FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

OCTOBER 19, 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, October 19, 2004 at 12:05 P.M. by Chair Anita Cereceda.

 

            Members present at the meeting:            Anita Cereceda, Jodi Hester, Harold Huber, Bill McCarthy, Jane Plummer, Robert Simon, Betty Simpson, and Hank Zuba.

 

            Excused absence from the meeting:            Jessica Titus    

 

            Staff present at the meeting:                      Town Manager/LPA Attorney Marsha Segal-George, Community Development Director Jerry Murphy, Planning & Zoning Specialist Chris DeManche.

 

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

 

III.            APPROVAL OF MINUTES (None.)

 

IV.        PUBLIC HEARING – AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE NO. 04-16 DEALING             WITH SIGNS DAMAGED IN A NATURAL DISASTER:

            Community Development Director Jerry Murphy reported that shortly after the hurricanes, Council had passed an emergency ordinance prohibiting the repair of non-conforming signs and providing for temporary signs to be used in their stead.  The reason for this was that in less than 2 years all non-conforming signs will have to come down, and rather than having property owners spending money to repair them and then replace them in 2 years.  The temporary option allows them to either take down the nonconforming sign and build a new conforming sign, or if this was not financially feasible, a temporary sign would be allowed up to 6 months so that they would not have to go without a sign.  This emergency ordinance is only good for 60 days, after which time it will expire, and the Town will need to go through the Public Hearing process for a permanent ordinance, which is now before the LPA for the first hearing.

            Mr. Huber commented that he believes it is wise to give the 6 months temporary sign option to recover economically, calling it a gesture in the right direction.

            Ms. Plummer asked whether 6 months would be long enough.  Mr. Murphy explained that this was initially drafted to allow for a year, but Council directed that it be changed to 6 months, with the additional provision that if the applicant can demonstrate an ongoing financial hardship, they would be entitled to an additional period of up to 6 months. 

            Mr. Zuba asked about progress points, for example, in a case where an owner was unable to get a contractor’s services, would there be a month to month extension, and Mr. Murphy assured him these would be considered on a case by case basis.  The Town is prepared to be flexible but hopes that business and property owners will act in good faith.  There is no fee for the temporary permit, but overall signage will be taken into consideration.  Notices were placed in the paper last week under the emergency ordinance, but there have been no applications to date, so it is not known how long the permitting process will take.

            Ms. Plummer said that she had noticed that some signs have already been replaced, and Ms. Cereceda asked how business owners know about this.  Notices have not been mailed.  Ms. Segal-George said that this was the argument being advanced at Council meetings by Mr. Loffreno concerning short-term rentals; the problem is in identifying those who are affected.  The State statute specifies the procedure for placing ads as official notification.  Ms. Plummer noted that with the period of time since the storms, some replacement signs may have already been ordered.  It was pointed out that new signs always require a permit, and she expressed the opinion that everyone may not know this.  Mr. Murphy observed that sign contractors know about the permit requirement, and if they contract with an owner for a new sign without a permit they are not acting responsibly.  Ms. Plummer asked if the Town knows which signs were damaged, and Mr. Murphy explained that there are before and after photographs of all damaged signs.  It is known that unfortunately some signs were repaired without permits, and these will be dealt with accordingly.  There is a provision in the LDC that is similar to the “50 per cent rule.”

            Ms. Hester asked whether a list of all Island businesses could be obtained from Lee County through the occupational licenses.  Ms. Segal-George advised that Staff is fully occupied at this time with other projects and priorities.  She added that this may set a burdensome precedent.  She pointed out that everything that is considered by the LPA has a potential to affect some individuals personally and asked whether it is desirable to go beyond that the State requires.

            Mr. Huber said that Jerry Robinson and he had offered to take pictures of the signs, and approximately 360 photos were taken.  They did not take Seafarer’s, and only the 2 main signs at Santini Plaza.  He said he was surprised that there were not that many that were damaged, citing Bermuda Dunes as one that had been completely blown over and has been reconstructed.  He expressed the opinion that they should not require a permit for this, and it was pointed out that there may be issues with the way it was secured to the ground.

            Ms. Hester expressed the opinion that in view of the current political climate the Town should do something above and beyond what is legally required.  Ms. Segal-George reiterated her position that this would set a dangerous precedent.

            Mr. Simon agreed with Ms. Segal-George that notification in the newspaper is sufficient.

            Ms. Plummer agreed that people read the paper, but see what they want to see.  She felt that attempting to notify individuals would create legal problems.  She acknowledged that signs are expensive, and communication is a major issue, noting that while the public seems to want personal, individual notification instead of taking responsibility to become informed, it is not appropriate for the Town to do that.  She suggested larger headlines for legal notices as a means of attracting attention.

            The Public Hearing was opened at this time.  There being no public to come forward, Ms. Cereceda expressed a preference to continue this Public Hearing until such time as the public could be made aware that this issue was being addressed.  It was determined that there will be only one Public Hearing before the LPA on this ordinance, and that a motion is required to continue to a date certain.  Ms. Segal-George advised that the November 9, 2004 meeting agenda is already lengthy. 

 

            MOTION:         Motion was made by Ms. Cereceda to continue this Public Hearing until November 16, 2004 at 12:00 Noon.  Motion was seconded by __________.

 

            DISCUSSION: Mr. Huber asked when the emergency ordinance expires and what effect this continuance will have.  Ms. Segal-George advised that the delay would not cause any problems.  Ms. Hester recommended that Ms. Cereceda write a letter to the editor on this subject.  Ms. Cereceda expressed preference to call the Chamber and have them put it out by FAX.  She will attend a merchant’s meeting tomorrow evening and will bring the subject up there.  Ms. Plummer noted that not every business owner is a Chamber member.  She also observed that due to the passage of time it is likely that signs will be ordered in the interim.  The issue of 6 months versus 1 year was also discussed.  It was pointed out that everyone is under the emergency ordinance at this time, and Mr. Murphy added that the sign contractors have been notified of this as well.  Mr. McCarthy observed that if he were a business owner he would make every effort to have a sign at his place of business.

 

            VOTE:              Motion passed on a vote of 6 to 2, Betty Simpson and Bob Simon opposed.

 

 

V.            DISCUSSION - PERIODIC REEVALUATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:

            Bill Spikowski came forward and recalled last month’s joint meeting with the Traffic Mitigation Agency at which this subject was discussed with particular focus on transportation.  At that time the LPA asked the TMA to work on the EAR transportation element and bring it back to the LPA.  They are getting started on that.  Since that time, the October 11th memo has 3 new items, which he highlighted for consideration.  He noted that there is a large volume of work to be completed in the remaining 5½ months.  Under Future Land Use, he referred to an item concerning pre-disaster buildback and whether over density hotel/motel guest units should be allowed to be converted into over density residential units, calling attention to the need to measure density and intensity.  He stressed that the decisions made could affect the future character of FMB.  Under Estero Blvd. he cited a set of potential practical alternatives in addition to funding issues.  The 3rd item concerns the realignment of Estero Blvd. which contains issues other than traffic alone.  Because of hurricane damage to older hotels, he anticipates there will be requests to convert these units to residential dwelling units.  He described the State and Federal requirements that will have to be taken into consideration. 

            It was verified that Gulf Front property is required to be elevated a specified number of feet.  A question was then asked about Pink Shell, and Mr. Spikowski explained velocity zones.

            Ms. Cereceda recognized Beverly Grady, who came forward and commented on Mr. Spikowski’s memo.  She said there have been meetings to attempt to determine whether there is flexibility that would allow ground level commercial, which the Town wishes to encourage.  She also mentioned the Estero Blvd. realignment, which came under further discussion.  It was explained that the State has extended some of the deadlines due to the hurricanes.  Ms. Segal-George described the TMA’s work plan.

            Ms. Cereceda asked Mr. Spikowski what penalties there would be for failure to complete within the specified time frame, and he advised that the only real penalty is that the Town would be allowed to process no further amendments to the Comp Plan during the period.  He said this would not be a problem for the Town because there is nothing pending.  Realistically, he said this should take 6 to 8 months to complete because of the volume of work needed.

            Ms. Segal-George brought up the issue of how long certain businesses would be closed and the effect this will have on the Island.   She pointed out that there may be a need to prioritize some pertinent issues. 

            Ms. Plummer asked for an estimate of permitting time to begin to rebuild.  Mr. Spikowski estimated 18 months from design to construction.  She noted that people who normally come to FMB for short-term rentals are going to Sarasota and elsewhere.

            There was discussion about post-disaster buildbacks, including certain specific projects.

            Ms. Cereceda expressed the opinion that it is dangerous for the LPA to have these discussions in a vacuum, so to speak.  She expressed a preference to have as many people as possible involved throughout the entire process, because everyone is concerned with future land use, which affects the entire way of life on FMB. 

            Mr. Simon commented on the realignment project as presented which consisted only of a plot plan, expressing a need for further details before beginning to form an opinion.

            Ms. Cereceda noted that the issue is not only how to turn guest units into residential units, but whether the Town wants to allow this.  She said she is not comfortable having discussions on the subject without public involvement.

            Mr. Huber recalled that the only question was whether or not to pursue the proposal further. There was discussion about rumors and misinformation that circulate in the community. 

            Ms. Segal-George pointed out that the client will have to spell out some parameters as to what he expects from the Town, and the LPA will have to determine what is reasonable and acceptable, in tandem with the TMA’s investigation of the benefits of the proposal.  She said that there are a number of reasons why the LPA would want to look at this. 

            Ms. Simpson agreed that this should move forward, suggesting that evening meetings might be considered to increase public attendance.  She added the concern about so many different viewpoints.  She also expressed concern about retaining the character of FMB.  Mr. Spikowski also suggested a day-long or half-day Saturday participatory session.  He agreed that he needs to know what the landowner wants.  He suggested that discussions commence with the premise that the landowner can build the same square footage with the same use, and with adjacent parcels now under single ownership, perhaps different configurations can be created.

            Ms. Plummer suggested giving this priority so as not to lose the opportunity to look at the options.  She suggested putting out some education regarding what the Comp Plan allows without a permit to stop miscommunication.

            Mr. Huber expressed the opinion that evening meetings should be televised.  Ms. Segal-George advised that the County has given the Town approval to pre-empt its programming for evening meetings, except for one Tuesday a month.  She will take this before Council for their decision.  Mr. DeManche would be trained to run the equipment.  She recalled that food was offered when the Comp Plan was deliberated, suggesting that this would be attract more attendance.  Ms. Cereceda asked Mr. Spikowski to construct a time line so that the LPA would be prepared for public attendance.  She observed that if this can be accomplished by next April the majority of people on FMB who are concerned would be involved.  Mr. Spikowski suggested breaking the meetings into 2 sessions of related issues on the subjects of Estero Blvd. and future land use, one of which would take advantage of the availability of the firm Dover Cole.

            Ms. Cereceda pointed out that visual conceptual renderings have continually been requested, but not provided by developers. 

            Mr. Huber suggested that LPA meetings be moved to the evening if they are to be televised so that more people can view them on a regular basis.  There was discussion about availability of Staff, with Ms. Cereceda pointing out that the LPA has the authority to direct Staff.  She recalled that there had been consensus at the last meeting for evening meetings.  Ms. Simpson recalled that the more controversial land use cases would be scheduled for evenings, while there would still be daytime meetings for other issues.  The possibility of delayed broadcasting was also mentioned. 

            Mr. Murphy suggested that Mr. Spikowski present the entire list of issues for consideration, stressing that conversion factors must be included.  Utilities, transportation and storm water could be addressed after the more controversial isues.

            Ms. Segal-George advised that the issue of allowing the LPA to be televised would come before Council on November 1st.  Ms. Cereceda asked if the LPA members should be present at that meeting, and she was told that this would be beneficial.  Night meetings or alternating night and day meetings will be scheduled if the LPA decides to do this.  It was recalled that when there were fewer committees, the LPA was meeting as often as 4 times a month, which would be difficult to schedule now.  It was also recalled that the late John Mulholland organized events such as progressive dinners and trolley rides that attracted public involvement. 

            Ms. Cereceda asked if it would be a Sunshine violation to discuss meeting and event scheduling with other members outside of official meetings.  She was advised that members are allowed to converse on subject they are not going to vote on, however, it is difficult to keep conversations limited to non-voting subjects.  She suggested creating a subcommittee that would be advertised and recorded, with minutes. 

            Ms. Plummer recalled that some evening meetings on controversial subjects lasted until midnight.  She suggested that the public be educated to tape them.  Ms. Segal-George suggested putting a time limit on meetings because after a certain point they become counterproductive.  In response to a question, she advised that there is no backlog of cases to come before the LPA.  She does not expect many cases until spring.

 

VI.            DISCUSSION OF THE “GLITCH ORDINANCE,” CHAPTER 30, SIGNS:

            Mr. Spikowski reported on workshops on Chapter 30 over the summer, at which it was discovered that the County has made numerous revisions that are not reflected in the Town’s sign code.  He has gone through those problems in detail and moved the sign standards in Chapter 34 into Chapter 30 as had always been intended.  He referred to his memo with the major changes.  He anticipates that during the next 6 months this ordinance will be given a thorough test.  This is not a public hearing and has not been circulated to the business community.  He is bringing it to the LPA for comments and input.

            Ms. Hester spoke about the sign definition on Page 5 of 28.  These are generally forbidden, even in college town.  On Page 10 she also had a question on the issue of off-premises signs.  On Page 16 she asked about replacement of damaged signs.  Mr. Spikowski will work on this section.

            There was discussion about a notice that has been published in the local papers.  It was explained that if necessary Council could be asked to extend the emergency ordinance.

 

VII.       LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS:

 

            Jodi Hester wanted to add to the evaluation and review a de minimus amount in addition to one of the 5 criteria for approving a variance.  The Loomis case was cited as an example.  Mr. Spikowski will research this with Mr. Murphy and Ms. Segal-George with respect to variance law.

 

            Jane Plummer asked when the building that houses reservations for Pink Shell is scheduled to come down.  It was her understanding that when the restaurant and reservation office were completed, that building would be demolished.  Mr. Murphy said that there is a time limit specified in the approval, but he is not sure what it is.  She has also been told that a real estate office has moved into the existing building.  Staff will look into this.

 

            Jodi Hester thanked Ms. Cereceda for serving as Chair of the LPA. 

 

            Betty Simpson asked if there were anything new on the Newton Property.  Ms. Segal-George advised that there will be an update at the next Newton committee meeting, including a damage report and discussion on historical designation.  Ms. Segal-George noted that there is a group who challenges her on 4 issues, which are acquisition of the Mound House, acquisition of the Newton Property, short-term rentals, and historic preservation.  She recalled that she was not in favor of acquiring either of the properties, she was not a proponent of the ban on short-term rentals, and she has not put forth any out of the ordinary effort on historic preservation, but the public perception is that these were all her projects, and believed that she pursues grant money because it inflates her salary.  Ms. Cereceda stated that the LPA will all begin to do their part to dispel some of these rumors.  Ms. Segal-George also recalled that a Council member had recommended that rather than a salary, she be paid a percentage of what she brings in, which she said would be fine with her but not acceptable to people on the Island, because last year she brought in $5 million, after which the Council member then withdrew this suggestion.  Historic designation of the Newton structures was discussed.

 

VIII.      PUBLIC COMMENT:

            Beverly Grady came forward and called attention to a process glitch in the LDC.  She referenced Diamond Head Beach Resort and asked about conversion to weekly time share guest units with no rebuilding or significant change to the property.  She asked how to bring such a case before the LPA and Council and suggested some processes for filing such a request.

Mr. Murphy added some comments on the issue of hotel condos.  There was also discussion of rezoning versus special exceptions, with respect to burden of proof.  He prefers not to put this into the “Glitch Ordinance.”  He noted that putting units into interval ownership is a permanent change.  There was discussion about how this would affect density and intensity, as well as parking and traffic.  Mr. Spikowski was asked to bring some further information on this back to the LPA.  There was discussion about a time share project damaged by fire last year.  Ms. Simpson also spoke about experiences with time shares that were damaged.  It had been mentioned that these are treated as residential units.  It was also pointed out that the Town needs hotel rooms.  It was agreed that this process will be discussed in the EAR. 

 

IX.            ADJOURN:       Meeting was adjourned at 2:20 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Patricia L. Middlekauff

 

Transcribing Secretary