FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

JANUARY 20, 2004

Town Hall-Council Chambers

2523 Estero Boulevard

FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA

 

 

I.          CALL TO ORDER:         The regular meeting of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency was called to order on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 at 12:05 P.M. by Chair Roxie Smith.

 

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

 

            Excused absence from the meeting:   Jane Plummer. 

 

            Staff present at the meeting:               Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Community Development Director Dan Folke.

 

II.         INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:  All those present assembled and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.  The invocation was given by Jodi Hester.

 

Ms. Smith explained the hearing format and procedure for the benefit of those present.

 

III.        PUBLIC HEARING:

            DCI2003-00034 Ecoventure Carousel, Ltd.  In ref. to Carousel Inn RPD.  A request to rezone 0.73 acres from Residential Multifamily and 0.96 acres from Commercial Resort to Residential Planned Development (RPD) to develop 24 multiple-family dwelling units in 2 multiple-story buildings with a deviation from the LDC pre-disaster buildback provision to allow 24 dwelling units and 88,000 +/- square feet; a deviation from the LDC building height limitations to allow building height not to exceed 67 feet above base flood elevation and 7 stories, and Special Exception to allow construction of a pool deck seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) in the Environmentally Critical (EC) zoning district.  The subject property is located at 6230 Estero Boulevard.

            Those intending to give testimony came forward and were sworn by Town Manager Marsha Segal-George.

            Chair Roxie Smith read the case and asked if there had been any ex parte communications.  Ms. Smith reported that she has had some ex parte communication with the developer.  Betty Simpson and Nancy Mulholland also reported ex parte communication, and Anita Cereceda stated that while she has had none, she believes due to the significance of this case each member should state with whom they had spoken.  Harold Huber reported a phone call from a secretary to set up an appointment but declined to meet with the applicants because he was very busy.  Hank Zuba received an E-mail and a phone call from the developer but did not get their name and declined to speak with anyone.  Jessica Titus received a phone call which she did not return, as did Jodi Hester.  Ms. Simpson and Ms. Mulholland reported that they had met with the developer. 

            Beverly Grady, an attorney with the firm of Roetzel and Andress, came forward representing the applicant, Ecoventure Carousel, Ltd.  She also introduced Ed Oelshlaeger, who heads Ecoventure Carousel, Ltd.; Robert Mulhere, with the firm RWA and former Planning Director in Collier County; Bob Hall, an architect with Curtis Gaines Hall and Jones; and Robert Hoyt, a landscape architect with Bradshaw Gill and Associates.  The applicant intends to combine two parcels into one parcel as part of the zoning request.  The two parcels are 4.16 acres, which is a relatively large parcel for the Beach.  Of that, 1.69 acres is Mixed Residential, and this is the portion being requested to be rezoned to RPD.  2.47 acres are designated Recreation in the Comprehensive Plan.  One parcel is vacant and Staff agreed that it is entitled to 4 dwelling units.  The second parcel contains 28 motel units, office, amenities, and the request is to reduce the 28 motel units to 20 multifamily units with more square footage than currently exists on the site.  The units were built in the 1960s.  The parcel is located in the High Rise Resort Planning Community on the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.  Ms. Grady indicated the boundary of this community on an exhibit and marked the location of the subject property. 

            Two alternatives have been filed with Staff.  Alternative A, Exhibit B, provides for 6 residential stories over parking, a 7-story building, with 18 units in that building; and 6 units along Estero Boulevard.  In this request a small portion of pool deck is in the EC zone, and Staff has determined that a Special Exception is the mechanism by which to have that approved.  The second alternative is Option B, Exhibit K to the Staff Report with site plan, dated November 5, 2003, and also Exhibit L, which is a letter comparing the two options and describing Option B, which is lower in height. Option B is 5 residential stories over parking, a 6-story building.  There are 20 units in that building and 4 units in the 2-story over parking along Estero Blvd., and in this request there is nothing in EC zone, so no request is needed.  In both requests there is a new 4-foot pedestrian beach access for the public, and both provide substantial dune restoration which include substantial plantings which do not currently exist.  Ms. Grady explained that the intent is to show that the proposed RPD, either Option A or B, is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, and has been designed to further the Town’s objectives and to be an asset to the Town.  She said that it is an actual reduction in intensity of use and addressed the issue of height and also the height of the surrounding existing buildings.  The square footage being requested can be approved by the Town because the 20 units of multifamily is less intense than 28 guest units.  Section 34-1807 of the Code provides for conversion of hotel/motel units to dwelling units.  She cited language in the Code that deals with square footage and referred to previous hearings before the LPA and Council at which the issue of square footage was addressed.  Ms. Grady read from Council minutes of March 3, 2003.  She also referred to several cases which have been heard since adoption of the Code, including one in which it was established that a deviation can be requested to adjust interior square footage in a buildback.  This reference was the May 20, 2003 minutes on Key West Courtyards.  The Matanzas Inn case was also referenced.  Ms. Grady expressed surprise that the Staff Report indicates that it is not possible for the applicant to request a deviation.  She also referred to the floor/area ratio (FAR) that was adopted as part of the Code in March 2003.  The FAR for these two combined parcels is 88,339 square feet, which is less than that permitted.  She described how the proposed new building would be an improvement over what is presently existing.

            Ms. Grady introduced Ed Oelshlaeger, the principal of Eco Group, who gave background on his company.  Mr. Oelshlaeger stated that he has been in the real estate business for over 30 years; Eco Group has been in business for 17 years and has developed in excess of $700 million in real estate properties, mostly on the West Coast of Florida and specifically in Southwest Florida.  He stated that his company has successfully developed high quality projects and has an excellent reputation.  He purchased the Carousel Inn a year ago January with the expectation that he would be before the LPA with a proposal.  He has been working with Staff for 11 months and feels that this proposal is the most economically viable, and a balance of the public and private interests.  He expects to make an investment of over $25 million to undertake this project should it be approved.  The application he is submitting is a reduction of the original proposal to Staff, which was for 32 units in a 7-story building over parking.  Density and height were reduced as a result of direction from both County and Town Staff which included recommendations to increase the public benefits.  Mr. Oelshlaeger asked for favorable consideration of his request.

            Bob Mulhere of RWA, Inc., an engineering planning consulting firm with offices in Fort Myers and Naples, came forward and introduced into the record his resume which specifies his qualifications.  He identified a number of exhibits to which he referred during his presentation and described the location of the property and the proposed improvements.  He stated that he would not focus on Option A but would concentrate on Option B, which does not require a special exception from the CCCL, and proposes a lower building height.  He referred to the two deviations being requested, one of which deals with the pre-disaster buildback policy of the Comprehensive Plan.  The FAR, which is 1.2, has already been discussed and is based on the total acreage of the upland portion of the site. Landward of the CCCL.  Mr. Mulhere referred to the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code and gave his interpretations thereof with respect to this case.  Different methods of measurement provided for in the LDC were cited.  He stressed that the total square footage requested is less than the minimum allowable, and the density of usage will be less intense.  The second deviation, which is labeled Deviation 3, (Deviation 1 having been disregarded) deals with building height.  He presented an exhibit showing building heights of adjacent and proximate properties, some of which are much higher than what is being proposed.  Mr. Mulhere stated his belief that the Plan anticipates such requests and that these are reasonable deviation requests.  Mr. Mulhere also explained the anticipated benefits of this proposal, in particular the dune restoration.

            Robert Hall with the architectural firm of Curtis Gaines Hall and Jones of Tampa, came forward to speak about the proposed building design.  His firm has been in business since 1975 and has been working in Lee and Collier Counties during that time.  They have worked with Mr. Oelshlaeger on many of his projects in this area.  He presented several site plans and renderings to illustrate his design proposal and called attention to site improvements including landscaping.  The typical units are 3 bedroom, 3 bath and average 2,500 square feet.  They have provided the required amount of parking, which will be concealed.  A 4-foot walk on the northern side will connect Estero Boulevard to the beach.  He pointed out that the renderings were prepared for Option A, which is one floor higher than the current Option B under consideration, which is lower and slightly wider. 

            Bobby Hoyt with Bradshaw Gill & Associates landscape architects came forward.  He stated that his firm has been in business in excess of 38 years and is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  He explained what is proposed with respect to dune restoration and plantings, which  were coordinated with Lee County environmental planning staff and an environmental consultant, stressing the use of native plants and the expected benefits of reduced sand erosion and creation of habitat.

            Mr. Mulhare summarized the team’s presentation.  Ms. Smith asked Mr. Mulhare to clarify whether Option A or Option B is to be considered.  Mr. Mulhare explained that as a result of final discussions with Staff, the applicant chose to reduce the height and ask for consideration of Option B only.

            Jessica Titus asked for clarification regarding view corridor shown on the site plan.  Mr. Mulhare replied that with the 20 foot setback on Option B the separation between buildings changes from 120 feet to 100 feet.

            Anita Cereceda complimented the team on their thorough presentation.  She asked Mr. Hoyt to elaborate on the impacts of the proposed dune project on adjacent properties.  Mr. Hoyt described the design as proposed.  Ms. Cereceda asked whether this environment will be contained on the subject property, or whether it will naturally spread to adjacent properties.  Mr. Hoyt replied that if not raked, it will naturally spread.    Mr. Mulhere added that the issue of spreading would depend on the adjacent property owners and how they maintain their properties, but that if they were to redevelop, it is likely that they would be required to make similar dune restorations as well.

            Ms. Cereceda asked Mr. Mulhere to elaborate on the issue of density and intensity as pertains to traffic.  She disagrees that 28 or 36 hotel room units have more potential impact than 24 residential units.  Mr. Mulhere explained that the figures had been obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) traffic manual and described how the numbers were derived.  In his experience, the demographic for this type of unit would not be a family unit with children which would generate higher intensity of use, but rather a demographic which does not occupy the units year-round, although they may lease them, and year-round occupancy could be a possibility.  Mr. Oelshlaeger interjected that their target market is second home buyers, and in his experience families with children are not the demographic for these units, and neither is this project being designed for short-term rentals.  He called attention to the fact that if this is not approved, the by-right use of these two parcels is substantially more intensive in terms of square footage and would be greatly in excess of what is there today. 

            Ms. Cereceda asked about the FAR calculation and how it was determined.  Mr. Mulhere replied that the entire 1.69 acres, which includes both parcels, was used.

            Hank Zuba also questioned the intensity and density and asked for figures on current occupancy.  There was discussion about how the numbers were determined.  Mr. Zuba pointed out that the LPA does not have access to the ITE documents in order to study them.  Possible number of units under different circumstances were discussed.  Mr. Zuba acknowledged that density of the present motel has been determined to be non-conforming.

            Ms. Cereceda asked Ms. Grady about a reference to Councilman Van Duzer in an earlier case and determined that it had been an argument presented by Peter Lisich.  Ms. Grady explained that her reference had been for the purpose of making the point that, contrary to the Staff Report, it is possible to make requests for deviations.

            Jerry Murphy of the Lee County Zoning Department came forward to enter into the record the Staff Report which he had written as Staff’s testimony on this case.  There is an existing 15,000 square foot motel with 28 units, which is one of the least dense of existing hotels.  He pointed out that policies established by precedent for redeveloping hotels into residential dwelling units are policies that will be used by owners of other hotels, resulting in greater density.  Mr. Murphy described the buildback provisions which affect redevelopment.  The existing units were permitted by the County under provisions which the Town has never followed, but the buildback policy was designed to allow an owner to keep what he had.  Additional deviations require additional justification which he does not feel has been adequately provided.  The LDC makes no provision for conversion of guest units into dwelling units; however, the LPA and Council could make a policy decision to study this and create an equivalency factor for such conversion.  He suggested that ad hoc decisions could undermine the hard-fought decision by the Town not to follow the historical development patterns established by Lee County.  Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Key West project which was approved went from 15 guest units to 4 dwelling units within the existing square footage.  He referred to the ITE report which is a national standard which is an average of studies from all over the country.  With respect to what the developer would be permitted by right, he said they would be limited to the square footage for FAR of 1.2 based on the 1.69 acres, which is the 88,000 +/- square footage that has been referenced.  They would be limited to 10 dwelling units and a height of 30 feet above base flood.  Staff believes that what is being proposed, given the density requested, is more intense than what the Comp Plan and LDC will allow.  He acknowledged that deviations can be requested as long as they are not contrary to the Comp Plan, but this does not mean that the LPA is going to recommend, nor that Town Council will approve.

            Ms. Smith asked Mr. Murphy to clarify that his remarks apply to Option B as well as Option A.  Mr. Murphy compared the two options and the adjacent building heights and expressed the opinion that approval in this case would set a precedent with far-reaching consequences.

            In reply to a question by Mr. Zuba, Mr. Murphy said that Option B had been presented to him verbally about the time the Staff Report was being finalized.  They were familiar with it but elected not to do a total analysis because they felt both options were too high and too dense for their support.  Mr. Zuba referenced Page 8 of the Staff Report and asked whether the applicant’s argument had been made in any prior case, and Mr. Murphy replied that he was not aware of any since adoption of the new Chapter 34.

            Harold Huber observed that the LPA’s choices are to approve or deny, rather than to impose conditions requiring redesign of the project.  Mr. Murphy explained the options open to the LPA, but verified that this agency is not tasked with redesigning the applicant’s project.

            Ms. Cereceda acknowledged that the applicant is a reputable and successful company.  She asked for a summary of discussions inasmuch as controversy must have been anticipated.  Mr. Murphy advised that there has been a very professional relationship, and that the applicant has compromised from what they originally envisioned, some of which occurred before they actually applied.   Staff has taken the position that the applicant is asking for too much, and at that point the applicant chose to present the matter to higher authority for a decision.  He pointed out that Staff is responsible for enforcing regulations, not determining what is a viable project. 

            Ms. Smith asked for public comment at this time. 

            Richard McDole, a building consultant from Bonita Springs, Florida came forward to represent an adjacent property owner, Outrigger Beach Resort.  They would like to reconfirm a letter which he had presented to Staff objecting to two self-created variances, (1) the building height and (2) building in front of the CCCL.  They would like the applicant to meet the same criteria as everyone else.  He said the statute is fairly clear that if the variance is self-generated, it should not be acknowledged or approved.  He expressed the opinion that the application of FAR causes a serious question of good growth management.  There are 150 units in the Outrigger building, and with respect to precedent, if this request is granted, they could have higher buildings with much more square footage.  He believes this should be reassessed and its use clarified for the future.  He questioned the issue of density and seasonal rentals. 

            Judy Haataja came forward and was sworn.  She gave her address as 400 Bayland Road, Fort Myers Beach.  She described an area at St. Petersburg Beach on which the municipality is considering going from 30 units per acre to 75 units per acre to provide an incentive for development of the many older properties.  She felt that the applicant will provide a quality product, whereas if the existing 28 units built in the 1960s are sold as hotel condominium units, which is likely, the property could then never be redeveloped. She referred to several recent real estate transactions that bear this out.

            Dan Parker came forward as a director and spokesman for the 11 directors of the Fort Myers Beach Civic Association, all of whom are volunteers and residents of the Town.  He had obtained a copy of the developer’s proposal from Town Hall, and at the Civic Association meeting these were examined and discussed at length, with a unanimous decision to support the findings of Staff to decline the applicant’s request in its entirety.  No member of the LPA is a member of the Civic Association’s Board of Directors.

            Bill Young, President of Sunset, Inc. Board of Administration came forward.  This is the property immediately to the south of the Carousel.  They had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Oelshlaeger in early December, when he presented his plan to them, and they are familiar with Options A and B.  They do not object to the plans to redevelop the property, but there are some concerns.  Mr. Young is a 15-year owner who spends almost 6 months a year on the Beach, he is familiar with the history and the effort that went into the LDC.  His Board believes the Carousel property is in need of redevelopment and that continuance as a motel is not in the best interest of the Town.  Specifically, they are concerned with the height and density of the proposed building, which they feel is excessive, although they support the applicant’s concept.  With respect to the height of Sunset, he acknowledged that they are 12 stories, 11 over parking, but would note that Sunset was built prior to 1980, and since that time there has been no higher project built to the north.  While they appreciate the beach access, a legal access for south end residents would be desirable.  One of the major areas of concern has to do with the dune restoration.  Mr. Young has observed changes in beach depth over 15 years and question the need for extensive dune restoration.  They feel that the installation of 200 feet of natural vegetation will disturb the normal activities on the beach and are also concerned with encroachment to the adjacent properties, and the cost of cleanup and maintenance.  Side lot setbacks, plantings, and intensity are also issues of concern; however, he reiterated that the Sunset owners support the redevelopment.

            Ms. Smith closed Public Comment at this time and invited the applicant to readdress.

            Ms. Grady came forward and advised that she disagrees with Mr. Murphy’s statement that the buildback provision is a deviation from the Comprehensive Plan.  This is part of the Comp Plan, and recognizes individual property rights.  She also disagrees with his statement concerning square footage and FAR.  Concerning height, she observed that there is one floor difference between the Staff recommendation and Option B.  The Coquina is 4 over 1, and Option B proposes 5 over 1.  She referred to 3 options under the Code that could be used for buildback, and cited the third option, which provides that at the property owner’s option, the current property development regulations can be used, and stated that they have relied on this provision of the Code to exercise this option.  She observed that there have been conversions granted in the past, and expressed the belief that approval would provide an asset to the Beach.  Ms. Grady requested clarification of a statement concerning interpretation and application of the Code.

            Mr. Murphy said he had misspoken in that there is no right to the buildback; however, there is a right to ask for the buildback.  This must be requested through the Planned Development rezoning process, which requires public hearings and notification of adjacent property owners so on Page 8 of his Staff Report his reference to “rights” is incorrect.

He read Comp Plan Policy 4.E.1. into the record and pointed out that enlargement of the property is not permitted.

            Ms. Cereceda asked whether any redevelopment of that property trigger dune restoration requirements.  Mr. Murphy said this would occur only if specified as a condition of approval for a Planned Development.  It is not required in the Environmentally Critical Zoning District, where the subject property lies, and would not be required if the property were developed under conventional zoning.  He pointed out that two separate zoning districts apply to the two separate parcels. 

            Ms. Cereceda asked whether, if the proposal had been 4 stories over 1, the Staff Report would have been different.  She said this has been alluded to throughout the meeting and felt it was an appropriate question.  Mr. Murphy replied that this would have modified Staff’s view concerning height, but there were other considerations.

            Ms. Smith said she agreed with Ms. Haajata and Ms. Cereceda that this dated property should be redeveloped, and felt there was agreement that an improvement would be desirable.  She asked Mr. Murphy whether the LPA could recommend that the applicant continue to work with Staff, rather than simply denying the application.  Mr. Murphy replied that this would be an option, and that Staff would be willing to work with any applicant at any time.

 

            Ms. Smith called for a 5 minute recess at this time.  Public Hearing was closed at this time.

 

            Jodi Hester agreed with the Staff Report and felt the applicant did not present any evidence to change her mind.

            Jessica Titus also agreed that the Carousel needs to be redeveloped, and hoped that this developer will continue to work with Staff because of the caliber of his project, but in this case she must support Staff.

            Nancy Mulholland also agreed.

            Hank Zuba spoke to the issues of density and intensity, and disagreed with the applicant’s conclusions, and also said that the issue comes down to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and for that reason he cannot support the applicant’s request.

            Betty Simpson agreed with the previous comments.  She said she would like to see the Developer continue to work with Staff, and stated that she feels the Comprehensive Land Use Plan must be adhered to.

            Anita Cereceda said she felt that the applicant has presented what had been requested, and complimented the applicant on both their reputation and the presentation, as well as building consensus with their neighbors.  However, she agrees with all testimony concerning noncompliance with the Comp Plan and therefore cannot vote in favor of the request.  With respect to the density/intensity issue, she described the situation at her condominium where owners are in residence for months, which she felt illustrated that the tourists have less impact on traffic than a seasonal visitor.  She expressed concern about the effort and expense of the applicant and asked Ms. Segal-George for options available to the LPA other than denial, such as a motion to continue this case to a date unspecific.  She observed that there has never been a case in 7 years of this potential impact on which there has not been a huge outcry against it. 

            Ms. Segal-George replied that there has been a great deal of publicity on this case, and that most people on the Island were familiar with the Staff Report and that denial was being recommended, so perhaps this had an impact on attendance at this meeting.  She recalled the origins of the Comp Plan and the Land Development Code and indicated that in individual situations it may be difficult to apply these regulations.  She suggested that an appropriate approach would be for the LPA to investigate whether the regulations should be changed, and make such recommendations to Council.  She also cautioned that it would be inappropriate for the LPA to attempt to reconstruct an application for a petitioner.  Her suggestion would be to decide what recommendation to send to Council.  At this time Ms. Grady indicated to Ms. Segal-George that she would ask for a continuance.

            Ms. Grady came forward and stated that the applicant would be willing to work with Staff and would like to request a continuance until the March meeting.  Ms. Segal-George observed that this would be the second continuance and advised that the March meetings of the LPA are scheduled for the 9th and the 16th, and that the agenda for the 16th is already full.  Ms. Grady requested continuance until March 9th.  It was pointed out that this is also Election Day, and there was discussion about changing the meeting date.  It was also questioned whether there should be a motion on the continuance, and Ms. Segal-George pointed out that it was up to the LPA to decide whether to honor the request for continuance, or to proceed to make a recommendation to send to Council.  If the LPA votes to send the case to Council, Ms. Grady can also make a motion for continuance at that point.  Mr. Zuba expressed the opinion that it would be appropriate to send the LPA’s recommendation to Council at this time.  Mr. Huber disagreed and stated that he feels the applicant would be in a better position with a continuance than with a denial and would be willing to hear the case again after the applicant has had further opportunity to work with Staff.  Ms. Mulholland agreed with Mr. Huber and expressed the opinion that it is important for the LPA to hear the case again after revisions to the application before submitting it to Council.  Ms. Cereceda asked Ms. Segal-George what would happen if a vote were taken at this time and the applicant then asked for a continuance and amended their proposal.  Ms. Segal-George replied that the case would likely be returned to the LPA by Council if the proposal is substantially changed. 

 

            MOTION:          Motion was made by Anita Cereceda, prefaced by the statement that she feels no responsibility for protecting the applicant’s investment, and that her only obligation is to protect the integrity of the quality of life in this community.  Her motion was to continue this hearing until April 13, 2004, due to March 9th being election day.  Motion was seconded by Harold Huber.

 

            DISCUSSION:   Ms. Cereceda said that she has listened to everyone carefully and agrees with Mr. Zuba.  There has been a great deal of discussion about the Carousel, and she purposely avoided discussion with this developer in order to avoid favoring one side.  She does not want to see this application come to an end at this point.

            Mr. Huber confirmed that the date of April 13th is acceptable to the applicant.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was carried by a vote of 7 to 1.  The dissenting vote was by Hank Zuba.

 

IV.        LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS:

 

            Anita Cereceda advised that one of her objections in hearings such as this is that there is no equipment, such as an opaque projector, available for projectable images, so that exhibits can be viewed by both the panel and the audience simultaneously.  There was general discussion about types of equipment available, and Ms. Segal-George will look into this.  Several members agreed that this is a problem, especially since members of the public have taken time to attend the meetings. 

 

            Betty Simpson inquired what the agenda will be for March 9th.  Ms. Segal-George advised that there are cases scheduled, so the meeting cannot be canceled.  It was noted that there will likely be members absent due to elections.

            Ms. Simpson reminded everyone of the Hidden Path Workshop on January 28th at 6:00 P.M.  She stressed the importance of attending this meeting, especially since there has been a lot of rumor about the project.

            Tonight Dan Folke will speak at the Civic Association.  Ms. Segal-George will be accompanying him.  The principal topics will be Carousel, Hidden Path and Newton Beach.

 

            Jessica Titus asked about a timeline for vacating a canal property on Madison.  Mr. Folke advised that there had been a variance request, followed by a decision to vacate the canal.  Normally this takes time for the application process, but he believes it will be done concurrent with the zoning hearing.  Once the applicant files the paperwork, as long as the application is complete, it can be accomplished within a few months.  Letters of no objection must be obtained from appropriate parties.  She asked if this would affect the entire street, and the understanding is that it will only apply to the one property.

 

            Ms. Cereceda advised that she will be absent from the next meeting on February 10th.

 

            Roxie Smith made reference to information received from some friends in St. Petersburg about a proposed move to change density in coastal communities.  The proposed legislation would allow municipalities in the coastal high hazard zone to revise their densities to a level where development could take place. She felt this should be monitored.

 

            Town Manager Marsha Segal-George reported that on the 29th, the day after the Hidden Path workshop, she and the Council will be in a tent at Santini Plaza answering questions from residents of the south end of the Island. 

            She and Mr. Folke have listed items to be addressed and advised that not including land use cases, there will be a heavy workload, and it is intended that agendas will alternate between cases and legislation.  A case similar to the Carousel will come before the LPA on February 10th .  This will be Abaco, Peter Lisich, applicant.  Another case called Suncoast Tides has been filed, involving two properties and Azure Tides. 

 

            Betty Simpson reminded everyone about the expiration date of car stickers.  They are valid for a year.

           

V.         PUBLIC COMMENT:      None.

 

VI.        ADJOURN:                    Meeting was adjourned by Ms. Smith at 3:10 P.M.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Patricia L. Middlekauff

Transcribing Secretary