Planning Commission Continues Hearing on Island Inn Road Proposed Development

by SC Reporter Emilie Alfino

The Planning Commission on Tuesday, March 26, after hearing from more than a dozen members of the public, voted 3-2, with Commissioner Eric Pfeifer recused and Laura DeBruce absent, to continue the public hearing to April 30 regarding a proposed development of five homes on Island Inn Road.

The development, considered “cluster housing,” now called “unified residential housing,” would be located at the subdivision at 3015 and 3055 Island Inn Road, approximately 2.3 acres. The application was submitted by Greensite Engineering Inc. on behalf of property owner Roderick Dunn.

Neighboring land uses include the Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation parcel to the north, single-family houses to the east, single-family houses and a stormwater lake to the west, and Island Inn Road to the south with single-family houses on the other side of the road.

The applicant is proposing a major subdivision in the form of a “unified residential housing” development (formerly called “cluster housing”), which includes common subdivision improvements such as a roadway, drainage infrastructure, and landscaping in addition to five home sites, each for a single-family dwelling unit and associated accessory uses. Access to the subdivision is via Island Inn Road.

Each single-family lot is proposed to contain approximately 2,336.50 square feet with an average home size of 1,958 square feet. The proposed homes will be within the size range of established homes, according to the report given by City of Sanibel Principal Planner Kim Ruiz.

The subdivision design includes filling a ditch on the south end of the parcel. The proposed drainage plan incorporates stormwater storage and native vegetation planting to mitigate filling the ditch. The City said the plan is consistent with City of Sanibel stormwater management standards in the Sanibel Plan.

The Sanibel Plan allocates 2.2 dwelling units per acre. The approximately 2.3-acre property therefore qualifies for five dwelling units.

During public comment, one question posed by many members of the public was a request for a definition of cluster housing.

Briefly, cluster housing means a type of development produced by condensing the arrangement and layout of single-family and duplex structures based on the minimum distance between buildings … while promoting the preservation of open spaces within the development. It may include the subdivision of land to create individual lots for single-family and duplex dwelling units. Preservation and common area tracts are typically created in the subdivision of cluster housing.

The intent of cluster housing is to provide an opportunity for alternative development and flexibility in design and layout of single-family and duplex dwelling units. Cluster housing promotes the provision of common areas and can reduce the need for roads, sewer lines, and water lines to be extended. Cluster housing further provides incentives for preserving open spaces.

Neighboring residents to the proposed subdivision raised concerns about drainage, wildlife, smaller lots, and size of houses. City staff set forth 10 recommended conditions for approval of the application, including the requirement to maintain the private street, stormwater management system, utilities, landscape buffers, and preserve areas as conditions for approval. Also required is that the development must not interfere with the drainage flow in the Island Inn Road right-of-way or the drainage easements adjacent to the property.

Public comment was submitted by many, including Meghan Lupu of Poinciana Circle. “I have serious concerns about jamming five nonconforming lots into this small, awkward parcel,” Lupu wrote in an email. “I purchased a home in Sanibel because of the strict zoning regulations and I hope those standards will not be relaxed by issuing excessive variances.”

Wrote Stephanie Ferradino, echoing the comments of several speakers at the meeting, “I am advised that two neighbors went to [the City] and were denied access to the application materials. They report that the materials will be available on Friday, which is mere days before the Tuesday morning [Planning Commission] meeting and insufficient time to have meaningful review and discussion. …”

City staff noted that notice was mailed 14 days prior to the hearing.

There were a couple of speakers who reminded everyone that it was always known this area was someday to be developed and can hardly object at this late date.

Would the new development disrupt the “rhythm and harmony” of the existing neighborhood? Commissioner Erika Steiner pointed out that this is a very subjective question. “Twelve neighbors took the time to write detailed letters that it is not harmonious,” Steiner said. “This tends to say we are not meeting that standard.

“This is a very important question to just flip a coin,” Steiner continued. “I look at the Sanibel Plan as the constitution. I don’t want to kick the can down the road, but the residents feel like they haven’t had enough time.”

Commissioner Lyman Welch agreed and moved to continue the public hearing to April 30 and ask that the applicant provide additional information on Section 86-133(b) by April 16 and allow staff by that same date to provide any proposed clarifications to the Commission. Motion passed 3-2 with Commissioner Eric Pfeifer recused and Commissioner Laura DeBruce absent. Commissioners Grogman and Colter voted against the motion.

Section 86-133(b) states “Development of land under the provisions of this subdivision, including redevelopment and the combination of property where some of the property is already developed, regardless of whether the land was previously developed as cluster housing, is permitted only where the number, size, scale, and orientation of the structures in the proposed cluster housing: (1) is compatible with established surrounding land uses, including lots, dwellings, and other structures; (2) does not interrupt the rhythm of existing structures and established land use patterns; and (3) is not inharmonious with the general atmosphere and character of established land use patterns and development.”

The City’s report concluded that the applicant’s proposed development does in fact meet these standards.