FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

FEBRUARY 19, 2002

Town Hall - Council Chambers

2523 Estero Boulevard

FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA

I. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting of the LPA was opened by Co-Chairman Betty Simpson on Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 12:00 p.m..

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

Excused absence from meeting: None.

Staff present at meeting: Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Deputy Town Manager John Gucciardo, Dan Folke and Bill Spikowski

II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Invocation was made by Co-Chairman Betty Simpson. All assembled and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

III. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS

None.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 22, 2002

Corrections and changes to minutes:

1. Hank Zuba - Page 1 - Section IV. - strike illegal and replace with legal.

2. Hank Zuba - Page 1 - Section IV - strike gotten rid of and replace with eliminate.

3. Hank Zuba - Page 2 - Paragraph 4 - strike from and replace with for.

4. Betty Simpson - Page 2 - Paragraph 3 - second to last line. Strike second in and replace with is.

MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Jodi Hester to approve the minutes of January 22,2002 with corrections. Motion passes unanimously.

V. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE SIGN ORDINANCE

Town Manager Marsha Segal-George indicated that this item was continued from the last meeting. She has provided a memo and copy of the sign ordinance. An issue came up on a particular sign and she spent some time disagreeing back and forth with Ginny. The problem stems from the definition of ground sign/monument sign and 30-153 (Permanent signs in commercial areas). She indicated that the maximum height for any identification sign shall be 8 feet in height including supports for a 32 square foot sign. The maximum height for any identification sign shall be 8 feet, including supports for 64 square foot signs. Pole signs were outlawed in the ordinance. How could you get a sign up 8 feet, if pole signs are not permitted? Ginny indicated that you cannot have a pole, but you could have some type of wide structure that would go up 8 feet. Town Manager Segal-George does not feel that this was the intent. The intent was to try and rid the pole style sign and go to monument and ground signs. She mentioned the Armando Day Spa Sign. This sign was originally in the window and then one day it became stuck on a pole outside. He did not have a permit. When Ginny went over to talk to him the whole issue came up. Town Manager Segal-George felt that this needed to come before the LPA. She feels that an inconsistency exists.

Ginny Ross, sign specialist for the Town of Fort Myers Beach, came forward. She expressed that it is not just Section 30-153, but it is all through the ordinance. In the limitations, all through the ordinance, contains a limitation of 8 foot in height. She indicated that it was her interpretation that you could have signs on a pole as long as it was wrapped looking like a monument sign. She feels that the way the ordinance reads she can deny them the 8 foot sign. The definition expresses one way and throughout the ordinance explains another way. This is where the inconsistency exists.

Town Manager Segal-George expressed that there is the definition of pole or post sign. This also states that it is not a solid monument style support and is in excess of 2 feet in height. It goes on later to ban pole signs.

Ginny agreed that pole signs are prohibited. Most of the signs that she has seen that are monument signs start out as poles in the ground. The poles are covered up with some type of aluminum covering to make it look like a solid sign. This is where should would be able to allow an 8 foot sign.

Town Manager Segal-George explained that dimensionally you cannot get that high respecting the definition of monument and ground sign. She went on to add that if the LPA agrees inconsistencies exist they will need to make some changes to the ordinance to take away the confusion.

Roxie Smith replied that they did outlaw pole signs and they did state that no sign could be higher than 8 feet. The no higher than 8 feet was early on in the discussions. She feels that these are two items they will need to re-think and discuss.

Jodi Hester expressed that when they were looking through all the sign ordinance they had pictures to go by. In her opinion the pictures are more of an indication of what was being discussed. There was nothing in the pictures that looked like a pole sign, except for the one that defined pole signs that they were eliminating. If you went back to the pictures it would make it very clear the intention of the LPA in regards to monument signs and ground signs.

Some discussion was held regarding where the 8 foot sign came from. Town Manager Segal-George expressed that the LPA meant the sign is included in the height. Ginny replied that she understood this. There was never a question on the height. They measure from the ground to the top of he sign.

Hank Zuba commented that as a member on the LPA he is clear to affirm the idea they should not have pole signs. What is staff recommending should be done to clarify and make it easier for everyone to understand?

Ginny replied that she feels the contractors will need to read this the same way. This will eliminate them from coming in to get clarification.

Town Manager Segal-George feels the definitions are good. She expressed that the 64 square foot sign is OK, but the 32 square foot sign is not. She feels that they need to go through and pick out the areas which state 8 foot without the 64 square foot sign and eliminate these. This will then be clear.

Ginny replied that she agrees. She also feels that this is where the confusion exists.

Town Manager Segal-George brought this before the LPA to be sure that this is the way she remembered the conversation, and to be sure that this is what was trying to be accomplished. She will bring forward to the LPA changes to the code to make it clear. Until they get to this point she is going to rule on the sign permits the way she believes the LPA intended, which would be no pole signs.

Anita Cereceda questioned if it would be helpful to illustrate what is being discussed. Town Manager Segal-George replied that a lot of the code includes illustrations. She will try to make it better and add illustrations with the help of Bill Spikowski.

Hank Zuba discussed two items in the existing ordinance that he has difficulty with. One is the exception provided to the Town that they may do anything with regards to the signage, and are not subject to regulation. The second issue is the replacement of non-conforming signs in the future. It seems to him that a great deal of latitude is given using the 50% rule that will allow someone to maintain a non-conforming sign forever.

Ginny replied she believes in 8 years from the time it was adopted the non-conformity will run out and everyone will have to apply to the sign ordinance. If you change your sign and the uses change you would have to bring the sign into compliance.

Hank Zuba feels if it is non-conforming is should not be there. Town Manager Segal-George explained that the LPA did debate this for a long time. She responded to the issue of the Town exception. Some of this ordinance was originally County ordinance that was modified. She expressed the Town has never put up a sign that does not comply and they never would. The LPA could add this provision in.

Anita Cereceda agrees with Hank and feels that they should take it out of the ordinance. Eliminate the provision which allows the Town to do whatever they want to do. Town Manager Segal-George replied that she would be in agreement. They will need to keep the road sign exception. All LPA members are in agreement.

Jessica Titus questioned the bus benches and if they were OK? She feels that they are not very attractive. Town Manager Segal-George replied that they are OK, but was an item that was debated. Bonita has gone to decorative benches without any advertising. She indicated that this was wonderful. This was not the desire of the LPA or Council at the time this was approved. This is an item, which can be revisited.

Town Manager Segal-George mentioned that the A-frame signs will need to be discussed. In the overlay district from Pearl Street to Lynn Hall Park the A-Frame signs are legal. On the rest of the island they are not. She has left this issue alone, because it has been mentioned that businesses are not able to inform others of their location. She is getting a lot of complaints on these signs. The issue exists of whether they should be allowed in the overlay district, but not on the rest of the island. Some very unattractive signs exist.

Ginny discussed Seagrape Plaza’s signs. These signs happen to be off the site of Seagrape property. The parking spaces along Estero belong to the bank. It is not just that they have A-frame signs out, but they are off-site and this is prohibited.

It was agreed by the LPA that at a future meeting they will discuss the A-frame signs across the island.

Jodi Hester gave her opinion of having the same rules that are contained within the overlay district to be enforced up and down the island.

Anita Cereceda feels that they need to address these signs to see if they want to have them at all. If they do decide to have these signs there needs to be some uniformity of it and not let the overlay be an exclusive site of these signs.

Roxie Smith indicated that there are some businesses in the overlay district that have 4 and 5 signs. This is ridiculous. She referred to the Tattoo Parlor. In a lot of cases there are more signs than business.

Nancy Mulholland commented on the newspaper boxes. She feels that they should be covered. Town Manager Segal-George replied that a council member raised this issue. A couple years ago this was looked at by the LPA. She felt the LPA became scared off by what was happening in Fort Myers. She expressed that the News-Press or Naples paper will argue that they have the right to put a news box in the right-of-way. On private property this is regulated by the owner. This can be addressed by the LPA. She suggested that the LPA wait to see what is done by the County on Connecticut Street.

Roxie Smith raised the question of flags. She expressed that a pirates flag is flying. This adds to the clutter.

Ginny replied that more than one flag is allowed as long as it contains the business logo. They may also have a state, national or county flag. She explained that she must be very careful when writing tickets. She does not want to get her cases thrown out of court. She will look into the pirate flag.

VI. LDC, CHAPTER 34, ARTICLES V, VI

Bill Spikowski came forward and mentioned that listening to the discussion on signs today has prompted some immediate changes to be made and longer changes should be completed in two steps. There is a general issue regarding the type of signs to be used on Fort Myers Beach. The pole signs are unattractive. Ground signs are the alternative to the pole signs. A small building near the street should have a sign on the building. Pole or ground signs are not needed. This will be one of the bigger projects the LPA can work toward over the next few years.

Bill went on to discuss that Article VI was a topic for last month. The changes are very minor and only address on the specifics brought up in the meeting. This will be dealt with in the end. Article V is the bigger part of today’s package. He expressed that they have 4 new LPA members who have not gone through this area carefully. He felt that it would be good to look at this today in this forum before they get to the public hearing portion.

Bill began with division 1 thru 5 and asked for questions. The largest part is division 5 pertaining to alcoholic beverages and has not been changed since the LPA saw it last. Division 3 basically mirrors the previous County codes and the Town’s own ordinance. Division 2 pertains to all important details as to where your swimming pool, shed and garage can go. The substance of these is not dramatically different.

Hank Zuba questioned accessory apartments and asked why the purpose for affordable housing was eliminated? Bill Spikowski replied that there are two sections. The first is a remnant from the County program from the late 1980's. Under this provision you had to certify that the tenants had certain income and was very detailed. Everybody thought it was a good idea, but there were so many rules no one took advantage of it. The intent is to lighten up a little. He expressed that the Town is not monitoring the situation by guaranteeing or certifying that the people meet a certain income range. Some of the people may come down for the winter and are well off, but would just like a modest place to stay.

Hank Zuba questioned that an attached garage may be converted to an accessory apartment? Bill Spikowski replied that this is true.

Roxie Smith questioned the detached garages also.

Bill Spikowski discussed that the section on page 119 does apply to things that can happen in the future. The section beginning on the next page is existing only.

Town Manager Segal-George indicated if you have a single family home with an attached or detached garage you could not turn this into an apartment? Bill Spikowski replied that under certain circumstances you can. Most people cannot because it would put them over the 4 units per acre. If you had a double or triple lot and the zoning allowed a duplex it could be converted. If you have a single family home with a single family zoning this language would not help you.

Bill Spikowski commented that this section needs some additional work.

Jane Plummer referred to the attached apartments and asked why the apartment needs to be less than 50% of the floor ratio of the main dwelling? She can think of many properties where it is the same size as the top and bottom. Will they have to reduce it by 50%? Bill Spikowski replied that when this was put in place it was designed to be very restrictive. It was not designed to make duplexes easier to permit. This is the reason for the limitation and whether the limitation makes sense is another matter. This was not an attempt to legalize existing conditions.

Hank Zuba asked why the density is not included on the accessory? Bill Spikowski replied that in the owner occupied homes, under these very strict conditions, they are not deemed a dwelling unit and do not have to meet the density requirements. He expressed that a new situation was created which states that if the owner lives in this building they will legalize the second unit for existing only. This was a localized attempt to fix a bad situation. In order to make this work it had to not count as a dwelling unit.

Town Manager Segal-George explained that they have lists of people who have gone through the process to register their properties and have signed affidavits stating that the property is owner occupied. It has had a tremendous impact on the Town not having to deal with the illegal mother-in-law apartment situation. Two issues have always existed. One is the zoning issue and the other is FEMA. She explained that a huge mess existed all the time.

Bill Spikowski went on to discuss division 9. The previous regulations were very restrictive by trying to eliminate bus terminals. This has been re-written to be more lenient to allow for someone who has the right spot and may provide such a facility on private property.

Jane Plummer questioned page 130. A mobile home may be used as an office for sales of mobile home lots or units which are located within the mobile home area. This does not discuss hotels, but just for mobile homes? She explained that they do have a mobile home site as a sales office here presently. It is not for mobile homes, but for hotels. Does this get addressed in another area? Bill Spikowski replied that there is a section coming up for model homes. This is where a sales office for a new development would fit in.

Harold Huber explained that a trailer is down in Bay Beach at Casa Marina. This was used for construction. The construction is now finished and this has not been moved out. He expressed that this should be put on a temporary lot somewhere off site. Bill Spikowski replied he will find out where this is regulated, if they do not come across it today.

Bill Spikowski discussed division 11 and explained that this is important, especially for those that are new to the LPA. The existing regulations on cellular phone antennas and pager antennas were designed toward getting everyone to locate on a couple of really tall towers rather than a proliferation of 100 foot towers. This may make sense for Lee County, but makes no sense for Fort Myers Beach. This language states that you do not need any additional towers, and if you do you will need to prove that you cannot find a place on an existing building to locate. This is designed toward making it easy for the communications people to get permission to go on a building.

Bill discussed that division 16 contains some new material. This addresses the issue of outdoor display of merchandise. This could turn out to be controversial before completion. Page 138 has suggested regulations on where to display merchandise between the store and the street. He expressed that this version is lenient. He does not feel really strongly about this, but he felt it would be a starting place.

Anita Cereceda commented that there is a group of business people looking to ban the display of all outdoor merchandise in the core area. She expressed that she used to do this for her store, but she no longer does. This is much better for her. The argument is that the cheap merchandise is displayed to lure people in. This essentially states that the store has cheap stuff and who is interested in this. She is one of the people leading the charge of eliminating this. There are more people in favor of restricting outside display of merchandise than there are opposed to this.

Dan Folke asked Bill what is being proposed is in the downtown district you could have a mobile hotdog vendor as long as it is on private property? Bill Spikowski replied that in the downtown area you must have carts of certain dimensions and this is fairly restrictive. He indicated that you cannot tell people the type of merchandise to be displayed, but you can upscale the way it is displayed.

Bill explained that only minor changes exist in division 17. The intent was to try and make this clearer.

Roxie Smith expressed that this division states that you cannot put a fence up in the right-of-way, but it does not tell you how far back it must be? Bill Spikowski replied that there is no setback from the right-of-way, so it can be right at the right-of-way line. The current rule has a 5 foot requirement to the front. He could never understand the purpose and is suggesting that this be eliminated.

Co-Chairman Betty Simpson asked if this applies to seawalls? Bill replied that he believes you must stay back 5 feet from the water. He referred to page 140. If there is a seawall the fence can be immediately landward of the seawall. This is the way the rule has been all along.

Bill went on to discuss division 19. He explained that 95% of this is the same as last time. He added in some new material. The County rule has changed on lock off accommodations. He referred to Bay Beach and mentioned the little extra units that were not quite apartments or hotel rooms. These were getting added in on top of the development that was approved through the settlement agreement with Bay Beach. He was trying to resolve how some of these unique spaces appearing would be counted. This is the main new material. He referred to page 144 and talked about the box including equivalency factors between hotels and dwelling units. This has changed as a result of the last LPA meeting. It is more restrictive than the version brought forward previously. If you have a unit over 1,000 square feet and are trying to call it a guest unit for hotel purposes this can no longer be done. The table indicates if you are building a hotel or bed and breakfast that does not require rezoning this will explain the multipliers you will receive. They are adjustable based on the size of the units and on the land use category. Pedestrian/commercial is the most lenient. You can ask for more through the planned development process. When you ask for something additional it will be listed as a deviation. This will not slip by and you will know that you are approving it.

Roxie Smith questioned the 250 square feet. She expressed that this is not very big. Bill Spikowski replied that he agreed it is not big. This was the number put into the Comprehensive Plan about 4 months ago. The whole section along Old San Carlos is verbatim from the plan.

Roxie Smith feels that they may want to consider making this a little bigger.

Bill replied that if a bigger number is put in you would have to ask for a deviation from this to go as low as 250 square feet. It would be impossible to go below this. Something larger could go in here. He will need to explain how everything is exactly as the plan states, but this is different. He can do this if it is the desire of the LPA.

Roxie Smith feels that they should consider the 250 square feet. Especially, since the trend is going toward bigger.

Hank Zuba feels that the size makes it both more affordable and more attractive. Along the boulevard provides an opportunity for a some smaller scale type of development rather than the large type.

Anita Cereceda asked for the logic behind maximum continuous length of stay being 30 days? Bill replied what would keep someone from building a bed and breakfast for lodging and renting it as a boarding house. This is just a suggestion and he can see it happening. He is not saying they should ban boarding or rooming houses. He feels that they should have some type of maximum limit or they will get something other than what is intended. He has no problem increasing the number.

Roxie Smith suggested increasing the number. She feels that a lot of people will want to stay for 2 or 3 months. It was agreed that it should be changed to 90 days. Bill will make this change.

Bill discussed division 26 and very little change has taken place since it was last seen by the LPA. This is very important and deals with parking dimensions. The number of parking spaces are more lenient than anything the County has had. They are basically very minimal. He expressed that they should not be surprised if the landowners choose to go a little bigger.

Jane Plummer questioned if they have a speed limit on the residential side streets? Bill Spikowski replied that there are default speed limits on state roads, if nothing is posted. He is unsure if this would apply to a street in the Town.

Hank Zuba commented on page 153 regarding the dwelling units that were lowered with common parking requirements. He questioned if this works? Bill replied that typically when you lower the minimum parking requirement below a certain point the landowners build the extra space anyway. No maximums exist. There are enough people down here that are willing to not bring cars or share cars that it does not make sense to lower these. He encourages the LPA to go with these lower numbers.

Anita Cereceda questioned if there is a place that addresses storage of recreational vehicles? Bill replied that he believes this is a permitted land use in some industrial and heavy commercial districts. You can have a yard where you store boats, trailers and RV’s. This would fit in certain zoning districts. He is unsure if there is a need for this on this island. There are a lot of places just off the island up on San Carlos Blvd..

Anita Cereceda was questioning the parking of RV’s on the side of a home in a residential neighborhood. Dan Folke replied that he has a neighbor who parks their RV on the side of the house. It is Unincorporated Lee and he feels that they have the same rule for the Town. There is nothing that says you cannot do this. You cannot store multiple RV’s or be living in it. Bill Spikowski agrees that he cannot think of any rules that will prohibit this.

Hank Zuba discussed division 34. The requirement was changed for the damage on a public right-of-way from shall to may. He asked why? Bill replied that he was sure this was a change made by the County and he felt there must be a reason and suggested the same change. They have been amending their code since incorporation. He would be willing to learn more about this if it is the desire of the LPA.

Jane Plummer pointed out that Harold Huber’s question is answered on page 167 at the bottom. It states that a temporary contractors office and equipment storage shed is to be removed within 30 days of the date of final inspection for the property. Harold Huber replied that the Certificate of Occupancy has been complete for 120 days.

Bill indicated that division 37, with regards to tatoo studios and body piercing, was discussed last time with the LPA. Some very restrictive language was included and is listed as option 1. In this draft there are two other options of how the Town may restrict tatoo studios and body piercing salons. The first is the most restrictive. The other two are just other approaches.

Anita Cereceda questioned the basis for complaints on the tatoo parlors. She expressed that nobody complains about the tatoo business at Pelican Plaza. He has a great reputation. Is it appearance? This is a huge question to her. She hears a lot of complaints. She is trying to determine the reason for the complaints. This topic needs to be discussed. Would you hear about the tatoos if they all did business like Pelican Plaza? Town Manager Segal-George replied that there is the proliferation fear. She feels in some respects it is the piercing more than the tattooing.

Anita has concerns with the drug paraphernalia. Town Manager Segal-George replied that Daytona Beach passed an ordinance, which is the first in the state, to outlaw drug paraphernalia. She indicated that they have been looking into this. As soon as she can get a hold of the ordinance from Daytona she will bring this before the Council.

Anita asked if there is a way for a reputable tatoo artist to do business in the town of Fort Myers Beach or do they not want this at all? Is this something to dispose of? Town Manager Segal-George replied that this aim was to try and control it and prevent proliferation. Bill commented that option 1 is very restrictive and when combined with 34-3069 this is a combination of an extreme approach. There is no need to make a decision on this today. If the LPA has more good options he will publish them for future consideration.

Dan Folke asked for explanation of option 2. He is not clear regarding the outer perimeter of the downtown zoning district. Bill replied that the downtown zoning district as shown in this code is basically the same as the overly area. Some of the properties within this area are rezoning as CPD. This language may need work. The intent is not to allow any additions or expansion.

Bill Spikowski discussed division 39. This mentions the moving of buildings. Currently the regulations on moving are pretty simple. Technical issues do exist. He expressed that this is a very lenient policy on moving and he is comfortable with this. Council member Rynearson asked why this cannot be made more restrictive. Bill did not feel that it needed to be, but he mentioned that he would bring this up to the LPA for consideration. Does the LPA feel there is a problem with the current rules?

Town Manager Segal-George indicated that there are some interesting legal opinions. This is an issue to be discussed with the Town Attorney. He has issued an opinion regarding the Pink Shell Cottages. These are hotel or resort units and cannot be moved to single family lots on the island, because these are not single family homes. Council member Rynearson believes that homes cannot be moved on the island.

Bill replied that they can be moved under the current regulation.

Town Manager Segal-George commented that Attorney Roosa has stated that they cannot restrict to stick built homes. Manufactured homes can be brought onto the island. An issue with White Cap exists. This has been approved by Council to build new units and move off what they have onto two lots on Lovers Lane. A number of issues exist, because these were multi unit buildings. They are not in good shape, so do you need some type of structural standard. This is an area with a lot of complaints, questions and issues. Many people are concerned about what can be moved on a lot next door to them.

Bill expressed that the other half of division 39 will be brought back next month for review.

Town Manager Segal-George added that this does not apply to historic cottages.

Discussion was held regarding the Pink Shell Cottages not being classified as historic.

Roxie Smith explained that it is her understanding you cannot get it designated as historic and then move it. You must move it and then designate it.

Bill indicated that when this is reviewed next month they may decide some additional authority needs to be granted to the Town to make sure when the buildings are moved they are properly finished and brought up to certain standards.

Jane Plummer feels that some architectural design standards need to be set.

Bill indicated that the decision on delegating has been moved to the building official. He expressed that next month they can state that the building official still has this responsibility, but there are design issues that need to be reserved to the Town and must be addressed before the building official can issue a permit. He feels that there is a way to avoid the bad ones without banning the moving of buildings that are a part of the heritage.

Bill expressed that they will discuss this next month in greater detail and come up with a plan.

Bill discussed that Article VI was gone over in great detail last month. Page 2 of his memo indicates the specific sections that have been changed. In every case it was just to clarify questions that had come up at the last meeting. There is nothing new of substance.

Bill explained that next month the LPA will have articles I, II and III. This will contain everything else in Chapter 34, except for the zoning map and zoning districts.

Anita Cereceda asked when the LPA will hold public hearings on these? Bill replied that he would like to get a little bit further on Chapter 34. He would like to hold another joint workshop between the Council and the LPA. He would like to do this in April. The question will be at the end of the meeting if this is ready to go to public hearing or do they need to go back for more work.

Anita Cereceda is wondering why more people do not come to the LPA meetings? Many of the issues people complain about at Council meetings are actually worked on here. If they would say something at the beginning a lot of trouble could be eliminated. She is wondering how they could get the word out to come to the joint workshop with the LPA and Council? Town Manager Segal-George replied that the workshop will be advertised in the Observer, Sand Paper and News-Press. Bill Spikowski replied that this is a problem everywhere. People do not understand the importance of coming to these meetings to have a say in the process. He expressed that before the public hearing they do need to go out of their way to inform people this is coming up with more then just the normal legal ads.

VII. LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS

None.

VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT

Council member Bill Van Duzer expressed that the LPA does a super job. He also wishes the people would come here before they come to Town Council. He commented that they are all terrific people and expressed much thanks for their efforts!

IX. ADJOURN

The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m..

Respectfully Submitted,

Shannon Miller

Transcribing Secretary