FORT MYERS BEACH

FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

OCTOBER 15, 2002

Town Hall - Council Chambers

2523 Estero Boulevard

FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA

I. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting of the LPA was opened by Chairman Betty Simpson on Tuesday, October 15, 2002, at 12:10 p.m..

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

Excused absence from meeting: None.

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

II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Invocation was given by Chairman Betty Simpson. All assembled and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

III. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS

Ollie Curran from 2801 Estero Blvd. came forward. She has been a resident for 27 years. She has no objections to “A” signs. She feels the law should be enforced all the same from the north to the south. A solution would be to remove all “A” signs and replace with a sign such as Armando’s. The small business is the business of America. She feels a sign needs to be on the street for the benefit of the business. She knows that the LPA has a lot of power to help with this situation.

Bob Gutierrez from 2201 Estero Blvd. came forward. He has been a resident for 25 years and has operated his wife’s family business for 20 years. The business is one block outside of the overlay district. The sandwich signs helps out their business significantly. If the traffic can begin to flow on Estero Blvd. to visit the remainder of the beach and businesses, it will help the traffic and island wide business community. He believes by not allowing the signs to remain in the areas outside the overlay district it will take business away from all.

IV. DISCUSSION OF NEW ZONING DISTRICTS - Bill Spikowski

Bill Spikowski, Planning Consultant for the Town, came forward. Today the LPA has before them Article III, which contains new material. This is the first of a series of meetings to look over all of Chapter 34 to identify areas which need additional work before the Public Hearings. Next Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. there is a joint Workshop between the Town Council and LPA. The schedule for adoption is based on the Town’s schedule. Some of the material adopted by the Council back in June is in the Article today. He indicated when they do go to adopt Chapter 34 this does include the zoning map for the Town and the new zoning map should be adopted the same night as the adoption of the district. This does complicate the nature of the Public Hearings.

Jane Plummer discussed page 129 and has concerns that there are a lot of properties that cannot build a house on a property with a driveway in this manner. Bill Spikowski replied that this is not the case. No one would be required to put a side driveway or put a garage in the back. He pointed out a couple of options. He explained that this is unchanged from the time the LPA looked at it last.

Jane moved onto the issue of floor-area-ratio as opposed to the lot coverage. Bill Spikowski replied that an elevated house needs to count the square footage of the house upstairs and the square footage of parking. The floor-area-ratio he is recommending is very lenient and should not keep anyone from building anything that has been built on the beach.

Jane questioned the effects on commercial properties? Bill replied that he has computed the commercial floor-area-ratio for every planned development before the LPA. He discussed the properties that would not meet the standards. He is suggesting the floor-area-ratios be included even though they are very lenient. Very few buildings would be effected. If someone wanted to come in and built twice the bulk of what is being approved today they will be over the floor-area-ratio and will need to ask for a variance or deviation.

Anita Cereceda suggested that a visualization would be helpful. She will get the addresses of four homes on Bonita Beach Road and Bill Spikowski will do the calculations to see how the floor-area-ratio on Fort Myers Beach would affect these homes.

Roxie Smith discussed the garage doors. She expressed that not all houses can recess the garage. Bill Spikowski replied that you can recess the garage or extend the porch. The new rule allows you to build the house five feet closer to the street than the old rule. A porch could be added on.

Bill discussed the rules for mobile homes in a flood zone such as Fort Myers Beach and if you have a subdivision lot you cannot bring in a mobile home without elevating it 6 feet. The Federal Law changed in the late 1980's to state in a mobile home park you only have to elevate it about 3 feet, unless it gets flooded. Once it is flooded, it must go up to 6 feet. This rule was relaxed. If there is no flood the mobile home park can stay forever or if next year there is a flood it will become non-viable as a mobile park. This is the reason for the pre-approved development option.

Hank Zuba referred to page 72 and questioned the word “official” with regard to zoning maps? Bill Spikowski replied since the Town was formed the County has revised this entire section. The County came up with the terms “official zoning map” and “current zoning map.” He is making the changes to use their terms exactly because they do make the maps. Official is the map adopted at by the Town Council at a big meeting and current is the one as amended each time a zoning action has taken place.

Anita Cereceda has an issue with Division II pertaining to allowable land uses in restricted residential zoning. She commented that residential single family is restricted. She referred to the notation where consideration by the LPA would be made with regard to the rental of any permitted dwelling to one family for periods greater than 28 days. The meeting of 1/15/02 did not result in a decision on the zoning issue of whether or not all dwelling’s units would be permitted to be rented in the restricted single family zoning category. The decision was deferred to an ancillary decision of how to monitor the rentals already occurring and how to register. The zoning issue has not been addressed. This issue was raised with the Task Force and the Task Force felt it was their task to limit to the creation of a registry and ordinance pertaining to behavior of short term rentals. She asked if this was correct? Jodi Hester replied that this is correct.

Anita discussed that this is a monumental policy decision.

Jessica Titus wondered the intent and type of restriction.

Bill Spikowski replied to the approach of the code to businesses within homes. He explained that this draft of the code is more lenient on home based businesses than the current rules.

Jessica explained that the argument for those who would like the short term rental ban is commercial intrusion into single family residential neighborhoods. She feels the issue is commercial vs. noncommercial.

Anita indicated that she has been accused of wanting to ban short term rentals on Fort Myers Beach. This is untrue. She does want to see the LPA address this issue. The Task Force performed in the correct manner.

Roxie Smith feels this matter has been addressed. She has been in the short term rentals business for 50 years on this island. She does not believe that it is anywhere close to fair to tell her she cannot do this. The real objection she has heard with short term rentals is the conduct of the people in the short term rentals. Rentals are the heritage of the island. She does not feel it is right to throw away someone’s income, because a person disobeyed some rules. She feels they should try to establish some rules and then determine if short term rentals should be eliminated.

Nancy Mulholland has conflicting opinions and feels this must be addressed. The way the new zoning has been described will the present multi-family remain multi-family zoned with the new quiet zones and new designations? Bill Spikowski replied mostly so. The way the map has been created will allow for the areas that have been multi-family to remain multi-family. The land which was single family before will remain single family. The map shows a number of single family neighborhoods up to Times Square which will be re-zoned into the duplex district. These changes are just proposals.

Nancy has the feeling of neighborhood becoming anonymous. She feels this is the focus this matter takes and not commercial intrusion. No matter what decision is made, someone will be unhappy.

Jodi Hester discussed the single family residential area with the office. She indicated that she has a home office and one of the restrictions is that nobody can be present to work for them. This has limited their growth, but she is willing to accept this by being able to have an office in the home. She would like to strike “with outside help.” Bill Spikowski replied that this is in the current code and is very limited. This would pertain to a disabled individual who can have outside help for a limited amount of time. He is proposing the new “live work” section. He pointed this area out to the LPA. This would not be allowed in the single family zones, but would be allowed in the duplex and multi-family homes and would allow up to two employees.

Anita Cereceda questioned Jessica Titus as a Realtor if she could show a family a home strictly in a single family residential neighborhood without any rentals? Jessica replied that she cannot at this time.

Anita feels you cannot base the current decision on today’s people. If you allow what is presently happening now and then do not allow the rentals in the future at least the process has been frozen.

Roxie Smith commented that the short term rentals are not rented 52 weeks out of the year. She is only familiar with Timeshares having this sort of turnover.

Hank Zuba feels the rentals are a business. The licensing makes a lot of sense. He prefers to see limitation. This is a business and the process of complaining is not clear. All who live in a single family home and make improvements look at this from the prospective that they would prefer a full time resident without having rentals nearby.

Chairman Simpson feels those who have the unfortunate opportunity of having the renters next door do create a sensitive subject. Long term rentals do become negatives in the neighborhoods. In this case, Dave Crabtree can come and look into the situation.

Nancy Mulholland asked Anita how long of a rental she felt would be acceptable in a residential neighborhood? Anita replied that she is unsure. She does not feel the stopping of rentals altogether would create a gain to anyone. She indicated that this is a discussion to be dealt with in the future.

Roxie Smith expressed her confusion on page 78 between existing vs. non-conforming. Bill Spikowski replied the existing only is a Lee County invention. He provided an example. The existing only is not used very often. He is suggesting keeping this in and available for its use once in a while.

Harold Huber moved to page 106 and discussed guest units. He asked for an explanation? Bill Spikowski replied that the term is defined in the definition section (Hotel/Motel) and is a new term in the code. It does include hotel room, motel rooms, bed and breakfast rooms and also includes full size condominiums in daily rental programs. It does limit numbers and sizes.

Roxie Smith addressed page 88 with regard to setbacks. 3(a) 5 feet from a seawall canal or a seawall natural body of water for a non-roofed structure. She read in another area 20 or 25 feet. Bill Spikowski replied that the home itself must be 25 feet back from the water. Page 88 are the rules for accessory structures. These are the same rules used by the County and he is not proposing any changes.

Anita Cereceda moved to page 102 with regard to the outdoor sale of merchandise. She asked if the Times Square Advisory Board made a final decision on this matter? Bill Spikowski replied the decision is split. At the Workshop two or three merchants spoke in favor and three or four spoke against. This wording remains unchanged and he hopes to have additional input next week.

Roxie Smith questioned Bill if the people at Lee County will have training or will they have difficulty understanding? Bill Spikowski replied that they are concerned. The County is not only concerned with the new language of Fort Myers Beach, but have Bonita Springs coming forward also. As each new section is adopted one or two training sessions do exist. He feels this process will work well. Dan Folke added that he receives a lot of calls from Lee County reviewers with just the few changes that have been made. The County is not shy about calling with questions.

V. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE CHANGES TO SIGN REGULATIONS - Gini Ross

Dan Folke began by indicating he and Gini Ross had a lot of discussion with regard to application of the new sign ordinance. The first issue pertains to ground mounted signs and monument signs. He has provided definitions. A 32-foot ground sign is allowed for identification. He expressed some confusion with pole signs. He asked if it was the intention of the LPA to have both ground style and monument style?

Jessica Titus questioned “at grade?” Gini Ross replied that when measuring a sign the ordinance reads it is measured from the crown of the road. If a dip in the property exists then the sign from the ground elevation to the top of the sign could possibly be higher than the 4-feet or 8-feet.

Jane Plummer feels there is a benefit to each style sign.

Gini Ross reviewed that she felt the intention of the LPA was to limit to monument style signs. A conflict in the ordinance exists. Town Manager Segal-George replied that she believed this is what the LPA wanted at the time. She does not feel the monument style has any bearing on flooding and she does not see this to be a problem. Plazas have different rules and are allowed a different kind of signage based on the number of occupants in the plaza.

Anita Cereceda questioned if the Armando’s sign is part of the present glitch? Gini replied that it is and she explained that the sign is 32 square foot. The sign was placed without a permit and was on a pole that was 14-feet high. The pole was cut down to 8-foot high, but it was still a pole sign that is prohibited. According the ordinance all that needed to be done was to wrap the base of the sign and it would then comply.

Roxie Smith commented if the intent is to change to all monument signs will the height need to be corrected? Gini replied that this is correct. Roxie added that the LPA struggled in the past with the decision of height. It was determined that in fairness the sign should be 8-foot tall.

Dan Folke expressed if the LPA would like to allow the 8-foot sign he would recommend the underlined language. This language would add to the definition of permanent ground signs.

Town Manager Segal-George commented that the reason the road is used for the guide is due to the road being consistent and the grade may not be. There is no prohibition against a person raising the grade of their property.

Gini Ross added that the crown of the road is a very simple way to measure the height.

Hank Zuba likes the idea of every sign being a monument sign. The better quality sign represents a better quality business. A wider than taller monument wrapped sign presents a better image and allows more standardization. For these reasons he would be in favor of the definition of monument.

Jane Plummer feels many businesses are set up right on top of the street. Another option should exist due to the possible interference with pedestrians and traffic.

Anita Cereceda reviewed with Dan Folke’s suggested change both options would exist. Gini replied that this is correct. If the LPA only wants ground signs to be monument signs then all signs would have to be the “B” example. If the LPA would like the businesses to have the option of having an 8-foot sign, it would be necessary for Dan to rewrite the definition of the 8-foot high sign and the definition of the monument would be changed.

Nancy Mulholland feels the monument sign is more attractive. Many different properties exist and she feels the option needs to be left open to the business owner.

Roxie Smith added the only solution is to have 5-foot signs, which are all monument or the option is given.

Jodi Hester agrees with the monument sign. She has concerns with those who have spent money to change their signs and would now be hurt by the change of the monument sign.

Gini Ross added that most of the new business signs put up since the ordinance went into effect are monument style signs. This is what she felt the LPA wanted and this is what she was enforcing.

Hank Zuba indicated that it seems most have relied on the monument signs and this should be continued with.

Chairman Simpson asked for a consensus. Some discussion was held with regard to the two signs, which are not presently in compliance.

Jodi Hester felt the intent of the LPA was to have the monument signs. Everyone who has redone their signs do look great. She would like to continue with the monument signs.

MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Jodi Hester to direct staff to clarify by definition the original intent of the LPA, which was to provide for monument signs on the Boulevard.

Discussion: Harold Huber questioned if the 5 x 4 is the size for monument signs?

Dan replied that he and Gini came up with the 8 x 4. Sign companies have standard sizes. A maximum will need to be set.

Gini added if the sign must be wider than it is high there is only a certain width the sign can go to. 32 square foot is the largest sign.

VOTE: Motion passes 7 to 2.

Dan Folke indicated the next issue is the “A” frame or sandwich signs. He provided three options. Option one are the rules presently in place today, which is that “A” frame signs are only allowed in the downtown overlay. He indicated that everything in the downtown overlay is intended to create a pedestrian environment. Everyone is the overlay is subject to commercial design standards, which are not allowed anywhere else. Ground signs are not permitted in the overlay. An “A” frame sign is limited in size to 6 square feet and 2 feet wide. An “A” frame sign is intended for pedestrians and is not normally a sign you would see driving by. The intent is for the sign to give additional information to draw you into a business. His second option is to allow the signs all over Estero Blvd.. He gave possible reasons why this may make sense, especially during season. From a planning point of view he does not believe the same reasons exist for allowing them in the overlay district. His third option would be to ban “A” frame signs altogether. Some guidance from the LPA is needed.

Jane Plummer is very much in favor of Option two. Many businesses need these signs to stay alive.

Roxie Smith also likes Option two. She questioned the limitation of the signs in a plaza area. Dan Folke replied if Option two is chosen he recommends some guidelines be developed as to the maximum number of sandwich signs. He also recommended that the signs be limited to six square feet per side and 2 feet in width. The signs must be brought in at night and the language to include professionally made.

Gini Ross added that the language should include the signs must be designed or made by a sign contractor. She feels this will be much more easy to control.

Anita Cereceda mentioned a chalkboard. She feels the signs which change daily are the ones most people pay the most attention too. These types of signs can be very cleaver. She is questioning how this element of subjectivity can be put into writing. Gini Ross replied that this will be very difficult to do.

Town Manager Segal-George added that restaurant menu on a chalkboard could be allowed. If a sign is professionally made to allow the change it would be acceptable.

Hank Zuba fears a proliferation of signs up and down the Boulevard. He feels Option one with the variation of the restaurants outside the districts makes most sense to him.

Harold Huber agrees with Jane Plummer. He would like to allow the signs up and down the Boulevard.

Nancy Mulholland does believe the signs should be allowed up and down the Boulevard. She feels limits must be established. She is in favor of the professionally designed sign company. She has concerns of enforcement.

Town Manager Segal-George discussed enforcement and indicated she has been very lenient with offsite signs and “A” frame signs. As soon as regulations have been changed and a new sign ordinance is in place she will enforce it.

Roxie Smith agrees the signs should be out all year. She feels if they are allowed in one place they should be allowed everywhere with regulations and restrictions. Certain businesses in the overlay district have multiple signs and she feels this should be regulated.

Jodi Hester prefers Option three. She feels the reason the LPA came up with the sign ordinance was to make everything look better than it did. Her opinion is that sandwich signs “tacky’ up Estero Blvd.. She has never been drawn in by a sandwich signs.

Hank Zuba agrees with Jodi Hester.

Jodi Hester feels if Option three fails she does like Gini’s recommendation of the professionally made sign as an option. This would be easier to enforce.

Anita Cereceda has a problem with sandwich signs in Times Square. The nature of the Boulevard is to make it pedestrian friendly.

Dan Folke indicated the consensus seems to be Option two.

MOTION: Made by Jane Plummer and seconded by Roxie Smith to proceed with Option two and eliminating the dates by allowing the signs year round all the way down Estero Blvd.. This would include having the signs prepared by a professional sign maker. A maximum of two signs for under 9 businesses and three for 10 or over with the option for the businesses to switch the display of signs not to exceed the maximum number out at any one time.

VOTE: Motion passes 6 to 3.

Dan Folke moved onto the offsite sign issue. Presently an offsite sign is not permitted and can be approved only by variance. He recommends these signs be looked at on a case by case basis. He is aware of two offsite signs that have been approved on the island since he has been working on the island.

Anita Cereceda questioned if there would be a cost associated with the variance? Dan Folke replied a variance is $700.00.

Anita asked if there is a way to waive the fee? Dan replied that the fee goes to Lee County. He does not feel they have the ability to waive the fee, unless Town staff were going to review them. He recommends against this. A variance does require a lot staff time for review and it is a legal matter.

No motion was made and the information will be included in the ordinance.

Dan Folke discussed roof signs and benches. Roof signs are permitted in the downtown overlay. He is asking for clarification roof signs are not permitted, except as allowed in the downtown overlay, and that this information can be included in the ordinance. There is a definition in the ordinance for bench signs. The Council is working with LeeTran to try and replace the existing advertisement signs with decorative benches. In the interim there are a number of bench signs not located at LeeTran bus stops. Staff is asking for an amendment to the definition.

Jane Plummer questioned how many benches will be removed? Town Manager Segal-George replied that they want to replace with decorative benches. The plan on Estero is to make it more pedestrian friendly with an upgraded look. The intent is to get the advertising on the Trolley’s and off of the benches.

Dan indicated that the issue of roof signs and benches will be included in the changes. The LPA was in agreement.