently developed with a single family residence constructed in 1968.

Existing Conditions The house is currently unoccupied. The rear yard contains a small concrete pond with a fountain which is proposed to be removed, a rough-built carport, perimeter fencing and vegetation. The carport opens onto the alleyway running along the rear yard. The rear yard is not visible from Gilchrist Avenue, the rear alleyway, or the north or south neighbors due to the house, high fences, and vegetation.

Requested Changes The applicant proposes to make the following changes to the property:

Construct an in-ground pool at grade.

Construct an interlocking brick paver pool deck around the pool.

Page 1 of 2

Design Guidelines for the Boca Grande Historic District. Only two of the Design Guidelines are applicable to this project. The first is Guideline 2.8 which states that paving materials and patterns should respect traditional patterns on the block. The second is Guideline 4.1 which states that contemporary styles should be harmonious in form, material, and scale with the character of the block or district. The proposed pool deck is of paver brick which is similar to driveways, walkways, and pool paving used throughout the historic district. The scale of the paved deck area is in keeping with the lot size.

CONCLUSION The proposed pool and paver deck complies with the Design guidelines for the Boca Grande Historic District and with Chapter 22 of the Land Development Code.

Page 2 of 2

COA2016-00181. Boca Grande 360 LLC Pool. 360 Gilchrist Avenue

CON01 6-001 81. Boca Grande 360 LLC Pool. 360 Gilchrist Avenue

Co+p d ~ ~ r Basic Co ors Peacock Pavers are available in four basic colors: h f f , Dcrlphin Grey# Champagne, and Rice White, Please note that texture and cdor variations are nahrih

characterMia of our handcrafted pavers; thus single samples ate mresentative of

the color and M u r e but do not: assure an Tdentlal hue w texture jn all -K,

Custom Colon lf our basic colors are not a good fit for your project, peac9cd&yd@age Id 30712 - - can be cot or customized to suit your needs. Simply speak with one of our representatives to learn more a b u t our customized offerings

NOTE: Due to variations in individual computer monitors, the samples seen an this

site might not accurately reflect the true color of the pavers. To confirm your color

choice, please order our samele id 13 3 192

* Custom COIOB also available with a minimum of 7000 SF.

Front view of 360 Gilchrist Avenue

Rear view of 360 Gilchrist Avenue

-- -- - -

Enclosed back porch of the house

Car port in north east corner of back yard

Back y r d seen fmm rear porch

Back yard fence along south edge of property

Walkway along north side of house

Southwest corner of backyard

CUSTOMER INFQRMAVON I

I I I

wood

NOTE:

Peacock Pavers and C o p i ~ g Suppied by Othevs, lwtallcd by Nautilus Pools.

Exis t iq Walkway I

&move cowmte

Pond

I( Shell I I POOL EDGE DECK STRUCTURE

~ r m i i Smd Wbt

DESIGNED BY

N a w Mr. &: Mrs. WYM' Addws 3~ Cilchrist City, Sk Zip Boca Grade FL 33921

Phw

GENERAL PESCRlPnON

Skc 22' X 28' A m 380

Earth Disposal 1~ h o w fool peck 720 q.k Sadset Ah'stic Paver Peck Grading By: Nautilus Electric By: Nautilus Shallow End Steps 4

Light 2-ParaLilo LED

Pump Hayward Vari- spud F h r Hayward 250 q.k

Heater Hayward Heat Pump Z1OK

fk Clock and ~mwFormtr Spa: 5'6'' x 30 ' ID Raised 8" with 6 Jets>

Paraclo LED Light, Air Ring nvrd Blower Mkc: Z. Pebble TM lnten'or Fifiish 2. Remove C o ~ r e t e P o d 3. Remove Existrow Pavers at Pool Area 4. E - C o ~ m d wireless cooltrok 5. PCC-2000 ~P-FIooP.

Gas Une, Gas Tank and Hodc-up NOT lnduded

LOCATION POINTS, DIMENSIONS, AND CONSTRUCTION SPECFICATIONS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED 70 ME AND I APPROVE OF THEM. EVERWHING WE HAVE DISCUSSED IS SHOWN AND THERE ARE NO VERBAL AGREEMENTS. I UNDERSTAND THAT ANY CHANGES WILL NECESSITATE EXTRA CHARGES.

Date iownerl

LEI?, COUNTYISOCA GRANDE SIGNAGE PUBLIC INTORMATION MEETING

BOCA GRANDE HtSTORIC PRESF,RVATION BOARD Jannary 18,2017

The fi1lawleg is bjefng pmvidd f i r d i m d o n and pubfio i q ~

SIGN 1;OcATION

Bauyaa &e&

SIGN IMAGE SIGN LOCATKON SIGN IMAGE 18" X 24" X 24"

L t Pw0&

1 I I

n C, I I - L J

State Park Sign - S t m i g h t m , 125 miIe

(New sign at 12' - -1

5' Street

1 3 ~ ~ Street

14' Street

1 1' Street

State Park Sign - Right Arrow, 1 mile (Replacing

existing sign at 5' Street)

17' Street

12' Street

19' Street

I

I I

7 I 1 I I I

7 State Park -Straight arrow, 1.5 mile (New sign at 19'

Street)

0 I

I I I

PROPOSED SIGN LOCATIONS

AERIAL VIEWS

1st Street West

G

u

lf B

o

u

le

v

a

rd

B

Gilch

rist A

ven

ue

Banyan Street

B

Gilch

rist A

ven

ue

3rd Street West

B

Gilch

rist A

ven

ue

4th Street West

B

5th Street West

Gilch

rist A

ven

ue

B

D

7th Street West

G

a

s

p

a

r

illa

R

o

a

d

B

G

a

s

p

a

r

illa

R

o

a

d

9th Street West

C

A

G

a

s

p

a

r

illa

R

o

a

d

10th

Street W

est

C

A

G

a

s

p

a

rilla

R

o

a

d

11th

S

treet W

est

C

A

Gasp

arilla R

oad

12th

Street W

est

B

E

Gasp

arilla R

oad

13th

Street W

est

C

A

G

asp

arilla R

oad

14th

Street W

est

C

A

Gasp

arilla R

oad

17th

Street W

est

C

A

Gasp

arilla R

oad

19th

Street W

est

C

F

A

PROPOSED SIGN

DETAILS

No Vehicles Over 20'

r[fl@[-:j t+L,::;\;ci :;'it[ .-> - .~

www.LeeParks.org Lee County Parks

O r d n a n c e 06.26 ( a s amended) '

- BOCA GRANDE SIGN TYPE A - OPTION I '

v (QTY. 7)

24"x22"x.125" SINGLE SIDED ALUMINUM PANELS PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 294C WlTH DIGITAL PRINTS PRINTED ON GLOSSY VINYL WlTH GLOSSY LAMINATE.

GALVANIZED U-CHANNEL 10' LONG (2' IN GROUND) POSTS PANELS ATTACHED TO POSTS WlTH STAINLESS STEEL HARDWARE

AND PLASTIC WASHERS.

I have rev~ewed t h e above spec~ficat~ons & hereby fully understand t h e content of work t o CI C C C [ I ~ O S ~ ~

be performed and I approve th15 project to begin

WN BY AK DATE 2 01 16 D~~ , Y G M signed ,... ORATION

Beach Access Rules:

No Vehicles Over 20'

LBB County Parks 8 Recre&ion: 239-533.7275 www.LwParks.vrg

Ordinance 05-26 {us amended)

- BOCA GRANDE SIGN TYPE A - OPTION 2

/ 0 i 0 0 0 0

O 1 i 0 , 0

(QTY. 7) 2L"x18"x. 125" SINGLE SIDED ALUMINUM PANELS PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 294C WlTH DIGITAL PRINTS PRINTED ON GLOSSY VINYL WlTH GLOSSY LAMINATE.

GALVANIZED U-CHANNEL 10' LONG (2' IN GROUND) POSTS. PANELS ATTACHED TO POSTS WlTH STAINLESS STEEL HARDWARE

AND PLASTIC WASHERS.

i C3NT4CT RENE KLBOURNE I have rev~ewed the above speclficatlons & hereby filly understand the content of work t o C O C O I D ~ ~ ~

PROJECT LEE CO PARKS 8 REC be performed and I approve this project to begln

DRAWN BY AK DATE 12 0 I6 D,, , 1

Y G ! Siqned ORATION

SIGN TYPES B AND C

SIGN TYPES D, E AND F