FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

APRIL 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, April 20, 2004 at 12:00 Noon by Chair Roxie Smith.

 

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

 

            Excused absence from the meeting:   None    

 

            Staff present at the meeting:               LPA Attorney Marsha Segal-George, Community Development Director Dan Folke, Planning & Zoning Specialist Chris DeManche, Spikowski, Planning Consultant to the Town

 

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

 

III.        MINUTES:         None.

 

IV.        PUBLIC HEARINGS:

 

1.         A request to recommend adoption of the “interim” zoning map into the “official” zoning map.  This request includes 2 resolutions, one to adopt the official zoning map and one to adopt the historic zoning map.

            Bill Spikowski, Planning Consultant to the Town, explained that this is the end of a long process of updating the new Land Development Code, although there will be additional updating.  The initial map was adopted a year ago, and it is now time to adopt an official version.  A recommendation will be required on each of two resolutions that were advertised for today’s public hearings.  The first and most important is called the Official Zoning Map, which was presented in several different forms, one of which is available in 8 ½ X 11 form which can be copied by the public.  He described the various features and characteristics of the new maps., which include key numbers referencing specific property actions that have been taken.  Since some of the information included on the map is no longer relevant, but nevertheless not without value, a second resolution will be required to adopt another map that retains all of the historical information concerning specific properties.  Ms. Plummer asked how often the map will be updated, and Mr. Spikowski asked for input from anyone who notices inaccuracies.  He explained that after formal adoption, they will be updated administratively and referred to as “current” zoning map.  Ms. Plummer expressed concern as a Realtor about having current and complete information available.  Mr. Spikowski explained that changes will be keyed by resolution number, not by address.  He referred to the Interlocal agreement with Lee County, which handles zoning for the Town, and various issues attendant to entering information.  The tentative plan is to take these maps to Town Council on May 10th and to have any errors corrected by then.  In reply to a question, Mr. Spikowski explained that in some cases the zoning was assigned by the new Chapter 34 and not by public hearings and specific resolutions.  Ms. Hester asks how omissions are to be corrected, and Mr. Spikowski advised that the applicable Code section provides that the Town Council will control this by means of either a public hearing for a map correction, or wait for the next major update.  Such subsequent resolutions would then take precedence.  Ms. Titus pointed out some areas of concern in her neighborhood.  Mr. Spikowski explained the RC zoning in these instances.  Ms. Plummer observed that the maps may require revision as the Town’s vision changes.  Major changes in vision would be accomplished through changes to the Comprehensive Plan, and the Town has the ability to initiate rezoning that is consistent with the Comp Plan.  The expense of requesting rezoning and CPDs came under discussion.  Mr. Spikowski provided some examples of errors and the process of correcting them.  Ms. Plummer asked whether voting could be delayed until the public had a chance to examine the maps, and Ms. Segal-George pointed out that today’s Public Hearings had been advertised, with materials available for examination at Town Hall prior to the meeting.  It also has to be introduced when it goes to Council, followed by two Public Hearings, and there is major advertising as well.  Mr. Spikowski also referred to the ads that had been run, and also advised that materials were available for downloading from the Website, remarking that a large number of people had done so.  He explained that these maps reflect what has taken place through due process since 1999, and that this is almost administrative in character.  There are no time sensitive issues, and these maps do not change anyone’s zoning.  He said that there had been some discretion used in the case of erroneous legal descriptions, rather than requiring each one to come back for Public Hearing.  Ms. Smith pointed out that these maps do not have the same impact as a Coastal Control Line map.  Ms. Plummer expressed concern that there was no definition of RC zoning, and Mr. Spikowski said these were defined in Chapter 34 of the Code, and that RC is a little more lenient than TFC-2 was.  There was discussion about legally built nonconforming multi-unit structures within this area.  Adoption of these maps does not change anything in the Code, and predisaster buildback is not affected.  It was stressed that no one is losing any zoning as a result of adoption of these maps; such actions had already been taken previously and are now being reflected on these maps.  Mr. Folke also recalled some background of the changes to RC and advised that in June the LPA will be addressing by means of a “Glitch Ordinance” a series of small amendments to the LDC that have been found to be necessary over the past year.  Ms. Segal-George verified with Mr. Spikowski that the May 10th tentative date of the Council hearings has been advertised, and that if there is a change another ad will be required.  She advised that there is no land use hearing on the May 10th agenda, because there was no case, so it will have to be the 17th.  Several members complimented Mr. Spikowski on these maps and thanked him for his efforts.  Short-term rentals and “quiet area” also came under discussion, together with the pre-existing registration list, which Mr. Folke advised contains approximately 70 properties.

            Public Comment was requested at this time.

            Mike Roeder came forward and explained that he is attending for the next case, in which they are asking for a small-scale map amendment to restore the original zoning on Lagoon Street.  He described the requested changes and expressed concern with the two issues being interrelated.  Mr. Folke explained how this would be handled procedurally and that there would be no expense to the property owner.

            Public Hearing was closed at this time.

 

            There was discussion about specific streets and RC versus RS zoning.  It was explained that the decision to do this was made a year ago because of the existing predominant pattern on those streets.

 

            MOTION:          Motion was made by Ms. Cereceda to recommend to Council the adoption of the Official Zoning Map and the Historic Zoning Map as presented by Mr. Spikowski.  Motion was seconded by Mr. Huber.

 

            DISCUSSION:   It was agreed that any errors discovered prior to the hearing will be provided to Council in a memo.  There was also a request to include the minutes of this meeting in Council’s packets when they review the maps.

 

            VOTE:              Motion was carried by unanimous vote.

 

It was noted that Anita Cereceda joined the meeting shortly after the Call to Order and the roll call and had been present for the discussion on this case. 

 

Ms. Segal-George requested to make some comments out of order because Mr. Spikowski had to leave.  She advised that a “Glitch Ordinance” hearing was originally scheduled for June 15th but Mr. Spikowski has just determined that he has a prior commitment, and it was requested that the LPA agree to moving the June 15th to June 22nd, which will be the final LPA meeting prior to break.  It was agreed that there will be 2 meetings in June, the 8th and the 22nd. 

 

2.         A request to amend the Town of Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the designation from Mixed Residential to Pedestrian Commercial and from Recreation to Pedestrian Commercial.  The subject property is located at 815 Estero Blvd., 821 Estero Blvd., 831 Estero Blvd., 819 Lagoon St., 823 Lagoon St., 831 Lagoon St., 839/841 Lagoon St., 843 Lagoon St., 846/848 Lagoon St., 849 Lagoon St., 850 Lagoon St., 855 Lagoon St., 859 Lagoon St., Fort Myers Beach, in S24-T46S-R23E, Lee County FL.

            Ms. Smith read the caption of the case, including the addresses.  Ms. Segal-George explained that the LPA was acting in its legislative capacity rather than its judicial capacity in this case, and explained the procedure for the hearing.

            Mike Roeder came forward on behalf of the property owners on Estero Blvd. and Lagoon Street, referred to as the “Lagoon Street Property Owners.”  He presented background on the case from last March and hearings on the New Chapter 34 when these property owners first became aware that their zoning was scheduled to change.  He recalled appearing before the LPA and Council at that time to object, and that all of the public hearings were dominated by the short-term rental issue which became the primary focus.  He said Staff had advised that because of the underlying mixed residential land use category that had been adopted in 1999, it was not possible to provide conventional commercial zoning for these properties, so a Comp Plan amendment would be necessary.  After discussion, the Town decided to allow a limited window of small scale amendments, limited to those individuals who had come to the hearings and objected to the changes in the zoning.  Applicants had hoped the Comp Plan amendments would come before the zoning hearings because one needs to precede the other.  Mr. Folke advised that it was necessary to have everyone sign the authorization, which was eventually accomplished.  The water tank was also discussed.  Mr. Roeder described the location and surrounding area.  He referred to the previous week’s case DCI20030087 in which he also represented the property owner.  Using visual displays, Mr. Roeder maintained that it seems to make more sense to view the subject property as an extension of Times Square as opposed to the southern extension of the North End, given the land uses.  He explained that there are a total of 13 properties, 5 on the inner circle and 5 on the outer circle.  He recalled that in 1962 and up until last March the inner circle was zoned Commercial, becoming C-1 in 1978; the outer circle was multifamily RM-2.  He said that this was not a purely residential area and disagreed with Staff’s statement that there are no commercial uses on Lagoon Street, but Sandcastle Interval Ownership project is at the beginning of Lagoon Street, consisting of 29 units on less than ½ acre with parking along Lagoon Street.  Across the street is the 7-11 which he understands was built in the mid-70’s and is the major encroachment of Commercial uses into the neighborhood.  He provided photographs of neighboring properties, showing the 7-11 dumpster under a neighbor’s window.  The proposed Town water tower and adjacent facilities, also non-residential use, was also referenced.  He also referenced a CPD across the street in conjunction with a historical property, further discussing the proposed use for required parking.  Mr. Roeder called attention to the fact that every property owner had signed the petition for the Comp Plan amendment, indicating unanimous approval.  He put forth reasons why Pedestrian Commercial was not considered appropriate.  The possibility of incompatibility between the inner and outer circle was also referenced.  He stressed that since the inner circle had commercial zoning for over 40 years, the applicants do not believe it should have been changed. They are suggesting Commercial Office as the best compromise, with offices or a beauty shop on the first floor and apartments upstairs.  With respect to properties in the rear, across the canal, he said that properties on the canal abut the Holiday Motel, the Island Motel, and the Shipwreck on Old San Carlos.  The residents do not feel RC is the proper zoning.  He said the land owners feel they have all the negative impacts of being on the edge of Times Square and none of the benefits, and extending Times Square to the water tank and revising the zoning would be an attempt to remedy those issues.  He pointed out that of the 13 property owners, 3 have an interest in 9 of the properties, but said this is no indication of large scale plans. 

 

He further emphasized that anything significant would require a Planned Development, and provided copies of minutes from prior applicable hearings.  Mr. Roeder also pointed out that several of the property owners had talked with the Town prior to their purchases and bought their properties with the understanding of what C-1 would allow.

            Ms. Titus asked what zoning is required for a Bed & Breakfast, and she was told by Mr. Folke that in the RC zoning district a special exception would be required; in the RM district it would be allowed by right, and not permitted in the RS district.

            Mr. Huber pointed out that one property in the group has had its density transferred, and he recalled that when this was done the right to build anything other than a parking lot had been forfeited.  He asked for clarification.  Mr. Roeder agreed and said there was no attempt to obtain approval for uses other than parking.  This parcel would remain CPD for a commercial parking lot. 

            Mr. Folke corrected his reply to Ms. Titus and explained that a special exception would be required in the RM district as well as RC.  In CR, Commercial Resort, a B & B is allowed by right. 

            Mr. Zuba asked what Mr. Roeder’s clients planned to do if the rezoning is obtained.  He explained that there are no concrete plans at this time, but that they feel that they purchased commercial property and cannot make any plans unless that is restored.  He pointed out that the Town would have total control over whether a bar or restaurant serving alcohol would be allowed.  He stated that he has heard no specific plans by any of the owners, referring to last week’s case in which 4 residential units were requested.

            Mr. Folke pointed out that any of the owners could speak at this time; none indicated that they wished to do so.

            Mr. Folke presented the Staff Report which he had prepared.  He explained that the delay between application and hearing was not for any particular purpose.  He explained that this case is an application for amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and to the Future Land Use Map, and explained the difference between zoning and Future Land Use Category.  He pointed out that any recommendation by the LPA would not change the zoning, but would only apply to the Future Land Use Category.  He referred to a Property Owner’s Map, Attachment B and also to the appropriate definitions which he had provided, pointing out several examples of commercial uses which property owners would be entitled to request under current zoning.  He also provided an explanation of equivalency factors and the effect on density and intensity.  He referred to Parcel #13, the CPD parcel, which he explained was in the Recreational Land Use Category because it was found to be consistent that this parcel be used for public beach parking; however, the property has changed ownership and is no longer owned by the Edison Beach House.  He expressed the belief that in both cases, the Mixed Residential and Recreational Categories, the requested use is an increase in the intensity of the use of the property.  One of the major changes that would result from approval would be what is required in order to rezone the property.  Chapter 34 states that any property in the Mixed Residential Land Use Category must be rezoned to a Planned Development; the Pedestrian & Commercial Category does not have this requirement, the intent of which is to protect residential areas, and stressed that this is a major issue in the case.  With respect to the outer circle and the inner circle, of the 13 parcels, only 4 were rezoned from C-1 to RC.  All of the properties on the outer circle were residential multifamily and never had commercial zoning, and Mr. Folke pointed out that the property owners now have the right to ask for a Commercial Planned Development to convert to commercial use. The inner circle, which was previously C-1, would be more appropriate for commercial use, and he would recommend a simultaneous Planned Development and Small Scale Amendment.  He feels it would be inappropriate to allow commercial uses before knowing specifically what the use is going to be.   While some commercial use may be appropriate, Staff’s position is that it be obtained through a Planned Development.  Finally, the specific finding required of the LPA per the Comprehensive Plan is referenced under  Policy 4.C.10 of the Comp Plan, which refers to public versus private interests.

            Mr. Zuba complimented Mr. Folke on his report and thanked him for his efforts.  He asked whether there had been a precedent for this type of request.  Mr. Folke recalled map amendments that had been done in the case of wetlands, and an addition to Pedestrian Commercial Land Use to allow higher densities of motel units along Old San Carlos, which was done in conjunction with a Planned Development.  The land use was not changed, but the Comp Plan was amended to allow a higher equivalency factor along Old San Carlos.  He said that this was the first instance of Fort Myers Beach property owners asking for map changes for future use, although this is common in other areas of Lee County. 

            Ms. Plummer observed that the subject property appears to have more commercial use than Bahia Via, on which commercial zoning was restored.  Mr. Folke explained that the recommendation was that the land use be changed, but not the zoning, which has not yet been heard.  This was Boulevard, not Pedestrian Commercial.  Ms. Plummer pointed out the surrounding commercial uses such as the 7-11 and observed that property values differ between commercial and residential, and expressed the opinion that it was appropriate for property owners to request their commercial zoning be restored.  Mr. Folke explained what is required of commercial development and expressed the opinion that a Planned Development is the appropriate avenue for requesting such use so that site plans, etc. can be reviewed.  Ms. Plummer stressed that consideration should be given to those who bought property with a specific zoning.

            Ms. Smith asked whether all of the property owners had purchased during commercial zoning, and Mr. Folke said he had not researched this. 

            Mr. Huber said he appreciated Ms. Plummer’s position but stressed that properties that had been zoned differently were being grouped with those that had previously had commercial zoning in this case, which he did not feel was appropriate.  He also felt that the parking lot property for which the density had been transferred did not belong in this application. 

            Ms. Hester asked for an explanation of the 1997 resolution, and Mr. Folke advised that this had been an interim provision that any property in any of the existing commercial zoning categories which requires rezoning must resort to a Planned Development.  This was in place until last March.  Ms. Segal-George added that this was done in lieu of a moratorium.  She pointed out that the Town incorporated because of land use issues, and the intent was to monitor what was going on while the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code were being constructed.  The options were moratorium versus CPDs with public hearings and conditions, and the idea was to know what was intended to be built before anything was approved.  She said that there is a long history of piecemeal approvals, and the vision of the Island was at issue.

            Ms. Smith invited Public Comment at this time.

            Richard Christlieb came forward representing the Royal Beach Club, 800 Estero Blvd., of which he has been President for the last 8 or 9 years.  He explained that there are over 700 owners because they are part condominium and part time share, and they are right across the street from the subject neighborhood.  He described Royal Beach Club as a family oriented establishment.  He referred to the summary which indicates that the residents of Edison Beach House and Royal Beach Club specifically would be amenable to the project.  He referred to the Pink Porpoise which he described as a complete disaster at Spring Break, with noise all night long and trespassing of their facility.  He also observed that Pedestrian Commercial would allow bars, restaurants, night clubs, and possible noisy entertainment.  Speaking for Royal Beach Club, they are not in favor of this request.

            Bunny Clayton of 920 Third Street, Fort Myers Beach, came forward and presented a petition signed by neighbors who were unable to attend this meeting, and she observed that 90 per cent of the petitioners have owned their property for less than 5 years, whereas her neighbors have been there up to 50 years.  She said that she and her neighbors have always co-existed with business along San Carlos and the lagoon, and they are opposed to the requested change.  She referenced an outdoor bar on the lagoon which she said produces a great deal of noise, and stated that they always considered themselves a residential neighborhood until the County allowed some businesses on the street.

            Jim Purtell of 848 Lagoon Street came forward and described  his residence as being almost directly behind the 7-11.  He advised that he also has an ownership interest in 831 Estero Blvd. and another property on the outer circle at 855 Lagoon.  He said that if there were any master plan to build something he would be aware of it, and there is none.  He said the property with its C-1 zoning was represented to him by agent Jerry Tartarian as being more valuable, which was borne out by his own real estate knowledge. He purchased the property in November of 1997, and approximately 2 years thereafter purchased the duplex at 846/848 Lagoon, also with C-1 zoning.  He said they purchased these properties because of the location, and because of

 

the C-1 designation and the values associated with that.  This is the reason for their request, which he described as a property right issue and also a fairness issue.

            Pat Purtell, part owner of 831 Estero Blvd., came forward and advised that he sold a business in Wisconsin some years ago in order to come and buy this property.  He bought it as Commercial and was surprised to learn otherwise this year.  He had bought it as an investment with the hope of retiring here in the future.  With respect to the reference to loud noise, he also referred to problems with beer delivery trucks parking and blocking his driveway.  He said they are used to the noise and 5:00 A.M. garbage pickup, having bought the property knowing they were next to commercial. 

            Ken Lebo of 870 Third Street came forward and said he has lived there for about 14 years.  He said he is across the lagoon and is neither pro nor con on the issue because he does not understand all the zoning ramifications.  He is concerned about noise and future commercial establishments that would increase the amount of noise.  He also referred to the traffic at Moss Marine, including delivery trucks and gambling boat passengers disembarking at 11:30 P.M.

            Sylvia LaChappelle came forward and advised that she and her husband Ken own the Edgewater Inn at 781 Estero Blvd.  She said that they do not want to see Times Square extended into their neighborhood, preferring the North end because of the quiet atmosphere.  She observed that noise travels down the canals and recalled being the manager at Beach Club at the time Pink Porpoise was there, and added that they have been on the Beach for 15 years, noticing tremendous improvement concerning noise in the Times Square area during that time.  She pointed out that regardless of the prior zoning, there was no commercial use of these and surrounding properties when they were purchased. 

            Fred Paine of 823 Lagoon came forward and advised that he and his son own 819 Lagoon as well, which is right next to the water tower.  He also owns the property that used to be the Pink Porpoise, which is zoned for a commercial parking lot and which he opposed because it was supposed to be Recreational.  He also owned the house next to this parcel on the South.  He referred to the adjacent properties and observed that the only use of Lagoon Street is by service vehicles to service Times Square.  He added that he also paid a premium price to purchase his property with C-1 zoning and obtained a list of permitted usages.  While he is paying $4,000.00 per year in taxes on the parking lot parcel, he has been told he cannot use it in conjunction with the adjacent parcel which used to be commercial and is now residential.  He expressed frustration with the situation and the expense, as well as concern with a rights issue. 

            Mr. Roeder responded by referring to Mr. Folke’s remarks that the intent was to protect, and asking from what and from whom, since all of the property owners have indicated their support of the rezoning change.  He said they all signed the petition with the understanding of the ramifications.  He added that establishments with consumption of alcohol would not be permitted without Council approval.  They do not believe they should have to go through Planned Development procedures to recapture what was there for over 40 years.  He referred to the 7-11 as a glaring violation of the Plan every day it is in business and suggested that if the inner circle is going to be Commercial, then the outer circle should be something other than residential, and certainly not RC.  They feel that Office Commercial is the most appropriate transition but would be willing to talk about alternatives without delaying the process of restoring commercial zoning to the inner circle.  He noted that the Sand Castle Beach Club had been approved in the 1980s with zero setbacks. 

            Mr. Folke had no additional Staff comments, and there were no questions of him.

            Ms. Titus agreed that there was a need for something to be done around the 7-11 area but pointed out that there is a remedy.  She referred to earlier discussions about short-term rentals and the taking of property rights. 

            Ms. Cereceda took issue with the statements that property owners had not received adequate notice from the time of incorporation and pointed out that zero lot line approvals in the 1980s and so forth were the reason why the Town incorporated.  She said that if any real estate agent represented from 1996 onward to a potential purchaser that they had a gold mine or had potential development rights, the other half of that truth was that a plan would have to be submitted to the Town.  While she applauds the unity of the entire neighborhood, she is not convinced that the requested rezoning is appropriate.  She described Mr. Folke’s Staff

 

presentation as far more convincing and absolutely consistent with the direction and intent in the Town’s incorporation effort and in the spirit of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

            Ms. Plummer observed that as a Realtor she has in the past attempted to sell such properties as Commercial because that was the zoning, never imagining that there would be a change.  She agreed that there have been decreases in property values with the loss of Commercial zoning. 

            Ms. Simpson called attention to the fact that density and intensity are important issues, and she agreed with Mr. Folke on his concluding remarks that the public interest must be considered.  She referred to the separate parcels and the adjacent properties and felt that there were two separate issues to be considered.

            Ms. Smith agreed with Ms. Simpson and added that it seems logical to treat them differently, with the CPD parcel another separate entity.  Ms. Simpson pointed out that the applicant has expressed willingness to address the two areas separately.  It was also pointed out that by approving this request, the Town would be giving up the right to review the CPD on specific development plans in the future. 

            Ms. Hester stated her belief that the key to the whole discussion was brought up by Mr. Folke in that by changing the category on the land use map, the intensity and density would be changed without knowing specific applications.  Learning about the above referenced 1997 resolution, of which she had not been aware, has made a difference in her viewpoint.  She said the CPD has always bothered her, but it is protected by being Recreational and she would like to leave it that way. 

            Mr. Huber remarked that the LPA is being asked only to recommend acceptance or denial.

            Mr. Zuba agreed with Ms. Cereceda that the unity of the property owners is positive, but said he does not feel comfortable to fight a battle on zoning issues that were addressed years ago and said he could not support the request.

            Ms. Plummer pointed out that the applicants would have a filing expense of between $3 and $7 thousand plus as much as $60 thousand for graphics, photographs, and attorneys to submit a CPD to regain what had been their right.  Several members disagreed with this statement, and Ms. Segal-George explained that from the time of incorporation, C-1 was never an unfettered use, but that CPD was always a requirement, and nothing additional has been imposed on them.  She observed that there were appeal rights, which have not been exercised, all through the process, and also the issue of whether they actually had something which has been taken away.  Ms. Plummer asked whether the applicant should be offered the option of a continuance to bring the issue back in two or three parts, as earlier recommended.  Ms. Segal-George explained that the obligation is on the applicant to make such a request, and the LPA’s function is to react to what is before it.  Mr. Folke added that the LPA is not deciding zoning but rather the future land use category, so he is not sure how the applicant would amend their request.

 

            MOTION:          Motion was made by Mr. Zuba and seconded by Ms. Simpson to deny the applicant’s request.

 

            DISCUSSION:   Ms. Plummer observed that earlier discussion indicated that members would consider something different for the outer and inner circle, but that the motion to deny is being made without consideration of this option.  Ms. Cereceda pointed out that there are reasons why a different treatment of the inner and outer circle would be inappropriate. 

 

            VOTE:              Motion was carried by a vote of 8 to 1, Ms. Plummer casting the dissenting vote.

 

Mr. Folke advised that all the Comp Plan amendments will be introduced at Council on May 17th, with the 2 required Public Hearings scheduled thereafter.  Ms. Segal-George tentatively announced the Public Hearing dates as June 7th and June 21st. 

 

 

V.         LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS:

 

            Nancy Mulholland said “Goodbye (maybe)” again, and Ms. Segal-George advised that LPA appointments would be on the Council agenda for the next meeting, May 3rd.  She will furnish Council a list of the 3 members up for reappointment and also on the ballot she will list those that have requested to be appointed.  She was unable to recall the number of requests for appointments.  She has also received a request for all Committee members and their terms.  It was established that there is no need for another advertisement, but the Council can request one.  The May 3rd meeting will be 6:30 P.M.

 

            Harold Huber advised that he will be leaving in the morning and will be back May 17th. 

 

            Jessica Simpson advised she will be away from May 4th until May 20th. 

 

            Anita Cereceda requested that the LPA send a letter to the new Mayor welcoming the new Council members Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Massucco and expressing the wish to continue to work together. She expressed sympathy for Mr. Thomas and Mr. Massucco because of their newness in their respective positions.

            She also said she disapproves of a noon meeting, especially during Season. 

 

            Jodi Hester and Roxie Smith expressed agreement with Ms. Cereceda’s suggestion with regard to the letter, and Ms. Smith requested that Ms. Cereceda write it for her signature.

It was agreed that all members would sign it, and that the intent was to indicate support and the wish to work together.  Mr. Huber designated someone to sign in his absence.

 

            Jane Plummer made reference to a remark by Councilman Van Duzer at yesterday’s Council meeting to the effect that it was important for members to personally visit the properties on which they are having hearings.  It was agreed that this is standard practice for the LPA members to do so, and the importance of doing so was stressed.

 

VI.        PUBLIC COMMENT:      None.

 

VIII.      ADJOURN:                    Meeting was adjourned at 3:00 P.M.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Patricia L. Middlekauff

Transcribing Secretary