Oh, all the new fangled stuff. Good morning, everyone. Uh, this is a regularly scheduled meeting of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency. It is Tuesday, October 24th, and it is 9:01 a.m. If you would all please stand for the invocation and the pledge of
allegiance. I pledge allegiance 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.
>> So, our invocation this morning is just going to simply be I wish you would all join me in wishing Jane Plamer a very happy birthday. >> Oh, happy birthday. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> She's 27. >> Yes. So I want to add here.
>> Okay. Our first item uh our first item on the Amy, did you need something? >> Just with your next item. I do. >> Okay. Uh it's approval of the final agenda. >> You have something to add. Please add >> Madam Chair. We forgot to put on the
selection of a chair organization. Yep. I have that on my list. >> Okay. So we'll put that after the approval of the minutes. Uh before yes, you can um and Amy can read from your uh rules of procedure u the criteria and
the responsibilities associated with that item >> when you get to it. >> Oh, okay. I think we all know but uh but if you want to read it, you just have at it. Uh okay. So um could I have a motion adding uh the uh reorganization of chair
and vice chair to the agenda after the approval of the minutes? >> So moved. Thank you. Thank you, Don. Um, any objection to that motion? Motion carries unanimously. The next item is approval of the minutes for the local planning agency meeting of September 9th, 2025.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Any corrections or discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> Okay. And now we'll go on to the reorganization. Go ahead, Amy. >> Okay. And just for the record, uh, Doug Ecman has asked for an excused absence.
Oh, may I have a motion, please, to accept uh Mr. Ecman's request for an excused absence? >> So move second. >> Thank you, Don, and thank you, Jane. Any objection? Okay. Okay. Um, per your policies and procedures, uh, the
election of officers annually at the first meeting of the local planning agency after expired member positions have been filled by the town council, a chair and vice chair will be chosen. An LPA member may nominate a person for each of these positions or state their own interest in service as chair or vice
chair. Once all nominations are received, the LPA will vote in the same manner as the town council votes for appointments to committees, boards, and commissions. If nominated, the LPA member shall accept the nomination on the record. If a nominated LPA member is not present, acceptance of the
nomination, and a vote on all nominations shall be taken at the next LPA meeting. Thank you, Amy. >> You're welcome. >> I nominate Anita as chair. >> I second. >> Thank you all very much. Uh, thank you
very much. >> Do we vote each time on both at the same time? >> So, we >> are there any other nominations? >> We don't have ballots, but it it is important that the public know what your
vote is. So, um, can you just um We'll take it one at a time and do a roll call. >> Jim, this is voting for chair. >> Chair. >> Okay. >> Jim, >> I, >> John, >> I, >> Jane, >> I, >> Don, >> I,
>> Jim, >> I. >> Uh, I >> Yay. >> Thank you all. >> Okay, the vote is unanimous. >> Okay, >> I name I nominate Jane as vice chair. >> Second.
>> There's a nomination and a second. Any other nominations? Uh, your vote. Jim, >> I, >> John, >> hi. >> Don, >> hi. >> Uh, Jim, >> hi. >> Jane, >> hi. >> Okay, everything stays the same. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, next item on our agenda is uh are our several public hearings. Uh, the first one is ordinance. I'll read the ordinance title on Nancy and then you can um say your things. Ordinance 25-21 CPA >> public comment
>> public com >> public comment where I am. Is there any public comment? >> Anybody? None. Ordinance 2521 CPA 20250188 for 1668 I Street. This is for the beach
bar signage. An ordinance of the town council of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving approving with conditions or denying an amendment to the commercial plan development CPD zoning previously approved by ordinance 24-18 for the partial lo for the parcel
located at 1668 I Street generally identified as strap number 194624 W40070B 0110 Fort Myers Beach to include a devi ation for additional signage, providing for other clarifications as necessary,
providing for conflicts of law, scrier's error severability, and providing for an effective date. And the ordinance has been attached. It was part of our updated agenda. Nancy, >> thank you, Madam Chair. >> You're welcome. >> So,
the uh the title of the proposed ordinance that was read is for a PD amendment. We do have another PD amendment on today's agenda as well as a development agreement, a variance, and a special exception. All of these land use
items are quasi judicial in nature as been determined by Florida law. And this requires that our LPA hearing today comply with procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in our land development code. Quasi
judicial proceedings uh again are going to be less formal than proceedings before a circuit court, but they are going to be more formal than the remainder of our meeting and they must follow basic standards of due process that require certain notices, the
application of the correct standards and their decisions to be made on competent substantial evidence that is presented to the LPA in written documents or through oral testimony. The LPA's responsibility is to evaluate the testimony and the information for each
agenda item and draw a conclusion regarding whether the criteria in the land development code or in state law has been satisfied. Pure speculation or opinion that is not based on competent facts cannot legally be considered by
the LPA in evaluating an agenda item. Testimony by professionals who have been qualified as experts in a particular area has been considered competent evidence by Florida courts as well as testimony by neighbors and residents who
have fact-based information such as minutes, surveys, engineering reports, etc. or their testimony that is based on their personal uh information and knowledge. So members of the public, those that are in attendance, if you
intend to speak, please keep my comments in mind and when you come forward, please state your name clearly for the record whether or not you have been sworn in. in Fort Meyer speech. Uh we also have a section in our code that states a
unanimous decision by eligible voting members of the LPA to approve a variance shall constitute final agency action that is 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. So for purposes of efficiency before we begin any of these public hearings, I would like to go ahead and
put some items on the record. The first thing is I need to ask our town clerk whether or not all agenda items have been properly noticed pursuant to our land development code and Florida law. Yes, they have been.
>> Okay. And also at this time, I would like to ask the LPA members if any one of them has a conflict that would pro prohibit them from voting on any of these items. If you could disclose that at this time, this will ensure that we
have a quorum present for each item as we get to that item on the agenda. >> Jim, any conflicts on any of the public hearings before us today? >> No, ma'am. >> How about you, Don? >> No. Jane, >> none. >> Jim, >> no. >> John, >> no. >> And I have none.
>> Okay. And at this time, if there is anyone in the audience who, including the applicant, property owner, and staff who intend to provide testimony today to the LPA, if you would please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the town clerk.
Do you solemnly >> 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. >> Okay, everybody. >> So, Madam Chair, we have read the title to the first item on your agenda today and um at this point, I believe uh
you'll be asking for exparte disclosures. >> Yes, ma'am. John, any exparte on the beach? How about you, Jim? >> None. >> Jane, >> none. Uh Don, >> none. Jim, >> none. >> I have none as well. >> Okay, Jason. >> Good morning. Jason Green, Community
Developments. I'll be presenting this today. Um, as was bred, the uh application is essentially for a deviation to the sign code uh to allow additional square footage of signage. Um, and because it's a CPD, we have to amend that deviation through this process, which is before you. Um, the
essentially it's 108 square feet of total signage. uh where the existing code will allow 32 square feet maximum. Uh based on the surrounding uses and uh the neighborhood uh staff has looked at the criteria of the land development code and um the required section and
findings and conclusions of the staff report essentially conclude that it is consistent with surrounding uh neighborhoods and or surrounding uses uh and consistent with what's typically been done in that area. As a side note, this is um a unique process. I have to go through
the DCPD deviation process for signage. Uh so we are actually exploring some ways to help business owners do that without having to go back into your CPD and and amend that because a lot of times you don't know what the signage is going to be when you're when you're coming through for a CBD uh in the
beginning. So um it doesn't help them today, but maybe in the future it'll help some other businesses. Uh so based on those findings and conclusions, I recommend approval. Um and you can find those conclusions in the ordinance and the draft ordinance and the staff report before you and I'll stand for any questions. >> Thank you, Jason. Any questions for
Jason? >> Anyone? Okay. Thank you very much. We'll have the applicant come forward. >> So, you want this one? Yeah, you can have this one. >> Neither one. >> I'll get out of your way. >> You need to turn your mic on. Oh yes,
you have to push the button. There you go. >> Good morning. My name is Renee Oi and I have been sworn in. I am here on behalf of the owner, but I work with Sign Permits Plus, who is a company who has been contracted to represent them at this meeting. Uh the Beach Bar is asking
for an amendment to their PD to allow for additional signage. Um it is not to have one larger sign on their building. it is to allow for a sign on the front of the building, one on the side, and one on the rear. Uh the reason they're
asking for the three signs is because their um their situation is quite unique um or in that they have a pedestrian pathway from the beach. They have access from I Street and in order to get there, you
have to turn off of Vero Boulevard. So, um, they have multiple ways for people to get there. They need multiple ways for people to identify the building. It right now with the existing sign that has been legally permitted on the front. If you were approaching from the beach,
you couldn't tell, you know, where the business was. Um, the same is true on the side. If you're traveling down the stair boulevard, and I get my east, west, and south, but if we're traveling and you see them on the right, um there's a palm tree that kind of
obstructs um the front front sign a little bit. So, that sign on the side is very important for for business or for people who are going to navigate that turn off of Boulevard um to be able to get there. Uh today, I asked my husband
to, "Hey, what was that? Can we make a turn?" I'm not turning on a stero boulevard. So, I mean, there was there's a lot of traffic going on there. You've got to make a decision to make the turn. Um, and you need to have notice to be able to do that. So, that those that
sign serves that that purpose. Um, it the signs that are designed, I I assume that you receive those in your package that you can see that they are they're they're attractive. They're architecturally integrated with the building. They have uh their yellow
signs. They are turtle friendly. The sides that are proposed other than the front sign on the side and the back of the building are non-illuminated year round. Um the back sign that faces the beach is just plastic cutout letters
that say the beach bar and the one on the side is a small a smaller 29 foot sign. um they they look rather small in in the scale of the building, which is a three-story building. So, visually create no blight. They're consistent
with the neighborhood. If you drive around there, you'll see that um it it really is granting them the same sort of signage that would has been allowed to to other um other neighbors in that area. Um the the other thing to consider
is the setback of the building from a stero boulevard is over 200 f feet. And so um that's you know that's quite a a distance to be able to view the signs. And so we feel these are the minimum minimum signs necessary to be able to
identify the building and prevent any confusion from somebody traveling coming up from the beach to be able to not you know go to the right place and not not end up in the neighbor's yard. So um I I think that I've covered the major
points. Do you have any questions? I this is my first hearing here so I don't know if you would do that. >> Thank you very much. Yes, we'll we'll ask you some questions. Exchange, >> are you comfortable with the 13 conditions that are provided as for approval? >> Okay, now go ahead. >> Are you familiar with the 13 conditions
that are in the packet? >> Um, well, yes. I think they were just pretty much um to cover any any issues that might arise. We are >> you read them and that you have no problem with them? >> Uh, sorry, Jason Green. Just a reminder,
there's two new conditions. The 11 were on the CPD previously. Uh so there's two in the packet should be underlined in the staff report that are the additional related to assignment. >> They are. Yes. >> So the other 11 have already been >> approved. >> Approved and gone through the whole process. >> Okay. Yes. Yes.
>> Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Is there any public comment on this particular case which is additional signage for the beach bar? Hearing none. The public comment is closed. Any further questions or comments for the
staff or the applicant? >> Madam Chair, did staff want to make any comments about this particular application on the records? >> They did at the beginning. Do you have anything else, Jason? >> Uh, just the findings and conclusions that it's consistent with complaint land development code. >> Okay.
>> And that you're recommending approval with the conditions. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> So, the recommendation for staff is approval with the two additional conditions to the original CPD. Uh, any further discussion? If not, may I have a motion, please?
>> I make a motion to approve ordinance 25-21, CPA 20250 1888 1688 I Street Beach Bar signage. >> 1668. >> 1668. >> Yeah.
>> Second. >> Okay. Um could we add to that finding it um uh consistent with the comprehensive plan of the land development code and including all the conditions in the packet? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Any discussion on the motion?
Uh hearing no discussion. Your vote. Jim. >> Yes. >> Don. >> Yes. >> John. >> I. >> Jane. >> Yes. >> Jim. >> I. >> I. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. You know, I have gotten to know Meline and Greg Boyd very much over the past uh
year and lovely people. I think we're lucky to have them in our town. We really do. Very nice people. Okay. The next case is um the next case is ordinance 25-22 CPD 2025020201
125 131 through 151 school street and 2661681 Eststerero Boulevard the cottages at Meerside 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 ordinance 25 2415 for the parcel located for the property located at 125 131 151 School Street and
two and 26612681 Boulevard Fort Myers Beach generally identified as strap numbers 194624 W30020C 0230 194624 4 W30020C
0270 and 194624 W30020C 0290 in Fort Myers Beach providing for revisions to schedule of uses to include outdoor consumption on premises as as a
use associated with the hotel and restaurant use and other clarifications as necessary providing for conflict of law scrier's errors and providing for an effective date. The ordinance is attached to our amended application. Um,
Chase, oh no, exparte. Jim, >> none. >> Don, >> none. >> Jane. Oh, Jim. >> None. >> John. >> Uh, I briefly spoke with Beverly Milligan at the um charter review committee uh meeting.
>> Uh, okay. Jason. >> Uh, yeah. Jason Green, community development. uh consumption on premise outdoor uh our land development code normally the excuse me I start back up this uh CPD already has hotel um lodging uses uh those uses do allow consumption
on premise however the land development code differentiates consumption outdoors um as being a use that either needs a special exception or in this case if you have a a CPD zoning district then a a revision to that CPD zoning district. So this essentially adds that use and
allows for the consumption of premise outdoors within u distances from residential, churches, other other types of uses. >> Wait, can you back up on that? So you're saying they currently have consumption on premises. It just has to be inside.
>> Yeah. So in the code, it recognizes hotels, lodging, that sort of thing as being u a use that you can have consumption on premise as part of that. It's the outdoor proximity to uh uses such as residential uh uses that requires the public hearing
>> and currently it's only beer and wine. >> Well, I think that's more of a clarification as well because I spoke with someone just this morning. Um uh and that clarification was not terribly clear in the presentation that
it currently they have uh beer and wine service at their restaurant and in their hotel. Okay. >> And this would add additional alcohol service >> outdoor part of it. Correct. So restaurants and and lodging services are allowed to have the consumption on
premise component to them by right. If as long as it's a restaurant or a hotel, >> all consumption >> doesn't account for outdoor areas that are proximity to res. >> All consumption >> or just beer wine. >> It doesn't recognize the beer, wine, and liquor. Our our code doesn't recognize that. >> Okay. >> For a restaurant only.
>> Yeah. My understanding is a state restaurant. >> Yeah. I I don't if correct we recognize the 51% rule which the state recognizes if it's a restaurant and you're doing majority food service or if you're lodging then you can have consumption on premise.
Once you switch to a greater percentage of alcohol then you become a bar. >> Bar. >> Yeah. >> But in addition to that the outdoor consumption within proximity of residences and churches and other things and other bars uh becomes a trigger point for public hearing.
Okay. Is everybody clear on that? I'll tell you I was not clear on that. >> It's Yes, I understand the code. We have to read it a dozen times each time to make sure we're >> golf courses are exempt. Right. >> What made me not clear on it was what what my conversation with Beverly was specifically about. She said to me, "We
need to be able to sell alcohol." >> Correct. >> And I thought, okay, she needs to be able to sell alcohol as opposed to beer and wine. So I'm thinking a margarita or a martini in lie of a Miller light or something. >> Sure.
>> But that it is not that is not the distinction. The distinction is in this case is strictly outdoor sailing consumption versus indoor sailing consumption. >> Correct. I I believe that a restaurant alcohol permit at the state does allow more than just beer and wine. So our
trigger and our threshold for the town code is restaurant, you can do consumption and unless you have outdoor that affects neighborhoods essentially. >> So Jason, let me ask since this is sworn testimony. >> Jason kicked me when I
>> you said you've uh read the the ordinance, read the code several times. So is the code clear? Took you that long to figure that out or are you interpreting what you believe the code says? Is it your opinion that you're testifying to that it's okay to do or
the code actually demonstrates that? >> So the it's not my it's my reading of the code, correct? It's not an opinion. It's just the code is complicated because it's >> it sends you to another section and back to another section, right? So hopefully we can clear some of that up. Um and
also doesn't talk about 2COP or any of these other traditional terms. Those have been things that have been traditionally conditioned on public hearing applications uh to limit places to those terms. I don't even know if those terms are even accurate with the state. They've changed around the the terminology and the type
of licensing they do. Um but there are conditions on previous applications that limit them to beer and wine. >> Yeah. And I don't mean to overbuild the watch here. I'm just making sure. In other words, it's hard to find, but if you know where to look, you can find it as it's represented. >> So, yeah. So, the code goes through a whole bunch of sections. talks about
alcohol consumption and then it has uses that are essentially exempt from basically being determined that they can't have consumption on premise. Golf courses is one, restaurants is another um and all that. So then then it triggers another section where you have
to do a public hearing if you're within 500 ft or other distances from this list of uses outdoor. And so bars are within that proximity. They have to have a public hearing whether they're indoor or outdoor. outdoor consumption on premise uh for a restaurant will trigger another public hearing. Yeah.
>> So it's it's basically been created because if you look at our island, a stereo is all commercial and it's right behind it is residential. So I would imagine that's why that provision was put in there and it helps you evaluate noise and other impacts potentially that
could come with it. >> Okay, Jane. >> Uh I just want to clarify on the upstairs pool it now has wine and beer. Correct. or it doesn't have anything. >> Uh I I believe it wouldn't have anything because consumption on premise outdoors
adjacent within 500 ft would trigger this process. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm just checking that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Anybody else have any questions for Jason? >> I guess that was a presentation. >> Oh, no, no, no. I just wanted to make sure that everybody was clear on that. So, go ahead.
>> So, I apologize for my point was is it's a very big section that has a lot of if then that components to it. Um, and so it does get confused in the public very often about when those triggers happen. Um, we've tried to edit it, but it every time you edit it, it triggers potential changes something else. So that's one of
the things we'll talk about when we go to like development code, how to make this more simple and clear for everybody. >> Um, and again, state law has changed since that section was drafted. So there's a lot of moving parts there. Um, as you mentioned, there's a request for Hold on, let me pull this up.
Uh, so there's two parts to the request. you mentioned in the reading there's a 3,000 ft² uh rooftop pool area which is a third floor as access that area is accessory to the hotel and then a 690 ft² outdoor dining patio area um is part
of the existing restaurant on the ground floor and would be again service to the alcohol out there is limited until this process occurs. Uh it is an amendment to the CPD in order to add that use um and meet those criteria. uh essentially you can't do a special exception process
when you have a CPD because the uses and the and the controls of that CPD are within the CPD itself. Um if they didn't have a CPD they would be here with a special exception. Uh so based on the the findings uh and conclusions required by the land
development code uh we've analyzed the uses and I think we just talked about some of that there's it's associated with uses that are already approved in part of um part of the site and the development um staff has recommended three conditions uh related to this
amendment and um based on 3485 34216 of the land development code basically uh the outdoor consumption on the premise at the condom side consistent with the existing surrounding uses of the site um and appropriately controlled through conditions and recommend
approval. >> Okay. Um questions for Jason. >> Jason, I have a question about condition number three. It says that it'll be permitted only as an accessory to the existing restaurant development must comply which was your last statement.
>> Yes. Um, my question is, is there any difference or uniqueness between the 3000 up on the patio versus the one that's attached to the the smaller parcel that's attached to the restaurant? >> Oh, that's that's a good point. And I apologize. We're trying to use the term
associated instead of accessory. That's been evolving. Um, and part of that is because there's been some separate conversations with other people, not this project or the other one that's on the agenda, but um, trying to make alcohol accessory to things rather than the alcohol consumption in the code is
recognized as a use and we need to be here doing this to discuss that. Um, where it is associated with a restaurant because the code allows alcohol with a restaurant. >> Mhm. >> So, uh, your question about the pool is associated with a hotel. Same thing the if it was just if it was enclosed it
would be allowed to have consumption on there. The fact that it's open air is what requires that part. So yeah I misuse that term. It should be associated with the pool and a restaurant. Those two areas are separate to what they're associated with and those two uses are already part of the CPD.
>> So perhaps the existing restaurant and lodging. >> Yes. Yes. Associated with restaurant lodging and restaurant. Right. The main thing is because the 51% is challenging to evaluate and track from a staff >> town staff perspective. Um,
we want to make sure because and I'm reading from past experiences here, but uh bars have a different scrutiny. Uh, and you want to have that evaluation. So if it becomes a bar, we want to make sure that nobody thinks that they're able to convert to a bar and still have
that outdoor consumption because there's an expectation that the 51% food, 49% alcohol helps control some of the issues that come along with it. So that's where we're trying to go with that those conditions and you'll see that in both. >> That's the attempt anyways. >> No, that helps. Thank you. Okay, Jane,
>> did you consider the hours of operation at all for this? Considering we limited um Margaritavville to Sunset at their outdoor pool bar. >> Uh I'd have to go back. That's a good
question. I'd have to go back and look at those. I thought they had a little bit more than that. Was it sunset? >> Um those are all things that are depending on traditionally those have been on bars. Uh but those are things that you could, you know, I'd leave it up to the applicant to talk about their hours of service. Um pool being an
example. What time is the pool open till? Um but the pool is open till there's no there's no time limits on the pool itself now, I don't believe. Um so if you want for alcohol purposes, that's something that has been done in other cases. Yes.
>> Done. Questions? >> No questions. Jim, >> any questions? No. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Jason. Um, Patrick, are you making somebody me? >> Good morning. >> Morning. >> All right.
So, let me get this set up here. Okay. All right. Good morning, chair, uh members of the local planning agency. For the record, Keith Long, uh attorney with Long Law here on behalf of the applicant, Cottages at Meersside LLC, uh the property owner of the site, uh the
subject site located at 125 and 131 through 151 School Street and 2661 through 2681 Eststerero Boulevard. Uh we're here this morning to request an amendment to the CPD under the previously approved ordinance 24-15 to
amend the schedule of uses to add outdoor consumption on premises. Uh and I understand you have quite a few questions regarding the beverage part of that. Uh and I believe I'm I'm qualified to answer those questions, but I I would prefer to get into the specifics afterwards so I can address those uh
partic more particularly. Uh let's see here. Uh just an overview of the site, which I'm sure you're all familiar with. uh bordering Estelle Boulevard and School Street. Uh just a little bit of background about how we got here. Uh Jason had intimated. Um we're here today with a very limited amendment to the commercial plan development that was
approved last year under ordinance 24-15. Uh the original CPD allowed for mixeduse project with the lodging units, live work units, uh commercial space, which included uh the restaurant with the bar area. However, um just a technical omission, the outdoor consumption on premises, uh which I'll
sometimes refer to as COP, uh was not expressly included in the approved schedule of uses. Um and so so we're here before you today. So again, the amendment before you today doesn't change the intensity, height, design, or layout. We're not touching any other parts of the previously approved CPD. We're here just for the limited purposes of uh the outdoor consumption on
premises. Uh so again the request before you today adds that outdoor consumption on premises as a uh an accessory use to the previously approved restaurant hotel um so that the alcoholic beverages uh may be served uh in outdoors in conjunction with the previously approved uh indoors.
And so in those two particular areas, we have the uh the ground floor dining patio which just comes right off of the the restaurant uh roughly uh 700 ft² 690 ft². Um and then again on the rooftop pool and lounge area which is roughly 3,000 square ft um and is amenity for
the the hotel guests. Uh the idea is that the restaurant would service the outdoor patio uh as well as provide food and beverage to the rooftop um with both uses operating between the hours uh which is in the packet of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. And then this is just an overview of the
areas uh that we're talking about here. Not a not a um particularly pretty uh set of plans, but it's just to again outline. On the lefth hand side you have uh the highlighted portion which is the ground level patio that comes off of the restaurant. And then on the right hand side uh is a floor plan of the uh
rooftop pool area that's subject to this request as well. Uh real briefly getting into the consistency with the land development code um under your uh land development code in section 34-1264. Uh the sale or service of alcoholic
beverages for on premise consumption requires approval by the town. Uh this application does comply fully with the standards that are outlined in that section. Um, most notably, uh, again referring to the restaurant. It's going to operate under, uh, what's now termed at the state level as a 4 COP SFS
license, which is a, uh, special food service license. And again, that means that the food service is the primary use, um, and the alcohol may only be served in conjunction with the the service of full course meals. So, another one being the outdoor service areas that are going to be carefully
managed uh, to minimize noise, lighting spillover, and any potential disturbances to the surrounding properties. Um lastly, there's going to be no conflicts with the location standards as is outlined in the staff report. Uh the site does exceed the required separation distances from schools, churches, parks, uh and
residential dwellings. As far as the comp plan is concerned, uh the property is surrounded on three sides by institutional and recreational uses. Uh we have the Bay Oaks Recreation Center, public library, uh and the elementary school with no uh adjacent residences within that buffer. Um the amendment is compatible with the
surrounding area and supports the intent of the boulevard future land use category uh which does encourage that mixeduse walkable redevelopment along uh sterile boulevard. The project enhances the Fort Myers Beach's hospitality offerings and aligns with the town's postreovery economic goals without
adding any additional density or intensity beyond what's already been approved uh on the the existing CPD. um staff's report on recommendation. The town uh planning staff did conduct a full review under the LDC sections that are applicable and found that this
amendment meets all the required findings for a uh plan development amendment. Staff's report recommends approval with the conditions um which include that the previous CPD conditions remain in effect. uh the outdoor consumption on premise is limited to the restaurant hotel accessory uses which we covered uh and I'd also be happy to
elaborate further and that the operations comply with uh your land development code section 34-1264 uh subsection K which again goes into the specifics as far as the the license type. Um we we certainly agree with the recommendations of approval. Um and we
would accept all the conditions as presented and in summary uh it's it's a minor and straightforward amendment uh as far as as we see it u that corrects the technical omission and brings the project into full compliance uh with the LDC uh preserves all previously approved
conditions um and uh enhances the guests and dining experience in a responsible and productive way. So with that, on behalf of the applicant, uh we would respectfully request your recommendation of approval to the town council. Thank you for your consideration. I'll stand by >> Thank you, Mr. If, uh, let's see if
you've got any questions here. Um, Jim, any questions? >> No, none here. >> How about you, Don? >> No questions. >> Jane? >> Yes. >> Um, one, is the pool open to the public? >> I'm sorry, ma'am. What was that? >> Is the pool open to the public? Uh it
it's uh at this point in time the idea is that it would be open to the public. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And um you know when we were at the hearing, >> when was that? >> June 24th.
>> June CPD orig indicated that they were ready, willing, and able to start shortly. Um do they plan to build this or is this for going to be for sale? It's my understanding they're very ready to do it. I I actually have been under a
good amount of pressure to get this thing through the pipeline so that they can begin. Uh we're waiting on some some planners and and architects etc that are that are waiting for this particular approval to make sure that that they have the full scope that they can put into the design plans. >> Do you have any indication of timing at all? >> I I wouldn't be able to and that's not
being evasive. I'm just here for I'm the alcohol guy. >> No, I'm just uh >> Oh, no. I understand >> waiting on the architects all I heard. >> Oh, yeah. Well, it's easy to blame the other guys, right? But but the the the architects are are waiting on me to to hopefully get your recommendation. >> Chicken. >> That's what I've been >> Albert.
>> Uh anything else, Jane? >> No. Jim, >> would the uh applicant be agreeable to a condition that the alcohol would be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 1000 p.m.?
>> That's what it is. >> The proposed condition, you mean? I mean, you put it in your presentation, but it's not in the condition. >> Oh, I understand. Yeah. Yeah. That certainly that is a condition and >> if that was your desire and that's what
it took to get it over the finish line, certainly that that we wouldn't be opposed to that. >> Thank you, Jim. Anything, John? >> Um, one is just a point of clarification or confirmation. Um, it's on school street. We all see it as being very
close to the school, but it actually does exceed the required distance from the school. That's the statement that's in it. Just want to confirm that. >> Yeah. And that's also in the staff report as well. >> Yeah, I did see that. I just wanted to make sure that it was clear. >> Certainly. >> Um I was under the impression reading and I'd have to go back and find exactly
where I found it that the uh upper patio was going to be for regist registered guests. I was quite surprised at the response to Jane's question that it was open to the public. >> Yeah. So, it wouldn't be a free-for-all, so to speak. And again, I I can't speak specifically to the technical aspects,
but I would imagine that to some degree when I say available to the public, you could the public would be able to access it uh potentially via like some sort of day pass or something like that. I I don't imagine that it's going to be sort of a a public's pool, so to speak.
>> I have a concern. >> Would you be open would the applicant be open to restricting that pool deck access to registered guests? I couldn't speak on that at this at this point, unfortunately. I don't know enough about the technical aspects of
the the operation to that degree. Okay. >> Um, as far as I know, this we're just here to talk about the consumption on premise and I certainly respect and appreciate the question. Um, but I don't want to bind the the applicant to something that frankly I'm not intimately familiar with. >> Understood.
So, if I can jump in, that could be a recommendation from the LPA that can be resolved at the first reading or the second reading of the ordinance. >> Jane, was your question around that's an amenity offering for the island or you're concerned about it? >> Right. I'm I'm a little concerned about
it. Um, you know, just because they do have limited parking and, um, they are by the school and >> um, you know, the hours are are late for outdoors for
that community area if I if I could. Yeah, I I certainly understand uh, with regards to the distance and the proximity again, the staff report um, and its semantics, right? It's just outside of the the distance buffer. certainly uh with an EyeShot and so uh the idea here and I
guess to get back without taking too much of your time but I know you had asked a couple questions uh it's an ancillary use an accessory use what what have you um the requirements that are codified in your code are actually a copy of the state statutes that um that the applicant is required under the license that we're seeking uh to abide
by. And so the the the most important uh part of that is that it is a restaurant first. And so you have to sell in excess of 51% or more uh gross sales from food and non-alcoholic beverages at all times. Um and so there's there's no switching back and forth. Um and the
idea there being that this is uh to to Mr. Green's point uh not a bar. So when we talk about the hours and the proximity, um I just want to make sure that that's specific because this isn't a a bar use. there's not going to be um it can't be a situation where they're selling more alcohol and then you you
run into a situation where there's the crowds are a little more rowdy and what have you. Um and that's state statute. I know you guys have it in your code. It's difficult for you guys to uh audit it so to speak, but the state does audit uh the books of the owner. It's a requisite um in order to obtain the license. And
so there's there's no point. Miss Green. >> Yeah. So, can I just on that line of thought that you just mentioned um J Green Community, can you confirm that that means that the pool area service is tied to the restaurant and they're under the same >> 100%. Yeah, it it has to be. Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Under the same operating ever be a
separate licensed entity at the pool versus the restaurant? >> No sir. There wouldn't be able to obtain a license. In fact, then they would have to go for the the quota license. That would not be subject to food sales. And on top of being a half a million dollars, it's subject to a higher sense of scrutiny under your code.
I'm just thinking back in the day when um you know the ballpark and all the baseball games, we would go from there to the closest bar that was on a sterile boulevard and have our kids and everybody and you know, I'm sure we were
a little obnoxious, but um you know, it was a fun thing and it was something our kids remember and I don't know if that's what would happen to that. I I just wonder about the, you know, I guess the amount of people
that would >> could could go there. You know what I mean? >> Any further questions for Mr. Long? >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you all for your consideration. >> Jason, do you have anything to follow up with here? >> No, ma'am.
>> I you know, my my um maybe it's just curiosity or maybe it's a concern. I I'm trying to decide. Um I remember I remember during the CPD so this restaurant is likely going to be an independent
entity somebody uh it's not going to be run by the hotel. Is that correct? Do you remember that? Okay. Forget it. And since he's just an attorney here for something technical, we don't have that. Patrick, are you going to get up or not?
I I just no I I am I I I have concerns about the fragmented element of this. It seems to me if this was important why wasn't it presented in the context of the CBD where we could have discussed it more and now we're just here for something technical. Uh and maybe that's why we're here for something just
technical but okay >> madam madam chair if I could just sure elaborate just a little bit on that because there was some discussion uh after Mr. Green's presentation with regards to what is currently an existing I don't want to say right but existing approval under the CPD it was an approval for the indoor consumption on
premises for the full uh alcohol service uh in conjunction with the restaurant and so >> yes I I understand that but you know the whole the joy of a CPD is it brings us a full package picture and we say yes all these pictures all these pieces fit
together and um you have our blessing and we wish you many many years of success. Sure. >> But now you've added another little tweak to that picture that we can't discuss the whole picture. We're just discussing one particular element and that it bothers me. Sure. It bothers me.
>> Understood. Yeah. Obviously, this is the intent isn't that this is a Trojan horse, so to speak, and I certainly can appreciate where you come from. Um the word I used in legally, right, technical omission. I don't know that um that it that it's something that was done purposefully. Again, understanding that
it's currently approved for the restaurant and the bar. Um, you know, being where we are and situated uh in in the beautiful town of Fort Myers Beach, an outdoor element to almost any um >> it's a very element of every business on this island, which makes me question why wasn't it as
>> I'm not sure that there was there was a understanding of the distinction to be able to require the outdoors and the indoors as >> I think there is a clear understanding. I mean, everybody understands this. I But you know what? Neither here nor there. >> Sure. >> I appreciate your comments. It's just a It's a little glitch for me. That's
>> understood. >> Um, okay. Any other questions for the applicant or for the staff? >> Thank you both very much. Is there any public comment on this case? Would anybody like to speak? >> All right, the public comment is closed.
Um, LPA members, any discussion? Is there a motion? Anybody? Um, >> discussion. >> Okay, go ahead, Jane. Um, I guess because I can't remember and we don't have the facts or anyone that can answer the question as to whether the bar or the
pool was for the guests only. I would like to put that in as a condition and then they can bring that to council to remedy whether that was private for the res or for the hotel guests or not. >> I mean that the reason I brought it up
um I would support that number one. I don't think it needs to be firmly a condition. Um I think it's open for discussion, further exploration. >> I agree with that. >> Yeah. >> Um my concern about this is that it is
being provided as an integrated package over restaurant, which I I understand that technically that's allowed. Um my concern is that it becomes a pool bar whether or not it can be audited correctly or not. Um, if it's open to
outside guests, I I honestly would have absolutely zero issue if this was registered guests and and and >> and their guests perhaps even, but uh >> yeah, >> that they should be able to bring their own guests. Yes. >> Well, I' I'd reiterate that because when
this first came up, there was a lengthly discussion about parking. >> Yes. >> And bringing in additional people. It's a small pool area already. There's already going to be 33 rooms that there really doesn't appear to be much. >> There's no parking
>> additional space for outside guests. So, >> and the restaurant people. >> No, I'm talking about the pool. >> Right. Right. Yeah. >> So, I uh I would support restricting it to guests as well. >> Don.
>> Yeah. I I I wouldn't uh disagree. I I just uh I guess I always think about property rights, you know, and and what are we restricting and why and you know, it looks like there's tables up there for about, you know, 15 or so people and you know, so I I just I hear you and I I
don't disagree. Um I just don't know that we'll in I don't know that the town can enforce it, right? Like even if you say it's for private use only, it's like you leave a stairwell open and people go up there for sunset, it's clearly a sunset deck. So I think what really will happen is that you know
>> well what I was just saying is I would like to put it in with the emphasis that if the pool area it was limited in the CPD to guests only then I think it should remain guests only. If in the CPD it said everybody and their brother can
come over and swim then that's all great. I think it does give you the ability to enforce if you put it in there though you can enforce it right if it becomes a problem you can enforce it so good point >> right >> Jim >> yeah I understand the concerns and the
dialogue but the practical application of you're running a restaurant even anita by your own admission maybe a third party operator public's going to come to the restaurant they certainly hope so that there's three turnovers a day in that restaurant to um to make the business model work
>> and from that public in there, they're going to gravitate out, sit at one of the chairs, watch the sunset, and have a drink. So, I think it's noble that we're raising concerns. That's our role and responsibility. I think it's uninforceable and a practical application because who do you call Ghostbusters to come get that non- guest
member out? Um, so I think we have to be honest and transparent about the enforcability. Um, I like the recommendation around um bringing it back as a conversation to council and see how they would at least control the after the game Jane plumber noise makers
that would come by and and have some fun there. >> But in the end, um I'm ready to make a motion for for approval. That would be acceptable. >> Okay. >> So, I approve ordinance make a recommendation for approval for ordinance 25-22 CBD 20250201.
Further identified as 125 131 to 151 School Street and 2661 to 1681 Sterile Boulevard with the conditions that staff is recommended and the additional request the applicant bring a conversation around public access or
andor restrictions to the uh to the pool and bar area um subsequent to our conversation today >> and that it meets all of >> and it meets all the conditions as recommended by staff and the comprehensive plan. Just so I'm clear, it's the pool bar area. In other words, the rooftop, not the restaurant, because
a restaurant does have an outside seating area. >> There's the distinction with the difference in my mind that's completely uninforceable. So, but you've got my motion. >> Second. >> There's a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on this? >> I I'm go John. Nothing. I'm just going
to say with a planner sitting in the room who brought this to us, I would have liked to have had some further discussion about why what's the mechanism for this and I think going forward when a case like this comes forward that we're amending a CPD that has not even broken ground yet. Uh I'
I'd like to talk about how it integrates and I think it does um you know I understand that the technicality is this is an amendment and that's what you why you've got the lawyer here and it's technical and whatever but the implication is to the whole CPD and I think we do a disservice to Fort Meyer
speech not to discuss it in a in a holistic manner but maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill that's but that is my opinion on this. So um any other dis Oh go ahead Jim. Yeah, I'd like to add a second condition which will actually be the fifth condition and
along with the staff three that the consumption and serving of alcohol will be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. day. So amended not in there. Thank you. Good reminder. >> Thank you, Don. Okay, so we've added a uh a fifth a fifth condition. Um any
further discussion or any other discussion on the motion? >> Uh hearing none. Your motion. Jim >> I. Don >> I >> Jane >> I >> Jen >> I >> John >> I >> I motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much.
>> Um the next uh the next case is >> Wait a second. Since this carried unanimously, does it go to council? Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Just wanted to check. It's an amendment. >> Okay. >> Um the next item is ordinance 2519 which is a development agreement uh
DA20250186450 Old St. Carlos Boulevard. This is the old Kilwins in Time Square. Uh an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving or approving or denying a home rule development agreement for the property located at 50 Old St. Carlos Boulevard, Fort Myers
Beach, Florida. Strap number 244623 W300208002A. Owned by Carlos L. Chavez as trustee for the Carlos L. Chavez Trust as authorized by section 2-100 of the town's land development code and in compliance with
the procedures for application and approval of the development agreements with deviations set forth in resolution number 24247 for the purpose of redevelopment of the property to allow a mixeduse development with a commercial with commercial at the
open ground level and single family residential above. 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 uh commitments
uh and development obligations, deviations needed for development, providing for other clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of loss, scrivener's error, severability, and providing for an effective date. Um,
exparte, Mr. Mlan. >> Uh, none. >> How about you, Jim? >> None. >> Jane, >> none. >> Um, Don, >> none. >> Jim, >> none. >> Uh, I have had conversation with Mr. Chavez, who I know personally, and to kind of brief overview from Patrick a
little bit, not too much. Um, and of course, I'm intimately familiar with the location of the property. Um >> Jason, >> uh good morning Jason Green Community Development. Uh yes, this is a developers agreement, so it's a little bit different than some of these other
applications we've been dealing with. Uh the request is to build back a a mixeduse commercial development at that location you mentioned. Uh the site is it looks like 1119 square feet. So it's a very small parcel there. Uh but it is about 100 ft from the from the pier
location. Uh there's deviation requests uh included in this application. Uh three of them I'll go over the rear setback, a deviation from 34-674B1 A1 uh to allow a zero foot rear setback uh from the 10-ft standard setback uh
floor area ratio deviation from 34-675C1 to increase F from 1.8 to 2.5. Uh the 1.8 is the limiting factor in the downtown zoning district. 2.5 is the limiting factor in the pedestrian commercial future land use category and
I'll go over that some more in a second if you want. Uh and then the third deviation is edge plantings uh deviation from LDC section 10-416B uh to wave uh to have a zero uh edge planting says wave but it's really go
from whatever the required plantings are to zero at the edge. Um and again that's because it's a full footprint of the parcel as the proposed building. The use on the bottom floor is proposed to be uh retail essentially ice cream shop and such and uh it would be a a potentially
mobile vending with the option to enclose the bottom floor. Uh if if it's consistent with future amendments to the future uh to the flood maps. Um and then the upper levels will be a residential uh the site design. I'm sure the applicant's going to cover all that but
includes some balconies and overhangs uh related to the build two line and the rightway that's adjacent to them. Um and in your development agreement draft there is discussions about those deviations and the subjects what they're subject to. Um staff has provided some a
list of some uh recommendations of considerations. One thing this the applicant and I have discussed is the storm water requirement. Um it's a little bit tricky with the redevelopment time square square because it's hard for these smaller parcels to provide on-site
storm water or overly expensive potentially for that. There's also potentially some exemptions or limitations uh that are going to be allowed uh because there was existing development. Um so what I told Patrick is we just bring that open for discussion. the code does have certain
requirements even if they're exempt from all storm water management requirements of the state or excuse me of the water management district um such as uh gutter systems and capturing runoff from the roof and such especially with the zero setback. It was something that we wanted
to make sure that they have to abide by those other regulations. They're not just exempt from everything else. the overall storm water I think is to be determined uh because of Times Square essentially and there's probably more of a unified approach to solve solve that issue. Uh we did not intend to make it seem like the burden is on them to solve
that issue. Um so we can discuss that further when they come up. Um Nancy I forgetting with the DA um the findings and recommendation or findings and conclusions are included with the DA uh for consistency with the comprehensive plan and the land
development code. Um, and that's the application. Do you have any questions about the request? >> Thank you, Jason. Uh, questions for Jason? >> Not at this time. >> Jim, >> Jason, h has the staff taken a position
or um philosophically, how are we approaching residential development in Time Square? I mean, we have this petition here, and it's been reported that there's another building being
considered for uh upper floors of residential, which maybe changes the character of Time Square. >> Uh I I would say not as no. The answer short answer is no. Um I think the challenge with redevelopment time square
is the the flood zones and the requirements now that everything's got to be built new. Um obviously there's conversations of infrastructure and other things that can modify that to allow more ground level. Uh this is an approach to provide ground level retail services. Uh but it's also temporary in
nature because it's not a buildout, right? But they're also limited what they can do right now. So I think that's more of the character change honestly uh dealing with the flood zones. Um but no, there there hasn't been an opinion on that. It's allowed in downtown to have that mixeduse and it's while it's not
really a mixeduse building, it is a mixeduse of the site. If it was enclosed downstairs and it had ground level, then obviously that's a clear mixeduse building. But um it's trying to keep that ground. They're at this point this application is trying to keep that ground level experience.
>> Jane, I I'm uncomfortable with the mobile vendor as opposed to brickandmortar. Um, I think that that's something that, you know, if if uh we're not allowing people to
have a motor home in their driveway because they own it and >> right >> have room for it. I I think mobile vending is, >> you know, has a has a place. And >> you think it does or it does not have a
place? Well, we have a approval uh on the island for a food vendors >> at the food truck place, but I think that we don't want it all over the island. It's like when we used to have mobile homes on Flamingo, it did not
upgrade the properties around because of the mobile home being there. Um, not to not to discount the the prop the owner of that property, but I'm just saying that if we have sunseted mobile home
living on Fort Myers Beach, I don't think a mo a mobile vendor in a in the Times Square area is something we want to start because everybody will say, "Oh, that's an inexpensive way and we can pull it out and um, you know, we
won't lose anything." But granted, I mean, that's why you're going to have second floors. Maybe you should have your kitchen on the second floor and then bring the food down and, you know, just have your seating downstairs, whatever. But to me, it I don't I don't
like the look. I don't think it'll be what we want. >> So, that that's ultimately the question you're face moving forward with Times Square is is the challenges of that, right? Everything has to be elevated under the existing u requirements, flood requirements and all that. Well, I mean, I think you could have all your seating
downstairs and just have a a dumb waiter that brings the food down. Um, but it would um create a a an avenue for um a restaurant to be on the ground level without having the risk of losing it. >> But, you know, Jane, everybody, the the
conversation about, oh, we want our small businesses back. This is affording a small business an opportunity. If that was brick and mortar, forget it. A small business is not going to be able to to do it. >> So would the food park. They can take
their mobile home to the food park. >> That's that's the opportunity that there is to have that. I don't think we want it all over the island. >> So um in my in my opinion here with this um uh Carlos is the first guy off the block at
this point. There's all kinds of discussion about the wave mitigation wall. If something like that were to happen, it would allow him to close in that bottom floor and make it something more uh to what you're saying what used to be in Time Square. But at this
particular moment in time, and I think the reason that he's going this way, and I don't know because we never had the conversation, which by the way, my conversation with Carlos was only is there anything you that jumps out at you that you want to talk to me about? I said no. and and it was more a process of how was he going to get in front of
the LPA and when um just hear more conversation, but that was my initial thing. Oh my gosh. Um a trailer. No. >> Okay. All right. Um gentlemen, anything from Jim or Don? Anything for Jason? >> Okay. Just turn over the
>> Thank you, Jason. >> Good morning. >> Good morning, Patrick. >> My name is Patrick Vaness. I'm a certified planner with the neighborhood company. Before I get any further, I know you might have a question for me. >> How you feeling today, Pat? >> Thank you.
>> Well, I will tell you how I feel today. Um I I feel optimistic today. Jane Jane's maybe making me question that, but I feel optimistic >> because this is the first development agreement that I'm bringing before you >> and that it's truly meeting the intent
of what we wanted when we put this together. >> It's meeting the intent of the development. >> It's to help the little business, the mom and pop get through the process a little easier, a little quicker and bring those businesses back. So very enthusiastic about that. also
enthusiastic that Carlos is the first person in Times Square that has really taken FEMA's message seriously. And when the town said, "Guys, we need to find solutions. We need you to move forward."
He's got an application. He is building brick and mortar. He cannot right now enclose and have his business down on the ground uh because it's a vis. So because it's a visone. So, it's a it's a technical construction impossibility at
this point. So, I think the best of both worlds, Jame, before we we really get into things is is we we the the mobile vending issue on this island, we're going to have to grapple with that. I think the idea is what we
hear from FEMA is you need to do it right. You need to permit this. So, that's why we're here today. So we are requesting that use but there's also this idea of do we want mobile vending all over the place. I think the best case scenario right now
with the regulations as they are is it has to be a hybrid. It the the mobile vending in this case is tied to a brick and mortar two-way structure that's going to be very costly to the applicant. So I think Carlos is
presenting best case scenario. he is respecting town regulations, FEMA regulations, and trying to bring back uh the first business in Times Square. So, with that said, um I choose to be optimistic.
Great day today. Weather is awesome. Uh fall's coming up. Well, it feels like a fall day and we've got the holiday um period coming up. So, very enthusiastic. So, with that being said, I'm going to jump into the presentation. Um, I'm
joined today by the applicant owner, Carlos Chavez. Also with me, I've got our attorney, uh, Richard Aken. Richard will come on, um, at the end of the presentation just to deal with a little technical issues of the development agreement. Um, we've got Albert, who is
the architect, and I've got Laura Te from uh, the neighborhood company here joining me. Um so as mentioned by staff the intent is um to rebuild uh the property. It's the old
Killwinds 50 old St. Carlos. Um the proposed development is at ground level uh commercial retail mobile vending for an ice cream shop to be more specific. Um the actual footprint of the property,
it's a tiny postage stamp uh property. I believe it's the smallest in Times Square, only 1,119 square ft. The commercial retail with this reduced setback would be 1,000 square ft. Uh and then above that would
be a private uh residential uh unit, two stories, um and a total of 1775 square ft. Um just to touch upon some of the questions that came up, uh residential
is allowed in the downtown district. Um and and this is a mixeduse um project with commercial at the bottom, residential on top. And um just to give you my professional planning opinion, I think we had very little uh
residential. I think we may have had one residence over one of the the shops u prior um Ian in Time Square. I think there is a place for residential or lodging. I think we want a mix of uses. We we want to truly create a mixeduse
district. We see that throughout the country and and the state where when you have those mix of uses, the commercial, the entertainment, uh the residential and and lodging, uh it creates a vibrant uh area. And I think that's what we're
we're trying to rebuild here on Time Square. quickly go through um the the as mentioned you know uh small lot uh about a thousand square feet uh existing zoning is downtown and the future land
use is pedestrian commercial. Um we need uh three deviations to allow this redevelopment h to happen. Uh the first one is uh a rear yard setback and I'll show you
uh a little aerial of the property. This is the property within the context of of the overall Times Square area. Uh this is a bit of a a closeup. So at the intersection of Fifth and um Old St. Carlos Time Square is Bella Mozzarella.
Bella Mozzarella is owned by Carlos and family members also. But what's interesting is that that property wraps around the subject property. So that reduced setback, the only property that is being affected by that is Carlos and
his family and they fully consent to uh this request. Um the other deviation is uh request increase F. Uh downtown zoning allows for a base F of 1.8. How however the
pedestrian commercial future land use category allows applicants through this process or CPD to come in and ask for more. We are asking for 2.5 which is the upper limit in the uh pedestrian commercial future land use category. And
last but not least is a deviation um for edge building plantings. It wasn't really on our radar as we went through the sufficiency review with staff. Someone pointed it out and they said, "Well, if you have a trailer that needs to come in and out, will will you
be able to provide that?" We're asking for the deviation just in uh abundance of just, you know, not knowing exactly how this is going to function, just being careful. I think the intent you'll see in the renderings is to have some planters that can be moved around, but
not maybe permanent landscaping. So, we are asking for that deviation. Um this is a rendering of the proposed building. Um as you can see coastal architecture
um with with siding with louvers uh outside porches. Again the idea is to activate that public plaza uh down below to meet FEMA requirements uh and building code requirements. it's open.
Uh, and we need to use a mobile vending at this point if we're going to have commercial on the ground. Uh, I think if this were well, I I I I can't even say that because I I I I think Jane, just to address your issue, is specifically this
is an ice cream shop. I I don't think I think I don't think there's a world where people would want to go upstairs, choose their ice cream, and then, you know, go sit downstairs. I think it it's got to be at ground level. Um and and I
think for other projects, a restaurant where if you do have a restaurant on the second floor and seating on the bottom, uh that can make sense. Um but uh mobile vending below. Um as mentioned by staff and I think Anita brought it up. Uh
there is discussion about putting a wave mitigation wall along Time Square. Um we're hoping this happens. Um, and if you look at our list of uses, that would then allow uh the option to enclose the downstairs fully if if not just the wave
mitigation comes in, but then there's got to be a permitting process, a a a process with um flood plane managers to take this entire district out of the Vzone and make it a coastal Azone. Then
that allows us to enclose the downstairs and dry floodp proof it. Um, so I'm just going to quickly go through the floor plans level by level. This is the ground level. Uh, about 1,000 square ft of usable space. Uh,
space for the mobile uh, trailer and uh, the rest of the space would be for um, open seating. And then we've got the, uh, staircase going to the second floor. Um these are the floor plans, the floor plan for uh the residential
unit. On the second floor is uh the living space, living room, uh kitchen area. Upstairs is a one-bedroom master suite with bathroom and closet. As you can see, it's a
um not a big unit. Uh it's not over the top. And I just want to point out that what I consider um very kind of humble kind of uh modest amount of space here
is at 2.5 F. So, you know, I think there's a lot of discussion of what does 2.5 F look like? What does it mean? There's your perfect example. Um we're not talking about crazy square footage, huge buildings. Uh again I I believe
this is very modest. This this is not a McMansion. Uh and it is at the 2.5 maximum. Um this is the regulatory plan that would be attached to um the development agreement. It lists the deviations
uh and the development uh standards for the property. Um, I've also included the floor area exhibit. Um, I think Anita had asked us a while ago, can you guys just depict it
where it's easy for people to understand? So, that's what we're trying to do here. So, you start off with the footprint of your property. In this case, it's 1,119 square ft. So, if you apply a 2.5 F, you
take the 1119 times 2.5 and that gives us, and I'm going to need my glasses here. That gives us a maximum square footage of 20 279
um 2,900 and uh 797 ft. So that is the maximum square footage we can have on this property. As mentioned uh downstairs we have roughly 1,000 square
ft and each floor above is at 887 square ft. Uh and that's how we get to the 2.5 F. Um, next slide uh just depicts uh an elevation of the property with the
height and demonstrates that we fully meet uh LDC requirements for height and that we do not exceed height requirements. Um and then before I jump into the findings basically say that we concur with staff that we are consistent
with the LDC and the comp plan. Um I we just noticed um yesterday as we were going through the the development agreement um document
uh we noticed that what our attorney had submitted there's some slight little changes. It's been reformatted and reumbered. So we hadn't noticed initially. So we just want to point out a few little items that we want to address and I'll let Richard do that.
And we've already uh mentioned that to staff and to the town attorney. Uh they're relatively minor and I think if we can just agree on on the language or just agree that we can correct the language and come back to council with that. >> Okay.
>> Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the LPA. Richard Aken here this morning on behalf of Carlos Chavez. So, uh, as Pat said, looking at the development agreement, uh, there's just a couple of additions that staff made that I think we probably need to go back and and talk with Nancy and staff about. Uh if you
look on page 159 of your packet uh which is the development agreement um there is uh which is actually page five of the development agreement. There's language that was added in that says in the event new or additional
facilities are needed to serve the project. The developer will bear the burden of the cost of such facilities to be constructed consistent with the dual rational nexus test and provide a schedule to the town to asssure that the public facilities and services will be available concurrent with the impact of
the development project for those facilities subject to concurrency consistent with it cites a statutory section there. So, uh here's the concern really there. Um Mr. Mr. Chavez doesn't have any concern and we've spoken this morning uh with paying his proportionate share of any improvements that need to
be made to the Times Square area uh any public facilities has no issue with that. Uh we've had that discussion in the context of the wave mitigation wall as well. That's not the concern. The only concern here is I'm I'm not exactly sure what else there might be that would stop him at the time of development order from getting a development order.
Right. So this is put in here. I don't know if there might need to be some drainage improvements, things like that. And so ultimately we'd like to talk a little bit about that with staff and amend this language because we don't want something given the size of this project which is relatively small. I can't really believe that there is
anything that this project would trip a threshold that would stop him from building. But we want to make sure the whole the whole point of this process is again to get this business back up and running. So if there is something we need to understand what that is and I I think that the idea would be here
language to the effect of that the developer would pay his proportionate share which is essentially what the dual rational nexus test test is. So say he would pay his proportionate share um which would be evaluated at the time of building permit or development order. Um and uh and and that would be essentially
kind of how we would want to go forward there. That's that's the one major issue that we have is just we don't want to we don't want something to hold it up that's unforeseen because at this point I'm not even sure what that would be. >> Well, let's get an answer for you. So, Jason Nancy, do we have a comment or a
how can that be resolved? I I understand what he's saying. here. >> No, we just discussed it briefly in the beginning, so I haven't had a chance to get deeper into that, but can you repeat what you say your your suggestion is? >> Yeah, so the suggestion would be to add
language that just clarifies that he would pay his proportionate share, but the concern that I have is this. Um, it says that uh public facilities and services will be available concurrent with the impact of the development. So here's my concern. If there's some determination by the
town that there needs to be a storm water management system in Times Square or something like that, if he prepay pays his proportionate share, but the idea is then he can't get his building permit until everybody else pays their pays theirs and it gets constructed. >> That's going to that could hold things up, which is completely anti to the
whole process that we're trying to go here. So I think we need to massage that and and change that language a little bit. If you follow me, >> lean on Nancy a little bit. I don't think that's the intent of the proportionate share. I think it's pay as you go, isn't it? As far as >> Yes. And um so I would be fine with
amending the language um with the direction from the LPA that staff and the attorneys get together, amend the language before it gets to first reading by the town council. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Nancy. I appreciate it. The
only other thing, and uh I believe Mr. Green already addressed this, but paragraph 7 on the same page there, there is a list of permits that the proposed development has to get. Uh, and I one of them that was added was South Florida Water Management District ERP or environmental resource permit. I don't
think they need one. I think they're exempt. Um, and so I I think we need to just work together to maybe craft this language to say uh >> if necessary >> if necessary. and any other and there might be some other permit that he might need to get that we haven't listed here
through oversight and say such other permits as shall be required by the permitting authority with jurisdiction something of that language and I'm sure that Nancy and I and staff can work that out that's >> yes I have I have no issues with that okay >> did I miss anything
>> I'll touch upon the other one just the square footage >> okay um there was one little minor one also and let me find the right page uh there's reference to the square footage. So on page 156 of 261
4A there is reference to uh total square footage of 2787.5 and uh at a 2.5 F it's 2797.5 10 ft but just wanted to to get that. Is anybody else having trouble the page
numbers on this? >> Yeah, the page numbers are >> it was uh 156 of 261. >> Yeah. What >> we have is it different? >> Yeah. >> What number? >> Anybody help me, Jane? You're good at It's gross. >> It's page two of 16. If you have that
number >> two of 16, >> correct? >> Okay. >> Paragraph 4 A second. There we go. Okay. Thanks. >> That helps. Thanks, >> Patrick. The number again. um two 2797.5
instead of 2787.5. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, with that said, I'm going to wrap things up and um ask for any questions, but we um we've reviewed uh staff's um
recommendation for approval, consistency with the comp plan. We concur with that. There was mention about um drainage in Time Square. Um we want to be a part of a solution. I think obviously we we
believe that uh drainage we can't have a separate drainage system on this site. It's it's just physically impossible. Plus I think we are exempt from certain district requirements. the town does have um a centralized plan um covering
the island. Um we will abide by that. Also, if there's improvements made, you know, my understanding probably the best way to address drainage time square is to have some kind of um underground um drainage within the pedestrian plaza.
Again, if there is any proportionate chair or the requirement to uh hook up to that system, no objection with that whatsoever, but our client is not in a position to be able to build a system for everybody else. Um there was mention
about runoff from the rooftop and um we can also um abide and and respect the need for uh gutters uh and downspouts. Not a problem. >> Um Patrick, can I just ask um the email
that I received from you also had some highlighting on page three. I just want to clarify if anything uh is requested or maybe that was just a note to your yourself. Um under landscape no trees and landscape have been provided. The
request is for maximum buildout. >> There was no no request from that. It was just a little different from the prior version but no >> that's okay. >> Yeah. No. >> And then um let's go ahead and see if there's anything else. Also on page six
um the consistency with the comprehensive plan maybe the wording we don't object to that a little the wording was was slightly different >> okay and then amendment was highlighted I don't know maybe that's just oversight okay but basically there are three um
three requested changes that that you guys would like and again I don't have any objection from a legal perspective Jason did you have any >> no Okay. >> Okay. Do we have questions for Patrick? Jim. >> Patrick. >> Yep.
>> Um, >> so I don't know whether this applies to Legos or an erector set, whatever you played with growing up, >> but as you know, >> when you build the first one, >> yeah, >> there becomes the echo of all around it, connectivity, the pedestrian experience,
the whole thing. You have um enticed us in the past, led us to believe there's an opportunity to synchronize the times square experience by working together and collaborating and showing a master concept if not a master plan on how all
these pieces and parts would would synchronize each other and create an experience and obviously self-fulfilling success for everyone. So, I don't know if this is fair to you or not, but is there anything you see with this first Lego? Mhm. >> that doesn't allow or restrict,
whichever way you want to look at it, the propagation of the rest of Time Square, the connectivity, customer experience, all the compliance things that come with we don't have 16 restrooms, we have two good, all those things that you know so well. >> Can you react to that from a planning standpoint and all the work you've done
to entice us up to this point that that's a dream we should at least have? >> Yep. and and and we're still hopeful that at least the long leg of Time Square um hopefully um the owners can get together and come forward with
something that's unified and is more efficient and again we don't need in my mind we don't necessarily need elevators for every single uh property. There's efficiencies there if they work together. Um that's a private matter amongst those owners. they're going to
have to work things out and hopefully it can happen. Um, with regards to this specific property, um, the applicant wanted to move forward. Again, he he he'sing kind of the request
from FEMA and from the the town. Um, I can tell you that the initial concept that Albert came up with was more of a modern uh looking building and there there was some feedback from staff of uh can we make it more coastal because we
believe that as Times Square redevelops it's going to be more coastal in nature and we wanted to tie in. Um, so that's where we made the change. the and I'll let Albert talk to this but the actual construction uh is built in such a way where other properties can go zero lot
line and and and build right up uh against this property. It's got the prop proper firewalls so it will not hinder any development and it can easily connect with everything else. Exactly what I was looking for. Just want to make sure the mindset, the point of view, this is sacred territory as we all
know, >> treating it like that. Applaud the applicant for moving forward. Some trees got to be planted somewhere >> and you're doing that. But I wanted the conversation to say the growth from here is still consistent with and compatible with what we believe an entire
comprehensive buildout would possibly be. >> Yeah. >> Don, any questions? >> No questions. >> Jane, I have a few. So if you look at the picture on page 146,
there's zero lot setback in the rear. I see balconies. >> Yeah. So uh as part of your downtown district, we allow and encourage uh overhangs and balconies.
um you know in in the front typically it's a kind of a architectural feature a and b a bit of a shade feature. We also allow arcades uh again to provide that that protection from the elements. So um
in this case I I think it it meets a bit of both of those. And in the rear same thing it's allowed um it's within the setback. It's not calculated as part of the F. It's gonna be open >> in the setback. It's a zero setback.
>> So, so the the actual So, in the front, it's an overhang, >> right? >> In the rear, the balcony is going to go up to the zero setback. >> Okay. >> So, it's within the footprint. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> The front one's over. So,
>> where are the air conditioners? >> Um, I will let Albert address that. That's not my expert. >> Look on the floor plan. >> Yeah. Right here. >> Go to the next. Go to uh one 144. >> Yeah, >> you'll see it on the back side. >> Come join me, Albert. >> Right there. See it?
>> Okay. >> It's on the back balcon closest development. >> I'm sorry I missed that one. >> Okay. >> Good morning, Albert J. Studio architect for the project as well too. Um regarding air condition system that will not Oh, obviously we're building a zero
lot line, so we can't have anything bypass a property line in general. That'd be a property right violation. um things like fire risers um air condition systems the system for this building there's a lot of options it'll be on a patio in the rear screen right a railins on the upper floor okay
>> we're looking at more of a VRF system which are a variable speed mini split system which is not like the typical big box that you see these are things you see more of in downtown urban areas tropical islands things of that nature because we are limited with square footage so we're trying to think of every single thing to help minimize
impact with joy properties >> okay with the picture that is still on 146. The little thing underneath the living space that's like maybe a blue color. >> Are you referring to the rendering or
the >> a louver kind of shielding >> that's on p? Yeah. So at the bottom they have you know you have that one foot of whatever. >> What is the possibility of putting that around the mobile home? or the mobile
trailer to camouflage it and you know you would still have your opening and things like that. It just won't look like a trailer. And then you have a gate or a garage that opens and closes or whatever, but it's all water flowing
free and yet it's not a permanent fixture. >> Okay. I I will try to clarify what you're asking and then I'll let Okay. Albert address it. But I think what you're asking is this is the footprint and what we see is is kind of a
footprint for that mobile uh vendor, that trailer. I think what you're saying is um on on this side where the seating would be >> kind of just having a full louvered wall. >> Yes. >> Is that correct? Where
>> I'm saying enclose it. >> There have to be a gate or something to be able to get the mobile >> to get the mobile. Yeah. So, I'm just saying make it an enclosed box that you put the mobile in and it has a opening with a, you know, whether you take the
the uh the shelf, you know, that you'll be serving out of on and off when you have to get the trailer in and out, but it will camouflage it to the point where it's not an RV sitting there looking
like an RV. >> Well, >> it's not an RV. The thing is we don't want to camouflage the business. That was my strategy as an architect. >> You could you could your signage will tell you that there is a nice >> I think the option is you'll notice a lot of food trucks and the
clarification. This is actually an ice cream truck cuz one thing we want to clarify too, we cannot put food cooking trucks in Times Square underneath the structure. That's against fire codes. But a ice cream truck is different because that is not cooking. There's not grease. There's not exhaust and all that stuff. That's different. So, part of the
ice cream trucks you'll see around the country, a lot of them have a real lot of artistical um painting on the exterior. It's not a born white truck. It's not a um gray boring truck. Uh I think if you look at what Carlos has already done to his trailer already with things like the
menu sign, the the planers, the lads, I think I'd like to keep it open to that rather than locking him in to facade. That's >> an argument. You want to see it when you're walking by. We want to be able to see the food truck because we want to be able to have the colors of the food truck, the branding of the food truck,
our ice cream truck basically, and you know, for visibility. Um, signage, that's something else we'll add to the building later on. You have to also understand too if what happens next door, cuz obviously this is a vacant building standing in the middle of
nowhere right now, but where Placa used to be, if they come in, it's also going to block the visibility of this ice cream trailer. So it becomes challenging for a business standpoint. We want to be able to celebrate it. Um and this is the first step I believe is a prop proper way to make this work with all the codes
and restrictions. In my career of doing this for 20 plus years or so 30 years, this area is the very complicated place to build anything and is the most expensive place to build and it's going to take time to still even get something
to go vertical. I don't want to sugarcoat it. It is a complicated process to balance everything out. Um, so what I don't want to do is restrict Carlos and locking something in to the point where now food traffic becomes a challenge on there. We're adding more
things to do it. Let the food truck ice cream truck, sorry, Jennifer Campbell, I can't say the word food truck. Known her for years. Um, but just the flexibility to have him do that in his business. >> So the question is, will FEMA allow a food truck? It's an ice cream truck.
>> It's an ice cream truck. And yes, in the federal register, it's 6 months light duty truck as defined by the Federal Department of Transportation. FEMA does not define what a light duty truck is. As defined by the Federal Department of Transportation, there's
very verbiage on there that lists all the cars and vehicles on there. So, the term everyone uses light duty truck. Has to be mobile and ready to go. You can't have it blocked on blocks. It's got to be still have the wheels. very similar what you see on the beach bar and the ground floor. The wheels are in there.
They're hydraulically dropped. There's lots of option on there. It's got to be quick back up the truck and go. So, all those things that we will be working out through the development order process as far as the building department, but with our experiences with the other projects working at Fort Myers Beach, we've had these
conversations for everyone and staff to kind of zone into what make sure we're compliant with. If I might add with regards to to any kind of trailer um mobile vending for just to clarify for people that might be listening,
we we were under a mandate from FEMA to properly permit those uses because we kind of had a blanket resolution ordinance >> that kind of gave everybody a break following the hurricane. And I think the
idea is the the the trailer itself when permitted properly is not a problem. It just has to be permitted properly. And that's what we're doing today is we're coming forward with a development agreement that would allow that use. >> So one other question. Um since you are
asking for zero planting, would you have a problem with the condition that there would be required pots with vegetation? Yeah, no problem. They they're already doing that and and as long as they can kind of make it work with ingress egress, not a problem.
>> Okay. Anything else, Jim? Jim, >> the residential unit, uh, is that envisioned to be a rental? >> Uh, right now it would be owned by the family, by Carlos and and his family. Uh, I don't know if they've got a a decision at this point if it's going to
be solely for their use and their family and friends or occupied. >> Yeah. But it's it's going to be owned by them. >> My plan is going to be >> Carlos, do you want to come up and speak? >> Good morning, everyone. >> Good morning, Carlos. Say your name for
the record, will you? >> Carlo Chavez. So um well thank you very much for uh your time. Uh as you might know this is a really difficult project to be able to present it here today. Uh it's a very
small lot. Uh very limited options for us. Uh all the regulations that we had to follow to be able to comply with FEMA with the town. um the cost of building uh basically make it almost impossible
financially uh to build something here. Uh so the reason why I decide to build is because I want this to be my uh residency and I'm not planning to rent it. this is the place that I wanna to be able to go
and see the sunset. And that was what motivate me to come forward and rebuild because I'm not planning to make any money from this. This is a very expensive project that with ice cream you won't be able to pay.
>> You will never be able to pay and that is the only reason and that's the only option that we have. the other option will be probably sell uh but um is is is really sad but that's the reality
so but uh straight to your question this is going to be my residency I'm not planning to rent it to anybody >> thank you >> welcome >> Carlos could I ask you a question you you don't have to answer this because it's not in here but you know you owning
the property immediately adjacent to it where Bella mozzarella and everything is Now, uh, do you would you ultimately foresee building something there that will come up to this height? Would you ultimately see putting a second floor or
third floor on your existing properties? >> Um, >> or have you not even thought about it? >> Well, it all depends if we we can build the mitigation way wall and that will allow us to build on the ground. >> That will make a big difference. But at
this time there is no business on the second floor in the world that works. >> Yes. >> They fell. Right. >> So um it's very unfortunate but that mistation wall um will be tremendous
help and if that's the case I will be willing to do so. >> Okay. So now I'm going to ask you a strictly aesthetic question. Uh, so you know, coming over the bridge, you're going to see this building, and I'm going to guess that you're going to be the first one up
>> in Time Square. And, um, >> Margaritaville has this shadow painting of palm trees. I'm just I actually on my my piece of paper at home that I left, I actually have a drawing of some of a shadow painting on the side of this
building just to make it interesting looking since we're going to be looking at it. Um, would you entertain something like that? I'm not going to make it a condition, but I just want you to think about it. >> So, had you been in Times Square uh recently? Had you seen my my place on the back? And
>> no, I haven't seen it. >> Well, I think it's like the nicest looking place in Times Square. We have And I'm not lying. I think we have a We have a lot of compliments. We have a lot of compliments. Yeah, >> we have a beautiful mural uh facing uh
Bella Mozarella. >> Uh we have plants all over the property. We have flowers in front of the trailer. Actually, the trailer is going to be in a a important uh program at the end of the year that is um a forecast
nationwide because it's a beautiful place. >> Um and that's the intention. the intention that is attractive to the people and that we are going to feel the vibe. >> That's the whole idea to make it beautiful. Yeah. >> Plus needs to be attractive for people
to have ice cream. >> You know, I think the discussion about this being your your personal residence that people instantly thought it was two residences because of course it's two floors and it could have been it could have been two small units. >> There is no room for two. Yeah. Yeah.
Well, um I think that's going to change the public uh dialogue about what this is now. >> That will change it tremendously. So, >> yeah. >> Good for you. >> That's what motivated me to build to see this answer there. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Any other questions for Carlos?
>> Congratulations for sticking with this, putting a flag in that place, doing it the right way. I hope it's infectious. >> Thank you very much. >> Do you have any time frame as to when you would start? I had the funds >> to start tomorrow,
>> but we need to go we need to go through per meeting. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Good. Good. Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions for the attorney for Patrick or Patrick? I'm sorry. Were you finished >> in your optimistic mood?
>> Are we? >> But I'm I'm uh waiting to hear if the attorney has anything to add. Um, meanwhile, I can give you a little song and dance if you'd like. >> No, he's ready. >> He's ready. We don't need a song. >> We'd like to overrule that request.
>> No song and dances from Patrick today. Go ahead. >> All right. So, u Richard Aken again for your record. Um, I did want to just raise one other thing. Nancy reminded me when she asked a question about why paragraph 12, which is regarding amendment, was highlighted. And I went back because I was trying to determine
why that was. And so we originally in the version I sent over to Nancy, there was a provision in there that would allow the developer to terminate the development agreement unilaterally without the approval of the beach or the town, I'm sorry. Um the purpose of having that in there and and it does have some other language about you can't
leave anything in an unsafe condition, any anything that you've begun. The reason to have that is it just it kind of gives a little bit of protection to Carlos. The only reason I could think he would ever terminate it, and I think it may not really matter to him, but is that let's say that there's some unified development plan that comes in quicker
than he would imagine down there, and he decides, well, hey, it would be we're going to just go ahead and go with this and go everything together. It would then we wouldn't have to come back through this process to terminate the thing. it really the the unilateral termination in my mind doesn't have a lot of downside to to the town in one in
one way of looking at it because he's got to do this within five years anyway otherwise it terminates as on its own right so if he terminates he's just right back to where he sits today there's nothing nothing that he gets out of it by terminating the only reason I think he would ever do that is if there's some unified development plan I
I just wanted to raise whether uh that was it I wanted to ask why it was taken out or if anybody has a concern with taking it out Nancy you didn't raise it to me so I wondered if it an oversight. Um, and I think it might have even been in the original draft that we got from >> Yeah, there was some concerns previously
raised u with some other I think development agreements as far as the ability to terminate and and walk away. Um, but I mean you've given them an explanation. I I would just maybe add the language that says, you know, and it
will revert back to the status quo of what he has today. >> Of course. um >> that would be the intent >> you know and again I don't want to take up a lot of time but really the purpose of having these development agreements is that there is a project that's coming to you that is so unique and so
beneficial to the town um that it needs to happen and it needs to happen quickly. And in the event that it doesn't, then it does kind of revert back and whatever benefits to the town or benefits to the developer, it just
goes away. So that was the uh >> So is that something that needs to be amended in the development agreement? >> So it would be my request that we add back in the language and I can uh work on the details with Nancy to make it that it would revert back. And again, I want to make it clear. Carlos has told
me over and over again, I want to build this tomorrow. I have no desire to do anything different. Being the attorney, I'm always looking out for, okay, well, what happens if this and if that, and that's my job. So, I'm just trying to to give everybody the the ability to be flexible where it's reasonable.
>> So, if it's all right, Nancy and I can work on that language. >> Okay. >> At the pleasure of the LPA. >> Okay. Does anybody object to that? >> No. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, sir. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes, sir. I don't I don't know if this is directed to anybody, but just to kind of get the conversation on the record
and maybe council or staff can deal with it. I remember during the conversations around the Salt Lake Crab that this is an extraordinarily tight construction site, um lots of traffic, lots of pedestrians, all that reality of a small footprint
with a lot of congestion. So I I guess as we've got one now about to sprout um that we as a community and whatever logistics that we can offer supply recommend alternatives around that. So the staging for construction and other
materials can be can be dealt with um as part of a on purpose versus by applicant by applicant. So I don't know where that belongs but I'd like to see that conversation happen now that times square in the center of our conversations thankfully. So that whatever we can do to alleviate
temporary location just like they're doing with the bridge on the south end with all that area they're using on Lever's Key. I hope our town and our community and other resident or other parcel owners can um aggregate around something that say we'll help each other with whatever we need to do. I heard
that during the owners of the food truck park when the houses were being rebuilt there. So if we can just get that on the record for a conversation at some point so we have that officially at least talked about. I think it would be helpful to all the residents there. >> Yeah. Uh, that was a question I was going to ask you. Um, uh, gosh, I'm
drawing I'm drawing a blank complete. Albert, um, could you come back up for a second? >> So, I How do you in I mean, I what Jim's talking about is is something that, you know, from a policy perspective, I don't
know what we what we do to um to encourage that, but how does something like this get constructed in a pedestrian mall? Do you foresee something be even though I know you're not the constructor but you're the best person I can ask this at the moment. How
do you see that happening? >> Very challenging. I mean this is no different at building like in Times Square um the other time square. >> Yeah. Right. >> I'm originally from Long Island around New York. I've seen lots of the urban development be built in my life and it's it stage you know umpire state building. The iron was still hot when they were delivering it and and was a procedural
thing in and out in and out. So it's a logistical thing from a construction standpoint. It's possible. Beach Bar also had its challenges. >> Y >> lucky we have a little bit of land, but we had to pay someone to rent the land or Lisa Stevens and the owners had to do that in order to compensate them for the use of the land for the temporary staging.
>> Um whatever can be mass-produced ahead of times obviously. >> Um I mean modular is an option but it has a certain limitations to it as well too. No matter what there's going to be some staging has to take place. So it's it's going to have to involve everyone and staff and and it also goes back to
storm water as well too. I mean, all the the impervious area that's there right now is the same as what we're proposing. We're not increasing the impervious area because there was no pvious area there before anyhow. And everyone's roof ran off into the common area into the catch basins that are in Time Square.
>> That's right. >> Now, if that can handle the same amount of water as before, it's the same amount of water we're putting back in there right now. It's different. So, that can that needs to be resolved as well too. U everything from the foundation system. We're we're as an architect and a structural engineers we had conversations about all this stuff. You
know, we're in velocity zone. We're also on top of that, we're in D. We're CCL. That also adds time to this process as well too with the load. Everyone's seen the 7-Eleven walls. That is a wall that is dry floodproofed. That is what you're going to be looking at eventually.
>> In order to do that, that's a lot of lateral load being put on a three-story building. The foundation system be pretty beefed up. We don't want to drive piles because that is going to destroy the neighbors. That's right. >> And if as if as if as if Carlos goes first, let's say he were to do that.
>> The next person coming in, we don't want him to do that. We want to encourage other type of foundation system. I'm not sure if helical work just yet. We've had this rough conversation, but that's an option because that's less disruptive. There's augur. There's other ones that we've used up in Sarasota on the beach.
That's complete different technology. There's ways that we can do that. We're all working together to build in an urban area. If it's done in New York City where you can excavate 60 feet into the ground as a high-rise next door, it can be done. But this is what I was saying earlier. This adds to the complexity and cost and time frame to
build. That's why any investment going in there is so I believe should be heavily supported because that is a lot of investment going into that area. It we can't build we built before. >> So, >> and that's why any common area help support we can get logistics staging.
>> Yeah. This is the time to have the conversation as a community. These kind of things we all rally around. >> The conversation the elevator you brought up before a long time ago about having a common element that is very unique. I I honestly wished holistically that the whole time square and Lyn Hall
Park was designed cohesively is those restrooms should have been put up against Time Square >> and not put back where they were. The bathrooms could have been expanded with a common elevator like an outdoor mall we have in Miami and South Beach and other parts of the country. That would have been a benefit better to do, but
instead we're we're look backwards and we want to put things back to where they were. I know >> we have to think outside the box and that's I believe that would have been the the genesis of help in Times Square. >> I feel that's kind of set already. >> So the common elevator becomes an interesting thing because who owns the
liability on that? If you have a business that your customers don't to a common elevator and they trip and fall, that's a conversation you have to talk about from an insurance standpoint and a liability standpoint. Um, also who's going first,
>> the business without the elevator or the town put in a common walkway with the elevator that the chicken the egg thing it becomes an interesting discussion. You know going back to what Jane said about second floor and our original design and concept very early studies that often the thing we have to always
balance with we don't give designs to clients that are not buildable they have to be buildable where codes and egress and fire codes so the challenging thing is you put in an elevator that's 6 by8 once you go three stories your elevator has to be stretcher approved that's a bigger elevator you have machine
roomless elevators you have hydraulic elevators machines or rooms stairs from the ground floor to the second floor at an elevation DP of 22 feet. When you're all said and done, that takes a lot of footprint. So, the stair itself already lost almost 300 square footage.
>> Yeah. An elevator. And the business model, like Carlos is saying, profitability. You only can fit so many people on a second floor before you need a second set of stairs. Once you over 49 people, two stairs. Once you over a certain number, three sets of stairs.
All these things are puzzle pieces that form a perfect storm in a positive way. how you get the design to work. So, we did think about everything to work communitywise. I think the roof lines are important. One of the things we always did at the very beginning was to give a gable ends on both sides so that
someone can build up against this room. There's no runoff going to the neighbor's roof. >> You don't have to worry about them touching. So, it's kind of like the in between alley between John Rashard's building uh next to so >> my kids have scooted between that building before go eat there. That's
kind of what you're seeing. so that one person's building does not affect the other person's structure. So yes, I do agree this conversation have to be going on. These are going to carry on during development order and they're going to carry on during the building department process, but I think the first person is going to be almost a guinea pig
>> to figure some of these things out. >> Sounds like to me you're advocating for always hiring a good architect when you're talking about these things. >> It's about the team. Yeah, >> it is about the team. Yeah. Very good. Thank you. I'm not say no. >> Thank you. Thank you.
Patrick, anything else? >> That's it. All done. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, I'll open up the public. Is there any public that would make like to make a comment about this project? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment. Uh, any further questions for
the staff? Jason, you have anything to follow up on after all that? Any further questions for the staff or the applicant from the LPA? Uh, if not, any discussion? I would just like to add a a condition to the part
where they have no plantings that we add additional pots >> with plant with vegetation. I'm not going to say a size or anything like that. Whatever works for the development, but just so that it has some kind of >> pretty something.
>> Okay. Um, Nancy, do you have uh all the uh changes that the attorney spoke of with the uh amended language for the proportionate share? >> I do. Um, if I can read them and correct me if I'm wrong, I have six. Um, the
first being uh regarding the nexus, the reasonable nexus on the the infrastructure part. >> Um, that was on page 159. Um clarification on the permits that the water management district permits may
not be necessary. The square footage um 2797.5. Um number four would have been the requirement for pots with vegetation that Jane had asked for. Um number five
I'm I need a little bit of help. Um, do you want to have a specific restriction on the use of the residence? >> No. >> Yeah. Final comment. >> No, that's fine. >> No. No. >> And then the last one would be the uh termination provision.
>> Yes. >> Within and I'll work with Richard on that. >> So, there's five. >> Okay. Um, it's 10:57. We need to take a break because Don needs to uh take a break.
Uh, so we're going we're going to heal. He's gonna go to the back. >> He's got no he he has a he's got a call he has to make. So, um, so I'd like to ask to take a break here for maybe uh whether or not Don rejoins us or not, but 15 minutes. 15 minutes and then
hopefully you can work that out with the attorneys so that we can have a complete >> Well, you could condition it that we add that language before first reading because this one will go to council. So, you may us take a vote. Okay. Okay. So, never mind. We're not going to take
we're not going to take a break. Okay. All right. So, with all those things uh added and that discussion had, is there a motion, please? >> Uh I'll make a motion to move ordinance 25-9 DA 2025018650
Old San Carlos, commonly known as Kilins Time Square. uh approving uh with the conditions as noted and amended >> and >> consistent with the comprehensive plan. I'll second that motion. >> Okay. So, we have a motion in a second.
Is there any further discussion on or any discussion on the motion? Um I I'm just going to say for the record now because you won't be here probably at the end, Carlos. I I mean, I congratulate you on on being the first one to get this kind of approval and um
but I think that there is a bigger conversation that the LPA and the council need to be having on what we can do proactively to encourage this redevelopment in light of the obstacles that are faced by those uh by those property owners. So, okay. Is there any
uh other discussion on the motion? >> Uh hearing none, your vote. John >> I. >> Who is the second? I'm sorry. Jim, >> I uh Don, >> hi. >> Jane, >> hi. >> Uh Jim, >> I >> and I'm an I. Congratulation. It passes unanimously. It's on to the council.
>> Yeah. Buena. >> Okay. So, uh uh do you guys want to take a break? Yes, we're going to take we're going to take a break for about 10 minutes. Uh Don Sith will join us when he is uh uh finished with his uh conference. So
our next case uh we don't have Nancy here. Well, I think we can start without her. Um our next case is >> what? I'm sorry. >> Oh. uh is a variance VR 20250227
for 1741 Eststerero Boulevard. the goods. A resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving approving with conditions or denying variance 20250227, a variance to amend previously approved
variance VR 2024270, adding a variance from the land development code chapter 3420 to reduce parking requirement in the downtown zoning district for the property located at 1741 Eststerero
Boulevard generally identified as strap number 194624 W40080B0010 and providing for an effective date. Before I go any further, does is this belong to any of you all who are here? Somebody left this at the outside. Okay.
Well, we'll just leave it right here in case they come in, they'll see it. Okay. Um, so, uh, exparte. Jim, anything? >> None. >> How about you, Jane? I've had conversations in the parking lot of goods. >> Turn your mic on. >> I've had conversations in the parking
lot of goods with the owner and father. >> Okay. How about you, Jim? >> Um, we received from Amy this morning a letter that objects to both the variance uh D and uh the next item E.
>> Okay. Uh John >> uh received the same letter. I have not received that letter, but I'll look for it when we're uh when we're in there. Um anything? Uh okay. All right, Jason. >> Hold on a second. All right. So, yes, uh
as was just mentioned, um there's one staff report covering both issues, but they are two different uh votes and agenda items. Uh so the nuts and bolts of this is the applicant is has already gone through um a process of development order uh received um approvals of that
excuse me development order uh interfering process of being under construction. They've uh modified the uses that are going to be within that box essentially and because of that that has triggered a different calculation for parking uh which they had previously a variance approved for a reduction in
parking for on-site. So the the plan their plan will still accommodate the same number of I believe it's 18 parking spaces. It's just the math on what the variance difference is uh required them to come back here before you. So when we do the math on the square footage of
what's now going to be restaurant and uh part of that restaurant will have like gaming room for families and kids. Uh that the calculation for that increase the required parking. uh but their request is to provide the same number of parking spaces that they were going to under the approved plan and the previous
variance. So it change it from a change uh 35 required parking spaces to the 18 on site. Um so that number that final number of 18 has not changed any different. Uh so in this report we provide you with some uh discussion of that variance and the requirements set
forth in your line development code. Um and based on those findings of facts that it would be consistent with comprehensive plan uh the land development code and somewhat relying on your previous discussions and the previous variance. So it replaces the previous variance uh in its entirety
just for um a note on that. And uh there's some uh conditions for that. If you have any questions I'll answer. >> Thank you Jason. Are there any questions for Jason on this? Jim anything. Uh, do you have anything any questions from Don on this?
>> I don't. He said, uh, proceed. We can go right to a vote. >> Jane, >> anything? >> No. Um, not Well, >> I'll come back to you, Jim. >> Um, the switch from uh uh lodging to the
the gaming or retail. Um, what is the parking ratio between the two? I I read it, but I forgot. Uh the new amount I let me pull it was 35 um required now under the new calculation and the
previous number here I think it was 23 I'm trying to find that >> 37 >> right so it was 23 variance to 18 and now it's 35 to 18 >> you >> right I think you've got it reversed
okay um you know What? >> Okay. So, those use are permitted under the downtown zoning district. So, that change is not something that's a public hearing part of that. Those are uses that are permitted under downtown >> and what does that have to do with the
parking? >> I'm just saying those uses are allowed in the parking chain for through the ch because of the change of uses. >> Okay. But did that answer your question? >> Okay. >> Third. Yes. >> All right. Um, John, any questions? >> Uh, none at this time. >> All right. >> No, I don't have any. And you don't have
anything else? Anything else, Jason? >> Uh, no. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, let's have the applicant come up. Cara, >> we have the whole Bel the whole clan here. >> You're coming. >> What happened to the baby, though?
>> You're so cute. >> We're worried about the baby now. >> Yeah. Good morning. Carara Stewart for the record representing the owners of 1741 Estero Boulevard uh typically known as the goods before you. The variance request is yes
we have changed in the 9th hour unfortunately our t our use that we are proposing. We originally had approval for hotel rooms and retail on the second floor parking below. At that time we did
not require any parking reduction. We did ask for variances for location of parking spaces, some buffering and whatnot. But the number of spaces we had adequate parking. What they are proposing now is on that
third floor to have partial restaurant and then a child's game room. I mean Chuck-E-Cheese, I don't know what they're called here, but those types of games, not um not adult gaming. So, we want to be very clear about that. >> So, the baby was a supporting prop today
for the game room for the kids. >> The baby wasn't right for objects. >> Good move back there. >> See, it wasn't a baby. >> Well, it should have been. >> All right, go ahead. And in doing that, it kind of again the code gets a little
complicated. So, we're asking for a total, as Jason re as Jason suggested, 35 parking spaces. Not to digress, but I will just for a minute. We originally came to the town asking for a reduction, I believe, of only eight spaces. However, staff made a
very great point that because of the configuration, realistically, I'm standing there with my grandchildren. They're playing games. I need a glass of wine and a slice of pizza. and I'm walking throughout the area. Now, I need to expand that use to the other area
where I'm consuming my wine. So, I'm walking from this restaurant pizza area. My grandchildren are over there playing. I'm going to walk over. Excuse me. I'm going to walk over. So, we're incor incorporating the entire square footage of that third floor for our parking
reduction. >> Good description, Cara. Very good. >> Does that help? Yes. >> So that's that's part of that large conflict. Okay. >> Um >> the intention here is that we're not I'm going to I don't know how to say this
correctly soliciting to folks to come in just to have necessarily the pizza and beer or wine because we are only asking in your next request for a 2 cop of beer and wine. We're really looking to be promoting the arcade and pizza and come
in and have your family environment. You've been at the beach all day or maybe it's a rainy day. What do we do with these children that are all coming into the town? So, that's really the crux of it. In addition to that, my husband and I walked and rode from San Carlos yesterday, old San Carlos, down
to the goods where they're proposing it. There are between 12 and 15 private parking lots within that very walkable, enticing district that we're trying to create in the downtown district. So, we
are also contributing to that viability of the walking. The owner is an owner operator prior to Ian operated the goods as we all know. And they just mentioned to me, Cara, we had such an abundance of walking traffic. Half our parking lot
was empty to begin with. the owner has no concern about fulfilling their obligation for this unit um the way it is with that reduced parking. So, any other questions? I'm here to answer them. There's not much more for me to say on that.
>> John, any questions for Cara? >> Uh, no. I think you were very clear in clarifying that there would be no gaming or anything for >> adults. >> Adults. >> Adults. When when we say adult gaming, we I mean gambling.
>> I'm worried about video poker and video. >> That's what I'm worried. >> That is not the intention. I may go play Pac-Man, but no. >> All right. >> So, just for clarification, the town's code, and we've been through this process with another project years ago, does not recognize that use. And that
was a question posed to you, the LPA, and the council at the time. Uh there's ways that we could define it and we could fit it under these other definitions. And the returning answer is no. Um if we want that use, we'll change the code at that time to allow that. So that's why you have the condition in
there about um no 18 plus only games being allowed. >> Yeah. >> And thank you Cara for clarifying that. Yeah. So the whole point to staff was um and I think you mentioned this on some others enforcement of that space trying to go into it and say this is restaurant, this is gaming didn't make a
lot of sense for us to spend time as a town doing that. So just call it all restaurant. Yes, it increases your parking demand. But the reality is, as she's already explained, you have parking lots and already parking downstairs and all that. So, >> Okay. Jim, any questions? >> Not on the parking. >> Okay. Uh Jane,
>> no. I I just No, >> Jim. Anything? >> No. Good. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um so, we'll open up to public comment unless uh no public comment. All right. So,
Madame Chair, there was the question of um the receipt of an email this morning concerning the noticing provisions. Um if I may, could we ask staff to uh comment on the notice whether it was properly provided?
>> And Cara, did you read? Okay, >> go ahead. I I I might be able to respond to that because pursuant to the town's new ordinance where the applicant takes responsibility for that. We did take responsibility for that. We have also provided the photographs to the town
clerk. We've posted the property. Um we did what we were asked to do. >> Very good. >> And you've got documentation to that? >> Yes, we do. And we provided that to the town. >> I did not receive this letter from the neighbor until today. Yes, none of us
did. None of us did >> like Okay. >> You know, half hour. >> Jason, anything further to add? >> Uh, no. Just Well, yes. The um Jason Smalls mentioned to me that we have on file the applicant sends us proof of that they >> That's why I was asking >> posting or a copy of the letter that went out. Okay.
>> Um mailing list, things of that nature that go with it uh 7 days prior to the this date. >> Bingo. >> Very good. Okay. Any other discussion on this? If not, may I have a motion, please? Uh, hold on a second, Nancy. What's that? What's Dawn not sitting
here right now going to do to a potential unanimous vote if there should be one? >> I think it is uh unanimous decision by eligible voting members of the LPA to approve a variance shall constitute
subject to a request. >> Yes. So, >> so eligible voting members >> are the ones sitting at the dis. >> Yes. Okay. Very good. >> All right. Um, may I have a motion, please? >> Unless there's you want to discuss this any further.
>> No, I'll I'll move a motion for approval of variance 20250227, also known as 1741 of Sterile Boulevard the goods as recommended by staff and consistent with comprehensive plan. >> Okay, there's a motion by Jim Dunlap,
seconded by Jim Bowen. Any uh discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All those in fa Jim your vote. >> I >> Jim >> I. >> John >> I. >> Jane >> I. >> I. Motion carries unanimously. >> Okay. So now let's move on to the second
half of this which is a special exception. SEZ 20250228 1741 Eero Boulevard. Nancy before I go further did the council approve us approving special exceptions like the variances or not? >> Not yet. >> Not yet. Okay. So, this will have to go
on to the council. >> Okay. >> Yes. Uh this is a resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving approving with conditions or denying special exception SCZ 20228 to allow consumption on premises COP in
the outdoor patio at third floor within 500 ft of dwelling units for the property located at 1741 Eststerero Boulevard generally identified as strap number 194624 W4008B 0010 and providing for an effective
date. Um, any exparte? John? >> No. >> How about you, Jim? >> No. >> Jane, >> not on that. >> Um, uh, Jim, >> none. >> Uh, I I did talk to Graham about, uh, about this change and, um, and, uh, and
his his new plan for this uh, for this um, for this project. Okay. >> Um, >> I take that back then. >> I did talk to him about the change, but >> it's kind of all-encompassing. Okay. And yes, same parking lot.
>> Okay, Jason. >> Hi, uh Jason Green Community Develop. Uh so yes, as you described the uh deck and porch area previously was concept-wise was for a different use. Uh the change from the lodging to the restaurant and gaming um children's
gaming area uh has facilitated also the opportunity to have outdoor seating. Um so therefore with similar we've talked about today uh consumption on premise in the outdoor area within you know distances of churches and residences and all that requires the special exception process. Um looking at the surrounding
neighborhoods and the proposed uses within the building and adjacent um staff has reviewed this as being consistent with the comprehensive plan development code. Um, and there's some findings, effects in the staff report and ordinance provided or right, excuse me, resolution provided for you and um,
some additional Yeah, there you go. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer those. >> Thank you, Jason. Any questions for Jason? Seeing none, Cara. Cara, I have a suggestion for you. Maybe instead of gaming it should be playroom
because it I mean when I talked to Graeme you said corn cornball cornhole whatever that game. So so some other other types of games maybe the word gaming you should should consider because it yeah it throws a throws a different connotation.
>> We've been having that discussion as well >> because we did not want to mislead people thinking that that's what it was for that same very reason. We don't want that. So, and we agree as uh Jason mentioned before with the condition in relationship to limiting it to only 18
and above. So, we're okay on that. So, you've heard a lot earlier today on consumption on premises and outdoor. This one is similar. We have the ability on the interior to operate our restaurant with our beer and wine. Much
like my conversation a minute ago about the walking around, we want to be able to walk outside with our glass of wine while our grandchildren are in the other room. Um, we want to be able to just move about. So, that's really what we're requesting. And again, I remind you that
we are not operating or requesting a 4 COP. We are only requesting a 2 COP, which is beer and wine. We are in agreement with all of the conditions except one that we feel just needs maybe some clarity and that was condition
number four. Games in the entertainment area cannot include loud electronic beeping, ringing or buzzing. Um I would suggest that we just stay in compliance with the town's noise ordinance and and put it to bed unless there was some specific that we're not sure how do we
gauge loud what what what what really does that mean? So we were hoping we would just eliminate that one and or incorporate it into we'll be in compliance. >> This is all enclosed. >> There's sliding glass doors to be able to. So it it you know maybe maybe was we
would have to again be in be in compliance with your noise ordinance. Of course. >> Anything? Yeah, I don't have a question about that. >> Is is I I'm just thinking about um uh
I'm thinking back in the day when I played a video game. One of my favorites was Galaga. You know, where you shoot the star the starships and whatever and it was chew. Uh, and I'm I'm wondering
is there a way to silence those games? I don't know if if there's >> Graeme, if you if you want to come up, you're welcome to. >> I was going to refer to the owner. He's been dealing with the vendor. you come up because I could see first of all I don't know how the noise ordinance could
I think that would just I hate it when the noise ordinance is a qualifier for this but would there be a way to have minimal sound from those machines? >> Yes. My name is Graham Belg. >> They were Did you Were you sworn in at the very beginning?
>> No. >> Yeah, I don't think you were. Will you raise your hand? >> They all want to stand up back there if if any of you guys are going to say anything. No, they're not going to, but Graham is. Okay. >> 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?
>> Yes, I do. >> So, say your name for the record now. >> Graham Belgger. >> Graham is the is the property owner here. Um, okay. So, tell me what >> All the games, you can control the volume on those. You can turn them up as loud as you want or down as low as you want. Um, that's not going to be an
issue. It's, you know, the building is built, you know, to survive hurricanes. So, you're not going to hear anything outside of it. It's not >> But when you have the sliding glass doors open, you >> But they're not, it's not even a sliding door. She kind of misses spoke. It's just like, you know, just doors that open, which they're going to close
immediately as somebody goes out. The doors will never be open for more than 30 seconds at a time. >> And Graham, you're the you're the owner operator of this like you are of your previous businesses. Is that correct? Right. I'm going to take your word for this. >> Yeah. It's going to be called Beachside Arcade and Pizza.
>> I love it. So, do we need to change this because change this from cannot include loud electronic beeping or >> I don't think it's necessary. >> Well, but if they they can't include beeping things, then
>> that's I don't think it's necessary to have it in there. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah, that's where I >> So, that was what I was going to say, too. I mean other than we might say that it's below the 50% volume. >> If I ever have any kind of complaint from a neighbor then I'll adjust the volume but I I don't I don't see that
happening. >> Yes. So can can we eliminate that because many of those games by their nature how do you all feel about that? >> You have to my only concern about the beeping and noising and everything else was around beach the theater which was not enclosed inside an enclosed building. I mean if you can't hear it
out on the sidewalk you have no complaints. >> How about you Jim? Yeah. >> More noise from people parking their cars and locking. >> Let's take that. Let's take that one out. Number four. Number four. >> I agree with that, Jane. Thanks. >> Okay. All right. Um, anything else you want to add to this, Graeme? >> No, I don't think so. I'm just excited
to hopefully get this going. >> What's your time frame? >> Well, as soon as uh we're going through the banking process right now and um that's about it. I mean, I'm I'm break my goal is to break ground in December. So, >> deal. Okay. So, we need to get you to
the town council today. All right. Thank you, Graeme. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for sticking with it and to your whole family. >> This special exception has to go there, too. >> Special exception has to go to the council. Yes. Still. Okay. >> The other one doesn't, right? >> The the variance, but this does.
>> Okay. Any further Oh, public comment. Any public comment? Cara, was there anything else you wanted to add? Seeing no public comment. Nothing else. Um, any discussion or may I have a motion, please, to approve special exception 20250228, removing number four?
>> I have some questions. >> Oh, okay. >> Well, got started, Jim. >> Okay. Um, several questions all having to do with uh the alcohol part. The request is for alcohol, >> not beer and wine. >> No, beer and wine.
>> Well, >> it says alcoholic beverages. >> Yep. They're a class two class two designation. Right. >> If I can set the stage on that. From our perspective, it's associated with a restaurant. >> So, it doesn't become a bar. I don't know if you want to expand on that. Um
because our code doesn't touch on the two versus the four and all that, but if they want to offer that, that could be a condition. >> And well, okay. But then the second question is there's no restriction on hours of serving alcohol in here. You
have amplified music limitations, but was there any discussion about hours that alcohol could be consumed >> on the porch area? No. But obviously
those are I don't know if they happen once again. >> Would it mirror the hours of restaurant? >> Mirror the hours of the restaurant to Jim's point. >> Yes, it would. And what are the restaurant? >> I believe we're talking 10 a.m. to 1000 p.m.
>> Is that correct? Yeah. 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. >> Then maybe we have a new number for >> Yeah. replace it. >> And then lastly, is there a co coingling? I mean >> coingling. C can you take the alcohol into the gaming area where all the kids
are or is it the alcohol confined to the the restaurant bar area? >> Okay. The restaurant on the inside of the building. >> Yes. is permitted by Wright
and the intent is that because we are taking the larger reduction in parking, we would be allowed to walk over to that game that's on the other side of the building than the restaurant, if that's what you're asking me. Yes,
>> the restaurant is entitled. >> Yes, it's comingling alcohol. That's not the issue. The issue is you have a gaming area that is aimed at children under 18.
And the question is, can you take your drink in where all the kids are while they're playing the games? >> Yes. >> The answer is yes. Very simply, it is yes. >> You don't see that as a potential conflict? >> Um, I am a grandmother, so I'm going to switch gears a minute here.
>> He's a grand I bring my children. I bring my children to these places all the time when we travel and they are really meant towards gaming but I am there as an adult and we are asking only
for a 2 cop which is beer and wine only. I want I want to be very clear on that. We are not setting it up that you can go in and shoot shots and have a big party. We're going for beer and wine. Yes, you can co-mingle >> in the restaurant. No, we in the restaurant in the gaming area.
>> That's that's where I have a problem. >> It's the whole area. >> So, from the staff perspective, it's it's a big room. Um I don't know if you've been to Dave and Busters. It's kind of the same setup where adults and kids walk around and do all that. We didn't want to have to enforce >> this thousand square feet versus that
thousand square feet. They're not separate by walls. They're not different entities. It's not a different It's not like in a shopping plaza where they had different doors. It's just it's a big space. Um, so that's why we asked for the restaurant uh designation for all of it. Uh, plus if they want to, yes, their
site plan has some chairs and tables. U, but they may want to add chairs and tables. Before >> bring a second. So, what this really is is a big restaurant that has some games in it. >> Correct. >> Does that change your mind? >> No.
>> I Okay. Uh, but it was also to help avoid us having to micromanage how many tables they had, where they were, do they cross this visible line, um, if they want to add tables for to making sure they have the 51% food. It was all intended to kind of help protect uh, us
being involved, frankly, and the future on that issue. >> Cara, did you have >> If I may just again clarify, the request before you is only for the patio. Yes.
>> The request is only for the patio. >> Okay. So the the as as much as I can appreciate your concern that people are walking around the adults with the children that area is permitted by right. The only thing before you on the
cop or on the consumption is the I think it's 700 square ft plus or minus on the outside patio which is on the front of the boulevard. >> Clear? >> But the definition of where
a restaurant is located determines what is by right natur. The You could have the restaurant this big, but you're saying the restaurant's this big because now it has all the gaming
included. >> The plan could designate the restaurant area this big. You would have a right to have your alcohol in the restaurant. You're now saying, "No, my restaurant is this big and includes all the gaming."
>> Okay. No. Not with all due respect, no that is not my request. My request is >> No, I understand. We're only talking about the patio. I got that. >> Okay. >> But I'm saying that the switch from lodging
>> to what you're doing. You now have what could be the restaurant this big. You've got a restaurant you're saying is this big. I got it that that's not what we're voting on. What I'm saying is what you have presented
by right you've expanded what could be a reduct reduce footprint to the whole area >> reducing >> correct >> correct correct >> right >> and you don't like that
>> no I don't I don't see a child's gaming area co-mingling with beer and wine and alcohol walking around. It conducive to a gaming area. >> Okay. Okay. John,
>> is this comment or question? >> Well, I'm just wondering how you feel about what Jim is saying. >> Uh, I personally don't have any problem. In fact, I think my children would prefer that I be sitting beside them watching them game with a beer in my hand. Honestly, I I I
honestly believe that. In fact, I think it would be worse if you had a separate room where all the little monsters were running around acting unsupervised. Uh, and >> well, they shouldn't be unsupervised. >> Well, you want to be in the bar drinking. >> No, but that's my point is if I'm
sitting in the bar drinking and my sending my kids out to the arcade, then it's going to be chaos in the arcade as opposed to >> like Chuck. >> Like Chuck Chase. Well, as opposed to Dave and Busters, which doesn't get crazy like that,
>> but they they Well, we're 18 there, too. >> Well, I agree, but uh I personally I have no issue with it. That's my comment. >> That's right. >> All right. You had other questions? >> No, >> just that one. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um Graeme, did you want to ask? >> Yeah, I just wanted to address that. Um, I mean, we're going to be very strict on
the serving of alcohol. And I mean, I see it as just like you said, the parents walking around with the beer while the kids are playing games. Um, if there's anything left laying around, we'll have staff that clears, you know, anything that's left. And we're going to be very on top of that. I don't want any underage drinking that's, you know, not
in there for me. Um, I just don't see an issue with it. And the way we were trying to do it at first was to have that gaming area separate as just a retail considered retail space, but the town wanted to include that as a restaurant. So that's kind of how that
happened. But I I don't I don't know >> what was the logic. Why did the town want to expand it? >> Cuz it's a big open room. It'd be like drawing a line on a piece of paper down the middle of this room and you can only drink over here and kids can >> Yeah. It's uninforceable. >> Yeah. and and the reality is they may want to
expand their seating to increase their food sales. Um, which then keeps them in compliance with the restaurant. Uh, so that was that was the thought. We don't want to enforce that internal to >> or even for future use. Say the arcade didn't work out and we leased it to a restaurant in the future or something then they could use the whole space. But
I don't plan I think it's going to be a success. I don't have any doubt in my mind that this is going to be amazing for the islands. >> Honestly, ultimately that decision that conversation went back to the previous decision which is the variance. It was how do we calculate the variance to be accurate? So if the entire thing ends up being used as a restaurant, nobody come
back comes back later and says you didn't get a big enough variance for your parking. >> It really isn't as much related to this issue with the outdoor consumption. >> That again is tied to restaurant no matter how big that space is internal. >> There will be strict supervision on alcohol. I can guarantee you that. >> Jim, that's a dead
>> I think another opportunity to amplify. Let the parents be the parents. >> Done. Okay, any other questions? >> I have a couple comments, >> Nancy. >> Um, I would recommend that we eliminate
the word uh amplified and the basis for my recommendation is there was a recent case >> in number four. Are you referring to number four condition? >> I don't have it in. >> We took that out totally. >> We're going to drop that. >> Where's amplified?
>> In in the in condition number four. >> Number three. >> But I am I think it's in number three, isn't it? >> Number three. >> Okay. >> So, there's there's a recent court case um >> amplified music. >> It it is at the circuit court level. Um
in a temporary injunction, the court found that uh limiting amplified music is basically um an in curtailment of first amendment rights. Um in that particular case the other the city had
put some restrictions on um an establishment uh the plaintiff was Red White and Boot Red White and Booze LLC. Um in the temporary injunction uh the city may not enforce the permits
limitation to the use of acoustic string instruments. So, we won't be able to be specific to the type of instruments. Enforcing the permits limitation on the playing of amplified outdoor music. Enforcing the permits ban on bass or
acoustic drum sets or percussion instruments that repetitively produce similar impulsive sounds. So, um this particular case, it is um a temporary injunction. So, there'll probably be more litigation. Um, but I do want to
make you aware of that because it could, you know, render some potential challenges to our ordinance it if you were to approve and and keep that in there. So, just take out >> but that case also said the town's noise ordinance
effective and enforceable. >> That is correct. the city um that the preliminary injunction shall not be construed to prohibit the city from enforcing either the general time restrictions for playing outdoor music amplified or unamplified. I don't know
why they put that in there or the general decibel limits. So that is what Jim was was referring to. So the request is very simple with the long explanation. Um just take out the word amplified. >> Okay. >> And that's in condition three. Yes. So,
right now I I show that we're going to eliminate the word amplified in condition three. We're eliminating condition four entirely. And we're adding a condition for the hours of service and operation from 10:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. >> Can we add that as four so that fine
with me? Add that to four. >> Replace four with that. >> Uhhuh. And does anybody else have anything that was all right? Uh, if there are no further questions for the staff or the applicant or discussion, may I have a motion, please?
I'll make a motion to approve the special exception 20250228 eliminating the word amplification uh relative to the music in uh number three. Condition number three, eliminating
no um >> replacing >> replacing the wordage for condition number four to hours of service and operation 10:00 a.m. to 1000 p.m. and that's it. >> It meets
>> and that it meets the um goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan in the land development code and >> support. >> Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion hearing? None. My vote is yes. And yours, Jim. >> Hi. >> And Jame. >> I.
>> And Jim. >> Well, I understand this only has to do with the the patio. I still have concerns about the underlying restaurant definition, so I'ming. >> Okay. Uh >> and John. Okay. So, the motion carries
um with one dissension. And uh thank you very much. You're on to the C town council. Next item on the agenda is ordinance 2524, the impact fee study. An ordinance of the town council of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, adopting an impact fee study
dated August 25th, 2025 and prepared by DP Guthrie LLC, amending article 4 entitled impact fees in chapter 2 entitled administration of the town of Fort Myers Beach Code of Ordinances to
one incorporated incorporate updated information contained in the reference impact fee study. Two, reduce the number of impact fee categories and specific uses. Three, change the method of calculate calculation of fees for single
family homes from per dwelling to square footage range to reflect the typical impact of larger homes. And four, reduce the amount of fees based on updated population and project expectations. And five, providing for an update every four
years payable from collected impact fees. Providing for other clarifications is necessary, providing for conflicts of loss, scrier severability, and providing for an effective date. >> Madame chair and members, um this item before you is legislative in nature, so
there's no need for any exparte disclosures. >> Thank you. >> Jason, >> just point of clarification, Madam Attorney, um any changes we propose to make u have no Senate 180 issues in it. we're allowed
to make these adjustments to rel to these fees. >> There is pending um litigation uh that has been rumored and I think that there actually is a case that has been filed. However, I don't think that the proposed
changes are going to be overly burdensome or more restrictive. However, that is your judgment call. >> Yeah, I think 26 municipalities are signed onto that legislation right now to try to have that overturned. So, we'll see how it goes. But there's one other one. >> That's SB180 as a whole.
>> That's right. >> Not specifically to the impact fees, although impact fees is part of that. >> Um, however, as Jason will explain, um, this is actually um a little bit less intense, >> right? >> So, >> yeah, perfect. Thank you.
>> Jason Green Community Development. To that point, I don't know that overturning of 180 affects the study ultimately because of the methodology and what's come out of it. So um yes there's two parts as we've read. There's the study which provides uh analysis of growth and capital projects and and
infrastructure and everything the rational nexus has to be tied back to that growth. What are the cost of providing uh facilities mobility parks and wreck as an example for that growth. Um it is not a silver bullet to solve uh budget holes or budget issues or
shortfalls of projects that are or maintenance projects. uh it is supposed to be tied to growth. Also, as part of this is a amendment to the land development code to clean up that uh impact fees section and to also provide the new table. Um so I will probably
skip to that part if you're okay with that unless there's there's something specific in the study you want to look at. U the overarching I guess result of this is we've modified the categories by which we charge. Uh for example, residential used to be by the unit and
now it's by the unit but based on square footage. So a larger home has a greater impact. So they will have a inc they will have a larger fee than a smaller home. But each of those fees even the largest fee for residential is less than
what we currently charge if that makes sense. So um >> why is that? >> I am. >> Why is that? Uh just because the nature of the builtout nature of the community. um you don't have thousands of acres to develop that are going to create substantial uh increases to the demand
of infrastructure. We don't widen a lot of roads. Um mobility is an important part, but there's only so much we can do on a builtout island. >> Is there any context for the status and current condition of the infrastructure versus up and running and additional usage
>> because we have a lot of replacement repair to do. >> Correct. So you can't use impact fees for replacement repair. >> Okay. But the study doesn't does the study pull out that piece? >> Yeah. So the some of the part of the basis of the study looked at the R2P2
study that was done which identified capital projects and other things that the town wants and needs. >> And uh that was sort of the financial basis to the cost of future capital projects. And that went into this formula. uh there's a lot of uh Excel spreadsheets and formulas that calculate
percentage growth of population uh their share of of those capital project needs uh and then it all ties back into that population growth and and their share of it. So, um, for, so to your point, a new house being built is replacing a house.
In a lot of cases, um, within certain parameters, they won't be paying a new impact fee or they may pay, well, in this case, they probably won't pay an impact fee because they even the largest house you replace it with is less than what the original fee was, so they get a credit for that. Um it's still the same
as far as businesses go where if you increase square footage or change uses then we do the adjustment in the fee calculation which we've always done based on if you go from an office to a restaurant u in this there's less categories. Uh so it's making it easier for us to calculate is the first thing.
Um and the second thing is the credit will will carry over if that makes sense. So, a lot of rebuilding. Yes, there's an increase in square footage. Um, and that may have a small fee that they have to charge, but for the most part, um, they're kind of they get a credit for what was there.
>> But the 1,400 ft cottage that was on a lot that is now a 5,500 square foot home, that person's going to see a a no fee or some credit. Uh, probably a no fee because the top square footage fee
is less than the current fee. So, their credit would be the same. >> There you go. >> No, they don't they don't get money back, right? It's it's there's no money going out. But it's interesting. >> So, on the extreme side, >> uh, like a Seagate, they had so many units, but
>> you know, they're going to be whole new construction. Will they be charged per unit? >> Yeah. So any any project that we do so if you look at the categories on the residential side I mentioned the square footage and it's in ranges um and then we have lodging uh and we have retail
eating drinking places and then all other non-residential under the current uh impact fee you have multiple non-residential categories and then you have to define those and categorize the use. Uh sometimes you have mixed use,
but yes, if you have a mixeduse project, you charge based on restaurants or other uses and then hotel rooms and condos. So it it each unit, each type gets charged based on the category here. We've just tried to make it simpler to say we have
a lot of retail, a lot of eating and drinking restaurant uh places. That's kind of a category and then everything else falls under this other category. So it'll be a lot easier on us to administer it and and give answers to how much in theory a project will have impact for you. >> So those where we don't have specific
codes written around and give an example and this is non-residential development. Where would you categorize the food truck park? >> Good question. >> Well, they don't have they're not building a there wouldn't be an there's no brick and mortar building for that.
>> Well, there is the part that the ice cream building was in. And each one of those food truck parts will have impact on each one of those units will have impact correct you're limited on the impact fees that you can charge based on the impact of of the building essentially. So um the the transient
nature of if that's what you're talking about a park where right there's there's not a fee for those transient nature components. I don't and you can't while we're at this developmental stage, you can't have a capture category because there will be
an impact. Um, sure they're transient by description. I don't think it's going to be by operation. >> I think you're going to be there and you're going to want to get there and you want to stay there for lots of years and we don't have codes uh set up on that on how to specifically um administer all that. So, I didn't want
some of these escapees sure >> to get out. They're going to have impacts and I think significant impacts over a period of time. And that's fair. Um and and I'll double check that with our team, but my understanding with the Florida impact fee act is that you're prevented from that because of it's basically not required.
>> Can you look at um Bonita Springs and the other ones that already have these up operating and see how they end up handling that with their current codes? >> Sure. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Absolutely. >> Well, we can use that as a test case to check. >> That'd be great. Thanks. >> Okay. any other kind of structures that
feel like it's still left open. >> Is there um any ability on on the fees to have a annual cost of living adjustment for inflation or is it just subject to a 4-year review?
>> Yeah. Yes. No. So the simple answer is uh we're required to redo the study every four years and update those based on how your CIP is going and other impacts right or if there's a substantial amount of growth that's been approved what is the impact of that
population full-time and you know transit population. So uh under the state law we have to do it every four years. So that's going to help capture some of the changes in the evolution of cost of living and did we add projects? Did we find something that we realized we needed? How much of that is related
to growth? All of that um is supposed to be captured every four years and that's a pretty strict requirement. >> So an annual CPI increase is >> no what a lot of communities have done is they've adopted a a less impact fee based on the what they call 100% and then they've increased it over time but
you're also starting at less than 100%. So that's not really what you're talking about the cola. So um that's what the four years will capture th those costs because what we do is we also look at uh like FDOT costs what what is what was a trail what was road widings what were
light uh street um traffic light projects how much did they cost over the last four to five years and then we project obviously increases of of what the cost is 10% 20% whatever um into the project cost. So we try to project that
accurately based on the past five years for example >> Jason because we're all >> so I wouldn't just because that study should be able to capture those costs and we don't know what that cola is and then we'd have to adjust it every year and you're back to where you were with every four years.
>> We're all thinking for myself particular on a learning curve on this which is why I appreciate the details. So tell me when these fees are assessed chronologically >> context of the question is um we have very limited liquidity resources in the
common sense as a community small therefore the impacts that we may have to do to prepare or enhance infrastructure are going to be very front and loaded for us while the development is getting prepared. >> So can you walk me through when we get paid what we deserve to be paid so we can use that to offset costs? Uh yeah,
so the the collection of those happens during the building permit and CO time. Um so that's it's when the impact is being real, right? It's not during resoning or any of that time. It's got to be at the end of the process. Uh so essentially, and we've also included in
the fee uh there's administration fee that gets attached to every every um charge because there's a we got to recoup the cost for staff to be able to administer this. So a condition of the final permit is payment of these fees, >> right? Correct. >> At that time before anything happens. >> Yes. So thank you.
>> Yeah. So the the collection of that and it's kind of revol evolving revolving um collection. Right. So we collect generally you collect as many fees and then you have a project that you're targeting and you can spend on design, you can spend on construction, uh planning purposes. Those are things that
the impact fee money can be spent on. So it's not like it's just we're waiting to build something until we collect the dollar amount. as we collect them, we want to be able to plan those facilities, design those facilities, and spend the money as it comes in. We're also required to spend the money because if you don't, you have to
>> Oh, yeah. Sure. Then a follow-up. Um, so you represented clearly that we already have impact fees. These are adjustments, bring up speed, red doing definition, right? >> Yep. Can you give me any context for why there were so many conversations with the developments that came in indicating
that they're willing to pay the fees as if we didn't have the ability to charge them at the level of condition of they were. Each one of them were were expressing their desire to make sure they're willing to do that. It almost sound like it was an additive to their commitment to community versus an
obligation. Why do we feel that way and why those conversations happen in that context? I haven't had those, so I can't I I don't know. I'm used to impact fees because they're everywhere in Florida, but um and it's the price of doing business. Anybody else? And I listen agree completely. Yeah. >> I've been here eight years and I've
never in my entire time working with the town heard anybody complain about the impact fees. Um >> I'm not complaining. I'm talking about why it's representative, at least in a dialogue. >> It was almost like a public benefit. >> Exactly. >> It that's how it was presented. And of course, >> it's been around for a long time. It's it's part of the fabric of the
community. You've been collecting them. It's not new. Um, I've never heard any complaints about it. So maybe that's why it's just part of everybody's used to it. >> But I don't know that conversation, you're missing the point I don't it it wasn't it it was presented by a
developer, some developers that and of course we will also participate with whatever impact you all decide to come up with. In other words, they're they're presenting it in the course of their hearing as if they're they're prepared to be a good neighbor with us. As if
it's an additional bonus like it's exactly public almost everyone that way, Jason. >> Yeah, that's how it's been presented. >> They want your approval. >> Well, yeah. I mean, >> but but I think Jim's question is why would why would that have been that way?
Maybe they're banking on our naive Tay coming to the >> We're pulling that out today and generally just as a matter of public consumption. Um are the impact fees for those developments going to be higher than it would have been as this gets adopted for commercial?
>> No. So the again the per unit charge across the board even though we change how we do the categories and how the collection method overall will be less on the per unit basis than because that's you have to base it on your financial impact the share of new
development as part of your capital program. You can't just say we want to charge people more. One 180 you got sent 180 talks about the methodology and how you do that. But secondly your cost of your infrastructure of new related to growth
doesn't show that. Now remember it's a percent right? So you could add a thousand more projects to your list and say we need these because of growth but growth is still only going to pay pay a percentage of that. Where does the other percentage come from? It comes from the existing community. So yeah, you can get
that number higher per unit. You can add millions and millions of dollars of projects, but then you are saying you as a community are going to fund the rest of those and you're farthering the whole. But >> does it make common sense to you just in the time value of money cost of living you >> exactly that that 10 years ago when these when were these adopted? Many many
years ago I assume we haven't kept up to our four years. >> It's been more than four years. >> Yeah, of course. So all costs in every aspect have escalated exponentially for some periods of time. And yet the impact that we're going to charge the most significant new users of our
infrastructure is actually less than it sits today >> on a on a per unit per >> So if we don't adopt these, we can charge it more. >> Uh no, you can be challenged and not have any and stop collecting them because you don't have a study that you've adopted. >> Well, we're already in violation of not
doing it in four years, right? >> I I'm just presenting you a study for you to consider right now. I don't want to go down that path, but uh we you have to regularly update and do a study and right now under state law moving forward it's every four years. >> Well, let me ask you differently. Are there any bolons
that we can do as a matter of course onetime search charges? What do we call them now? Mobility charges in Cape Coral. I think they're going through their process of that. >> This is included in this. >> Okay. Are there anything additional here that we're allowed to legislatively? >> No.
>> Onetime fee. >> You can't do pleasure doing business. Okay, >> you charge your fees for pleasure of doing business through your application fees. >> This is like a huge paradigm shift for me in the whole thinking of what an impact fee is >> because here I'm thinking this is something that's really going to benefit
the community, help ease the pain of all of these developments, but it's not >> that's why I'm bringing up new growth >> mathematically >> cannot pay for other things other than the portion of projects that are related to their impact. It has to be very
specifically related and tied to those. We have, you don't have them, but we have dozens of Excel spreadsheets and formulas that map all of that out to ensure that you have the backup to show that we've done the methodology correctly. >> Otherwise, you just go and say, "Hey, we >> here's what here's what I where I think
the the the schism comes. the public conversation including ourselves maybe I've been perceiving it incorrectly but the discussion about impacts I think has a different concept or a different idea
than what the reality of it is maybe that's the problem >> I would say that perception of a new development paying for something it's really what is their proportionate share of that project >> I think I have I think I have not understood this correctly but now >> and that's a very common question but
Again the only thing I can say is you have to connect the amount of impact and the percentage of the project. They cannot pay for a project because you wanted that project needed that project. >> You know I always thought of impact fees
as being connected to utilities. So you know when when they took the septics out would say >> um like the mobile home parks everybody like $30,000 to connect to the sewer. Well, I don't want to get into
utilities, but those are two different things. You have an impact fee for you have an impact fee for utilities, then you have a service connection charge that they're going to repay because of the cost of that. >> So, that's totally separate from what this >> Yeah, there's no this is just >> that's what I thought about as impact fees. So, that's >> typically impact fees do include going,
"Wow, this is >> I mean, in other places, >> again, the only thing covered in here is mobility, transportation, and parks and wreck." >> Okay. >> Okay. There are other categories that other communities have added and looked
at. Um there was no demand or or reason based on the study and discussing with town and county to add >> you already have schools. Lee County School District has those. We collect those on behalf of them. We collect the fire district impact fees on behalf of them and then remit them back to those
agencies in here because they have their own study and their own ordinances that dictate that. We just agree to collect them at the building side. >> Let me ask let me try to go after this again, Jason. This goes back to the conversation about look, you do this for
a living. This is natural organic to you. The math brings you great comfort because it's defensible. I completely completely get that side of it. But back to the question I asked you before about your opinion versus um it's actually in the code. Let me ask it differently this way. You're recommending a consolidation
of some of these categories. So they capture more more things without having delineation of so many. In your professional opinion, did any of that activity in consolidating those reduce our opportunity? Take single categories that are more specific and charge a
different mathematical outcome to them if we left them alone or added some instead of consolidating them. >> Uh not really. So I the I would give the example of lodging. All right. So under the existing code, lodging has uh which
is somewhat unique for a non-residential use to have a charge to parks and wreck. However, we recognize that the parks and wreck facilities we have and build, it's a huge draw for tourists and for lodging and trans lodging. So one of the
original parts of the study was do we take that out? Do we include it? And at our final kind of analysis, it's such a big part of the transient nature of lodging that they should contribute towards that park and recreation. Other communities, a lot of other communities, you don't see that. You don't see park
and wreck charge towards lodging. Here, it's such an essential part of why people come here. >> Um whether it's Bay Oaks, whether it's the pools, whether it's our beach and all of our facilities. So, that was an important part to keep in there to ensure that we are charging a fee that
does represent the way those uses are done. Got that? So, how many of those in your mind could we tease back out of the bulk categories that can be defended because of? And let me add something additional to this if I may, Madam Chair, for a moment, >> please.
>> Um, FEMA clearly identifies and delineates the geographical geographical existence and therefore peril of communities like ours. They're they're subject to attacks by nature.
So is our infrastructure. So is there a category that like kind coastal communities get pulled out from Toledo, Ohio, where they're not subject to the potential devastations and all of that to begin with when impact fees are
put in place for hardening, for immediate remediation of disaster situations, all of that. We should, in my mind, logically, based on the other side of the argument from FEMA, we should be able to build additional reserves through impact uh studies to make sure that we can respond in kind
for situations that are unique very much to us. >> Yeah. But the example you gave is there there are things that impact fees can't pay for because it's not the growth of the community and the population increase. It's it's a >> when we build the new, we can build the new double as strong, correct,
>> as normal would be if we can include that in our calculations and get paid for it. But that has nothing to do with the population increase or the the amount of users that come to the island. That is a structural construction type conversation and the cost of
construction versus is it 100 people or 50 people. >> Yeah. The impact fees are so narrowly defined by state law and what we can use them for that you can't say well we want to build something hard but more um resilient.
So we can be told to do that with our facilities out here, but we can't get the income we need to build an infrastructure beyond the normal coded requirements for the same reason. >> Correct. And those two worlds don't they live around each other for us, but they don't >> they don't lawwise, they don't match. >> You know why we're asking all this,
right? This is our one chance to get into this. >> I understand. >> And you're obviously prepared, but I want to be convinced. And I guess that's the point of >> the the threat of adding those fringe areas and teasing that out. and I understand and I I understand where you're coming from is the challenges,
right? So, we're trying to be as specific to what the law says we can do and play within the parameters that we've had and try to make as minimal changes related to what we have now to today and make sure that we're consistent and compliant so that it
stands up to challenge. Right? That's ultimately what our job is to do to you is to present that and I think that's what this does based on our experience. But I can also make a case for standing up to challenge because we have rational around why we're doing them. So let them challenge us.
>> I'm not afraid of that and our community deserves it. And the peril that we put everything in by not at least trying that. I realize your point of view and perspective and mindset is to make sure we're never in that situation. Mine goes along the line bring it on and we're going to build it right and we're going
to charge the people that are going to impact it to build it right. And if they want to make an argument that we don't want them to build it, right? I'd like to hear that. >> And I don't durability wise, >> I don't know where this going, but if you're talking about structures itself, I I I wouldn't we'd have to go back and look. I wouldn't know how to translate to an impact fee, right? Because again,
impact fees is about number of people, number of users, uh, population increase, and what does that require p based on your level of service? >> Uh, just like roads, right? Right? We don't widen a lot of roads, but roads is a very hot topic with impact fees,
turn lanes, some street lighting, uh, related capac, it's got to be capacity related. Everything in the impact fees has to be related to a charge to create capacity in a public facility. So, if you're building a new park, you've created additional park space. If you
add lights to that park, like ball fields, you've increased capacity of that field because they can you can have more teams play on it in the same day. Correct. But repairing things and maintaining things all you can't use that >> one one more thing I'll stop I promise it's um have you
>> do you have access to in a fairly real time say last five years um the communities Florida in particular of course it's a much different place now Florida is than it was 5 years ago just based on when we've been all through together so there's a much
there's a much deeper receptivity to being more creative flexible and realistic rational around what we need to do to protect ourselves. Had somebody else gone through this that you found any best practices with other communities that challenged protocol and build it in any way along the lines I'm
asking you to think about here. >> Uh probably not exactly what you're talking about. There's other communities that have created new categories by which to charge the impact fee. So libraries is one thing that communities have charged. We already have that district. Uh we've seen government categories. Uh but again those monies
are only supposed to be spent on >> are there any wave mitigation wall categories? >> That's what I was just going to say. >> Uh so that is a very complicated topic because it has to >> I don't need to watch the watch. Have you seen can St. Pete Tampa do it? >> No. What I've seen is projects that were related to hardening or other items if
they're able to create a mobility component uh connectivity component. There's a portion of that that potentially could be paid for but not necessarily have not seen the hardening part of what you're talking about as far as that goes >> related to factories.
Is there a a graph document where we can see what it currently is? And because what we have here on impact fees, you've got regional and schools included in the existing. >> But then when we get to what is
proposed, those have been eliminated >> on the chart. I'm assuming that they're still paying the school park donate or school donation. It's just not part of this or there is no school donation. We already know the school district doesn't like us. So, >> no. No. So, we collect through our
ordinance, we agree to collect school district impact fees and fire district impact fees. That's been that way and that's in here. >> We we do that as a pass through. Okay. So, they >> So, it's not it's not list. That's what I'm saying. It's correct. Do we have a
graph where we can see >> side by side? Because what this looks like, I mean, what we have currently is uh >> well, the reason why we struck those categories, those columns, is because they're not our impact fees. And every time you adopt it in our land
development or uh code, every time they change their impact fee, we have to go back and amend our land development code, which we weren't doing. So the problem was those fees you see there listed hadn't been changed in a number of years despite the ordinances being changed and adopted and changed by the school board and the and the fire
district. So our impact fees >> the passroughs you've eliminated. So these are all direct >> we've eliminated from it being in the land development code but in this text it still says the town shall collect those on behalf of those agencies and then we monthly or quarterly whatever
pass it on to them. But >> but it didn't make any sense to publish in our code what their fee is since they changed their fees at their own schedule >> and it was misleading because we got I get that all the time. I've gotten it for years. They go, "But the fire district says it's this." Well, but they
adopted an ordinance last year that changed it. >> Then we're having to explain that. So, we keep those ordinances on hand in the in our with our staff and we apply as we get updates from those agencies. We add that in our system to it. but from us, the town's impact fees. That's what this
is, is converting that just to the town's impact fees. >> Again, I'm trying to see if we can get to an apples and apples comparison because currently it says transportation, regional, community, fire protection school, >> right? >> That those were the categories. >> So, we've gone from transportation,
>> now you've gone to development unit, mo multimodal unit, administrative fees, and parks and recck. Those categories I can't line up. >> No. So the development unit is a that's how we're charging it by a development
unit. So it's parks and recreation. That's an impact fee account or will be if you know if approved. And then multimmo transportation is a separate account for those types of projects. And then there's fee administration here which is calculating pre-calculating the
fee for all that. We're allowed to charge that. that goes to general fund and pays for the ser this doing this work and then that's just the total the proposed total for all across the board. So what all we did on the categories of impact fees is change from regional and
community parks those were two separate accounts join them together into parks and wreck. It was a very difficult thing to determine in in co-mingling money from regional and community. The concern was then the definitions of all that. So we we
combined it into one category for all parks and wreck. So it doesn't matter whether it's a community park, a regional park, or whatever. If we're doing the capital project, it can come out of parks and wreck. Okay. So that's the only major change to the categories other than the appearance of the table. We've eliminated the fire district and
the school because it's their fees. We don't ch I don't want to change the land development code every couple years when they change it. We just charge what whatever is they tell us they adopt and they charge. So the only major change to the categories of impact fees are that regional and community park being
combined into one park and wreck fee. >> So is the current transportation equivalent to the revised multimodal transportation? uh they're all less by some means as far
as the dollar amount collected no matter how you do the break out the the categories. Um I probably have a spreadsheet that shows all the former C or the current categories and how much the current fee is different from those. Um I could get you that. I don't have it
on the on my paper here, but >> is that what you're asking for? Well, >> I mean it ranges from like $30 single family residential would be 2971, >> correct? >> According page four. >> Yep. >> Right.
>> And your highest residential proposed is um 20 >> transportation 2971 single family residence. Now, if we go to the the new one >> and we say multimodal transportation and
we go to the biggest house available, >> Mhm. >> that's,97. That's $1,000 less per unit >> 2,000 >> than >> 2,000 than we're currently getting.
>> That's right. And it could even be greater than that because if we reduce the size of the house that 1097 could go all the way down to 499. >> Yeah, >> correct. >> 100% right, Jim.
>> And just based on we went to square footage because there's it's you can calculate estimated population based on a square footage. And so again, that ties back into your population projection, your growth of hotels, all
of that, which then is a percentage of your overall cost. And then with whatever project you have, essentially there's another spreadsheet I could share with you, but essentially all the capital projects, it worked out to be about new growth can be charged 20% of all those capital projects.
Then to Jim's point, what was the math that created 2971 versus the new math that creates,97 whatever it is? What was the math we were using? Do you know? >> I I've not I haven't seen that study. It's it's old if it even
>> I don't know why it just feels completely reversed >> in how you do the math. I'd like to see the previous math and make sure whether there was a multiplier in there or some other variable condition that we're no longer considering because it's either
not being used or even if the old math has been challenged. I'd like to see that. I I I think I don't know. It just doesn't settle with me at all that >> you know the perspective is you're talking limitations and we're talking possibilities. What what's the possibility for the
town? What can we possibly do? And those projects that came back out of that analysis were fed into this to create this. So as far as I know, anything that was >> thought of as far as that R2P2 and some other projects that we got from staff and everybody else that's been kind of
fed into the process to calculate that, >> right? Listen, we we've waited that we're here now and not five months ago because we were waiting and trying to make sure that recovery process and the thought process and the feedback from comp plan and what do people want to see
and the R2P2 trying to maximize projects but at the same time the more you maximize that said this earlier >> that 20% comes off who's going to pay for the other 80%. >> What what if we disagree with the methodology? Mhm.
>> Um, you have the advantage of obviously working on that, but I would love to see the methodology changes between the two periods. And also, I mean, we have a right, I think, to challenge how we got to where we are, not just challenge where we are. And that's what's
fundamentally disturbing me that I'm not comfortable and maybe I shouldn't be. Maybe it's not my role. You maybe you'll tell me, "Hey, stay in your lane." I I don't know what that looks like or feels like, but I can't get to CD and F CD and E and F without the ABC for me of the
methodology changes. >> And if nothing and just fundamentally yesterday and tomorrow are different mathematical outcomes in impact regardless of what we do. I just chair that's just where I am. I I don't know how to properly analyze this without
that inclusion of methodology. >> And I don't mind answering some other questions. I would I would like a couple minute recess to confirm with Nancy on a couple items before I answer your question. >> This this is a public hearing and I see some public antsy to say something. So, um with your permission LPA members,
let's let's open the public hearing. Cara, you're like coming out of your seat >> and maybe Albert, you might have something to add as well. Carara Stewart, just to provide some background perhaps um your previous impact fees to
address the question the methodology for the 29 whatever the number was for transportation in the past the county reviewed their impact just adopt the study that the
county performed. So there was no, as um Jason is working on this, no real um what really happens on the beach. It was always just the beach didn't do their own study. The county we would do our
studies. We would say beach, do you want to adopt our impact fee schedule? In which case, yes, sure. We didn't have that much going on then. It was really, you know, three new houses a year. Sometimes it wasn't that impactful. So, what you're partly experiencing is you
have not been in this situation before you were built out. Um, the parks, the county has regional parks. The beach does not. So, the the beach did not have a regional park that we assessed. Regional park is like Lakes Park, just
to give you a point of reference. Um, so and as the school does their impact fees, again, everyone just adopts, carries on, collects, and does the pass through. So, I just wanted to clarify when we're talking about why is there such a big nexus that might help clarify
that because it was always I've been involved with this for 25 26 years. The beach always just adopted what the county put forward. So, Madam Chair, I know we can't interact with the public comment, but to for you,
>> um, so if Lee County has found a way to enhance the financial impact that we can collect through adopting their fee impact study versus our own, >> are we getting that option to discuss and debate? >> I don't know. >> And that's not I know we can't interact
during the public hearing, but we can do that later. >> Let's see what Albert has to say. >> I love what Albert has. covered >> and see where the county is. Let's see where the county is higher. >> I wanted to write something before I forget. >> Um, hope I don't jump all over the place
here because this wasn't prepared to kind of comment, but I'm hearing this as it comes out fluidly. Um, I'm glad to hear everyone understand the and just all of us getting up to speed about impact fees and how it's actually done. And I think to go back without mentioning project names about what was
said and what reality happens um from my perspective, my commercial clients and even residential clients, um some that have not come to for you just yet and are public, um a lot of the people that are doing projects that had never done anything before assumed there was no
impact fee. We educated them and told them there is an impact fee just like Jim or I'm sorry Cara just mentioned it was status quo for a year in the beach. What what did you guys actually build besides a giant Margaritavville >> margarita >> right? >> Um so that's the reason why there's a
lot of mis misconception not knowing what we do versus other counties do as well too. Um, for me as an architect and property owner, more on the property owner side of things, I'm always been against impact fees in general. But we
have to put that in the equation in context where you guys are at. What are you going to actually gain and what are you actually going to get at a dollar value? Because if every single home, if you were built is rebuilt,
you're hardly going to get any impact fee. >> Right. I have one client down on the south end that actually owned one lot that I didn't even know never had a house. It was never addressed last year when they submitted they got
their fees scheduled for permit. They stopped for other reasons. I'm not sure if it's directly impact fee, but that they realized that. We told them that yes, it's going to be an impact fee. I forgot what the total comes up, but it's on the permit port. You can look up anyone's brand new project. You'll see on there the line by line on for school, park, regional, you know. I I I guess I
think where I was about nine or so thousand dollars for a brand new home. How many vacant lots around the beach right now are you being able to get any impact fee from? Hardly any. >> I think we literally can sit in an hour and look at the map of town of Fort Myers Beach and say that's a hotel.
What what's going to be collected there? Neptune's going to have a wash a little bit because there was a hotel there. >> That's right. >> Beach Bar didn't pay an impact fee. The whale paid a little bit impact fee. The 7-Eleven paid a very little impact fee because there was a 7-Eleven there.
So, I just think honestly when the growth is paying for growth, it's also it's looking into the future when you're these impact fees, future things, not the repair things. I think the town has a very difficult conversation moving forward. what you guys need to repair
and it may need to be spread and I'm not liking this of course as a property owner in Fort Myers Beach is having to pay more taxes to pay for that but you it's a reality >> I've been a treasure board so I understand that this there's tough decisions on here but we always don't want to raise taxes it's something you
have to sorry that forgot the timer >> no no keep going >> but I just think we're putting a lot of effort on this I know it was a little eye opening but what are we getting out what are we going to net here. >> Yeah. >> And I think there's something else, too. I don't care if you want to bring up the
fiveyear timer. >> Yeah. There's a 5year timer in LDC code. It says if the property is vacant for 5 years, you're not going to get credits for impact fees. A lot of people were in a 30-year hurricane. >> Um, you realize like even a commercial project coming to this day, a lot of
people say breaking ground January, February, and all that stuff. I'm the person is the bearer of bad news because I'm the reality reality of things. Got a year DP permitting. You got a year of this permitting development orders in town for Mars Bes take takes six to eight months if not a year sometimes something's going to happen concurrently
D takes a year of times the more things you do the longer it takes you may not seeing these projects into the ground until 6 years after the hurricane and if those people have to pay impact fees because that that line says after five years you don't get any credits that's going to be disadvantage for commercial
developments. So it's a combination you you guys need the commercial development to offsets other things as well too. So just an interesting dynamic of things. I I just want to say I don't know if I said it first was the um singing a family just have one fee for singing a family homes. I don't know of a
jurisdiction around here where there was this impact fee for sizes of home. >> Just have one fee just make it simpler. >> Thanks Albert. Anybody else want to say anything? >> Okay. Closing the public comment. Go ahead Jason.
>> I'm good. Just wait for questions. John, you haven't said anything. Any any commentary? >> Yeah, I mean it I hate to do this because I'm a math science guy, but in my gut it feels wrong that the fees are much lower than
they were historically. That just doesn't seem like it the math maths at that point. Um but I also think that there's a misconception >> uh in the community amongst us even perhaps uh that impact fees are
>> um going to be required for any type of redevelopment and it's the case is it's for development of new growth, right? That's really the issue here, >> right? >> The impact of that development, >> right? So, we go through a process of of credits and it's spelled out in the
code, but it's essentially Margaritavville did this. All all of them have done that. They say, "I had three units. I'm building back three units." We confirm, we verify, you plug them in. Uh if you're a big project like Margaritavville was, it's how many units and duplexes they have on site, how much
was resort, how much was restaurant, blah blah blah. We do all that math. We add up the new and it it nets out to Right. So if he if sorry I just confirm my thinking that's the question is so if you're doing like forlike redevelopment
>> and the number of units is not expanding the chances of an impact be being meaningful are nil >> correct >> um however if you have a like to like development and you're doubling the intensity of that >> correct >> then you would see impact fees for the delta between what the original was and
the proposed new build would be >> correct >> and I think that's acceptable. I wonder why the per unit is going down. But I think there's also a misconception out there as to uh do impact fees
that it isn't the net growth that it is just the rebuild included and that's just not the case. >> And the reality is very few projects anywhere that impact fees paid for that project. Right? Impact fees generally are a portion or contribution to a project. there's gas taxes, there's
general revenue, there's whatever, right? And generally, you like to keep it to that ratio of what you're collecting from new and what have you. So, um I think because the amount of project, honestly, I think it's because the amount of projects you see in Lee County, maybe there's a misconception that why do they have all this money,
but they're talk about thousands and thousands of acres of development on green space, right? >> Right. So, it's a little bit misleading when you see, oh, there's a new road being built because of this project. Well, the developer paid for a portion, impacts paid for a portion, somebody else paid for a portion, right? I mean,
so I understand the concern and the questioning. It's just we're trying to stick to what the law says as far as uh being careful. 180 makes it more complicated. It's just um >> you're expanding the math is the math. >> Unfortunately,
it doesn't count. >> So, Don Oh, I'm sorry. >> So, my question is the Lee County that we used to just accept and move forward. Is there's higher than ours or lower? >> The Lee, we didn't accept and move
forward. The Lee County School District has a separate impact fee for schools that we collect on their behalf and then give to them. The fire district has an impact fee that we collect and pass on to them. We don't have anything to do with Lee County
uh impact fees. That's an entire separate based on their study, based on their growth rate, based on their what? >> But isn't that what we used to just we've always had our own? >> Well, okay. >> We town of Fort Myers Beach specific. >> So, we never accepted Lee County as
>> I I can't say never, but for as old as the land development code that I read the amendments to it, um it's been a very Yes, we've never had >> I think it's the rate schedule that we're questioning, not whether or not we had our own ordinances. It's it's what were studies done in the past that have
disadvantaged us? >> Probably not. Right. And perhaps this is the first that has. >> Yeah. >> Don, you have anything to add? >> I don't think I have anything else to add. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's property tax. I mean, you you've got to get it a different way. >> And it's unfortunate that the property
tax discussion becomes so political without understanding what that money does. what that money does. >> Lack of options is going to clear the mind sooner or later >> in our financial situation. So, I'll just close with this. Um, we have
learned a lot. Thank you. Standing in the moment. Um, I think what part of our angst is all the discovery and the learning, but in addition to that, we only have this moment. >> There's some parcels we all know about. This island isn't going to be rebuilt
with a whole bunch of, as you call it, new growth categories. I hope it's rebuilt with a whole lot of things that we can make resilient had before and they don't impact fees is not what I'm talking about at all. But the ones that are coming that are big that will have moments in time not to be repeated and
we all know those parcels. Um I just want to be reassured or convinced that everything we're doing get the maximum economic advantage impact from that at the transaction level not the reoccurring revenue and taxes impact etc. that we can legally step into that
and demand request and put it as part of the approval. >> Sure. And I would I would combine that with your DAS and your CPDs that come through. That's your negotiation. >> Yeah. >> Right. There there's an impact from that development and some have room or don't
have room to provide parks. Some have pedestrian facilities or trails they can right. That discussion helps this whole thing. >> Public benefit is certainly one thing and it's important. It's highly volatile around here. But the financial impact that they can provide in an advantaged
way. >> Sure. >> Maybe not just an obligatory way, >> right? >> We should be a lot more aggressive about because this is coming back to the residents and property taxes. >> I don't disagree, but I don't think >> sooner rather than later. >> And I've been saying that for two years, I think, and I actually for this whole time trying to warn everybody. >> It's not going to come out the way
everybody think. It's not a silver bullet. Um, and I personally as an impact fee administrator would rather with developments negotiate and they build the facilities and turn them over and they become useful things and us have to collect fees over time and they get the credits right versus us
collecting fees over time cobble it together go build the project. A lot of times Lee County anybody they find six years of collecting impact fees all of a sudden the costs have increased and they don't have enough money for that project and um I'd rather somebody build it and be in place right away and we give them
the credit for it. Thank you for your work. >> So, here's my question to you all. Do you feel comfortable uh passing this ordinance on to the council or do you want more information or what's your pleasure? >> And if I may, I do want some input on that 5-year rule because it can work both ways. I think the shorter time
frame you have, you create opportunity to create more impact revenue because you expire their uh exemption. But at the same time, it's not based that's probably not the way anybody wants to go because it's also based on disasters. How much do you pay for your professional help with these consultants, etc. We did this every two
or three. What's the cost to the town to do that >> to shorten it or increase the time? >> If we shorten it, do it more often. Um, but you've got consultants that have to validate, recommend, and do the analysis. How much did you pay out of pocket lock >> after the lock? Oh, the lock. Okay.
>> After five years, the credit that you get for what was there before goes away right now. that's been in the code but again to their point people spoke it's never really been used very rarely >> but it encourages redevelopment if you leave it at 5 years but after an event like Ian
>> but it puts them up against right I mean we're three years right so >> absolutely yeah >> people just figure out what they're going to do property it's a it can be a challenge so increase revenue >> you don't have any flexibility and complexity outside units involved on where to make that discretion some of
them are pretty straightforward some of them are going to take a lot more. So the five years is actually tight for some but it's a long for others. What >> what do you have project by project flexibility on that? >> You you should adopt a timeline across the board for
>> what starts the clock? >> Uh the the item so the clock ends when they apply for the building permit essentially, right? If it's within seven years of the use going after, right? So after when the use is gone, you have
seven years to get credit for what was there or five years to get credit for what was there right now under the current code. So they have to figure it out, insurance, design, plan and do all of that and then start to go to construction within 5 years.
>> Is it more typical to be seven to 10 or other meanings? >> I I five is a little short and it was more based on a builtout community. Um I think year seven is pushing better towards when it's more typical. Uh we have I believe it's 10 years to spend the funds. Uh so I don't know that
there's any reason why you wouldn't necessarily get closer to matching those two times. >> So this 5year time frame doesn't the the the uh the clock doesn't start ticking because let's use Neptune since since Albert said Neptune. Their clock started
ticking uh when when does their fiveyear count start? really by when they demoed. >> Yeah. >> By when they permit, right? >> Yeah. So, take a take a non-storm situation, pre-torrmal that somebody tears down a house, >> they kind of I don't know, they end up going back up north, they forget what
they're doing. It was 5 years that started when they demoed that house. And so, after >> let's take a bigger project like Moss Marine. Moss Marine's probably not going to demo anything immediately. So it is a marina right now but but they're
changing a lot of uses adding uses. So how does that >> when they develop that project once they tear down stuff there's a different timeline there may be with larger you're making me think of this when there's larger projects and they phase there may be different time triggers for each
phase as they go but the replacement and to get the credit I want to build a new hotel my de old hotel got demoed that 5year timeline starts then >> so once you get past that time you don't get the credit we have to charge you the full impact fee you don't get the credit
>> I the longer timeline too because it I'm not saying anyone did this or knew it, but you could game it. You know, in the event of a fire or storm, you don't demo it for maybe two years after a storm because it gives you two more years, right? >> And what I can do is look at the next
time you do the study, we're, you know, four years from now, are we still seeing things sit around? So maybe that's when you go, okay, let's look at doing I don't know if 180 is around or not, but can we do a shorter time frame uh to then reenourage and go back to that possibility?
>> I wonder or I wonder can we set we can we set an exception for an event? >> Why would be loss of demo instead of loss of use? I mean >> yes instead of loss of use. So hurricane Ian would be loss of use of your hotel units. >> That would that would actually squeeze your timeline even more because your
structure is still there. >> It would. Yeah, it would. >> Oh, you mean for a longer timeline? >> Well, if we coupled that with a longer timeline, we would then I think encourage the cleanup and demo of properties, >> but also not discourage the development of these new properties.
>> You can see the process. Yeah. >> So, it's almost like >> carrot and stick. >> Yeah. Because we want to encourage buildings that need to come down to come down, >> right? And you know, we still give them the time frame to figure out what they're going to do, but or or while
they're figuring out what they want to do, we want them down so that it's not >> so if they know the clock starts when they tear it down. >> Yeah. No. >> Won't they just leave it up? >> The clock start I mean there's a whole >> Then I know what the clock's going to be. >> There's a whole dilapidated structure trigger. There's a whole >> Oh, yeah. But you got to go through that
legal process for all that. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> And you can delay it. So it feels like yeah it feels like >> if you all want that then I'll go back and do research that we can that it can be based on a loss of use. That's a >> I have no expertise in this obviously
but it seems to me that it would be intelligent for it to be loss of use and I I don't know what the number is. Somebody can tell me >> loss or change >> or sure >> y >> because it would have to be if somebody did that. So absolutely but then the
timeline by which you are for lack of a better word grandfathered into the into the value I would I think >> if we did both of them perhaps an extension to 10 years would make more sense >> and it matches the 10 years to use the funds right as well.
>> Yes. Yeah. So, it's the 10 years. In other words, if they wait nine years and 11 months and then give you a month with the money. >> No, it's a permit. They have to get the permit. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. No, no, you have to have a permit. >> I just want to make sure you talk about you have 10 years to spend the money. What's the earliest we can get the money >> at the permit? >> And actually, they only have to apply for the permit to start to stop the clock, right? Uh,
>> no. It's um, let me double check. I think it's actually as we get towards the CO. >> Oh, really? >> Yeah. >> That's what I was going to say. I thought it was >> we usually collect when it's issued with the timeline. I'll double check on the same suggested
>> because to your point, you could get it and >> of course I see it happen. >> That's also limited by building code. I think they expire too, right? >> You have to do something. We're this. We now know they're this uh transportation. >> Yeah. >> What's that?
>> I I still think it's a benefit to have a sidebyside comparison. >> Can I have one? I didn't include >> for the public for the council. >> I didn't include it. >> No, >> I didn't. Okay. >> So, Madam Chair, I'll be one answer to your question. You can go around with the rest of your team. I have no problem advancing this council. I think there's
going to be all kinds of conversations subsequent to that are delaying it getting it to there isn't going to create a new insights. They're going to have their own public hearings. another feedback, they have the benefit of this conversation and the public now can digest the reality that we just went through. So, let's get on with seeing how it looks when it gets to the people
that formally have to adopt it anyway. >> So, Jason, can you have those things as Jim is suggesting? Give that those comparisons to them as John is suggesting expanding the the time frame like Don also said and so they have the
benefit of all of that information and looking at it all at once. >> Yes, we have all those tables and spreadsheets. I'll I'll try to include all >> Is there something else? Anybody think something else? >> I also anticipate we would meet with them individually and go over these and show them all that have the same questions. Absolutely. >> Very good idea. >> And I'll confirm the start stop of the
timeline. >> Okay. Any other We have to We have to um uh have an motion to pass this on to them, don't we, Nancy? Is it That's it. Yep. So, um, >> I'll I'll be glad to move ordinance 2524
impact fees study for the consideration by the town council. >> And that's including the LDC. >> It is. Yes. >> With the inclusions of the requests. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So, there's a motion. Who was the second? Uh, any further discussion on that?
>> Uh, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> No. You want to roll call? N Amy. Jim. >> Hi, >> Don. >> Jane. >> I. I Jim >> I >> I >> John I okay >> boy that's a
>> you know one of the things I hate most in the world is not knowing something and that's where I landed with all of this and I think it was not just the not knowing it's what I thought to what it is might even be interesting if somebody like uh like like Margaritavville would
say or if you could if it was public record if you could show us here's what here's what Margarita your biggest development since incorporation. Here's what they paid. >> We can show that's all public record. We can show you that. But again, with a whole bunch of math of credits. Yes. Versus
>> Okay. But it might be in that might be interesting to because that's a big development. Might be interesting to show that to the council. Maybe they won't maybe that won't be interesting to them. I don't know. I would have found that interesting. Okay. So, thank you Albert and Cara for your comments. That they were very helpful. Um we're
finished with our public hearings. Let's move on to the administrative agenda which is a discussion of our monthly schedule for LPA meetings in 2026. Um Amy or anybody have any comments on this? >> Is there a recommendation?
>> It is Do we have a recommendation like it was? >> It doesn't say anything. We didn't There was >> It shows the 25 schedule there on Yeah. Just the schedule. >> Exactly. >> Is anybody have any >> That's actually the 26th dates. >> Oh yeah, this is J. Those are January's. >> Oh,
>> well, it's October 14th this next year. >> October 14th. >> We're gonna keep it the same. It's going to be the second Tuesday of every month. >> Okay. >> Okay. Second Tuesday of every month. So, so no discussion really >> Tuesday, October 14th next year. Still
on a Tuesday like this year. >> I could just >> That would be unless there's a leap, you're going to have problem with that. >> It sure doesn't seem like it. >> It'll move by one day or two. >> Yeah. Next year, October 2026 would be Tuesday. >> Um, October 13th.
>> Okay. So, okay. Sorry. Yeah, because the schedule showed 14th, but maybe that's the 25 schedule. Did I miss something? >> I have next year's calendar. Would you like me to just >> We're just going to verify all the dates. >> Very trusting. We believe you. >> Okay. So, January would be January 13th.
>> These are all >> October will be the 13th, not the 14th. Right. That's a change. February 26th would be February 10th. >> No, these are all off. >> They're all off. >> We know >> they're all going to be off one day. >> They're off by one day. Yeah. >> Right. March would be March uh Tuesday,
March 10th, April, Tuesday the 14th. May 12th, June 9th, July, we historically take off. I assume
we're going to do that again. August 11th. >> That's funny. >> Um September 8th, October 13th, November 10th, and December 8th. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> December 8th or 10th. >> December. >> Oh, sorry. I'm in November. I apologize. >> Okay. December 8th. Tuesday. December 8th. >> I apologize. >> No. Uh no. For I'm sorry, John. I was just going to say, do you need a motion to adopt those or is it you
justformational? >> I think it's information. >> It's information. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. Let's move on to LPA items and reports. Um Jim Dunle, anything? >> Only one. Well, Jason's still here. I don't know. Right. Repository. D and I were just talking about this. Now that
we've gone through the um upper learning curve and the impact thing, we go back to the development orders for a second. I completely understand the the 180 restrictions, but um maybe we could ask for some like kind communities that have taken the flexibility that's embedded in the
development orders where we can put um the amount of fees impact uh use the wrong word fees and contributions to the well-being, financial well-being of the island in there. Um, so if we could get some other practices that we can start to process way on the front end of this
since the impact fees are not going to be the um the savior of all that, I'd like personally see some of that so we can be a lot more intense and aggressive about the conversations with our applicants and what flexibility we have to charge um other type of fees and uh one-time search charges on things we're
doing through the deal. >> Well, in the economic statement that now is coming with all of these, that could that could say something too. we can get that as homework. That'd be great. >> Yeah, >> that's all I have. >> Thank you, Jim. Uh, Don, anything? >> He's not nodding. >> Yeah, he's not nodding, but he's >> It doesn't matter.
>> Okay. Yeah. I mean, it it's it's to to to just to add to that to Jason's point, it's, you know, in in like the utility business, you'd say, "Hey, I need a new ground storage tank or I need a new well to serve that and you get the funds for that." And so, that's that's the kind of thing, you know, you need a new fire
truck. I don't know, whatever it is. That's that's a me. Those developer agreements are a mechanism to >> to get those things. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And I don't have any items. >> Okay. Jane, nothing. Jim, >> well, I'd like to congratulate Anita and
Jane on their reappoint. >> And thank you, Jim. >> That's all. >> That was that was uh exciting. Uh John, >> I have nothing. Thank you. >> Um I don't have anything either. Um nothing at all. Nancy, >> nothing. Um, Jason, community
development. Anything? What's on our agenda next month? >> That would be good news. >> I need to request that you move your LPA date in December. >> And probably I did put it the same week as >> move it to Christmas Day or >> Sure. >> Christmas Eve
>> won't be here, but yeah. >> So, instead of the 8th, what day do you want it to be? >> December the 9th. Um there's council on the 15th still, right? And >> sometime later that week. >> Oh, I came in the wrong year.
>> Um yeah, the challenge is just vacations and stuff and all that. But the next week if possible. >> 16th time. >> 17th, 18th. Yeah. When anytime in there >> I have no problem with the 16th. Anybody else? >> I don't know. Let me look. Hang on.
>> Oh, that's your Okay. >> Okay. The clerk clos the last person here. >> We have a prior meeting or we have a meeting already scheduled in here at 9:00 a.m. Um >> 1:00. >> Yeah, we can do an afternoon or 16. >> What's What do we know? What's Yes. What
do we know what's going to be on that? >> Yeah, it's a lot. Oh, no. On the LPA one. Um, >> no. I mean, it's it's probably like this a little less maybe. >> So, you talking about the afternoon there or something? One o'clock or something? >> One o'clock. I can do one o'clock.
>> One o'clock is fine. >> I mean, is that only because I mean, it could be another day. You picked the 16th. So, is there >> It's up to you guys. >> Currently, right now, this is open on the 11th or the 12th or the afternoon of the 16th. >> But is it's that week that's problematic
for you, right? The week. >> Yes. >> 9 through 12. >> Yeah. Let's go the afternoon. All my staff is out that week. So, >> that works with our attorney. >> 1 p.m. 16. >> So, the 16th at 1 p.m. >> Okay. Okay. All right.
>> Um, what's on our agenda next month, Jason? >> Fun stuff. >> That's great. Give us these. >> This wasn't fun at all. >> Well, we we'll try to spruce it up a little bit. A little more razledazzle for you. >> So, there is a uh preeemption that's coming down from the state uh regarding
some type of u what is it? Residential home or something like that. >> Yeah. every community has to adopt an ordinance prior to January the 1st. Uh which means you all would have to see it in November and then town council would
have to have two readings in November um the last part of November, the first part of December in order to hit that deadline. >> Okay. So my question is more specifically are there any major cases coming before us in November? >> Yes. the
>> let me go back the well yes we think there's one there's they're deciding whether they're going to go November or not so that would be um so I don't want to say it >> so nothing concrete yet >> there is probably a big one that's going to be put on that agenda >> on November November yes
>> okay um so I would also like to make another request you know we have a timeline for our agendas >> yes >> and and that timeline should be respected because it's for public and the staff and us and everything else. But then the the other thing with the
updated agenda coming, draft resolution, I mean it really our our agenda should be complete and finished when we get it. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, thank you. Um, anything else from anybody? Uh, hearing none, let's uh
>> Thank you. Thank you. We're adjourned at 10:01 p.m. Thank you. I hated that. I hated that discussion on the damn impact. Great job with you on that.