FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

JUNE 22, 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, June 22, 2004 at 12:06 P.M. by Chair Anita Cereceda.

 

            Members present at the meeting:        Anita Cereceda, Harold Huber, Bill McCarthy, Jane Plummer*, Robert Simon, Betty Simpson.

 

*Arrived late.  A quorum was present when the meeting was called to order.

 

            Excused absence from the meeting:   Jodi Hester, Jessica Titus, Hank Zuba.   

 

            Staff present at the meeting:               Town Manager/LPA Attorney Marsha Segal-George, Planning & Zoning Specialist Chris DeManche, Bill Spikowski, Planning Consultant to the Town.

 

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

 

III.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES:        None.

 

*Jane Plummer arrived at this time.

 

IV.        DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC MARKERS:

            Ms. Cereceda referred to the pink marker submitted by Mr. Van Duzer and another sample brought by Mr. Huber from his town.  She noted that the Fort Myers Beach Historic Committee uses the arches, which have been the subject of much discussion, and she researched sources of appropriate arch graphics.  She also noted that local artist Harold Hancock has always been associated with the arch logo, but he is now suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and communication with him is difficult.  A familiar black pen and ink drawing of the arches by this artist is available, and Ms. Cereceda is obtaining a draft incorporating the arches (provided a release can be obtained from Mr. Hancock) and she described several options.  Another artist on the Island, Frank Palermo, who works in metal is available.  She described his work and the materials he uses.  After break she expects to be able to present 3 different prototypes for consideration:  One in wood, one in the same material as Mr. Van Duzer’s suggestion, and the third in steel.  Ms. Plummer noted that Denise Loomis, who recently appeared before the LPA, is Mr. Hancock’s daughter.   Ms. Cereceda will continue working on this, and the item will be continued until the fall.  Mr. Huber noted that the sample he brought from Shelbyville, KY was cast aluminum with a space at the bottom to stamp the number, which he pointed out is an advantage in working with metal.  Ms. Cereceda described the computer generated work that Mr. Palermo produces.  She obtained consensus that the arches were acceptable.

 

V.         COMMENCEMENT OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL PROCESS FOR      EVALUATING THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

            Bill Spikowski, Planning Consultant to the Town, came forward and explained that at last night’s Council meeting this year’s set of Comp Plan amendments were considered, recalling that the LPA has seen 4 sets previously.  A review of the entire plan is being initiated, not just individual amendments.  This review will particularly consider what has not worked or what has not worked as well as intended, as well as subjects that have come up since adoption that can be addressed.  The State mandates the process, as described in his memo, but no longer mandates the subjects, which reduces paperwork.  He explained that the process is somewhat like the Comprehensive Plan in that the LPA is charged by State law with seeing that it gets done and making an official recommendation, with final approval by the Council.  This is a 2-step process, the first of which is the report commonly referred to as the “EAR,” which must be done and adopted by April 1st, 2005; this report evaluates the plan and sets the new direction but does not contain any actual amendments, which come the following year.  However, he cautioned that in preparing the report is it wise to consider potential amendments.  He described in his memo the mandatory portions of the Plan that must be considered, such as affordable housing.  He also called attention to a flow chart, the back page of the memo, which the Department of Community Affairs, which reviews these reports, prepared.  A representative from DCA was expected to attend this meeting but has not yet arrived.  He said they talk about the FMB Plan as a model and he is not concerned with their reaction to the review.  The second step in the process is to meet with the staff of all the other local and regional agencies, and Mr. Spikowski explained that this is something that all the other cities and the County are doing right now, and he has been in contact with the primary individual in each city who is responsible for their report in an effort to share information and avoid duplication.  When those steps are done and the major issues identified, the process will be similar to that at time of incorporation with preparation of alternatives via the joint effort of LPA, consultant and Staff.  When completed the report must be adopted by Council by April 1st and after DCA signs off, the Comp Plan amendments will begin in the next cycle.  He pointed out that it is possible to find no amendments needed, but that there likely will be some.  He called attention to some issues in his memo on which he elaborated for discussion and feedback. 

            Community Design was the first issue, which included the Hidden Path project.  Mr. Simon expressed the opinion that the plan was seriously flawed and would benefit only a few, and there are many stumbling blocks to pursuing a bike or pedestrian path.  He would suggest dropping this issue completely from the Plan.  Ms. Simpson disagreed with having it completely dropped but suggested that it might be brought up again at another time.  She stressed the importance of the public’s wishes as expressed at the Hidden Path Workshop and also recalled the initial intent of the project as expressed at the charettes.  Mr. McCarthy recalled that eminent domain was a concern of many residents.  Ms. Cereceda expressed concern that there has been an attempt over the last few years by a few to undo results that were so cohesive at the original planning charettes.  She stressed that those who favor an idea need to be as vocal as those who are against it, suggesting that workshops be held on Saturday rather than a weekday.  She stated that she does not believe the Hidden Path should be removed from the Comp Plan, but that it should be reflected upon by more than this committee and/or CRAB.  Ms. Segal-George observed that there was never any plan to use eminent domain in connection with the Hidden Path, and that this had been a red herring.  Since incorporation, she pointed out that the Town has never used eminent domain for drainage or any other purpose, and expressed the opinion that it was unfairly used in this case as a scare tactic. 

            Mr. Huber had nothing further to add on the subject of the Hidden Path, but called attention to the trend to convert motel units to dwelling units.  He pointed out that although the Town wants its neighborhoods to be upgraded, developers are not finding it cost effective to limit building heights to 2 over parking.  He suggested this be addressed in the review.  Mr. Spikowski pointed out that it is difficult to solve economic issue, because when developers perceive new opportunities, land values increase accordingly and more height is required as a result. 

            Ms. Plummer spoke in favor of retaining the Hidden Path, calling attention to the safety factor. 

            The Future Land Use element was discussed, and Mr. Spikowski observed that some of the most controversial issues were dealt with in this element.  He said that the pre-disaster buildback provisions are too vague, noting that concern with overcommercialization was a factor when the Plan was adopted, but in actuality there is a trend toward conversion of commercial to residential.  He cautioned that removal of motel units will change the character of Fort Myers Beach, and said that in effect the policy that was adopted contributes to hurting the future of motels.  Whether or not the buildback policy allows building size to be increased is critical, because knowledgeable developers have bought properties outright for this purpose, directly affecting property values.  He noted that currently, expectations of developers and expectations of the LPA are in direct conflict, and he agreed that this issue of whether it is necessary to allow an increase in building size to encourage redevelopment of obsolete buildings must be addressed during review.  He also called attention to tourist-serving commercial uses on the Island that do not make much money because the buildings are old and the market being catered to is not wealthy, pointing out that these facilities will disappear.  He cautioned against inadvertently encouraging something through one policy that might discourage another.  Ms. Segal-George noted that of 6 cases coming before Council, 4 deal with pre-disaster buildback, and after the LPA’s recommendations a number of the applicants are lobbying their position with Council.  The question of a proportional exchange is repeatedly being raised, using the Carousel as an example.  The argument of reduced water and sewer usage and reduced traffic is being raised with respect to intensity and density.  She recalled that at time of incorporation, the focus was on limiting commercial zoning, with no anticipation that there would be market-driven interest in the reverse type of conversion from commercial to residential.  Ms. Cereceda noted that this issue of density and intensity was at the heart of both the Buccaneer and Carousel cases.  Ms. Segal-George said she is being asked by Council members why it was not anticipated that developers would be asking for high end residential condominium units.  Ms. Plummer noted that a 200 square foot hotel room is obsolete in that there is no longer a market for it.  Using the Pink Shell as an example, she observed that under the Comp Plan it is not possible to allow conversion of an obsolete size motel room to a Pink Shell prototype unit.   She referred to a structure on Avenue “E” with 5 units and the Sandman as examples.  Ms. Cereceda noted that an offer for the Lani Kai of $45 million had been turned down.  She suggested to Mr. Spikowski that in discussion of this category, it is very important to eliminate what somebody may or may not make money on.  She recalled having a discussion after the hearing with Mr. Meyers, a Buccaneer owner, who is also the same individual who has spent $50 million on the Island in the last year on properties he is seeking to redevelop, in which she said she felt not the slightest obligation to protect his investment, nor to create an environment conducive to investment, but that she did feel a responsibility to provide a fair playing field where all applicants are treated alike with respect to clear community standards and the potential for development or redevelopment.  She recalled that at the hearing there had been inclinations in favor of the Buccaneer project, but no way to approve it, and described from personal observation that the Buccaneer proposal would have been smaller than anything around it.  She stressed the requirement to clarify the Town’s requirements without discussion of the economic element and pointed out the inconsistency of discouraging residential development while attempting to address the concerns of residents.  Mr. Huber pointed out that in view of the proposed selling prices of these proposed units, it is unlikely that they would be rented, and Ms. Plummer agreed that the use would be less intense.  Ms. Simpson said she agreed with Ms. Cereceda’s view that the current position is inconsistent.  She pointed out that motel rooms are needed to accommodate tourists, adding that her biggest concern was the considerable increase in size of the units.  She also agreed that the recent proposals constituted a decrease in intensity.  Mr. Simon agreed that motel units are disappearing too fast, and also recalled that he and his wife found a small unit adequate for their visits over many years.  He said he had traveled for 25 years in his job and stayed in a variety of hotels and motels, describing his minimal personal requirements.  Using the automobile business as analogy, he disagreed that the market is driving demand for 4000 square foot units with 10 foot ceilings.  Mr. Huber pointed out that by reducing the unit size they could build more units per floor and stay within the height restrictions, adding that he does not feel it is the responsibility of the citizens of FMB to provide developers with economic opportunities.  He again expressed concern with the loss of hotel rooms.  Ms. Cereceda pointed out that his personal experiences and preferences constitute a value judgment and should not necessarily define the community.  She cautioned that the group should focus not on personal preferences but on what is desired for the community’s future, including no redevelopment at all which is an option, and emphasized that there should not be a “good guy-bad guy” mindset.  She again cautioned against considering money, providing personal experiences as illustrations.  Mr. McCarthy pointed out that smaller units would sell not as residences, but as rentals.  There was discussion about the height of building in several recent cases, and Ms. Cereceda suggested clarification of the process with respect to what is legally considered. 

            Mr. Spikowski suggested that it would be easy to develop objective measurements of density and intensity, but that FMB is an eclectic resort town which is appealing to many visitors and settlers alike, and this quality is difficult if not impossible to measure.  He suggested some options that might be examined during the process.

            Ms. Segal-George added that at last night’s Council meeting there had been the final hearing on the Comp Plan amendments, and she noted Lagoon St. as an example in which all of the owners agreed that they wanted their properties to be commercial and a part of Times Square.  This was rejected on a 2-2 vote by Council.  She recalled that there had been significant policy issues that were never discussed.  She emphasized that her concern is not with a personal opinion either way, but that decisions will be made without adequate discussion of all issues.  Mr. Spikowski recalled Santos as another example, as well as San Carlos/Crescent.  Ms. Segal-George suggested that the entire Old San Carlos area be reviewed, adding that she expects Lagoon St. owners to come back with another request.  Ms. Cereceda suggested that these owners should not have been allowed to apply under the Small Scale Amendment process, and Mr. Spikowski explained the reasons why they did so.  Ms. Plummer expressed concern that this was turned down in view of the fact that all the owners wanted it.  Ms. Cereceda used a Donald Trump analogy to illustrate her point.  Ms. Segal-George pointed out that there were implications to the rest of the town in changing the character of this area, and reiterated her concern that the policy issue was never addressed.  She also noted that as FMB property values escalate, there are different cases to deal with than in the past.

            Mr. Spikowski introduced Bernard _________ who is a planner with the Department of Community Affairs and who reviews plans for Southwest Florida.  It was recalled that he had visited FMB previously. 

            The third issue Mr. Spikowski brought up was the transportation study.  He did not have a suggestion about whether or not to pursue this issue and asked for input and comments.  Ms. Cereceda said she approved of his question about what type of traffic study to require of developers.  She referred to Suncoast Tides as a positive example.  There was lengthy discussion about these studies and the development of a system that will provide useful information.  It was suggested that the Traffic Mitigation Agency be involved.  There was discussion about the opening of Center Street, and Ms. Cereceda went on record with the opinion that this was driven by private interests. 

            The next item is utilities, which Mr. Spikowski said is non-controversial at this level. 

            Storm water management is the next issue, and Mr. Spikowski suggests that there is no need to prepare a master plan because the Town is already doing something that is an equivalent.  There will be specialists on utility improvement involved, with requirement of some minor policy questions.  Ms. Segal-George advised that there is still interest in a master plan because of financial concerns.  If dollars being spent on drainage must be shifted into transportation, alternative financing plans for drainage must be provided.  She explained that in many neighborhoods it has been necessary to retrofit and provide drainage systems where none previously existed, without assessments to the property owners because the Town has been paying the entire cost out of gas tax and impact fee funds.  She knows of no other area in the county where property owners are not assessed, but the Council decided it was in the public interest and would improve water quality for the Town to do this without assessments or a raise in property taxes.  There was also a desire to spend money in residential neighborhoods.  She stressed that allocation decisions will have to be made.  She advised that Bonita’s storm water plan is being closely studied, as well as other drainage techniques appropriate for the Island.

            Ms. Cereceda referred to a related sub-issue which has not recently been discussed.  She suggested including in CPDs a requirement for type of pavement, and Mr. Spikowski pointed out that in Chapter 10 there are incentives for use of non-pervious materials but agreed that more detailed attention should be given to this subject.

            The final issue was capital improvements.  Mr. Spikowski noted that no progress has been taken on the Streetscape plan for 3 years and suggested that this project be given consideration.  Ms. Cereceda again suggested that consensus is needed from the community.  She said she is proposing a series of charettes again to resolve these issues, and Mr. Spikowski pointed out that in order to hold charettes it is necessary that (1) the LPA members, who did almost all of the organizational work originally, be involved for it to be successful; and to make those events successful professional help is necessary, and estimated funds of $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 will need to be budgeted for that purpose.  Ms. Segal-George agreed to work with Mr. Spikowski and compile a budget, and to work on this over the Summer.

            Mr. Spikowski introduced Mr. Bernard ________ with the DCA from Tallahassee, who spoke on the EAR process.  He called attention to the Website myflorida.com which he said contains detailed information about the EAR process.  He explained the difference between this review and the previous processes and made suggestions for conducting the review.  He also provided brochures to everyone and advised that he is available for consultation at any time.  Ms. Cereceda observed that it is important to be constantly evaluating the Plan to determine if it aids in achieving what the community intends to create, and she struggles to communicate this to individuals who oppose any change whatsoever to the Plan.

 

            A 15 minute recess was taken for lunch. 

 

VI.        DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF AN ORDINANCE THAT WILL CORRECT ERRORS          OR GLITCHES IN THE TOWN’S LDC THAT HAVE BEEN NOTED SINCE THE CODE’S      ADOPTION:

            Mr. Spikowski advised that what is being presented is approximately half of the “glitch ordinance” because the rest has yet to be written.  He said he keeps a running list of questions when people call requesting clarification.  Much of the ordinance is relatively minor, while some are substantial.  The schedule is to bring this to Public Hearings in the fall; at the April LPA meeting a preview was requested and this is what is being presented today.  He emphasized that this is not a formal Public Hearing.  Carol Liss, Environmental Planner for Lee County, is also present at his request since a number of sections have to do with beach issues that were originally adopted as a separate ordinance and folded into the Code several years ago, creating conflict with some other parts of the Code.  He asked for questions and comments chapter by chapter, noting that Chapter 34 was incomplete and he has not yet begun Chapter 10.  He also noted that there is nothing on the sign ordinance. 

            Chapter 1 has only one change which is verbage.  There have been questions about who is cited for violations of outdoor display, which he discussed.

            Chapter 2 changes are mainly adjustments in the impact fees.  The levels are the same as Lee County’s, which are investigated rigorously and updated on a regular basis by the County.  He recommends continuing this practice.

            Chapter 6 has been broken out of the ordinance, and he explained the changes made to be consistent with State and County laws and regulations.   These refer to beach and dune and the CCCL.  A question was asked about a lawsuit on Bonita Beach in which the line was in dispute, and Mr. Spikowski explained that the proposed changes will be better for enforcement although not entirely specific. 

            Chapter 14, the natural resources chapter of the Code, contains the original beach & dune ordinance.  Chapter 2 is the sea turtle lighting ordinance, and the two are very closely related and also related to Chapter 6.  There are now unified definitions and cross reference between the chapters.  Beach raking is addressed in this chapter.  There was discussion about the types of raking allowed.  It was noted that there is a turtle nest at Lahaina with 106 eggs.  Ms. Cereceda described some personal experiences at the beach with her family and noted that some beach life is returning.  Overnight storage of furniture and equipment was also discussed.  Mr. Spikowski explained that there are similar issues in Chapter 27 which deals with parasailers and personal watercraft. 

            Mr. Spikowski pointed out that the bulk of the changes are in Chapter 34.  He cited a change that has been made to bring the ordinance into line with a Council decision.  He also noted that outdoor display has been pulled out and included in a separate ordinance going before Council next Wednesday.  Some minor changes have been made in the RV park regulations.  Changes in satellite dish regulations resulted from new FCC requirements.  CCCL references are cross referenced.  Gating of private streets is prohibited.  He said that the rest of the changes are relatively minor, stressing that the major changes in Chapter 34 are not yet finished.  The density/intensity question for buildback will be addressed.  He anticipates presenting at least one more draft prior to going to Public Hearing.

            A question was asked about setbacks for entrance gates on private property.  Mr. Spikowski recalled a planned development case in which this was specified, and suggested each case be evaluated separately.

            Ms. Cereceda had a question about Center St.  Ms. Segal-George advised that the Traffic Mitigation Agency is reviewing the original plan, which has been suspended pending a test of an alternate plan.  She pointed out that both FDot and Lee DoT are involved in any changes, and an engineer will be required.  Ms. Cereceda verified that this would eliminate the parking spaces.  Ms. Segal-George explained that this was recommended by traffic engineers to help move traffic north when coming off the bridge.  Permitting and signage are also involved.  Mr. Spikowski pointed out that this ordinance establishes setbacks for whatever decision is implemented.  There was further discussion about the traffic flow. 

 

VII.       LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS:

 

            Anita Cereceda suggested that in the fall new members of all committees participate in a workshop on rules of procedure and the Sunshine Laws.  She also suggested that the Council could benefit from instruction on rules of procedure. 

            She asked about proper procedure for presentations to Council.  She expressed concern from watching last night’s Council meeting that the LPA’s input was not properly and adequately presented.  She suggested that each LPA member take turns writing a general summation of the cases that are heard for the Observer and the Sandpaper explaining the position that was ultimately taken, and also speaking at the Council meeting.  It was recalled that this had been done previously but had been discontinued.  Ms. Segal-George pointed out that there are 5 cases being heard by Council next week and invited any LPA members to attend and speak.  Ms. Cereceda offered to do this.  She recalled John Mulholland’s chairmanship.

 

VIII.      PUBLIC COMMENT:     

            Rick McCormack came forward and spoke about the glitches in the Town’s LDC.  He asked Mr. Spikowski who decides what the glitches are, and read a list of topics.  Ms. Cereceda advised that all had been addressed before he arrived.  She expressed appreciation for his attendance and his input.  Mr. McCormack observed that he has done, and intends to do much work on Fort Myers Beach and will be required to interpret the rules, while the Council creates the rules with LPA assistance.  He then creates the buildings by those rules, and as an architect has concerns which he offered concerning the direction being taken.  He does not agree that intensity has to do with square footage.  He also referred to number of units with respect to intensity, pointing out that water and sewer usage is calculable.  He also asked about a proximity definition concerning density transfer, and Mr. Spikowski advised that this was not included in the draft.  Ms. Cereceda expressed preference that this be added, and Mr. Spikowski advised that it was purposely not included to allow Council flexibility in making its decisions.  Mr. McCormack expressed the opinion that it was Mr. Spikowski’s intention to have the LPA decide and then Council, which would be his preference.  He expressed agreement with transfer of density as originally written.  He expressed concern that cases are continually being turned down with the statement that they cannot be approved under the LDC and Comp Plan, when the Staff member makes a statement that the LPA and Council do have such power to approve.  He said he was under the impression that this would be fixed.  Ms. Cereceda advised that earlier in the meeting all of these issues had been addressed with the exception of transfer.  Mr. Huber noted that height had not been completely addressed.  Ms. Cereceda thanked Mr. McCormack for his comments, noting that he had been allowed to speak for approximately 20 minutes in spite of the 3-minute limit for public comment.

            Barbara Johnson came forward and noted that she has worked at LaPlaya Parking for the past 10½ years.  She spoke from her experience and explained that the property is for sale, after which she will no longer be involved because she lives in Bonita.  She said they have encountered problems while attempting to sell the property that relate to setback language.  On behalf of the owner, Mr. Holland, she replied to Ms. Cereceda’s comments about opening Center St. that there is no question there could be any advantage to that property if it were opened.  For the record, she said he had not participated in any attempts to have it opened or prevent it from being opened.  She said they felt that would be the decision of the new owner.  She said that when approached they made it abundantly clear that they would not take a position.  She explained how 3 properties were affected and provided some history about this, pointing out how the Plan limits future development of this property.  She explained how parking meters have curtailed their business and hurt their attempts to sell the property.

 

IX.        ADJOURN:        Meeting was adjourned at 3:53 P.M.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Patricia L. Middlekauff

Transcribing Secretary