FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

DECEMBER 17, 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 Roxie Smith on Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 12:00 p.m..

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

Excused absence from meeting: None.

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

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Invocation was given by Chairman Roxie Smith. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

III. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT FOR THE MEETING - M. Segal-George & Chairman

Town Manager Segal-George expressed that the topic before the LPA is very controversial and many strong opinions on both sides exist. A code of civility has been printed for anyone who wishes to review. No clapping, hissing or booing is allowed. Everyone should be allowed to give their opinion and speak uninterrupted. A time limit of 3-minutes is allowed. After this matter leaves the LPA it will go before the Town Council for three hearings. Public comment will be allowed at each hearing. The LPA is very interested in hearing the opinions of everyone present. Her hope is that everyone will treat one another in a kindly and respectful manner.

IV. BRIEF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ON CHAPTER 34- BILL SPIKOWSKI

Bill Spikowski, Planning Consultant for the Town, came forward. The Land Development Code which was inherited from the County, implemented the County’s Comprehensive Plan and not the Town’s Plan. He indicated they have labored under this plan trying to make it work for Fort Myers Beach. This particular series of hearings on Chapter 34 is the most important part of this entire process. Chapter 34 is known as the zoning code, which is the part of the Land Development Code, that affects most people more often than any other section of the code. This has taken more than 2 ½ years to prepare. An ordinance to amend the code is being considered today at this public hearing. Two attachments exist: The new proposed zoning map and text.

Bill went on to explain that Chapter 34 is divided into five sections. The first section contains all the definitions. Article two contains all zoning procedures. Article three is the most important, which describes the new zoning districts and explains exactly what can be done on each piece of land. This section is entirely new from the previous code. Article four is just as important. Short term rentals are one of 30+ specific topics discussed in Article four. The last article deals with non-conforming uses, which were legal at one point, but as rules have changed they are no longer allowed. This does provide protection for people who began a use of land in a way which is illegal only because the law has changed.

The Workshop back in October resulted in a decision to bring this Chapter forward for public hearing. Some small changes in the draft have taken place. Two zoning districts have evolved. One is called “Village,” which applies to the Gulfview Trailer Park and Red Coconut. The other is called “Santini,” which applies to the Santini Plaza, marina, Eckerd’s and surrounding businesses. Both of these districts implement specific redevelopment ideas in the Comprehensive Plan. New from the previous meeting would include the discussion of the sale of outdoor merchandise. At the October 22 meeting there was a consensus that the proposed rules were too lenient. Outdoor dining will be allowed up and down Old San Carlos and in Times Square. Outdoor display of merchandise will be on private property only. The six new pages on Short Term Rentals have been discussed over the past one year and two months. The existing Land Development regulations are vague and contradictory. The five options on page 189 thru 195 are before the LPA today as a result of the Joint Workshop on October 22.

Bill discussed a few housekeeping changes in the ordinance. Some regulations were moved from one location to another. Today’s hearing is a legally mandated public hearing. The LPA must make a determination and vote as to whether this is consistent with the Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan. After today’s hearing there will be state mandated hearings.

Town Manager Segal-George announced this matter will be introduced to the Town Council on January 13, 2003 and will include public comment. The first public hearing will be February 3, 2003 at 3:00 p.m.. The second public hearing will be March 3, 2003 at 6:30 p.m.. At the conclusion of the second public hearing on March 3 is when the Council will make a decision.

Chairman Smith added if the LPA does not forward any information to the Town Council the dates will be subject to change. Town Manager Segal-George indicated the dates are subject to change. These dates are based on the LPA transmitting information to the Town Council today.

Bill Spikowski will be present for the remainder of meeting to answer any questions.

V. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CHAPTER 34 ( 3 minute limit per speaker)

Peter Lisich, 131 Estero Blvd., came forward. He came specifically with a concern with the pre-disaster build back policy. Specifically, as it regards the measurement of lawful density and intensity in residential buildings. He referred to page 213 - 2(D). This addresses the rebuilding of legal buildings in a pre-disaster situation. This will limit the existing square footage for a rebuild. This policy will not allow the increase in square footage in a home built back in the 50's, 60's or 70's. The square footage in these homes is not reasonable and no one is interested in these properties. He is concerned if an incentive is not given to meet current expectations and standards are misdirected good intentions may not take place. He feels this will hurt the entire island. He would like to see the section removed, which specifically measures intensity in residential by square footage. He indicated the typical way of measuring intensity is by number of units not by square footage.

Linda Milligan, 7130 Estero Blvd., came forward. She works with Coldwell Banker at 7130 Estero Blvd.. She is very much against a ban or unworkable regulations for short term rentals. It appears that advocates of the ban are trying to solve a behavior problem with zoning restrictions. Code enforcement and other remedies are already in place. There are very few behavioral problems. The single family-zoned district comprises more than 12 times the area designated for hotels. There are more than 2,200 homes affected in this district. If there is a ban placed on short term rentals where will the displaced tourists go. There are only 1,500 hotel rooms and these are not enough. A short term rental ban will be devastating to the island. Figures from the Lee County Visitors and Convention Bureau show the total economic impact to the community for Fort Myers Beach would be close to $143 million. This figure also represents income to some of the services they enjoy as residents that may not be available without the short term island guests. Any particular neighborhood who feels they need to limit rentals has the ability to form a Homeowners Association and develop, regulate, and enforce their own rules and regulations. She recommends the ample behavioral laws in place be enforced.

Jim Barsow, 21690 Madera Rd., came forward. He and wife have owned a short term rental property on Fort Myers Beach for the past seven years. He has not had one complaint. 98% of his guests are from the UK and are typically grandparents, parents plus 2 children. The first part of their vacation is normally spent in Orlando and the last week spent at the beach. The vast majority of guests plan to return to Fort Myers Beach to take their full two or three-week vacation on the beach. Without the first week they would not have visited Fort Myers Beach at all. These people come as a family and want to live as a family in a home with a private pool and no elevators. Without short term rentals he would be forced to sell their little bit of paradise. Who will pay for the loss of the quality of life, civil rights and the cost associated with the failure of the long term state planning? The taxpayers of Fort Myers Beach will be the people who will lose out should short term rentals be banned.

Tom Babcock, 5130 Williams Dr., read a statement from Neighbors for Neighborhoods. They feel zoning is the best solution to proliferation of short term rentals. Option three from the Task Force does not stop proliferation of weekly rentals in protected zones. Option five could easily be incorporated into one of the other three zoning approvals, if accepted. Option one would be the simplest and would generate the least administrative burden to the Town. Option four is the proposal for consideration. He commented that a 28-day rental is a reasonable suggestion for a tourist island such as Fort Myers Beach. He added that this organization recommends the $120.00 for registration. This option would use the gradual phase out, which would allow preexisting rental properties the ability to rent weekly until January 1, 2008 as long as they remain licensed with the Town. This exemption would not be transferred to subsequent owners. A five-year exemption is adequate time for rental business to adjust to a new business model. A perfect solution may not exist, but they do encourage a reasonable proposal to be passed onto the Town Council. The economic impact of their proposal is less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the $143 million as stated as revenue by short term rentals.

Leslie Corcelli who is the reservation manager for Resort Quest, Southwest Florida came forward. She attended many meetings and has spoken on several occasions. Her family has made their living on short term rentals. She believes any type of restriction on short term rentals on any portion of the island will have a direct effect on the economy, including those who live on the island year round. She feels the registration process will work. This process should be tried and if it does not work it can be discussed again. The bulk of their summertime rentals is for off beach properties for one week. The summertime visitors come from England and Germany and this is the time the money is needed. Everyone came here once as a tourist. She would like to keep things the same way.

Sharon Eldred, 475 Estero Blvd., came forward. She read a letter from the Lee Island Coast Visitors and Convention Bureau to the Fort Myers Beach Town Council.

Gerhard Schoepke, 233 Delmar Ave., came forward. He is from Germany and has a permanent resident permit. In 1999, he bought a beach cottage at 233 Delmar, which was built in 1946. This property was an eyesore. His intention was to tear it down and rebuild. He and his wife fell in love with the cottage and wanted to redo this property. When they returned from Germany this summer, they were told they cannot move the cottage. They were sad and had many plans, which are now on hold. It is possible they will sell the property. He is sure if a new owner bought the property the cottage would be torn down and a large home would replace it.

R.J. Ward, 1342 Colonial Blvd. #31, Ft. Myers, came forward. He is with Spectrum Engineering in Ft. Myers and is representing the owners of Fishtail Marina and Santini Marina Plaza. The owners would like to go on record to state that they opposing the general prohibition on short term rentals. The general reaction to the proposed Santini district is positive. Fishtail Marina is now zoned Commercial Planned Development. The Development of the Marina has been worked on for the last 15 years. The CPD was approved in 1988 and has been amended several times since then. He indicated they are approaching the end of the full development allowed by the CPD and are prepared to make an amendment. He would like Mr. Spikowski to continue to work with them to resolve some of the issues and allow a carry over.

Ann Alsop who is a member of the Rental Task Force came forward. Five proposals are before the LPA for consideration. The registry along with the 7-day rental period would work well for the whole island. The special zoning being proposed is very restrictive and the information has not been given to all the owners of the properties on Fort Myers Beach. Her concern is where this is going to end.

Michael Short, 470 Madison Court, came forward. He has no personal interest in rentals. He is very interested in the quality of life on the island. He would like a pleasant community. In a pleasant community the neighbors know each other, greet each other and help one another. In places where tenants change every week the people do not know each other. Over the last five years the weekly rentals have doubled per the information provided by Neighbor for Neighborhoods. This trend must stop if they wish to preserve pleasant neighborhoods. The weekly residents do not contribute to a pleasant neighborhood, because they are not here long enough. The intent is to not stop weekly rentals from the island. These rentals could be accommodated on a managed premises where garbage is taken care of, etc. and where steps are taken if anti-social behavior occurs. Hardship should not be created for those who purchased with the intent of renting on a weekly basis. Licensing existing short term rentals of single family homes for a limited period seems a fair way out. However, licenses should not be renewed if there are serious complaints about certain properties. A license within the residential areas should cease with the sale of the property. In the future, they would like to avoid having single family homes on the island bought just for the purchase of using them as short term rentals. They do not feel this is good for their island.

Judith Lee, 128 Bay Mar Drive, came forward. She indicated they purchased in August 2001. The home was purchased due to coming to the island in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 as a weekly rental. She indicated they market their home on the internet and pay someone to take out the garbage. Everyone who has rented their home consists of a family. Out of 37 weeks of rentals the longest rental was two weeks. For the year 2003, she has no rentals booked for more than two weeks. People do not have the economic ability to vacation for more than two weeks. She has obtained rentals from Sanibel from rentals who are no longer able to rent on a short term basis. She has no objection to the fees and regulations. She indicated it is not fair to make a home four away from Estero and three away from Estero both have different rules. These homes are part of the same street. She would like clarification on the five unrelated adults.

Carol Schardt, 21650 Madera Rd., came forward. She lives in a residential home and does not rent nor has a business on the island. She is opposed to limiting short term rentals of residential homes on an economic and constitutional basis. Fort Myers Beach has two sources of income: Tourism and Investment Real Estate. The businesses on Fort Myers Beach pay a large amount of the taxes on the island and help the tax base. Limiting available housing will result in less business and higher taxes. The rezoning violates Article One of the Town Charter. No good will come of this bad law and no good will come of pitting groups of one another. Bad law is unconstitutional and does not need to be allowed by the citizens. (In addition to Public Comment, Carol Schardt also provided a written letter to be reviewed by the LPA and entered into the public record.)

George Whistler, 91630 Madera Rd., came forward. He built a home on the island approx-imately 23 years ago. He is against the rental problem. He feels the taxes paid on the island are absorbent. He does not mind this because he likes to live on the island. He does not rent his home, but if he wants to rent it for one day he should be allowed. Laws and rules are already in effect to take care of rowdy situations. He is concerned about the loss of value with his home. When rules and regulations are being passed they should be fair and equal. He will fight hard for his rights.

Kathi Olson, 370 Bayland Rd., who is a certified travel counselor came forward. She and her husband do not rent their home. Their street has homes with long and short term renters. Many renters return year after year and they do look forward to their visits. Before moving to Florida, she managed Madison, Wisconsin’s largest travel agency. A larger portion of their clients traveled to Florida with a large portion to Southwest Florida. Many clients were short term renters due to work commitments. The changes being proposed send a conflicting message to the travel industry and traveling public. Short term rentals are undesirable? People will be sent to other vacation destinations. Problem renters are not defined by the number of nights they rent homes. Problem renters should be dealt with on an individual basis using the ordinances, codes, associations and laws. Please do not penalize the great short term renters. Keep this beautiful island travel friendly to all visitors regardless of their length of stay.

Tom Cameron, 200 Curlew Street, came forward. He discussed the time and thought that went into the short term rental proposals received from the Neighbor for Neighborhoods group. Much misinformation is being circulated through newspapers and rumor mills. Neighbor for Neighborhoods has taken information from Mr. Bill Van Duzer’s proposal, the Short Term Rental recommendations and their own research and concessions, and made a recommendation that is consistent with the Town’s vision in the Comprehensive Plan. He would like the LPA to consider where the Town should be in the next five to ten years.

Mike Roeder from the FMB Chamber came forward. He commended the LPA, staff and consultant for the work they have done thus far. He indicated this is a very impressive document. He urged the LPA to make this document as clear as possible. General comments included the opposition of the Chamber with regard to the residential design standards and restriction on short term rentals. With regard to density and intensity, he feels there are a lot of good incentives in the plan to achieve the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. He passed out an outline to the LPA, which addresses his concerns to some of the procedures. He feels several of the procedures are too restrictive.

Kevin Mulhearne, 2450 Estero Blvd., came forward. He and his wife own several properties on the island as well as a business or two. If this ban or prohibition goes into effect, it will be devastating. He feels the amounts to be lost will be significant. The value of the homes on the island will plunge. Since 1986, he has noticed this to be a family island. He expressed that short term rentals are doing well and the monthly rentals are not as anticipated. Several units for monthly rentals are empty. Between the economy, terrorism and the possibility of war this is keeping people away. Most people he has sold to that are utilizing their homes in a rental capacity have only been able to do this because of the short term rentals. Please do not eliminate the possibility of the American Dream for everyone!

Tom Merrill, 21581 Indian Bayou, came forward. He does not understand the breaking up of neighborhoods. He agrees with the thought of rentals of 28-days in the residential areas. He does not feel this should be for just certain residential zones. He feels the LPA Task Force came up with the most realistic situation of responsibility. He indicated this is a responsibility issue that can be deal with in other ways than geographical.

Cecil Wright, 500 Compass Lane, came forward. He provided his observation of today’s meeting. The homeowners on the island who have updated their property have done so on extra dollars taken in by the week. The rundown sections of the town are in areas of long term rentals. Discrimination is a large part of this presentation. There is a greater demand for law enforcement where there are short term rentals. He closed with a statement “the good lord saw fit to regulate the whole world with ten commandments.”

Beverly Grady, 2320 First Street, Fort Myers, came forward. On behalf of Tom and Fran Myers she will be speaking on the Village District. She began with the Village District and referred to a letter which makes three points of changes. Three goals of the Village District are to permit the Red Coconut and Gulfview to stay the same, ability to rezone like any other property on the island and a re-development alternative. The purpose of the redevelopment alternative will allow the addition of foundation and form to the Comprehensive Plan, but make sure there is flexibility to the future redevelopment alternative. The one change requested in on Page 103 and she commented that the requested language is to make this consistent with the Comprehensive Site Plan. The other two changes deal with housekeeping and the keeping of the rules and regulations for the Red Coconut the same as Lee County, Barrier Island Sanibel, Bonita Springs much of the State of Florida. She referred to the language and indicated it is important to the Red Coconut and Gulfview also. She thanked Bill Spikowski for his time and past meetings have resulted in the changes mentioned.

Beverly passed out a change in the code, which deals with the manner in which amendments are dealt within the Town of Fort Myers Beach. She disagrees with the memo just received from Dan Folke. She is requesting minor changes be reviewed by staff and make a recommendation to the Town Council for approval. If these changes are not within the guidelines, a person would be back to the application for the planned development.

Phil Thornberry could not be present, but submitted a letter for consideration during Public Comment for Chapter 34. He indicated he is the owner of a home in the zoning district affected by the proposed short term rental restrictions. He plans to move to Fort Myers Beach, but must presently rent his 1600 square foot home due to normal costs and annual taxes of $6625.00. He is concerned because there were no rental restrictions when he purchased. He is curious about the percentage of people who are for this type of restriction. He indicated each of the proposals has an exception allowing pre-existing short-term rental units to “register.” He would like to know the date of pre-existing status? He has concerns with elimination of those couples who like to vacation together or small groups of golfers/fisherman who could come as legal tenants. His concern is the cost to the island. Reducing the number of rentals will cost everyone. He and his wife came to the island because it is a family friendly place. Lets not phases them out.

BREAK

VI. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION BY THE LPA

Chairman Roxie Smith announced the LPA should decide the format for the remainder of the discussion on Chapter 34.

Hank Zuba felt the issue of short term rentals should be handled first. This is the topic the public is present for and interested in the result.

Harold Huber agrees short term rentals should be discussed first.

Jodi Hester added she would like to move through section by section. She feels other issues contained within this Chapter are just as important.

Jessica Titus suggested starting with the beginning items which are easier and go back to other issues which are more difficult.

Chairman Roxie Smith questioned if it is acceptable to pass certain sections onto the Council and hold back other sections for further discussion at a later date? Town Manager Segal-George replied that the LPA can proceed in this manner. The Council must have three public hearings. She is not in favor of splitting Chapter 34. If the LPA does not want to transmit Chapter 34 today, she would prefer it be held until January for discussion. She would rather Chapter 34 be submitted all at once.

Anita Cereceda would like to handle the issue of short term rentals first. She feels other sections of Chapter 34 have not received the attention they should.

Betty Simpson initially wanted to begin section by section, but now feels the issue of short term rentals should be discussed first.

It was decided the meeting will begin with short term rentals.

Jodi Hester began with a question to Bill Spikowski. An individual during public comment suggested the short term rental regulations be tried first for two years and then the issue could be readdressed. She felt it important to cover this in Chapter 34 and wanted a further explanation from Bill. Bill Spikowski replied that it is tempting to take an easier route and sit back to see if the situation works itself out. He does not feel this is a good idea. One option is the proposal put together by the Short Term Task Force. If this option is chosen, it will legalize short term rentals throughout the island. Once a decision is made, it is very difficult to change, should it be decided this was not the proper decision.

Hank Zuba questioned if a cost has been attached to any of the options? He raised the issue of re-evaluation. Have any of the options been decided that would influence one option or the other? Bill Spikowski addressed the cost issue and is unsure of any related cost. He discussed the $120.00 registration fee and did not feel this would be self-supporting of the program.

Town Manager Segal-George indicated there are no formal costs. She and Dan have discussed the Task Force option. They believe if a registry was instituted on the island across the board for all possible short term rentals this would result in a relatively expensive situation. She expressed that conservatively the program would cost between $60,000.00 and $80,000.00. The significant cost would be included in the registry concept.

Bill Spikowski added that he has reviewed all of the literature on this subject. There has been and will always be much litigation on these matters. The definition of “family” is continuously litigated. Bill discussed the grandfathered provision on Sanibel. He commented that any decision made maybe challenged. He also added if the Task Force option is chosen, it should be considered the final decision. Any of the other options could be modified and perfected.

Jane Plummer questioned how many times in the Comprehensive Plan has the Town gone backwards to make something more lenient? Bill Spikowski replied the Old San Carlos motels would be the example.

Nancy Mulholland does not see every member of the LPA choosing just one of the options presented.

Jodi Hester commented the Neighbors for Neighborhoods graph has some issues, which could be agreed upon. A combined option may be the result of this review. She does feel one recommendation to Council should be made.

Harold Huber added that the position of the LPA is to make a recommendation to Council. The Council will see all options and be able to make the final decision.

Anita Cereceda began with the issue of licensing. The concern raised was administrative burden and cost. If these costs were minimal and not burdensome, a registry and licensing of rental properties on the island would be beneficial to the community.

Hank Zuba commented that he came into this meeting favoring the registering of rentals. He is concerned that once the registry is in place it would then be too difficult to take these rights away.

Town Manager Segal-George explained if the Task Force option is selected and in several years it is decided this process did not work, it will be very difficult to begin banning short term rentals in selected areas.

Jodi Hester believes the intention of the Task Force was to use the registry in conjunction with another option or stand alone.

Town Manager Segal-George added that option three can be selected, but the potential problems which may arise are being discussed. If the Council and LPA commit to this option there may be some liability or potential issues should a different direction be taken at a later date.

Harold Huber suggested adding a time limit to the option selected. Town Manager Segal-George indicated the language would need to be established that would protect the Town from as much liability under Bert/Harris. Bill Spikowski feels the language “will expire” should be used and then this could be extended by the Town Council.

Jane Plummer asked if anyone on the LPA is listening to the people coming forward to speak. She feels it is the task of the LPA to represent the people.

Jessica Titus does not feel a few homes here and there can be selected. If rentals are restricted than all single family must be selected. She is not for this approach, but does not see how the entire island can be disseminated.

Nancy Mulholland feels a happy median must be established. She feels by grandfathering the present weekly rentals and having a registry will preserve the rights of those who are now renting. In the long term, she feels this will enhance property values in the residential neighborhoods. She does feel that people will upgrade more if they must appeal toward longer term renters. Tourism will not be eliminated by restricting rentals in single family homes.

Chairman Roxie Smith attended a series of meetings for the State Tourism Commission. She explained that this would not be a good tourism year nationwide or within Florida. The reason Florida received a good recovery from September 11 was due to the Governor granting a $20 million dollar allocation to the tourism marketing fund. This money has been used and the marketing campaign has ceased. She expressed if anything is done to interfere with the tourism they will have hurt tourism, and tourism is the Town’s bread and butter. Tourism supports the island of Fort Myers Beach.

Jodi Hester feels it is important for the Local Planning Agency to look toward the long term vision. She went back and read from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Policy 3B14), which discusses the modification of the current limitation on the number of guests and/or length of stays to protect residential areas from excessive intrusion by poorly regulated short term rentals. Several other policies were mentioned. Most people did come to the island as renters prior to moving and moved to the area because this was a Town.

Chairman Roxie Smith feels they are faced with conflicting property rights. The residents have their rights and the business/investment property people have their rights. It is up to the Local Planning Agency to find a way to resolve the conflicts between the two sets of rights. Both are equally important. Option three takes care of most issues as expressed today.

MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Jodi Hester to eliminate Option one. This option penalizes people who currently have short term rentals. This option is too restrictive.

Discussion: Hank Zuba questioned if the intention is to go through the options and make eliminations.

Anita replied her intent is to come up with a hybrid option. Her intent is to address the concerns which have been raised by those who feel rights are being taken away. She does want to protect the future of the community from proliferation and expansion of activity, which is not in the best interest of the community.

VOTE: Motion passes unanimously.

MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Jodi Hester to eliminate Option three. The recommendations of the Task Force are held within other recommend-ations. She does not believe that Option three alone accomplishes the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

Discussion: Anita Cereceda commented that she felt the spirit of the Task Force is inherent in the other options.

Jessica Titus added that Option three addresses the problems. She feels a Sixth Option to do nothing should be added.

Jane Plummer is very concerned about the elimination of short term rentals. She commented that Publix, T-shirt shops, restaurants and the Beach Theater rely on the weekly rentals. If short term rentals are eliminated, it may be impossible to get renters back should it be decided a poor decision was made.

Chairman Smith cannot support this option. She feels the Task Force option provides a great deal of protection.

VOTE: Motion passes 5 to 4.

Anita Cereceda began to review her hybrid option.

MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Jodi Hester to eliminate the language in the remaining options “or which lies entirely within 200 feet of the edge of the Estero Blvd. right-of-way.”

VOTE: Motion passes unanimously.

Anita Cereceda announced that she is trying to make a decision based on what she feels is in the best interest of the community.

Jane Plummer expressed her feelings on this matter. She does not believe the people who are speaking for the short term rentals are being considered. She again expressed her concern for the result of the elimination of short term rentals on the island and the economic effect this will have.

MOTION: Made by Hank Zuba and seconded by Anita Cereceda to adopt Option Two.

(Motion Amended) Made by Hank Zuba and seconded by Anita Cereceda to delete the date of October 22 and replace with “date of adoption.” (Motion amended) Made by Hank Zuba and seconded Anita Cereceda that the defined area will lose its right (grandfathering) for short term rentals should the property owner sell the property. (MOTION WITHDRAWN)

Discussion: Hank added that he is very impressed with each of the members of the LPA along with the staff. He respects everyone’s outlook on this matter. He feels this is the reasonable option.

Nancy Mulholland is in favor of Option two with the exception of October 22. She is in need of additional information with regard to grandfathering. She

would be in favor of grandfathering with present owners only.

Anita wanted to hear the opinion of the LPA with regard to one family during any 28-day period vs. the one family for periods of 28 days or longer. She further commented that one family during any 28-day period allows the continuation of one week rentals. The other option will require the short term rentals in the protected quiet zone will be a minimum of 28-days.

Nancy Mulholland raised the issue that a current renter who is grandfathered in will be allowed to rent on a weekly basis. She is questioning whether or not this language is even needed. Anita Cereceda agreed.

Bill Spikowski added this rule will not apply to those grandfathered, but will be the rule to everyone else. He also commented that appeals to the Town Council will take place for those who may be closing on a property and were not aware of this change. He feels this appeal is necessary. If all criteria is met, it will be handled administratively.

Harold Huber is not in agreement with the October 22 date. He would rather the date this matter went to public hearing be added. Town Manager Segal-George replied a date of when this matter passes could be added.

Jessica Titus feels what is good for one single family home is good for them all. She indicated this is discriminatory. She feels 99% of the people will register their homes for rental for future buyers should they decide to sell.

Anita would like to see the grandfathering allowed to only the present owner throughout the duration of their ownership. She does not want this to transfer to subsequent property owners.

(ABOVE MOTION WITHDRAWN)

MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Hank Zuba to adopt Option Two with the following modifications: The grandfather of legal weekly rentals, which existed at the date of adoption of the ordinance, exemption status transferred to subsequent owners will not occur.

Discussion: Chairman Roxie Smith looked for clarification with regard to the transfer status. Anita clarified. Chairman Smith indicated she cannot support this motion. This will take away her property rights and the property rights of future generations in her family.

Jodi Hester questioned if this will cause difficulty to those who do not own property as individuals? She feels this needs to be clarified further.

Jane Plummer is unsure why the Town Council fought to keep the boaters in the back bay who do not pay taxes. Now they will be taking away the rights of those who are paying taxes. She feels this island is a tourist destination. She does not understand why they do not implement rules to make to make it better. She is unsure what is being done here!

Bill Spikowski indicated he can get with the attorneys on the team who will provide more accurate wording to make this matter clear. He feels this needs to be addressed, but should not delay the LPA from making a decision.

Jodi Hester added this must be for a property or a particular date. Town Manager Segal-George replied that she is unsure of the language. It must be worked out to see how it will best work. She knows the position of the LPA and if the LPA votes in concept this will follow the same pattern of situations which have been handled in the past.

VOTE: Motion passes 5 to 4.

Jane Plummer is concerned with regard to the amount of money the Town has in reserves for attorneys’ fees. She indicated other communities in this situation have been challenged.

Town Manager Segal-George expressed that money is set aside in litigation. Normally, $75,00.00 to $100,00.00 is put aside each year. Millions in reserve are carried. The Council has not made a decision on this issue and until such a time of a vote there is no decision.

Harold Huber indicated this is just a recommendation to the Council.

Bill Spikowski spoke on the “Village” matter. He indicated there are three issues. The first is the current language which suggests a plaza at least 100 feet wide, and the proposed alternative is a view corridor of 50 feet wide. He indicated this was never intended to be a public space for public use. The concept for this redevelopment is that there will be substantial view of the beach as you go past this property.

Jodi Hester has concerns with why the selection of 100 feet was originally made. She did not have time prior to this meeting to review the minutes for a review.

Beverly Grady explained there are two drawings in the Comprehensive Plan. She indicated these are minimum standards. One drawing is 50 feet and the other is 100 feet. It should be at least 50 feet to be consistent with the plan. She does not believe any information will be contained in the minutes with regard to the 100 feet.

Bill Spikowski added that the language before the LPA is a result of many compromises. He agreed that no discussion was held regarding the 100 feet at the last meeting. He is not troubled by the 75-foot compromise raised by Beverly Grady.

Hank Zuba raised the issue of precedence? Town Manager Segal-George explained that this case is unique.

MOTION: Made by Jane Plummer and seconded by Harold Huber to change to view corridor with at least 50 feet wide.

VOTE: Motion passes 7 to 2. Jodi Hester and Anita Cereceda dissenting.

Bill Spikowski reviewed in 1986 and 1987, the County had a process for grandfathering certain mobile home and RV parks that did not meet standards that were in existence when they were built. If you were grandfathered, you received certain extra rights. He copied the map and if a mistake was made by him he will correct it. He does not believe this is a policy issue that must be decided on by the LPA.

Bill reviewed the third issue. Beverly Grady suggested the language used by Lee County, Sanibel and Bonita Springs be used. He indicated the only reason this language is different in the Town is due to his recommendation when the new flood plane regulation was adopted. He believes this is contrary to federal law. He did this to protect the Town’s participation in the Flood Insurance Program. He indicated he will pull out the legal work for the next Council meeting.

Town Manager Segal-George announced that Bonita Springs uses the Lee County code. Bonita has not reviewed the matter and developed their own code.

Beverly Grady added that Bobby Stewart, Head of the Lee County Building Department, indicated in other parts of the State of Florida the language indicating the ability to replace mobile homes at 36 inches is in effect.

Chairman Smith asked Bill Spikowski to research this matter further to see what is done in other parts of the state. She would rather eliminate any language presently until the research is completed by Bill Spikowski.

Jodi Hester questioned if language is created, which is not in agreement with the federal regulations, will this effect the flood insurance over the entire island? Town Manager Segal-George replied that this issue came in front of the LPA and Town Council when the provisions were initially put in. She recalls a very spirited discussion on these regulations and how they would apply. John Gucciardo has the most contact with regard to FEMA and the regulations. A rating process takes place and this is the determining factor of the flood insurance rates. She is unsure if this would result in a rate change and feels this topic is more broad.

Town Manager Segal-George added if this does move forward, Bill can bring the draft forward with notations to the Council with regard to the issues as raised by Beverly Grady and his research.

It was agreed by the LPA, Bill Spikowski should provide the notations in the draft to the Town Council.

Dan Folke addressed his memo. He indicated an appeal is pending before the Town Council. The property owner would like to amend the planned development. There are two ways this can be addressed. One would be to do an administrative amendment. Changes that would not have an external impact are allowed administratively. Staff recommended that for this type of amendment it be handled through public hearings and not be allowed administratively. The decision was appealed to the Council and this has been continued a number of times. The latest continuance was based on this request to make a change in the Land Development Code, which would be considered administrative but would come to the Town Council for their approval. He is recommending against this and would rather stay with the rules already in place. He feels this approach would essentially be the same as a public hearing without the notification required for a public hearing.

Town Manager Segal-George feels strongly with regard to public input and the LPA being involved with the review process. She is not in favor of administrative approvals unless they are very minor.

Jodi Hester feels this should be kept the present way it is being handled. Dan will work on the cost. Town Manager Segal-George added that the Town tries to be particularly responsive to anyone on the island who needs to get matters scheduled before the LPA and Town Council. Schedules are moved around to be accommodating.

All LPA members were in agreement.

(At this point in the meeting a 10-minute break was taken)

Chairman Smith announced that a change in the agenda will take place. Public comment will now be allowed at this point in the meeting.

George Whistler came forward. He built a home on Madera Street 23 years ago. He fought hard to keep the Town from being a Town. He did not like what he read in the Charter. He is concerned about the rental issue. He feels if this does go into effect it will reduce the value of his property. He feels everyone on the island who owns property on the island should vote on the issue. He hopes the LPA will find a way to have an Option six to get themselves out of the hot fire.

Joanne Klare came forward. She has been doing rentals on the beach for 13 years. She served on the LPA Task Force. She felt her time was used in vein. She works hard and has two young children. Nothing done at this Task Force was represented today. When the rules and regulations and registration fee was established this was to preserve 7-day minimums. This was why she served on the Task Force. She is not in favor of a 28-day rental. She is very disappointed in the way things were handled today.

Leslie Corcelli came forward. She is at a loss for words. She also served on the Task Force. Never at any time was a 28-day minimum included with the registration. The rules and regulations along with the registration fee were put in place for those few problems that exist in short term rentals on this island. She did not feel that the Task Force was properly represented. She feels a mountain was made out of a mole hill. Many more problems will exist with the decision that was made today.

Angie Parker, 2003 Chairman for the Fort Myers Beach Chamber of Commerce, came forward. She asked that the LPA take the time to read the memo prepared by Mike Roeder. Mike was hired by the Chamber to review Chapter 34. The Chamber of Commerce positions are noted. She knows this is a very emotional issue and would not want to be in the chairs of any of the LPA members today. She would like to work on an educational process. Many homeowners are not aware of what is happening. She would like these people to have the opportunity to come forward and express their opinions.

Jim Barstow from England came forward. He asked for clarification if an accident happens on the way back to England and he and his wife perish will his children not be able to enjoy his property and the rights he presently has? Someone mentioned that this is correct. Mr. Barstow responded by stating he would see them in court.

R.J. Ward came forward to address the matters on Villa Santini. He indicated he is mostly satisfied. A few concerns exist with some uncertainty. The deviations were completed back when it was still the development standards ordinance, which became Chapter 10. He is concerned with the abandonment of the CPD, and to opt into the Santini District a few issues will be lost. He would like to proceed at this time, and would not like to wait until Chapter 10 comes up for review.

Bill Spikowski indicated for a number of years the County and the Town have moved people through the CPD process. The regulations were not adequate to get to the result that was wanted. One result of the new code will be not forcing people into the CPD’s. The regulations are now in place that get to the same place as the CPD process without all public hearings and time taken. The Santini Marina is now zoned CPD, but he has encouraged them to give up the CPD and go into the new Santini District. Certain deviations are within the CPD from standards within Chapter 10. Chapter 10 is only half written and will take approximately three to four months. Mr. Ward is concerned it will take longer. Bill has added language that the deviations will be good for one year, even if the CPD is given up. Bill feels this will be worked out. The Town has shown over the past years it is trustworthy. He is committed to working out the details and the final draft will contain minor changes that will allow him to take advantage of the deviations during this period Chapter 10 is being adopted.

Mr. Ward discussed the map, which was taken from the Comprehensive Plan. He indicated that there are proposed roads, which they are being asked to dedicate roads and alleys to the public. A few of the roads go through buildings and one building is brand new, and did not exist when the map was made. He feels some adjustments need to be made here also.

Bill Spikowski explained that the Santini District, like the “Village,” has two parts. One part is staying with what you presently have and the second set of rules is if rebuilding is done completely you can come in pre-approved. Two sets of rules for each district are being worked on.

Town Manager Segal-George questioned if this matter can be handled the same as the Red Coconut? The actual transmittal will contain the issues which have been raised by Villa Santini, if any are unresolved. All LPA members were in agreement with this process.

Anita Cereceda is concerned about the comment made by Beverly Grady with regard to not asking for this. Is this statement accurate? Town Manager Segal-George and Bill Spikowski replied that the statement is accurate. Bill added that the idea was embraced after awhile, but resistance occurred at first. Town Manager Segal-George mentioned that an alternative does exist, which will give the right to develop. If they develop according to the rules, they will not need to come forward. She indicated there is value in this approach.

Harold Huber questioned the streets. Bill Spikowski replied that there are two sets of regulations. He indicated if the decision to redevelop only one-half of the property is made the streets shown on the other half would be irrelevant. If redevelopment of the entire property takes place the language states, the streets must be created substantially similar to the ones shown on the drawing. The connectivity and block size is of importance.

The next issue for discussion was the Chamber memo. Bill Spikowski began by stating that the Chamber has received every draft of every code for nearly three years. The Chamber receives everything before the LPA receives it. He indicated this information is not kept from anyone.

Bill Spikowski began with the question if the proposed floor-area-ratio would have virtually no impact on the homes actually being built why would it be needed? He replied that this was discussed at the last meeting. Floor-area-ratio for the larger homes on Bonita is little over 1.0. The maximum in the single family zone is .80. Those homes would be approximately 20% to 25% larger than what is allowed. These type of homes would be allowed in the commercial zones, but not in single family. This rule is needed because a trend is nationwide. People are building homes larger than ever before. The current regulations in the code measure lot coverage, which does not count the second or third story. The new method measures the bulk of the building and the additional floors.

Nancy Mulholland asked for the type of setbacks on the Bonita properties? Bill replied 5 or 7 ½ feet.

Nancy also questioned the height restrictions? Bill replied the buildings are two full stories plus a partial third story over parking at the ground level. Town Manager Segal-George added the current code would not allow these homes.

Jodi Hester asked if the code will currently not allow these homes why would the floor-area-ratio be needed? Bill replied the home could be rearranged differently. Town Manager Segal-George added if the height cannot be established then the mass will be considered.

Bill went on to indicate one of the most important aspects of the design standards has to do with the garages. The code is written to have a front balcony/porch and this can be placed a lot further forward should someone decide to rebuild in the same manner. Once the setbacks are weakened some will take advantage to build a very large home.

Jane Plummer commented front, back and side setbacks along with height restrictions are already in place. To put another set of restrictions on to count the ground level, which is unlivable seems to be unfair to her. She sees no reason to change the setbacks and height restrictions. All homes will end up looking like a box. Bill Spikowski replied that these rules will keep the box type design from happening.

Harold Huber is in favor of the floor-area-ratio and porches protruding. He questioned the homes in Bonita and asked what different County standards do Fort Myers Beach have? Bill replied that a height restriction was added in the Comprehensive Plan, which states that a height will be generally two stories over parking with the exception of certain redevelopment areas. The new code would allow for a softening of a number of the setbacks, which will allow individuals to build porches on the front and keep them from having a garage on the front plane of the home. The way to handle this matter without penalizing is to give a little on the front setback.

Chairman Smith asked if it is true if you apply the floor-area-ratio you cannot build a home as big as you could with the current setbacks and limitations? Bill Spikowski replied the current code has no limit on floor-area-ratio. The current code has a restrictive lot coverage ratio that is not enforced.

Chairman Smith gave an example of a 50x100 lot zoned residential. What can be built under the current circumstances? Dan Folke replied if this is a non-conforming lot which requires a minimum use determination a 5 foot side setback can be considered administratively. The standard setback is 7 ½ and would be reduced to 5 on a substandard. Some additional calculations were developed between Dan, Bill and the LPA members.

Chairman Smith feels the floor-area-ratio does cut down on the size of the home you may be permitted to build. Property values are increasing and more and more people will want to build as much home as possible on their lot.

Bill Spikowski feels if you are going to have a floor-area-ratio the time to add it would be when you are repealing the lot coverage.

Jane Plummer questioned the intent of this code. She feels if someone would like to build a large home they must then go to Bonita. Bill Spikowski replied that the rule does not limit someone from building a large home. The rule says you must have lots large enough to support the larger home, if you so desire to build the extra square footage.

Dan Folke went back to the figures for Chairman Smith’s example of a 50x100 lot. Under the current rule it would be 5,000 square feet with a maximum lot coverage of 40%. This will give a footprint of 2,000 square feet with two stories for a total of 4,000 square feet. Under the proposed floor-area-ratio the .80 will allow a total of 4,000 square feet on a 5,000 square foot lot. This figure should be divided by three, which results in 2,666. This equates to 1,333 per floor x 2. The end result is 4,000 compared to 2,666.

Hank Zuba supports the floor-area-ratio.

MOTION: Made by Jane Plummer and seconded by Chairman Roxie Smith to keep the rule as it is today with no addition of the floor-area-ratio.

Discussion: Harold Huber is opposed to the motion.

Jodi Hester is also opposed to the motion. She feels the floor-area-ratio should be added. She is in support of keeping the language as written by Bill Spikowski.

Town Manager Segal-George added that variances would be allowed.

VOTE: Motion fails.

MOTION: Made by Jodi Hester and seconded by Harold Huber to keep Bill Spikowski’s intensity and floor-area-ratio as is stated.

VOTE: Motion passes 7 to 2.

MOTION: Made by Jessica Titus and seconded by Jane Plummer to recommend to Council from the minority of the LPA to do nothing with the current short term rental property status and continue using the remedies currently in place for behavioral control. She recommends a registry be created for all rentals of one year or less to include annual rentals. The registry will continue for 5 years at which time it will be reviewed.

Discussion: Town Manager Segal-George indicated at the start of the meeting the Chairman indicated a majority position and minority position was to be transmitted to the Town Council should there be a consensus minority position.

Nancy Mulholland voted against the motion for short term rentals due to the limitation to present owners. She was in favor of the remainder of the motion. Therefore, she cannot support this motion.

VOTE: Motion passes 3 to 1. Nancy Mulholland dissenting.

Town Manager Segal-George commented that the remaining issues on the Chamber list have been addressed and discussed in the past by the LPA.

Jane Plummer raised the issue of a pre-disaster build back. She disagrees with the idea of density as square footage with today’s standard of living. She does not feel people build 700 square foot homes anymore.

Bill Spikowski replied that you can build to the current code or as is it was originally built, whichever is the greater. The only way this would penalize an individual is due to having to ask for a deviation. He does not see this rule being burdensome.

Jane Plummer raised the issue for the definition of hotel being 10 units or more. Discussion was held on this matter and the LPA discussed possibly removing the number 10.

Harold Huber would like to see this transmitted with the number excluded, and if the Council finds it important to include the number back in it can be added. Jodi Hester feels it should stay in until Bill decides that it can be removed.

Bill Spikowski replied that he could add in that the LPA questioned why the number 10 is included and will include his research. He feels the number may be unnecessary, but will need to further research the matter. Dan Folke is also unsure of the reasoning.

Jodi Hester would like a copy of the LPA rule book for all members of the LPA. Town Manager Segal-George has been unable to locate the rule book, which would go back to the very beginning. She will look further for the LPA rule book.

Jodi Hester raised the issue of sandwich signs. Bill Spikowski indicated he did not change this language since the last discussion. Dan will bring forward some changes for the January meeting and the two will be reconciled.

Anita Cereceda discussed the display of merchandise on Old San Carlos (ex. flower shop) and questioned if they could display baskets of flowers outdoors. The response was not past their front porch. She is concerned that a negative reaction is due to current tenants. Ideally, the view for the tenants in the future should be considered.

Town Manager Segal-George replied that Bill Spikowski can bring back the old language and place it in the draft with an asterisk explaining there was discussion by the LPA to reconsider this alternative.

Jane Plummer recalls the problem when brought forward by John would be the determination of good taste. A review board could be established. Town Manager Segal-George suggested having a permit go forward to the Times Square Committee to then make a recommendation to the Town Council. The cart concept was discussed. The carts would be placed on public property within the brick area closest to the street. These carts would need to be taken in at night.

Anita Cereceda is not in favor of the carts. She feels they are too big. This is not her vision.

It was decided there is a consensus from the LPA to include this language to be reviewed for a second time.

MOTION: Made by Jodi Hester and seconded by Nancy Mulholland that the LPA has found this language is consistent with Chapter 34 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It is being recommended with the changes as discussed today.

VOTE: Motion passes unanimously.

VII. LPA MEMBER ITEMS

Harold Huber - Is concerned with a speaker from public comment who addressed the issue of short term rentals strongly, but who does not rent. Town Manager Segal-George indicated this gentleman felt discriminated against and also felt his property value would decrease by the recommendations made today.

Jessica Titus - Wished everyone Happy Holidays.

Nancy Mulholland - Thanked Anita Cereceda for the wonderful 12 Days of Christmas. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Betty Simpson - Happy Holidays and extended a healthy New Year.

Anita Cereceda - Announced the Mound House Open House tomorrow night. The last few days of the 12 days of Christmas is coming forward. She thanked everyone for coming out and supporting this event. It has been a great experience.

Chairman Smith - Happy Holidays to everyone.

VII. PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

IX. ADJOURN

The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m..

Respectfully Submitted,

Shannon Miller

Transcribing Secretary