This is a regularly scheduled meeting of the town of Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency. It is Tuesday, April 29th, 2025, and it is 9:00 a.m. If you would please stand for the invocation and the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Oh.
Um, may we all be kindhearted and gracious to each other as we express our opinions on the cases before us today and do what's in the best interests of the town of Fort Myers Beach. Amen. Amen. Amen. So, good morning everybody. We have uh
quite a few cases on our agenda today. Uh, but the first item is an approval of the final agenda. Does anyone have any uh issues with the agenda? Any changes they want to make? If not, may I have a motion? Some move. Second. Thank you, Jim and Jim. Uh any objection to the
motion? Hearing none, it passes unanimously. The next is uh an approval of the minutes for April 8th of 2025. Any changes or uh amendments to those minutes? Hearing none, may I have a motion, please, to approve? So move.
Thank you, John. Thank you, Jane. Uh any discussion on the motion? Uh any objection to the motion? Hearing none, uh we'll move on to public comment. So this first public comment uh for those maybe who haven't been here before. This first public comment is for anybody who
wishes to speak on anything that is not a case. Um maybe you want to tell us I don't know whatever you want to tell us but uh but you want to say that you like the weather but the cases the individual cases you really should speak during
that case so that your uh comments are part of that record they become a legal part of that record but is there anybody who wishes to comment now? Uh yes sir. Oh dear Tom good morning. Nice to see you, Tom.
Good morning to you, Anita, and uh members. Um, chair, vice chair, and members, Tom Torson, 301 Polarmo Circle, owner operator of the Margaritavville Resort and developer of the Future Silver Sands redevelopment.
First off, I would like to commend the Freeland family and the LPA members for the retoolled arches of resort development in the downtown district, which you all unanimously approved and and sent on to to council. Uh Freeland's listened to the community and retoled
Arches' Bayside set back from the bridge view corridor next to a a tall snug harbor Marina village building. Freelands are extremely credable owners, developers, and will construct in timely fashion um with great taste. Freelands
are agreeable to the conditions the LPA is suggesting for the mitigation impact on on the neighborhood and I really appreciate that. I would also like to say that I am supportive of another hotel project that is coming for LPA today that the second addition to the
Lighthouse Resort. Again, it is the right place here. but also the coders are very credible people and will deliver upon whatever it is that is finally approved. Lastly, I would like to express a concern, my concern about the development agreement being used for
complex projects like Seagate or Mr. Prasad's Times Square project. Unfortunately, I question if the intent of these larger complex projects was ever um to circumvent the C was ever intended to circumvent the the CPD
traditional thorough process of disclosure on the bigger projects. I think the development agreement may have been intended for the smaller singlepurpose type projects. Given consideration for cost and effort for these less complex projects with larger
and complex projects for them to use the development agreement approach causes me additional concern about it placing undue um burden on our town's executives thrusting them into the political arena. I also feel the more thorough CPD
process better ensures against challenges against the town on DEC on decisions that you all make. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Is there anybody else who has comments this morning? Okay, we'll close the public comment and we'll begin our first of
one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eight public hearings. Um Nancy, thank you Madam Chair. Nancy, you look very nice. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Um as um our chair has
indicated, we do have eight items on our agenda today um that uh are comprised of various land use requests. These are several variances and a special exception, a development agreement, and some reasonzonings. Um so for the
benefit of the public as well as uh LPA members please be aware that these items they are quasi judicial in nature and this requires that uh today's public hearings comply with procedural requirements that is that have been
established in Florida law and in our land development code. So these quasi judicial proceedings are less formal than a proceeding before a circuit court. However, they are more formal than the remainder of your meeting and they must follow and we must follow
basic standards of due process that requires certain notices to have been provided, the application of the collect correct standards of review and your decisions to be made on competent and substantial evidence that is presented to you either in written documents or
through oral testimony. The LPA's job today is to evaluate the testimony and the documents and information for each item that has been provided and you should draw a conclusion regarding whether or not the criteria in the land development code or in state law as may
be applicable has been satisfied. So speculation or opinion that is not based on competent facts cannot legally be considered by you in evaluating an agenda item. Testimony by professionals who have been qualified as experts in a particular
area has been considered competent evidence by the Florida courts as well as testimony by neighbors and residents who have fact-based information such as minutes, surveys, engineering reports, or testimony that is based on their
personal knowledge and belief. So, anyone in the public, if you intend to speak, please keep my comments in mind. And when you come forward, state your name clearly for the record and whether or not you have been sworn in. As you are aware, a unanimous decision by
eligible voting members of the LPA to approve a variance constitutes final agency action subject to a request by anyone for an additional hearing or review of the matter by the town council. if that request for an
additional hearing is received by the town clerk within 10 days. Um, anyone includes staff. Thank you. And for purposes of efficiency, before we begin the public hearings, I need to dispose of a few matters for all these agenda
items. First, I need to ask our town clerk whether our agenda items have been properly noticed pursuant. Go ahead. Yes, they have been. Okay. And also I need to ask our LPA members
if anyone has a conflict of interest that would prohibit you from voting on any of these items if you could disclose it for the record at this time. That way we can ensure that we do have a quorum present for the review of each item as they come up. John, any conflicts? No
conflict. How about you Jim? None. Jane, any conflicts? None. Doug? No, ma'am. No conflicts. No conflicts. I don't have any items. So, one of the formalities of our quasi judicial hearings is the swearing in of witnesses who will be providing testimony to you today. So, at
this time, if we could um if there is anyone present today um including the applicant property owner who intends to provide oral testimony, if you would please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the town clerk. That also
includes public comment. Yes. Anybody who's going to speak at all on any of these cases, if you Thank you very much. If you're ready, if you think you might, go ahead and stand up. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Okay, the room has been sworn. Thank you all very much. So madame chair if you would go ahead and read the first item on your agenda today the the resolution and then exparte
disclosures. Thank you Nancy. So the our first case today is a variance request for it's VR 202500060 for 170 Kuru Street. A resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving with
conditions or denying requesting a variance from LDC table 34-3 for the property located at 170 Kuru Street, generally referred to as strap 344624 W40042.0030
0030 in Fort Myers Beach to vary 4T 2 in from the required 7 foot side setback for a side setback of 3'4 in to construct a pool enclosure in the RS zoning district and providing for other clarifications is necessary providing
for conflicts of law scrier's errors severability and providing for an effective date uh Jim any exparte no how about you Don no Doug no ma'am Jane Jim, no. John, no. I don't have any
either. And Nita, Madam Chair, just to correct um 7 and 1/2 foot setback. You read seven just on the record. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Jim. That's a that's a 7 and 1/2t side setback for a side setback of 3'4 in. There you go. Okay. Thank you. Sorry
about that. Um, so next we would want to identify who will be uh providing testimony and whether they are providing testimony as an expert witness on this matter. Who's going to be it's you Jim? Yes, ma'am. My wife. So, okay. So,
are these are the property owners? They're not do they are you want to consider them experts? Um, are you testify? I'm sorry. I didn't They're the applicant. Okay, you're fine. Thank you very much. Um, we want
to make sure that um, you received a copy of the agenda materials. Have you had the chance to look at that that has been published online? Jim, did you guys get do you have you seen the agenda and the materials that about your case? No,
you have not. Okay. Would you like to review them? Have you seen the staff report here? Would you Jim, come on up for a minute. That'll be easier. That way we can have your Thank you for the Absolutely. So you have you received have you
received the the packet the staff report? Do you know their recommendation? Are you aware of any of that? You're not. Okay. I re I tried to research a email. You need to speak in the mic. I tried to research an email this morning again to confirm and I did
not find anything. So I just went with on what was on the town at Fort Myers Beach. I went through that through all that. So you went So you saw it on the website and you went through the agenda? No, I did not see the agenda because I that's what I was looking for. I just
wanted to make sure I had all the surveys and all everything that we've we've applied for with you guys. Oh, so you looked in the permitting portal? Yes. Okay. Can you say your name for the record? Uh Tammy Bradford. Thank you, Tammy. Jim, will you say your name for the record? James M. Bradford. Thank you. So, Madame Chair, um it would be my
recommendation that uh we continue this matter just to the next u after the next item. So, we're going to make you second instead of first. And in the meantime, Judith is going to give you the information so you can review it. So, when we ask you again, have you reviewed
the materials? You can say yes, Tammy. Question. Yes. Go ahead, Jim. So Tammy, the the reason for that is basically because the members of the LPA have been provided a copy of that and in all due fairness, you guys should know what they
have already read or seen. Gotcha. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Yes. You're welcome. You're welcome. Okay. So, may I have a motion to continue this hearing uh to uh number two to number two to to
letter B? So moved. support. Thank you. Okay. Is there any objection to that hearing? None. We're going to move on to our second public hearing which is V 202500072. This is 274 Kuru Street. 274
Kuru Street. A resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving with conditions variance 202500072 requesting a variance from the LDC land development code table 34-3 for
the property located at 274 Kuru Street gener generally referred to as strap number 344624 W412000.0000B 00B 0 in Fort Myers Beach to vary 13.5 ft from the required 25- ft water body
setback to allow a wraparound deck 11 and 1/2 ft from the property line in the RS zoning district and providing for other clarifications as necessary providing for conflicts of laws scriveners errors separability and
providing for an effective date. Okay. Exparte. Uh, yes, exparte. John, uh, yes I do. Actually, the company that's elevating this house is the same company that was that elevated mine and I met them earlier this week at my job site.
So, we discussed the project. Okay. Thank you, John. Jim, no exparte. I don't have any. Jane, none. Doug, no. Don, no expart. Jim, none. Okay. Madam Chair, if we could go ahead and ask the applicant just for purposes of
expediency if they have any questions regarding the disclosure that was made by um our member. Um Cara, any any questions? No. Cara Stewart indicates that there's no questions. Um okay. So
uh is this is this you Sarah? Who do we have experts in this particular matter? Who will be participating on behalf of the applicant? Cara Stewart and she has been qualified as an expert. She has um and she has received a copy of the
materials and I believe Sarah then is correct for an introduction to the item. Thank you Sarah. Good morning. Sarah Propes with Community Development. Robert and Carrie Wicker are requesting a variance of 13 and a half feet for their property at 274 Kuru Street to
allow a rear deck on the property 11 and 1/2 ft from the water body property line. The property is located in the RS zoning district and the home previously received an administrative variance to be elevated within its existing footprint which did not comply with the
RS zoning setbacks. Uh the request is to allow a deck and stairs on the rear of the house and to get from an existing uh rear door to the ground. Uh the request does meet the requirements of the variance request found in
3487 and it is recommended for approval with conditions. Thank you very much Sarah. Any questions for Sarah? Okay, thank you Cara. Carara Stewart representing Mr. and Mrs. Good morning, Mr. and Mrs. Wicker. And
they apologize for not being here. They were out of town this time. The variance, as Sarah mentioned, is to reconstruct a deck around the home that is being elevated to comply with flood. They unfortunately had been the result of two of the floods have have destroyed
their home or damaged their home, I should say. Um the design is not going to include any columns or any further obstruction. It's going to be a canal lever deck. The elevation at this location, I believe, is VE12. So 13 um
will be relatively high. We have a letter of no objection from the neighbor. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you very much, Cara. Questions for Miss Stewart? Anyone? Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. Any
followup on that? Okay. Public comment. Is anybody here to give testimony in this case? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment. Um, LPA members, any further questions or any questions at all for the applicant or staff? If not,
conditions of approval are on what language I'll tell you. Two conditions? 67. There are two conditions and They're they're they're there are typical approval of the varian they are boiler plate. Madam chair I move approval.
Thank you very much 20250072 at 274 kuru as recommended by staff and with the appropriate conditions. Second motion is made by Mr. Dunlop and seconded. Yes, if I could before you take the vote um I'm not
certain that we have actually the findings in the record. I you do have your staff report um that includes the findings, but if if we may just allow Sarah a moment to um to go over those. Let me ask you something. Can Jim uh and
I was I should have said this at the beginning. Instead of that recitation, could the uh LPA member who makes a motion include the findings and conclusions in the staff report as part of the motion to Yes, that would help.
Jim, would you amend your motion? I certainly will to include the recommendations um the conditions um established within the staff report and the findings and conclusions. The findings conclusions finding that it is competent substantial evidence to support the motion. Yes. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. So, so we're all good here now. Um any discussion on the motion hearing? None. Uh your vote. Jim. I. Don. I. Doug. I. Jane. I. Jim, hi. John, hi. And
I am an I. That passes unanimously. Uh, thank you very much, Cara. Wish them good luck. Uh, do we know if we have since they haven't come back in, let's move on. Um, we're going to move on to
V250045. This is 277 Primo Drive. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving with conditions variance 202500045 requesting a variance from the land development code table 34-3 for the
property located at 277 Primo Drive, generally referred to as strap number 194624 W40150.0260 in Fort Myers Beach to vary 12.4 4 ft from the required 25- ft water
body setback um from a canal to build a new garage and elevated pool for the existing single family residence in the RC zoning district and providing for other clarifications as necessary providing for conflicts of law scrier's
errors severability and providing for an effective date is there exparteame Mr. Mr. Dunlop? None. How about you, Don? Doug, no, ma'am. Jane, I have none. Jim, none. John, no. None. Uh, do we have any experts who are going to testify in this
case? It's you again, Cara. Okay. Uh, she's already been qualified. Uh, so we will start. Sarah. Good morning. Sarah Propes with Community Development. Uh Thomas and Melinda Kohler, the owners
of the property at 277 Primo Drive, are requesting a variance from the water body setback, which is required to be 25 ft. They're asking for a variance of 12.4 ft uh to allow an elevated pool and garage with living space over 12.6 feet
from the water body property line along a canal. Um the property is in the RC zoning district. Uh the property appear to currently meet all required setbacks. Um, so the proposed addition is the only
encroachment. Uh, there will also be mechanical equipment that encroach uh the allowed three feet into the uh rear setback that the code allows without asking to without requiring an additional variance ask. So um the water
body setback for the elevated pool and the garage will be 12.6 and then there will meet the mechanical equipment that encroaches an additional 3 ft. Thank you Sarah. Uh I'd like to amend the record. I'm just remembering that Tom I talked
to you about this at the dog park. So uh I had a conversation with Mr. Kohler about this and his grandchildren playing in the pool at the dog park. I'd like to disclose that. Uh that was several weeks ago. Okay. Um so any questions for Sarah
on this? Sarah, you're indicating the existing pool that's at grade complies with the setbacks as it's constructed today. Yes, because an atgrade pool can be within Oh, that's a distinction. That's right. Yes. Yeah. An elevated pool is a structure. Y good clarification. Thank you. Any other questions or clarifications from Sarah?
Jim, that's that's the reason for your recommendation of denial. Um, the reason I'm recommending denial is because it does not appear to be dimminimous. Um, there are not extraordinary circumstances. Um, I can
go through the criteria if you're interested. Well, let's get it in the record. Okay. So, for this, we're looking at the LDC requirements found in section 34-87. Um staff found that there are not exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions um that are inherent to the property in question. Um and that the request is not for a oh I I highlighted is I meant to do is not for a dimminimous variance under the circumstances. Um the conditions justifying the variance are the result
of applicants result of actions of the applicant taken after the adoption of the regulations. Uh the variance granted um oh the variance granted is the minimum variance to allow what they're proposing. So they're not asking for more setback than they would need in
order to build the thing they want to build. Um I did find that uh it will not be injurious to the neighbors. Uh but I do note that an elevated pool may block an elevated pool and a garage with living space above may um sort of narrow
the view. It's towards the end of the canal. It's like actually at the end of the canal. So, it could narrow the view out to the um the bayside. Um and the conditions are not of so general or recurrent nature that we would need to change the code. Do you have any
questions about those? No. So, can I just go back to mine then and tie it on Jim said so if you took that existing pool as it is today, which I understand ground doesn't, and just raise it up what we're doing, do you have further encroachment into that other than it being elevated? Um there I
I don't know what the setback is for that pool. I would have to look at plan. I'm just looking at the diagram. If they if they elevated it, it appears that it would require um Right. But back to Jen's point, that's the technical requirement kicks in because the elevation. Yes. Well, but it's it's not
just the elevation of the pool. They're also building a a garage. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, sir. Sarah, do you not think which that's kind of leading you to agree with me, which is a good thing? No. Um, you know, I I was thinking about
this and the changing nature of the island, of families, of everything else. Do you not think that um especially a bayfront home, I think everybody who has a pool was impacted dramatically during all of these storms. Several times.
Several times. Exactly. That became a huge cost factor. And so, you know, knowing that this lies in our future as well, is this not a reasonable uh change to allow folks to make? Um, I I would suppose that if council
and the LPA feel that it's important for people to elevate their pools, um, that this may be something we want to consider in code changes. As of right now, it is a choice. Um, as is the garage with the living space above. Um,
so but to your point, if council and LPA think that it's important for people to be able to elevate their pools and and not have additional restrictions, it may be appropriate to make that change to the land development code at this time. We wouldn't consider that a necessity.
Okay. Okay. Thanks. Thanks very much, Sarah. Okay. Anyone else? Any uh Yeah, I just um Is there been any impact by the neighbors? Have they weighed in one way or the other? Uh I I think I received an email and now I am
second guessing myself. Uh so let me get back to you on that. Thank you Sarah. Thank you Cara. Good morning Cara Stewart representing Mr. and Mrs. Kohler. I in in an effort with time and your lengthy agenda, I'm
going to start off by just addressing Sarah's concerns and her two items that she has brought up why she is recommending denial. The first one being that there are not exceptional conditions. I would tend to disagree. We have a water body setback, two water
body setbacks. We are restricting this property 25 ft in two in two directions, excuse me, in two directions. the existing house. The house is there now. I can't move the house in order to improve the
situation. The land development code, interestingly enough, in section 34638 D3C42, and I'll just read it to you. It's it's semi-applicable uh in the in
the effect that it would have the same visual effect accessory structures with roofs intended to be impervious to weather and which are not structurally built meaning if I had detached these this garage and this pool well not the pool because
there's a separate code section but detached the garage structurally built as part of this principal structure may be permitted up to but not closer than 25 ft to a natural body of water, but what we are talking about is an artificial
body of water. We're talking about the canal that can be 10 ft. So, I can have in your code an accessory structure, not a pool based on this code section, 10 foot from that canal. In light of that, I would like to just make that
comparison. We are even our setback to the garage is even greater. I believe it's at 17 maybe. Um the other uh bit of information that is I think relative. We're saying that this is a design choice. The design choice typically when
someone develops a home is at the time of original permitting and how they're going to lay out their property which in this case was done back in I believe 19go 97 1995. Um, at that time your code section
to require an elevated pool was not in existence. That code section only came into existence in 2020 2019. Remember? So there there's there's some nuances here that make in my mind this not so
cut and dry for those two items that staff is bringing up. With all due respect to staff, I think that we have some extenduating circumstances. We also have a situation where this particular property is heavily landscaped and I've brought some aerials
that I can show you in case you're not familiar with it. Let me just pass them out quick. The drawings that we have show our grade I believe it's 3 33. The drawing also shows me my first floor elevation is at
10. So this stem wall, if we're going to meet those dimensions that are on the drawings, is approximately what? We're allowed four. We're we're starting at three. So we're seven. So we're about 3 and 1/2 ft give or take uh to 4 foot
greater than what we would otherwise be allowed to elevate this pool. the um the some of the driving factors here as well is we have an owner, we have a property owner that has been on the island, has raised their family here. Things change. We're all
our our lives are changing, but we have a vested we have a vested party here. Um the enjoyment, as uh Miss Aarita mentioned, the owners are now grandparents. You know, we want our children close by, close to that pool. We don't want to go downstairs. The
other issue again is the flooding. The flooding has become an issue and and I think we're remiss if we don't start to take a look at that. Um I can just speak to my own experience with my own pool and I don't live on the beach. I'm off
the island. I had we had thrown cast nets to get fish out of our pool. You know, it's a problem there. There's an issue here. So the fact that they want to elevate their pool is to help in that in that vein as well. Uh the owner is here. Mr. Kohler is here. Um you'll
notice in the the packet um the other issue about the garage I took a picture and I I think it's in the packet too where we have um Tommy Kohler standing in front of the garage. Can barely fit in the garage. We've got an issue here. You know that
things have changed. So that's part of the driving factor for the construction of the garage which again meets the setback to the adjacent property owner and we have that issue with the the canal setback which if it was detached
theoretically wouldn't be an issue. So it's interesting in and of itself if you have any questions. Okay, questions for Miss Stewart. Just clarification. Um I think this is what you said but put you back on the record. the set back to the natural body waters the full 25 feet to
as it's proposed today. Correct. And we'll stay that way. Correct. We're only affecting canal. The canal. I got it. Um I've got a couple questions. Um from your exhibits, it looks like the existing pool is within the 25 ft setback from
the canal. There's an overlay in there. I don't have the exact dimension on that, but what we tried to in one of the the site plans was do an overlay keeping that underlying pool underneath that and you will see that we are in about the same location.
Um, is the uh I'm asking Sarah, is that correct that the setback from the canals 10 ft? And if it is, why are we need a variance? Because it's an attached structure. Because it's an attached structure. So, so that that's the
requirement for an accessory structure. Um, which is a code section that we have talked about needing to look at what is an accessory structure. Um but yes, if they were to have the that garage structure could be a 10 foot set
back from the canal. If the uh just for discussion, if this all this new stuff was like 6 in from the existing structure, then it we wouldn't have to have any variances. Not the elevated pool. The elevated pool would still
require the variances. Um because several years ago, this became an issue that people were aware of. If the accessory structures become an issue that people become aware of, there is likely to be a change to the code to require similar uh types of setbacks at
this time to consider accessory structures to be uh anything that's detached that's not an elevated pool. It seems it would make sense, especially on like the Bayside type properties, that um our code would allow people to
elevate an existing pool in an existing footprint. I mean, I know it's not there now, but that is something that seems like it would be I would say that the changes that happened to the code not very long ago, uh, I don't I don't think
the vast majority of people agree with that because because of blocks, views, and stuff. Yes, exactly. But you could be correct. We may need a new seated time. Don't be glad you weren't part of it. Okay. So, so there's
that issue. Mhm. And then these are attached. I guess my challenge is I don't I don't have a reason to approve this because our code, you know, codes clearly against it. There's no real mitigating things. They've made a design choice to expand
their house. I get it. It's beautiful, but we're just doing them a favor basically. Can I ask? Because they're nice people. We might help might help with that. Yeah. Just curious, how much square footage is in the new elevated uh above the garage? Because it seems to me
like the the current square footage is below base flood, which will still be at risk for flooding, and the new square footage will be, you know, potentially an above base flood that would create a place for them to possibly put things to save or maybe they could stay up there
if they decided to stay in a flood. Um, so I think that uh Cara's going to look at that real quick, but I I uh also wanted to point out that I did get one email. It said that the the neighbor was going to oppose, but they did not they just told me their name. They said they
were going to oppose it um and wanted to let me know that they were going to oppose it. So there I don't have um necessarily a reason. Um but it sounds as if uh Do we know where the neighbor was? One neighbor. We don't by the driveway or they don't. Okay,
Sarah, just two questions back to what Jim done talking about. So, um back to this elevated pool issue. Would we allow someone to build a um wall around their pool two, three, four feet high uh to
prevent water from incrusion in there instead of elevating? Is that an option our code allows? Um I believe above 4 feet they would not be allowed to put it closer than 25 ft to uh the canal. I believe that it's it's sort of looked
at. So again, if you if you're not allowed to elevate it, you can't really go into the encroachment on building a wall. Um it changes the whole dynamics of susceptibility to storms. Back to our chair's position. Yep. Thank you. Mhm. And Carrie, did you have the size? Yeah.
On the drawing on, excuse me, on the drawing, it shows the new garage at 227 by 22 um I'm not sure if that's answering because that's the the living area is above that. You're going to have in addition to the in addition to the pool
area, right? So 450 440 ft, right? Okay. Above water, above above base flood. So that'll be the only finished space above base flood on that this residence. Is that correct or no? Well, I want to clarify also then because this
particular property has had a change in the flood elevation with the maps. It was a AE10, right? It is now an AE11 Limoa. So there is a change. What
what significance is there in that? Just the significance is is that FEMA has recognized that the area may be prone to higher flooding um than 11 than the 11 um was what that but
it would it would also then reinforce the need to elevate elevate it reinforces the need to elevate um the we're saying there's no compelling reason Um, I don't know in any existing
property that is going to be restricted the way this property is restricted that you could have any other compelling reason than to try to elevate it to improve the sustainability of the structure to we're saying we have an
owner that has been on this island um and nice owner but on this island and they're looking to remain on the island. So, they're asking for your relief um from those codes. That did just change in
2019. You just changed that that restriction in 2019. Um and I I I can just speak to the number of people that I have been speaking to in new design and this elevation of a pool to some
degree is coming up more and more um because it is again a restriction to the property. Yeah. And because in 2019 we never in a million years would have fathomemed a hurricane Ian. Exactly. Or a Milton or a Helen or any of these other idiots that
came to ruin our lives. Yes. The another quick note that just I'm sorry to address the the the vision. This canal also has when I went by there today, I took note of there are boat houses along this canal as well that are restricting the view
way greater than what this this will be an improvement in my opinion to the property because it is so heavily landscaped as you see and it will be cleaning up some of that that natural uh landscaping. Okay, any other questions for Cara?
We'll open the public comment. Does anybody Tom, do you want to say something? Does anybody wish to say something? Sir, you have your hand up. Come on up. Good morning. Good morning. I'm Larry McManus. Larry,
could you pull that uh microphone close to you? There you go. Thank Larry McManus. I have the house next to Tom Kh. I and Jennifer Boer bought this house 10 years ago, approximately 10 years ago. The other people um our big concern is the view. Um he
already has a lot of landscaping there that uh that pretty much blocks some of our view now. So I prepared a little bit of a speech here that I want to say. So I'll just do that then. Absolutely. I'm presently the owner of 271 Primo
Drive. You purchase the property approximately 10 years ago the previous listed we purchased a site on scene we were aware the property at the time you need to speak into the mic sir
not sure you can see the paper with the mic I'm sorry um lost my place here anyway we you know we knew we knew the property and uh we knew the island the values of most of the properties on
Primo and Polarmo Circle. um a quarter issue is one of the no probably probably the number one um property dispute is waterfront sites is a view corridor issue when one of our um one or several property owners are at
risk of losing some or most of their water views due to one property owner's desire to cons contract is construct a structure with in the minimum 25 ft setback line to the canal In the case of the Kar family wants to
build a twocar garage and an elevated pool approximately 12 ft from the canal seaw wall on the west side of the property instead of the 25 ft required by this uh Fort Myers Beach Code. I could go into another thing here about
12 or 14 years ago. uh a contractor tried the same or similar thing on Polarmo Circle that been Torus's house and we know how how that ended all up in and stuff. So um as a result of the uh claral lawsuit
regarding the view quarter 25 foot setback a primo resident who was my neighbor south of me was quoted is the responsibility of the town to first look to what the town people want and consider that is done by upholding the actual
code people would buy in the town if they feel protected from investors, builders, realtors and other businessmen that would take advantage of a defect in the judgement. in the town. In closing, I'd like to say that everything that the Coler family is asking for, they already
have. They already have the pool and twocar garage. Um, that's it. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate your comments. Thank you. Yes, sir. Anyone else wish to speak? Jim, Tommy, hold
on. Considering I have something coming up, say your name in front. Oh, James M. Bradford. Considering I have something coming up in a few minutes, I I may not want to say this, but I I'm third generation of this island. I've been on the island that I can remember
since 1954, but my family's been here forever. And if we could go back to those days, we could all see everywhere. uh so there wouldn't be any condos blocking our view when we drive down a sterile boulevard.
I think this town since 1995 when we incorporated it has done an amazing job in its respect for trying to satisfy everybody. I do believe though that the whole objective is every time you have to make a modification to satisfy. If my
canal didn't have any boat houses on it, any covers on it, I could probably still see the the back bay, but I can't anymore. But that's the way it just happens to be. We still enjoy the full elements of the island that we have every day. And per my personal opinion
is that minor modifications should be allowed to change. And I listened to what she said and it's very minute. And if they went a little bit differently and didn't attach it to the building, the garage, they could do a lot more than what they are doing and create
create a much bigger uh situation than what they what they are by what they're asking for. I would only ask you to consider their Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Mr. Kohler. Good morning. Morning. Tom Cooler for
the record. Um, we built the we built the house on Primo about 32 years ago and um uh you know times have changed. I've got grandchildren now and just about two weeks ago. We had the grandchildren over to go on the pirate
cruise and um I've got child gates here, child gates there. And um I looked down and my granddaughter was downstairs. I said, "How'd you get downstairs?" And she lifted the child gate up and got out. And um so
uh we planned this over a year ago to elevate the pool and uh we've been hit twice by flooding and uh the downstairs pool is just not functional. And when it comes down to it, you're upstairs, the kids are downstairs and um I haven't
been able to put my truck in a garage in I don't know how many how many years. It's just um it's not large enough. Um but um that's why we're here. So, thank you, Tom. Thank you. Appreciate you being here. Anybody else have any
comments? Mr. Coler, are you actually You're three, aren't you? You're the third. I'm three. My son's number four. Good morning, Tommy Kohler. Um, didn't prepare any notes on this particular comment, but just kind of want to walk you through kind of the inspiration behind this
project. My dad's a great father. Um, very selfless. And I say that because he's this is not a project that he's building for himself. This is a project he's building for his grandkids and his kids. Um it's not easy
managing watching them going upstairs, making lunch, going back downstairs, forgetting the milk, afternoon, go back up there, come down. It's become it's increasingly more of a nightmare uh now that kids are older, they're more
mobile. Um, so my dad is really building this or wants to build this to have us over family barbecues with the the elevated living space upstairs that's going to have the outdoor kitchen. We'll be able to watch a football game. The kids will be able to play in the pool.
Um, you know, Karen mentioned the garage. Those garage spaces and I'm not sure how it came to be, but they are just not functional one bit. you can't even pull a a small vehicle in there. Um, so this will allow
my father the the the ability to pull his car in, pull it out, uh, without having to scratch the mirrors. Um, and you and you know, we have tremendous respect for our neighbor, uh, Larry.
Um, I was just a little shocked about his comment about the view because we know that view that he has because we used to live in that house. So, with what we want to build, I don't see it blocking that view at all because
I remember that view like it was yesterday and there wasn't much of one of the bay. So, um you know, with that being said, um you know, this is a a development that's that my father wants to do for his family and the the the
experience he wants to have getting everybody over and having those great family gatherings. Thank you. Thanks, Tom. Anybody else wish to speak? Seeing no one, I'll close the public comment. Any further questions
for staff or the applicant? None. Sarah, you have any followup at all? Okay. Um, LPA members discussion on this. I'll say something. I you know this to me is another example of the
changing uh lifestyle of um of our community. Uh I know many of you don't know this but you know the Coler FL family owned all the property when the bridges changed. The bridge slapped right through the middle of their of their of their property. So, this is a
this is a a constantly evolving um community and um and in light of the recent hurricanes, uh this is uh I think we're going to see more of this. Uh and and it's it is very different. I don't
know what you think, Jane, but I remember vividly the eruption of the elevated pools, and it was in fact um where Mr. Torus currently lives. It was that property. He didn't live there at the time, but it was that property that
was the uh the the pinpoint of the eruption of the elevated pools. It was a very different time in a very different environment on the island then. So, um anyhow, I'm going to support a motion to
approve this request. Uh if if that exists, I don't know what you all think. Let I'll just let somewhere. Well, my comments are that this could be built if it wasn't attached and that's what gives
me the um cost to to approve it because um it it's available by our code to have it there. No, the pool. No, I'm talking about the garage. Yes. and and um the
uh the the pool then would just follow that same line. So I you know I just don't I don't you know what else directly across is commercial directly across is commercial and on that side it's Matanis. Yeah. And you
know, living I I also live on a a area where I'm two-sided of water and have a 25 foot setback on both sides. And it it it is a lot taking of, you know, that amount of space on both sides of your property um to control, you know, to be
controlled that it's just got to be space. Whereas as it's already been stated that it's already landscaped out, I don't know how there is any view to begin with because of landscaping and we can't control the landscaping. I do feel
we need to be careful in looking at this moving forward as far as u you know the elevating pools um so that we aren't restricting but the
garage is already going to restrict. So to me it's it's a clear line to just fill in. I I I I can support this. Other comments, Doug? Yeah, I have uh comments. A comment that
I'm sort of struggling with. I like the project. You It's beautiful. I I think what everything's being said makes sense to me, but we have rejected elevated pools in the past as I recall and for all the reasons that we're talking
about. So, I I feel like if I vote to approve this, I'm sort of following my emotions that I like the people. I like the project, but I'm not really following the rules that we're supposed to follow. And uh we don't have I don't
see that we have the leeway to approve this within the context of our codes. And that's so I'm struggling with that. Doug, I don't remember off the top of my head the other examples that you're that you're citing. I don't remember off the
top of my head, but this particular property is uniquely located. Um I mean it it it's Yeah. And I think um to Yeah. And so we're we're sort of making that a determination that well
this is uniquely located so we're going to be okay with it. Somebody else they're not uniquely located so we're not going to be okay with it because we don't allow it. um seems a little bit arbitrary. So just my concern. Yeah, John, I kind
of not kind of I absolutely share that sentiment um in building back. I actually wanted to extend my deck further and if it had been not attached to my house, I would have been able to put it within five
feet of my canal. Um, I chose not to do that because it would have been too much. Uh, but I certainly wanted to go an additional 5T. And um there's opposition from the
direct neighbor that to me um if it was within the footprint of what's allowed and there was then there wouldn't be an issue but by the code code may be broken for double setbacks. I get
that. But there's opposition from the neighbor and that weighs for me. So what about if he does it as a independent structure? He could have what he's asking for. Well, then more
that works for the garage and that's why this is a challenge, right? Because you could actually design around it. Um and I do recognize having emptied my pool multiple times, I do recognize that elevated pools would be preferred for
everybody. Um that's the challenge here. Uh but by the rules as we have them, as they currently exist, um I have difficulty with it. Um and and quite
frankly, the neighbor's impact is is important to me. Is the neighbor impacted by the pool or by the garage? I don't want to speak for them because I don't know, but I would imagine it would
be the massing in general. Yes. Go ahead. Um, couple things, chair. Um, given the option, um, everybody would elevate their pools that lives on water today. So, I think
your comments about context of the situation we find ourselves in are appropriate. And the other thing I would say is um if he was building this from scratch, that garage is going to be just that high for FEMA requirements, etc. where wouldn't get code wouldn't be
compliant with permits for code. So all this is is a one-off against a trend that's inevitable and going to take place. I agree that it's challenging um John with the way the code's currently written, but they wouldn't be in here if compliance was complete. uh we have that responsibility to make
in context these discretionary decisions and this just seems to make sense to me of what somebody normal and um appropriately would be asking for. And my well my my statement was based on the fact
that they could be more injurious to the neighbor if they did detach it and went out to the 10 feet which they would be allowed. And the only reason that the pool the pool after that doesn't really matter because it's already continuous
with the building that they could get. And that's why that's why I could support it. Now, had they just put the pool in and were raising it, it that might be a different matter because they have the right to do the garage as a
accessory building and make it worse for the neighbor. Whereas this is in in my opinion would be the minimus because you know trucks are so long and they you know he's keeping it tight to the building. I mean he's overlapping his
existing garage. So I mean he's not pushing it out as far as he could. So I respect that about it. But after that garage is built it doesn't you know the only person that can see it is from the water looking back. Don did you have
comment? Uh yeah, I just echo some of what Jim said and what um you know, I I did a little research on this. I looked at the listing for 271 Primo before because I I think there's two I always struggle with two things. One, someone owns a piece of property, they should be able to you generally be allowed to do what they want with the property, right,
within the and if they have some exception, they as Jim said, come to us and ask for an exception to that, which which is why we're here. The the house next door. Now I I don't know because satellite images show after, you know, post Ian, but it actually used to have
an elevated deck that blocked with landscape blocked the next neighbor completely. They would they wouldn't even have been able to see I mean past that house in the canal even. Now whether that's been rebuilt or not, I don't know. I also looked at landscaping, you know, what is the actual view? What's the view going to
be? The house next door is doesn't have has a slightly elevated pool, but it's not elevated house. It's not an elevated pool. They didn't have a view before Ian. So I 20 years ago I sat at Matanzas with my kids and used to I I liked this house on the corner. I thought it was really cool. But you couldn't see a lot
of the house because of all the landscaping. There's mangroves and there's and then if you go back down the street on Google Earth and you look towards the house, there's a hedge row there as well. So I would actually argue there is virtually no view today or it's a very obstructed view. So that's where
I look at it and say, you know, I think that two things. Because I think there is actually if this were my house, I wouldn't want to tear it down or try to elevate the whole thing because it's probably impossible. But I could build space, new space. I could get a garage uh and I could get new space that is
actually um you know, maybe safe from future flooding where the rest of the house is probably not. And so you could literally take your possessions and put them up there. you could. Um, and so to me, that's a bit of a pretty good justification for, you know, how do I
make this house sort of a little bit more floodproof or have at least safe zones for for things. So, anyway, those are just a few of my comments. Um, yeah, I don't think there's I don't I don't really I I have sympathy for someone that's one lot back, but but I'd also say that if you're one lot back, you
didn't buy a bayfront, right? And so, you didn't pay for a bayfront probably. So unfortunately, you probably can't expect that. Like I've always looked at homes one lot back and I say, "Well, if someone builds a house, a big house in front of that, I lose my view. If not, I might have a view today because it's a
single story." Well, that was prior to Ian, but so anyway, that's those are my thoughts. Anything? Well, um I I guess my comment would uh be that I I do think there is a hardship. I I think the double setback creates a
hardship. I think the climate change, the hurricanes have committed a hardship and you know therefore if we can find that there's a hardship then the aesthetics um while I guess I'm
sensitive to they're not a requirement of the code. The code says we have to find there's a hardship. So thank you Jim. Okay. um would like to make a motion. If I had the uh findings and
conclusions here, I'd do it, but I don't. Nobody made a motion. We just refer to them generally. No, because But can we adapt the findings and conclusions because they there's a denial denial. However, you have heard testimony by others. Um and you have
been uh given some documentation as well. Um, so your motion should basically reference if you believe there is confident substantial evidence in the record to satisfy the criteria. Okay. I'm going to make a motion uh to
approve a variance request 20250006 finding that there is uh comp competent and substantial uh information and testimony on the record that there are um that or that there that satisfy the findings and
conclusions necessary for this request. M madam chair, sorry to interrupt, but did you read the variance number you're approving again? Okay, I read the wrong one. Thank god you're watching me today, Jim. Uh, it's V2 50045.
There you go. Yeah. Okay. And include um Well, that's it. Second. Thank you. and including the f uh the conditions. Did you say that
to include the two conditions? Yes, including the two conditions that are uh normal in our requests. Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Uh Anita I. I. Jim Don I. Doug I I
I no. Okay. The motion carries um 6 to one which forces this variance request to the town council. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you all. I'm going to go backwards. And now we're going to
backtrack and reopen. Get to my let me get to my piece of paper here. Page 21. We are reopening um variance request
20250060. That's 170 Kuru Street. Um okay. So we already read the title and everything else. Judith Judith Judith Frankl, principal planner in uh community development. Uh I had the opportunity to um speak with the
applicant out in the hallway and I gave them a copy of the the staff report and the ordinance. So they've seen all the materials and I reviewed it with them. Thank you very much, Judith. Um so this is an application for one variance from land development code table
34-30 for 170 Kuru street. Um they are seeking to construct a pool enclosure in the RS zoning district. Um the side required side setback for this accessory structure is 7 and 1/2 ft. They're
looking to vary by variance of 4' 2 in for a side sepek of 3 feet 4 in. Um the pool enclosure is intended to follow the line of the house. The house um I'm not sure of the
age, but it was written it was built pre um the incorporation of the town. It's an older home um and had these existing setbacks. So, what they're looking to do with their pool enclosure is to follow the line of the home. Um, they have already received a permit and installed
their pool. Unfortunately, it wasn't caught at that time, but the pool enclosure um did have a different setback that they had to follow. So, now they're here to ask for a variance to install the the pool enclosure around that um the pool. Uh staff is
recommending denial um because this is a typicalsized lot. Um, and we believe there are not exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances inherent to the property in question. Um, and that the request is not for a
dimminimous variance. Um, it makes sense that they would like to follow the line of the home, but it's not essential. Um, as this is an accessory to the house, the LPA should determine whether rigid compliance is not essential to protect public policy. That's the language from
the code. Um the uh conditions justifying variance are the result of the applicant's choice in the matter. Um this is part of their their requested design. Um however,
uh staff believes that the granting of the various will not be injurous to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Um, and we advise that the LPA should determine what is considered injurous to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, but staff does not believe it
will have um any kind of injurous impact. Um, the uh applicant is here as you know um and can explain to you a little bit about the history of the property. Um they maintain that there was a structure
there previously but staff was not able to uncover any records um indicating that. So that's why they're here for the variance. Judith, can you repeat that statement that you made that rigid compliance is not essential to what?
Yes. So, um, what the code asks, um, in this case, I'll read you the the whole, um, section, um, we're charged with with looking at whether there are or are not exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances that are inherent to
the property in question, or that the request is or is not for a dimminimous variance under circumstances or conditions where rigid compliance is not essential to protect public policy. It's a great line. Compliance. I have a
question on on the survey that is on page 48. Um, it it appears that the covered screen comes directly off of the edge of
the house. Is it is it out past the house or is it at the same. So, right now, um there's a a covered uh portion on the front of the house and there's a screened area on the back of the house. You're talking about the back of the house closer to the water, right? Yes.
So, that's existing. The the pool is not on that um survey. If you look on the site plan though, the pool is shown there and so they're they're adding to that. Okay. Okay. That's so it's not on that
side, it's on the other side and it goes on the the more southernly side is where they're going to add this the screened in porch. That's where the pool is. Um so if you the the yeah on I think it's 47 page 47 just
above what you're looking at it shows the the site plan there and you can see where the pool is on page 50. The pool is on there too. Um, so yes. Yes.
Okay. Finish J. So I have Yeah. I have similar I have questions related to what Jane's talking about. So the pool is existing. Yes. Yeah. So if they uh and when I'm looking at the site plan, it kind of looks
like the edge of the main house is like 8.8 8 ft set back and there's some sort of structure that's poking out that they're trying to align with on the sort of pool side. Is that Yeah, it's hard to see. The front part of the
house is at 88, but then there's a a rear portion of the the house. Um the applicant put in their application that at one time they think that maybe it was a um a two-unit property that was converted. So, it's a it's an older So,
it's had a history. So, I'm not sure exactly why there was a bump out there at one point, but that was added on. Yeah. So, we're aligning with the bump out. Yes. Which is okay. But then would they need the um the the variance anyway to have a
pool cage so that they can walk all the way around their pool? Because the pool without the variance, the uh let's say they put the pool cage aligned with the main house. Then it's right on the edge of the pool. It looks like.
Correct. Yeah. I I brought this up last month that you know there's so many changes happening with pool cages now that I mean I'm seeing pool cages with the the fence directly in the coping of the pool right and two sides you can't
get out of. And I'm thinking this is not safe. I mean this is stupid. But um it's it's approved and um you know I always I when you look up what is the distance around the pool that is required by Florida state law and it's says between
three and four feet and so um you know I do think it's important to have a walkound. Um and so you know I'm I'm following what you're saying also. I think it's I think we need to I think the Yeah. To me, the I mean, I'm not the
owner, of course, but the bigger issue is to have a walk around in the pool rather than align with the structure, right? Which you kind of have to align with the structure to have a reasonable walk. Judith, can they build code compliant
screen? Would it cover the pool? Um, I mean, that's Florida building code, so you know, I'm not with our um my understanding is that distance from the coping has to do with other structures. So like distance from the house so it doesn't interact with
the foundation. Again, I'm not Yeah, if they weren't asking for variances and just want to build a screen, it only cover wouldn't cover the entire area. Um Judith, um is there any impact on the adjacent property with the reduced setback?
So, I haven't had any and I I just checked um with other staff that we haven't had any emails or communication about this. Nobody's um written in to tell us they have a problem with it. I mean, there's already the bumpout of the existing
structure already infringes on the setback. Should we hear from the applicant and see if they can fill in some blanks? Sure. Thank you, Judith, Jim, Tammy.
Thank you very much for your time today. I know you have a busy schedule. I'll try to make this brief. I'm not good at that. Jim, if you guys will say your names for the record again. James M. Bradford. Tammy Bradford. Thank you. Okay. If you don't mind, let us pass around a picture of all of our Thank
you. Uh, sorry we didn't bring a lot of pictures. That's okay. No problem. No problem. Did not really intend to have to go through this. I would like to just start with a little history of this to begin with. And this structure was built back in the 50s. Uh,
in in the 1970s, Gene Rash, who owned the house at that time, had a had a uh wooden deck on the back of it. And at that time 160 Kuru and 170 Kuru were connected together. Uh it was in later
years it got disconnected and when I bought the house I dis dismantled the wooden deck and I moved it and built wooden sidewalks all the way around the house. Um it had a a wooden screen room on it made out of 4x4s and 2x4s as the
old 50s and 60s stuff would have been done. Um, the contractor that did that was Chuck Dennison back then and Gene Rash was the owner of the house who was the Coast Guard chief. Um, I've spoke with all of the neighbors. I've I've owned
that house since the early 80s and uh lived there and the I do not currently live there just so there's no confusion of what I'm saying to you. And none of the neighbors on the street have had any have all been okay with us doing this.
Uh I know every one of them, most of them anyway. If there's one or two, I don't know. It's only because of the changing elements of the island. Um during Hurricane Ian, we lost all of the documentation which we would have had for this house. Um, unfortunately
this was something that was granted by the county back many, many, many years ago. It's on some sort of a however they upgraded it to computers or stuff someplace probably. Um, when we started this project, we hired a pool contractor to put the pool
in. And as you guys have all seen the picture, you'll note that the pool line the lines of the deck perfectly aligned with the side of the building. I was not aware of the actual setbacks of the lots are only 60 feet wide. I
mean setbacks to any amount become tremendous on a 60 foot light wide lot. The contractor we had the we had the surveys done. The strings were run. I saw all of this done. Uh I saw it when they built dug the foundations for the
screen room before they put down the pool deck pool deck. Um we had um the engineering done. We had the site plans done. We applied for our permits. We received everything. And I'm not fixing any blame to anybody. All I'm trying to
allude to is there were some oversight, whatever that happened. But even the inspectors came out from the city. They inspected I was standing there when they inspected the foundation, looked at it, and when they did the all of the pool inspections and
stuff, I was there for every inspection. And nobody picks up on this. We get done with the pool. We get done with the deck. The foundations are poured. We hired the screen enclosure guy to come, which we had had him come do the size of
the cage long before this when we first started the project. So, we knew where the foundation should go and they ran off the strings of the side of the house. They didn't. Apparently, nobody measured anything. I mean, who would think we have a tape
measure? So along with that, we get to the pool enclosure and we get denied. So that's why I'm standing here with a variance. Uh my understanding was if there had been a previous structure there of any kind in previous years that
this wouldn't even be an issue. I've spent the last 6, eight weeks going through photographs, family albums, talking to friends. Everybody's in the same boat I am. Everybody's lost stuff that they can't retrieve. Yep. I could bring you a h a whole bunch of people in
here to stand here and swear that the structure was there. Um let's see. We went through the approvals um cage contractor. Um the irony to this is that even if we
put up the pool cage or if we hadn't put up the pool cage and correct me if I'm wrong here. I know that most pl most cities you can put up a six-foot fence on your property line. Is that correct? I could I could put up a six-foot fence,
which I'm not doing, and block the view of the neighbor if there was a neighbor to complain about it with the neighbors properties, heavy foliage. I mean, you know, we can always say down the road somebody will change that. Our island's always changing. I know that things can change. We can have a hurricane this
coming year and my property may not even be there, but it is today. So, I'm ask I'm asking for the variance as it stands today. Um, Tammy, do you have anything? No. Come on. You got to help me out here somewhere. You've done a good job. Let's see if there's any questions for you,
Jim. Okay. Thank you. Um, any anybody have questions uh for Mr. Bradford? the structure that is built that's like a 4x4 that was built the bumpout. Oh, that bumpout is somewhere in the neighborhood
of 20 ft. 16 to 20 ft by 4t. Okay. And then there's another concrete structure that's been there since the house was constructed on the front of the building that comes out to the same distance which is for actually garbage cans and
stuff. But if you note, I I guess you don't have a picture of that, but it comes out, it goes up uh five feet. It has a solar screen panel blocks on top of that, and it wraps around and comes down the side of the building. Oh, four
or five feet, which was a platform put there in the early early years for the garbage cans to go to. Okay. Any other questions? So, so both are in line. The back of the house and the front of the house are straight in line with each other.
Gentlemen, anything? No. No. Doug, questions? No, ma'am. None. No. Okay, Jim, thank you very much. Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay, we'll open the public
comment. Does anybody have any public comment on this case? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment. Um, folks, any further questions for the staff or for the applicant? If not, is there a motion? Somebody'd
like to move forward. I would I would make a motion to approve this um uh 170 Kuro Street requesting a variance uh for 4'2 in from the required side setback resulting in a side setback of
3'4 in to construct a pool enclosure in the RS zoning district. uh subject to conditions for approval established by staff and finding conclusions and finding and conclusions that they
meet the criteria that they meet the criteria second there's a motion and a second to approve is there any discussion on the motion may I clarify so that is based on the testimony and the documents that have been provided to
you the satisfaction of the criteria Right. Okay. Thank you. That's correct. And the statement that Sarah gave us that that you that rigid compliance is not essential to protect uh public policy. Well, you're going to hear that
a lot from me. Correct. I love that one. Thank you. All right. Any anybody any other discussion on this? So, we have a motion to approve this uh variance request. Your vote Doug. And Jane I. John I. Jim. Yes.
Hi, Jim. Hi. And I motion carries unanimously. Uh say a little prayer that nobody uh challenges you and you're good to go. We did before we came here. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. It was nice to see you and Tammy. Very nice. All right. Next item on the agenda. Anybody need to
take a break? Are we good to keep going? Okay. Next item on the agenda. Wait, wait. Oh, we're taking a break. Oh, break. We're going to have a quick 10 minute break. 10 minutes. So, it's 10:22. We'll be back at 10:32.
Right. I can still add. Thank God. back on schedule here. And the next item on our agenda is letter D, variance 202500012 for 722 Eststerero Boulevard. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers
Beach Local Planning Agency approving with conditions variance 202500012 requesting four variances from the land development code table 34-3 for the property located at 722 Eststerero Boulevard generally referred
to as strap number 244623 W300400.007E 007E in Fort Myers Beach to bury one 22.5 ft from the required 25- ft setback for a street setback of 2.5 ft from
street easement. Two, a variance of 15 ft from the required 20 ft foot rear setback for a rear setback of 5T. Three, a variance of 1 and 1/2 ft from the required 6.5 foot set side setback for a
side set back of 5T. and four a variance of 14% from the maximum allowable building coverage of 40% for a building coverage of 54% to build a new single family structure in the RM zoning district and
providing further clarifications as necessary providing for conflicts of law scrier's errors severability and providing for an effective date Judith exparte exparte Hey, Mr. Dad. None. Don, none. Doug, none.
Jane, none. Jim, none. John, done. And I have none as well. Good morning again, Judith Frankle with Community Development. Um, this is a request for four variances. Um, this is a uh typical
cottage lot. Um it is quite small in the dimensions and the variance is going to allow them to um build back a single family home. Um they uh are not eligible to use the build back policy because
it's going to be a little bit larger than what was previously there. Um but not very much larger. Um what I'd like to do is to go through the specific variances and then the um criteria here
um with you so that we get the substantial evidence on record. Um so the first variance is the 22 and 1/2 ft from the required street setback. So, this property has an easement um an access easement that runs through it to
access um all of the the properties um in line here that front the Gulf. So, um it's the house will be 2 and 1/2 ft from the front of the easement, not from the property line. Okay. Um but we felt that
that was a a necessary explanation because cars will be traveling down the That's a good clarification. Um easement. So, we didn't want the house to be built, right? Um, we needed it set back a little bit at least from that
easement. Um, uh, so in looking at some of the criteria here, this would not for the front setback, it would not be a condition that would be the result of the action um, the applicant. The easement is already there. Um, and the
dimensions of the street are already present. Um, and this is really the dimminimous um, setback that would allow you to still access that property. Um, the second variance, a variance of 15 ft
from the required rear setback of 20 feet, resulting in a rear setback of five feet. um staff felt that five feet was really the the um the maximum uh distance to allow you to build a
reasonable sized home um similar to what was there previously. So the again the dimensions of the lot are not the result of the applicant um and we felt that five feet was uh dimminimous in this
case. Uh number three, variance of 1 and 1/2 ft from the required step back of 6 and 1/2 ft resulting in a side step back of 5T. Again, this is uh staff felt the five feet was the dimminimous in this case and it was not the result of the
action taken by the applicant as these were um platted many years ago. Um, and then four, a variance of 14% from the maximum allowable building
coverage of 40% resulting in a building coverage of 54%. The applicant um has said that they can still meet the 67% uh maximum imperous uh lot area. Um, so
to comply with the neighborhood flooding ordinance, uh, in this case, um, I don't know if you'll recall, but the we altered the code. It at one point looked at, um, Fse um, and then we switched to
reviewing them based on the building lot coverage to make them uniform with all the other single family homes. So, I believe when the applicant first started looking at this, when they were designing the home, they were looking at F, which is now the incorrect measure.
So, we're looking at um building coverage for all of these houses. Um uh I know the applicant has presented what you could build by right in as part of their package and it would be probably um not possible to to build
without any variances of any kind. Um and then the um D in the criteria is that the granting of the variance will or will not be interest to the neighborhood or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Staff felt that the granting um would not be interest to the neighborhood. Um we saw an application a few weeks ago or a month ago um for a similar sized uh lot asking
for similar variances. Um maintaining those five foot side setbacks um for a property of this size uh staff felt would not be interest upon the neighbors which are also of similar size and and situation.
um that uh part D of that criteria we have reviewed for each of the four um uh variances. So that's in your packet. Um and so uh staff is recommending approval with conditions. The applicant
is here um to answer any questions, but I can also answer any questions. Thank you so much, Judith. Are there any questions for Judith at the moment? All right, let's see what Jim has to tell us. Jim has already been sworn in and identified as an expert in his field or
the town. That was two weeks ago. It's still good today. I I think it's still good today, honey. Okay. Thank you. Uh we're here for V 202500. Jim, say your name for the record. Even though we know thank Inc. Engineering applicant for the uh site and we're here
for this variance. Judith has done an excellent excellent job. I could just sit down and say I agree with all that, which I do, but I need to put a few things on the record. Um, as you know or remember, we were here two weeks ago with
726. This is 722, which is just two lots behind it. Um, 724, we were able to do it administratively with the variances. So, this is all one thing. All the owners are in agreement. They've got one builder. It's kind of like That's great.
A good little project. So, to go through what's there. Uh the owner is Patricia Greybel Trust. Patricia Gaybel. I'm doing the the design, planning, engineering, and the construction is Dan Doaniel Wayne Homes. What we're here to
do is we're asking for four variances. And what that will allow us to do is to rebuild substantially what was there before, but enlarged a little bit for modern conveniences because the house was built in the 50s.
The four variances as was stated by Judith is we want to move the street set back to 2.5 ft from 25 by code. We want to move the rear of the side to five feet and we want to increase the lot coverage from to
14%. All of these are are fairly consistent with the historical house that was there. The house is 722 Astero. It's a mixed residential and it's the lot size is 0.5
ft. I'm going through this quick because you got a long schedule. So, pre the front setback was 25 ft from the survey and this is the best survey we can find and we use some of the rectified aerials and the survey
and tried to digitize it to come up with these numbers. So, they're close but not quite there. The street set back was listed as 7.5 ft, but that included the 7 and 12 foot uh easement that was
there. So in looking at it the way staff wishes to look at it now, the street setback was zero with the existing house. It was right on the 7 and a half foot setback. The rear setback's supposed to be 20. It was five. The side
setbacks were supposed to be 6.5. And they're five. um legal description I highlighted to show that the seven and a half foot easement is there as just one of those easements that runs with the deed, not a rightway per se. Very
typical in the north end of the island, a lot of other places on the island. The post survey, this just shows what's there. The lot's 50 feet wide. It's 45 ft deep, which is a 2253 square foot area. If you take out the seven and a
half feet, we got 1916 square feet to build a house on minus whatever setbacks that that we have to go on. So when you look at the lot, which is what I've done numerous
times here, you show that the 25 foot setback for the street and the 20 foot rear setback actually overlap with each other. So we have to have a variance of of some kind to rebuild on the lot to start
with. We did our design the pre and as I said the front setback was zero. We're actually going to increase that to 2.5 which is consistent with the the neighbor lots. The rear setback existing before was five. We keep that same as
the side setbacks were five feet and we want to keep that. So we created this square and it and it shows the two parking underneath kind of things of of the house. So this was the the box that we started with to do the
design. Here's the floor plan. What was there before? Two-bedroom, one bath elevated construction, one-story house. What we're proposing, two-bedroom, one bath elevated house with with clear parking underneath. Underneath is not enclosed.
It's all open. The only got is the stairs. So, we're not asking for garage enclosures or anything like that. To do this, the living area increases 100 square feet from the 1957 house and the
deck increases 280 square feet, which it has a bigger deck. And to go with I believe the chair's comment last year when we're doing all three of these, did we take these into account? Yes, we put the deck in a certain way so they have
the beach. I'll explain that in in just a second. Lock coverage is 54%. Important to note that the old 57 house lot coverage was 44%. So, it was already not compliant even with the the little tiny house that
was there because the lot is just so small. Um, I went ahead and put the F in there because that is, as Judith said, where we started and the F would be 1.09. And in this section, it was 1.2
before u the land development code was was changed. This is what the house looks like. Simple. They wanted just a simple as close as you can get to the the old style house. So, it's just a a one-story
house with stairs elevated 15 feet off the ground for flood. Um, very simple, very basic, just a nice little house. Now, this shows the existing approvals to to show that 724, which we did
administratively, has a zero street setback, a five- foot side setback, but the rear setback is 14 ft, which goes to the chair's comment of we're putting the deck five feet is what we're asking for
on this application. the house next door, the setback is 14 and a half feet. So, they have that that kind of still restricted view down the lot lines, but it's it's not as prevalent as sitting there. And then 726 Astero, which you
saw two weeks ago, has a two-ft set back, 5 foot rear setbacks, and we were able on that one to get the side set back, and it had a lot coverage of 39%. So that's what the the four variances
are is is what we're requesting. Front zap back, you know, I'm just I have these in there for the record, but I've already really talked about it. It goes to two and a half, the side goes to five, the rear goes to
five, and the maximum uh coverage goes to 54, a 14% increase. findings and conclusions. We agree with staff. We believe that the finding conclusion is we are compliant with all the findings and conclusions in the land
development code. And with that, we're we're asking for the variances. And as I'd like to do, I put in a suggested motion to help you
out, which is to recommend approval with the four variances. The approval doesn't grant undeniable rights. The development order substantially consistent with the site plan that the development is. We're consistent with the 67% on storm drain
which Judith mentioned. The variance is only for this home. If it god forbid blows away again, it uh we have to come back here to do this all over again. And the property owners ensure two spaces. The only staff
condition that I took out of Eli's report is says I can't build past the 78 line and I'm not even on the 78 line. I think that carried over from the 726 conditions. And with that, I have uh questions. Thank you, Jim. Questions for
Mr. Inc.? No questions, my dear. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate seeing it. All right, we'll open the public comment. Is there anyone here to comment on this particular variance request? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment. Any further questions for the
staff or the applicant? Hearing none, is there any discussion from the LPA? Hearing none, would somebody like to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve variance 20250012 722 Eststerero Boulevard with
the four variances as listed um agreeing with the staff report and the conditions attached therein. I would second. Okay. Any discussion on the motion?
John, your vote. I. Jim, yes. Doug, I. Jane, I. Don I, Jim, I and I. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Jim, very much. Okay, next case on the docket. Um, Madam
Chair, if we can just announce that that was a unanimous vote and there is a 10-day period if anyone has any objections to Thank you. file. The next uh hearing is a special exception
7150 Astero Boulevard, a resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving approving with conditions or denying special exception 202200033 to allow like toike replacement of existing rip wrap,
aluminum fences, sidewalks, pool, and pool deck with 494 square ft of pool deck expansion in the EC zoning district seawward of the 1978 CCCL for the property located at 7150
Eststerero Boulevard providing for Scrier's errors severability and an effective date. Um Jim any exparte? None. How about you Don? None. Doug none. Jane none. Uh Jim, none. No, John.
Uh I have none. I'm I'm familiar with this property though, but I don't have any exparte. Uh Sarah, good morning. Sarah Propes with Community Development. Uh, Cresciente Condominium is requesting
a special exception to allow the replacement or repair of accessory structures that were constructed in the environmentally critical zoning district on the common element portion of the condominium prior to Hurricane Ian. These structures include a pool, pool deck, fences, rip wrap, sidewalks, uh,
and sidewalks in the environmentally critical zoning district. The majority of this request is like for like replacement. However, the applicant has asked for an additional area of the pool de deck which is not recommended for approval by staff. The applicant is
requesting this special exception through the amendment to section 34652E that allows reconstruction or renewal of uh primary structures and major accessory structures that are partially or fully within the EC zoning district with the approval of a special
exception. The EC zoning district is is the land seaw word of the 1978 coastal construction control line and the condominium was built in 1972 prior to the adoption of the 78 CCCL. Uh the additional work is considered development and not allowed by the
comprehensive plan in the recreation future land use district which is the land beyond the CCCL. So therefore, staff is not recommending approval of the expansion of pool deck, but the remainder of the request staff is recommending approval of it meets the requirements found in uh the code for
that special exception request. Thank you. Sarah, are there questions for Sarah? Can I ask just for the record? Um so staff's recommendation is that it is inconsistent with the comp plan. Uh the portion that is the expansion. Yes, the
expansion's inconsistent. Correct. It is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Correct. Thank you very much, Sarah. Thank you. Now, the actual expansions are the two little on either side of the pool, the two little triangular areas. So, uh there's sort of
a strip and then it sort of widens a bit further. Um so only only the strip that they're adding that's beyond CCCL, um is the portion. I don't know how much square footage that is. They've indicated there's 494 square ft. Um, but
I'm assuming that's the entire area they're adding be once it's within the um I believe RM zoning district, the addition would be appropriate and could be approved through the process of a limited development order. Uh, but staff
does not recommend approval of the portion that's within the environmentally critical zoning district. Okay. Thank you, Sarah. Um, is the applicant here or is someone representing the applicant?
Yes, come on up. Hi there. Hi. Good morning. My name is Sheila McInness. I'm the vice president of the Crescent uh condominium association. Hi, Sheila. And I'm Lloyd Welker. I'm the person with the name on this. Okay. I'm the treasurer for the
condominium association. Thank you. Yeah, make sure you speak into the microphone. Okay. Uh what would you like to tell us? Well, as she has said, uh basically this 494 additional feet was just basically
finishing out the existing property that hadn't been touched. Okay. the width of the uh pool deck itself was extended a little and some curvature that went out that was in that area the CCCL
uh location and then would extend beyond east of that okay into the 1992 line and so far that has been accepted. So we can work without that area. Okay. Or do something. I'm just telling because
that's the only objection. Exactly. Okay. So you're okay with the objection? We'll figure out a way around it. Okay. Okay. Perfect. Perfect. Uh let me see if there's any Well, Madam Chair, um so then just for the record, should we then
um are you okay if we just remove that in its entirety from the request? because the request currently is um to allow that expansion. So if we take it out of the request, I guess that's more in your purview of how you do it. That
was what was presented in the plans and approved in the plans. So are you going to approve the plans to show that area and then say you're going to take it out of the request? I don't know. I don't know the answer to I think it should be taken out of the request, but but then again, the plans
would have to be altered. Nancy, doesn't that just complicate things? Can't can't we just I mean, the the staff's already got approval with conditions and a denial of that piece. Can't couldn't we just if the LP So, you go along with staff recommendations. Okay. Yes. All right. Just checking on the record.
That's all. One other question for the treasur. If we adjust our approval as some are suggesting with the restricted amount of that that additional deck, does that in any way invalidate the vote that your homeowners took approving the plan as they were
being represented was going to happen? No, it shouldn't at all. Okay, good. Any other questions for the applicants? We sure appreciate you all being here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, I'll open the public comment. Is there anybody else you'd
like to speak about this? Yes, sir. Sir, were you sworn in earlier? I'm sorry, I did not stand up for the swearing in. Okay, let's see. Okay, if you'll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm or do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Thank you, Charles Arthur. I'm an owner at Astero. I actually have a question. I'm not even sure what just took place. I thought nothing yet. We were going to pass the expansion. And did you just say you don't care if we
get that expansion? Is that what just happened? Uh I'll summarize this for you. The staff's recommendation is to approve all the variance requests except or to approve the special exception except for the expansion into the EC
zone. And it was represented that the project could move forward in light of that without without the expansion. Correct. See, that's why I asked about the vote for the LS. Right. Yes. Because I knew there was a situation. So, do you have a do you have a and that was your
understanding that we're going to move forward without the expansion? Yes. For area because that's Wait, we we really can't have this this conversation. That's okay. Just tell us what you think about that. Okay. Well, I'm I'm here to say that that expansion is definitely needed. I understand that the line I
don't know what you call the line the coastal construction. Our entire property is forward. Not the entire property, but a large portion of our property is forward of that line already. The expansion is quite simply to make the pool safer for adults,
children. The the the concrete that's around the pool right now, I don't have a it's five maybe six feet. And when you put a chair in that, you can't walk around the the chair without being this close to the pool. It's a very simple
recommendation. Um you said you were aware of the property. The two the south and east building protrude well beyond the pool. The pool is fully encompassed on that property by the souththeast south north and east building.
I'm not I'm not understanding the objection other than as it sits with law, but it's a very it's a very simple. It's a very necessary correct. It just simply to make it safer. I'm not real sure why we're here
without that representation. I'm glad I was here. I'm glad you were, too. It doesn't intrude in any way, shape, or form with that line. Okay. And it's and it's absolutely necessary for those of us
that have children and even the older adults. You literally cannot walk by a chair. Chair's just not. So for the portion in front of and I don't know if that's the full 400 square feet or not. They're just simply asking to expand the deck.
Understood. And I'm hoping that that actually gets done. Well, thank you very much for your comments. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Sarah, can you Could we just clarify because there's a there's a portion
that's uh Gulf side of the coastal construction line. There's also an expansion uh behind the coastal construction line. So, there's two two sections there. I Yes, there are there are two components. Um I can't tell how much of an addition
this does not have a measurement on it. It looks like it may add a foot. Yeah. And then it angles out five feet maybe. And then there's a larger bump out um which is an addition
that is not currently there. Um so this is the rather narrow part and the sort of swoop out that we're talking about. Very very narrow with a very slight and it's on both sides of the pool. It's on both sides of the pool and and Yeah. And I'm familiar with the property too. I
mean, I I think it actually is a a safety improvement. Yeah. I mean, so and and with the criteria, we're not looking at Understand. We're just looking at what you're looking at the CCCL. I get it. Yeah. Okay. I'm Yeah,
I've I've got questions. I'm I'm just looking at this exhibit. It's kind of hard to follow just what is existing and what? We may be able to get the exhibit up on the screen. What page are you referring to, Sarah? Page 189.
It's got the drawing. Josh, Josh, can we have page 189 on the screen, please? Yes, sir. Yes. Thank you. Sarah, is the um the extra area that they're asking
for is it it's not to the west. It's like just width with the width in the area. Yeah. It's just this little strip here and it goes out and then it's this little strip here and it goes out. See,
there's the but these bumpouts are on the they're on the land side of it. Yeah. the the larger bumpouts are on the um but we're not they're not asking for any more extent toward the line is the old no other than that little strip and
that little curve the little triangle problem they are asking for something but it's it's not it's it's minimal and I would say because of the way the pool protrudes out at the end there it's it's it's literally just I mean I mean in any
coat you should have at least three feet Right. Where Jane was and I'm not. Yeah. So, okay. Are we clear on that? So, we don't need to have it on the screen. No, I think we're Are we okay? I think we're good. We're good.
That's okay. Cancel request, Josh. Thank you. And thanks for that clarification to the previous speaker. Appreciate that. Yes. Okay. Um, we have no public comment. Uh, sure. Come on. My
name is uh Terry Smith. I'm also a resident in Christian sir 7150. Uh I also think it is important for safety reasons and it it also is such a small amount of area which uh doesn't affect any other building
any cross over into the line a little bit but I don't think it's going to really make any substantial difference to to the uh code itself. I think what we really are looking at is, you know, giving a few more chairs to be put there and
maybe somewhere like he he he's right. Uh Charles Arthur is correct. The amount of area to walk by when you're walking by and when there's a chair there, a lounge chair is maybe about a foot or two from the pool. So, it's it is
basically a safety issue. I've almost fallen in the pool just trying to get around. people who have their chairs are sitting on their chairs at the end and their legs are hanging over. So, I would also ask that that uh exception be granted. Thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. And we have one more.
Cynthia Clark. I also pull that mic down a little bit for sure. I'm Cynthia Clark. I'm also an owner and a board member at Crescent and I have a lot of grandchildren that come to visit and I agree it is a hazard. Uh people tend to pull out their chairs even more so to be closer by the pool. So sometimes you're
having to go like this around the chairs. It is a dangerous situation and I would like to see it. It it really doesn't bother anybody. I live on the ground floor there and it wouldn't bother me at all and I don't think it would bother anybody else. Thank you so much. Appreciate your comments. Is there
anybody else who wants to Anybody else here from Cresciente? Okay, come on. Good morning. Were you sworn in? No. Okay. Raise your hand. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth. I do. Okay. Thank you. My name is Star Lady De Federico. I am also an owner there, and it is a safety hazard. Um, if we could extend it just enough that we can get by the chairs and when we have children there, they're not on the edge of the pool trying to get
by. It is a safety issue for us. Thank you so much. You're welcome. We appreciate your comments. Okay. Any other Cresciente people or anyone else? All right, we're going to close the public comment. Any further questions for the staff or the
applicants hearing? None. Any discussion or is there a motion? I'm hesitant on this one. I'll make a motion. Okay, go ahead, John. I'll make a motion to approve SEZ 202250033 7150 Eero Boulevard
um to replace like for like and also allow the expansion of the pool deck. Second. Um and and because why are you making that motion, John? Uh for per the um testimony and the fact
that it is uh in my opinion a safety issue that could be addressed and meets the findings and meets the findings and conclusion. So if I may interject, one of the primary roles of the local planning agency is to find consistency with the comprehensive plan. So based on
what you have um stated, you would also um I do find it that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan uh with a very minor variance in order to take care of a safety issue. Okay. Okay. And
the secondary agrees? Yes. Did we put in the five conditions? Yeah. Okay. So there is a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Jim, I think we should. I think we Go ahead, Doug. Oh, I was going to say I think we should clarify the square footage that goes into the
zone. Yeah. The uh expansion of the 465 square feet as shown on the exhibit presented. There you go. Yeah. Or whatever it was. How do you want to quantify that? Because does it actually show the square footage? Yeah. Yeah. 494. 494.
No. The conditions. Is that is that the square footage? No. Because that's along the 494 square feet. Sarah, do you want to comment? I'll amend that comment to be per as shown on the exhibit presented. Okay. Okay. Okay.
That's good. All right. Is there any other discussion on this hearing? None. Your your vote. John. Uh Don I. Jim. I. Doug. I. Jane. I. Jim. Yes. Yes. So, the motion carries
unanimously, including the ex uh whatever. And would you all please tell Becky Warner that I say hello? All right. Thank you all very much. Okay, next item on the agenda. Yes, ma'am. There's a slight typo. Let
me just go ahead and show you and so we can read it. Um, it's the reference to the resolution number. It should actually be 247 rather than the 73. 247. Yes. So,
247. 247. I didn't want to interrupt you in the middle of it. Well, yeah, because this is a long one. Okay. All right. Uh, here we go. Uh this is a development agreement and it is
DA25001 for 1028 and 1046 Aero Boulevard in Time Square. Times Square Development Agreement, an ordinance of the town Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving or denying a home rule development agreement for property located at 1028
Eststerero Boulevard and 1046 Eststero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, Florida. strap numbers 24-44623 43001700 0 and 244623 W30016000000 and owned by Persad
Properties Florida Investments LLC as authorized by section 2-100 of the town's land development code and in compliance with the procedures for application ation and approval of development agreements with deviations set forth in resolution
number 247. That's a correction as uh to the original posting for the purpose of redevelopment for the property to allow a commercial development with a maximum of 58,625 square ft. 50 hotel rooms and a
mean roof height of 52 feet 8 in uh above the 100year storm elevation providing for terms and conditions including but not limited to the identification of the proposed use of
the property a finding of consistency with the town of Fort Myers Beach comprehensive plan commitments and development obligations deviations needed for development ment providing for other clarifications as necessary providing for conflicts of law scrier's
errors severability and providing for an effective date okay so Sarah good morning Sarah props with community development the development agreement before you um
has met all of the criteria four uh resolution 24247 in regards to the home rule development agreement application procedure. Uh the development agreement minimum content
required, the home rule development agreement review procedures and you are right now in the um additional review portion of it. uh the proposal before you and I believe
that we did get new uh our our updated addendum. Yeah, our addendum had different images elevations. Yes. So this may not be the correct So uh we have slightly different
elevations that were submitted to us on Thursday I believe of last week and they should be in in addendums. Uh, has the LPA seen those documents? I have. Have Have you all seen them? Yes. Yes, I
think so. Yes. Okay, fantastic. And I believe that Tina, you've brought copies of those also. Okay. Okay, great. Um, so the proposal before you is for a development agreement to allow 16,700 square feet of commercial space.
Uh, 50 boutique hotel units. Um, a parking area with valet service in lifts. um a pedestrian walkway, a 10- foot wide pedestrian covered walkway that would allow uh pedestrians to move
from the ride ofway area between along um the Time Square pedestrian area to the beach um and an existing consumption on premises that extends onto the sandy beach. Um the cop is not part of this
discussion as it was previously approved but um I did include those documents from the litigation in your packet so that you could review that and if you have any questions I will do my best to answer them. Uh the deviations that are being requested for this are um the uh
time square pedestrian plaza downtown district allows uh 30 actually we have to do it from the CR zoning district. So that's uh 30 feet above base flood elevation and no taller than three stories. The proposed structure is um
four stories above base or total and 38t 8 in above base flood elevation. And that's the new elevations that you should have received that are in your agenda packet. Uh the request increases if a rooftop restaurant/bar is
considered appropriate. The addition of the rooftop um restaurant bar will increase the building height to 49 feet and two inches um and add an additional story across part of the uh rooftop
area. There's an additional request for a deviation to section 34674B2 uh which permits parking under buildings. Um but it has they have to have usable commercial space between the
right of way and that parking area. This uh proposal is not is asking to not provide any commercial space between the right of way and the parking area. Uh there's a request to
uh section 34675 um for how floor area ratio is uh well there are two requests to the floor area floor area ratio. One is to not count the portion of the building that is being used as parking towards the floor
area ratio and the other request is to allow a deviation from the floor area ratio requirement of 1.8 uh within the times square pedestrian plaza to allow a maximum floor area ratio of 2.5 which is a total of
58,630 square feet of development. Uh there is a request to deviate from the hotel equivalency factors found in section 34-1803. Uh the maximum equivalency factor in this location I believe is
two. They are requesting an equivalency factor of 15.7 to permit 50 hotel units. Um there is a request to um increase the bill to line. Currently
the code uh requires a build to line of zero feet along Time Square pedestrian plaza. The applicant is asking to move the building back 10 feet from the Times Square pedestrian plaza uh property line. Um so that would put basically 10
feet of open space in front of those uh in front of the structure. Uh there is also a request to relocate um request to deviate from
34676D, which requires driveways and parking uh to be relocated from Eststerero Boulevard to a secondary street. Um they are proposing direct access from the Eststerero Boulevard uh to the
ground level. Um as there is not truly a secondary street to take frontage off of. Um there is also a request to deviate from the commercial design standards. um to utilize essentially what's being shown um not in these architectural
renderings but the fairly similar architectural renderings that are in your agenda packet. Uh the applicant is here to discuss uh what is determined to what
may be determined to be public benefit and I can answer any questions you may have. All right, I'm going to back up for a moment. Okay, Jim, do you have any exparte on this case? Uh, yes. I met um with the developer uh you went through the project with me in a neutral place.
Okay. And plus, you've also received all the emails that we've all received. Multiple. Yes. That are all on the record because they were distributed by Amy. Okay. Don, uh no exparte, but I did receive the emails. Okay. Um Doug, anything from you? Um just that I
received quite a bit of email passed on by Amy. Okay, Jane, I wasn't able to attend the um meeting because I was out of town, but I did get all the emails. Okay, Jim. Um I attended last week uh the
developers times square presentation. I've had a number of discussions with residents, received all our emails. Um Oh, yeah. I did also meet with um
Tomus and have conversation with him. Okay. John. Yeah. I also uh met with the developer and have spoken to multiple residents about this project and received all the emails. Madam Cher, so further clarification um addition emails
there's been substantial social media interaction and been exposed to that also. Okay. Same with me social media and have met with some residents or heard from some residents. Uh so I'll tell you this has been the topic of discussion with people with me at my business for at least the last two
weeks. Uh so I've talked with people that I know and people that I don't necessarily know but this has been a topic of discussion. The social media has been uh you know tremendous of course and um I did meet with uh with
Tina and with the with the applicants uh and had a uh thorough uh presentation of the project and um and I also spoke with Mr. Torerson early on uh again much like I did with
the arches just asking specific questions about uh about elements of this project. Madam Chair, could we go over a couple more housekeeping items? Um for instance, um we have representatives here from the um
developer property owner. Um do we have experts that'll be providing testimony? Can we go ahead and identify those on the record? Yes, please. Miss Ecklad has been previously qualified. Yes. Good morning.
Tina Ecklad for the record, principal of Sage Entitlements. I have been qualified as an expert in front of the town before, most notably on the private side, the TPI FMB CPD application, the Seagate development agreement, and then I was also employed by the town responsible for implementing their
comprehensive plan. I would request to be accepted as an expert today. Absolutely. Any objection? Do you have any other experts? Anyone else? Tyler Peterson. Our architect is here as well. Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson, could you tell us your qualifications? My name is Tyler
Peterson. I'm the owner of PDS Architecture. I've been the owner for 15 years. I was previously with another architectural firm in Fort Myers as well. I've previously been recognized as an expert witness in Lee County, Cape Coral, City of Marco Island, Charlotte
County. Thank you. Any objection to qualifying Mr. Peterson as an expert in his field? None. Okay. Thank you so much. Is there anybody else, Tina? Okay. You do have council present as well. Perhaps we could go ahead and
introduce their attorney. Hi, good morning. My name is Joe Madden. I'm here representing Prasad Properties today with the team. I was previously your special master for code enforcement for about 14 years. And um like all of you, I appreciate your time completely.
I was a planning board member for the city of Fort Myers for about five years and uh thank you for your time today. Thank you, sir. So before you leave, um having heard the exparte disclosures, uh would you like the opportunity? Do you have any further questions that you would like to ask?
You know, we we're living in a different environment here with this with this development. I think we're all aware of what's happened with other matters that have come come before the board. It's a gratuitous question. Does anybody feel that they can't reach a a uh
unbiased decision based upon the the input that they've received so far? Mr. Madden, I'm going to tell you, I did some serious soulsearching about this because I lived in Times Square with two businesses there for 38 years and I I came to the conclusion that I believe I can because I don't ever see myself
there again. Excellent. Thanks everybody. Thank you. Nice to have you here. Okay. Um, can we have staff come back up? Yes, we Yes, absolutely. And Nancy, I was gonna ask you something and it just totally went out of my head. Sarah
has basically just tried to give us an overview of the presentation. Um, the burden is on the applicant to to actually go into detail and then generally staff will come back with any additional comments. But mine's more about process. Sir, you have a copy of
the U development agreement ordinance that was passed in November by town council. Yes. So, I know this is a fairly new process for everyone and therefore there's gray areas or what could be perceived as gray areas around where the negotiations begin and end,
who leads those, who finalizes those, and how much input was provided by each party. So, I'd like to ask you a couple things specific to the to the exhibit on the ordinance, what was passed. If you go to 3.1 staff negotiations, you see the paragraph that
says or the town manager or the town manager's designate deems that no further negotiations would be useful because of the unlikely possibility of reaching concurrence on the terms and conditions of development agreement. Did you find yourself in that position?
I do believe so. Okay. And that would go to my follow-up question which is 3.22. That was a good question. 3.2.2. And this one specifically indicates that in such a case that you you can't reach
agreement on major terms conditions, the applicant is actually representing the development agreement themselves and not on behalf of town by the LPA which removes any recommendation or the inference of a recommendation by town, city manager or
their executive. Is that not accurate? Yes, I believe so. Okay. I I just that would be accurate I believe at this point. However, that's why I'm bringing up right now. Yes. However, further in the agreement um the amended version of
it, there is a requirement for the um for management to make a recommendation to um the town council where Nancy uh let's see uh 3.2.3
3.2 two point that the town manager designate will make a recommendation as to whether the town council should approve or not approve a development agreement prior to the adoption and approval. Yeah, let's just stand a moment for a second we can. I completely understand the next step should there be
one would require a more um clarifying position that the town staff would take. But what I think is important to get on the record is that the development agreements had the ambiance of being a negotiated settlement or negotiated recommendation between the two parties. I do not
believe that's the case in this case as I asked both those questions. This will come subsequent to our votes today where they are where you'll need to take a position based on that. But I didn't want us to believe or the public to believe that there's a by inference recommendation because it was a negotiated document. It ended up in my
mind and looking through it in a place that was not advancable beyond what the staff would have taken it should they have been able to and therefore it exists as exists on behalf of the applicant. Bravo. Yeah. You agree with that Sarah? Yes. Yeah. Okay. I I would
just add too that um staff would ask for more always and and so there has to be a point of closure, right? Um Sure. And again, you know, uh, staff could continue to ask and ask and ask, but at that point, that's when it basically
comes forward. But, you know, Nancy, I what this is the number one question? Absolutely. It's a number one question that has at least has been asked to me. So, you're telling me that the town staff and the property owner negotiated this and it's just coming before you
guys for an approval. That's the insinuation of this. That's the distinction I'm trying to make to make sure that we process through the lens of it's a raw document in my mind without recommendations or over influence from staff to where they like to go. You know, let me know that two deviations that I listed are no longer included and
she will clarify. Great. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, I have a couple of questions. Um the calculation of F does not include a open
space. Let's say the sunset deck. That's correct. Right. That seems to be if there's people there, it seems to be a flaw in the code if we're not if we're allowing a public
space, but we're not using it in calculation. But the code is what it is. That that comment is just I don't think the code addresses these type of situation. But there is about 2,000 square feet of building on this fifth
floor. Is that included in the current F calculation that 2,000 square feet? It should be. It is. It should be. I I mean I I cannot verify whether the square footage that we were provided does include that, but I would assume that it does. They're aware of that. That's how
it should be calculated. If there is space within walls under a road, it should be part of the F. And then perhaps you could help me out on understanding um how we calculated what the request
is. One of the drawings the base flood elevation is 15 ft. Is that correct here? Uh, let me open the plans. There's a lot of rec of verbiage in here that says above base flood elevation, but it
doesn't show what the base flood elevation is. Yeah. Um, that may be a good question. I thought it was 21. I got 21. It should be in the vone. So, so there's a FEMA flood elevation and then there's an FD elevation. The FD flood
elevation will be determined by FD. If we utilize the uh 100year storm um study, I believe it's around 21. However, FD will set that height. Okay. Interesting.
The uh even in this drawing this 10 ft that is a setback is the building setback. But there are obstructions within that 10 ft. There's the
valet station. There is retail uh clothing whatever merchandising that can occur in that 10 ft. Actually, Jim, no, you cannot. That would be prohibited. Uh well, no, that's not true because it's his 10 feet. Yep, you're
right. No, certain certain types of uh he would be allowed to have I believe from that code section he would be allowed to have tables not racks. If he wanted to if if the vendor wanted to have um outdoor sails they would be required to build a porch. Um right now
at grade it's considered a patio. Um and there are certain things that you are and are not allowed to have in that space. I believe the only thing that's allowed there is tables if it's at grade. So they could have like a table with some assorted because I think some of the drawings show this valet station
there too and and I'm not sure exactly where the valet station will be located. Uh that could potentially be within that 10 ft though. Thank you. Anything else for Sarah at the moment?
Okay. Thank you Sarah. Thank you Tina. Good morning. For the record again, Tina Ecklad, principal of Sage Entitlements. Um, I have quite a bit of housekeeping, so if you'll bear with me while I get you the correct documents and explain the different things in front of you, I would appreciate it. Um, so the first
item is on your agenda. It indicates that exhibit A was updated. I'd like to clarify that exhibit A is the boundary survey and legal description that the development agreement will be subject to. That has not changed. Um, as was presented, that includes the downtown
zoning district and not the EC zoning district to ensure that we don't have any conflicting overlap. Um, exhibit B is the site plan and the floor plans. That is a little different than the other development agreement that you've seen. We tried to add specificity um so
everybody could follow along with exactly what was being proposed. It's also a little different than a CPD. You actually have a floor plan for each level showing the different square footages of the restaurant, where the rooms are located, etc. uh to the point of the
F. The second to last sheet in this set that I'm going to hand out does show the calculation of F. It outlines the different areas in red that meet the intent of the land development code in the calculation of F and the exact
square footages so that you can be aware of what goes into that calculation. Um and if it's all right with the I'd like to hand these copies out and also indicate that exhibit C, which is the conceptual renderings, were updated to
reflect a new um design in the roof line and updated architecture fronting the pedestrian plaza as well as the side facade along Crescent Beach. Yes. Thank you, Tina. And do you have these uh these all of this in slides so the public can see? Correct. Thank you so
much. So, what will happen is you'll see the old architecture and then the new one will slide in on top of it. So, we're dealing with what was in your packet and presented and then what's being hand out handed out today. Excuse me. You know, we don't like that, right? I do. Okay, good. Just putting that on the record. All I can do is what I can
do. Y Um and then also uh the last sheet of exhibit B which is the floor plans does include a new building profile which has a reduction in height associated with the sunset terrace. Um, and again, we
changed the roof line, so there's a an adjustment to the height there. That is a reduction from the advertised height. Can you say that again? Sure. The last page of exhibit B, which is the floor plans, thank you. Has a new building
profile. Okay, there you go. If you look at that profile, the style of roof has been amended which slightly decreases the height of the principal structure and then the style of the um enclosed area on the sunset terrace has been
adjusted which also reduces the height. So our height today that we are presenting is slightly less than the uh advertised height. What is that? I'm going to go through it in specifics later in the presentation if that's okay. I just I'm trying to
clarify what was updated for everybody so we're all starting from the same line. So just so we can process your work through what flood elevation are you using for your measuring place? We are using the 100redyear storm which is
established by FD. The information that we have currently shows it at 20 feet. I understand that when we go through permitting that may be elevated to 21. That's correct. But your code does indicate that height is measured from that point and above. So when we present
today, we're talking about the height from that flood elevation. Yeah. Not from ground. So your exhibits are based on 21 feet and ABD. Right now they're based on 20 feet. 20 feet. Okay. Mhm. You just add 20 to whatever she says.
It's a good way to put it. Oh, okay. Sarah has corrected me. She said the 20 ft is minus grade. I'm not familiar with the measurement of grade to do that math for you. We're assuming it's three to four. Okay. Okay. So, on the screen here is the
architecture that was actually uh before I get there, I apologize. The staff report does indicate that there are eight deviations which was initially submitted. However, uh as was suggested, we did go through a staff review and a negotiation. And as part of that review,
it was determined that deviation number two and deviation seven were not um necessary and so those were pulled. Therefore, we only have six deviations in front of you today.
So, you haven't changed the request. They were just not deemed to be deviations. Correct. So, two and seven are de deleted. Correct. So the on the screen in front of you all is the architecture that was submitted
um as I mentioned through that staff review. Um as you all noted we we had individual meetings with each of you. We did have some conversations with um town council individually and then also we received quite a bit of feedback from the public and so we did make changes to
the architecture late last week and so this is the building that is being presented today. You can see that there's been a color change. The roof line has been changed from a manser style roof to a more open uh fenced in
architecture. And then some additional features have been added to be more reflective of the unified concept for the times square area. Uh we did also correctly identify the ballet stations. I will get into that. They are located
within the 10-ft setback. Um and you will see on another slide that there is a mural adjacent to the Crescent Beach Park uh facade of building.
So, um, as we noted with the introductions, I am joined today by Tyler Peterson and Attorney Madden. We are presenting to you the development agreement for 1028 and 1046 Astero Boulevard. The properties are 0.9
acres in size. However, a significant portion of that is within the EC zoning district and is not subject to the request. So that that brings us down to 0.53 acres or 23,452 square feet of developable area in the downtown
district. Previously the property was developed um as a restaurant. Many of you know the Tamast operated there for many years. They had modified several structures to operate out of that space. And then in 2014, the Sunset Beach Tropical Grill opened after the former
structure had been remodeled and rehabilitated. It is my understanding that that restaurant was 8,244 square feet of restaurant, 760 ft of retail. There was a commercial parking lot adjacent to that structure, and then as uh Miss Propes mentioned, we
do have the consumption on premise on the Sandy Beach for that that grill. Before we get into the details of the request, I did want to kind of outline the foundation from a land use perspective that we are working from.
This property is within what is known as the downtown core. It is also sometimes referenced as the time square area. And so I'm going to try to reference this larger area as the downtown core throughout the presentation. If I use
the term times square, I'm referring to the pedestrian plaza and either the subject property or the properties across the plaza. Uh the downtown core is a identified redevelopment area which according to goal three of your comprehensive plan is to revitalize and
improve specific locations within the town. And it is objective 4F in the future land use element that indicates that designing and implementing public improvements in time square is appropriate to spur private redevelopment. The downtown core area
extends from the bay to the Gulf. And so really what we start to see is um actually I'll pause on that for just a second. It extends from the bay to the Gulf. The Times Square pedestrian plaza is one side and an anchor and then the Bayfront Pedestrian Plaza is the other
side and a secondary anchor with Old St. Carlos Boulevard functioning as a main street in between. Um the future land use was designed to mirror this downtown core for the most part and that is the pedestrian commercial which is for um
intense activity center of Time Square and it is the most intense commercial future land use within the town of Fort Myers Beach. When we look at the downtown core, the comprehensive plan breaks it up into several districts. Um this property is located within district
2 which is anticipated to be the lively commercial and tourist center of the town. Um since the comp plan was adopted in 1999 uh at the time identifying the new pedestrian mall and its design improvements was appropriate. The
concept was that that would be the design theme moving forward for public and private investment. And the purpose of this was to address efforts related to facade improvements. Um having an appropriate mix of businesses and
services, reducing traffic congestion, promoting pedestrian mobility, addressing inadequate parking, drainage, and then also addressing overhead utilities that existed in the area. While the unfortunately the pedestrian mall was destroyed in
Hurricane Ian, we did try to look at this intent for the district and bring it forward with the redevelopment concept. Um that district language is implemented by the um objective 3D in the community
design element and it's implementing policies. I've only chosen a few to put on the slide here because these are immediately appro excuse me applicable to the request before you, but I want to note that um objective 3D starts with
promoting a revitalization to establish a nucleus of commercial and tourist activities. It then goes on in policy 3D1 to instruct the town to establish a downtown redevelopment agency. Policy
3D2 then says that the downtown core area master plan will be implemented by policies 3D3 and 3D9. As Miss Propes appropriately summarizes in the staff report, 3D3 to 3D9 is uh a summary of
objectives regarding sidewalk improvements, pedestrian circulation improvement in parking, streetscape improvements, storm water management improvements. Um and then the last or more directives to the town to provide technical assistance regarding dry flood
proofing and enhancing the Lynh Hall Park. Um, as you'll see through the presentation, we have tried to pull again pull these concepts forward into the redevelopment plan before you today. Um, unless it was a direct objective to the town. An example of
that would be the downtown redevelopment agency. That's not something a single private property owner can do. The um these concepts from the future land use, excuse me, these concepts from the comprehensive plan are implemented by the downtown zoning district which is a redevelopment zoning
district um and desire and tries to promote a center of the pedestrianoriented commercial activities within the town. New commercial is anticipated but should prioritize the pedestrian. And then the downtown district was
established as what's known as a park once district with preference giving to pedestrian movement. One of the ways that this park once concept is incentivized is to have a parking multiplier which varies depending on where properties are in the downtown
zoning district. The Times Square pedestrian plaza has a multiplier of zero where the rest of well not the rest most of the rest of downtown has a multiplier of I believe it's 66. What this does is reduce the on-site
requirements for new commercial um and try to again promote that park once concept. It also by right requires zero foot build to and setback um requirements. Building frontage is required to be a minimum of 70 feet. And
then the height for this particular property is 30 feet above base flood and three stories. Although there are some areas of the downtown district which allow 40 feet and four stories. Um I want to note a couple of things while we're on this zoning slide and that
is some of what was alluded to regarding the development agreement. Yes, it is very accurate to describe that we had conversations with staff and got the application to this point. We then reached a point in the discussion where we pingponged so many options that
neither side could determine what improvements were appropriate and that the LPA would find consensus on. And so we are in front of you today. Um the idea here is to yes present the application as we were able to get it
into a cohesive package and bring before you but then also find alignment in the negotiation process. We've heard from staff on what they would like to see. We've incorporated that and we've brought it here to to you today. Do you agree with some of that? Would you like
to see it in a slightly different fashion? These are things that we need to hear and are appropriate for this negotiation process. Keep in mind that we can meet with each of you individually, but you can't discuss until we are in this forum. And so we we
are looking forward to that feedback today. Um, the other thing I would like to note that is unique about this zoning district is what if we were to apply for a CPD. I've heard that question quite a bit. We would be moved from the downtown zoning district into a the CR zoning
district immediately, which would actually ne negate a lot of the incentives within the downtown zoning district for redevelopment and increase the quantity of deviations. So because the uses that are requested are allowed by right because the flexibility that we
need is consistent with the comp plan, we chose to utilize the development agreement process and then work to embed additional detail as I mentioned with those floor plans, the drawings regarding the floor area ratio and other renderings to bring the detail forward
necessary to evaluate the application through this process instead of the CPD. And then of course on top of all that we have changing before you leave that slide. Oh okay. Yes sorry. Um the arrow
onad properties plural points to 226. What should we digest in the public on what that plural refers to in this particular slide of prasad's properties. Oh the business name is prasad properties of Florida. So that's a
single dot a single box 226 is all you're representing. Correct. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Correct. Um and that 226 is from the zoning map. Sure. Which so that relates to the footnotes which would no longer apply as a result of this agreement. The reader
could think that all of those properties were contiguous by ownership and they're not. No. No, they are not. That is why we have exhibit A and the legal description to narrow that down. We also, I'll get into later in the presentation, have several restrictions that decrease the life of the agreement
to ensure that if certain thresholds regarding future permits or construction are not met, the agreement is terminated. Um, I think that was a concern and we'll speak to the specifics of that later in the presentation. Um so that was kind of the regulatory
framework from the perspective of the town's comprehensive plan and the land development code. And then of course as you all know we have conditions that have changed since the adoption of many of these um regulations. Uh mainly the
comprehensive plan was adopted in 1999. The downtown district was adopted in 2003. Um, the town's comprehensive plan in the data and analysis supporting the future land use element appropriately identifies that Fort Myers Beach will
continue to have its land use shaped by state and federal regulations, mainly those uh applicable to the flood plane. As we talked about, which which height are we using? Is it 15 feet and a vzone or is it 20 21 feet related to D? The
comprehensive plan in 2009 looked at the impact of the Vzone, which at the time was mostly um south of Astero Boulevard and didn't encroach as far as it does today. The master plan had an analysis done by
the University of Florida and it looked at either having elevated commercial with a pedestrian level walkway versus kind of a do nothing or dry flood proofing approach. And the analysis at that time said that if the elevation of
retail or the dry flood proofing are not feasible, then the redevelopment will occur incrementally outside of the current regulations endangering the town's participation in NFIP or will be redeveloped in some presently unforeseen
manner. In the Times Square pedestrian plaza, we have seen both of these options. We have seen what happens utilizing temporary structures and the impact to the NFIP program. And we saw what happens when the Times Square owners work together to envision their
redevelopment. And these concepts, I believe, were presented um in the summer of 2024 and they look at what would occur if all of the properties came in together and redeveloped as a cohesive unit. Uh unfortunately, that has not happened. Um each property is under
varying ownerships and they now have different perspectives on what they should be doing. This is the first application within Times Square to come before you. Um I do want to note that first of all I was not involved in all the
meetings with all of the property owners. It is my understanding that collectively the property owners identified that an increase in commercial intensity was appropriate to help the rebuild that that it would give them additional square footage,
potentially additional uses that would allow the offset of the construction costs related to complying with these federal regulations. Um, and it would also address the challenges that we've seen with the temporary trailers. Um what the additional square footage
and uses do is create um an additional draw for the residents that are currently utilizing Times Square and then also to bring back that tourism economy. Um this unified perspective also aided in the park's concept. You can see that there's proposed to be
construction on the corner, excuse me, parking on the corner here where we've included it in our presentation. And then also I I'm going to venture to say almost all if not all of the property owners will need some sort of flexibility from the current land
development code regulations. As an example of that, I get asked that all the time. What what do you mean by that? As an example, if we put any type of use on the ground floor, retail, restaurant, uh outdoor seating, even if it is open air and
complies with the floodplane regulations, the commercial design standards then apply. Those design standards do not allow for a rollup door for open air uh commercial. They require a primary entry. They require windows.
They require a certain percentage of visibility. and those things do not comport with the federal regulations below flood. And so at a minimum that flexibility is necessary, the only way to get a deviation from that is the uh
commercial plan development process or the development agreement process. And that is why before you today uh the last deviation is to eliminate the commercial design standards and utilize the renderings because otherwise we would be deviating from a significant portion of
the code just to get back to zero with the flood plane regulations. So I'll move off of my soap box here regarding flood plane and into the request that is before you today. And again, um, for the refresher, these are
the renderings that were submitted, uh, with our insufficiency response. Um, and we have made a change as of late last week to provide artwork on the side of the building to revise the roof line architecture. And then it might be a
little difficult to see, but where the um elevator and the excuse me, where the stairs are coming up on the corner there, the facade on the third floor has been altered. You can see the the mansered roof there and the yellow panel
that is now removed and it is an open patio. What that does is then move the setback of that floor off of the pedestrian plaza to a greater distance. Um So, as I mentioned, the property owners in Times Square work together on
a concept and each property owner is responsible for bringing their version of that forward. We have submitted a request for the development agreement. Um, we also, I want to note in this rendering, removed the landscaping from the side of the building so that you
could clearly see the architecture and the structural screening that was proposed. We do not object to putting landscaping back into the proposal. um and would welcome some feedback on that. The request is a commercial structure at
58,625 square feet. That is an F of 2.5. We have requested a deviation to increase the F to 2.5 which is the maximum permitted by the pedestrian uh commercial future land use. The purpose
of the F at this level is to provide the opportunity for retail at the ground floor, a restaurant on the second floor. Hotel rooms are also provided on a portion of the second floor and then having a third and fourth floor of hotel
additional hotel rooms. Um we did Could I ask can you think of any other project that is 2.5 in the town? I I've been trying to think about it and I I I don't know that we have one. Do we? Um, not that I am aware of. You do have proposals that ca have come to you for
two 2.0. Um, and those are working their way through the process. Okay. Um, and then the rooftop was added. That was not in the original request. We did add that through the negotiation with staff. Um, we are open to your feedback
on whether or not that rooftop as a sunset terrace open to the public and the services that we're proposing to provide are appropriate and can be considered a public benefit. Um, so again, the opposite corner of the building, this is what was
submitted to staff and we did make changes regarding the architecture late last week. Oh, there we go. Um the most notable change in this is that roof line um detailing to look more like the unified
concept. And then you can better see without the landscaping the 10-ft walkway and how the base of the building back towards the Gulf is open. So you can have a bit of a view from the pedestrian plaza as a result of the features. I do want to get into um the
different setbacks and the different um walkways that we've been talking about. So on the first floor we have a pedestrian walkway that connects um the pedestrian plaza and the sandy beach. That walkway is proposed to be a
minimum of 10 feet. We have agreed to place it under easement and the purpose of that is because previously the public was walking through the commercial parking lot. It was not a designated walkway but they were utilizing that parking lot to get to the beach. It wasn't very safe. there was a
significant amount of conflicts. Um, but people are used to having access through this property and so we wanted to relocate it in a way that was appropriate and we've agreed to um utilize the same material and color and features from the pedestrian plaza to
direct them to the pathway. What would present what would pre prevent the public from accessing the beach from the other side? I mean, it's more open. If you go back to the Yeah.
Yes. Why Why Why wouldn't you just walk through there? That's Crescent Beach Park. They're more than welcome to do that. Um, so that pedestrian plaza u, excuse me, the pedestrian walkway is 10 ft um to kind of relocate the access that had
been previously on site through the commercial plaza. Um, the other thing that we've done, let me just see. Yeah, is incorporate kind of the open air patios on the second, third, and fourth floor. What those things do
is push the enclosed portion of the facade off the pedestrian plaza so we don't create a canyoning effect. Um, and again, the architectural revisions are just to kind of I would describe it as lightening the building. Tyler may kick
me for saying it that way, but um, I felt like the previous roof line was kind of overcrowding and crunching the building down, but he's free to use the correct terminology. Um, so staying on the the concept of the
pedestrian walkway, I've marked it here where the 10 feet is proposed. And what you'll notice is just past the retail kiosks, we do have a gathering space for uh public and pedestrians. The concept here is to also locate like a water fountain and a footwash. What we find is
as people and families come off the beach, they need a place to like put their stuff down, wash their feet, gather their materials, and get ready to go on their way, whether it's back to their car or to get some food, etc. So, we thought that was a good spot. Um, I think that we would be willing to
consider adding a square footage or uh refining the benefits that are associated with this area if we can get some feedback on the appropriateness of the proposal. Um, and then getting into the actual
commercial uses. Oh, wait. Sorry, I apologize. The other thing that we've done on the east side of the retail kiosks is add um ample room for bike parking. As you all know, previously bikes were strapped to lights, clocks, trees, etc. So, we thought providing a
larger space for folks to park their bikes and get it out of the plaza and keep that area open would be a benefit to the community. So, specifically getting to the um commercial uses that are on the ground floor, we have proposed um an
open air retail area fronting Time Square. That is to create interaction between the private commercial development and the pedestrian plaza. Behind that is storage and then a service bar. We have purposefully placed the service bar behind the retail and in
the back of the facility so that it's not competing with the Times Square owners on the opposite side of the pedestrian plaza. We're anticipating that they will have outdoor seating that will be closer to the plaza and we don't want to compete with them in that aspect. And then on the other side of
the building where we previously had the commercial parking lot, we are still proposing proposing Tina. I'm provoked to say something, but that bar will essentially be your service for the beach. Is that true? And the existing cop? Yes. Okay. Yes. Um we do have
parking in the location where the commercial parking lot was previously. However, that parking is now private to this facility. It's using um car stackers so that we can increase the quantity of spaces and as a result it is valet only. We have proposed to place
the valet stations within the requested 10- foot setback so that the valet is there to a monitor the cars, the pedestrian movement and move the cars quickly out of the area. This is the traditional location where cars access the property in the prior development.
So, we have not changed that orientation in any way. The other thing I want to note here regarding the parking spaces is we have met the land development code requirements for a hotel in terms of the quantity of spaces without utilizing the downtown multiplier or any flexibilities
offered by the zoning district. How will you provide stacking um for the cars going into the parking garage? There's um former rideofway there from Eststerero to the property that cars can
stack in and then remove. It's also it's also been utilized by um service deliveries previously. So there is adequate space there that we're anticipating will remain due to the configuration of the property, the previous right of way and then the
business across the plaza are set to the west ever so slightly. So, it'll maintain that historical stacking location. How many cars are you saying are would be in that stacking location? I believe
the site plan that Tyler put together demonstrates three at each valet station. So, that would be six. So, for the second floor, we are proposing to reestablish the restaurant and incorporate hotel rooms. Um, as I
mentioned, we are incorporating uh open air patios to encourage the interactions with pedestrians in the plaza down below. Um, there's also a patio in the rear to promote interaction with the sandy beach, although we have prioritized the pedestrian plaza. The
other thing that we've done is um provided the opportunity for a pedestrian walkover at this level. The reason that I say opportunity is because we need the property owner on the other side to finalize their design plans and
agree and I would go so far as to say also the other property owners within Times Square that that walkover is appropriate. um there would need to be a funding mechanism created and because that walkover is offsite, we need some feedback from the town on whether you
think that's an appropriate public benefit and we also need to work through the appropriate mechanism for the funding. But I do think that that's a possibility for a larger off-site public benefit that could going back to the master plan that was done by the University of Florida, create those that
elevated walkway system for the commercial retail that was proposed within Times Square at that point. But there needs to be alignment between all the other owners to get through that. Um, we do have language in the development agreement currently that should that option be become available
and there is alignment that that infrastructure will not be constructed at the cost of the town. It will be a a Times Square funded um public benefit. And then uh we also have uh hotel rooms a portion the remaining
portion of this floor is hotel rooms. And then the third and fourth floors are also hotel rooms. You can see from this floor plan that the setback of the facade from the pedestrian plaza has been increased to 38 ft 7 in again so we
don't create that canyoning effect. The hotel rooms are a new commercial use for the property and the proposal is for them to support the anticipated commercial and tourism center that the downtown core is supposed to be. Um
we've heard the proposal on the other side at the Bayfront Plaza for hotel for resort and we are trying to anchor that on the opposite side in time square to support the existing and future businesses create additional foot traffic etc. And also I think it's
important to note that it does redevelop rooms demolished by Ian. Now we've heard the feedback uh I've watched a lot of the presentations this you've all seen this chart. is the most updated version from um the Lee County Convention
Bureau. But what I want to kind of hit on and then get into some detail on as it relates to this conversation is we are still down by 50% in terms of the rooms that are open. I think we all know that. And yes, there are rooms that are
I'll say in progress. You all have heard and the town council has approved. Um, as far as I'm aware, the Meerside CPD is approved for 45 rooms and commercial square footage. The Neptune is a CPD
that is approved for 148 rooms. The Pink Shell came in and amended their CPD for an additional 40 rooms. You just heard earlier this month Moss Marine at 263 rooms with commercial square footage. And there's an application behind us
today to amend a CPD for an additional 75 rooms. That adds, I believe it's 571 rooms that we would anticipate would come into the marketplace, but that is only 50% of what still remains closed.
There is still another 50% to go. And so the 50 units that are requested in this structure will not I'll say make a dent in that 50%. When we look at the downtown core and what has happened in
that area as it relates to hotel rooms, we know that new hotels have opened. Um we know that people are taking advantage of that location and it has added quite a bit of of gathering and tourism activity to this corner. We also know
that the smaller hotels that have reopened have not reached their prehurricane capacity. There are several locations that had so many rooms previously and have not opened um to their full amount. And then there are several motel that were destroyed that
equal about 62 rooms that a have not reopened, have not come in for permit. And then some of them have actually requested special exceptions for a new use indicating that the motel is not coming back. So the request does not realize the entire inventory of
destroyed rooms within the downtown district. I want to note that it's in a location that does not abut residential and so there is not a conflict between the activity of the commercial square footage and the hotel with any adjacent
residential. It will support the recovery of the tourism base within Time Square. It will also create foot traffic up and down Old St. Carlos Boulevard to the Bayfront Plaza to support um the main street restaurants and retail as
anticipated by the comprehensive plan. Jim, you looked like you were going to ask. Okay. So, that reflects the request that was submitted. And then through the negotiation process, um staff asked if
we had considered opening the roof to the public and we said no. Would you like us to do that? Um and they indicated that they thought that if we were willing, that was something that would be appropriate to bring forward to the LPA and the council. And so during
that process of considering what we do with this space, we wanted to look at the options that currently existed for public gathering and viewing of the Gulf. We do have two public parks adjacent to us. And so people can come
with their own chairs, drinks, food, etc. um and and watch the sunset and enjoy the golf. And so once we had to improve the rooftop deck to support the pedestrians and meet building code and also bring the elevator up an additional
story which created additional height. We decided to cluster enclosed space for a kitchen and bathrooms to support the public on the rooftop. Frankly, we wanted to add something so that there could be shade structures and also
service amenities for the public. Um, I understand that there is debate on both sides about whether or not this is a public benefit and I I and and the rest of the team want to hear that feedback from the LPA and the council. Um, we do
think that giving the public service is an appropriate amenity. If they didn't want that service, they would go to the adjacent public parks and they most likely would not come up to the rooftop of the building. The stairs, elevator, and bathrooms are open. Wait, hold on. So, are you saying that somebody could
go up to the rooftop and just sit down and watch the sunset or are they going up to the rooftop because they're going to have service from the restaurant and bar that's there? So, is it public in the sense that you can be there without patronizing whatever that business is?
Correct. Okay. That was the proposal. But if you want to drink a drink and watch the sunset, you can, but you won't be told to leave. Correct. Okay. And you could bring your own drink. I don't think we can do that with
alcohol, beverage, and tobacco regulations for COP. Pepsi. Dr. Pepper. I don't think you're going to get thrown out over Dr. Pepper. Well, some places do though. I mean, some places do. Obviously, they want you to No food or drinks. Yeah. Right. So, that's what I was asking.
More question. I'm sure you have more questions about the related impact to height, and I'm getting to that. I promise. But any more questions about the design? Okay. Um, I do want to note that the public gathering space is 4,500
square feet. That is obviously not the size of the rooftop. The rooftop is larger, but the remaining space will not be open to the public because it is reserved for mechanical equipment. There is a shielding wall, so the mechanical equipment will not be seen from the adjacent plaza. Oh, sorry. Uh that was the old
architecture. You can see the the mansered roof there. And then the new architecture opens it up. Um so this is what is uh being proposed today with the new exhibits. And then get getting to height. I know that's another big issue
related to this application. What is on the screen here is what was submitted to staff and what was in your uh packet prior to Thursday of last week. And so I do want to walk through this because I know there's a lot of conflicting information out there regarding this
exhibit and then like I said we do have a reduction in height and I will walk through that specifically as well. So, we are using the 20.3 feet for the 100year uh FT flood and that really starts if you're looking at the left
hand side of the graphic, height is measured at zero at that point. And so the left hand side shows the increase from flood and the actual measurements and then the right hand side shows what we are anticipating grade will be. You're looking for both of those numbers. The request that we submitted
without the rooftop deck was four stories and 39 ft 4 in above flood to the manser height of the roof. The manard is measured at mean height. And then when we added the rooftop terrace, the bathrooms, the elevator, etc., that
increased to 52 feet 8 in. And again, that's mean roof height. If you are looking for the revisions in height from this graphic, take note of the um rooftop triangle to the elevators and the kitchen and then the mansered at the
edge of the fourth story. As I scroll through this exhibit, you will see that they have either been removed or kind of flattened to bring the height down. And as a result, our structural height of the
four stories is now 38 feet 8 in above flood. And then the um rooftop deck is 49t 2 in above flood. How can that be with the numbers that are out to the side with 65 ft and
because the 65 ft is from grade and that is not how the land development code measures height. do it. So when we talk about height, I think it's important to yes consider the request for this particular property,
but also in the context of what's been happening in the downtown core. And this is before Hurricane Ian, but also after. And so this exhibit has been uh modified to add color from the land development code. And we're all familiar with the
byite restriction that is north of a sterile boulevard being 30 feet and three stories and south of a sterile boulevard being 40 feet and four stories. But we also need to keep in mind what I've kind of colored in gray here, which is the different commercial
plan developments that are either approved or working their way through the process that have increased height above the 30foot uh restriction in the land development code. The singular exception to that is uh the Mantanis
pass in their CPD maintains height at 30 feet and actually reduces their stories. And I believe in looking at the case file that is directly related to the fact that they are adjacent to single family residential. But all the other colored
boxes in gray demonstrate a height increase above the 30 ft. The two properties that have CPDs close to this particular property permit uh 37 and 38 feet which is consistent with our
request. Remember we asked for 38t 8 in. The closest one to us is 38t 10 in above flood. Um and then of course you have a proposal uh outside of the downtown core that requests 81 feet and a maximum of
seven stories. So we can see that as these development projects come in, they're requesting flexibility on the height and this dynamic is changing across the time square area, particularly as it relates to this kind of district 2 time square and the core
area around the bridge. Speaking of the bridge, I know that the perspective coming over the bridge is very important. This is what was submitted in the packet um previously. And then we've updated the rendering. You'll see it most notably in
the lower image to reflect the new architecture. A couple of things here related to the perspective. The renderings are scaled to show the appropriate perspective from the bridge. The bridge has a maximum height of 75.5 ft, which you're seeing in the top
image. Um you'll notice that the gulf is still visible over the proposed structure and then to the left where Crescent Beach Park is. And then similarly in the lower rendering, the Gulf is still visible through Crescent Beach Park. I want to
note that while you can very easily see the proposed structure in the lower rendering, there will be a replacement structure on the north side of the pedestrian plaza that then even obscures our own architecture and the view of the Gulf as you come down the bridge. It is
not just this structure that will obscure that view. So a scale question on this slide because if you look at it and it's been published a lot as you know one could draw a line from top of your proposed building to
Margaritavville. Correct. And they look identical and yet you have an extra story and a half 30 feet above the shaft. So you have to it doesn't show that way on at least from the the viewer's perspective. So Margaretville
is uh four stories and you have to take into account the concept of distance perspective. They are closer to this perspective on the bridge than our building which is further back by at least a block based on the old plat 300.
Yeah. Okay. Do you want Sorry. I was hoping that from the corner say your name for the record. This is Tyler Peterson picture. Yes, he was. So, there's approximately 287 ft from the corner of Margaritavville that you're seeing right
there to the corner of our property line, which were an additional 10 ft back from that. So, I I know, you know, as you drive through that area, you're like, "Oh, this is all real close." But it is about 300 feet or about a football field from that corner to our building.
So, that's why you're getting a little bit of that difference. Thank you. Any other questions about that? Thank you. Um, okay. So, perspective from the bridge at the bottom of the bridge, regardless of what is there today, any
redevelopment is going to obscure the view. The town's land development, the town's comprehensive plan does permit applicants to request a differing height than the land development code. Um, you're all familiar with policy 4C4, which indicates that the land
development code shall limit the height of new buildings and gives the option for redevelopment areas to have a different height. The land development code utilizes that option by allowing um the downtown zoning district to
particularly in time square to have 30 feet above base flood and three stories. So that is different than the two stories that is referenced in the policy. Uh 4C4 goes on to because there was a change made I'm sorry because there was
a change made post Ian we changed that in other words when the comp plan was written it was it was two stories floor to two stories after Ian we changed that to be two stories over flood to accommodate the reality correct
okay I ag I agree with that okay but not three stories But I'm sorry, not two stories over flood. Two stories over flood. So, three stories counting the ground total. Correct. I agree. Okay. I'm sorry. Did it sound like I said something different? No, it's okay. Okay. I
apologize. I agree with you. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? No. Okay. Um, the policy goes on to state that if a a differing height is applied, which can be requested via a deviation, that particular attention would be paid to
any permanent view corridors of the Gulf or the bay that could be provided in exchange for allowing a building to be taller. But in each case, the town shall balance the public benefit of the height against the other public benefits that would result from the specific proposal.
And so, you know, when we think about the policy, we also have to consider it in line with the property that is being considered. Um, and there is I'm not going to call it a corridor. There is the opportunity to view the Gulf through
the walkway. There is the opportunity to view the Gulf from the Sunset Terrace on top. I think that was a good addition from staff. I am not in any way indicating that it is a view corridor like what other applicants have brought forward to you because that is not my
testimony. Um there are a full slate of other public benefits that this project is offering that you are able to consider and those are off-site benefits that I've talked about that will occur with the full redevelopment of Times
Square as well as on-site. Um, and we're going to go through those probably uh based on your questions in quite a bit of detail in exactly one slide. So, just bear with me. I can see the faces. Um, in addition to policy 4C4
regarding height, your comprehensive plan does contemplate new and expanded commercial uses. um that those uses need to be prioritized into the pedestrian commercial future land use which is what is applied to this property and the commercial needs to contribute to the
public realm and protect residential neighborhoods. This project does meet that intent. It um it is within the most intense commercial area within the town. It does prioritize the public realm by providing
safe and identified public access between the pedestrian plaza and the sandy beach. By pulling the building back off of the pedestrian plaza, we're prioritizing that movement that previously existed without obstruction. Um, and the ground floor retail promotes
an interaction between the private development and the public realm. The location of the proposed development, as I mentioned, is not adjacent to a residential area and does not intrude into an existing community or negatively impact any existing or future
residences. And so, um, in closing, this is the last slide, we get to the benefits of the project. There are public benefits that are offered as I mentioned on-site and off-site and there are also benefits that can be achieved
related to the development and I think it's important to consider all of them as we discuss this project. We truly are trying to balance the private redevelopment and the benefits that can occur with what the public can access and receive from the project. We've
incorporated the concepts of the master plan while trying to adapt that into the flood plane standards and this has evolved through the negotiation process and we would anticipate that it would continue to evolve based on the hearing today. Um we're trying to promote that
lively commercial and tourist center supporting a greater mix of uses um in in um providing these benefits through the redevelopment. So generally as I've structured this slide, things
that are publicly accessible are on the left side of the screen and things that the developer is constructing that have an associated benefit are on the right. So I've talked at length about the public walkway. I want to just touch on
and clarify that um the previous pedestrian plaza had a certain material and color pattern associated with it. We understand from speaking in town staff that it is desired for that pattern to continue and we are agreeable to having our
pedestrian walkway include that design feature so that the public has not just signage which I think is also desired and we are agreeable to but also an on the ground feature directing them to our walkway. I talked about the public seating that is immediately adjacent
that will not encumber the walkway with the refresh station so that people can kind of gather themselves, clean up after being on the beach. I talked about the bicycle parking that has been increased so that we don't have incumbrances to the pedestrian plaza previously. We've talked about the
sunset terrace being publicly accessible that they are not required to purchase a beverage and food to watch the sunset up there. Um, I've generally discussed the pedestrian plaza replacement. That is something that the town would like to
accommodate and I think it's inc uh I just lost the word. It is incumbent. Incumbent. Thank you. Incumbent upon us as well as all the other Times Square owners to aid the town in that. um when
we were searching for additional detail regarding the uh payment and the method by which we could make the payment there was not alignment and so we're hoping to get that feedback from this process today as well and then I mentioned the pedestrian walkover that that would be
implementing the design from the University of Florida study but again we need those these two things are technically offsite we need support from the other time square owners and we need an understanding of of payments and structure that we're hoping to get out of this process. And so those things are
all accessible by the public and would benefit the public as a result of the proposal. And then we can talk about actual on the ground construction and things that we plan to do with this redevelopment. uh the valet parking and providing
parking for the hotel rooms that is at standard LDC ratio I think is an appropriate give for the intensity and the request of the hotel rooms and ensures that there is not competition between the patrons of our hotel and any
of the associated public parking that's in the downtown core as envisioned by the plan. So we won't be creating those conflicts. We won't be utilizing those spaces. We're taking care of our own impact in that sense. The increased building setback from the front under
delay parking. Is that for hotel residents only? Yes, it is for the hotel. So general public can't have their car parked anywhere. Okay. No, it's now private. It's no longer commercial. All right. Yeah. Um we've increased the building setback from a zero foot build to line to a 10 foot on
the ground floor. And then as I mentioned, the third and fourth floors go back that 38 feet um 7 in. And that's again to eliminate previous encroachments into the plaza. As Miss Propes mentioned, there can be tables and display um that we would anticipate
occurring in that 10 ft. We've also written into the development agreement that we will coordinate with staff to provide either a shade structure or landscaping to um implement the streetscaping of the pedestrian plaza.
The ground floor retail is an o an opportunity will be open air for those small businesses to reopen and come back to time square. And so giving them a place where they can reestablish their businesses we felt was appropriate and a support to the community. And then I
introduced the concept of the agreement expiration earlier. We do have a permitting timeline and we are required to submit a development order application within 90 days of the effective date of this development agreement. What that does is force the
property owner to come into the town for the next step within 90 days. If we do not do that, this agreement terminates. So, we've heard a lot of how long is this going to take? You know, you could get this done and then sit on it. And we wanted to respond to that. And so the first step is the development order. The
purpose of that is generally the site plan, the building for foot footprint, um ensuring compliance with storm water management, things of that nature. And then uh the next step would be a building permit. If that does not get submitted within a year, again, the
agreement terminates. We feel that a year is a long enough time to get through the development order process and get the building permit approved and work through staff comments related to that as well. If if not, no more agreement. Well, while you're on that for a second, though, pruning process is certainly
what it is. But permits have expirations. Correct. And they have renewal periods. It doesn't it doesn't require you start the development except within the permitted time frame. And if that doesn't happen, you could ask for extensions. So, I agree you're representing you. You need to get
permits or the thing will go away. We'd be very interested in hearing when the construction would start or the agreement goes away. That's next. Okay. Let me ask one other question. And um so this is a private parking lot for the hotel itself. And so where does the
retailers and all the employees park? Uh they are going to do what they've done previously parking for that type of So wait, let me back up. I'm just processing your question and I
apologize. When we say hotel rooms, the multiplier in the land development code includes employee parking to support the hotel. So cleaning, maintenance, front desk, etc. That's included in that ratio. That's how we make sure the
impact of the hotel is not spilling out. But how many parking spaces are you having? 66. 66. But the development agreement doesn't restrict parking to hotel guests, which is what Jim brought up. It says customers. Yeah, customers
can be anything. Change that. Well, no, that's what you say. I'm happy to change that. The intent is the intent is what I'm presenting. The intent is to support the hotel. Okay. If you found a discrepancy in the language, that's the purpose of this hearing. I'm happy to change that.
Okay. 4C. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see where employees are calculated into 66. Well, that is standard practice for parking ratios in a land development code.
Is that is that ahead? Did I see a head? Okay. I'm getting a nod of agreement from town staff. With respect to the restaurant and the retail, parking is not required in Times Square to support those businesses. None of the other Times Square owners will be
subject to the same exception. That was the purpose of of the vision statement in the comprehensive plan. Okay. Um, so you asked a question about construction. Um, construction must be complete within
two years of building permit. or the agreement goes away. We've heard some comments about, okay, but what if you walk away? Um, I think we're interested in hearing the type of protection that the LPA or the council would want in that instance. There are a lot of things that we can offer. There
are a lot of things that we've batted around, but we didn't have a a firm alignment on yes, you should do this just in case. So, we're interested in getting that feedback today. And then uh an extension can be granted. I believe
there's a restriction in there. Give me just one second. It I know it must be um approved by the town council. Yeah. Uh if requested by the developer, the term of the agreement may be extended at the sole discretion of
town council and a finding that the developer is unable to fulfill its obligations due to circumstances beyond its control. So, the town council would define what those circumstances are that are beyond the developer's control and would agree or disagree with that
extension. And I'm happy to hear feedback on different options for that as well. Any comments from anybody? Okay, keep going. Do you That's our last slide. That concludes our our case and chief. Um there was a lot of complaint
consistency and such in embedded in there. I'm happy to answer questions. I know there's people here that want to speak. I'm sure you want to go through the development agreement. We're happy to get that that feedback and requested revisions, but we would be open to hearing how you want this to proceed
before me continuing to talk at you. Okay. Um anybody have any questions? What we'll do, Tina? Let's let's have the public speak and or if Mr. Prasad wishes, whoever else wants to speak for your presentation. Yeah. Um and attorney Madden just reminded me that we would
like to reserve the opportunity to rebut. Absolutely. You'll you'll you'll have time afterwards. Yeah. Take a break. Do you want to take a break? Okay. We're going to take a we're going to take a quick a what? A long break or a short break? Oh, lunch break. There lunches. We do have lunch available. Is
there enough for everybody in the room? No. No, but I have crackers for everybody in the room. Well, there's still some. Okay. Well, with your indulgence, we're going to take a 20 minute break so that
we can these people can have a little bite to eat or do you want a half an hour? Just announce it. A half an hour. A half an hour. Thank you. Y back in action. All right, everyone. It's 1:00 and we
are back uh in session. Uh we left off with being just about ready to open the public comment. So, with no objection, that's what I'll do right now. Uh, if you haven't been sworn in, if you'd let us know when you come to the podium, we'll do a we'll do a quick on the-fly
swear in. So, would anybody like to make comments about this case? Yes, sir. Tom, you'll be next. And Tom, are you Did you have your hand up, too? This Tom Brady, you have not been. Okay. Do you raise your right hand? Has anybody else not
been sworn in? Go ahead. Go ahead. Stand up and raise your hand. Stand up and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay. Thank you all. Go ahead, sir. Say your name
for the record. My name is Barry Lawrence. I'm a former employee at Sunset Grill. For eight years, I used to sing there two days a week. I'm here on behalf of Terry and his organization. Um there's a lot of hurt feelings and a
lot of people have great opinions about this and so do I. So everybody does. Um the one thing I'd like to bring out is that the one big objection is the view coming over the bridge. You're literally on the bridge for 30 seconds. You're looking down. If you're not paying
attention driving, you're going to hit somebody anyway. So my my concern for a view would be when you get down to Time Square and you're in Time Square, the way they're conceiving this, there's going to be a lot more view over by the pier, there's going to be places to sit,
places to enjoy rooftop views, a lot of things. And they talk about public, what is this? The public benefit to me. The public benefit is instead of seeing a a storm ravaged beach with uh
support still in the sand sitting there blank. We have a new building with places to go, places to eat. People have places to stay. And we're creating new memories for our community instead of living in the old memories. The old memories are gone. We lost it all
within. I lived on the beach. I rode the storm out on the beach. I lost everything I owned on the beach. Do I want it back? Yes. But I can't get it back. So, what do I want to see? I want to see progress on both sides. I want to see everybody come together and hold
hands and and get this done for our community. And that's all I want to say. Thank you. Thank you, Barry. Tom Tom Torgerson, 301 Pls. I am opposed to this project. I've been u very outspoken about that and it's really about height and and
density. Th those are really my issues and concerns. Um yes, we need Bill back. Yes, we want build back. Um and I'm all in a support of of Terry and going forward. He could break ground tomorrow by his right and build threetory structure and it's terribly feasible,
terribly viable. There's nobody that could refute that. Um but yet to go to this extreme height and density density that's never been achieved on this island um by anybody before. Two and a half times the density of of
Margaritavville. Um twice the equivalency hotel factor as Margaritavville. Margaritavville, I won't bore you. Um we don't have the time for it. provided unbelievable real um um public benefit um beyond its 12
bike racks that that each handle six bikes. But um it's really about height. It's really about density and and u speaking to that I think one of the points that Tina made is and without naming it because it's probably appropriate not to. I think she referred
to RCPD as the closest adjoining CPD that uh got a deviation on on story and height. Um that was only because we had we have had that the height and density or the height and story um by right on
the beach side of our property, but we chose to move it to the Bayside. And the Bayside didn't allow as much height and stories. So we had to ask for deviation to get the same height and stories that we would have had by right on the bay side. And if we would have put it on the
bay side, we would had this big wall. You mean on the beach? teach that. I'm sorry. Thank you for correcting me. We wouldn't have been able to provide that nearly 400 foot long um view corridor. So, it's really about height and density. It's not about not wanting this
rebuilt. And again, I'll repeat and repeat. He could break ground tomorrow with what is terribly feasible um uh by right and and uh get it done instead of go for something right in this such a
protected protected such a it's it's what people first remember about Fort Myers Beach when they come over that bridge. I was talking to Taylor. He's doing he's been doing some work with me and I just personally we just got introduced for the first time in person but um he's going to go back and and
review that rendering coming over the beach because you know we all know Norm Shaft affectionately Norm Shaft and to the peak of the of the metal roof is is 35 ft. Now look at that you know that that's only 30 40 feet or whatever it is
away from this proposed building. It's it's just not quite the scale yet. um you aren't going to see um the water um from the top of the bridge and obviously you're going to see this big wall when you descend. Maybe the last thing I'll point I'll try to to make here with my
limited time is just that statistics are a really crazy thing. Um they're a powerful thing. You can work them, you know, in any direction you want to. And and Tina, bless her soul, I think you're missing some on the accounting on the hotel room side of it. um two projects
that you missed when you got up to about a 50 or 75% recovery on the inventory. You you you missed uh your project Margaritavville, we we were not open till a year and a half after after the storm event. That's 254 rooms. There's
70 rooms here with the lighthouse already. You're you're 100% recovered from a hotel inventory. The bigger issue is condos. getting the people back in the condos, getting people in houses, getting back in the VBOS's. That's the inventory we're missing. But yes,
actually, I want hotel rooms, too. I want more hotel rooms on this island, but it isn't a reason in this location to create this intense. This 2.5 is the top of the comp plan. It's the top of the comp plan. Nobody's ever, you know,
the the public benefits that Margaritavville went through. We're 1.0. We're a 1.0 zero f he's proposing a 2.5. He's not even covers. They're not even including their covered balconies where there's roofs over. They're actually in excess of 2.5 if you really do it
exactly per the land development code um if you calculate it properly. But uh there's just no reason for it. It's the wrong location. If there is a good location for it on the island, it's the wrong location. And he can build by right and it's very feasible. You know, just get get the rebuild going. Just get
it going, Terry. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Tom. Who else would like to speak? Yes, ma'am. Ladies first. Ladies first. Oh, no. Gentlemen first.
We could say who's who's older? Barrywin. Barry Frank, president, OG on the beach. And uh I've spent the last two and a half years at least um on Fort Myers
Beach at Times Square um talking to residents, visitors, all the businesses and um it's really time that we get something going in Time Square. There's
been a lot of people who have visited right after Ian and they're back a year later, two years later or whatever and go, "What's going on?" You know, we're here. Um anyway, I I am here to advocate progress. I'm not going to wave
anybody's flag, not going to go against Tom or for Terry, but Terry stepped forward to present something in Times Square, the first one to do it. I know I've been working with uh uh all all of
the owners of Time Square, the property owners, and we've tried to get that all together and it's just really very difficult. It would take another couple of years probably to to settle that. And Terry step forward to do something. All
I would like to see is you discuss it with him, negotiate it, um, do it, do what's right, and just let's see some progress so we can save the island. Thank you, Barry. Thank you. All right, come on.
Will, you also want to speak? Yeah. Well, it says good morning, but good afternoon. U, my name is Lori Webster, and I'm a resident of the island. I don't think there's a single person who has visited Fort Myers Beach and wasn't aed by the first look. Crossing the
bridge and seeing the beach and the water laid out before you is an iconic experience. It doesn't matter how many times I've driven over, that feeling never gets old. It's my first sign of coming home. This project threatens that experience. It changes an iconic view
from the bridge to a view of a building, a wall rather than a window. While we all acknowledge that the island in general and Times Square in particular can never be what it was before Ian ate it, we also need to be cognizant of the
impact what we build will have on our fragile infrastructure. We need to stop allowing developers to gaslight their way to a yes. While I appreciate that, Mr. Prasad believes he's offering public benefits, just as we saw with the Seagate
proposal. Offering up and highlighting things that they would have to do anyway, does not benefit the public. Our comp plan and the development code outline limits on things such as intensity, density, height, and far. Mr.
Prasad has not only pushed those limits, he's proposing to implode them. The majority of his benefits are simply common sense, a bike rack, access to the beach, or they benefit him, not the public. Restaurants and public gathering
places to that would encourage use of those restaurants. access to the beach through his development, bringing people into the property. Times Square PA replacement and funding, which is later
walked back to include his proportionate share. Groundf flooror retail kiosks, not stores, nothing permanent. Rooftop, sunset, terrace, and service bar creating even more
hype. Where is the public benefit? I see only benefit to the developer. Why are we allowing large projects to bypass processes that allow staff to work more robustly on aligning with the comp plan? This alternative was
put in place to help the little guy who can't afford the processes of the CPD. This is not a bad project. It's a bad project for this location. It changes the view from the bridge. It's bad for the walkable vibe
of Time Square. It puts a parking garage between Times Square and the beach. Its height exceeds the comp plan with no offsetting public benefit. And the increase of FAR to 2.5 is well over what this area can sustain. Please vote.
Thank you. Thank you, Lori. Will Yes. My name is Will Bustin. Um I previously Time scores for the last 20 years. I've known you and Nita. We've been neighbors at Wahoo Willies. I also opened up Manoras. Uh then I had the pleasure of meeting Terry. Uh he gave me
an opportunity to open up a store ice cream shop in Time Square. I am a small business owner and uh my feeling is is uh this project is you know a lot of technical stuff and stuff like that. But I know one thing about Terry, he does support small businesses and small
business people. He gave me an opportunity to go go in and open up a store and either I'd make it or I failed. But um obviously I made it because I would be standing here right now. But after the hurricane and the buildings were gone, my thoughts of ever
going back two times ever going back to Fort Myers Beach was I said to myself, well, now there's going to be Starbucks and because when you build back a building, you know, you want that guaranteed check and it's usually from corporations and uh and Terry said,
"Don't worry. When I build back, I'm gonna be building back up space for you and the other vendors that were in there. And I don't have kioses and stuff. And I am one of the business owners that that when I did this before the storm, they did before every storm because we were brand. I had all of my
ice cream coolers on wheels. I just turned around, got a U-Haul, put them in there, took them to my house, plugged them in. Storm's over. I bring them back. Unfortunately, my house had no power for 10 days. So, I did for two days I did nothing clean ice cream. Um,
but uh you know I don't see the the downfall of all the stuff here, but all I can say is I would support the building and and I know Terry does support small businesses because I wouldn't be here if you didn't. Thank you. Thank you, Will.
Yes, ma'am. Hello, Natalie. Afternoon. Hello. Good afternoon. Natalie Stland. I'm the owner of 3S Cargo. Um I'm a French glass artist and I've been a vendor in Time Square for almost 25 years and I'm
currently operating at 1028 Estto Boulevard. Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here today in support of the rebuilding of Fort Myers Beach in particular time square in in which we are all witness to the complete devastation brought by Hurricane I. It
has been a long almost three years since then. I have many fond memories of the old Time Square and as much as I would love to see the quaint wooden buildings, they're not coming back. And as I understand the current building codes require substantial
investment. However, it does not mean that Time Square cannot be great again and once more a vibrant with activity and commerce and an uplifting place for everyone. In my years working there, I have met many wonderful people. I have
formed lasting relationships. I get many return customers year to year, many of whom bring their children along on a day at the beach. I have seen them grow up. It pains me to imagine a Times Square stripped of all his vitality. So I come
before you today in support of this project. Thank you for your time and God bless. Thank you, Natalie. What business does she have? three escar goes. Uh, yes, sir. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak after this gentleman? Okay.
Hi. Good afternoon. I pull the mic up a little bit. Right down. Could you otherwise I'd ramble on here. So, okay. Uh, my name is Fred Malone. I'm the owner of a Buffalo Grill in Time Square. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you guys. I've been coming down here for approximately 18 years now. We have finally set roots here and we are very
excited for the future of Times Square. Although we are running a restaurant, my current currently my background in construction development. So I felt it necessary to speak after seeing and hearing a lot about this project. I talk to a lot of people every day at the beach and I felt after hearing what people are saying and the concerns
people have, I feel I needed to say something that's truthful. Every person I talk to is pretty much in support of this project. Some have valid concerns, but once they actually get the true facts and not the ugly lies and untruths on social media,
they all seem to understand and support the project. I urge you not to take anything you read on social media into consideration, but only what you hear today and go by the facts and code in the town comp plan and not read something someone says from 10 states
over. What most people seem to forget, the owners of Time Square did not ask to lose everything, nor did the residents of Fort Myers Beach. Some people seem to forget this. They all want to build back together, build back bigger and
stronger. It's not easy and it's a massive financial undertaking with new codes to rebuild. We are also currently working with our land owner with plans to hope to build something for us also. Today we have a property owner who is actually doing it and not just talking
about it. He wants to start the rebuild of Times Square. So I urge you to work with him as we all want this and the island needs it. From what I've seen and read, you have a developer who opposes this project. I wonder why that is. I've been
in the opposing position myself for other projects I've done and I think it's prudent to ask yourself if the opposition actually has any other reason to object other than not wanting competition or blocking their view and taking money out of their pocket. I
think that's the real issue. For that developer to oppose this project seems very hypocritical when they fought so hard to build basically the same scenario also and then email you and complain the height is very similar to Margaritaville. There's plenty of business here for everyone coming over
the bridge. What you see is the air conditions on the roof of Margaritavville and other buildings. You will soon see the arches. So I ask you to not take any comment about views into consideration at all. The height is ne negligible in reference to Margaritavville. It is very upsetting
when you see someone who has the means to develop and build and all you see is uncalled for slander on social media mostly from others. I think I just wrote something twice in there so I'm not going to say that. I'm hoping all of you pay no
attention to the social media and just deal with the facts and code the comp plan what's best for the town. There are a lot more positives than negatives for this project. We need more rooms to bring bring visitors in. We need more establishments in Time Square. What he
is asking for is not unreasonable for that area. The D the design is excellent and the plan seems to work and follows town the town's comp plan. I urge you again to just think about the cost involved in redevelopment and work with the developer. What old Times Square used to be is gone. Unfortunately, I
knew I know you have a hard decision to make. We can all appreciate the position you are in. But one thing I'd like to add is I have I have to call your time. just the height on the two bells. I wish somebody could point that out, the exact measurement height, because everybody keeps asking that. Thanks. Okay.
Uh yes, sir. Hello everybody. Uh my name is Glenn Huggin. So I just wanted to just share a little bit about how I got introduced to Fort Myers Beach over 30 years ago. I moved here um as a young kid and some of my best memories are actually on Fort Myers Beach. moved away and when I came
back to Fort Myers um you know opened up a gym but what I really want to do was be on Fort Myers Beach and I had an opportunity to purchase a business and open in Sea Great Plaza in the middle of the island in 2021 and then Hurricane Ian came and we lost everything not just on that business but also in my other
location that was off 41. Both locations got completely flooded. A lot of what we invested was completely gone. And coming back to the island, like my top priority was to just get out and get involved with the community because the one thing that I think we can all agree on is it doesn't matter how Fort Myers Beach has
changed, it's the people that make Fort Myers Beach so special. And that is what I believe everybody loves. And I know a lot of people believe that things are going to change because of development. Um, but you know, the hurricane, it really washed a lot of stuff away. And you know as an entrepreneur what I find
is that it's very difficult to come back onto the beach. um especially in a business like I had uh that needed other anchoring business. Um you know one thing I want to say is no matter what business anyone has here, I know there's a lot of entrepreneurs here. I applaud you because it is very courageous not
just after Hurricane Ian but after Milton and Helen to decide to come and rebuild a business like you're making so many sacrifices and social media is amazing but social media also plays a big role in separating people and I
believe that people come to Fort Myers Beach because of the people but I believe at the same time um it's also tearing a lot of people apart and it's making it very difficult uh you know for someone to for any business to be slandered or to be humiliated online. I think if there's anything that we can
walk away from this meeting is instead of fighting against someone who wants to who has the courage to build back, we got to figure out ways how we can all work together because at the end of the day, we want the same thing. We want the island to move forward. And I think the best way we're going to do that is in peace, not fighting, not arguing, but
just like we did after Hurricane Ian. Let's lock arms. Let's work together because it's not going to work by us fighting against each other. And that's pretty much all I have. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Oh, you know we don't allow applause even though that was very very good. Okay. Who's going to be our next
speaker? Good afternoon everyone. My name is Eric Jac. I'm a resident of the island 7920 Buccaneer and I also uh do a service for u the visitor center on time square where the chamber has the the privilege
to uh ask and approach the tourists and everybody alike. So I would like to offer my couple of sentences from just from my experience. It doesn't have to be chamber or anything. Just as a person who does this day in and day out that my 25 cents for all this if you make is
that people who come to for my speech are pretty much like three different groups and one who are people who left and haven't been here back for so long and yes they are the ones who were um having tears when they see the cobblestone that still there but they remember four year old feet tapping on
it. So and then they still come and cry on my shoulder sometimes. So we do have these memories for so many people and we cannot restore that I know but there is still a feeling. So we should in my opinion keep something from the old for sure because there are a lot of showers
here who really like to have this feeling back and then there's the other group that I would go for the the people who are my dear will you do me a favor. Yes. Do just that put your hands on that podium because you're like me you're a wanderer and you talk with your hands.
Now go. So the the second group, oh sorry, second group is the tourist who maybe been here before or never before and they are the ones who are not missing anything because they have no idea maybe even that was a hurricane here. So for them it's either the rebels
like okay what happened or they say oh I have never seen any other islands to see the beach so much and so much sand around it. So that's another group of people who for them is missing something to do to eat to launch lodge to sleep to stay there. So there is a large number
of people from the newcomers that we would like to attract not necessarily to move here but they spend some time spend some money which is good for the whole island. I'm not just talking about this particular business but if you think about that they come here and they spend time and money and it's important to
accommodate them. So that would be a good point to have a lodging if you guys think it's uh possible. I don't know about measurements and heights and competition. All I'm saying is that there isn't a need for people to to come and try to stay around because if I ask them where they stay, they off island.
They uh Cape Coral, they all the way to Fort Meers back. So there would be good to have more hotel rooms on the island and also on the on this particular location because that's where they like to have life to go. And then another group of
people also who come and um and stay who have previous experiences they don't necessarily romantically or they just been here many many times like 20 years coming back to Fort Myers Beach don't live here they don't want to move back they just want to have their vacation back and for them
is definitely they want to have a project they go want to go to see things they want to be able to stay they want to want to see the pier they also are the group of people there more time sorry okay so there are also a group of people who would want to have
development going so without saying and another assessment of me is that if I'm there all day in the evening there's like a waves of people coming in the morning they come for the beach they will go out there and then around 4:00 or so they had enough of the beach they leave and all of a sudden it's like
almost like a ghost time there's nothing going on between like 4 until like 6ish or 7ish when people start coming back a different crowd for the sunset and then once the sunset is over there's hardly anything to do. They cannot stay there. They want to go because it's dark. So they leave again. So we have like two
waves of u less people or nobody because they have they cannot stay. So in my humble opinion if we could have this project going that would be uh beneficial for everybody. And also this is just my own last thing is that I feel these people that I speak I know them
because they all on the island on the on the time square area that they want to pull it together. This is a project that you can only bring if we all in it together. So if we can just grab the part that bring us together and not the part that is not that would be a lot
more um progress for us. Sorry. Thank you very much for your perspective. That was lovely. Thank you. Okay, who's next? John Albian. Get the timer ready. But before you start the timer, I just wanted to point out that if you brought some ice cream samples to go with the
pizza, everyone would be in a great mood coming together. By now, it would have after three years, I suppose. Uh so, good afternoon. My name is John Albian. Uh I'm a commercial real estate broker with SPN commercial partners, but I am a past
uh chairman of the board of Fort Myers Beach Chamber of Commerce in 1987 888, formerly county commissioner for 14 years, former executive director of the Fort Myers Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. I succeeded in pro and uh I've also been a member of the Beach Kids
Foundation actually since 1994, been on the board of directors. Um, I'm here basically in support of this project because I want to point out some things. And the reason I bring up some of this history is because I understand Fort Myers Beach. I've been involved with it since 1984 full-time in one manner or
another since we have a family business nearby. And I've also seen it from the political side, from the government side, the public side. And there's no question, everybody knows that the urban core of Fort Myers Beach is Time Square. All right. As a matter of fact, what some of you may not know, unless you
have some real history here, is that old San Carlos used to really be kind of a dusty street until then town manager Marshall Seagull George worked with the county to end the CRA, create a bulk of money to end the CRA, and that's how
that got redeveloped. That made the urban core really come alive. But Times Square has always, that's why it's called Times Square. Okay? So at the end of the day, that's where you want visitors and many people to be able to access for retail opportunities. So
they're not going through residential communities to try to access commercial needs. So that's very important. Uh, I also wanted to point out that if you look at Crescent Family Beach to Old San Carlos to Nervous Nelly's, Snug Harbor
over to Matanzas. I've tried to tell people that's really just an outdoor mall. Once you get out of your car, you're not getting back in until you're going to leave the island. So, at the end of the day, it functions that way. It's very important that Fort Myers Beach work with whomever is willing to
put forth the dollars to make it work to have that happen so it doesn't just infest throughout the island where people have to get their needs elsewhere. So this is a concept that in n uh about 25 years ago we called smart growth. You get out of your car, you do
a few different things before you get in your car and take up more road capacity. All right. Also, this is one of the few areas in Lee County, I would suggest, that really is truly pedestrian friendly. Lee County talks about it. We continue to fall behind in it, but this
Fort Myers Beach area really denotes it. Therefore, the hotel part of this is important, not just to help feed the commercial, but think about it. You have Drury Hotels at GF Coast Town Center as well as a Hilton Garden Inn across the street uh down by uh Coconut Point. They
have a couple of hotels there. This is common. Bell Tower has a couple of hotels there. You need the hotel to try to help service during the slower times for the outdoor mall. Okay. So, it's important to get those rooms here. I will disagree with the speaker who made
the comment that there's enough hotels coming rooms coming back equal to what we had before because all the evidence that I'm seeing is saying seeing that there's too many hotel rooms that have been converted or being converted to condos which therefore is not going to service what the hotel population needs
to be to make this island as successful uh as it can be. So, so I'll just finish up here by just saying that I think good told I I've known you half my life. Go ahead. But wrap it up, John. I think it's good strategic planning to
have this mixeduse development there. It's the direction that the economy is going. The market will be be properly rewarding it. And this is where you want people to congregate. That's why Lynhall Park is there. That's why Crescent Family Beach Park is there. That's why
even Nervous Nellies has that tender that goes in there. So, if you want to help this item thrive, I think this is a great way to do it. I'm super project. Thank you. Thank you very much. Whose hand is it? Oh, Tom Brady. Come on up. Hi, I'm Tom Brady. Um, I have been sworn
in. I'm a full-time resident Fort Myers Beach. I have no commercial interest in the island. I'm just a resident. Um, first of all, I am against this project and that is due to the height. I think the statements that have been said previously, I agree with all the people
that are imposed and I don't want to reiterate that because you guys have to spend a lot of time here today. Um, I think the project could start today and I think it's that they're asking for a lot more that causes questions in a lot of people's mind. If you want to bring us together, do what you can build by
code and we'd be together instantly. It's the fact that you're asking for something special that gets us into these debates. So, don't blame it on the people that are saying don't do this. Blame it on the people that are asking for too much. Um the development agreement, I don't know. It's other people say it's probably not the right
avenue for this. I I think we didn't know that when we started this process, but um I think that's being used as a tool to help the developer get things they normally wouldn't get. But I think you guys understand that and actually I trust you to make the right decision. Um
because you do do the analysis and you've got the background. The public benefit is very questionable. The walkway is covered over. It could be enclosed at some time. Is that really a walkway or is it a tunnel to the beach? That's a problem. And giving what we're doing is giving up public public
parking. As much as we fought over that parking lot there, it did provided a lot there for people to park and that's gone now. And where are people going to park now that they don't have those spaces and that access? So that's it. I I know you guys got a tough job. Um I know you
you'll do the analysis of it, but uh please uh this one needs a little more work, too. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Is there anyone else that would wish to speak? Okay, seeing no other hands, I'm going to clo Oh, are you right? Oh,
that's you, Tina. You popped up back there like a little You're welcome. That's okay. Uh so seeing no other public comment, I'm going to close the uh close the public comment portion of this hearing. And uh Tina, did you want to come back up and make any commentary
or perhaps somebody will have a question for you? Um I have a couple of points of clarification based on the comment that we heard. Um Tina, will you bring that microphone close? There you go. Yeah. I'll like What did you say?
Uncomfortably close. Yes. That's um the question about the measurement of F. I have the definition from 34-633 in front of me. And yes, I'm
going to read it so we are all on the same page. Floor area is all stories of a building within the surrounding exterior walls, whether solid or screened. Plus, all area below an elevated building that
is 6 feet or more in height and all stories of covered parking. Our patios are not screened and they are not enclosed and therefore they are not included in the definition of F. They also don't have walls. So based on this definition, the plans in front of you
have been measured correctly. Um with the concept of the statistics that I was showing about what has reopened and what is still closed, there is an asterct in that chart from the convention bureau which indicates
that it includes hotels opened post Ian through April 7th of 2025. So I believe that would also include the best western. And then with regard to the height, there was a question about the comparison of
um the adjacent plan developments and then this proposal. Is it raining? It's a little dry out there. It is dry. Um, I have in front of me ordinance 1804, which is for the closest CPD to
the property. Y'all talked about it. Uh, give me one second. I just love that sound. I forgot how many conditions were in this thing. Comes mosquitoes. Okay. So again, ordinance 1804, which is the closest CPD to the subject
property, quote, "The main resort building on parcel 1 may be up to four stories and up to 38t 10 in above base flood elevation. The project before you, as we proposed it, is four stories, 38 feet 8 in."
The CPD immediately behind uh Margaritavville is 37 feet and change. So I don't think that a foot is a dramatic difference in height from the request that we submitted. What really is before you is whether or not the
enhancements on the rooftop terrace are appropriate to increase the height and we welcome your feedback on that. Um, I also have a clarification on the uh permitting expiration and the conditions. Attorney Madden indicated to
me um I I was a bad consultant. I missed a conference call with the town attorney and it has been agreed on our side that we will provide the payments regarding the replacement of the Times Square uh pavers. I don't think they're going to be pavers based on the feedback we got
from the town, but we'll call them that. That we will provide that prior to certificate of occupancy. That's missing from the development agreement. We would need to add that language, but that is a commitment we are willing to make. Um and then regarding the parking, uh Mr. Prasad has indicated that his employees
actually park off site. He has two properties in which he supports employee parking and those are 1922 Old St. Carlos Boulevard and 17365 Old St. Carlos Boulevard. So the
parking on site would support the hotel rooms without employees. We would have more than one space per room and so we would anticipate that the restaurant could then fill in any spaces that were not used. We repeat those addresses. One was
1922 St. Carlos Boulevard. Old Slo and the other one was 17365 Old St. Carlos. And what what are those properties? They are parking lots. Correct. Old S Old St. Carlos. St. Carlos San Carlos Boulevard. I apologize. Difference. Yes, you're
correct. And I apologize. They are currently parking. That is where his employees were parking for the previous business and that is where they will continue to park. Okay, those were the clarification items that I had. I would anticipate that you all would have questions. I'm happy to
sit down. I'm happy to let staff clarify anything they may need to clarify. Let's find out. Okay. So, uh Sarah, did you want to add anything to this or do you just want you Okay. So, uh let's uh let's see what questions arise. Um Doug,
I want to start with you. Have you got any questions for staff or for I do you like how I just jumped over there to you? I feel I feel like I always go to Jim Dunlap over there. Yeah, because he's I was going to give him a rest. Any questions for staff or for the applicant?
I have I have two issues that sort of jump out at me and maybe um staff or Tina can say this more concisely, but the deviation for building height the
justification provided um it doesn't I don't I don't buy it. And then my other one is the uh deviation for uh the uh what amounts
to 50 hotel rooms. A hotel equivalency. Uh the justification for that seems kind of convoluted. So I'd like to ask Tina if she could concisely explain the justification for
both of those deviations. I'll try. Thank you. Um, let's start with height. The height that we requested is consistent with other commercial plan developments that provide Tina. Let's let's let's not refer to others because you know what? We're only talking about
this one. I don't The man in the moon could have a hotel someplace and I don't care about that one. I only care about this. For example, would you still be asking for this height if there was no other adjacent developments of similar height given the increased setbacks off of Time Square which elevate the
requested square footage? Yes. But honey, that that that increase in setback off I know I'm going to irritate you this whole time, so get ready. The increased setback off of Times Square also lowers your F. I'm sorry. by by not having the building
up to the you've you've decreased the footprint of your building. So you've lowered potentially your F. So the setbacks create a box. The F is a volume. Okay. So the box has volume. I'm
moving the volume around inside a smaller box by moving the setback. Is that what you're trying to say? Yeah, I agree with that. Okay. Okay. I guess I'm still not hearing a justification. I mean, you're just
saying you need more space. Is that what I'm hearing? No, that's not what I'm saying. Um, in deference to being concise, perhaps I'm not providing enough detail. So, um, the uses that the applicant is
requesting are a mixeduse commercial structure and those uses need a certain amount of square footage to exist. And so we've increased the F which comes with an increase in height
because the enclosed air conditioned space at the ground floor is limited and we have tried to keep that within the parameters that have been approved previously. the equivalency factor
is in a way it's backed into the 50 rooms support the additional um traffic that can be created and embedded into the times square district and so the 15.7 is a backend to that number I kind
of what I'm seeing is that there's a decision made that we need 50 rooms now to make that happen We have to derive an equivalency factor and we have to add another story. So that decision was made based on the fact that there are rooms
within the district that have not been replaced. There are rooms on the island that have not been replaced. This is a known demand like a market analysis to determine that if you had 50 rooms, they would would be meet a need.
We we know that there's a need. Yes. Um, was there a I am not aware that there was a specific market analysis, as you call it, done for this property, but we know that there is a demand for rooms on the island. The choice is whether or not those rooms go in the downtown district
in a location that can also support commercial square footage and an increase in intensity based on the infrastructure and policies or whether they get spread out throughout the island and possibly conflict with residential. Could the project go forward if there was 30 rooms? I am not
able to answer that question, but I can try to get you an answer. That was my question. Is was it economics? You know, was the 50 number met because of economics. Is it, you know, to make a hotel work? I need 50 rooms or, you know, I certainly understand, you know,
the need for a business and the need for a the need for a a capital investment, too. We understand that the desire of the LPA is to know if we can do this with less rooms and I think we would like the opportunity to discuss as a team. Um I I
hear you. I want to be reactive to that, but that's not something I personally can answer in this moment. for just quick follow up on question. Maybe we start with the baseline of what you can do by right and the things above by right. We'd like to hear that
rationale. Okay. Outside the public benefits things. We've got a I've got questions on that. But the difference between by right and what you're asking for would be a good conversation. Okay. And I'm seeing Okay.
Good afternoon members. I thank you for your time for considering my development agreement. I know it's a difficult decision. Times Square is very sacred to a lot of people. But I also want you to remember that when Times Square was created, a lot of property owners give up a lot of property rights to create
Times Square and it end up to be Terry, will you say your name for the record, please? Sorry. Terry Prasad, uh, CEO Prasad Property, Florida Investments, uh, also a resident of Fort My Beach. Um
so when times square was c created a lot of the owners of time square sacrificed a lot of their property benefits to create a time square given up their parking given up their right away in front of their businesses and things like that but it came out to be a beautiful thing now it's washed away
it's gone looking at the rebirth of time square we're asking for 50 hotel rooms and it's a very very small amount if you consider it as a hotel no hotels you are built with less than 100 roads because they cannot
survive. We felt from the testimony you heard from from the uh the comments you heard after a certain time in Time Square, it goes dead. There's no people there. 50 hotel rooms will put about 100 people in there. People attract people
and that's what we're looking for. We encourage all the other owners to put some living space. You need to attract people back into time spirit because we lost so much of our vaccian rentals, so much of our hotels along Eststerero. 50 hotel rooms is very very
minimal. We might end up you know I don't know the financial aspects of it. It you know off season we might end up paying out of our pocket. We all know when we operated business in in Fort Myers Beach August, September and October you had to pay from your pocket.
Okay. I operated for one decade in in time square. August, September, October, I have to keep my staff because if I lost them, I wouldn't get them back. So, we have to put away our profits in December and January, February to make sure that we kept our staff and our
bills going and I know a lot of people, well, it's a, you know, why do you want to stick 50? We only have half an acre. the back end of the bay, you know, the booking on the back bay is a much larger over four acres. Our neighbors across the street are over four acres. Time
Square is a very small area. It's only 330 ft, but yet it's a very very important part of our community. And we tried to be very conscious on the height. We didn't want to go um like some of the other developments, four,
seven, whatever. Um, we wanted to make sure that our hotel rooms was a fair amount. We did a very step back design of our building versus where we eventually come through with, you know, with the building uh facing time square. We pull that 10 ft back and you're
right, Anita. I mean, it reduces our thing, but we felt it was very important to pull that building back to create a wider time square so that when we have activities, you know, we're not blocking up and clocking time square. Now, one of the things that you got to look at is
the town rents us back space into Time Square. So, although we pull back 10 foot, we can come out and rent another 10 ft. But, you know, we wanted to make sure that the folks across the streets from us or across Time Square that only has a lot that's 50 by 50 are able to
rent and if we want to use our 10 ft, you know, for displays and stuff, we don't have to encroach. So we give a lot of thought by operating in time square for so long of how can we make it function and we worked with all the property owners to see how can we make
it function efficiently now. So coming back to your own 50 hotel room. Can I can I go with 30? Maybe. But the purpose of the hotel rooms is to create bring people into Time Square and have people be attracted to Time Square so we can be
successful. And that just mean that 50 hotel rooms when they stay in in that hotel, they'll go across the Tom and listen to his music, have a drink. They'll go down to Buffalo Grill and have a burger. They're not going to stick in my my box. The other thing is all the hotels and all development
that's coming to you, they all have restaurants and bars. So, we're going to be fighting for customers because they all within their footprint have their entertainment, they have their restaurant. So, although we get 200 and some rooms coming back here, 300 rooms coming back, they have their restaurants
and bar whereas in the old days, you know, the the hotels were just small boutique hotels. They didn't have restaurants, but we got the customers in Time Square. So, Uh, please take that instruction. Thank you. Thank you,
Tina. Do you want to sit down with the microphone? No. Okay. I sit all day every day. All right, my dear. Okay. But thank you. You're very welcome. So, Doug or Jim or Don, you're you've commented so far. Any
other questions for Tina? Go ahead. No, Tina. Thank you. I'll do my best. Terry coming back up. Of course. Sure. In that instance, I will sit. So, I think the um conversation, as you've experienced it over the last few weeks, is not the argument on whether or
not the hotel rooms are needed. It's the location that we're talking about, the design of the building, and the height of the building. And all of that is predicated on or or mitigated by the public benefits that we perceive or
don't perceive the town does that are worth it. So I want to talk just for a couple minutes about that if we can. Um for on the record obviously at some point in the future with the town we're going to have impact fees with the development. Are you um willing to state
today that you will pay those retroactively when they come into into fruition as a final ordinance of the town? Absolutely. As you can see, we have already agreed to pay for all portion of the pavers because that has to be rebuilt. Um so yeah, I get the pavers, but I'm
going to tell you in my mind that's fairly immaterial. It's it's consistent with the common that won't make or break the down or this project in my mind, but these other things I think we're talking about will. The other thing that are active conversations is the
inevitability of the inundation that'll happen again with several storms and we've heard recently um through some town council action they're considering putting some wave mitigation walls through that area or at least an opportunity to do that and in other areas like Clear Water. I think the um
accountant or the consultant mentioned it's worked incredibly successfully to protect some of that. So, you own property that would benefit the entire area by having a privately underwritten wave mitigation wall put in there. It's part of your your commitment to the
project. I think the numbers that were in the presentation were 5 to 750 foot square linear foot, I guess. So talk to me a little about your willingness to step up to handle a portion of that and then we can talk to your contiguous neighbors as your example for spreading
out to the town and keeping the expense to the other residents minimum. Good point John. Um so we are well ahead of this. Um I've already talked to all the owners in Time Square. U even the new owner uh Shalomo that uh actually came
to our presentation last Thursday for the first time. uh we met him in Times Square. He's very uh excited about it. Um I think it's a great u thing. I think we definitely need to work through it. I know we have the meeting on May 5th uh where they're going to come back and
give a presentation. I've also reached out to that person from JR Evans Engineering. Um so we definitely need to make sure that that gets implemented in at least in front of Time Square. I also talked to uh uh our elite comm le county
commissioner Mala about it. Um he didn't seem to think it was a great benefit for the the parks, but uh we're diligently working to try and implement that rate law. So maybe a way I can suggest um moving that generation or that idea to
to more concrete is you're proud of and representing being the first to step up and do this. So we can't p peace meal the implementation of something this expensive material to the entire place. So I'd like you to think about whether I'd be willing to upfront the cost of that to get that build in the areas that
Times Square would benefit from and then you could work with the other owners to be reimbursed retroactively to that as they came online had projects that they were protecting. What's your reaction to that? We'll be open to any suggestions. Um, you know, we'll have to go through the thought process and get an actual
cost of it, but again, it's something that we strongly believe in. It's something that we want to make sure gets implemented and it will not affect our construction or start time on on this project u because that's something we
can come and add. Uh, it will take some time to engineer it and get the the permits, but yes, we're willing to work with the team. We're willing to figure out the financing and we're willing to get it built. Well, I'm asking if you're willing to step up to the financing on that as part of the overall underwriting
of the project because I agree the process is going to take some time and it's going to have a lot of risk associated with different members and different owners. But you can't build this until you have enough capacity, if you will, both financially and from a square footage standpoint to make it worthwhile to everybody. So, think that
through. We'll see what the other members have to say, but I'm interested in getting those kind of things nailed down so that when somebody starts this, the first person, it becomes inevitably going to be continued on because they can't have a gap in the wall or it doesn't have a wall anymore. So think
that through if you will. The other thing I would say to you is the way I I look at Time Square in in many ways it's our symphony. What I mean by that is there's all these parts that when they're harmonized or thought through and they play well together, if you
will, um it it sounds like it should. And when anybody's out of sync with that, you get a whole different experience. But every one of those has a conductor, somebody keep all that in place. And I thought where we were going so many months ago when the grand vision was put out there is that there was
going to be a conductor that would help make that happen. That seems to not be the case today. and understand the realities around um mortality and the things that that we've talked about. But what we do here today, we've hired the first musician. We become the conductors
in a retrospect or retroactively, I guess. And I want to make sure we're doing the right thing because this template then becomes the adjacent properties justification for anything going on. So, we look at the FAR and the reason we're pushing on that so hard is that is now the standard if and when we
would choose to do this. And I don't know that we're we're willing to say build time square of the two and a half far. So I just want you to think about that too because to me we're setting something in motion here that will play some song at some some later date that
we all have to listen to for a very long time and I want to see that synchronized. And in that I close with one other thing. um developing something from scratch, bare piece of property you have here and all the logistics complexity to go with
that. Have you done that before? I've not done something this grand. Yeah. And so we have to believe and trust that all those things that are coming and I will tell you that only the context that so many of these other things that have come before us are people that have
either deep experience or direct act resource to this So, I want you to think about how to convince us that that's going to go as you plan and that what is represented will happen in the time frame and in the context that you're representing it when truly this is a venture capital transaction not financially but from a project
standpoint that you haven't done before. So, I just want to get those things on the record for my peers. That's all I have right now. I I can answer that. Um we have Benchmark as our contractor very seasoned and he's here in the audience if you would like to hear from him.
Um and your your other um comment um you know when we came into Times Square and we took over top of Mass is one one of the most um dilapitated building there was. Um,
we brought it from that and you saw the pictures before and and created something that everyone loved in Time Square. You know, we kind of elevated back that experience in Time Square. You know, we created the retail in front and um it was a very harmonious thing in
time square. So, we have been working with every owner in Times Square. Um, even Lola uh Chris Primo provided our architects to come up with some designs for him. Uh you talk about the 2.5 farm.
The only reason why we can get to where we are, we're combining two lots. Fortunately, we own them. They've been together. All the other lots are 50 by 50. Anything below 2.55, they're not going to be able to build anything. And that's why that's why we're being so careful when and again, I I don't I
don't want to have any kind of debate. It's just our own personal philosophies on this. Yeah. I understand what's been going on. I understand the remodeling that was done and all that. Yeah. And I have a real sensitivity to what I call ing words versus CD words. My kids and everybody else around me knows this
about me. Iing words can go on forever because we're planning. We're thinking, we're trying. At some point, we have to have conclusions. Yeah. And ED words create those for us. I'm done. It's happened. You know what I mean? So, I'm going to be listening at the verbiage and our conversations all about moving to those ED words so that we have a
chance to celebrate versus pontificate. I'll I'll stop with that. Ing versus Ed. Any more questions from me? Uh, yes, Terry. Hold still. The You gentlemen have any questions for Terry specifically? Oh, John's taking a deep breath. It
doesn't usually do that. I guess it's not even to phrase it as a question is difficult for me because it appears that the envelope is being maxed in
every quantifiable way, whether it be perhaps not height because you could go higher. However, it's it seems that in far the equivalency factor for the hotel rooms is far beyond anything that we've
considered on this island since I've been involved with the LPA. uh significantly above even the large projects that have been uh discussed and approved here.
Um so for me the equivalency factor um it it it just doesn't seem to make sense in that it doesn't fit with any of the other development that has gone on on this island significantly above it.
Okay. Okay. Um, so to answer that question, we are one of the smallest development that's come in front of you. We're only half an acre. You know, the development on the back end is four plus acres. Development across the street, which is already proven and built, was
over four acres. My side was, I think, 1.5 acres. But Terry, none of that is relative. Yeah. So, you know, people always like to say, "Oh, you're setting a precedent. You set a precedent." it whatever the case the only thing that matters is this particular case right
now. So, so the reason why it seems to be max is because it's such a small parcel and because we want to have you know if you look at the definition of what is uh needed in time square it's retail it's restaurant it's commercial
it allows hotels and creating a mixeduse building um you know we tried to address all those needs for time square and that's why we're trying to get this well I I understand that but in every case we're being asked
to stay within the by right Mhm. balance for public benefit. Mhm. And I I'm not sure what else you could provide in public benefit other than something like a view corridor that might be of interest to us.
Um but it appears in every dimension the envelope is is pushed. I would say it's pushed. We tried to make sure that we stayed within the um the comm plan. Um but you're asking for
a par of 2.5 from 1.8. You're asking for a height of 49 something above. Yes. You're asking for an equivalency ratio of 15.9 14.9 something like that 15.7 and
so the far the maximum allowed in time square the downtown core is 2.5 correct that's the outside limit in the comprehensive plan yeah so I mean so we're we're on the outside limit then as said um but you
know this is going to be the first project built back in time square and the The reason why we asking for the hotel room is, you know, we need to bring back light into Time Square. Have you gone to Time Square during the night
and see how bad it is? You know, um, we're trying to make sure that off season evenings that we have some people in there to support the business, not just my business, the Las and the Buffalo Grills and and Carlos Ice Cream Place and other businesses that's there.
uh after 8:00 you know you can ask one of the business owners I don't want to call names I mean he start cutting his his music back down because he's like there's no customers here you know so I want you guys to look at it from a perspective of what's happening now you
know what we need well I think we're actually looking at it from a perspective of what is going to be there in the future right it's really it's the decision isn't today the decision is what is it going to look like the next 30 years Yeah. And and and and you know
what we put here today, if we don't give it the tools, it will not succeed, you know, because the cost to build back, the cost to maintain the property, the cost to keep the insurance, the, you know, everything that goes into the new construction up is exorbitant, you know.
So, if we don't have the right tools, it's going to be difficult for us to succeed. Jim, do you have anything you want to add? I'll add some some comments without maybe they can be a question or not and reiterate some of the what has already been said.
Um, I do think that according to Jim, according to paragraph six, I do think that it we should be looking at somebody first out of the block to do the repaving, whatever it is, and look for reimbursement so that when whatever
business opens, we have that pizzazz where it doesn't look like it's peace meal that we do that. So I would think that that should be something be considered and then get reimbursed as development happens. But to go to the
point that uh John is making is you're asking for a big lift. This is beyond the top of anything that we've had to deal with. And if you followed our meetings over
the last 6 months, we've talked about public benefits being perpetual in nature and not an amenity. And a good chunk of what you're calling public benefits are either an amenity to
your project or they're joint. They're not just in the public realm. Um the Times Square now is probably 30 feet
wide of pedestrian movement. Adding 10 feet in front of your building, I don't see as a huge benefit. People are going to be walking in that 30 feet and they're they're going to be there
whether it's 30 feet or 40 feet. But what you're asking for, as John said, is pushing the envelope as as large as it can get on this side. And I don't know that I see an offsetting balance with
sufficient public benefits to justify the act. Jane, you have any comments? Well, in the group picture that was put together when people were talking about
doing the whole thing, it was three stories period and that kept everything low and that was universal throughout. But if we start here with four feet and
and uh uh four story I'm sorry, four stories, I'm not um and asking for a 2.5 g warrior ratio that we are going to be maxing out and everybody else is
going to say well we just want to fit in with him I mean we just want to be all at the same level and now we've just raised the whole thing you know two stories and mass and you won't see anything other than this massive building when you come over that's why
we have to be careful about the first one that goes Yeah. And I don't know, I don't think anybody is, you know, not wanting to see something happen and and have something start. It's just that we got to do it right the
first time and that we got to we have to really justify making any big moves. And 2.5 being the top of the of the whole market doesn't seem like a smart thing to do in the most condensed area of where
we need to rebuild. I mean because then then we're we're we're maxing everybody out. So and then everybody around you wants the same. So in our original renderings we had two tree and four stories. It was a step back design, but
in the middle of the, if you look at our pictures again, okay, we did have four story that's in there. I didn't see that. So, um, and but again, as I mentioned, our lots are so small, you know, when you look at the the lots, um, in downtown and in Time Square, 50 by
50, you know, 70 by 50. Um, the beach size are the large larger lots. Uh, so anything below 2.5, none of those lots will work. and those owners will never ever be able to build back. So send the president at two is gonna deter
uh developer someone to touch those lots or develop them because it's not going to work unless they get the if it's not going to work. How is it going to work for you? Uh it's going to work for him because he's a 2.5 and four. Okay. All
right. So let me ask these two other parcels that you have on on St. Carlos. Yeah. What did what is their zoning? Uh so one zoning is already zoned for parking lot. The other one is zoned for commercial. They had the old hurricane restaurant used to be on there and we
have the parking lot. So preon we used to the employees used to park there and come across the bridge so they didn't have to. So are you willing to block those from any development in the future like what was supposed to happen with the pink shell and then they came back and got 40 units. It's other
side of the bridge, right? Yeah. Yeah. Nancy, no. You generally I mean this is a development agreement related to this development, this property. Yeah. But I I want to know where employees are going to park. If there's no parking for employees, then how do they get to work?
Technically, if you're looking at this project, then right there are no employee parking on this project. If you're looking at just this parcel in this project, he's providing an alternative to that, but there's no we can't guarantee that forever. So, you have to look at it really within this parcel.
I have a real hard time with leaving that open to just, you know, we promise we're not going to do that. No, but Jane, I mean, if we we want to function as a restaurant, as a business, I agree. We have the right. I mean, we have the, you know, we have to make sure that we
can accommodate our employees because we're not going to get employees on the beach. They can't afford to $40. So we want to work with other business owners within Time Square and even you know along Olen Towers to create a parking spot and use you know a car and shuttle
bus or whatever because usually we all start our shifts you know morning shifts and then afternoon shift. So if we can align and then the trolley stop on that parcel is right there so they can take the trolley and come over. that I mean we even going to encourage our hotel
guests to park there for free and don't have to worry about paying a valet fee, you know. So for us, again, for us to be successful as a community and and as a business, we have to think of of parking very seriously. The 66 space is not a
lot of space, you know. One quick followup if I could. Sure. Yes. Uh Tina was talking about the time frame. Yeah. um which a lot of developments are are questioning or nebulous about. Can I skip the permitting for a moment because
that's going to be what it is assuming everything applies. When can you start construction of this so that we get our our hope which may not be realistic is to start on our third anniversary of Ian and finish on our fifth anniversary of I mean that you know it's right there is
just sitting at the sandbox every day sitting talking about September 26. Yeah. No, September 25. 25 to start construction. Yes. And be completed by fifth anniversary of Ean. So it'll be the 27. So it's a two-year build in your
mind? Yeah. Thank you. So Terry, I'm going to be very specific. I'm not going to I'm not going to ask any hypothetical questions. Um I I I cannot approve 2.5. You know, the bottom line is if the lot's too small, it's too small. Um, and
to me, this is too small for what's been presented. Okay. Um, I do not believe that the public benefits as you've presented them, uh, justify the addition. Uh, I'll give you a wild I'm going to throw a wild ball at you. What would be a tremendous benefit is a
donation to the town of your other piece of beachfront property adjacent to the pier. That would be a huge public benefit and perhaps would warrant that. You might want to think about that when you go to the town council. But for me at this point, you know, the
uh Times Square business owners were granted an enormous bonus when after Hurricane Ian, we changed the regulation to allow two stories over flood as opposed to just two stories. So this
building right now in my in my mind is larger than anything we ever anticipated just as it would be uh by right by right it's larger than anything we we anticipated. Um, I agree completely with
Jim that this amenity versus public benefit, um, the rooftop, you know, I don't see how the rooftop could possibly be public when it would be a huge, uh, bonus to your business uh, for events
like New Year's Eve or Fourth of July. I mean, if you said that that truly was public and everybody was up there, uh, that'd be an enormous revenue loss for you. Uh, so Uh for me as this stands right now, it's it is very clearly a no.
If a story came off, so take off the whole top floor and put that rooftop now on the third floor instead of the fourth floor. Um and uh then I'd have some place to start talking and then I'd want
to talk about the particulars of some of these drawings like this one in particular. it. You know, when I asked you that question, Tina, I said, "Well, why wouldn't why wouldn't people just walk through here?" And you said, "Well, they could. That's Crescent Beach." Well, Crescent Beach isn't paved. Crescent Beach is sand, and this looks
like pavers. So, I mean, to me, this this property line that you've indicated here does not look like this is Crescent Beach right here. She said they cleared that out. There there's another picture, I think, in the presentation that had f had landscape and foliage in it. I
thought you said Tina that that was just to be able to look at so you could see the aesthetics of the side of the building. So I think that'll be landscaped there. Again, they still could walk through there of course. They still could walk through there. I I I'd also be very concerned about the stacking of cars because as you well
know and I well know what it's like. I mean, because not only do you have a stacking of cars, but now you've got delivery vehicles for not only your business, but the additional businesses that will be coming into the square. That's very concerning for me. The safety factor of driving, you know, all
the cars going in and out of that parking. Maybe it'd be better because you're having valet, so that might be a huge improvement over the condition of the previous parking lot. Um but for me uh even by right it's an intense project
for this for this parcel by right it's an intense project and the increase of I I I mean I don't know how many hotel units are on the second and third floor but however many there are I think could be a pleasant addition to time square
but the fourth floor for me is unknown. Yeah, I would just say I would just say, you know, obviously a lot of work, a lot of money's went into this already. So, applaud the effort, right? Obviously, this is what we want to see at least uh a plan or a path for movement. Um I'm
I'm with Anita. You know, I feel like if we'd have started at, you know, maybe two floors above parking with the rooftop deck, um you know, frankly, I I know what it is to run a business. It'd be nice to have a public rooftop deck, but the reality is it's it's a c it's a ren it's a revenue generator, right? So,
you really probably need that. Maybe there's a way to give up rooms. Maybe we don't get that public benefit or perceived public benefit, but you've got a cash flow, you know, cash flow stream on the on the rooftop, right? Maybe there's something else there. But it just it does feel like to me it's the
sort of pushing of this envelope. I acknowledge it's a small piece of property and you're trying to do something with it. Um, it just feels like we probably went farther than where any of us could kind of digest at this point. If if there's a way to make it economically work, right? Maybe that's
the question is economics, of course, you know, that's not the concern of the LPA. Well, it isn't, but it is, right? If nothing can ever be built there, we have to figure something out, right? And so maybe there's a happy place between sort of, you know, four stories, you
know, with a rooftop deck and and not them, right? because because otherwise it's just sand like you said it's just slaves and sand and and that's why we still you know two and a half years two years seven months to be precise nothing is happening time square you know we
spent a lot of time and effort and um and coming up with a unified plan and then I was like okay let's start building we don't have the funds we don't have the money what can we put that will that will even make the numbers work it doesn't folks so I
understand you know, you we set the precedent for this one, but I've done the numbers for all the owners. I've done the for for Bradford, you know, I've worked with with with uh um Tom at Lola trying to show him the numbers. Um
and the numbers doesn't work. Shalom came in, he bought the first piece, and then he realized what he can build is not feasible. So now he got the second piece at a very very discounted rate and he's still trying to struggle with what he can build. So he's the first one that appro approached me. I mean when I told
him about the wave wall he was excited because they'll take the lower level out of the be into the AE but then you know um I hear you know let's get the papers back. So let's get the wall back. I mean this project cost a lot of money. Okay.
I'm going to be merging on a lot of stuff to put this project back in Fort Myers Beach. That by itself is a huge benefit for our community. U and it's a huge risk. What if we have another category five? We're not gonna do that. Well, not on the agenda. All right.
Well, let's see. Are there any additional questions for the applicant or the staff? Thank you. Thank you, Terry. Tina, did you have anything else that you'd like to clarify? She says, uh Sarah, anything else that you'd like to clarify?
Okay. Um, all right. Anything else you all want to chat about relative to this? Um, Madame Chair, do you want to go through the agreement and um make any notations that anybody may have? I think we did that with um the other
development agreement that we had. I guess my question is is it do we do we have a do we have a starting point, right? Do we have a place to start or you know is the applicant willing to to take some of the suggestions and go back and look at it again? I don't know if that's I'd like to see agreement, right?
And and do what? I'd like to see it come back revised and then we work through it. There's been a lot of feedback provided. My my guess is that it won't come back to us that it will go directly to the town council. Will that be your m Mr. Purs? Would you come back up? That's
what's going to happen. Then let it be. Right. So, uh what Mr. Mr. Dunlap is saying is uh you know we we've made a lot of suggestions and is there any willingness on your part to uh take take heart of those con of those suggestions
and bring back a modified development order to us or is your preference to simply go on to the town council? I think what we would try to do Take quick break. I have a headache. Just wait a minute.
So, it's something that we'll have to consider. Um, and then, you know, we'll let staff know how we want to proceed. Okay. So, I I don't I don't I don't want to go through the development agreement. I don't think any of does anybody else want to go through it? I believe their selection will be to move on to the town
council. No, it's not. Okay. So, hold on. Um, so going back to your resolution. So, your uh responsibilities today is in 3.3.2 public hearing will be held by the LPA concerning said application and the
LPA shall issue a recommendation for approval approval with conditions or denial of the development agreement to the town council. And then the process is basically going to town council. However, you do have the option of a
continuence if if you would like to have them do that. Otherwise, you would need to um approve approve with conditions or deny it. That was my question is whether they had an interest in continuence and coming back with a new but I think he's just said they don't. Okay. Yeah.
We have to know that at this point we haven't made that decision. Okay. Okay. So, no. All right. Thank you very much. Then just clarification under the president's prejudice rule and all that if he does want to come back with the
modified development order if the vote doesn't turn out to be in his does that can he do that before going to town council or modified the development order before going to the town council? Yes. Because again your your decision is not the final decision because you're a
recommendation. Yeah. So he can make any modifications he wants to. So is there a motion? Well, I think we need to discuss what we would like to pass forward in our recommendation to the town council. I
think it's on the record. Yeah. But I think I think we fail ourselves if we don't put some direct things in there to catch their eye in case they aren't listening. Oh, they listen. Oh, yes. I believe they do. I The mayor's been
sitting through every minute of this. Yes, they do. Dan's back in the back. Hi, Dan. I didn't see you. Where are you? Back there. Hi, Dan. Okay. Is there a motion or is there something specific, Jane, that Doug, you're leaning in? I'm just going to test test this.
um make a motion to deny u because the uh variance number one for the height uh we didn't see the justification and variance number five for the
equivalency we didn't see the justification something like that to give a reason so the council has a something to look at floor ratio floor area ratio added too There's two. Can I add that as a result of evaluating the
equivalency? No, Tina, you cannot add anything at this point. I'm sorry. Okay. I was just trying to tie it together. Thank you. Could I ask Doug to repeat that? I'm sorry. The height. No justification for
the height. Yes. And the justification for the uh um deviation number one, the height spoken and deviation number five the uh hotel
equivalency they're related and they're related to the FAR too. Yes. And then adding the F um we can add that it's uh it's an exc sort of derived from the hotel equivalency and the other and the
height. Um you got it. I would make a motion that we deny the development agreement u based on u deviation number one and number five. Uh the
justifications are not compelling. Is there um within your motion is there a finding regarding consistency with the comprehensive plan? Well, the U proposed development agreement is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, I believe. Correct.
I'll second that. Okay. So, there's there's a motion and a second. And uh Doug, you didn't say anything about the public benefit element. Um you said mitigating offset. Mitigating offset. Okay, very good. He said it in a fancy
way. Yeah. Uh uh fancy Doug. Fancy Doug. Okay. Any uh discussion on this motion? Nancy, what he he uh pointed out one, three, and four. Was that on from the deviation? One and five. One and five.
The deviations that I think really control the whole thing. Well, three deviations. But he went on to say one, five, and the FAR. Yeah, FAR is three and then three and four. Just overall inconsistent with the comp plan. So, 135
and inconsistent. They're adding three in there. Is that okay? Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, I think it's four, too. One, three, four, and five. All of them.
Well, we could say all five requested deviations are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. And there's Do you want to Do you want to amend your motion, Doug? Yes. Okay. So, Doug's going to withdraw
your prior motion. Withdraw my prior motion. Yes. and uh make a motion to deny the development agreement uh because the five deviations required are inconsistent with the comprehensive
plan and the apparent public benefit does not pick through with it. Okay, thank you all very much. Five minute break. Thanks. Okay, so Nancy
Do I need to tell them anything? Okay, so we're back and we had a little bit of a glitch. So, what Amy is going to do right now is tell you what how the vote went. And if I may ask um the LPA members if you can just confirm that
after she reads it if that was your understanding as well. Okay. We had a motion by Doug Ecman to deny the proposal uh saying that the five deviations are inconsistent. And then we held a roll
call vote that was by me right seconded by uh Jane Plameumber. The public benefits was not commiserate. Okay. The public benefits were not commiserate perceived public benefits. Yes. Got it.
Um it was held by a roll call vote. All uh LPA members voted for the motion to deny. So it was a 70 vote to deny. Correct. Correct. That is correct. Okay, that's correct. Okay, now we're back all
back on the same page. Hopefully we won't have a glitch for this one. Uh this is our last case of the day and Oh, there's two of them. Yeah. Uh yes, there. Well, it's all it's all wrapped up in one pretty package. Okay. This is
There are two left. One is um DCI 202200035.1 for 1051 Fifth Street, the Lighthouse Resort CPD expanded boundary. 1015th Street and 16603rd Street. An ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving
approving with conditions or denying an amendment to the commercial plan development CPD zoning previously approved by resolution 1817 for the parcel located at 1051th Street. Generally identified strap number
244623 W3 002050060 to add and reszone a parcel located at 1063rd Street generally identified as strap number 244623 W300203.0150 in Fort Myers Beach from
downtown to CPD providing for other clarifications as necessary. providing for conflicts of law, scrier's error, severability, and providing for an effective date, export, any um qualifications, all that stuff. Yes, for the record, Megan
Strahorn. I'm the attorney representing the property owner uh for our expert witnesses here with us today. We have Patrick Baness, who has presented and been classified as an expert on numerous occasions. And thank you, Miss Dupich. We would like to introduce a new member of uh our team. We have Rachel Hansen.
um who we would like to qualify as an expert today. She's also with the neighborhood company. Hi Rachel. Nice to meet you. Miss Hansen. I believe we've qualified you prior, haven't we? No. Yes. For town council but not for I was going to say I don't remember that.
Okay. I do. I remember you. Go ahead. So, Miss Hansen, could you please give a brief um overview of your education, your background, and your familiarity with the Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan and development code? Sure. Uh, good afternoon everyone. Uh, Rachel Hansen. Um, I am an AICP certified
planner. Um, I have a master's degree in community and economic development. Um, and I have approximately nine years of planning experience between um, Illinois, Iowa, and Florida. Well, thank you. Does anyone object to
Miss Hansen being one of our uh, special specialists? No objection. Objection. Thank you. You're official now, Rachel. And um the uh applicant has received a copy of the agenda materials.
Yes, we have. We've reviewed them. Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh Sarah or Judith? Judith. Good afternoon, Judith Frankle with Community Development. Um the first ordinance we're going to go over is the
expanded boundary. Um this ordinance is just to add in um 1063rd Street uh into the existing CPD which is governed by resolution 18-17. So it's a reszone from the
downtown zoning district to CPD. Um the applicant neighborhood company on behalf of the property owner Lighthouse Island Resort is requesting to expand this boundary. Um, the applicant is also requesting to
amend their CPD and the uh, master concept plan under a separate ordinance, which you'll hear in a moment. So, you'll have an better idea of what they're they're planning um, for this property. Uh, the property in question has a future land use designation of
pedestrian commercial um, and is substantially within the um, uh, downtown zoning district. Um, 37 37 I'm going to give you kind of a brief rundown of the findings and
conclusions. Um and then the the full list of findings is contained within the staff report. Thank you. Okay. Um so we're looking at land development code section
34-85B first. Um the main uh takeaway from the review of this section is that the expanded boundary uh is consistent with the town of Fort Myers Beach comprehensive plan. Um the comp plan um for uh in considering the pedestrian
commercial future land use um that land use is intended to be up to 90% commercial in nature. So this is in compliance um with that section of the comp plan um in consideration of land development code section
34-85C. Again the main takeaway of this is that the proposed expansion area um and the expanded CPD is in compliance with the Fort Myers Beach comprehensive plan. U land development code section 34-216B2
um again asks us to consider whether the um the expanded boundary would be in compliance with the comprehensive plan and staff finds that it is in compliance. Um so staff is recommending approval no conditions um and the
applicant is here if you have any questions. Thank you Judith. Any questions for Judith? What do when they switch, what do they gain and what do they lose between the two designations? Well, so to operate the property as a
whole under one um you know unifying zoning, that's really what they're gaining. There's underlying rights under the existing CPD and there's underlying rights under the existing zoning. Mhm.
So, if they're going from the zoning to the CPD, which I understand makes sense, and you know, I just want to know what did they gain by going to the CPD? What did they
what did they give up by giving up the zoning? Okay. So, in considering the the CPD as it exists now and not thinking about what they're going to ask for in a moment, um the structure that's there, I think it's
still there now, um was vacation rentals. Um I don't have in front of me exactly how many units were in there, but by right they would be allowed to, you know, u if they were keeping that existing structure, they would be able to keep those existing units. I think
there's only a handful of units there. Um uh so they would be able to continue operating that as a vacation rentals if they decided to. There is underlying platting which we're going to hear about when we we talk about the the the
request. Um when the town was originally platted um you know when it was still Lee County, there were very small um single family home um style platting there. So there is underlying platting
which may potentially um have allowed them to get more density than what's existing now. I'm not entirely sure because we didn't review for that, but it's going to be somewhere in the same area. So, by allowing them to
incorporate this property um into the existing CPD, it's really what they're they're getting um is the ability to treat it all as as one, project, right? Yeah. And they can use their the density that they have or the density that
they're requesting, they can spread it out over the property, but they have an, you know, a master concept plan they have to adhere to because right now this is not in their master concept plan. So, if they were not to If you were to deny this request, they would have to operate it separately.
Clear? Yes. Okay. Uh, anyone else have any questions for Judith? All right. Thank you very much, Judith Patrick or Megan. Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll keep this very brief. Uh, for the record, my name is Megan Stragorn and although I am not
a Fort Myers Beach resident, I am a resident of of Fort Myers and as a fourth generation Fort Myers attorney, it is my distinct honor and pleasure of representing the Lighthouse Island Resort Incorporated here. This is a very interesting and unique property and property owners. Uh, it's been under the
same ownership since the 1960s. They've undergone a lot of changes uh a lot of issues mentioning the FDOT eminent domain which has cut through their property and they've persevered and are here today. So it is an honor. Uh I
believe I've already introduced everyone uh but for the record again Megan Strik. We also have with us the property owners Mr. Tom Kohler and Tommy Kohler as he's often referred to as I'm going to skip through some of this because Miss Frankle did such a a
nice job of explaining the CPD uh amendments and just to touch on a couple of points that were brought up. The remaining parcel that we're asking to include is only a point to uh acreage in size. It is immediately contiguous. Um and right I'll just skip through. So
this is quasi judicial as you all know and Miss Dupich does such a fabulous job of explaining uh the process for quasi judicial procedures and we're looking for that competent substantial evidence that's what you are looking for uh consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. So I'm going
to turn it over to the callers at this point and give a brief overview if you would. Sure. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Tommy. On behalf of my family, I just wanted to say thank you for your time today.
Tommy, just say your name for the record again. Tommy Kohler, Lighthouse Island Resort. Um, it's my absolute honor to present this project to you and uh show you the future vision of the Lighthouse
Island Resort. Um, like Megan was saying, the uh the property has been in my family since 1961. Um, you know what's interesting about this particular project for me is that every prior generation of Coler has left
this particular project property better for the next generation. And this I'm hoping is my opportunity to do that same for my children uh my brother's children. Um, the uh the picture you see there at
the bottom is uh one that was new to me before this presentation that I'm not sure where Pat found this at, but that's actually my great-grandparents, Clarence and Esther. Uh that's memory lane. Um that I believe
the uh the brochure at the top and Dad, you could contest this. That's probably that was the front lobby if I'm not mistaken. Front lobby of the hotel. Wow. Uh so you know the history of the property is uh really incredible. It's
it's it's great to have that sort of heritage here on this island for the community. Um you know we mentioned the challenges through the years. You know when we started putting this presentation together um a lot of are aerials of the island started popping up
and uh we really did have a beautiful piece of land basically right across the street from the beach. Um the uh state came in, put the bridge in, uh cut our property in half. My
great-grandfather leased what is now the Yucatan out to a gentleman that started the Pizza Hut. I don't know if anyone remembers the Pizza Hut. Sure. Right. So, um, growing up it was always a challenge for me, um,
accepting the fact that we're right next to this bridge and how do you incorporate that for the guests that are coming to stay with you and try to make it less of an obstruction and uh, try to embrace it. Um, and it really wasn't until Ian that
um, I now have a totally different perspective of that bridge because now it's one of our major assets because it blocks so much of um, storm surge, wind. We luckily have Margaritavville on the other side doing
the same. So we we're protected in a way in our own little enclave. Um, and as we go into the presentation, you'll see further how we've embraced that bridge, uh, and really are bringing it in to make it more of a, uh, an area that the
community can, uh, can participate in. And um, and uh, so first three open. Yeah. So, this part goes into um the fact that we always
open the doors up to um people that don't have the wherewithal to go to shelters or that can't leave the island. We always let them stay at the hotel with that lends itself to having people boots on the ground right after the storm to help with cleanup efforts. Um,
so that that goes into um us being some of the first people to open. And you know, let's face it, the Tiki Bar has always been the um you know, the the town hall for people when in their moments of need that they can gather, get together, and
have some fun. And you know, you say that with a straight face. It's uh it's the truth. It is the truth. Um, so what I'm what you'll be seeing here is basically uh it's two year two
years in the making. Um, I really tried to not leave any stone unturned. This is actually the fifth rendition. Um it's the fifth because the prior did so I've got four basically four pillars of my perspective
uh that I absolutely needed to execute on for this project and the first is family. So I wanted to make sure that it um it celebrates my family's heritage. Um it's something that can lead us into
the future. Um, you know, you talk about the CPD. The CPD that, uh, is in front of you today is really, um, who planted that seed is my father. Uh, he's the one that really let started this whole
process 30 some years ago and now it's in front of me to take it into to the finish line. Uh, the second is the business side of it. Obviously, we're we're a business. Um, I'm not going to bore you with why this project makes sense for us or why we need it. Um, the
third is the community. So, it's a very unique, it was very unique for me to structure this project because we are at the heart of the island. Um, we are the gateway basically to people coming on and off this island.
So, I wanted to make sure that whatever we are project whatever we want to build, it's not going to be overpowering in the sense that it's going to make uh you I I don't want you to be I don't want you to drive over that bridge and feel like you're standing next to a
skyscraper. So, we really had to fine-tune what that felt like from the community's perspective. And then the the fourth pillar of that are the visitors and the guests that
uh come to our island um every year. I wanted to make sure that when the dad drives over that bridge that's been working all year to afford the one week vacation on an island in Florida, that as soon as he gets down to that bottom of that bridge,
whatever it is that I build makes him feel like he's just arrived on vacation. So with those four pillars, that is how I really drafted what you're going to see here in this uh presentation today.
Um so you know, just to to leave it, I I put a lot of time and effort into this. Um I love our island. I love the community that we live in, and I really feel like I hit a home run with this project, and I'm really hoping that you
all um can get behind it. and uh and approve it. So, I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you, Tommy. Oh, boy. Good afternoon. My name is Patrick Vaness. I'm a certified planner with the
neighborhood company. Um it's a pleasure to finally be up in front of you this afternoon. Uh and if you guys are wondering how I feel today, I'll let you know. Oh god. I I am tired, but but it's it's only
because we've been here since 9:00 and it's been a long day. Otherwise, I feel great. I feel great because I just found out that after two and a half years and eight weeks of waiting, FPL finally connected my home today.
I feel awesome. But but also I can tell you that I feel really really good about this project. Uh, it's a great project, great client that we're working with and I think Wait, is this you are you establishing a theme for all of your presentations? Yeah, I think so. I think
I want I want to tell you how I feel every time. Okay. Just just so we know. So, just accept the mood. Got it. I got it. This is what we're interested in. I was going to say, so I you know, I know it's been a long day for everybody. Um,
and we're going to try to keep it short. Um, we are fully aware that you guys have read through the staff report. Um, we concur with their findings and conclusion, the recommendation for approval. Uh, we also know that you saw our full packet and we have a chance to
meet with most of you guys one on- one and walk through some details and answer some questions. So, we will indeed keep it short. We've got two requests. The first one is just a boundary change. So, we'll jump right into this and make it quick. So, I'll bypass the history. You
guys know where the location is. This is an aerial of the property. Uh, this is taken um before Ian and before Tommy made some of the improvements that you guys are familiar with along Third Street and those
cottages and did a great job. Great architecture, old Florida style. Uh, but what you see here is the CPD boundary. What's important to note is that the little uh corner parcel at the corner of Crescent and Third Street is not within
that CPD. It is within the resort is is operated by the resort and it it is used for rentals. Uh so what we're simply asking is to incorporate that parcel within the CPD. There was a question
from Mr. bone as to um what this does. It reszones the property from downtown to CPD um like staff to con to to maybe confirm this. But my understanding is right now
by just changing the boundary essentially it is now governed and limited to what can be done on there based on what the current CPD allows. Correct. And given that the CPD does not
show any development for that parcel, I would imagine that that property is non-conforming and can only operate what it is currently operating. So, but you know, we we don't want to limit ourselves. Obviously, there is a
companion application that goes with that and we are making some changes to that CPD and we are showing future development on that property. So uh but uh again to answer the question if you
guys only approved the boundary without the amendments to CPD we would be a non-conforming property. So um next five slides are the current CPD that exists on the property. Um, the
important thing to note on this is that that parcel on the very corner is not included within the CPD boundary. And this is what we're going to be talking about in our next uh presentation is what's planned for the future. This is
the revised master concept plan and um it incorporates that corner parcel and we will be happy to discuss that as our second uh presentation. Um with that said, I'm going to wrap things up. Keep
my mouth shut and um I will just remind you that uh quick recommendation for approval is always appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. Thanks for being Okay, very nice. I'll open the
public comment. Is there anybody here who wishes to comment on this parcel acquisition? Tom, Tom, Circle. Um, maybe I don't understand the hearing. I just want to express support on the record for this project as a whole. Maybe there's two
steps to it. Is that okay? Well, I apologize if I'm jumping the jumping the gun, but you're supporting the whole thing. Yes, I'm supporting the whole thing. I just want to express that it's just uh the right project in the right location, the right people. Um it's just
uh it's uh there'll be an enhancement and an improvement to to the area. Um so, just want to give my whole support for the project. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Anybody else wish to speak? Lori? No. Okay. All right. We'll close the
public comment. Uh, any further questions for the staff or the applicant? If not, may I have a motion, please? I'll make a motion that we approve item GDC12025035.1 15 or 1051th Avenue
Lighthouse Resort CPD expanded boundary. Second question is that staff conditions? No conditions. Yeah. For approval. Okay. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any
discussion? Um hearing none. All in favor? I was trying to do something. N Jim, your vote. I. Who is the second? Jim. Hi, Don. Hi. Doug. Hi, Jane. Hi. I'm an I. John. Hi. Okay. carries unanimously.
Now we're on to part two. Judith, we need to read the title. You're going to And you know what? We're even going to have exparte just for the DCI. Is it an I or a one? It's an I.
It's a one. It's an I. 202500035.2. 10515th Street and 10603rd Street. An ordinance of the town council of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving approving with conditions commercial or denying the commercial plan development
CPD zoning amendment for the property located at 1015th Street and 10603rd Street, generally identified as strap numbers 244623 W3, 00205.0060,
0060 and 244623 W300203.0150 in Fort Myers Beach to amend the existing master concept plan to allow for a an increase in the number of hotel units. B 11 deviations one
minimum connection separation two exclusion of underbuilding parking from F. Three, increase in height for a monument sign on Fifth Street. Four, internal sign illumination. Five, 40 ft height
with four stories. Six, reduction in street setbacks. Seven, mural style sign, east side. Eight, 10-ft monument sign, corner. Nine, mural, mural style sign, south. 10, wayfinding pole sign.
and 11 58% reduction in parking requirements and C conditions providing for other clarifications is necessary providing for conflicts of law scriveners errors severability and providing for an effective date. Okay,
then Judith. Oh, wait. John, ex party. John, you looking for me? Uh, met with the applicant, met with Patrick Vaness. Okay, Doug, I met with Patrick Vaness and Tommy Kohler. Okay, meeting with
Patrick and Tommy. All right, Jim. I met with the neighborhood company of Minneapolis. Uh, I also met with them over a Microsoft Teams meeting. I met with Patrick and and uh Tommy Kohler about this project and um spoke with Tom
Kohler at the dog park about it. Uh good afternoon again, Judith Frankle, Community Development. Uh this application before you um is presented by the neighborhood company on behalf of the property owner, Lighthouse Island Resort Incorporated. They're requesting
to amend an existing CPD approved in resolution 18-17. The requested uh amendment will alter the master concept plan, schedule of uses, deviations, and conditions for that CPD. Uh the main points which are in the
title of the ordinance, but I'll go over them um again just so you have them at the front of your mind is one um increase in the hotel density. Um they're currently approved for 75 hotel units and now they're requesting 130 units total. Uh increase the maximum
height from 37 feet above uh base flood elevation to 40 and a half ft above base flood elevation. Um that's not for the entire property. We'll go over that. That's only for certain buildings within the MCP. Um and then they're revising
their MCP. Uh again, the most recent version had phasing um and we're removing that. So it'll just be one straight MCP governing the property without the phasing of implementation. Um and then modification of conditions
and deviations. Uh I'm sure the applicant is going to go over with you some of more in depth the history of this property. Um I did want to point out a couple things. Um the the most notable, as has already been mentioned, impact to the
property happened in 1977 um with the Florida Department of Transportation with the construction of the Natanis Pass Bridge. The action reduced the property from 32 original platted lots to 20. Um and we'll talk
about what that means in in a minute. Um and the former Fourth Street Court was vacated um to the resort at that time. Um the original lighthouse CPD was approved in 1999 and then there's been
several amendments since that time. Um so the where they stand now as I said is at the 75 units. Um they had originally been approved for 72 units and then they had a um transfer of density in 2018 with that most recent um
amendment to add another three units to the property for a total of 75. Um and there were also an administrative amendment in 2024 to make some uh minor adjustments to the pool deck. So there's, you know, a long history with
this um the property and they've been making changes as they went along to accommodate their needs. Um two things before we get to the deviations that I wanted to point out that are in the analysis is the um uh uh
parking calculation and the hotel equivalency because that is something that continually comes up. um the the because there's been a long history with the property and there's been several amendments to the MCP and
they had this phasing plan in place. Um uh there's a lot of records and information, but we also have some gaps in that as well. Um so I'm mainly going to focus on the 2018 master concept plan because that's what we have as the as
the most recent. Um uh I noted in the staff report the parking calculation that was used at that time. Um they note that there's seven off-site spaces. The applicant feels that they that was a credit given to them. I don't know where
those seven off-site spaces are located. We haven't really been able to determine that. So there's some street parking and the different phases of the project have they're showing different things on the
street parking. So I'm not sure if those that was intended to be the town owned street parking or something else, but the number of those spaces changes depending on the master concept plan and the phase that they're in. So just taking that into consideration
that they were given that um allowance in in 2018. Um at that time they were approved for 75 units. Um and they were uh approved with a required 100 parking
spaces. 93 of those spaces being on-site and seven of them being these off-site which they were given credit for in some manner. Um but anyhow it was recognized at that time that there were 100 parking spaces
to go with 75 hotel units. Um and now they uh are uh requesting 130 lodging units and they're going to have They're
proposing 82 onsite parking spaces. They're asking for uh an allowance for other types of parking they're proposing on site. So, golf cart and uh parking and uh bicycle
racks. Um the code does not allow us to count those. Um and so I've um Uh, in requesting the deviation, um, we've requested that they ask for a 58% reduction instead of a 50% reduction
that they were originally asking for um, to get to the number of on-site proper vehicle parking spaces. So, they they have a I'm sure they're going to explain to you how they're going to make accommodations in that
respect, but I just wanted to clarify for you what the numbers previously were approved of and what they're requesting now. Um, so after parking, I wanted to talk uh a little bit about the equivalency factor for the lodging units. They are requesting more lodging
units. Um uh staff feels that the the future land use of uh pedestrian commercial is accommodating for these additional um this request now to have a greater density um in the pedestrian
commercial and then um in this specific location um because of its um um overall situation. Um even though it's a CPD, it's within the the downtown area of the
town. Otherwise, it would be downtown zoning. Um and its location directly next to the um the bridge. Um however, the way it was presented um is a can appear I I felt could appear a
little bit unclear. And so I wanted to clarify that. What they've done, and I'm sure they're going to walk you through that again, is that they've looked at the original pladding um from when it was Lee County before this was a CPD. And there is underlying platting there
of small single family um I don't they're not technically cottage, but they're they're small lots and they've asked to um well, they're what the calculation is using that density of all of those very small lots
and then multiplying against what would be available there for density um which is uh not improper but I felt a better measure of comparing that density would be to look at the overall units
per acre because then it's easier to make a comparison to other properties and other ways we've looked at uh density and it's can be a useful way of of looking at But in explaining this to somebody who is not familiar with equivalency factors
and density, I think it makes it clearer to look at it in the ways that we've looked at other similar CPDs. Okay. Um so and in their their narrative they've presented it in both ways. So
you can look at their own tables and see both um uh anal So, if you have more questions about that, myself or the the applicant, I'm sure can answer that. Um, okay. So, I'm going to go through
the deviations. Uh, it's important to note some of these deviations are a carryover from the previous CPD and are just to maintain existing conditions on site. Um, deviation one, requests relief from land development code section
10-285A, which requires a minimum connection separation of 125 ft along a local road, which is Fifth Street in this case, to allow a connection separation of 83 feet from two existing driveways. Again, that's a carryover
from the previous uh amendment to maintain their uh existing driveway. Deviation two requests relief from the F requirement of land development code section 34-633 which includes covered parking in the F calculation to exclude the under
building parking from this resort's F calculation. This was also in the previous um uh amendment. That amendment was specific to the actual square footage that they were going to exclude. Um, and
this is more general to everything under the building that's being used for parking is going to be they're asking to be excluded from the F calculation. Deviation 3 requests relief from land development code section 30-5A1
B33 which allows a maximum height of 5T for a monument sign to allow an overall height of 9.7 feet for sign C, which is on the reference on the master concept plan. um on Fifth Street. Uh again, this
deviation was uh previously approved uh under the Oh, this was approved in the administrative um amendment 23-01. Um and now they're adding in the specific height for that monument sign
and they have that's included in their renderings. Deviation four, request relief from land development code section 30-5A1 B1 for internal illumination of the sign faces to remain as existing where they would otherwise be required to emit light only from the letters and
symbols of the sign face. This is again existing uh deviation in 18-17. Uh, deviation five, deviation from land development code division 4, table 34-3 for the CR zoning district, which limits height to 30 feet zoned height
and three stories to allow a maximum zoned height of 40 feet 5 in above base flood elevation and a maximum of four stories consisting of three stories above one level of parking.
Um this deviation um is allowing for a small increase. As I said previously, it was 37 37 feet is what they're approved for and they're asking for 40 um 40 and a half feet as measured um from base flood elevation to the medium
roof height. And the applicant is proposing a range of building heights for the resort. Um the I noted that the um heights were noted on the concept plan. And that's one of my recommended conditions is that when they um uh bring
this forward that they note on the master concept plan specifically which buildings are getting uh which height just so it's clear for uh for the future. Um staff did not find that the additional three and a half feet in this
location which is specific to um building five um would not be injurous to the surrounding neighborhood. Uh building five is the building directly adjacent to the MTA pass bridge.
Uh, deviation six, land development code, division 4, table 34-3 for the CR zoning district, which requires street setbacks of 10 ft to instead allow for build two lines of zero and 6.75. Uh, the existing CPD had approved
deviations for a resort of this size being limited to 32 square feet in total signage um was not reasonable. um and as it has multiple street front images. Deviation 8, uh deviation from land development
code section 30-5A1A, which again allows maximum 32 square feet. This is for uh a mural style sign on the south elevation of building 5 of 100 square feet. Again, I believe the applicant has a picture of this, so you'll be able to see exactly
what that looks like. Um uh staff felt found that uh due to the scale of the resort and the situation of the resort is surrounded by roadways, it is reasonable to permit multiple signs totaling more than the 32 foot maximum
that the code allows. Deviation Nine, uh, land development code section 30-5A1 B33, uh, to which only allows a maximum
height of 5T for a monument sign and an overall height of 10 feet to allow an overall height of 10 feet for the monument sign at the corner of Crescent and Fifth. Um, again, the applicant has an image of that, I believe. Um and that's on the master
concept plan that location. Uh deviation 10 uh is from land development code section 30-816 which prohibits pole signs. Um this is to allow a decorative wayfinding
pole sign at the corner of Third Street and San Carlo Carlos Boulevard. Um again there's a picture of those in the renderings. Uh the deviation is for an artistic wayfinding sign intended to both direct pedestrians and add color to the public realm. Uh deviation
11. This is the one about the parking um land development code section 34-1804A and section 34-2020 which regulates parking for hotels, motel and other accessory uses.
There is um a parking uh table that the applicant has provided that's in your packet. Um uh staff is concerned um about the total number being provided. I know the applicant has some
uh plan to present to you about how they're going to accommodate that. Um uh the existing CPD with 75 hotel units was approved for 100 parking spaces. Um, as I said, seven of those were not on
site, so you can take that into account if you wish that they really only had 93 on site. Um, but now they're proposing fewer than that, 82 spaces for an increased number of rooms.
Um, I I did reach out to um the town's code compliance officer to ask about the general parking situation in the town area. Um, and he reminded me that though there is a numerous lots surrounding
there, um, none of them, to his knowledge, allow for overnight parking. Um, and the the town lots certainly don't allow for overnight parking. Um, and to his knowledge that none of the commercial lots do either. Um, and generally that's to prevent people from
spending the night in their vehicles. Um, and So, in in terms of the the restaurant on site or the tiki bar, um I feel like there's there's plenty of parking. I don't have any concerns about, you know, guests frequenting those establishments
having trouble with parking. Um but for overnight visitors, um I'm concerned that there is not uh sufficient parking. So, that's deviation 11. Um I can come back at the and go through the
findings and conclusions which I think is the the preferred method. I did want to go over the recommendation with you just so you can keep that in your mind when you're hearing their their application. Um as I I mentioned um staff concerned
with the parking spaces and deviation 11 specifically. Um but overall staff finds that the CPD amendment meets the criteria um set forth in the land development code and is compliant with the comprehensive plan and if the LPA
determines that deviation 11 is appropriate staff recommends approval um with conditions. Um thank you Judith very much. Thank you. Later um any questions for Judith right now?
Yes. Um, I raised the same concerns regarding parking when I met with them and I understand that their traffic mitigation agreement they they list some aluristic concepts that could work but
from a standpoint of the staff is there any enforcability for that type of agreement? I mean it just says well what about this this and this? Is there any review what happens if
there isn't any enough overnight parking? So, in terms of the CPD, we're bound to what's in the ordinance. So, if they say purchased an additional property and they wanted to include this in the CPD, then we could include those counts as
well. Um, the some of my, you know, with this offsite and that's not exactly nailed down exactly where that is or or if they were given credit for additional spaces. It's hard
for me to consider those um as part of this ordinance. There is um uh street parking, but it's it's town-owned street parking, so it's first come, first serve, and you have and it's not overnight either, right?
Um if if they have an agreement, I mean that's a possibility that you do a shared parking agreement with another property owner where that's in writing and you provide that to the town. That's a possibility. Sure. If another property owner is able to say, you know, we have
x number of spaces that we're going to dedicate to this use or somebody else has done a no, they have those type of things listed along with, you know, shuttle and bicycle and ra sharing. But the question is, is there any
enforcability to that? Because if it doesn't work, what happens? Right? So, um, this has kind of come up as like an outside agreement that would be outside the scope of the ordinance, right? So,
like, um, the ride sharing, if they were going to do something or they were going to have a shuttle, right, from the airport to the hotel, that's great, but there's not really a space in the ordinance for that kind of thing for the town to be able to enforce it. It would have to be done through some kind of
outside agreement. Um, you know, so I'm I'm nodding my head because we have had this conversation as far as some of these um quote unquote concessions. Um, what I think we could do is to have a condition in the in the
ordinance that says a separate agreement um that would come back, but I don't think it's appropriate to have it in the agreement itself because at that point, as you point out, Jim, it's just kind of aspirational. Yeah. But but either way, I think what I heard
Jim say is, can we enforce that when it's in place? In other words, if that doesn't have to be available because of Fourth of July or some other reason, people can't park on site. Consequence is they park somewhere else overnight, they get towed. So that's enforceable, but we don't enforce it against the
owner of the property because they can only control what they own. Would that be true? Well, sure. If we're towing a vehicle, we're not asking where what they do. They do. I have a a
comment. Um when you think about, you know, a motel, yeah, you need one parking space per room. I get it. But I'm imagining that a lot of people that would come to this resort hotel, they
would fly into town, they would Uber over here. Absolutely. And they would Uber back to the airport when they're done visiting because that's what me and my wife do when we visit like Dallas or some place. Especially for this
Especially for this. Yeah. We don't even rent a cars anymore. So does that I mean, I think I don't know what proportionate guests might do that, but is that something to consider? But it's also an a perspective of operation. I
mean, if the callers are asking for a deviation from this parking, it's because they believe their guests can still be accommodated with without that parking. Otherwise, they'd be creating a horrible self-fulfilling prophecy of of not being able to accommodate their guests. Google reviews. Bad Google
reviews. Exactly. So, okay. Okay. Yep. Thank you. Okay. For the record, uh, Megan Strayhorn, attorney for the applicant again, and I will again address uh, and introduce everyone just since this is a second agenda item. So, I have myself,
Megan Strayhorn from Strayhorn Persons, Mullica, and Fischer. For our expert witnesses, we have Patrick Beness, as well as Rachel Hansen from the neighborhood company. And also with us is the property owners, uh, Mr. Tom and Tommy Kohler. I think Judith did a very good job of explaining all the details
and the nuances within this. So I just want to hit on the kind of heavy points or the key takeaways of what is changing from the 2018 master concept plan to today. So the existing concept plan has five different I could call them kind of confusing phases. So we're removing the
phases. We're having it into be one phase and we're limiting the number of buildings. Yes, the buildings are getting bigger, but we're li limiting the am the number. Um, the hotel rooms are increasing slightly from 75 to 130.
Uh, however, the retail space is being greatly reduced. So, in the 2018 master concept plan, it's 5,000 square feet of retail space. That's being reduced to 500, which is going to uh definitely decrease that traffic and and parking component um on the site. The height for
just one of the buildings, the building five, which if you're looking on the master concept plan is is right contiguous to uh to the bridge. Um right now the the height is 37 ft uh above grade zoned. We're asking to increase that to 40 and a half feet. So, uh, a
slight increase, but I do think that Judith correctly identified kind of the the big contentious point between um I hate using that word, but uh point between applicant and staff is the parking the parking deviation. And we do believe that there are alternative
methods and means as well as support of the comprehensive plan to provide this reduction in in parking. And I also forgot that we do have um a PowerPoint to go along with it. Thank you, Megan. All right. Thank you.
Uh for the record, Pavvenas with the neighborhood company certified planner. I don't want to lose you guys. I I feel the energy is kind of low, but I I I can ask for it's like you've turned into a Saturday Night Live
sketch. I I could really close things and ask for a recommendation for approval once again, but I think I would really do a disservice to my client to the history of this project to the project that they've designed and spent
a lot of time on and and we we gave we gave a slide to Tommy and there's so much he could have said and he he kept it brief and I feel I need to say something and I need add on to what he
said. Of course you do. Um so so I think if you look at the history of this project um what what they haven't mentioned is this family has been through a whole lot uh ups and downs.
It's always been familyun and it's always a challenge when you're a small business owner. Um, but every time they they've met that challenge, they've persevered and they've pushed through. And if you look at the property and what's been improved since Hurricane
Ian, they took these old buildings uh along Third Streets. And they've turned that into something beautiful. And what Tommy didn't explain is the reason it's designed the way it's designed. the the the five fave master plan looked at
tearing those those cottages down and um building that up with new buildings and putting parking underneath. So why we why we had 100 parking spaces as part of the phase five master concept plan was because there was going to be parking
under there and they gained parking. But what Tommy did is after the storm he made a a very big decision of how do I rebuild? What do I want to do? and he decided to rebuild that back part under the 50% rule. And the reason for that is
because he could rebuild and keep that old Florida cottage style. And and part of it is he knew the the the resort was would evolve. It would look a little different, a little more contemporary, but he really wanted to keep that feel and kept keep that old Florida look and
design that we're we're losing very quickly because of this storm. So So that's important to know. Uh, also it's important to note that and and he didn't talk about the reason why he needs more density, but
every time they've had to face these challenges, they've always always looked to the future and said, "How can we improve this property? How can we make it better?" The fivephase master concept plan was that idea of they were going to keep improving incrementally. Well,
Hurricane Ian kind of threw a wrench into this and they had to to really move quickly. But this idea of always wanting to improve, always making incremental changes is at the foundation of what they've always done. But they they end
up plowing a lot of money into this. They they they're not even back to full capacity. They've actually lost some other rooms that are up not up and running. and they invested a ton of money into these cottages along along Third Street. So, you know, why are the
extra uh units needed? Because they want to ensure long-term viability. They want to make sure that when Tommy passes on uh the resort to the next generation, they've got that critical mass that's needed to have a strong and viable
project. But what they're also doing is they're improving the amenities as part of this project as they're moving forward. You know, you're going from from a project that had one smaller pool and Tommy told me stories about he grew up swimming in that pool and it means a ton to him. But they're adding two new
resort pools. And the back portion what he's explained to each of you and and what was very dear to him was Tommy's a young dad. He had children and you realize all of a sudden that you thought they were family friendly, but then when
you had kids, your perspective changes quite a bit. You want something that's secure, something where a pool, you you want that zero entry, you want the bubblers, you want all these things that that make uh the resort more familyfriendly. And that's really what
he did with that third street component with that new uh kind of kidneyshaped pool with that nice deck zero entry. So I just wanted to, you know, heathen toot his own horn, but I really wanted to make sure that you guys heard it. Um,
also, um, and and I'll touch upon this a little bit, the the we talked about parking. I've got a slide about parking, but I I I just want you guys to understand the the credit for the parking came about because as you guys
know, prior to Hurricane Ian getting anything approved in this town was very challenging and they went through some different iterations and as part of asking for amendments to their uh zoning, they had to give. And one of the
things that they did is along Fifth Street, they provided a sidewalk on their property. And and it's very hard to figure out all the history behind this because there's been so many changes. I wasn't able to get a hold of
Beverly Grady that holds all that history. Anita might remember some of it, but but my understanding is is when they when they built that sidewalk on their property, there was on street parking there and as part of that
amendment, they got credit uh for that on street parking. It's not theirs exclusively. It's open to the public, but they got a credit on their parking count. Uh it's also my understanding that through those amendments they u provided the sidewalk along Third Street
and also when they went from 72 units to 75 units the way they got those additional units was they actually purchased the property right in front of Bay Oaks where our new entrance of Bay Oaks is and they donated that parcel to
the town and they took those three density units from there and they transferred that So, so again, Tommy didn't go into it, but I I think those are all um contextually important and really uh gives a little
history as to why we're here and why they're asking um for this next phase and and that uh next next iteration of uh this project. So, just some key points. and don't want to belabor this too much, but uh the history is very
important, the context, the location. We don't need to go into a ton of detail, but we know this is our downtown core. This is an appropriate location, and uh this makes sense for that exact spot. Uh when it comes to public benefits, um we
believe that the benefits that are being provided are commensurate with again the context. uh they've lost an acre half an acre of their property. They're limited with the size, but as Tommy said, they're embracing what they have and they're making the best of it. So, what
they're providing and we're going to go through those benefits, I think, is commensurate with their ask. And um I've got a slide and we'll we'll show you what is being proposed. And without going into a ton of detail, I've got a bunch of extra slides. What I'm going to do is I'm going to walk you through the
renderings. I think the renderings uh speak very loudly as to what is being proposed and um the rest I can buzz right through and you can ask me some questions. So location, you know, this
is a uh before picture. This was um before the storm. What's important to note on there is you can see there's different uh roof lines, different colors. Um the two buildings closest to
Matanzis uh bridge is where a new building is being proposed, building number five. Um also at the corner of Third and Crescent, this is the uh property that was brought into the CPD
on the previous uh petition. Uh there's a new building also, building one that is proposed for that. Uh the rest is really a reconfiguration of what's existing there, unifying everything, having a common architectural theme, and to me beautifying and improving the
property. Hey Pat, do you know or have any idea how high the bridge is, where it hits building proposed building five is? Um I don't know the exact height.
Um, but with our renderings and and I'll show the renderings. We can make a a a quick assumption or or kind of try to gauge it. Yeah. We um building number five is going to go from zone height and
I'll give you both zoned and actual height. So, a zone height of 37 feet. That's currently approved. It's part of the uh the the zoning approval. and they're asking for three and a half extra feet. Um, and and I'll go through
the reasons why they're doing that. Um, and the actual height is again going to go up slightly. They're going to be at 52 feet 9 in. And what you can see from the renderings is they're on the down slope of the bridge. the bridge is a
little lower in the buildings, but you guys also know that when you're currently driving down that slope, those existing buildings that are there are are taller than that building. So, there's a a slight difference the the differential. Uh if you guys have to guess, are we talking about 20 feet?
Maybe 25 25 that that's just our estimate without measuring it. just gauging it from from their experience and and the um the exhibits, the renderies we have. Um so I'll skip through that, but but again like I said, mostly a reconfiguration. Buildings one
and buildings uh building five are identified with a red boundary because those are changing. Those are new. Everything else with the orange boundaries on those buildings are remaining the same. Um, also want to point out that the
cottage buildings along Third Street, uh, while they're relatively new, they are a reconfiguration to what was on the existing master concept plan, uh, Tommy decided to recon to to to save those
buildings, reinvent them, gut them, and start from scratch. They are familyfriendly. They've got porches overlooking the pool. They've some of them have bunk rooms for the kids and that pool deck is much bigger than what was envisioned u when when this was the
I believe in 2018 was that last master concept plan amendment. Um so while we're not asking to reconfigure that it's important to note that that was done after the storm. So I'll jump right into the
renderings. We are looking at the new building number one here. It's a view from the corner of Crescent and uh Fifth. Um what you see in the foreground is the new monument sign. Um so we're
asking for a deviation for the structure itself, not the sign face. And again, we think it's it's beautiful. It's in keeping with the architecture. It it really um kind of provides a nice welcoming
entrance to the the project. Also want to point out that the uh building is three stories, two stories above parking. Um the idea and and we'll go into the other slides here that show the
building a little more. Again, angle from third from the corner but a wider view. And this is looking from Third Street towards Crescent. So what I want to point out is again
um they spent a lot of time, a lot of effort on the design. They hired a really good architectural firm uh MHK that specializes in coastal and cottage design. Um they've got a comp contemporary coastal look. It's
sophisticated, streamlined, uh nice uh uniform color palette, and they bring in splashes of color with the railings. And as you'll see with louvers, u with some murals that they want to put on there, but the idea was to keep that building uh a little lower, only two stories
above parking. Again, they they understand that third street is a heavy pedestrian cyclist corridor. So is Crescent. So keeping the building human scale and and not make it uh
overimposing uh along the sidewalk. Um, the intent also is to landscape that corridor and to find some pockets in there where they can have some shade trees and this a bench there where people can take uh take a little break
and uh sit down um during the hot summer days. So, the next one is is just a slightly different angle, but we see on the left side uh that new building number one. We see the entrance to the building with the parking underneath. Um
just be aware that um that entrance is one of the deviations. Also, it's a um deviation for the separation requirements to the corner of the street. Uh we think it makes a lot of sense and there was an existing uh deviation very similar to that
previously. Um this is a view from that new pool deck. Few things I want to point out is dead center is uh that new building number one to the left we have those refurbished cottages with those
balconies uh those colorful railings. Um right in kind of the the the corner a little bit where you see the the little tiki bar uh serving uh that um that deck area and that new pool. And to the right
is the existing uh building that's right there. And uh want to show how all this is being tied in to really create a nice resort feel, nice tropical feel. Um, one of the things that that uh right
away when we started looking at this project and looking at making improvements, um, we were looking at what can we do on the site or in this case slightly off the site to provide a public benefit. Um, so this is the space
uh between the existing resort and the bridge. So, what the wall the wall you see on the right side is the existing bridge and right now that's kind of a dead space. Um, if you guys have been there, a lot of people cut through it and walk through there to get to
downtown. It's not very inviting. It's not very safe. So, the idea was how can we create a great place uh and and something that that not only is attractive, convenient, but it's practical. If you look at the comp plan,
there's this concept of creating hidden paths and this it's one of them this this idea of of uh enhancing walkability connectivity in the downtown. So what this does is it creates a pathway from
the base of Matanis Bridge and brings you all the way to Third Street. Um, so what what this would essentially do is anybody that wants to go on and off the bridge doesn't have to go to that major intersection at the bottom and deal with
that new um pickle roundabout that we have. And uh they they can they can just go on and off uh the bridge, walk through that pathway, connect to Third Street, connect to downtown. So, I'm not going to belabor this, but we the idea
was create something beautiful, create something that's family friendly. Also, I just want to point out the wayfinding signs right there. That's a deviation. Also, the idea with those wayfinding signs is if someone walks up that pathway, it'll point out some other venues downtown, the the bayfront, all
that type of thing. So, it'll be it'll be fun. It'll be interesting, but it'll also be practical. Patrick, um, one thing I I'm just noticing now is I don't really see any lighting for that pathway. Is there a plan to do any lighting? Yes. Um, these are just uh,
you know, conceptual renderings. The architects don't always think of every single detail, but the idea is to make it safe. Yeah. So, lighting um, most likely more the the Ballard kind of lighting, low uh, you know, low level. It's a little sketchy through there right now.
Something that makes it safe. um and and also makes it inviting. Um one of the things that we need to point out is uh this space is public rightway u belongs to FOT. Uh so the understanding is that
of course we'd have to work with the town. We believe the town would support this. Again, it's it's in the comp plan. It's it's these hidden pathways we want to create. Um but but the callers are committing to uh if we get approval from FDOT to build this and to maintain this
in perpetuity and to create a very inviting family-friendly place. And um you know Tommy sees it not only as something that makes sense he wants to do, but he also sees it as this is a great benefit. It ties in to what he's
trying to build at the resort. Make his resort familyfriendly, but extend that offsite a little bit and and create a a little rest bit for families that want to just let off some steams and bring their kids there for a for maybe, you
know, quick walk and and maybe spending a half an hour and having a little fun with the family. But while you're waiting the 10 years for FDOT to get back to you, you can go ahead with the project and all other components should be approved. Is that right? No. Yes, we can move forward with everything else.
Um this is um from from the middle of the project uh that driveway that comes right into the project and separates kind of the the new pool with the existing park. This is new building uh five that you
are seeing there. Um, what I want to point out is this building is four stories, three stories above parking. But what that extra three 3T 5 in allows us to do is it allows us to
fit an extra story in there and to actually have um 10-ft ceiling heights in there to to provide something attractive, something that is consistent with today's norms. what visitors expect. And what it also
does is that extra height allows us to provide slanted architectural roofs. And we think that's important. It's a way to make it an attractive building as people uh enter onto Fort Myers Beach and and see it right from the bridge.
Um th this rendering is really to show kind of the facade and and and to show how um they've brought in that splash of color through some of those elements, the railings, the louvers, and they want to provide some murals. Again, they they
want this to be uh elegant um nice uh kind of comprehensive color palette that will apply to every single building, but they want it to be colorful and have those splash of colors. Um this is um
the very point as you're coming down the bridge. It's building five that you see in the background and at that point is uh an elevated pool. It'll be on the 200 level. And if you look um just behind
the pool, you see some sliders over there. That would be their proposed uh sitdown restaurant um and wine bar. It would be configured in such a way where it could be opened up and they could have wedding receptions there, different
types of receptions. And people could uh lease out the pool deck also and and and make it a great venue for some uh events. Uh but again, the theme um I think Tommy was thinking of three design
themes and um for his um his resort. Again, familyfriendly towards Third Street. The middle is what we all have uh been accustomed and and we know and we love is the fun lively tiki bar. And
then you're going to have building five that's going to be a little more sophisticated, nice sit-down restaurant and again a nice offering for both residents and guests of the resort. Uh this is a view from the bridge. Again in
the foreground what you see is that new building number five. I want to point out that that sign that you see on the wall, that's the deviation we were asking for for that uh wall sign. U and what you see in the background is you see Margaritavville and to the right
side views of the uh Gulf. Um slightly more elevated again from the bridge but looking down on the property. things I want to point out is um want want to show that this
architectural theme has been carried through the entire project. So even the existing uh buildings are going to have a facelift. It's going to be common metal roofs throughout. Um same color pallet. Uh also new landscaping tying
everything together. So landscaping along the bridge, but also landscaping around that new pool and that new pool deck. Uh this is a similar aerial view but from kind of the Margaritavville area
perspective and what you see in the foreground is that existing building really showing how what is being proposed is in scale and really uh ties into what's existing and really looks like a nice cohesive resort. Uh, I just want to point out that the the sign
along that wall where the the pool is, um, the architects took a little le liberty. They made the sign way bigger than it's actually going to be. That sign is going to be like the other one I showed you. Uh, no more than 100 square feet. That's that's that picture, Jim,
of the base of the bridge. What you see what you'd see. You'd see that whole pool at the base of the bridge. It's interesting. Uh, and again, Tommy touched upon when when people come down that bridge and they drive into Fort Myers Beach,
they're going to see that pool deck. That pool deck is going to look uh like a nice resort uh lounging area with colorful umbrellas, and he wants people to feel like they're on vacation. And I think he's really captured that. Um this
again uh aerial view from above. Uh but this is at the corner of Crescent and Fifth. And again it's it's a good view to see what they've refurbished those um cottage buildings along Third Street and
how everything really ties in cohesively together. Um and this view is from the base of the bridge. Um, and what you can see is is on the left, uh, you've got the bridge, on the right you've got Margaritavville. Uh, like Tommy
explained, they've embraced kind of that wedge they're in and they've made it really work and they've designed something that is accustomed to that property and really fits in within the context of a bridge to one side and um,
a resort on the other side. Um, so this is the final rendering. Uh, it's the same image that we had at the beginning, but this shows you the new building number five, new building number one, and really shows you the
overall aesthetics concept and how everything ties in together. Um, so what I'm going to do is I'm going to quickly touch upon the major issues that we have for every single project on Fort
Myers Beach. First one is height. So what I want to show you there is what we have in orange is our zone height. So it's from base flood elevation plus the allowed freeboard and
we are going from 37 feet to 40t 5 in. And then our agile height which is measured from average grade to the very top of the roofs and that's 52 feet 9 in. Uh we believe that uh those three
feet five inches extra uh creates great benefits from being able to uh put in the additional units, that additional floor and really create an attractive building with uh nice architectural roof lines. So Margaritavville is 54 and you
are 40 52. 52. Jane, I know you had asked us the question. We did our very best to find out the actual height from Mark Reedville. We even reached out to staff. I don't I don't think it was 54, right? Yeah, I asked. Okay. 54. So So I
guess I'm comfortable with that. We we saw different different plans from zoning to as built to architectural plans that had different numbers. So we weren't sure how those were measured or exactly. So um but we we are consistent with what
they have and I think it's it's uh it it it's very complimentary to each other. Uh this is building number two. U we don't really need to go into too much detail on that but it building number two uh is not asking for additional height. this is consistent with not only
the existing zoning but um you know base downtown uh heights that are allowed throughout the downtown. Um the other big issue that always comes up is density and um I do want to touch upon
uh how we measured our density and what Judith uh brought up. So what you have in your packet, I think we have a page and a half talking about density and we wanted to be very transparent. We provided comparisons to
other projects that have been approved recently. Again, we know that this project stands alone and we have to justify what we're asking for on our own merits, but it's to give you some context and and kind of gave you give you a gauge uh for comparison purposes.
So what we did is we started with a base density of 20 planted lots. And the reason we use planted lots is because we have um got a weird arrangement in our land development code where we start with
residential density and then we convert that residential density into allowed hotel units. Not many places do that. So, if you're going to be fair, we think that we have to look at what is vested
from a residential density standpoint. And our code allows people to go back and look at what was planted and ask for a minimum use determination, which would allow them to put one unit on each of those planted lots. So, we view that as
vested units and that's our base. We start with 20 planted lots. Um, as mentioned, they used to have 32 planted lots, but the uh government came knocking on their door and um asked for their property, and I think we all
benefit from that. We we we got this this bridge, and we've got uh views from that bridge that weren't there before. Um, so we start off with 20 planted lots and then we multiply that by 6.5 and
that gives you gives us 130 hotel units. So that's an equivalency ratio of 6.5. Um, I just want to point out that that has also been done for me and it also has been done for Neptune and we
think it's appropriate again because we have a system where we look at converting density Um but also in contrast, Margaritavville and the Arches that came before you um
just a few weeks ago, those properties were mostly commercial and didn't have those pre those planted lots. So the base density was generated with what's allowed in the comp plan of six units per acre. So whatever and and both of those projects have multiple acres. So
what you had as a base was six units per acre. multiply that by the acreage, you get your base, and then we generated what that equivalency ratio was. So, we think it's very clearly explained in your packet. I'm not going to belabor
it, but you have multiple comparisons and I think you guys can kind of figure it out and see what you find appropriate. Um, when it comes to transportation, I'm not going to belabor that one either, but um, I was a little surprised by this
and um, I'm very happy it came out this way. We did a TIS when our transportation expert ran uh, the numbers and the trip generation. Um what they found found found out is that by eliminating that 5,000 square feet of
retail which generates a lot of traffic um we actually have an overall decrease in trips for the project and all I'm showing here is that you know peak hour total trips uh a decrease of 26 u trips
per hour um and then the TIS conclusion is that um the project will not place an undue burden on our roadway system. The TIS does acknowledge that we have a congested roadway system. U but what it's
basically saying is this project is already approved for a certain number of trips. We're actually reducing it. Uh therefore no net increase. Um this brings us to parking. So, as I mentioned, uh the reason that
the parking was slightly higher in the previous iteration and approval was that uh all the buildings along Third Street would have been uh demolished, rebuilt with new units with parking underneath. That brought the resort to 100 uh
parking spaces. Uh when we initially submitted, we were asking for a 50% reduction. um staff asked us to correct that and ask for a 58% reduction. We agree with them. We concur with that um that
assessment. Uh the difference is uh between the 58 and the 50 uh% reduction. With the with the 50% reduction, we're adding in eight golf cart parking spaces. We're adding the credit for
seven parking spaces that we talked previously about. and we were adding uh credit for uh bike parking two spaces there. That was bringing us to 99 spots and that would have been effectively a 50% reduction. Um either way, we've
looked at this uh with Tommy. Uh what Tommy has explained to me and they they've been operating that hotel for a very long time is back in the 80s and 90s um typically we would our visitors the typical visitor was someone from the
Midwest driving down with their family and staying here for for maybe a week or two or three weeks and um that's changed significantly and what they're seeing now is people come in for a much shorter
day and a lot of them Uber or Lift to the resort. And what he told me from their experience is maybe nine out of 10 visitors had a car previously and that number's dropped to probably four or five out of 10 that now have vehicles.
So they feel comfortable that they have sufficient parking to address their needs. Um, but we we do acknowledge that should there be an issue in the future as they build this out, there's a bunch of solutions that can be applied. They can do valet parking and stack vehicles
and get more parking. They can use uh those car lifts again in uh under the buildings to get more parking spaces and they can do um shared parking agreements with uh off-site parking. Um, we've also
talked about uh that when you look at the need for parking for a hotel, a big portion of that parking need is for your own employees. So, what Tommy explained to me is they for their salvied
employees, they currently have incentives to um entice them to not bring their car on to the island and to use lift or Ubers. And I think the idea is uh should that ever be needed in the
future. Um you know, I think there was mention of a shuttle. Uh this is a smaller uh resort. It's it's familyun. they have a lot to look at. They have to be the HR person. They have to be the maintenance person, the booking agents
and and for them to maintain uh transportation and ensure that proper shuttles are happening. It's just not feasible for them. Uh if there's a broader program, they'd be happy to join in, but I think what Tommy was suggesting is I I'd rather uh help my my
own employees out with Uber and Lifts rather than than have to maintain vehicles. So, so I think uh we feel comfortable that we have sufficient parking on site to meet the demand, but should we get to the point where um they
need extra parking, I think we've got ample solutions. Um and that's where I'm going to speed things up for you guys. Okay. When it comes to consistency with the comp plan, I am not going through those slides. Staff has said that we are consistent with that comp plan. We concur with them. We're going to breeze right
through, but we do want this to be part of the record. Um and then uh when we jump those slides right there when we jump to the uh compliance with the LDC and the CPD evaluation criteria, same thing. We concur with
staff's assessment. We agree that we meet those requirements. Um and I will skip right through that. We've already talked about location site design compatibility. Again, I could spend hours on this, but I'll spare you those
details. go right through. Um and we I just want to touch upon the public benefits a little bit. So while um the big public benefit is going to be for developing, paying and maintaining that pathway, um you know, there are other
things they're trying to provide on their property. Again, it's a limited property, but I think they they've done a good job as um in providing something commensurate to the ask. So, they're going to provide some uh shade trees and landscaping along Third Street. They're
going to provide bicycles for their guests again to promote uh biking and walking. They're going to provide bike parking. They're going to participate in the DRA program. They're going to provide golf cart parking. They're going to promote and uh support the elementary
school. and if their employees need flexible work hours to bring their children to the school, they will participate in that effort. And um also I think just from a design standpoint and and don't take this as me saying
that it doesn't benefit them, but Tommy's got this vision of of being more familyfriendly and and I kind of see that as a benefit because they could develop anything they wanted there, but they're they're choosing to develop something that will be enticing to
families. and we call ourselves a familyfriendly island, but when you really think about that, we we've lost a lot of those family-friendly places. And um I think that contributes to it and and I think hopefully it it kind of sets
a standard for other resorts to want to do the same and and to really attract those families. So I see, you know, uh you don't have to put a lot of weight into it, but I I really wanted to throw that in there. A quick question on the um FO easement. that's back there. Does
it come all the way up to the building? So, yeah. So, so that building is a zero line essentially, zero set back. Um, current conditions actually their parking lot extends a little bit into the rightway. So, they'd be cleaning that up and getting rid of that. Yeah.
So, just just on that, you know, maybe something to think about you, since it might take Jim's 10 years to get approval, you could still light it up. You could still provide above public benefit for safety, right? I mean by by attaching lighting to the building. So that might be something that Yeah, for
sure. In as they're rebuilding building five, they would definitely make that a a safe attractive space for everybody even if F DOT hasn't given the okay yet. Even if it's not a developed path, I think it's it'll still be a path. Yes, for sure. I think uh I think Tommy's
telling me yes. And and uh we feel comfortable bringing that forward to council. Um, when it comes to the commitments, um, you've got that in your packet. Uh, a lot of it has been, uh, reiterated in the conditions in the staff report. We concur with all those
conditions and agree with those. No need to discuss them. And, um, deviations. Uh, same thing. I'm not going to go through every single deviation. The only thing I want to point out is the approved, uh, CPD has And Rachel,
correct me if I if I'm wrong. 17 deviations. We've actually reduced uh the deviations. A lot of of it was associated with signage. Some of those signs no longer exist. And a lot of those conditions also are existing deviations that have been modified. As I
went through the renderings, I think I hit upon um all the more significant ones, which signage, height, and parking. So unless you want me to touch upon any other deviation more detail, I will just breeze right through
this. And then um I I do want to bring up this slide again. Um you guys are getting used to seeing this. This is the very latest um update from the visitor bureau, April 7th. Um and we are at
49.4% capacity. Um when it comes to the number of rooms that we had prein and what um has been put back um this does include anything that was built after the storm. Um it does not include other
projects that have been approved. Um with the previous hearing I heard some of the computations of what where we might be. uh we're still significantly short of that total number that we used to have and we think that um the
additional units that we are asking for is um not a big addition to this. I think it it makes sense, but I I think it will contribute to creating that critical mass we need downtown to really
re-energize and reinvigorate that downtown and make it that one-stop destination that we really want and that park once downtown that we've envisioned uh for a very long time. Um so with that said, you guys have seen seen the staff
report. We concur with their uh findings and conclusion. um more specifically that we are consistent with the comp plan with the LDC and the evaluation criteria. We concur with their recommendation of approval with conditions. My professional planning
opinion is that we are indeed um consistent with the comp plan and with the land development code. And with that said, I respectfully request a recommendation of approval from this
body and um if I've missed anything um Megan will chime in and we are happy to answer your questions. Thank you, Patrick. I just have two very quick points uh requests that I want to make sure that I get onto the record. Um
first that for this second agenda item, Mr. Venice is our expert witness. uh so I would proper him to be our expert witness and also the PowerPoint presentation that has been presented is one PowerPoint presentation with both presentations included. So for the record slides one through 17 pertain to
our first agenda item and 18 to 42 go to this agenda item. So it asks Thank you very much. included indeed. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh public comment. Is anybody here to make public comment on this
case? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment. Uh, LPA members, questions for staff or the applicant? None. None. I still have a bit of an issue with parking. I mean, I worry that, you know,
50 3% 58% reduction in parking is a lot. Um, and When I met with Tom Corguson, you know, he told me he had 200 spaces on two different locations for his employees
parking and stuff like that. I think we're we are in a big deficit on parking and we keep cramming more into Time Square and and that area and I think that we're going to have to start, you
know, really trying to figure out how you know, these places are operating because we really can't just leave it up to May I make a comment on this? Yes, go ahead. About Jane's uh after midnight. Yes. That that is but that's intriguing.
Yes. Very intriguing. Um so I I really don't share your concern about the parking especially in this location. Um because um I I do believe that many people will Uber in. Who wants to leave? Who wants
to pay for a car? Who wants to pay to park a car when you can for 40 bucks take a shuttle? Can't drive it anywhere anyway. Exactly. And in that specific location, you really are walking everywhere. That's right. Uh, and I
actually uh I have such an incredibly fond memory of New Year's Eve after the storm. My family was all here for Christmas and Tommy's Tiki Bar was
like the uh the cantina from Star Wars. It was the only lit up thing in that whole area. and we wandered onto it and there certainly looked like a bunch of freaks that were hanging out there. But we had a wonderful rainers
everywhere is how it goes. Yep. Yeah. That's that's my comment. Other questions or comments? Just a comment. I Yeah, I share some parking concern, but I also think that the uh the applicant will take care of it for their business if they need to. They'll either put lifts in, they'll they'll offer a
airport shuttle, they'll offer incentives to get people to Uber. So, um, yeah, I share the concern because I do think we're kind of building up to something here on this island and, uh, certainly, uh, whether it's for employees or whether it's for for guests, but, um, but I do feel like we
have an applicant that'll, uh, will remedy the situation if it presents itself. Judith, can we keep, uh, can we just say as a matter of record, include all of your recommendations in the um, I mean, what you were going to get up and talk about the deviations. Can we just
say they're part of the part of the record? Nancy. Um, yes. I I'll go along with it for now that that you all have read them and and you don't have any questions. So, that's why I'm asking if there are questions so Judith could
answer them, but otherwise I don't think we need them recited. Okay. I would like to add two things. Sure, please. That wasn't to cut you off. That was just Sure. I'm I'm happy to be cut off. Um I did want to add what I heard
in the conversation about lighting of the path. Yes, we can add that as a condition at the time of development order that they include lighting of that the FDOT um pathway um as part of their photometric plan at time of development order. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. So I
will add that to the the conditions. I would also suggest the um Pat mentioned the possibility of um valet and doing uh stacking and also of lifts. Um I would suggest potentially um uh looking into
whether there the proposed height of that garage would allow for lifts because then there would be enough space to add them at some future point. But if it's you know conceived of now as being too low then that prevents that. So that would be a useful uh piece of information. Um and also because that
would essentially double and then we would know what that number would be um if need be. And then for valet what number they thought that they could get to if those were so that would be useful information for them to take on to the town council because they kept I would
suggest that. Okay. But it would also require raising the height of the building. Well, I don't what I'm saying. I don't know. Maybe not. Just know no SUVs. I mean, if there were just sedans, I don't know what the height to do the Yes. To do the the the parking lifts.
That's what we saw with the previous development. So, I'm not sure what the height requirements of for those lifts, but maybe what they're proposing is accommodated there, but they could perhaps do those calculations and so they'll have that in. Okay. Thank you very much, Judah. Well, they work after.
Okay. Any other questions or comments from staff? I have I have a couple of comments. Go. Okay. First, I I want to distinguish this application from the previous one. And this is already a residential
property. It's not a commercial property. It already has uh hotel units in it. By demolishing some of the buildings and rebuilding them to new standards is a
benefit to everyone, not only the owner, but to the town as well. The additional height is built in next to an elevated bridge already. So that that diminishes the heights. It's a
unique property. Um and there only one of the buildings is seeking any deviation in height. And from the public benefit standpoint, installing 446 feet of
lighted sidewalk as an alternative to getting to the bridge for pedestrian and bikers, I think is a large public benefit. And uh as far as the parking goes, they'll have to figure it out. You know, if it doesn't work, uh they'll
know it first. They'll they'll do something to make it work. So bingo. You might want to make comments. You might want to add the uh equivalency factor is less than half and the FAR.
Um and my on the regarding parking, I'm I'm not concerned about parking. There you go. Would I do what? Unplug. Yes, I certainly will. You're jumping the gun, but okay. Okay. Anything else? Just want to add
one more comment about the lighted pathway. Assuming the the resort will have security, you know, cameras may be good for that as well because that's a deterrent for safety. You know, just as a thought. Again, I'm I'm still thinking this is going to end up being a sand
path for many years. I am too. To the extent we could light it and make it uh a deterrent to an unsafe path, it would be great. It would it we would actually get a public benefit out of it possibly without ever putting the sidewalk in. Exactly. I'm going to make a motion to
approve DCI 20250035.2 Lighthouse Island Resort. Um finding the request consistent with the comprehensive plan uh and the public benefits commensurate. uh with the request um including the uh
staff uh conditions or the conditions in the staff report and adding an additional condition of lighting the hidden path and based on competence and based absolutely based upon competence and substantial and uh and wonderful
commentary and testimony in this case. Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Uh, hearing none. My vote is yes. Jim, I'm a yes. Don, yes. Yes. Doug, yes. Jane, did you say no? Okay. Yes. Jim,
yes. And John, yes. Passes unanimously. Congratulations you guys. Good job. Thank you so much. Thank you. Really good work. Okay, Tina, I'm just going to ask you. I see you guys back here. Is there a reason? Oh, okay. All right. I just thought
maybe you were going to surprise me with something. Okay. So, um, next item on the agenda is the next item on the agenda is the administrative agenda. Administration, anything from you? Nothing from me. Okay. LPA members items and reports. Mr.
Dunlap, I have one. Um, I know we talked about including the uh conclusions of the unanimous votes for variances, etc. in the agenda. So we could see what you signed and what didn't have to go to council and all that. So we have final. I didn't see in here and I know we've done some of those. I've signed several
of them recently. They are on the website. He's asking more for like a project status update. Exactly. Yeah. So if we can start that. Yep. Then I can close my books and tell the people and they've heard that they're asking. Okay. Uh Don,
anything? No. Thank you. How about you, Doug? Uh two things. Uh, one is, is there a way you can put tabs on the agenda package? So, we can tab right to the various items like electronically or in numbers. They're already there.
You're probably looking in the wrong place, but we can also put you all in the board portal and you can click on any item you want at any time with just a little bit of training. Okay. Oh, okay. I like that. Okay. Uh, my second item is just a sort of a public
announcement. Uh, I'm on the uh church council and I'm treasure of uh St. Peter Church on St. Peter Drive in Asterero and after two and a half years we were able to rebuild the church with the
insurance proceeds and we uh Palm Sunday was our first service inside the Congratulations. Congratulations. That was a wonderful wonderful moment. That was a wonderful moment. Jamie, anything? Nothing. How about you, Jim? No, nothing. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Not
today, but at some future point, I really would like to talk about development agreements and whether or not there's some way that maybe we could just talk about them again. Uh, thank you. I think Jim had some good. Yeah, I can be glad to add some of that in there. And I think we also have an
ordinance floating somewhere around um restricting access to this process for those that owe us money, etc. Agreed. Yes. Where does that sit? I was wondering where that was. I don't know. Okay. Okay. Um, Nancy, attorney items. No items. Okay. How about what do we
know from community development about items for our next agenda? Or do we know anything? Hold the mic closer. Sorry. I think we're going to see a stero island beach club. Oh, okay. Yes. Um and maybe Salty
Crab. Is Salty Crab coming forward? That's the other one. Okay. CPD and Fishtail. Fishell Marina I think is also Fishtell Marino won't be returned. Uh do we foresee having two meetings in May or no? No, only one.
What date is the next one, please? Uh it's May 13th. Thank you. Confirm that I'm going to be here. Yeah. Okay. Anything else? To adjourn. No, Sarah has something shear. Okay. Hi. Uh Sarah Brooks with community development. I wanted to let you know that this will be
my last LPA hearing with the town. This will be I'm sorry, but we haven't made the meeting. We're not letting you go. We reject you. If you do that, we're gonna quit paying you. And I will miss you all. You've been fantastic to work with. I have enjoyed all of you and I
will be around until June 6th. So, if anything else comes up in the time, please feel free to call. Keeping the same phone number. Um, also we are doing a um outreach meeting, a public outreach meeting at the library on May 10th from
10 to 1. It's going to be an open house, so you can come in. Um there are going to be a few different tables set up where we we're going to do some uh massing and height uh discussions with Legos and uh in addition to some survey
questions that we've included previously. So I hope all of you can come out and uh give your input for the comprehensive plan in the land development code. Sarah, you have been a blessing to this town. It's been wonderful to work with you. I have
enjoyed and hopefully continue to enjoy your friendship and um it's gonna I mean I feel sorry for you Judith. It's really going to be uh it's going to be sad not to see you and and
uneasy not knowing that you're here looking after these things. But but I hope that you'll be happy. I sure do. Thank you so much. I very much appreciate it. Congratulations on a job well done. Thank you. Absolutely. Absolutely. No clapping. Okay.
No collapping. Thank you. Motion to adjourn.