Good morning everyone. >> This is both a regularly scheduled meeting and a continued meeting. Um and it is um heck, what day is it? >> May 12th. >> It is May 12th, 2026. This is the Fort
Myers Beach Local Planning Agency with all members present as well as the town manager, assistant town manager, town clerk, Jason Green from community development. Nancy, you were leaning in like I was going to forget you. I would never. And Nancy, our attorney, if you would please stand for the pledge of
allegiance and the invocation. 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.
>> Amy, do you have a an invo? Never. Never mind. I'll give one. Um, may we all have patience and open minds and um clarity of vision to make the best decisions possible for our community. Amen.
>> Amen. >> Before we start, I just want to tell all of you in the audience in the little room there are there is water, there's cookies. Tracy, were they okay? The cookies are good. The little sandwiches, and please help yourselves whenever you're feeling the need. Um, okay. So,
uh, let's have an approval for the final agenda. >> So, move. >> Thank you, Jim. >> Second. >> Thank you, Jim. Any objection to that motion? Motion carries unanimously. And an approval of the minutes for our meeting of April 21st, 2026
with if there are any corrections. Why didn't I see those minutes? Were there? >> I believe they were there. >> Okay. Could I have a motion, please? >> I move. >> Thank you, Doug. I'll second that. Any
objection? Motion carries unanimously. Now we're having public comment on non-aggenda items. Um Amy, >> uh first up I have Robin Capella. >> Robin Capella. >> Following Robin will be Sandy Spitzer.
>> Good morning, Robin. >> You need to turn your mic on too. Please just push the little button. Y >> soon as it's green, you're on. >> There you go. Thank you. >> The one that says push. Those are always
the hard ones. >> How are you guys today? >> Great. >> Thanks for having me. Um I think Amy passed out a piece of paper to you all. I made it a little better. Um I've Yes, please. I've um been to or watched all
these meetings and I think there's so much emotion I thought maybe we'd get back to basics. So, I just printed out the responsibilities of the local planning um agency and just kind of wanted to read them. So, we got back to basics. And it's the objective of the local planning agency are to further the
welfare of the citizens of the town by helping to promote a better, more positive community environment and to ensure that the unique natural characteristics of the island are preserved. I just thought it would be really good to get back to that and
remind the LPA of their responsibilities and remind everybody in the audience of what your responsibilities are and maybe get kind of get back to basics. I'm a by trade I'm an accountant, financial manager type person. Did a lot of M&A in my day and so I just thought it'd be
nice to get back to basics to start with. And the second thing on my agenda is a question. I'm a heavy believer in Adam Smith and so I'm kind of out for myself and I don't want to pay any more taxes. So I kind of have a question and I I'm sure Nancy you've done this but I
kind of wanted to ask a question about liability. Um there has been I'm trying to find it. There has been lawsuits um in Florida about um councils and
towns and cities overstepping and approving lots of variances or setbacks and stuff um for stuff other than hardships that have been sued and and won like Pinerest Lakers versus Office of the Zoning
Appeals in Florida which was a um Coral Gables. There was one in uh David Hourback versus city of Miami and I don't want to pay any more taxes and so I want to make sure I'm sure you have Nancy advised the uh LPA and the city
council of the risks of approving and overstepping too many variances of an already thing. But it was just a question I wanted to ask. You don't necessarily have to answer it right now, but I'm worried about that in any decision you make today, tomorrow, or the next day cuz there have been many
lawsuits and cities have lost and I don't want to pay more taxes. >> Thank you, Miss Capella. Appreciate that. >> Sandy Spitzer. Sandy Spitzer. And after Sandy will be David O'Brien. >> Sandy, are you here? Um, David, let's
come to you and then we'll come back to Sandy if she's here. Maybe she stepped out for a moment. Maybe >> David O'Brien, uh, Gulfide 12 resident. I'm asking the LPA to consider not passing, uh, the amendment, special
exceptions, and variances today. Instead, I asked the town to put a moratorum on large-scale development and have the LPA town council with feedback from residents define what large-scale development is, where they can be
located, and what the maximum acceptable parameters for large-scale developments can be. In a sample of recent development history, some developments have been approved that were viewed as acceptable, and some were viewed as unacceptable. For example, Margaritavville was
approved at four stories after addressing residents concerns and the residents loved it. Seagate was approved at 17 stories which was rejected by the LPA but approved by the council and the residents hated it. A sterile beach club was submitted at 10 stories with limited
public benefits. It was approved by the LPA but rejected by the council. It was resubmitted at four stories approved and the residents loved it. Now London Bay wants 13 to 15 stories and doesn't seem to have any more public benefits than
the sterile beach club had. What will happen with it? Economics should not play a part in the process, but appears it does. The two most expensive parcel sales, Seagate and London Bay, may get the highest or the the largest height
variances to the comprehensive plan. A sterile beach club is a rebuild, so they already own their land. Why did a sterile beach club's plan get cut back, but Seagate and now possibly London Bay will not? One could only conclude that
the process tried to mitigate the developers financial risk. Plain and simple, large-scale development requests and decisions have been too random. It's impossible to manage the desired long-term outcome, one special request at a time. It seems to have become a
sales process, not a strategic process. rewarding which developer can sell their project the best. And worse yet, you've seated the comprehensive plan change process to the developers. None of the requests are so unique that from one another that they all couldn't follow
some standard guidelines for large-scale development. The comp plan should have some maximum values for height density parking and commercial space which can never be exceeded. do away with the special development districts by building the right parameters in the comprehensive plan. I believe there are
reasonable maximum values like a height maximum of say four, five, maybe six stories that an overwhelming majority of the LPA, town council and residents can agree with. Please spend the time to set the process up right so the right long-term decisions get made and the
wrong decisions like Seagate, the original Astero Beach Club proposal and now possibly London Bay can't get made. >> Thank you, David. Um, is Miss Spitzer back in the room? I don't think so. Okay, next. >> That's all I have signed up for general
public. >> Anybody else have any general comments you'd like to make this morning? Okay, we'll move on. Um, our first hearing today is a um a variant. And Nancy, do you want to make your speech before we go any further?
>> Um, I do, but Madam Chair, I would like to ask um and I probably should have brought this up earlier. Um, your second item on your agenda is a legislative matter, which is not going to have the formality that the variance and some of
the other items that you have. Would you prefer to take that first before the variance? >> I don't think it matters. I mean, >> all right. Well, then with that said, we can go forward with the variance. Um the v today on your agenda, you have um I
believe a couple of quasi judicial items. You have the variance request and further in the meeting, you have a uh special exception request as well. um in addition to the reasonzoning for uh the London Bay project. Um so these items
are quasi judicial in nature and this requires that your public hearing today comply with some procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in your land development code. The quasi judicial proceedings will be less formal than a proceeding before a
circuit court, but they will be more formal than your proceedings um on legislative matters, which you do have um three I believe today. Um, so this requires that the your
meeting for these quasi judicial items follow the basic standards of due process that requires the publication and the noticing of certain um of of the items as well as the application of the correct standards, the criteria that's
in your code. and that your decisions be made on competent substantial evidence that is presented to you either in written documents or through oral testimony. Your responsibility today is to evaluate that testimony and the information for each quasi judicial item
and then draw a conclusion regarding whether the criteria in the land development code or in state law has been satisfied. So just speculation or opinion that is not based on competent facts legally should not be considered
by you in evaluating an agenda item. Testimony by professionals who are 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, or their testimony based on personal information. So, members of the public that are in the audience today, if you intend to speak, please keep my comments
in mind and when you come forward, state your name clearly for the record and whether or not you have been sworn in. Um, you do have a couple variances um specifically the first one. Um, in the event there is a unanimous decision by
eligible voting members of the LPA to approve a variance, um, that decision shall constitute final agency action subject to a request by anyone for an additional hearing or review of the matter by the town council if that
request for the additional hearing is received by the town clerk within 10 days. So, for purposes of efficiency, um before we begin any of these public meetings hearings, we'd like to go ahead and dispose of a
few matters for these agenda items. So, I need to ask our town clerk whether the agenda items have been properly noticed pursuant to our land development code and Florida law. >> Yes, they have been. And at this time, if any LPA members have a conflict of
interest that would prohibit them from voting on any of these items, please disclose this now for the record so that we can make sure that we have a quorum present for the review of the item. >> Any conflicts from anyone >> on all the agenda items?
>> On all the agenda items. Thank you very much. None, Nancy. >> Okay. Um, next we'd like to go ahead and swear in anyone uh we've asked them to take an oath. Anyone who is intending to give testimony today on any of the agenda items, please stand and raise
your right hand so you can be sworn in by the town clerk and that in excuse me includes public comment. 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?
>> Thank you all. So, Florida law does talk about um and federal law as well, the disclosure of um exparte communications um ensuring that applicants for land use approvals
are afforded a fair hearing um with impartial decision makers. decision makers who have not made up their mind on items before the matter is presented to them today based on the testimony heard today and the documents presented
today um in advance of or documents you've received for today's um meeting um madame chair I think what we should do is take um the exparte disclosure for each item as it comes up
>> and I also want to state that for uh there is no exparte uh disclosure associated with any legislative item that um comes before you today as well. So with that said um I think we're ready
for the reading of the first title. Thank you Nancy. This is B 202600072 for 63 Delmare Avenue. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving approving with
conditions or denying variance 202600072 requesting a variance replacing in its entirety of previously approved variance 2024267 to vary from the required street setbacks and side setbacks for a single
family structure in the RM zoning district for the property located at 63 Delmare Avenue, generally referred to is strap number 194624W4 01000H.000010 in Fort Myers Beach and providing for other clarifications as necessary
providing for conflicts of law scriers errors severability and providing for an effective date. Ed, do you have any exparte on this case? >> Just the letter that received an email from the neighbor. >> Jim, anything from you?
>> Same for me. Okay. I have the same. Jane, >> the same. >> Ed, I mean, uh, Doug, >> same. >> Same. >> Same. Don, >> Jim, >> same except I had an additional conversation with Albert from Studio A who was showing me the code requirements for this type of structure.
>> Okay. Very good. Thank you. All right. So, um, we'll begin with a staff report. Jason, >> anything? Not ready. We could begin with the applicant if you're >> That's okay. All right. Can you hear me on this thing?
>> We can. >> Okay. Uh, as you mentioned, the uh variance for Delmare Avenue is set back current. Um, it it is a variance that will replace previously approved variances from resolution 25. Yeah. 2025-01. >> Do you have a microphone there?
>> It does. It does. >> It's not working. >> No, it's on. >> Is it low? There you go. >> Yeah. There you go. I'll put it in my pocket. Walk around. Sorry about that. Um, it's previous uh variances or three variances previously approved on the site under
resolution 2025-01. Uh, this this variance and request would replace those uh those previous approved variances. Oh, essentially what happened is there was errors during construct. Well, these setbacks were found uh problematic during construction. And so
the request to approve these variances would replace the previous ones and recognize the variances as the structure sits. Um essentially uh it was not due to the applicant's fault although there were some construction standards that we probably need to talk about later on how
that works out with the code. Uh staff has recommended approval of the variance uh with some conditions and um I'll let the applicant go into more detail if they want about that construction side. >> Okay. Thank you Jason. Um, any questions for Jason?
Uh, is the applicant here or their representative? Cara, >> one question to Jason. Um, did you get a letter? Did you get this letter? >> Uh, I have not read it. I didn't I didn't read that letter. I don't know if I'm gonna >> It probably got sent out, but I did not read that letter. >> What?
>> I don't It probably got sent out an email, but I did not read that letter. I think it would be important. >> Okay. >> Do you want to read it? >> Who wants Who wants Jason to read it? She wants Jason to read it. Sure. >> Okay. Go ahead, Cara. >> Cara Stewart for the property owner and contractor.
>> Have you seen the letter? >> I have not seen the letter. >> Okay. Does anybody else have it printed out? >> I do. >> Let us see it at some point. That would be very probably helpful. >> Okay. >> As Jason mentioned, this is an unfortunate situation. The construction
had started. We had been here before for this property for a variance. Thank you. The property for those just to reiterate again is a 41 ft wide piece of property which limits our ability to construct a
relatively suitable home for someone living in living in. In addition to that, we are seawword and our elevation is at approximately I think our lowest horizontal structural member is at 20 ft which elevates the house quite tremendously. again, which necessitates
an elevator at this point. We've all seen the homes constructed without them. They're very difficult to access anymore. So, that some of those constraints are well beyond our our uh forte to to correct or fix. During construction,
um unfortunately, the piles were laid out incorrectly by the surveyor and shifted the house forward approximately 3 feet. The discovery didn't take place until much further along in the process. And when that happened, the contractor did
stop construction, buttoned up the home, and said, "Cara, wait a minute. We need to go back to LPA." What essentially has happened is we are asking for an additional variance on the front. Um, I believe we're at about 171.
Um, which needs which requires then a 7.9 front variance. The sideyard originally had been approved through a variance for a 4ft side setback on the east. The home is now shifted approximately 6 in giving us a 3 and
1/2t setback to the stairwell. The structure and the wall of the structure is still at 7'7. So the structure itself is meeting that setback on the east side which is I believe without reading the letter probably that neighbor. Um so
again the structure meets the staircase does not. The other side we have uh I believe a 1.3 in setback requirement um that we're not meeting. Very minuscule. I would like to bring up that
um errors in construction. You have an administrative code that does allow for some of these items to be corrected administratively if they're under a foot. The three-foot is not under a foot. So, hence here we stand. Um, the
contractor is with me. I can answer any other questions we may have to the best of my ability anyway. But the the site is very constricted. The how we got here, there is probably a conversation to be had. Um, I have some
maybe some suggestions, but that being said, um, any questions I'm happy to answer. >> Okay. Um, questions for Cara. Uh, Jim, >> no. >> Don, >> no. >> Um, Doug, >> um, >> my only thought is, uh, the, um,
adjacent property owner had sent some suggestions. >> I don't know how to incorporate that into our deliberations. Exactly. But I think they're worth looking at. >> Okay. And basically I would like the both of you to have read that and have
discussion on what that suggestions are from the neighbor just based on the fact that they are encroaching on her her privacy and space that you know maybe we can
you know at least look at the request suggestions that are being made. >> I This is new to us, so I'm sure we'll take a look at it here in a minute. Yes. >> Okay. U Jim, any questions for Cara? >> My question centers in and I know you
haven't read it, but in the uh uh email, there's an allegation that there was no notice uh given this neighbor the first time out, which would have been uh the earlier variances that were granted. Um to me we're in a different situation
with the fact that the house is majority um the majority has been constructed which is a little different case than the initial application um and whether or not there was actual notice sent to the neighbor which she
says she did not receive. >> Okay. Do you know the answer to that car? >> I'm going to have to actually defer back to the town. I believe at that variance the applicant was not responsible for doing the mailings and I'm sure the clerk that that was addressed during
that first hearing. I don't believe we did them the first time. I have done them this second time. >> Okay. Um, Ed, >> I just have the same concerns and I think that um that if you read the neighbors the additional conditions that that she
would like if you guys would talk about that, I don't think they're they're very um would be very hard to accommodate the neighbor. >> Cara, let's see if there's any public comment. >> Sure. >> Is anybody here to testify on behalf of this case?
Um would you like to um table this for the moment? Go on to the next one and give you >> Let us just continue. Let us read the letter and see what we can. >> Okay. So >> Madam Chair, >> yes, >> just one comment. I think one of the suggestions was a wall, retaining wall,
which you'll see in there. And I suspect there's probably some depending on height, there's probably some setback issues there as well. So maybe one thought might be foliage, you know, some u um landscaping that might be able to help buffer it. >> You'll see that in the letter. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So um could I have a motion to table this just for the moment? So moved. Thank you, Jane. >> Second. >> Any objection to that? Okay. So let's move on to the next item, which is ordinance 26-x. What does that mean? XX. You've never
had an XX. >> Hasn't been assigned a number yet. >> Well, fantastic. All right. FPNL meter and associated structure regulation changes. This is proposed legislative ordinance, an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, amending article 3, division 3, section 34,638
of the land development code, creating a new exception to minimum setback requirements, reducing minimum setbacks to accommodate new Florida Power and Light requirements for platforms to locate and provide service to elevated
electric meters, providing criteria and conditions for the permitted electric meter. equipment and associated platform access stairways and related structures providing for clarifications as necessary providing for conflicts of law scrier's error severability and
providing for an effective date um Jason any comments on this one >> uh sure I'll just give background um thank you the text amendment is as you mentioned creating an exception for setbacks uh specifically for power meters and things of that nature uh we found that as the buildings are elevated
and as the um meters and such and panels are being elevated. Access has become a critical component to that. Uh both in this and here we mentioned Florida Power and Light, but we recognize that fire also gets access to these uh in emergencies. Um so in working through with power Florida Power Light, they've
got requirements as far as access to those meters and other electrical equipment and instead of what was happening is a lot of these were coming through for variances. Um and so it's become such an issue that we've decided why not create a text amendment that helps expedite that process since it is
required by uh the power company and um and instead of having to go through a big public hearing process and expense uh create an administrative way to bring that to solution and so that's what the text amendment intention is. >> Okay. Any questions for Jason on this? Jim,
>> Jason, from your point of view, um, first of all, raising these meters is a discretionary decision by the homeowner. Correct. >> Uh, no, I think it ties into resiliency and it ties into >> but it's not a requirement for >> everyone. It depends on the type of meter. I think FPL is requiring some of
those to be raised, but um, I'd have to defer to a building department, but I believe I believe power sources and panels are supposed to be above base flood. connected to that then is are there height uh restrictions on how
high they can raise the meter? And the reason I ask because then now we're going to approve access to these. >> You could literally make it the same height as your deck and have another entry to your deck and everybody would do that to have a larger deck than what would normally necessarily be required.
Right? So it would seem like there ought to be some flood or flood plus as the criteria for where you raise it versus an accommodation to a larger deck which would require different variance. >> Sure. And I think going back to your original question then to answer that there is discretion on the by the designer of the house as an example of
where that goes. Um and I think we will definitely be the intent is to give a path but with some administrative working with them to say that's creating a problem right that's expanding a deck that's outside of the scope in the attack. >> Is that my point? Yeah, right. In the
same breath, you could say, well, they should have designed it to be where the deck is. A lot of that's going to depend on the site and and all that, right? So, maybe they don't want it on the back of the house because that somehow impacts their living space or their outdoor living space, so they try to do it somewhere else. Does that create additional
>> Just trying to flush out a future argument? >> Absolutely. >> No, it's a good point. That is not the intent to create opportunities to have expanded or exit bigger decks. Um, we also are going to encourage people to design it in a better place so they don't need these. Uh, but there's sometimes we've been told by whether
it's the architect or electrical designer that they have to put it in certain places and I think that's a case by case unfortunately at this point. >> Other questions? Don, Doug, anything? Jane? >> No. >> Jim? >> No. >> Ed? >> No.
>> Okay. Um, anybody here from FPL? >> No. >> All right. Uh, any other discussion on this? Any public comment? None. Um, somebody like to make a motion to move this forward to the town
council. >> So moved. >> Support. >> Okay. So, the motion's been made to support the changes to the um land development code. And uh there's a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Uh all in
favor? >> I. >> Anyone opposed? None. Motion carries unanimously. Let's see. Cara just stepped out. Um Jason, you want to go talk to them? We'll take a five minute break.
come back up. >> Thank you all for the uh little brief delay. >> Negotiation in real time. >> Mhm. Thank you, Cara Stewart.
>> The letter is asking for some um conditions, I guess, let's put them that way, to which we can in talking with the contractor, one of them is to us for us to remove the staircase and shift it over back to
the original 4-foot approval. We can do that if that is the wish of everyone. We can move that back. One of their other conditions that they're asking for is a wall up the entire side of the property to
block the staircase and the deck. We are not in agreement to do that. That that just comes in this, you know, that just doesn't work. The other condition that we see on here is that they are looking for us to agree not to
further construct the deck that's on the rear now that the house has inadvertently been shifted forward 3 ft. We are uh cornered on the rear of the property by the 1978 coastal construction control line. They're looking for us not to be able to build
beyond what the original footprint is and up to that 78 line. The original request had us up to that 78 line. What we are willing to do in this instance is agree not to continue the side variance,
but if in the future the owner decides to extend their deck, they will meet side setbacks and they will comply with your code and just by a matter of right would be able to come in and revise their permit to add a few feet for their deck.
>> That is what we would want to have happen. >> So other than their big wall on the side of the property to buffer it. We can modify if we need to the staircase and we would like to be able to keep our rights to construct if we choose in the
future. >> So really the only change that you would make is to modify the staircase. >> Correct. >> Everything else stays in place. >> Correct. >> Okay. How do you all feel about that? >> Good. >> Good. Yeah. >> Okay. I'm good. >> Okay. Thank you, Cara. Thank you. And
was was there any public comment on this? >> None. I just want to make can I just make one more comment? I'm sorry. Absolutely. In light that that's why I had to hang it back before I was listening to your comments in relationship to your FPNL scenario and um in that proposal
and in that ordinance change you are suggesting or staff is suggesting that we allow the 3 and 1/2t encroachment for the staircase which is exactly what we're looking for >> without moving it. >> Interesting. Thank you.
>> So, do you not want to move the staircase? >> Well, the new I think the new LDC the code we just passed would actually allow them not to require a variance for it. >> Correct. For for you would need to do an administrative variance. I believe that that's the way that is written. It would
be to transfer it to an administrative variance. >> That's right. >> So, Cara, are you still moving the staircase or no? >> Yes, we will move the staircase. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Okay. Any discussion from the LPA? >> The the only question I had is we're moving the staircase. Are we I assume it
still meets code, the width of the staircase. Cuz if we're moving it, it's got to still be what, three or three and a half ft. >> Yes. It's probably the design of the stair rail, you know, that they can maneuver it for 6 in. I'm sure that that's cuz they the contractor went out and looked at that with his, you know,
with his his subs and whatnot and decided with the architect that they would be able to adjust it and still comply. >> Okay. >> Okay. Very good. Uh, any other discussion on this? If not, may I have a motion, please, and let that include the applicant's willingness to move their
staircase in accordance with the desires of their neighbor. I'll make that motion. Uh so the motion is to approve uh v uh variance request 202600072 with the uh recommendations is set forth
in the staff report and the applicant's willingness to move or relocate the staircase in accordance to the neighbor's desire. >> Second. Thank you, Jane. Any discussion on the motion? >> Y'all are very quiet today. I guess
that'll that'll end soon. I just have one discussion item. >> Yes. >> I don't know. Are we moving the staircase or just making it narrower? >> We're moving the staircase. >> Is that correct, S Cara? >> Yeah. >> The the agreement is to just make it
narrower. Leave it on the side of the property, which is the only place we can place it. The house is right to bring that in back to the original variance of 4T. Okay. >> So, the staircase now is 4T wide and you're going to make it 3'6 wide. I
don't know that. >> Yes. >> That's what we'll take. >> Yes. Okay. Okay. So, let that let let my motion reflect that and the second. >> Okay. Any other discussion? >> Um, my vote is yes. Jane, yours? >> Yes. >> Uh, yours, Jim?
>> Yes. >> Don? >> Yes. >> Doc, >> I. >> Uh, Jim, >> I. >> Ed? >> Yes. >> Okay. Motion carries unanimously. >> And now we move on to our continuence. Um, so this Thank you, Cara. Thank you,
gentlemen. Um, this is ordinance 264 CPA 20240067 6200 EO Boulevard. I feel like I should know this by heart. Outrigger mixeduse CPA text. This is a comp plan text amendment. This has been continued from
from uh Friday, May 8th. Um, this is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, amending the text in the future land use element in the uh adopted dece town of Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan 2045 adopted December
1st, 2025 to include outrigger resort mixeduse land use category, providing for clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scriveners errors, severability, and providing for an effective date.
So, um I Jason Jason, I understand that we have new information. Is it for this hearing or is it for another hearing? >> Um both. >> It's both. Okay. We've not reviewed it because we don't know what it is.
>> Correct. Um so I will at some point here hand it out with some help here. Um, my understanding is at 3:47 on Friday, we received a packet with some amendments to the CPA to the text amendment of the comprehensive plan and some revisions to
>> components of the CPD component uh application. Um, and those again were not in your packet because the revised agenda >> for the 12th went out before that happened obviously. Um, and no, these have not been reviewed today other than scanning over to see what kind of
differences there are. I'm trying to, but we'll see. >> Um, so yes, I I'll hand that out at your convenience. Um, but again, we have not really reviewed it. >> Staff staff has or hasn't reviewed. >> Has not. It came in at 4:00 on Friday. Um, packet went out. Agenda, a revised agenda went out.
>> Thank you. >> Um, earlier than that. Yes. >> Why didn't it come to us? >> I when >> Why didn't it Friday, Saturday, Saturday? Friday whenever it came in. Why didn't it just get >> It doesn't get sent to us until it's been reviewed.
>> Well, yeah. I mean, I took a look at some of it, scanned through it yesterday, but so we printed it and we can hand it out to you guys. Um, >> do we have to include it in the package for today? >> That's up to you. I mean, that's a discussion with the applicant. I'm sorry, Nancy. >> Can we review it first?
>> Well, um, okay. So generally the process would be for staff, your town staff to review it and provide comment to you. Um it would be comparable to something being brought to the meeting which we have the applicants here who could
explain it to you as well. Um and staff can review it as the explanation is provided. Um you could move forward with the changes. the changes would be reflected in the published um drafts
that you have. Um it would be beneficial if somehow we could put those on the overhead so the public is aware of what the changes are as well. Um I don't know if we have paper copies available. Um it's basically amending what is in your
packet during the hearing. >> So Mr. Ivanovich, do you want to address any of that? Yeah, actually we will walk you through all the changes. We had provided this information which was the reduction in height which was we
actually reduced the F from the three to 2.75. I've got an exhibit to walk you through every one of the strike through an underlying changes. Uh we were told to give a complete package by four o'clock on Friday to staff consolidating
all the information that we had previously provided. >> Who told you that? because >> we were told to provide the information by both the city attorney and by Jason by Friday if you guys wanted to have that information ahead of time. We'll walk you through it. We'll walk you through every change.
>> We appreciate you being able to walk us through it, Mr. Yvanovich. And don't don't I I'm going to be snappy for a second, but all these people who are sitting here and those who are watching at home don't have necessarily the benefit. They're going to listen to you do this, but our packets are meant to be complete when we receive them. So we
have adequate time to review them. This is just it's just like >> never happened before. Uncalled for. It's kind of on the fly. It makes me It concerns me about a project this big. But you go ahead. We'll see how everyone else reacts. >> And I want to clarify. I don't think I gave you a 4:00 deadline. I think I said
Friday would be fine just to >> because we knew the agenda we knew the agenda was going out Friday so that they would have a revision for Tuesdays. But I just wanted to make that clear on the record. >> You're right. You didn't give us an absolute deadline, but we were here Friday, if you remember, until almost
noon. So, we had to go back and get the information and compile it. I'll walk you through it. This was information that we had previously provided in advance of the May 8th. >> Nothing new other than what you provided >> other than reducing the F from 3 to 2.75. >> Okay.
>> And I'll walk you through it. >> And I don't I don't want to be argumentative. I I disagree with that. There's a couple policies in here that have changed between the May 8th stuff and today. So, not to be disre Yes, there's there's there were some policies that the packet included different language that blue striketh through had been removed or what have you that came
in on Friday. So, again, maybe in the rush of trying to review this uh on Monday, um there's some confusion there. So, >> so in the spirit of trying to get something accomplished today, um I think what Mr. Yavanovich is proposing uh as
far as walking us through them. Um but we our starting point should be the published agenda which the t the LPA has received as well as staff >> and that's what we're prepared to do. >> Okay. And do we have will the public be able to see these changes as they're discussed
>> as we as soon as you pull the PowerPoint up we'll walk you through every one of those changes? >> Okay. So maybe the train is back on the track. hand this out. Okay. So, we've got that's >> before you start. We also have the option to proceed with the record as
it's submitted and then they can make their pitch to the town council as well. Right. >> First. >> Oh, that is correct. So, what you would be doing would be rejecting the proposed changes that you're seeing for the first time today. >> Okay. Are you ready?
>> I as soon as the if it's up. Thank you. And I I wasn't sure if it was my turn to if there was any preliminary comments that needed to be made. >> Okay. >> These are these uh this particular um item is legislative in nature. So there's no need to go over any um
exparte or uh quasi judicial uh concepts. Is there a package for us or are we just going to see what on the walls? >> We're going to see what's on the walls. >> Okay. >> Uh good morning. For the record, Richie
Vanovich on behalf of the petitioner. Uh when we left uh these chambers on Friday, we were asked to make a presentation as to the by right options on the property. >> We're going to do that first. Then we'll
walk you through the modifications we made based upon information we were provided and comments we received from the LPA uh at our hearing in April. And that will take you through the changes to both uh
the comp plan text amendment as well as the PD changes. I know we'll have to reinccorporate the PD comments uh when we get to that specific item, but I think it's best to present those at the same time. Uh under we have basically
I don't know why this isn't working other than it doesn't like me. Um how do I get this to move forward? It's not moving. The one I had last night, you had to go backwards to go forward. This one, I'm
pushing both buttons and I'm going nowhere. >> So, while we're waiting on that, um staff is working on trying to get um hard copies for you. Um, and we'll be labeling them. Um, LPA today's date on
it, so there's no mixup. Um, there might be still some uh confusion as to which documents um we're being asked to review. So, we may have questions just to clarify. >> I I I hope my my PowerPoint slides will
be very simple and easy to understand if I ever get to show them. Yeah, >> we're waiting on his clicker >> clicker so I can actually go through the by right options >> and and when we met with your staff on
Friday about the by ride options they they obviously will have not had time to confirm any of the specifics about what we're presenting um as far as I'll explain how we came to those Um but they it would >> Did you meet with them after the
hearing? >> We talked to them ahead of when we were asked to make the presentation today as the by right options. Jason said, "There's no way I can review all of this and so did Nancy to confirm what you're presenting. We'll just have to confirm it later." So
>> you both have such confused looks on your face like >> Well, let we'll just we'll just based on our memory and our notes, um we'll make our representations to >> Okay, very good. >> The LPA. >> Okay.
>> Do we have a working clicker? >> We have an error. >> Okay. Very >> I just had to say next slide. Okay, that's fine. That's easy. I can do that. Uh well you I've already introduced the team you know who everybody who's here. >> Yes we feel like family at this point.
>> They should be. Next slide please. The first the first byright option is to basically rebuild the outrigger hotel at the raised elevation for the minimum elev at the minimum floor elevation uh based on your flood code which would
make this building um three floors over one level of parking. um it would be uh the most efficient shape is this horseshoe horseshoe shape uh option. We're showing you this option because
that's what we can do by right. It's an option that's uneconomical and really is only only a byite option uh but not a likely option of the two uh byite options that we're going to present today. Um, and this would replace the
144 rooms that was there, the the the restaurant that was there, necessary parking that was there, uh, using the entire beachfront uh, as we were previously allowed to use for the service of alcohol and commercial uses.
The next slide, please. Now, the Florida legislature a couple years ago included a buy option for the Live Local Act. And what the live local act provides is that there's an administrative approval process uh for
commercially zoned properties to be developed as residential or mixed use if the if a 40% of the units were provided uh to serve the workforce which is at 120% or below median income is is the
definition of workforce under the live local act. under the live local act. I don't think there's any question that we're a commercial PD. So there's no question that uh the live local act applies to the property. Now I would tell you we took a conservative approach
and we only applied the live local act to the 3.5 acres of the commercial PD that's land word of the coastal construction line. But the CPD applies to the entire nine acres. So I just want to make that reference clear.
What it says under the live local act is we're allowed to develop at the highest density on on the within the town highest approved town density and at the highest height within one mile. That's what the live local act says. Um next
slide please. >> So what what are the heights of these buildings? >> They are 153 feet tall. >> 153 >> 158. It's it's the the same height 158 which is within one mile okay >> of here which is what we So it's 158
feet in height. >> Both buildings are the same height. >> Uh yes. >> Okay. >> But they could vary. But right now I would mention anyway. Yes. They're both the same height. >> Okay. Uh, and we're building and as you can see, we put the market rate units up
by the beach and we put the workforce units in a separate building which is permitted under uh under the live local act. Uh, and the live local act allows us to develop this as mixed use and it allow and I'll take you the next slide.
Thank you. Okay. So again, it's an administrative process. It doesn't go here. It doesn't go to the town council. We simply go through an administrative approval process provided
that 40% of the units are the affordable units. Uh it also provides that up to 35% of the building square footage can be non-residential uses. So that means we can have restaurants to just serve us. We can have a private
beach club. We can have those non-residential uses within this proposed project under the live local act. Um, we can even have hotel units under the live local act. We're showing you a
purely residential option, but there's there's a myriad of options available. The highest density on your island right now is the Sand Caper Beach Club. It's 81 units an acre which
no worries which comes out to 287 units 171 of which would be market rate and 116 of those units would be affordable. The Li act local act also says that um
we get 150% of the highest approved F on on the island. Right now your highest approved F is 2.5. We assumed you actually apply an F to a multifamily building. We're not sure you do but we
went conservative and assumed you do. So that would be 3.75 F and the height is the 158 feet within the point of stero uh project that's within ours. So if we
can go back a slide this is the po this is a potential option under the live local act if if for some reason we're not approved of what we're requesting. We believe and that's why we have
pursued what we're pursuing and have spent Mark will tell you almost a million for in design fees to go forward with what we're proposing as a mixeduse project that includes some residential brings backs the hotel brings back public access to the beach brings back
public restaurants and with with that our first choice is to move forward with what we're proposing today. But you asked us to show you what we what rights we have as a matter of right as an option under the existing laws of the
state of Florida. Um don't want to spend a lot of time on that but wanted to let you to let you know because we were asked what are our options if we're denied. Uh we own the property so we're going to have to do something with the property. Um, and again, the Live Local
Act, um, I I I I kind of sometimes refer to it as keep land use lawyers out of the public domain because it's administrative. You don't need lawyers like me or Neil McGomery to go through and bring projects forward. These are projects that are allowed as a matter of
right under the Live Local Act. Uh, this is what we believe applies in the town of Fort Myers Beach and we are um, if we have to, that's the way we'll have to go. If if we're that's the of the two by right options, the live local act is is
the option that will probably >> Could you go back to the detailed slide on the live local act? I just have a question. >> Absolutely. >> It's the next slide. I'm sorry. >> Thanks, Eric. Uh so is that 3.75 F based
upon the San Caper Beach Club or simply the 2.5 F? So why have you included San Caper Beach Club? >> That's the density. >> Why? >> Because that's the highest density you have on. >> But the town didn't approve that.
>> It doesn't matter. The live local act says the highest density permitted within the town. It doesn't say the highest permitty approved by the town. It says the highest density permitted within. >> Do you agree with that, Nancy? >> I don't have the exact wording in front
of me. Um, but I believe that is correct. >> Okay. It just so highest approved or permitted by the town. I would think that's today, not 1974 though. >> Well, no, that's not what the accents.
>> Okay. So, it just says permitted in all of history. It says the highest permitted density in the town. >> No. >> Well, it says highest permitted, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. What's >> I mean, we don't go tear down buildings, right? So, I I just I we should check that. >> Yeah. >> Expect that.
>> Yeah. >> There's Well, it's just it's an interesting option. You know, it would provide housing for residents and if we're going to have some high buildings, maybe it's something that that we should contemplate. But, okay, go ahead. >> Anyway, that's that's the two rights. I
look I fully expect that at some point there'll be some litigation to find out exactly what the Live Local Act says about some of the issues you're raising, >> but you asked us to be open and honest about what we believe is the maximum we can do. That's what we believe is the maximum we can do and the maximum
height. Mhm. >> Um, and with that, I'd like to get into the changes that we've made to our documents, uh, and show you how we implemented that. And then Mark will come up and go
through the master plan changes related to the different changes, uh, that we understood, uh, was the direction at the last time we had the full hearing. Um, and if that's okay, we'll go to the next slide.
Okay. Since since the last meeting, uh it was our understanding that we were requested to go from the 195 ft we included in the documents to 158 ft measured basically from base flood elevation which is what we've done. We
reduced the height to the 158 ft. We added the equivalency factor at 3:1. We talked about if we had to give up units, could we have three hotel units for each unit we gave up? We included that in our documentation.
Originally, we had asked for a 3.0 F uh based upon what was approved for and it just went blank on the Neptune CPD. Uh we went back and looked and we don't need a 3.0, we need a 2.75. And that's
based upon the Neptune CPD approved deviation which is what we have been bringing forward. And what the Neptune CPD excluded from the definition of F was non-air space
included in the parking garages and included in the balconies and included in the open terraces or or even the covered terraces that were non-airconditioned. That's what we had brought forward. That's what was approved I think unanimously
uh or recommended approval uh unanimously by the LPA and I think approved by the town council. There might have been one negative vote on the town council but we've asked to bring forward that same definition of F and with that we made a modification to go
from three to 2.75. Um we understood that um the buffer along the northern area where we had proposed landscaping as the deviation instead of including the wall.
We remove the we put the wall back in to eliminate the definition. If that wasn't the direction we received that you preferred the landscaping, we can put the de the deviation back in. And we were told that you did not want the explicit public benefit in the future
land use element. You wanted it to be in the PD. So we took that language out of the comp plan as well. Um so if we can go to the next slide please.
This is what we previously showed you as the outline of the development. Um, and you know, the original application was for 150 hotel units. Oh, another thing you asked us not to refer to condo units for the hotels. You just wanted to refer to them as just hotel units. So, we're
now 150 hotel units. Uh, we retained the 46 multif family units, but included the conversion formula for that. Uh we kept the 20,000 square feet of non-residential public accessible uses and then the 26,000 square feet of
private club again brought the height down to the 158 ft and remove that. So if we go to the next page please next slide. Okay so here is what we changed. You could see through strike through and
underline we took out the reference to public benefit uses because you asked us to take it out of the comp plan which we did. We changed the height from 195 ft to 158 ft. >> Sorry, can can I just clarify something?
>> The height is I believe it's 79 ft. Correct. >> The actual >> Right. Well, we you as I believe you asked us to go to 158 ft as measured from >> just just want to be clear because you're talking about two different heights. The height before I believe was
197 198 ft, right? >> We have a slide. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um we changed under intensity the F from three to 2.75
and then on the density we incorporated the multif family units can be converted at an equivalency factor of 3.0 and then we were asked to eliminate the but I believe and I'll let staff correct me if I'm wrong staff thought everything
after that was not necessary. If you want to put it back in, we can put it back in. But we were we believe we were asked to take out the permitted density of 41 units at per acre. We were we were told that that necessary that language is was unnecessary. So we removed that
language. >> Rich, ask you could I ask you a question? I'm sorry to interrupt you, but may I ask you a question about the conversion, >> right? >> So usually a conversion is implemented when someone has residential units. You don't have any. You're asking for them.
>> Absolutely. But >> so so where's the logic of we want to convert this because it's you're you've created this out of thin air. I I mean you're asking for it. I >> I did. >> But can just tell me what your logic is because I have a hard time explaining
that. I >> I understand. And remember we said by reducing the height we were going to lose some a floor or two in the condo building. >> Sure. which meant we were going to lose probably four residential units.
>> And we asked in losing those four residential units, can we include a conversion formula >> for those four four units at a 3 to1 ratio? >> And I believe, Mr. Chairman, you said, "Hey, the more the hotel rooms, the better."
>> I did say that. So, we incorporated that because I think the general consensus was yes, if you're going to give up four of your hotel your residential condo units, will uh will allow you to ask for a 3 to1.
>> Could you understand where I'm coming from? This is so if you had if there had been uh 46 residential units on this property instead of a hotel and you came here telling me we want to take those 46 units and convert them to hotel. That
makes plain sense to me. My reaction in that moment of you saying uh we're going to you know we want to convert or whatever. My reaction was happy about the hotel because I think the south end of the island needs a hotel. And so I'm very happy about that. But I have I am
struggling with this notion of of converting at the 30 uh conversion factor units that don't exist. >> I understand. But I believe >> and I'll admit I'm getting a little older so maybe my memor is not as good. I thought there was consensus to
whatever we were losing to apply the 3 to one. I think the variable that context helps with this is it was a it was a negotiation around a height reduction >> right >> and that's a different scenario than already having converting
>> correct >> so what you were proposing is I need a trade-off take the height away >> right >> to do something over the other buildings no matter what you did with them you made them taller >> correct yeah >> and it was it was related to economic viability
>> of making the changes requested which was to bring the height down. >> Agree. It was related to the height. I just clarify one more thing. In the package it shows 15 floors >> and you had 15 before and then I see another place where it shows 14. Is is it 14 or 15? >> It's going we have an exhibit to take
you through the master plan changes >> related to how we we actually make slight design changes to the roof line and and others. U so we're prepared to >> so is three to one. Now, I've got an >> You want to ask something,
>> Jason? >> It is. >> I just want to confirm that the 3:1 ratio is in our new comp plan. >> It's in the LC. >> What? I'm sorry. Say that again. >> The 3:1 conversion from a unit to hotel rooms. Is that in our new plan?
>> No. the the speci the specifics of that conversion is actually in the land development code and it talks about unit size and future land use categories. So for example pedestrian commercial you get a different uh ratio potentially but
the comp plan has always talked about that number through a CPD. Basically the comp plan set out the max of being a 30. The LDC specified which categories you got what. So in one category you might get two, another category you might get two and a half and then it depended on the size of the room. Okay, that's still
in the land development code and the comp and but you've always been able to ask for a CPD for something else other than that. >> Okay. >> So it it's not a it wasn't a guarantee. It was dependent on the land development code and carrying out through the CPD
process. >> Right. Right. >> Or straight zoning. Like if you had CR then you could do something based on the code. Right? >> If you did a PD then you could ask for something else, >> right? >> I just as I >> But it's based on but it's always based on existing density. Okay. So existing
density being caps. Our future land use cap is six units an acre. There's a couple areas of the town that have a historical plat that are recognized because they were if you do the math on the lot size they were 10 units an acre. But entitlements from the future land use map categories, all of yours are
capped at six units an acre, which then you do a conversion of two or two and a half depending on where you are on that and then a CPD to ask for more than that. >> But the conversion, >> which is why they've always asked
>> I'm sorry. >> Okay. I don't I don't really see the benefit of reducing the rear building by one floor and then increasing the buildings along E sterile by one floor. Aesthetically,
you're going to see the ones that are along ET sterile. You're not even going to notice that the rear building has lost one floor. >> Keep going. Keep going >> please. >> Thank you.
>> Can we go to the next slide, please? >> Okay. We we talked briefly about the calculation of F that's currently in your comprehensive plan and and I couldn't find anything in your land development code that says a PD that has
multif family in it is subject to the F. Nor could I find anything that says that when when your comp plan is clear that it only applies to non-residential uses that you apply that to the entirety of the building. We have done it. We have
applied it to the entirety of the building for purposes of what we're we're proposing. But your comp plan language is clear in the mixeduse district sections that the F only applies to the non-residential square
footage within that building. Um, so next slide, please. >> Have you have Have you received a reaction from our planning personnel on that? >> I I think their position is that's the way they've always done it. They're going to continue to do that way. And
Mr. Yvanovich, they haven't said this. I'm summising. We respectfully disagree with uh your reading of the future land use element, but you know, the words are the words and they're pretty clear. I mean, there there's no ambiguity as to what the words say in the comprehensive
plan. >> Um, and we've >> Hold on one second. Nancy, Jason, do we need a break so you all can continue to discuss something? >> Um, if we are interrupting >> Okay, let let's let's just take a quick a five minute break. Is five minutes good?
>> Okay. Eric. Um, chair, can I just um just so everyone knows um including the public and those that may be viewing. Um, so we have I've had discussions with the town planner. I've also had discussions with
the applicant's attorney. Um when we get time when at the appropriate time when discussion begins with the LPA, we will identify in the agenda packet where the actual language is located and should
the LPA want to make changes of the actual language that's going to be in the ordinance, uh we will project that on the screen allowing the applicant the opportunity to um interact with you as to if that language change, proposed change is sufficient. So
>> marvelous. >> I think we've muddled through a lot of the documents, but um I thank you for your patience in that. >> Thank you, Mr. Ivanovich. Go ahead and continue. >> I think I already did this slide to tell you that we've we've added the deviation
F to be consistent with Neptune. Uh and then the next slide. Okay. the this is this is the changes to the master plan as a result of bringing down
uh the height. So >> I sure would like to see that up close. >> Well, >> we do have copies. >> You have copies and >> they they don't have them. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I saw them. I assumed they were handed out. And if you could blow that up. I I don't control the the
video to >> Eric. Can you blow that up a little bit? >> Okay. Let me just >> Okay, >> it's okay if you can't. >> Oh, he's trying to look at him. Oh, he's very clever. >> Oh, very good.
>> Wow. >> Thank you, Eric. >> So, um, members of the LTA, you may want to write exhibit A on this because this is their proposed exhibit A. Uh, just so Nancy is on the record, this is exhibit
A we're being given, which is a revised site plan, >> which is the it's the revised master concept plan to the PD. >> What Mr. Yvanovich said >> and these revisions in your mind were part and parcel to the meeting we had
relative to the request for height adjustments? >> Yes. We're asked to go down to 158 ft. We said we would share with you how we could implement on the master concept plan that height reduction. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You know, you throwing that number out,
Don has created all kinds of havoc. >> Yeah, I wish I hadn't. >> I wish you hadn't either. >> If I could interrupt just to it was said, but I want to clarify that that the exhibit you're looking at would be to the other application, the CPD application, not the >> comp plan amendment. >> Okay. Right. Jim, you
>> because those ordinances have different exhibits for clarification. >> I was going to say I think Don's uh statement >> was not a request. It was a suggestion >> and we've moved all the way that that suggestion at the end of the meeting has
all automatically now become your revised proposal. >> Understood. We we thought the consensus from those who spoke about the reduction in height was to bring the height down to 158 feet. You're going to vote on whatever you all decide is is appropriate.
>> Exactly. >> So, uh we reduced the height to 158 ft starting in the upper leftand corner if you all remember that was the purely residential building. >> That was 15 stories which was 13
residential floors over two of parking. Uh that goes down to 14, which is 12 residential over two parking. Um if you work your way, uh I don't believe there's any changes
to the three-story building that stayed the same, which is to the right of the condo building. Now, if you can go up on the map, the other way. I'm sorry. Thank you. the the um where it says the public restaurant rooftop building with hotel
condo 13 floors that was 12 stores 12 stories over to a parking we went to 13. Likewise, as you work your way towards
the street, we went from what was 11 um to 12. And closest to the street where it has the triangle with the 6 through 12, we went
from 9 to 10 to uh to to uh address the height modifications. Mark has got a a uh a I'm gonna turn it over to him to take you through some
more details about these changes and then I think at that point we'll be ready to uh turn it back over to you all to where we left off. I think it was you were having discussion about the proposed text language uh change and then we'll
go from there. >> Thank you very much. Uh good morning everybody. Uh Mark Wilson, >> good morning. >> CEO and president of London Bay for the record. >> And so we're kind of continuing from where we were on the last time. And I
thought at the end of the last meeting uh that we ended up in uh what I'd call a friendly discussion that put some requests on us to reduce the height on the residential building and is proposed by Don. And I was concerned that we
wouldn't be able to get the turnaround in the images for you to show you what that looks like. I'm delighted to say that the team's worked very hard and we've got that done for you. So if we just look at the next slide, let me just again just really simplify uh what we
had on this side. Next slide please. So here this is familiar to you. was in the last package and again it's just a a highlight and again if we could enlarge that um that would be helpful Eric.
Perfect. Great. So again the front building that originally was 13 stories the the request was look can you bring this down to 158. The discussion that I had I think was mainly with Alita at that time is that might need to be two
stories. We might lose eight uh units and could we do the conversion of which we understood the answer was yes. The good news for us and maybe for you is we don't have to lose two stories. We can actually do this by losing one story. Um
and we needed to take approximately 20 ft. We had this conversation 1920 ft needs to come out of the building and we can do the 19 ft out of the building because the measurement of 158 is from FD up to the midpoint of the roof. We
changed the design of the roof. So between a floor and changes to the roof space, we were able to take that space out. So we got the 158 uh as Don requested and I thought the consensus when we left was we're okay with 158 and we're okay with moving a floor. So, the
condo building, as Richard said, is now 12 stories over parking instead of 13 stories. In the, as you're looking at this on the top right, closest to Astero Boulevard, that stays as one level above
parking, which is the event space. The space closest to um Astero Boulevard uh in the middle of the building, um has moved up by one floor to 10 levels over parking. Sorry, eight levels over parking. Next to that, as it steps up to
hotel and hotel condos, it's stepped up by one floor from 9 to 10. And the rooftop bar has stepped up from 10 to 11. And then it all steps down where the hotel restaurant is at the lowest level
is still one story over parking. So I think that's the summary of what those changes were. If we go to the next slide, this shows you the visual of what that looks like. First of all, from the road, um, showing that the one story was put
in at a mid level and added to the building closest to the road. And here it is. And then as you go to the condo uh which is furthest back, the residential condos is for sale which is furthest back offer boulevard and
closest to the beach. We've taken a floor out of that and again the midpoint of the roof from FD is 158 ft. If we go to the next slide, this is where again if we could just blow this up slightly so that the
measurements on the left hand side could be read from the from the from the beach if you would Eric from the ground. There you go. Thank you. So grade is at approximately five NVAD.
the um to the um measurement from FD to the midpoint of the roof is 158 ft. If you take it from the dirt, as Don pointed out earlier, you have to add back the difference between the five and the 20 ft, which is actually 15.1 ft,
which takes us to a total height of 173.1 ft as opposed to the 195 that we were at previously. And then as we look across um if we can go back to the full slide please Eric. Thank you. As we go
back and we look at the whole piece there you'll see okay we've reduced one floor out of the condos. We've slid that floor into the hotel and hotel condos. Yes the two buildings have become slightly closer in height to each other.
Um but I think visually we're still comfortable that visually it can work and um and there is a small difference from last time and if that's the the wish of the LPA um we're happy to comply
and I think if it's the wish for the LPA that it goes back to where it was we can comply. Um but I think the consensus when we left the me meeting I'm not saying unanimous I'm saying consensus was can you make this change uh for us
>> Mark so we don't complete two separate issues the changes that you made strictly with height and ultimate end use are not triggering the FAR adjustment. No, we've we've gone through the far adjustment and did a really um close
analysis of what Neptune got and with the 3.0 that we had, we had some wiggle room and if we if we the team went back and said, "Okay, let's look at this." Clearly, there was a discussion on FAR. What exactly can we live with? What does the calculation
>> I just think it would have been easy to misunderstand particularly by people who don't work with this that you made adjustments to lower the FAR. Can we make another adjustment? Lower the far down to two and a half. Those are separate calculations. You refined your math. It's all you did. Yeah. >> It was not related directly to the changes made in height to made the buildings.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Thanks. >> But he didn't move it to two and a half. >> I do. No, it's 2.75 to be absolutely clear. Next slide will help clarify that. >> I have a question. >> Yes. >> Square footage comparison. You take the condo building
and you reduce it by one floor. That was so much square footage. You've added one floor to three other buildings. >> Yeah. >> What is the square footage that you reduced and what is the square footage that you added? >> We got that handy.
>> I think I think the answer is what you're getting at. Have you increased the square footage of the building? Was it a direct trade for four units to what is 12 condo units? The answer is no. You've got more square footage. But that's what you asked us for. And I did say and I did clarify at the last
meeting if this increases the size of the building by doing that trade do we have a concern and the answer was no so that's what we did and yes it's increased increasing the square footage increase the square footage of the building
>> yes all right next slide please >> so again we might as well blow this up so everybody can see it Eric thank So again just getting to um the floor area and just being absolutely clear the overall site area that we had is a total
of 9 acres for F we're only an uh we've been told that we can only use 3.55 acres of that which is 154 638 square ft. The total beer building area is
622,100. The total area contributing to by to far as defined by rich in the previous is 425 ft. And as he mentioned, this excludes unconditional space
on the load or two floors and other unconditional space. And this changes our proposed far to 2.75 which was previously shown at three. If
Rich's argument and discussion on F and residential should ex get excluded, in actual fact, we come all the way down to 1.75 on F. Next slide. >> What what is included in the in the
excluded unconditional space? >> That's deviation number two. >> Yeah, we we Rich talked you through that. Happy to do it again. I think we should do it again. >> Do you want to see the language? >> Okay. >> Can Can I just finish the last slide and
then Rick can come back and do that? Would that be okay? >> I'm going to do this and then we finish. >> So, the other thing I wanted to do, as I said, I didn't think we were going to have time to do either what I've just showed you or this rendering. Um, our renderer worked very hard to make that
adjustment in time. And this is showing the difference to the building before with the back building being one story higher and now the front of the building being one story higher. We took one story out, put it back up and uh this is
the same image as we showed you just with those changes. And again, I think visually um there isn't a huge difference. I think we can turn around and say we would be proud of both versions and we think it is architecturally attractive and with that
I'll hand back to Rich to just take you through that F calculation. Thank you very much for your time. Can can we go to the second to last slide in the deck? Perfect. This is this is what was actually approved for the Neptune
project. So what >> you realize it's not relative to this case and histo relative to this case. I mean historically we have always done our best not to bring in information from other CPDs or whatever because each
one is individual. I understand >> and okay >> I I understand it's not presidential >> great >> but it is it is we believe informative on what you have done historically in calculating F. So, for the Neptune project,
um, if you can blow up the left hand side where the calculations are because it went 4x4. Can you blow up the lefthand side where it says project F? Thank you.
Okay. Well, basically starting at the parking levels, any unairconditioned space was excluded uh for the Neptune project. They had fitness facilities that were air conditioned on those lower levels. They were included in the F and so are
we. We have fitness facilities on the lower two levels. We are including that air conditioned space in our calculation. um when they get above those levels they exclude any exterior balconies and any any other
exterior unairconditioned space. So, we've done the very same thing. And if you can go to the very bottom of that, you can see you can see that um they excluded
a significant amount of square footage from their overall building calculation to arrive at the F of 1.5. We believe it's appropriate to apply that same calculation to our project and
that's why we're presenting that uh as a rational basis for why we're coming forward with our deviation to uh the calculation of F. Um so what we've basically done is excluded
unairconditioned space from our calculation of F similar to what was done for the Neptune project. So we didn't just pick a number out of the air. there was a basis for how we came up with that number
>> and and that was uh that was I believe approved 50 by the LPA that that method for calculation. So with that that concludes uh the changes we made since the uh first hearing.
Um I leave it to you to tell me what we do next uh in the process. Um, and of course we're available to answer any any questions. I think we're just on the text amendment right now. >> Yes, we are. >> And um, Mr. Yvanovich, let's see if
anybody on the board has questions for you and then we'll open the public comment on the text amendment. Okay. Um, Ed, any questions right now for >> None. >> For Rich. How about you, Jim? >> No questions. >> Jane, >> none. Uh, Doug. >> Uh, no, ma'am.
>> How about you, Don? >> No questions. Jim, >> not this time. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We'll open the public comment. Um, would any who had anybody like to speak on this right now? >> Yes. Oh, Amy has cards. That's great.
>> All right. First up, we have Ellie Bunting. And after Ellie will be Beth Burwinkle. >> Oh, Ellie, I don't know if you're going to be able to take that one down. >> There you go. All right. Good job. Right,
>> Ellie Bunting. >> The vibrance of our island has its roots in a healthy balance between residential and tourism. Council has put a great deal of emphasis on the delusion that developers are going to bring our town back. However, no developer is here to
bring our town back. They will not proceed beyond permitting until there is an active town to attract tourists. In this delusion, council has approved excessive overdevelopment in every case. The developer has convinced council that excessive height and density plus
decreased parking requirements are necessary to manage the cost of land and expense of building. They profess excessive development rights are a necessity for the return of the island. The excesses will be cumulative from one development to the next. What has
already been approved there will be hardships on the infrastructure of the island and our quality of life. There will be stress on our water supply, electricity, travel time and traffic and road maintenance. All going beyond affordability of residents. The comeback
of the island is up to us as residents, homeowners, local contractors, small businesses, shops, restaurants, labor workers, fishing industry, community organizations, and community leaders. This is what will create a healthy
balance between residential and tourism. If the proposal by London Bay is approved as it is, it will set a precedent contributing to excessive financial costs, residents, and a burden on our quality of life. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ellie.
>> Beth Burwinkle. Following Beth is Bill Billinkle. >> Beth and Bill Burwinkle. Oh, you couldn't write that in a movie script. Beth and Bill Burwinkle. I love it. >> Good morning, Beth. >> Good morning. And there's a Burwinkle,
Germany, by the way. >> Well, good to know. >> I am Beth Burwinkle and I've been a resident of Fort Myers Beach for over 35 years, currently residing at GFide 12.
Thanks to Ian, I am here yet again today to once again state my opposition to the development of the Outrigger property by London Bay as it stands
both before and after their proposed changes. London Bay purchased this property knowing the laws of the state of Florida and of our land development code. Their profit margin is not a valid reason for
the many variances that they are requesting. Their profit margin is not your concern. Your concern should be if their proposal fits within our uh comprehensive plan
and meets the state's requirement for variances where they would need to prove an exceptional and unique hardship that is not self-created. And to top off all their variance requests, they're requesting an
outrigger district. This is selfserving, massive, egregious. We would end up with almost 4 acres of concrete. Make no mistake, this developer is
working on a multi-loation plan. They need this development to become their beachfront amenity for their other projects. Specifically, the people that live in Asterero that
they plan to ferry over. Fort Myers Beach residents don't need this resort. And the developers list of public benefits, in my opinion, are laughable. starting
with the linear park which is just a beach access that abuts to an existing beach access. But to keep this short, I will say please insist that London Bay adhere to
the 2045 comprehensive plan, our land development code, and a properly calculated FAR value. Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you, Mrs. Burwinkle.
>> Bill Burwinkle. Following bill will be Dave Nuspa. >> Good morning, Madam Chair, uh members of the LPA. Thank you very much for your service and all the hard work you do uh to uh serve our community.
>> Good morning to you, >> Miss Capella. earlier brought up the role of the LPA. I did the same thing. By the way, I've been with Beth for 35 years on the beach. We lost Strand View, moved into Golfside 12 and uh uh never
paid much attention to the LPA. I apologize. I should have. But one of the responsibilities is to review and recommend cons comprehensive plan amendments for the town. To me that means you review those and it
goes to council to make decisions on what changes should be made to the comprehensive plan. Number two uh and there's many things that you're responsible for but the other one was to review development proposals for
consistency with a comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. Number three is to hold public hearings like today, gather the community input on planning and land use matters. And uh
I gave Miss Baker, the town clerk, uh uh copies of a survey that was completed for Fort Myers Beach. I assume you've all received it. Uh but uh I'll just uh uh point out one key takeaway. 76% of the people surveyed, three out of
four people surveyed want to constrain height and density and not to amend the comp code. So if you're here to listen to the community, that's what the community is saying. Historically, you should be commended for the
excellent job on Seagate. You delivered on the responsibilities given you as the LPA. Unfortunately, town council deviated from the LDC and today, except for making attorneys rich, the Seagate
property is for sale. Your town staff says the L Monday proposal does not meet the criteria of the LDC. Just like Seagate, I'm respectfully asking you to deliver on the responsibilities given you as the LPA and deny this
application. Again, thank you very much for all you do for our community. >> Thank you, Mr. Burwinkle. Dave, after Dave will be Marsha O'Brien. >> Good morning, Dave. >> Good morning, Madame Chair, uh,
committee members, staff, Dave Nuzbomb, uh, for the record. And again, I'd like to just point out a couple of things that have been said over the last couple of weeks during this thing. Um, first of all, I still remain in
favor of the process of the outrigger being built. I don't know what the answer is. I don't know what the final outcome is going to be, but I remain firmly committed as a resident on that beach that it has to be done. We cannot
wait. As I said last week, time is a thief and we've waited too long. So, we have to move this forward and I earnestly believe that there are things that many people don't agree with. The height of the building, you know,
whether the tiki hut is too close to my property, uh whether we're following the comp plan, and I remind the people here, the comp plan, there is no cookie cookie cutter answer for everything that goes in front of you people. You always look
at how to put a house on a lot that doesn't fit. What can we do? What can the builder do to make it fit? You just solve the problem today. They wanted to move meters up. So again, this is much
bigger than that. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't know that there has to be an answer. You can go back and say, "Okay, don't build this." They can go back to the state statutes, say, "Fine, we'll build 17story buildings,
and by the way, we're going to lose a tiki hut. We're going to lose public restrooms. We're going to lose bar restaurant or beach restaurants. All of which are the quality of life on our
section of the beach. All of which have to be replaced. As I wrote to you several months or several weeks ago, we had 15 restaurants within walking distance of my home. Today, we have now one. And everyone says, "Well, boy,
you're going to get another one open in two weeks." That's great. Now, we're now we get two. We can walk back and forth. I urge you find a solution. I'm not sure what I can tell you what it is, but for
people that say stick to the plan, the plan allows you to to put forth u adjustments. You've done it on properties to yet today and I urge you to find that. Thank you.
>> Thanks, Dave. >> Marsha. >> Marsha. >> Marsha. And after Marsha will be Todd Capella. >> Nancy Walker moved up like she wants to be next at some point in time. >> I'm sorry. Who is this one? >> So this is Marsha.
>> Good morning. My name is Marcia O'Brien and I live at Gulfside 12. I think the approvals for variances should be consistently applied. Just this time last year, the LPA approved four floors over parking for the Asterero Island
Beach Club. The town council approved that project in June of 25. In order to get this approval, however, the Astero Island Beach Club had to redesign its project from their original plan to build 10 stories because in November of
24, the town council rejected the original 10story project. It was rejected because the 10-story structure did not provide enough public benefit to justify its massive scale. It was also too close to a sterile
boulevard and there were concerns about the project's impact on our infrastructure and compatibility with our post Ian character. What has changed in the last year and a half? How is this London Bay project any
different? Why should London Bay be granted variances and exceptions to build three buildings over 10 stories when others have been denied 10 stories? Why is this project even being considered? The London Bay project should be denied
and London Bay should come back with a redesign that is consistent in height and density with its neighbors and with other properties that are getting developed. The London Bay project should be four stories over parking. It should not matter how much money London Bay
paid for the property to determine how high and how dense they can build. London Bay needs these variances in order to get a decent return on its investment because they paid too much for the land. But that should not be your concern.
London Bay should not be rewarded for paying too much for the land and given variances and exceptions to build more than the comp plan and land development code allow and for what has been approved for others. It is time to send a message to
developers who overpay for land, expecting to get variances to build high-rise buildings that are not in accordance with what the residents want and not in accordance with what is prescribed in the comp plan and land development code.
Please vote no on London Bay's requests and recommended denial of the project to the town council. Please send the message that consistent application will now be the norm. Four stories over parking. Thank you. >> Thank you, Marca. Um, who is the next?
That was a really nice silent clap you did back there. >> Todd Capella. After Todd will be Ellen Vaughn. >> Okay. >> Nice to see you again. >> We're still in morning. Good morning. doesn't feel like morning. Uh Todd
Capella, full-time resident uh on Bay Beach Lane. Um I I I think most of what needs to be said has already been said. Uh this just But just today, you
required a builder to move a staircase 6 in. And how how do you reconcile having a builder move a staircase 6 in
and then allowing this absolute travesty to permanently mar our island. Nothing will ever take this away. A cat 5 hurricane is not going to take this
away. A 7.4 magnitude earthquake is not going to take this away. Think about that for a minute. You are going allowing this to happen and this happening forever
changes the character of this island. Your job, as my wife pointed out to you in your own mission statement, requires you to not let that happen.
Vote no. >> Thank you, Mr. Capella. >> Ellen Von Ellen. >> And that's all I have signed up after. Ellen, >> I see you waving, Nancy. She's very anxious. I can't wait to see what she says. Okay.
Ellen Vaughn, a Fort Myers Beach resident for a number of years um at this point and I want to echo many of the comments that were previously stated and again I and I've been remiss in not thanking you for your service. It is an incredible set of of you are dedicated
people to keeping the quality of life on Fort Meyers Beach what we all came here for. Um, people are passionate about living on this island as you all well know. And I implore London Bay to recognize that there is a spirit of community here that you may not
recognize in other places. And I implore you to work with the community to present something that will be acceptable to the community because the people you're going to bring here hopefully will become members of our community. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ellen. Uh, those are all your cards, Amy.
>> Uh, who who else would like to see? I see. Okay. I Nancy, you come up. Tom, you'll be after Nancy. And whose hand was that? I And I see the silent clapper. Uh, okay. We'll take you all one at a time. Go ahead, Nancy. Say your >> name for Ibis Street uh full-time
resident. I've been up here before. I said my piece before. I just want to reiterate with the comp plan, your vision is the small town nature of the town, the small town existence. the limitation, one of your visions in the comp plan that was submitted to the
state is to limit the high-rise development. And I just believe this goes against the comp plan on all levels. And that's basically all I want to say. Thank you. >> Thank you, Nancy. Tom,
after Tom will be the gentleman in the turquoise t-shirt. That's you, silent clapper. Yep. He keeps going like this. >> Tom Brady. I've been sworn in. Uh full-time resident, president of Protect
FMB. Um I like to go last because I think a lot of this has been said before. Let me bring back one thing that we haven't heard before is I I do care about the character and the vibe of the island. And I don't know if it still exists or not, but it used to be our motto called
keep it funky. And I love that about the island. It was written in our plans. that was written in our future documents. And I think that really to me epitomizes the modest, unique, neighborly, respect for the environment island that we wanted. I can find
nothing in this proposal that supports that vision. Um, as for this development, uh, the majority of the community does not support it. I think last time there were um for every person that was for it,
which was two, there were 15 against it. So, it's the ratio is way off and there's so far one person that spoke it out in favor of today and there are multiple people that have spoken out against it, including those with standing. So, somebody that
lives in the Grand View of the south end of the island should not be equated to someone who has standing and lives next door to the property. Um, the tiki hut, I think we talked about, we didn't argue that today, but it's not an entitlement for them because it's a new property. They bulldoze the
entire property to take a brand new property and extend that into an entire an environmentally protected zone. Why would you do that? You don't want to perpetuate a bad idea. They draw those lines in the sand, literal lines in the sand, and say, "Don't build past this
line." Why would we entertain that for a brand new structure? It's not an entitlement. there aren't post left to their tiki and besides it only encroached Jason will say this six feet or into that or 150 square feet into the into the environmentally tech protected
area not this new proposed structure um so um you want to speed things up what you risk here is by going this far out you do risk litigation and if you litigate
this it's not going to be built. It's going to be around for a long time. I never heard anything about uh about live local. I think it's great. I mean, it's great because we've struggled over workforce housing. I would support some workforce housing here. I don't think
they even thought about it. I came I heard that come from an LPA member's mouth and asked them about that, which is I mean should come from them, not from an LP in my mind. So, um, if you approve this, it's going to cause, uh, division in the island. You're going to
delay development, I think. And, and this idea of an alternative is, you know what gorilla dust is? You know what a red herring is? Well, gorilla dust is when gorillas come together and fight. You know, before they do that, they throw all this stuff up in the air to confuse each other. This is gorilla dust. This the live local thing is
gorilla dust. So, be careful with that. Um they said before their credibility is in question too because they said it was an undeniable facts surrounding the economics of this project. Well, they were denied their facts and I think
question what they say because um I don't know if it's real or if it's just gorilla dust and red herrings. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Tom. >> Oh, and further for their you're going to have other chances. >> Can I pull this back? Can I pull a minute from later on? Right now, I won't come back up again.
>> You can't. I promise. >> Just go sit down. >> Okay. You're gonna get me again. >> Okay. >> Good morning. >> Good morning, LPA. Um, this is very convenient for me because I just I've been watching the whole meeting at home.
I just walked down here to >> Say your name for the record. >> I'm sorry. I'm Walter Pilkins. Walter, >> resident of Fort Myers Beach. Uh, and I believe there's a slide missing from the presentation that London May presented and you should ask them for that slide. The slide would be similar to what the
Neptune did because a lot was made about how the Neptune did their configuration, how they came up with these numbers. Well, show us one for this project where they reach 1.5 as well. That'd be very interesting. I was kept asking at my at home saying,
"Well, how many floors would it have to be that it would meet the required density and the F." So, that's the slide I'd like to see. I think you should ask for it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Walter. Uh, yes, ma'am. Come on up.
>> Well, you're Mrs. Capella. >> Hi, Mrs. Capella. Okay. Um, Robin Capella, BBH Lane. Um, I guess I'm the uh >> you're person. >> Okay. >> Um, so I'm gonna You all got my letter
before and I gave the facts because they unfortunately London Bay likes to give some falsehoods. So I'm going to come back up here and uh the live what do they call it? The local live local act. >> Yes ma'am. >> Was um just a scare tactic. >> They're right about the statistics. What
they're wrong about is it's not about what's built already. So density height mo municipalities cannot restrict the density below the highest allowed and so what it's what's in our comp plan now not what's built already. So their
numbers were right about the 40% but they're not you can't build the you know based on point of stair and all of that. So I just wanted to bring that back up. So that's just a scare tactic. Kind of like when they said we were $1 billion dollar under and all those other things
and that he was selling two condos a month for the 33 months that it took him to build down there. Um so those are some statistics. Apparently I'm the person that comes back with the actual numbers. Um so
again I'd like to go back to what I started out the day with was what your responsibilities are. So, if you vote yes today, please vote yes with how you can justify that based on what your responsibilities are. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Robin. Um, who else would like to speak? Uh, yes, ma'am. My name is My name is Donna Vichelli and I live on uh 6,400 Sterile Boulevard at Sunset Condominium. And I have to say
Sunset the Condominium, we're like two away and we are um we're not for this project either. And sitting on my eye because I'm on that corner side, I can get the ball. Well, and then I look at where that potential pool is too. Bird
at the pool, the bar and I can see that it's going to be quite loud and noisy and stuff like that. But the first part I just wanted to say is I think I think the island lifestyle that London Bay wants to bring to this island with their
private beach club isn't what F. Fort Beach is about. They're trying to import a Neapole Neapoleon lifestyle with $300 bottle of wines, $50 cheese plates, $75 canned bananas, none of which a local
people will partake in. Most of the people being brought to this private beach club from this private beach club will not co-ingle with the local population. It they will be dropped off for the day at the beach and then returned to the other side of the bay.
They're not going to stop at uh the islander on their way home from China. >> They're they're not going to stop and get ice cream over at the Sweet Licks or anything. They're going home. They got the cheese plate and the wine to take on the ferry. Um so, um they really aren't
going to use any of our facilities here. You know, they're going to use this facility. Um um let's see here. If this project is allowed, it's assertain that they will ask for huge variances on the Sandpiper
property that they own also. So be prepared. Um and then we also got this thing we're always labeled down here as the high-rise district, which is a halftruth. I've always heard it's always the quiet end. you're away from the
north north side. So, we're kind of the quiet end. Um you can turn now you can travel down a half a mile and you will see what smugglers um you man or the you know there's a lot of
highrises on this place. So if we just continue and continue the whole island will turn into highrises. I mean if we keep on allowing this to happen. The other thing is are we still working with the wave the wave wall because my you
know this is my husband he goes appears the sketches to be over six feet high. Um what happens to the neighboring properties when we get the next surge events will be created except for the property who is granted these walls which I say
you grant one you grant all. Um, if you can, okay, if you're allowed, you if allowed that these guys are allowed to do this, you could bet that the bet the farm, this is my husband's writing,
uh, that Margaritavville will then be asking for a tower where their pool now sits. Why would Margaritavville take their most valuable portion of their property and put a pole in it? I believe it is just a placeholder until they get a few more favorable town council
members. In closing, I'd like the LPA and the town council to think about and develop a procedure where if a developer present a project with X amount of deviation outside of the comp plan that the project be brought before the
residents for a vote. To have the town's future in the hands of three council members is too risky and puts an overwhelming beliefs of what this town should remain. Leaving it in jeopardy of losing the island feel we all know and
love their part. >> Okay, you're you're up. You're past your time now, but you can come back up on the next one. All right. Thank you very much for your comments. You're frisky. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Is there anybody else who'd like
to speak? Come on up, Lori. >> Still morning. Good morning, Lori Webster. Kuru. Um, I didn't prepare anything today. I wasn't intending to speak. I said my piece last time, but I don't know about anybody else in this room, but I feel like I've just been put in a blender and you hit the puree
button. There was so much information brought to this meeting that no one knew about ahead of time. And that's wrong. Which brings me to my main point. The lack of respect for the rules is just
mindblowing. From day one, everything has been, "No, we're going to do it this way. I know what your rules say. I don't care." What does that mean for our future with a project like this? If from the beginning they don't respect the rules, what are we going to end up with?
A big development that doesn't care about our rules, doesn't care about our people, doesn't care about the island character. I live right there. This is in my backyard, and I'm not okay with that. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Lori. Uh oh, no, no, no clapping. Go back to silent. Go back to silent. Okay. Uh, anybody else want to speak? Anyone else? David, didn't you already speak on this issue? >> No. >> No, you did. You come on up.
I'm just so used to seeing you up here. >> No, I made >> Good morning. >> I made an opening comment, but I >> That's right. All right. Say your name for the record, please. >> I wasn't sure if I was going to, but I think it's it's very important. >> David, say your name for the record. >> Oh, David O'Brien. Yes, thank you.
>> I I think it's very important based on uh obviously the way the residents feel about development on the island. Uh how certain de uh developments that have gone before this group have been approved or denied.
uh and in some cases the town council has done the opposite that I think it's very important to try and bring this community together on the development issue and the comp plan issues that if you vote yes for this tell us why
because this is significantly uh larger than what's what the comp plan allows for and and just to vote yes and walk away leaves us with nothing and and we need to know why. Uh because it it
doesn't make sense to at least three4s of the residents on this island why you would vote yes. So So please tell us why. Also uh I'm I'm left at a loss uh being a nextoor resident to this development uh as to you know what's
going to happen to my property values. I've been told by some people they're going to go down dramatically because of the size of this development, the scope of the development, the proximity of some of the the amenities to our property. So, I you know, I I feel like
it's in my best interest to go out and get uh a realer's assessment of what our property values are now and what they are if if this does get approved. And and so then what happens to us? you know, we're going to take a financial hit just because a developer wants to
put a a development that's far in excess of the comp plan. I don't think that's fair. Uh so, you know, we're left with that, which a lot of other people aren't. >> Thank you, David. Anybody else wish to speak?
Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Um LPA members, do you have uh follow-up questions or questions for Jason or Mr. Wilson or Mr. Yvanovich. Jason, you have any comments on anything that's been said so far? >> I'll reserve some comments till after
questions if it's okay. >> Okay. Um, I would like to go ahead and add Jason and I did have a moment to to speak. Um, we we have not had the opportunity to analyze the representations made to you regarding the Live Local Act, so we just wanted to
put that on the record. >> Thank you very much. Um, okay. Uh, discussion or questions for Jason or the staff or Mr. Ivanovich, would you like to address anything that was said by the public?
>> Please come on up. >> That's a big bag. We're g, you know, we have, I think there was 70 letters of support and Mark's going to come up and to just read some of the excerpts because I think for
someone to say uh 15 people showed up against and two showed up in favor is not is not a fair portrayal of there is support out on this uh on this island for this project. And I wanted to address the the gorilla dust comment
regarding the live local act. I can promise Mr. Brady that uh we didn't get the idea about live local act last Friday. We've known about the live local act since it was approved. Mhm.
>> We are not in the business of coming up here and portraying what we could do as a matter of right as a threat. And we didn't want to be portrayed of saying, "Well, if you don't approve us, we're going to go ahead and
do X, Y, or Z on the property." In fairness to the community, we were asked, please lay your cards on the table and tell us what can happen if we say no. I I think I said early on I fully
anticipate litigating what does the Live Local Act truly mean either here Kier County or somewhere else because you know I am a lawyer. I read the the
Live Local Act. I didn't do an AI analysis of the Live Local Act. I've read the legislative history for the Live Local Act. I believe I'm right. I laid my cards on the table. This is what I'm going to rely upon for what is the
maximum density allowed in the town. We'll find out if uh if we have to. But we didn't just come up with the idea. We know what our rights and obligations are or rights and
entitlements are. And we don't want to do that. We want to go forward with the proposal because we think a hotel on this island is an important amenity for the people who live here and will come visit. We don't think a purely
residential project is the best use of that property. Um so we think what we're proposing is a very nice project for the town. Um we think it adds value. it does provide public benefit to those who live
here versus a purely residential project. Uh that's that's general comments to the general topics of what was was said. I don't want to get into specifics. Uh but I'm going to ask Mark to come up here uh and address some of the comments that were made frankly
about the integrity of London Bay. I don't know I don't know a I have a lot of great clients. Lend Bay is one of them. And when we make mistakes, I've taught my children and I live by it, too. If I make a mistake, I say I made a
mistake and I clear up the record. And that's what Mr. Wilson has done for the many, many years I've known him. So, I want to ask him to come back up here uh to talk about one day and also talk about the community support. >> Thanks, Rich.
So let's just quickly touch on the statement of uh what Rich just said and clearly after the first meeting there was uh rightly some concern over the the comments that I'd made to taxable values.
Immediately um we went back I wrote a letter to apologize admit that I was wrong on that. That letter went to all of the LPA. It went to all of the council and it went to city manager and assistant manager. And if you'd like, I
think you've already got it, but if you'd like me to submit that for the record, more than happy to do it. I also submitted that to Ed Ryan to put on his show and he refused to do it. That way, everybody been seen it well in advance and I admitted where I was wrong. And I
say that we always are a company that deals with integrity. That's the way that you deal with integrity. I was wrong. I apologize. These are the facts. Put it out there and move on. So, that's what we did. I think the other thing that we've heard today is all of these
ideas about the motives of London Bay and what we're trying to do. And we've been very straightforward with our motives and the question is live local. What was it? Gorilla dust or something? Uh, absolutely not. we've brought
to what we believe is the best project for the community, for London Bay. Sure, we expect to make money out of it, but I'll remind people that we've now been working on this for over three years.
As Rich said, not that it matters to everybody, but to go through all these design changes, first of all, we met with council. We had community meetings. We met with LPA members. We took their ideas. We designed those into the project. We brought the project forward,
got further feedback from LPA members, from council. We withdrew it. We took all of those facts and made eight substantial pro uh changes to the project. Over this course of time, London Bay has spent in excess of a
million3 on design. a million3 on design of this project because we think it's the right thing to do. We haven't spent a huge amount of money on live local because I believe that yes, live local can be done. I think live local will
make us money. I just don't think it's the right thing for this property. I've said to you many, many times there are two places on the south end of the island where you can do hospitality. One is Windham and one is Outrigger.
If this becomes condo and affordable housing, those that have the condos and affordable housing will be delighted. All of the rest of the south end of the island will miss out on the opportunity for hospitalities,
restaurants, bars, access, and all the things that helped build a community. I think we've also been accused of not talking to people and not being inclusive and not reaching out to people.
So, we did a list of all the meetings that we had from July August of 23, which now seems a long time ago. I think I still had gray hair, but less. And from then up to present, we've done
over 20 community meetings that includes town halls, mini town halls, going on beach talk radio, um, and the list is pretty extensive and those are all the communities meetings
that we've done and I don't believe that we have backed away from anybody who has said, can we meet with you? Can we talk with you? Can we discuss this? I don't think that we have refused any of those. Some of those pe some of those questions
will have come to directly to me. Some of them will have come to our PR agency, but we have been as inclusive as we can and we are always inclusive when we deal with projects. So, I just want to make
sure that that's the case. And again, it's very easy to question the motives of developers and it's very easy to knock things down. But I still come back to what I said right from the beginning.
Just think about what are the alternatives to the island? How do we get the flywheel going? How do we get momentum? How do we bring lifestyle back to the south end of the beach? And if the answer is let's do nothing, then I
think there will be a deterioration of lifestyle and economics. And I'm not going to go further into that. As Rich said over the last couple of meetings, clearly there have been more people that have spoken out about the project than have spoken for it. The
first meeting where we were just still in season, we had more people here in favor. Since that time, unfortunately, an awful lot of our supporters because of the time that we're at and we're out of season are no longer here. But you have
got on record, you have got on record over 70 letters of support of this project. That is substantial. The idea that you got 50 people plus 70 people that took the time to go ahead and do
this tells you something. It'd be really really boring if I read all 70 for the record. So I won't do that. But I am just going to give you a snippet of a few that have have uh actually written in. So this was from
Sanderakin condominium association. You've got every one of these letters in totality and I am taking just portions of this just to give a flavor. Our border management, some of whom are full-time residents and others who are
snowbals, have carefully reviewed London Bay's proposed plans, and we support it with enthusiasm. We see it as a catalyst for the south end of the island, much like the former outrigger property was with their beach bars, their restaurants where people can
go and enjoy the south end of the island. We had also taken one from Dave, but I think Dave has said a lot a couple of times and I'm very thankful that he's come to every one of these meetings. The next one is from Joe Hari from the H&M
sorry HM restaurant group which I think you all know. What Joe said as a locally based restaurant group with multiple businesses on Fort Meers Beach. We understand how important it is to create
p places that draw people together and encourage them to spend time exploring the island. This development will bring will help bring more people to the area, benefiting nearby businesses while
providing new amenities for the community and the public. Uh, next one from Scott Kit Kowalsski, and if I pronounced that wrong, I'm very sorry to Scott, but um, he he said, "I
believe the Southoun residents should have the same opportunities to leave their condo home and take a walk to the beach with their spouse and stroll up to a beach bar and grab a drink. You just can't do this on the south end of the
island today." I believe London Bay's outrigger project would give the Southoun residents some additional destinations such as the rooftop bar, the lobby restaurant, the graband- go, and the tiki bar. There are few
restaurants. There are a few restaurants starting to open at the s south end of the island in Santini Plaza, but we need more choices and the ability to dine, relax, and enjoy a drink and a cocktail on the beach with families and
friends. Bear with me. Just a couple more. George and Meline Boyd, the beach bar, which I think you all know as well. This level of funding, vision, forward thinking, flexibility, and enthusiasm is
a realistic approach to the muchneeded development on Fort Myers Beach post the devastation that we all witnessed firsthand in 2022. The residents on this island, the town as a whole, and the few small businesses that have
rebuilt need constructive impact that this project will bring. Brenda Rash April 1 said the former outrigger and Charlie's on the south end of the bar uh south end of the on the south end were local places to walk for dinner and take
our family when they came to visit. I look forward to having more restaurants open on the south end of the island in helping the island recover after the hurricane. I'm thankful London Bay wants to open such a nice establishment, not
only to make memories going forward, but also for locals to have employment and income for the town. It's all great to see. Dave Kelly said, "We all love the outrigger Charlie's boat house and
pinchers. They're amazing gathering places for the south end residents to develop and live that Fort Meers Beach vibe. Unfortunately, the vibe for the south end of the island is now dominated by a lack of
restaurants, amenities, music, entertainment, community gathering spaces, and decreasing property values. We need a development like this to anchor and breathe new life into our neighborhood. And again, he's a Southoun
resident. And one more. Leslie and John Munger, May 7th, wrote, "Fort Myers Beach needs investment. Demand for real estate, not tax revenue projects, is the best indicator of whether the community is thriving or withering. The Fort Myers
Beach real estate market is weak. Vacant lots abound. Many houses are for sale with no buyers. There has been redevelopment of restaurants on the north end of Fort Meers Beach, but less so on the mid to
south end of the island. On the mids south, if you want to go for an evening, there are only a few restaurants operating and they're crowded. The London Bay development will provide new dining and entertaining venues that will
attract people to Fort Meers Beach. And the meaningful development that London Bay represents will broadly signal that Fort Meers Beach is a great place to invest and live. And that's just a few of I repeat over at 70 that we've
counted that you've received in support. So, thank you for listening to those few. But I thought it was important to bring that out. And again, if you would like to have my letter that I wrote to you or whether you want to put that in the record, Anita,
>> I have it framed, Mark. >> Good. At home. Good. >> Yeah. Well, I'll give you a picture of the up rent to go next to it. All right. >> Exactly. Exactly. >> Um, may I ask a question? Uh, Alexis, could you produce a clean version of the
um of the proposed text amendment? uh because what we have in our packet is from May 8th and it it's not what you're asking us to approve at this moment. >> The height. >> Yes, madame chair. Um if you look on
page 82, >> page 82, >> um this was the language and and I agree with you that unfortunately the agenda materials and other documents. We want to be clear as to what language is
actually before the LPA today. The uh document that you see on page 82 that contains the language that with um the strike and inserts there from your meeting in April. So after your meeting
in April, it was continued to May the 8th and those are the changes that were received and reviewed by staff. Um, so the changes that you're hearing today, we would start on that document and then
amend as needed. >> Is this the section that is highlighted in blue or the outline the strike through is blue? >> I mine is purple, but >> or purple. Let's not quibble about color tone there, but okay. Yeah, it could be.
You're right. It's purple. Yeah. So I I I think I have consensus from from Rich that that this is the correct. Jason, you say this is correct as well. We would like to try to put it up on the screen if we can. >> Yes. So it has that. So I'll ask them to do that. But I'm also going to hand out
the components that they submitted in Friday which at the third >> we're not reviewed. >> We're not reviewed. Correct. And the third page are their edits to what you see in your packet. So you really almost have to go line by line >> to the future land use map section
because that's what we're >> future land use element. Correct. The text the text. Correct. So right. So we haven't gone line by line the differences but there's some underline strike through that's been removed and others underlined and other strikethrough. So it's it's a little
confusing between the two. So it may take a minute. >> Jim, >> make sure I understand logistics. what we're about to look at which is a replacement to page 82 forward. Did you get that on Friday or is this a
document that you've been able to review itself? >> This goes back to even this document wasn't really reviewed at submitt. So these this document in your packet was April 30th. >> Yeah, I know that I'm talking about the one we're getting right now >> should be on your May 8th agenda which is
>> you have reviewed this one. We've started No, we've started reviewing what's on the screen and in your packet. We only had Right. So, that was in your packet May 8th. It was received April 30th. Since that time, as we got to last Friday, they submitted something else.
>> Is this the May 8th document? >> That is today. >> That is today. That is last Friday's document. I have looked at some of it and noticed differences. >> We haven't been word by word through everything. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And to be honest, even the May 8th stuff
we haven't completely gone through because then we had more changes. So, it was kind of like which one do I spend the time on and resources on. >> Okay. >> Couple things. Do I Nancy, do we need to carry forward like we have in the past the prior public comments related to this? >> You should, Rich.
>> Yeah. I just want to make sure that we're carrying all of that forward. >> Yes, I agree. Because it still is a public hearing on this one agenda item. >> I just want to make sure that everything that was said before was brought forward. you have >> and then and then Mr. don't >> gave it up.
>> Basically, the only change since what we provided on April 29th has to do with the F >> has to do with what >> the F going from the 2.75. >> So, we we immediately after we had our hearing made the revisions that we
thought were directed, provided them to staff. For whatever reason, staff didn't get to that before May 8th. I'm sure they're busy, but they I I don't want it to appear as if we just dumped all of this on staff lap. We provided documents
going back to the 29th and there have been the only real change from that 29th document is the F. >> And so I don't want to get an argument, but with all fairness, they've submitted documents at agenda deadlines, right? They're due. our point, our review, our
everything is due and supposed to be in when we've received these documents. So, there's been nearly impossible timeline to review those before they went out in agenda. But that's not I don't want to get into that if it's okay. >> I'm not criticizing. I'm just saying we were timely at providing the information, >> but and it's overlap. So, um
>> I think the opposite is true. I think you're being criticized. >> I'm being criticized. I know. And I think it's unfair. >> Well, that we're being criticized. >> I think that's the case. I mean, we we can only get documents in so quickly after we have a hearing >> and we we jump right on it. >> I get it. I get it. We we won't we won't
dicker over this. >> Yeah. >> That's what it is at this point. >> Trying to explain to you what process it is. So, um >> Okay. So, does Go ahead. Sorry. >> My only request is if if we're working from that document, I can't see it. Can we blow it up?
>> You can't see your own document. >> I have my document. I have my document, but I can't see what that document is. >> Okay. >> So, we can just blow the top up and work our way down. I think that would be helpful. And I mentioned I think people in the audience would probably like it blown up a little bit as well.
>> Rich, can Rich, can you do that? Uh, go section by section. >> Yeah. Before we get that, can I >> please >> do you mind if I give some in? So, I'm not trying to color anything. I'm just trying to give statistics, facts, whatever because we get hammered and asked all the time, what is F? What is
square footages? What are all these things I just want you to have the context of what we start with and then whatever whether it's exemptions or whatever we talk about that's entirely up to this process, right? So the the original approval of the outrigger
based on our best estimates of property appraisers data was 52,591 square ft give or take for that resort. >> Okay. >> 52,00 >> are you talking this is the CPD >> the original outrigger. >> Okay. >> What was built based on their estimates
of property appraiser appears to have been 52,591 feet. There may be a couple thousand square ft here or there, even round up to 55,000 ft². That was listed under uh Z95-085, which is a Lee County ordinance. Um you've heard some references to 9 acres
and other things. That ordinance references 3.92 acres. That was the 144 rooms and 10,000 ft of commercial space. 55,591 ft. >> Jason, slow down just >> 55,000. >> Just slow down just a little bit. >> 591 ft. >> He's rattling. We are we are talking
about >> 3.55 acres based on their survey of today. Okay, I know those numbers are different but 3.55 that is 154,000 and 638 ft of land. That's how we start using that basis for F. An F of 1.5
which in theory is with the max allowed in the current category would be 231,957 per the comp plan. The F under the existing CR zoning which is 1.2 two would be 185,565. A three, which was originally proposed,
would allow up to 463,914 square ft of building. Okay, that's all floors included. And and I just because I noticed in the presentation there was 622,100 square ft of building that that would
actually be a 4.02 02 F if you count the entire footprint of all the square footage in the buildings. So the numbers that you're talking about are also based on exemptions and other things that to be able to get there. I just want to make clear that when we do it based on the definitions of in the land
development code you start with all square footage of all floors what's included in there and there's a definition in the code that I can read if you want that. Everything else is based on you're going to set a number and then you're going to talk about CPD and then you're going to talk about all these other things that
um decide what counts towards that. >> Is that conditioned or unconditioned space? I'm I'm trying to get the parking relevance here. >> Sure. That that includes parking under the under the current code. Right. >> So 622,000 ft includes two levels of parking, >> right? And planning when we talk about F
you originally start with the box. Okay. And the code the definition of our code describes that essentially. So, it's parking. It's anything basically enclosed. It's, you know, upper stories, floor space, >> parking that would be cuz I think this has parking that's under >> exposed
>> like Well, there's exposed parking, but there's literally parking under cover that doesn't have a building above it. I think if I look at the floor, the the layout >> I could read you the definition, but this definition, your code is a pretty standard definition from just the
planning world. And then everything else that deviates from that or changes from that is is a local decision. But when you do the math, I'm just telling you the square footage divided by the land area is how you get F. And then whatever you do to change that is up to you locally on a local decision.
>> Do you have any idea what the parking square footage is? >> Well, no, but we can do them. I mean, he provided the numbers that your parking and your other things they want to exclude are it was close to 200,000 ft. 98,000 ft of other stuff to exclude. >> So that takes it down to four.
>> That's where Yes, that's where you get to the 425. That gets to their 275 number. >> Gotcha. >> But we keep getting asked what is square footage in F. And the answer is 622 is a four, but then policy wise you can make
changes that would adjust that number. >> Does everybody understand that? >> Y. >> Okay. >> Thank you. That was it. >> Thank you, Jason. appreciate it. Um, so are we all on the same page of um in the
in the handout that we just got? Uh, the third page is where the land use map and the text amendment begins. >> Right. So, with the handout you got are the changes received on Friday to what
you see on the screen. And and if I may, what you see on your screen, there were no changes to what you've had since April 29th, >> if that helps. >> It does. >> So I guess we have to go. >> Well, that is April, right? That's April. That was the May 8th move to May
12th agenda >> back. I'm just saying that document has been in the public record since April 29th. I'm not claiming you've reviewed it, >> but it's been presented to the public since April 29th. >> Thank you. So, can we go to the And that was I believe was what you all said.
Please take this language out of the uh of the of the document. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I guess we go to the next page in there back up. >> Well, yeah, it's going to be the second page of if they can I don't have a
scroller. So, >> whoever. So on the first page, starting with uh section or starting with F at the bottom of the page, you've eliminated public benefit uses. You've eliminated all of that. And so it
eliminated the coastal storm risk reduction improvements, the restaurants, the bars, everything else. Eliminated it. >> And then on the next page under height and stories, >> are we going to are we going to scroll for the public to go to?
Yes, if I >> Thank you. Control. Yes. >> Okay. Um, >> so we made the change from 195 to 158 and that's what we presented on April 29th. Likewise on the density, the strike
through on the densities, uh we got rid of it, we went to units that l instead of condos, we took that word out and then we removed the rest of the uh portion of that uh language and that's been submitted since April 29th.
>> Okay, got it. >> So I think it's on this page where you can see the differences between the screen and the handout. If you look at the difference, >> I cannot see the difference specifically between the screen and the handout. I can't see that >> this. Okay. So, what they've done is they on there is not struck out 15. It's
14 stories. >> Yes, that's here. That's in the handout. >> And then the three is change of 2.75. >> Correct. >> That's right. I missed that. >> That's >> well and then the >> I'm having the same problem. >> Then density is a substantial change. I would I would say the striketh through part has been removed
>> which we I thought you said, Rich, I don't think you need that language when I try to move that. So >> I'll put it back in if I misunderstood what you said, Jason. >> Okay. So, and that's fine for them. What our what my comment to them last time was if you have a certain number of
units, pick the units and put it in the policy rather than playing a density per acre kind of thing situation because >> if it's 150, pick 150. If it's 36 or 4, pick that number. >> Did they do what you asked? >> Well, they removed the language. The original that version was what my
suggestion to them for your clarity of what how many units are we approving just put the number of units in there. >> Okay. >> Rather than and at 41 units per acre and the multi, you know, all these different things. It was too confusing. >> So that >> so that version is closer to what >> I thought you might understand better
>> than the rest of this. >> So again, we changed to 3.0 to 2.75 since the 29th. Okay. And then under the density, just what Jason was just explaining, >> right?
>> Okay. >> So, I think you have the complete >> we're up to date. >> You're up to date and I now I think it's where I sit down and you all talk about Am I correct? >> Thank you. Thank you very much. If we have any questions, we'll call you up
here. Um, okay. Uh, questions. Uh Jim, anything? >> Questions or comments? >> Questions, comments, whatever you want to say. >> Um probably more later when we go through some of the context on the exparte, but
I want to talk about the live local thing for just a second from my perspective. >> Remember, there's no exparte here in this. >> I understand, but later on we get to it, I'll be mentioning the same thing again. >> Got it. Um, in my interactions uh with the London Bay uh folks and
context being I remember post Seagate and a significant amount of dialogue that there was no negotiation. We never saw alternatives. We just accepted what it was, not speaking about us per se, but the town and dealing with the developer.
I uh made it clear to the London Bay folks that I was going to bring up and have on the record what the legitimate alternatives uh would be both by right and knowing developers as I do over my career. Um they have their plans in case
their plans don't become their plans. And so I was very clear with Mark and the team that I was going to bring that up because we all knew that the far and the height were going to be a challenging conversation of itself. And so if we take it as a single project up or down and don't think through um what
I believe is at least one if not two uh alternatives that are in their toolbox and their business that I wouldn't be doing a service to all of us by not providing those challenges to them and I know the live local program a bit there's some projects already been built
on that county and I want to see and I wanted them to see if they would um take the time and the effort show us what they're going to do because inevitably probably that may be one of the options. So, just want to get the live local thing on the topic. I know Don brought up the buy right, but I brought up the live local because I told him I was going to and that's where we are.
>> Okay, >> for now that's it. >> Okay, thank you. Don, comments? >> Uh, I have all kinds of thoughts and comments. Um yeah, I think um my concern with this project is, you know, I think early on it seemed like there was a significant there was
probably a 50/50 split with people um in support of it. I would say the number one issue it seems like is height. I tried to address that in the first meeting. Tried to uh um sort of propose something that looked like what we already have on the beach. Not the
what's allowed today, but what we have on the beach. Um, I think it, you know, maybe it didn't really work. Um, maybe I should have kept my mouth shut and just let us vote the first day. Um, 158 ft is how tall the adjacent buildings are on the south end. It
seemed to me that, you know, fitting within that made, you know, maybe would make some folks uh see that uh, you know, everybody's got the same goal here. We're trying to uh, put a town back together, put an island back together, spark the economy. We need a spark bad. We need a couple sparks on
this island. Um, yeah, I think real estate is kind of flat right now. I think, uh, you know, some development would be great, some large development. Um, I do, uh, think part of my role is, um, the people, listening to the people, and, um, and I'm here appointed by
council, but representing the people. And I think a significant amount of people, including the adjacent property owners, have issues with this. And I think uh you know I I still I'm struggling with it to be frank. So but I do want to acknowledge and appreciate I
think London Bay is a a solid um investor in this island. I think they bring what we need. I just don't know if they can bring what all the people want right and and and actually make it work. So I everyone should think about that
because we need something to happen across the street. Um you know maybe it's not 15 stories, maybe it's uh but but uh you know I think we've heard there are there are alternatives. Um we just have to think about whether we would want those alternatives or not.
That's all for now. Thanks >> Doug. Any comments? >> Um yeah, a couple comments. Um my thoughts, you know, one way or another the property is going to be developed and we kind of started after Ian with
the philosophy that we're going to want to redevelop better than we were. And the hotel that was there, they like they said today, you know, they could go back and build a hotel that was there that was not that attractive to me. And
um I think if I I get the height issue, you know, we've but still um now we're compromising because they took off floor on one building but
then added floors to other buildings. So it really to me that's a wash. I I actually like the original design better, but you know, it's a compromise, but we're not going to make everybody happy. >> But the project, the land's going to get
developed some way or another. And I think what we've seen is uh a developer that is attempting to work with folks and uh it looks like a quality project. So those are my thoughts.
>> Jane, thoughts? Well, I guess um I have to kind of speak on Don saying 5050 on the feel of the island because I think the recall was a a big
statement for all of us and although it was supposed to be that on al allegations on the sunshine violations and other things that's what the recall was really on what was put out there as what the recall was on, but
I think everybody knows that it was on the vote of the Seagate property and the height and I think height is a very big issue for um the people who live on this island and we don't want to look like Miami.
um the fact that they did these adjustments, but we still are not at 158. We are still at 178 >> and 173. Still about a 20 thou 20 uh
foot difference and and I'm uncomfortable with that being the max building on that strip of one mile. And I feel that, you know, the LPA and the town council got together and discussed
the F and we all sat there and said we were going to stick firm to the two 2.5 and you know, we were saying at that point that that was ridiculous and who would even ask for that and it's being asked for every day and so I think
extending it over the 2.5 is not doing what we said we were going to do and I want to hold firm to that. I think with the um 6 622,100 square foot that is going to be built
there compared to the 52,000 square foot that was there leaves a lot of room for adjustment. Uh and I just think that the um that all needs to be looked at and
um decide whether it is um something that we can live with. And and I'm also concerned while I'm doing all this is that the tiki bar is I think one of the things that the islanders really want to
have back, but I don't think it should be in the east ec. >> Don't talk about that yet because that's that's its whole own gig. >> Okay. >> Okay. Anything else, J? >> Okay. I guess that's it for a moment, >> Jim. >> Okay. Okay, I guess I'll start with some
of my observations, but you know, the town has spent the last two years revising amending the comp plan. We're in the final stages of implementation and we're being asked to amend it for a single developer.
Granting this request is potentially s signaling that the comp plan doesn't need to be followed. When considering a neighborhood con uh compatibility, we need to consider the surrounding area which is all zoned
residential and any comparison or reference to high-rise buildings are all located further south. The public benefit section of the new comp plan excludes code requirements from consideration as benefits.
Therefore, landscaping signage, pedestrian crossings, any road or infrastructure requirement should be excluded. The even though that's now been with uh removed, the majority of the list of
what they call benefits are really amenities. They may be mutually beneficial, but they're not solely public benefits. A 30-foot linear park and most of the landscape areas that are included are
really within the 20 or 25 foot setbacks. The tiki bar, the quick mark, the restaurants, they benefit the developer as much as the public. The parking, well, that's parking variance. We'll go back to that.
Development of 154,490 square ft of mixed uses is too intense for a 3.454 7 acre location. By right, the developer is entitled to
six dwelling units an acre. With the existing CPD, he's permitted 144 rooms and 10,000 square feet of commercial space. That equals 39.5 dwelling units an acre.
The request is for 150 rooms plus 46,000 square ft of commercial space. That brings it to 41 dwelling units an acre. The revised plan with the 3.3 to one conversion of multif family units
increases the number by 138 rooms. That's 46 * 3 bringing the total number of rooms to 288 or 81 dwelling units an acre. For comparison, the definition of high
urban density starts at 40 acre uh 40 dwelling units an acre. At 81 dwelling units an acre, we rival Miami or St. Petersburg. One of the main points raised by the
supporters is we need more restaurants and gathering spaces at the south end, but the amenities associated with this project will not be available to at least 2030 or 31 at the earliest and are
contingent upon getting 50% pre-sales which are required by their lender. The floor ratio by right is 1.5. The maximum F in town is 2.5.
The developer is asking for in excence greater than three. But the developer to get that at three is incorporating deviation number two to LDC 34.633 growth floor ratio. Without that
approval of the deviation, the FRA exceeds three. The original height of the tallest structure was 15 stories and 198 ft. The building that building would have been in the rear of the property. The revised plan is for
building 14 stories 158 ft. But the revision adds one floor to three other structures, all of which are closer to a sterile boulevard. Does nothing to mitigate the sense of mass to the public. The additional floors change the F to
what? Adding and allowing the three to one conversion for more hotel rooms increases the density to what? I think the 40% referenced to workforce
housing is a red herring. We've looked at it before. It's unrealistic and not financially feasible. I believe London Bay is a competent quality developer with a great track record and really wanted this project to be a catalyst for the revival of the
island, but their want list is too great and way out of character for the town. The project is too high, too dense, and too intense. I hope they come back with a revised proposal. >> Um Ed, comments?
Yeah, I'll take a shot at this. Um, I'm the new guy. We all know that. Um, this has >> We're glad to have you. >> Well, thank you. But I got to tell you, this this is this is a huge project. This is not very easy at all. Um, I'm
I'm sick of thinking about it, honestly. Really sick of it. Um, I like the original thing that we were presented. I I you really lost me a little bit when we've started changing everything around. Um
there's always going to be people for projects, people against projects. I still haven't made up my mind. Um my wife is is sick of me pacing. Um
my dogs are mad at me. He has two Great Danes. >> So, that's a lot of madness. >> That's tough. >> I'd like to I'd like to us to be able to vote on the the original proposal
and and see how that goes and and maybe um go into the second one if needed. But I also have um one opinion that that I can't quit thinking about.
and and that is um if this does go to council, which it will, I'm afraid that London Bay is going to have to sharpen their pencil a little bit more. Um they're going to want more information than what we're given currently
and um I think that's all I have. >> Mark, I know you're not counting on my vote, but I have I have some things I really want to say to you. So, um, you know, Steve Johnson said at the last
meeting, something that just I can't get out of my head. Uh, he said that the comprehensive plan is a covenant. And it is. It is a covenant between the people who created it to the this community.
And I I think that this community is well within their right to ask us what makes you an exception to that covenant that they've been given to expect for our community. Um I'm astonished
that knowing your other projects and they're spectacular. I'm astonished that we're still looking at some red boxes, some yellow boxes, that we don't have anything to really visualize what
this project would feel like, how it would interface with the street. There's one image that gives us an idea of how it would interface with the street. Uh when since Rich used the Neptune, I'll use the Neptune and the arches. The
arches had extraordinary detail of how it would look from different points on the on the streets, whether it was Third Street or across the bay. For a project this scale, I think it's intensely, just
like Ed just said, they the council will need more information. The council should have 3D modeling so that they can really wrap their heads around it if they're going to be expected to pass this so that the community can really see and feel it. Uh when we did the
first comprehensive plan, our planner Victor Dover said to me, "Make your vision visual, Anita. Don't just talk about it." Because some people can't just can't take a thought and translate it into an image. And this is lacking that. It's lacking that the meat and
potatoes of me being able to walk to the tiki bar feel like what that feels and I I Rich I know you're looking for because there is an image there is an image of what that that walkway feels like but nothing the technology that's available
right now for you to be able to create a um uh an image or an experience of what this project could be would be the difference I link between it passing and it failing because people would be able to wrap their heads around it better. Um
I it it's it's just a glaring thing for me. To be specific about the comprehensive plan amendment. Um I I can't support anything greater than 2.5. I said a little prayer last night that you would come in here with
that as an option and just show us what does 2.5 look like? what sacrifices do you have to make to your bottom line? But what what does it look like for this community? Um I agree the live local
thing is an option for you. Um I don't think it's an option for your brand, but it's an option and maybe it's a new option for your brand. I don't know. Um but that's for you to decide, not for me. Um the difference between I agree
with Ed and Doug. the difference between 195 and 158 or however the numbers justify and and switch and move. I don't think it makes an overall impact large enough to sway my vote. Um and the
equivalency factor I you know I challenged you with that, Rich. I it just you're you're taking something that isn't real for me right this minute and making it real. And I get that's your job. You should do that. uh but for me
it's not real. Um so I think it's important for us to tell this community why if we are going to support the comprehensive plan amendment to allow for this height and this F primarily and
this density. I think we should tell them why. We're telling them what we think about the project as a whole. Uh but I think they should know why. Why? You know, the other thing too is Mark, in all the ad nauseium meetings we had about that comprehensive plan a year
before the hurricane, three years after the hurricane, I would love for that this project to have been talked about in the context of that. And it wasn't. It wasn't in the whole context of all those meetings. We never said, and even Jim Adterholt, and
what if Park Wilson comes in with a 3.0 F, what do we do? because I don't think that anybody sitting at this dis wants to see you go home and no one does. >> I mean I it's it just it isn't about that. Um
so anyhow uh those are my thoughts and my feelings and um I don't have much else to say about Go ahead Jim. Yeah, go ahead. >> Yeah, I I just had one followup Anita if you are willing to answer. So, if
they were at a 2.5 F and it was 12 floors and it was 140 ft, would you support it? Could you support it? >> If it was at a 2.5, I could make a good argument to Dave O'Brien, who I think is
the person who probably Dave and Marsha who would be most impacted by this right this second. I'd say, you know what, this is within the scale of this of this of our plan of our plan. I mean, look, somebody asked me the other day, "How in the world could you say no to Mark
Wilson when you said yes to Freeland?" Their project came within the confines and the and the the design of our comprehensive plan. Was it big? Yes. A friend of mine lives immediately adjacent to that project, and there have been some rough times there because I
said yes. But it is so I I think it's a whole different conversation to be truthful. >> Yeah. And I and that >> and I'm obviously not opposed to height because I have approved projects that are way beyond our height limit. >> Right. Yeah. I think that's you know that I guess that was at least my intent
in the first meeting because a lot of the feedback from Seagate was well in fact I think Pat Finesse and I sat up uh in the tent or something in the very beginning and said hey developer agreements are to be negotiated we could negotiate them. And I felt like this was the first attempt the town's made at
really negotiating something and I threw, you know, a couple little seeds out, right? And and again, London Bay responded. I I probably didn't go far enough. I should have went much farther in that in that discussion and maybe we'd be having a different conversation now. But but I do think it's important for London Bay and other developers to
hear that, you know, there is something above three above parking that the town can accept, right? Especially on a project like this. Couple other points I just want to make just as follow-ups. There are only so many properties on this island that are this big, right? I mean, I don't even know what the number
is. It's less than 10, right? It's probably less than five that could have anything like this. So, we're not talking about Miami. We're not making Miami here. That's never happening. But we we will have some larger developments potentially like this. Um, you know,
throughout, you know, throughout the larger properties on the island. Uh, and then I just want to reiterate again back to your your friend comment. You know, there are people next door in Coina that have an issue with this. And frankly today I would have if I were negotiating
if this were a little more if we were able to negotiate more I would have came back to this or came back after the last the two meetings ago and said you know gosh I've heard from a lot of people like in fact Mark I think I mentioned it to Mark uh after the one meeting when we
we talked and that was you know are there balconies on that side because gosh somebody said I'm going to build a three-story house next door or all three or four of them there And and I said I said to my wife like, gosh, yeah, that's actually that's a concern. Like I wish
now I wish that condo building I I don't care about the condo building or really the height, but I wish it was back so it wasn't looking down maybe in somebody's house or pool. And again, that's kind of what I'd love this town to get to is where we actually do have those discussions and do are able to work
through a process >> and see it >> and see it. I think we have to be cognizant that spending hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars >> Mark spent more than a million dollars. >> I I get it and he still doesn't have any certainty that there's a development here.
>> I mean, he really doesn't, right? And so you you could do a virtual video, a fly over of that and he he could spend a lot of money on it and we'd all see exactly how it is. And I'm telling you, like people say, "Oh, 158, 173, 190, what I
agree it doesn't mean I'm 5 foot 10. If I stand on this front and you build and you build two or three stories." >> Yeah. >> I don't I can't I mean, I can see the one in the back's higher, >> you know, if I'm on the beach. I mean, I stand in front of island winds, you know, where I've lived and been for
years. I mean, >> it doesn't I mean, it doesn't make any difference. it what it was was an attempt to try to get us all having a conversation about what does work for people here >> and and I heard today I wrote it down and Jane said it and you said it 2.5 far
might be something that works maybe that's where we ought to be hunting I don't know um and then the last comment I'll make is we've referenced Neptune today you know people say uh and I always dismiss them when they say well if you do this for London Bay everybody's going to want this and that
was proven today by saying hey Neptune did it you did it for Neptune you should do it for us I don't think any of these are precedent setting I think each project is unique and individual and I think we look at them individually but at the end of the day every project's
going to stand on its own it's going to have its own unique but I but I do think we do have a comp plan and we do have a a 2.5 max far um that that you know may be something we should be uh people listening should be thinking about. Thanks.
>> Couple follow-ups. Um, thanks Don for um, revisiting the request that or maybe not official request, but the leanings that we had about the height adjustments. >> Someone brought up EIBC today and I remember >> brought up the what? >> EIBC. Oh, Sterling Beach Club.
>> Sure. I remember feeling as I'm a fairly new LPA member at the time how um energized and maybe a little bit mini proud we were because there was a representation how important view corridors were for us and we sat with those applicants and absolutely
monomatically focused on we want that view corridor so you do what you need to do and they even said they'll move it back off a stereo >> um and we agreed with that and that's why they got the vote they got that day and then to watch them go through the next stage of the process, which I
respect and totally appreciate and represent just the opposite is it's too tall now that we squeezed it into the area that we told you to put it in. >> Y >> what I heard today I believe was an attempt and obviously we gotten to know these people over the last six to eight
months in particular was an attempt to respond to what they heard from us. >> Sure. >> Sure. And in good conscious and professional behavior, I think they did. And therefore, I like the original project, as a couple of the other gentlemen said, a lot better because
it's pushed off and it's back in the beach where it belongs and all the things that go with that. So, that's the one I'm most interested in compared to the two options. Couple other things. Um, >> wait, let me back up for a second there, Jim. So, if you were making a motion,
you would change the 195 or the 158 back to 195. uh versus that my two choices were just those two and reduce the other building. >> Well, the original the original one was 195. >> It would come up the with the other buildings being reduced also >> measured from FD, right? So, it's more
than total height is more than 195. >> Of course, it is the same. Okay. And that's the reality of the world we live in. And you're talking about livable space is what we're talking about. Libble space has to start in a different place today than it did three years ago. We all know that. It's been it's been hammered out.
Um it was al also brought up by Jim and it's an absolutely perfect point. If we start today and we're the last decision as if that was the world five years from now five years from now we start today which means the entire decade would have
been lost of anything that we dream about the quality of life other Mr. Nusbomb's talked about and others. Um it's a decade without any of those options and I certainly live on Egret Street. So I'm I'm I'm relatively close to this project too. And we're missing
that Friday nights, Saturday nights. They they're they're begging for something. So what's happening is we're going other places to do our casual dining um and our our party and our socializing. And that's just the reality we have to look at saying we can send
everybody back every time to finally get exactly what we want. Just add five years to every one of those. Third thing I would say unlike it's been banned around about the 20 24 25 projects now that have been improved not started
based upon the interactions I've had with this company the people that live where they built and and the newest development they have what they say they're going to build how they're going to build it and when they're going to build it is going to happen. No doubt >> they are they are a fairly sure thing
context of what God has for plans for all of us. It's a fairly sure thing that as they promise us what's going to happen it's going to happen but it is a 5-year delay. Last thing I will um bring up is these are the letters that were
referenced about support. um only been on the LPA three and a half years, but I've never received the volume of advocacy from a geographic part of the community saying this is something we want, need, we understand, and we're supportive of. And it doesn't just say
that. There were some comments about form letters, and there certainly are some in here. I was at one of the presentation meetings when that happened. But there are extensive extensive rationale by many people in here that have indicated why they
believe what they believe about this written in their own pros not driven by guided words etc. So it has a different feel for me about quality of life impact about the momentum that as Don talked about needs to happen the balance of the
support we have not withstanding the unpopularity of the density and how high it is which I didn't understand um but it has a different feel for me because of that and I just wanted to add those comments to the ones the LPM members already had. Jim, I don't disagree with anything
you've said and I I think I said to somebody the other day, this project would be fabulous for my business, fabulous for my business. I don't think it would be fabulous for this community in the future. And I don't think about
those of us sitting at this dis getting to go to the tiki bar or not. I think about the next generation of residents of this island and what they will have to live with or not live with. How does it impact them? This is a generational question. This isn't about a tiki bar
and our immediate um satisfaction for the lifestyle that we're all missing. It's not an issue of whether or not those customers will come to my store or not. And I didn't like that comment, by the way.
Um so anyhow, any other comments here from anyone? Okay. Uh, anything from you, Nancy, or anything from you, Jason? >> No comments. Uh, just procedurally, uh, what you would be voting on is, um, F,
adding, um, a section F to your comprehensive plan. Um, before you in writing, you have one version, you have a a slightly different policy orientated version there, and then you have a prior version um, that was referenced in some
of your comments as well. So we just uh let us know what what your uh what your decision is. >> Would it be um I'm a little kind of struggling sorting out these three versions, but it seems like a key factor
would be the 2.5. If we could say, as mentioned already, change that and then we could vote on it. Does that make sense? >> No. because that's a whole different project. I mean, unless Mr. Wilson wants
to get up here and say, "Go ahead, top me at 2.5." But 2.5 doesn't end up at I mean, I I just think, you know, I thought about that. I thought about that at the first meeting. I thought about doing that and uh um I don't know how does anybody else
feel about that. >> It gives you a number for the inside of the box. So >> it does, but but then you still got you still have extreme height and you still have >> Well, I thought he was just making a comment about just the FAR and then we address other things or
>> we could Yeah, I just >> I think we can only vote on what's in front of us, >> right? >> I think there's no agreement on how the FAR is being calculated. >> That's correct. >> That's true. >> That's correct. >> Is it with or without deviation, too? >> That's correct. >> Good point.
>> That's correct. Okay. Anybody want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion. You won't like it, but remember I do like you. Uh I'm going to make a motion to deny
uh request. Wait, I got to be I have to be fancy about this. Thank you. to deny the request of ordinance 264 CPA 202400067
for 6200 EO Boulevard um the comp plan text amendment Nancy this is okay just let me just ask you something I'm using the one that's in front of us today the May correct >> the May 12th >> the May 12th correct so that would be
the version that we received today during the hearing That's right. Which has 158 2.75. >> Yes, that one. >> The one up there. The one in your handout. >> The handout. Correct. >> The handout. >> The handout, which is what their request
was today. >> That's correct. >> I second the motion. >> Any discussion on the motion? >> Well, I'll do a roll call. My vote is uh I support the motion. Jen, >> yes. Ed,
>> no. >> Jane, >> yes. >> Uh, Don, uh, Doug, >> um, yes. I have to vote yes to support the motion because, uh, there's just too many questions about what's in front of us. >> Don, >> yes.
>> Jim, >> no. >> Okay. The motion carries 5 to two. It's 12:19. Uh, we're going to take a break. There is lunch in that room. Um, and then >> Madam Chair, >> is the LPA considering an alternative
motion since that one failed? >> Is there does somebody want wish to make an alternate Jim or or Ed? >> No. Okay. >> So, >> Jason, what are you saying? essentially
>> logistical then um obviously the diagnosis is no text plan comprehensive plan amendment do the items then we're going to proceed with later in the day that all depend upon and fall under that approval one
way or another um do they remain relevant in your mind chair? Um well I we could absolutely talk about the CPD and everything else and um put in limitations. >> So in the CPD there could be a limit of
2.5 there could be a height limit. But the real question is the applicant if the applicant wishes to proceed. >> So maybe we take the break and then um we can have conversation with the applicant to see what >> would you like to do >> what you'd like to do with your other
>> proposals. the the answer is we've got to go forward. I mean, we're not withdrawing our requests. >> No, of course not. >> But I I I I don't know when it's appropriate and I don't want to break any of your procedural rules, but one of the comments I think was from from Mr.
Ecman was about the numbers that were being voted upon and and the real number that we proposed at the very first hearing from FEMA was 175, not 195. So that that was a number
that was the original request was 175 not 195. So I just want to throw that out there. You obviously you can bring whatever you want to bring an alternative motion you can but that number is 175 not 195. You're going to take your break. You all can think about
whether there's an alternative motion. But obviously we're going to want to go forward >> obviously. >> Um and because we have to we want we're still going to go forward to the town council. So you have to consider each of the items. >> If you want to sumearily deny them and
put us out of our misery >> that that'll be fine too. >> And also there may not be an alternative motion to just want to throw that back in. >> Exactly. We want to put everything on the table for the >> Shouldn't we just deal with that right now? it. Does anyone have an alternative
motion that they'd like to make? Do you want to think about that? >> I think it needs some thought. >> You'd like to give it some thought? >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Doug wants to give it some thought. Do you want to give it some thought while we eat lunch?
>> I could try. >> I can't promise. Going to have some. >> Okay. Uh, we're going to take a break for um 30 minutes. Uh folks in the audience please help yourselves to whatever you >> Madam Chair can you give a time certain so everyone knows.
>> Yes. So it is 12:23 and we will be back at um >> 1:00. >> Yeah. 1:00. >> Okay. Thank you. One minute. Thank you everyone. It is 103 and we are back. Thank you very much
for your your patience through this. Um uh Nancy. Um so madame chair, members, um so just to keep us in a procedural posture, um the agenda went out with uh one proposal, one version which
reflected some changes that were offered to you from your April meeting. Um and then today there was still some additional changes and I think procedurally now in the record you have voted on the proposed changes from um
today the LPA 512 2026 um document that you had before you. Um, and I did ask before our break whether or not there was an alternative motion or a proposal to um to go back and look
at the um proposal that was actually in your agenda materials today. So, we'd like to pull that up and we we sent it to we we sent um to Jason and the and the IT department
>> theire document so everybody could see. >> Yes. So, I think that the the applicant is is perhaps wanting some discussion about that or if uh there is a member of the LPA that would be willing to consider that as possibly an alternative
motion uh following some discussion. >> I if we could pull the document we sent because there's one other modification. As I mentioned, the height really isn't 195. The height is 175 measured from FEMA. So I think there was some
confusion about that and then based upon the discussion that we heard um we we are willing to also submit a modified 2.5 F which would be again take out the air
unairconditioned space from the calculation of F which we bring that down to 2.5 measured on air conditioned space which is a significant reduction in square footage of either units or hotel rooms.
And we'll get rid of the conversion, forget about the hotel conversion. We'll go back with the original numbers and then go down to 175 as measured from FEMA and go to a 2.5 F as measured based upon um what you've done in in other
nonprecedented projects. And that's that you that's you know I used to say you know if you all remember when Saturn was around that's that's the you based on sticker that's that's all the sharpening we got. So we're asking
you to consider that as an alternative proposal and see if you're willing to bring a motion for or against those modifications. Can >> I ask a question? >> Just so I'm clear. So it's 175 from FEMA. So is it 21 ft from the ground?
15 >> 15 ft from the ground. So it's 190 foot tall building, right? When from the when you're standing on the ground >> 180 >> Mark, if you could come to the microphone. >> Yes. >> 190. Yeah, >> that's to that's to the top. Yes, sir.
>> But it's a reduction of the square footage. The F comes down. >> So Nancy, let me just ask you procedurally. We are not going to we're not readressing the question that was just raised. This is a new motion because if we are if we're readressing
this, someone who voted in favor needs Okay. >> No, this is a new proposal. >> Um based on um starting with the documents that were in the agenda packet that were provided to you with a request from u the applicant to slightly modify
those. what you're seeing on the screen does reflect the slight modification um because what was in your packet was already trying to address some of the things that you raised at your April meeting. >> So this is where we are right now,
>> right? And the ripple effect when we get to the PD is obviously the we keep the condo at the original height and then the buildings closest to the road go back down >> in height to where they previously were. So, you've got
that will that will come as part of the PD master plan, but I just want you to think about that as we're discussing. >> Can someone remind me how tall they were in the original the other building? >> Of course, I don't have my thing. Uh, give me two seconds. >> Could I ask you a question? If this is
the original proposal and the only thing you're changing is the F >> the far right. >> Oh, why didn't you propose 2.5 to begin with? >> Heights come down. >> What's that? >> The heights. The heights haven't aren't coming down from the original proposal. They're going back up.
>> Can I >> What's that? Why didn't we propose 2.5 in the first place? >> Yes. If you're going back to your original proposal of 190 something and uh you're taking out the equivalency factor, which you know, okay, fine. But you're basically going back to your
original proposal where it was 3.0. No. >> And why didn't you if if that's the original proposal, why didn't you ask for that to begin with that it was 2.5? >> We just had a we just had a long hearing and we found out what the vote was. So, you know, people make changes based upon
>> No, I understand. But if what you're proposing is 2.5, >> it's not. We are going >> Anita, this this means that we've got to make an adjustment to the design. and we've got to take square footage out in order to get to 2.5 which makes it a lot
more economically difficult than it is currently and it's already difficult. Uh but if that you you and others said 2.5 is a line we're not prepared to cross and it means that we'll have to adjust design and take square footage out. Do I
know whether that's coming out of condos? Do I know it's coming out of hotels? No. But we're trying to get to Yes, >> Mark. I appreciate I appreciate you doing this. I genuinely do. I without
seeing the whole thing. Uh I I feel like this is too I think you should make this presentation to the council and and give them the whole picture. So say here's what we heard at the L and if you all want to make a motion, you feel free. I'm just telling them how I feel how I
feel about this. Um, if you can realign your project to be a 2.5 F, maybe you can realign the project and you don't need a comprehensive plan amendment. >> No, we absolutely are going to need a comprehensive plan amendment because anything we go above like three stories,
>> it doesn't require a comprehensive plan amendment. >> It's just it does to to get the uses we need on our property. Okay. >> For height are going to require a comprehensive plan amendment. >> Okay. I appreciate the effort on my part. I I I need to see the whole
picture again. So, >> there may be no motion. Um, I have a suggestion that may or may not work, but as far as height, >> um, I think it's easier for people to understand if we said something like,
and going along with the 2.5 FAR, um, a maximum building height of 13 stories above parking, not to exceed two stories rather than give up number of feet. Well, we do need a number number of feet
because they can we do need a number of feet because they can go from 10 foot high ceilings to 12 foot high ceilings, 14t high ceilings. >> They're not but are >> I I think we're comfortable with and I think this is what you're saying, Mr. Rman
175t as measured from Cleveland not to exceed 13 floors over two levels of parking. So I don't shrink the ceiling heights to cram more floors in because I think one of your concerns. >> Yeah, >> this is just too on the fly. I mean, you
know, it's like Dawn asking me, Anita, would you approve something that was 2.5 and 14 stories or what did you say? Whatever you said. And I said, maybe I would. I'd have to see the whole thing. And that is very true here. I I mean I'm very glad that you're willing to make
this adjustment and you should make that adjustment with the town council and give them a full presentation of it >> because honestly if we just say okay yeah that's a good idea do you really understand the ramifications of it what it looks like and what it does I I certainly I certainly do not. No, I
agree. So, >> it doesn't address other issues, public benefits, neighborhood compatibility, the fact that we've spent years putting a comp plan together that we're looking at altering for one person. I I've done a
lot of these hearings in my past career. I've never sat and tried to negotiate at a public forum. >> Well, there's no other way to negotiate with developers. That is true. >> Right. The only way we can do this and the only way we're going to move this island is to do just this. And I get
it's uncomfortable. And clearly it failed a few weeks ago when I tried it. But I think what they're hearing is is okay. Hey, I really wish this what 2.5 would be our maximum. Okay, we'll go to 2.5. We don't know what the height will be. That's why I said is nine floors. Is
it 12 floors? Is it what do people feel like? >> But you're giving them a maximum height of whatever it is. So, they could be that tall. I I think that's I think that's a mistake. >> Yeah, I agree. They could be based on what they're proposing, they could be that tall. Yeah. >> All of their buildings could be that
tall. >> They could the whole thing. They could build a big square >> that is nine floors and it, you know, at the street, right? I mean, they could. The reality is is they could it would be ugly. It would be It wouldn't have different heights. It wouldn't have view
corridors. Uh, and but I I do think like if we could open our minds to try to to try to figure out a way to negotiate with developers, I think that's one of the biggest issues people had with Seagate is absolutely, >> oh, everybody just rolled over and let the developer do.
>> I said it. I said nobody got anything. No one asked for anything. >> I said it today. >> Yeah. >> Public. So, we have to either get comfortable with it or we have to just keep saying no. People go away and they flip their properties, right, for pennies on the dollar, right? And so >> even if they get approved, they're
flipping themselves. >> Exactly. Well, I mean that too. But I mean we I feel like we did have some on some other projects we had some good compromises, right? >> And so I think that's what we need to think about doing or or we are not going to move forward.
>> Can I just point out remember the next item after you do the map change is the CPD. That's where you lock in the stairstepping of the buildings. So it won't be uniform. That's where the the master plan that's attached to C. Remember, it had the varying heights of the buildings. That's
where you lock it in. So you're not going to get one uniform 175 ft tall building. It >> it had them. But I mean the reality is is the majority of people do not want 95 foot or 190t tall building, right? They just don't. I mean it. We've heard
it overwhelmingly. I wish there was another way. And I keep saying the only way is to bring the others up a little bit, you know, and and but but at the end of the day, there's going to be something higher than three floors over parking it to make it work. It just is.
>> Sorry. >> But are you in agreement with >> Can I can I just make a comment? I'm just going back to what Don's saying about and I think it's worth reminding everybody and I don't know if this will convert any discussion at all.
But you've had Meers approved, you've had Neptune approved, you've had um Tom's project, Arches approved, you've had Seagate approved. Not one is going forward and now Seagate
is up for sale and >> Neptune is for sale. >> Neptune's for sale. >> Yeah. >> And we haven't heard a thing from Archers. And if anybody thinks that it's better to turn everything down and push
everything five years that Jim made, good luck to the island because this is not a way to get projects moving forward. We are trying to compromise with you. We are trying to listen to you. But if the answer is even after you
listen to us, even after you made changes and you're trying to be rational about this, we're still going to say no. This is going to be very tough. Very, very tough. Just making a point. I'm probably not making a new point, but I'm making a
point. >> We want something to happen. We just feel that it's too big, too wide, too too much, too much. And
you know, if somehow we can agree on some other things to send forward to the town council and if they can put it together and make it look like a building, then maybe that would be helpful because I mean 2.5 is the right
direction to go in because that's what we agreed to stay as our cap. And so I would think that the town council will be in the same mind frame because that's what they agreed to also. So whether we want to look at the height
of the building and make a decision that we could make a suggestion to town council to consider. Um I think that's an important thing. Um you know they've changed it to 175 now.
I'm still um to of the opinion that it shouldn't be higher than the largest building within that mile and ex especially since there's not a lot of height right here except till you get to sunset.
Um I don't know what the height is on sunset. Does anybody know that one? >> 11 stories >> 12. So it's like it's like 128 ft or something like that I think or 120 something >> different flood starting category by
>> 10 12 15 ft. >> So does anybody want to talk about what would be an acceptable height? >> No, I I do not. I I want to see I want to see a revised plan in front of the
town council that they can wrap their heads around. That's what I really want to see. I want to see you take your plan and go to the town council and say, "We listen to the LPA and here's our new plan and then have them embrace it." That's what I hope happens. This I
don't, you know, I have sat through a gazillion hearings and right this second I'm struggling to think if I wanted to make a motion here, what would I do? And even if I wanted to make this motion, the only thing I would say is that
we'll give you 2.5 but with no other parameters because I don't want to tell you 195, 75, 65 or picking a number out off the top of my head of what the building height could be because I don't know the context and I am not smart enough to build that out in my head.
Now, if you had a computer system right now that could put it up there on the screen and show us as you chip away and show us what it looks like and we could say, "Okay, you could stop there." Okay, but you don't have that. I think it exists, but it's not here. So, I I that
that's that's where I am. >> I understand where you are, Anita. I heard Jane say, "Could we talk about height?" Yeah, we could talk about height. We tried that before >> and we we took the tallest building on the beach, which is 158 ft total from
the sand, 158. We didn't get there, right? We didn't get to 158. >> How about if we took a vote as um would you consider a a approval of anything over 158? Well, I think
somebody could make them uh somebody could make a motion for far and >> to give to give some direction to them. They're at 175. We're not happy with 175. >> We're not the ultimate decision makers either. >> But I just want to be clear. We could still end up with a horseshoe.
>> That's exactly right. >> At six floors. >> Yes, you could. >> Um and and again, I think that's why you look at what people put before you and you say, "Hey, I kind of like this stairst step. I kind of like that they moved it off the beach." I mean, I go back to my original meeting with London
Bay and that was some of the feedback is like, don't bring it too much off the again, I'm six foot, not even six foot tall. Like I doesn't matter, but at the end of the day, that's what people want and that's what that's what I represent here is what what do people around here want? I still have the same concern with
the neighbors next door. Uh but but I on both sides actually and I would we're not talking about the tiki but I forget about the tiki. >> But but we we could we could talk about a height and a 2.5 far. Um and that
would give them a parameter that if they had a if they had a vote that went forward that the town council could consider. >> May I May I just interject? This is what we can the this is the envelope we're prepared to work in.
We're asking you if you're not ready to vote on it, you want to go forward with a your original vote. Um, okay. We're trying to we're trying to work through this with the LPA saying we're going to give you 2.5 and
130 ft making up a number. You can vote on that till >> you want to vote on that. It's >> exactly >> it's So what we're saying to you is this is what we can live with. >> When you get to the PD, you're still going to see the stairst step buildings. You're going to see less F
than what you have today. >> Rich, can you tell me what that says because I can't see it. >> It says 175 ft measured from FEMA basically. Okay. >> With an F of 2.5 >> as measured like you did for the Neptune. That's what it says. >> Does somebody want to make that motion?
>> I'll just make a comment. The Back to James, which I I think is well intended, well placed, the completely revised proposal going to town council, which they obviously have the right to do. Town council has the
right to say the LPA didn't see this. >> Now what? >> Right. And that would be um when we have the opportunity, I think Jane's trying to promote here to give some guidance in that so they can put our context on a revised proposal without it looking like
it's an inr run of the LPA. >> We have a chance to influence that. So I am interested without knowing the details that we're talking about yet in having the conversation about options and optionality just to provide some containment on a recommendation or
reaction to where one council takes this under consideration. >> But Jim he he pardon me Mr. Ivanovich and Mark Wilson just said those are the numbers they can entertain. Mhm. >> So what is the purpose of our discussion?
>> If it's not that, that's the motion they want. If it's not that, we continue on with the existing motion. >> Sure. Well, I completely understand the logistics. What I was saying is if at least in my mind, if we say two and a half's it, and they're saying we will make sure two and a half's it, but we're
not going to endorse that as a good step forward because we haven't seen what two and a half physically looks like yet. Even though we like two and a half, um I'm not sure what the power or impact of that recommendation would be.
>> I agree with you. Is this 2.5 and 175 ft tall? >> Okay. What do you guys think? Chime in on this party. Well, I think if if you get bogged down on the math without looking at what the
aesthetics and what the project will actually look like, you've gone down a path that you probably don't want to go with because you're not going to like what you see. You need to have a whole package. You need to see what this
translates into, not just numbers. Anita, let me just let me just step in here. Look, last time you said take a floor out and we don't know what it's going to look like. I regret that I didn't say tell you what, let's vote on us because it appeared that take one
floor out. I had the vote. Somebody said take the vote. And I went, well, we don't have everybody here and we're doing this stuff on the fly, but at the time all of you were prepared to do it on the fly. And we chatted about continuance, so we can see it. And we made the changes.
And I'd say the average person has no idea what that changes from last time. One floor here, one floor there. Does the project look about the same? >> Yeah, it does. >> Mhm. >> But we did what you asked us to do. >> Understood.
>> And now we come and we're talking now and Jim is saying we have no idea what this is going to look like. Well, you're talking about reducing the F by 2.5. It's what 37,000 ft of usable space. What do you think
we're going to do? Do you think we're going to turn it into a sausage? I mean, what we're going to do is take out the square footage that is going to reduce the mass that should please all of you because your F comes down. >> It does. >> If the answer is if the answer is, well, we can't even imagine that. I think
they're going to change the project totally and they're going to throw away the 1.3 million that they've already invested in design and just start from scratch just to stick it to us. Then you're not going to get anywhere with anybody if that's your attitude. >> Now Mark, I know that you're frustrated and I would be too if I were sitting you
in your seat. But that's not what anybody's saying my dear. Not >> well. The idea that we don't can't understand by reducing the F and what that is going to look like. It's going to make a slight difference to it. Isn't it a small difference? That's what it's
going to do. And we're not going to change the design substantially. Sorry if I'm getting annoyed. >> Oh, that's okay. >> But >> you come and you say, "Can we do something? >> And if you do it, I think we'll get to the boat. We do it. Don't get there. If
we get to 2.5, it appears that we can get there. You do it. Maybe we can't." And he just goes, "What? What are we meant to do?" Right. I don't think we went far enough at the last hearing to give you what was
our overall concerns. We got hung up on the the height and we took out ask you to take out two floors. I took out one, but you know, we hadn't even discussed the FAR and I think that that was just kind of pushed
forward and then we were like, well, but we didn't give them the whole picture of what we want it to be. And um so I I I get that um you tried to do what we agreed that you should do, but
um it it isn't the total picture that we wanted to finally get down to. Um, so I don't know how we can make you bring in something that we think the LPA
would have found acceptable or whether the town council will find it acceptable. So >> Ed, do you have any comments on this? >> I do. Um, try to do it without asking a question of >> You can ask questions,
>> Mark. Um, you showed us two things that you could do by right, but that's not really all you can do by right, is it? You could really do a lot more things by right. Isn't that true? >> I don't think so. What What are you getting at? Sorry. >> What I mean by right is that you wouldn't have to come in here, get a
variance. You could maybe get out go through the permit process and do do there's >> probably hundreds of things that you could do there. the the options under live local on that piece of property without you ever seeing this again
are pretty much limitless because it's a mixeduse by right option. So I we showed you one option which was purely residential. There are other mixeduse options that we could do. No variances would be
required. The live local access you don't even get to get into our setbacks. So there's so many things that we can do as a matter of right under the live local act and we we could probably spend weeks talking about options. So that if that's what
you're asking about, do we have a lot of options that we can do as a matter of right? Absolutely. That that that you'll never see and neither will anybody in the public and neither will the city council. That's not our choice. And and and kick me if I'm
you. saying you don't want to chase London Bay away, >> right? >> We are responding and reacting to the comment about F and height. And it and by reacting and responding to that, this is where this is how it's done in every
jurisdiction I I work in. You have a taking a give and take in this process. >> They don't say, "Oh, by the way, come back in a month and give me a whole new scale drawings." They say, "You know what? F of 2.5 is modified by something else. We're good with that. We We know
what that looks like. At the end of the day, it's going to be smaller than what we have in front of you. We told you we do the stairst step buildings. You've seen the stairstep buildings. You're going to see them as part of the CPD. You know virtually exactly what it's going to look like. It's just going to get a little bit smaller because we lost
we lost square footage. We need to know yay or nay because we got we had to go about our business and tell us whether you like the change. We think we've responded. You said come to 2.5. >> You've responded halfway. >> Halfway. >> You're at 2.5, but every person who got
up spoke about height, >> right? >> So, you're at 2.5, but you're still at an extraordinary height. Higher than >> maybe an extraordinary height for for you. I don't know if I'm at an extraordinary. >> Oh, no. Listen, I'd love to see the view from there. I mean, I remember Jim Adderhold saying that I would love to
see that, but that is well, you know, >> well, the extraordinary height is 158 either from grade or 158 plus 15 ft under live local. >> Okay. >> It's one of those two. You're getting extraordinary height regardless. >> Got it. Got it. Um, would somebody like
to make this motion? Would you like to talk about it? >> We answer your question. >> We did. And and my point is is that knowing and I've thought of what some of those hundreds of things you could do would look like and and the people here
that are speaking against what you're offering to do are not going to like >> those things that you could do. >> So I think that as a board we should move forward and we should at least give you some guidance of of of how you should move forward with the council.
After all, we we give recommendations to them. They don't always take them. Um, but I think it's our responsibility to do that, not only for you, but for the council and and these residents. >> Yeah. Okay. And I think you I think you're right. if if we and again people
are saying and I know it's already ending up online this is a red herring and they're not going to do affordable housing but if we get the size that we can and the number of units that we can and we
get the F that we can believe me you can subsidize your apartments in order to do that And the do you think that we would go down that route? I we will not have an
alternative. You will force a developer London Bay to do something that even after two and a half years that we've struggled with that we've taken feedback that we've worked with you we've worked with the council
that the answer is sorry you can't do it. And unless it's exactly what we want it at exactly to the specifications we want, you're not going to get this approved. And we are not a developer that comes in
ever and says this or else. And we didn't do that this time. This time we've worked for two and a half years on this and we've taken all of the input. And my concern is you are
saying go and try the live local and all of these people that have spoken against us will have absolutely zero say in what we do. Not a thing. And Anita, you said it doesn't go with your brand.
>> It doesn't. >> Fair comment. Don't have to do it under London Bay. Does not need to be a London Bay project. There is many many ways of doing this. We've been approached by other people to say would you be interested in
I don't need to be the general partner. So there are alternatives and you know you don't want I I don't want to force you into something you don't want to do. You don't really want to force London Bay into something that we don't want to do either. You know, the math can be
done fairly quickly if we're interested by smart people. So, you take the FAR, spread it across the remaining buildings, brings down the height that now seems to be the focal point. All the rest of buildings go up. They all like this, but we know the maximum height on
all of them. And from there on, lack of options clears the mind because the heights come down. It's been spread around and we're 25. Jason, I said to Mr. Yvanovich that you don't need a comprehensive plan
amendment to get to 2.5. Char Carlos Chavez project in Times Square got to 2.5. There was no comprehensive plan amendment. I think it's the only project on the island that got to 2.5. Of course, his lot is the size of a stamp. So, can you just comment on that?
>> Yeah. So, the project you're referring to is in the pedestrian commercial future land use category, which allows a 25. All the other categories allow 1.5. >> That's why it needs comp plan amendment. >> Correct. It could either well yes there's multiple ways to go about it. They could apply for pedestrian
commercial or they could what they've done and this is a chance to talk about small scale small scale text amendment for sight specific. U the small scale does not refer to the size of the project. It's a procedural thing with the state. Um and that's what they've done is done a text amendment to the comp plan to create a category site
specific to them. Okay. Well, I'd like to comment on the um uh what is the word that they use? Uh the affordable housing. And it's a it's a
very nice idea. Um but as I recall when you were discussing moving two floors of the condo to the hotel space, you said, "Oh, that will not work." because it's not the style, the look, the the the um quality of people who are going to be
buying those condos would want to be in the hotel area. So, I can't imagine putting in work housing and having it work with the high price of the condos
and then your hotel. I just can't, you know, I just don't see that that's a mix that you would logically >> get to decide though. >> I know. So, I don't think that that will ever happen for >> So, so, so, so I understand your your concern, again, it comes back to the
London Brave brand. But I'd suggest to you that if you're concerned about that, Jane, go to Tampa, go to Sarasota, go to Jacksonville, go to Fort Lauderdale, go to Miami and see how does a project do a mixeduse project and include apartments
in it. There are multiple projects that you can look at that has got a combination of hotel on the first couple of floors, residential above it in a separate tower adjacent to that is apartments. The apartments have their
own amenities. So you put in the gym and you put in the things that you need because if if you're in even in that um affordable uh category, we would still put something in so that these work, right? But remember, some of those will not be
market rent. And what do you think people would pay to be next to the beach on the same block as the beach and be able to rent it and have that choice? >> And then do I need now to do anything
close to 2.5? No. I get to 3.75. So this does start to look like a city block. this does do exactly what you have said you don't want us to do. And I'm not saying that I know exactly how it's going to look. But if these people
think what we're doing now is not a good idea. Believe me, the alternative, you'll really have some upset people. And that's a shame, right? We have worked with enormous amount of efforts to get
where we are today. And that and so Jane don't don't think that this doesn't make sense. There are it is happening in every city all over Florida all of the time. And it's got luxury, it's got branded, it's got luxury apartments,
it's got luxury um residential, but they have to do a quotient that is affordable. And our affordable category I think gets us to 120,000 a year to be affordable on
Fortnite. >> Exactly. >> Right. So this is this is people that work around us all the time. It gives them a place to live and work. >> So just want to make sure that we're not totally losing track of what the
possibilities are. >> Okay. Does somebody want to make the motion that the gentleman have proposed? >> I would I would make a motion to um now I can figure out how to say this right. Um
approve uh the comprehensive plan amendment. >> So there is one on the screen if that helps. Well, um I can't read the one on the screen, but the changes that uh
the from from what I'm holding here, the maximum building height is 175 ft, the uh uh midpoint of the roof and 15 stories inclusive of parking over the first two
floors. And then the paragraph on intensity that the FAR not exceed 2.5. And my thought is that we'll allow it allows a little a little bit more height but restricts the square footage of the
buildings to reduce the massing of the buildings. And uh with those changes, I would make a motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment. So I believe that is what's on the screen. Um and also
recognizing the density that there's really no change there as far as the 150 hotel and 46 multif family units. Uh there is no conversion factor at all. >> Right. >> Is there a second to the motion?
>> I'll second that. >> Okay. There's a motion by Doug and a second by Ed. Any further discussion on this? >> Yes. I have a couple of things. Um, we haven't discussed the fact that this
is an amendment to a comp plan that's in the its third year of review. And we're looking at taking a piece of property that was zoned as mixed residential and asked to make
it mixed use. There's been one of the factors in making that decision should be neighborhood compatibility and even with the motion
with the uh height intensity and density I guess concessions there needs to be a finding that there's sufficient public benefits to justify those changes And there are because they've been
struck, there are no public benefits listed. So I think that there's other factors besides the math here. I tried to get those public benefits included and was told it doesn't belong
to this category. >> That's right. >> I tried that several times. We don't have I think they'll be addressed separately. >> This is just legislative. They had listed before public benefits and now they're not. And in the comp plan,
>> one of the considerations for hype density is public benefits. There's no statement of public benefits. >> Any other comments on the motion, Don? >> Anything? >> I just want to be clear. 175 190 is your
number, right? Okay. >> Okay. Any other discussion? >> Your vote. Doug, >> I >> Ed >> I. >> Jim, >> no. >> Jane, >> no. >> Don, >> no. >> Jim, I
>> no motion fails. Four to three. Um, you know, I'd give nothing more than to stop everything, freeze time right this second, go in that room, and hammer this out with you. I would really love to do that, Mark. I don't know who'd come out bloodier.
Probably me. Um, all right. We'll move on to the next uh the next item which is the comprehensive plan text amendment. This is also legislative in nature. Uh no, I'm sorry.
>> D. Yes. Yes. Yes. Uh this is also legislative in nature. This is the future land use map amendment which is an accompaniment to the first. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, amending town of Fort Myers Beach future land use map
2045 adopted December 1st, 2025 for the portion of property located at 6200, Eststerero Boulevard, identified as strap number 334624 W300120000 that is landward of the 1978 Coastal Construction Control Line in
Fort Myers Beach, providing for clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scribners's errors, severability, and providing for a con uh an effective date. Uh Jason, >> yes, thank you. Jason Green, community development. Um the request before you
is to amend the future land use map to a category. Uh but based on your previous vote, that category was recommended to not be created essentially. Uh so therefore I wouldn't recommend staff would not recommend putting a color or category on the map that doesn't exist in your text.
>> Yeah, this almost seems this is I mean it's a moot point at this point but do we procedurally we need to go through this? Is that right Nancy? >> The other option would be if the applicant wants to withdraw it. >> No, we we need you to vote. >> Okay. Un let Nancy unless you tell me I
can go straight to the town council with all of my petitions. We're gonna have to go through I You're gonna have to make a recommendation on all the petitions. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Well, that's fine. I mean, if if we can go that way. Yes. >> Well, I can't withdraw and and then
still go to town council. >> That is correct. So, withraw withdrawing is not an option. >> Well, it it's not. I mean, Anita said she wants me to go make the full Brandon presentation about what I just put up to the town council. So, >> okay, >> that's what we'll do. >> But I am not the queen of the universe,
Rich. I mean, the c town council may not want you to do that. I I I don't know. >> We'll find out, but we got to get there. >> Okay. Yes, you do. You do need to get there. >> Yes. >> So, I'll just I'll just close to finish to be consistent with state law and local requirements. Uh recommended
denial of the changing of the map. >> Okay. >> Excuse me. That was due to inconsistency. >> Due to Right. To be consistent with state law. The request is inconsistent with Got it. >> The comp plan. >> Uh Rich, do you have anything to add? No, we already made our presentation on this issue. We're pulling all that
information forward to this hearing and nothing nothing further. >> Thank you very much. Uh we'll open the public comment. Does anyone wish to comment on this? >> Seeing none, we'll close the public comment. Uh discussion. Uh hearing no discussion. Would somebody
like to make a motion? Jim. Thank you. I would uh make a motion uh that we deny ordinance 26-3 CPA
2024676200 EO Boulevard outrigger resort mixed use CPA map >> for the reason inconsistency >> and what >> the reason for the denial. Is that based
on the testimony from the town planner? >> Yes. Based >> it's inconsistent. >> Okay. >> It's inconsistent with >> Is there a second for the motion? >> I'll second. Thank you, Jane. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> I assume we can't legally approve
something doesn't apply to anything, >> right? >> Well, it doesn't. The category doesn't exist. So you can't you can't write without the text amendment. The category doesn't exist. So you can't put it on the map. >> There you go. >> Okay. Any other discussion? Uh your vote, Jim?
>> Um my vote is yes, but I'd like to incorporate the comments I had on the prior ordinance uh into the record. >> All right. >> So the maker of the second >> second. >> You accept the changes.
>> Um your vote, Jane. I >> Ed. >> I >> uh Don Doug >> I because category doesn't exist. >> Correct. Don >> I uh Jim >> I
>> I the motion carries unanimously. Okay. Now we'll move on to the CPD request. Um this is a quasi judicial request. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving, approving with conditions or denying a
reszoning on of property located at 6200 ETO Boulevard at Fort Myers Beach, generally identified as strap number 334624 W300120000 from a previously approved commercial plan development, Outrigger Resort, to a
commercial plan development with 12 deviations to allow for a 46 dwelling units, 150 hotel rooms, and 46,000 square ft of commercial use, and 340 parking spaces.
Providing for other clarifications is necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scriveners, errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. Um, let's yes, exparte Jim. So, I'll go through the entire list
again since we're in the voting mode now on this and everybody do the same. Oh, thanks. >> So, I attended um two sessions uh the original session that was withdrawn, subsequent session out at um the sales
center for London Bay and went through both presentations in some level of detail in that regard. I also attended the um community meeting down on the south end of the island. Got a chance to talk to several residents
down there about their reaction to that. Um received um several conversations u in the interim from all of those communications. Um I mentioned earlier texts and emails
with um Mark in particular. Um I mentioned to him as I indicated that um I know uh the development world has several alternatives and I'm going to be asking that question so we have a chance
to react to and um influence which one of those we choose. um also watched his presentations on Beach Talk Radio obviously the public one and then the LPA one which time he asked me for
feedback on those which I provided to him meeting with um as Anita said meeting with Mr. Forgusen. Uh he expressed his concerns face to face. Uh my reaction to that other than a pleasant dialogue with Tom was I think he ought to be meeting directly with
Mark on that regard. He said he would. I called Mr. Wilson and said um I think you two guys bookending the developments on the island ought to know each other better and ought to have a conversation with each other. Mark agreed to that. So I provide the contact information to Mark which I think that meeting took
place and they can respond to that on their own. uh Beach Talk Radio a Saturday. I attended uh that session which was obviously uh heavy involved with uh the reaction from that group on this project. I also spent some time with Cameron Post. Uh they did the survey. Um
Cameron and I spoke for about a half an hour. It's a very stimulating and professional and productive conversation on points of view. Um I will say on his behalf um although agreed to disagree on some of the components of his survey, they're certainly statistically
accurate, but his other expression was to become more involved in in mediating some of the conversation between the two parties. Um full disclosure to him was um that train's pretty far on that track right now. Any changes would require a substantial start over. So maybe a time
in the future, but we're having our meeting today and um thought it was important at least he knew or the public knew um what a good conversation that was and how interested he was to reach out and become more involved should and if and when that would be helpful. So that's pretty much covers the general
topics obviously interactions with people as we talked about here in two and all those and I try to be responsive to anybody that askked me a question including Mark uh on any topic and point of view. So, acted accordingly. >> Thank you. And Jim, um John,
>> I had uh let's see. I've had I think two um meetings via Zoom and I think one in person. That might Yeah, I think that's right. Um over the last uh since last fall with U
Mark Wilson and some of his team and uh have had conversations with Mr. Wilson and then also many many conversations with uh folks from the town or friends, family uh interested parties. Thank you.
>> Thanks, Don. Doug. >> Um, I uh attended a a meeting with uh Mark and someone from his staff at the interim town hall where he presented his updated project uh from the very first time we heard
about the project where I forget the dates but I met him uh at their sales office in Asterero initially. Um, and then, uh, I got an email where from the after the April meeting where Mark corrected some statements he'd made
in that meeting. I think he sent that email to everyone. >> Yep. >> And then, uh, recently I've just had we've just had some communications by phone about whether I would be at the May 8th meeting, which I informed him I would not be.
>> Thank you, Doug. Um, can hold on just one second, Nancy. If if there's nothing changed since the other meeting, since all of this is continued, do we have to recite it all again? >> Um, if you've already made disclosures at the prior meeting, since this hearing
is continued, that uh those disclosures and all the testimony at that time is going to be brought into the record for this uh >> this agenda item. So, thank you. >> Anything extra? >> Okay, Jane. >> Okay. So, anything extra would be uh I
talked to a lot of people at the moundhouse after the meeting that was here last on the 8th and um several people gave opinions and their thoughts. Um I haven't had any meetings with them
after I had the original and the Zoom. That was it. >> Thank you, Jim. and more emails. >> Um, I failed to enter the record last time
that Mr. Wilson's office did contact me and ask for a meeting um to review changes which I declined uh based on prior discussions we've had about exparte. I uh received since the last
meeting uh emails that I think we are already in the record that everyone shared along with comments both proh for and against from residents, family, friends, and neighbors. >> Thank you, Jim. Ed,
>> in addition to my last disclosure, um received some more emails. Again, couldn't tell you how many in total. I lost track a long time ago. Um, talked to some additional people
when I'm out and about in town. Some for, some against, and um, I think that's it. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, aside from the additional emails and some social media,
I did call David O'Brien after I think the day after the last meeting. Uh my conversation centered around uh I couldn't remember if there was a beach access along Gulfide 12 and he reminded me that it was part of their application
and approval and that was my question to him. Uh plus I have uh listened to or not listened but read a lot of social media posts and probably shouldn't have but uh I have. So, uh, that's all for me, uh, in addition to what I disclosed
at the last meeting. So, >> Madam Chair, um, there was a significant amount of disclosures that were made today. Um, this is an important project to the town. Um, I just want to remind you that you are serving as impartial decision makers and that um I need to I
would like to ask each of you if you're willing to listen to the testimony and the evidence that's presented to you here today and render your decision based on that and only on that. >> Yes. Ed? >> Yes. >> Jim? >> Yes.
>> Chain? >> Yes. >> Doug? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Don, >> yes. >> Absolutely. Yes, chair. I'd like to afford the attorney um the opportunity, the attorney for the applicant if you'd like to ask any additional questions regarding the disclosures.
>> Uh no, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um Mr. Ivanovich, are you going to make another presentation? Well, we we went through our CPD presentation at the original hearing that I obviously want
to bring forward for purposes of the record. All of the information that was presented at that time um since you really have only one option on your vote on this. We have nothing further to present. >> Okay,
Jason. >> Sure. Thanks. Jason Green, community development. Uh, I'll start with in your packet that was handed out I'm sorry, let me back up. Today was handed out to you a stack of papers. Included in that are some edits to documents within the
CPD that were >> Are these your edits? >> No, these are the applicants edits >> uh to there's some uh schedule deviations and justifications. Uh there's some uh design standards, schedule of use and development
regulations type of edits. uh they're differing and varying colors that are different than what's the than your packet for those items. I just wanted to point that out for the record. Um so, as you mentioned, and I might need NY's help on some of this, uh the application
for the CPD includes the design standards and schedule uses and all those things that go with this proposed uh reasonzoning that's to CPD that's unique to their uh property. Um based on the previous well what I'll say is uh staff has provided some recommendations
of conditions. The applicant has also included conditions that they would uh be acceptable to. Some of those are edited. You can see the edits that went back and forth in your packet. Uh but because the the reasoning the amount of development based on F and other
components are not consistent with the current comprehensive plan and and the current future land use category. We would have to recommend denial based on those factors. You'd have to recommend >> recommend denial of the CPD based on being inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Um we'll open up the public comment. Would anybody like to comment on the commercial plan development for the London Bay Outrigger Resort? >> Tom said you didn't want to let me finish last time.
So, um >> Tom, say your name for the record. >> Tom Brady. Um as far as uh design costs, um these things have gotten really cheap. You know, here here's mine. I've done a rendering of the London Bay development.
Anyway, uh this is using every square feet of the property. I'll send it in to Jason and others, you know, maximize to condos. You can chat GPT will create these for you in 20 seconds. They'll do 3D flyovers if their design firm is charging them that much. I used was the
engineering manager for years. I ran IT systems and I can send this stuff to India and have it done in two seconds and have it done beautifully if they want to have that. The cost is probably the attorneys, the planners, the other staff that goes with it. I don't doubt
that there's that much money, but that's not your problem anyway. That is irrelevant to your decision. their their their investment in this. Please don't include that as part of the discussion because it's really irrelevant. They have deep pockets. Unless they want to
expose their and I'm getting now I'm getting bad. Unless they want to expose their personal net worth and show us that they can't afford to do that, then I believe that they have tons of money to be able to do that. Um they said that uh there was a comment that it's it's easy to get up and speak. There are
people that don't get up and speak very often and their voices crack and they break and these are your residents. It's not easy for them to spend their days in here expressing their heartfelt opinions to you and you felt it today. Um I've
speak spoken a lot but for other people it's extremely difficult and I and I appreciate every one of them that's come in here today and said something on both sides actually. Um, I don't know how many uh emails you got for and against. There's a there's a statement that 70
were uh for how many were against? Um, I guess I'll get a request into the town clerk to find out what the total number of those. I do have a foyer request in about other subjects. So, we'll add that to it. Um, and you know, we the public
only get three minutes unless we ask for intervenor status, which I'm tempted because you don't have to be an attorney to be an intervenor. But, um, you know, it's it it's a due process question about whether it's really fair or not for us to only have these three minutes
to express all of our views to to you. And that it the case law goes multiple ways on that. Um, live local. I I would call their bluff. Frankly, I it's just I don't think that's ever going to happen. Plus, it
sounds like they they admit that there's probably going to be litig litigation around all this live local stuff. So, I I think without more details about that, I you need a lot more details, I would say, about whether that's really going to impact you the way that is. And they did not apologize to the community as a
whole. I'm glad you got a letter. I didn't get a letter. They didn't get on TV and say they're sorry for what they said. They didn't go to the Oakland Press and say they're sorry. So, I don't That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Tom. Anybody else else like to comment on the commercial plan
development? >> Anyone? Okay, I'm going to close the public comment. Um, questions or comments for the staff of the applicant from the board? >> Are we using the revised statement that
we got today to discuss this? Well, we actually got this the 29th. This is from April 29th. >> But there are changes you got tonight. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Um, so I think when you make your motion, you should be specific as to
what you are approving or recommending denial of. >> Go ahead. >> And it's a question for you, Nancy. The way you did it on we did it on the comprehensive plan. Should we stick to the same version? Okay. Yeah, >> it's easy for you all. We're going to
withdraw all the modifications we made to the previous petitions. Please vote on what was provided in your first packet. >> Okay. The first packet being the April packet or the >> the very first day we appeared here. >> There's no reason for us to make any of those revisions or have you vote on any
of those revisions? >> Okay. Not the one that was prepared for the ETH. >> Nope. Let's go back to the beginning of time and you can you can vote on what was >> that is their request. Um, I don't know. Jason, can you bring that up? Do you know?
>> Can we show them what they're actually voting on? >> It's I think it's in the packet >> without the changes. >> I think both versions are >> the original height. It's the original F 3.0. It That's it. We're just That's the only real modifications we made. So,
let's go back to the original 3.0 on the PD or CPD. >> Okay. So, and I will say I having looked at this briefly, I think the changes that were in front of you today were in response to their edits of the comp plan. So, that's >> So, they're they don't apply anyway.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Is that clear to LPA members? >> Oh, it's clear. It's >> certainly is. >> Finding the paperwork is the issue. >> Well, I don't know that I don't know that the paperwork matters. I mean, they're basically saying, "Vote it down.
You voted everything else down and let's move on." >> True. Yep. That's exactly right. >> However, if there is a motion to deny on the record, you will have to state the basis for it, which most likely will be the inconsistency of the comprehensive plan. Is there any discussion on this?
Anybody want to discuss? >> I do. >> Okay. Go Jim. Go. >> Okay. Uh regarding the uh parking deviation uh the 38%
or 211 spaces uh out of 551 required is a large reduction. Uh there's also no guaranteed uh parking provided for users of the linear park or the tiki bar. And
a general comment uh for the record. Um in planning circles uh properties containing less than 5 acres and not adjacent to similarly zoned contiguous properties is also considered SP is
often considered spot zoning which can be considered arbitrary incompatible with community uh and adjacent land uses and the property and the adjacent properties are all zoned resident potential, not mixed use.
>> I'm glad you brought that up, Nancy. I'd like you to comment on that because I can't tell you how many people have said, "Why isn't why don't you think this is spot zoning?" So, do you want to comment on that? >> Well, it kind of I'm going to go back to the comprehensive plan. Um, in the event
that the amendment had passed, I think that that would be a basis to um to negate any type of spot zoning um argument. passed >> had it passed, but it has not passed. And I think that the inconsistency with
the comp plan is somewhat of an overriding um concern. >> I just wanted that on the record because we're talking about the reszoning issue. >> Yep. Yep. Um any other comments?
Anybody want to make a motion? Well, absent that, I guess, um, uh, which one are we on? >> D E. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to deny, uh, petition SVZ2041126200,
Eero Boulevard, COP. No, no, no, no, no. We're on CPD. You're on You're on D. You're not on E as an elephant. You're on D as in dog. >> Ah, >> no. >> Yes, we're on the CPD. >> We're on E. >> Well, we're on the CPD. >> Okay.
>> CPD is the reasoning request. >> Next one. Yeah, >> I think you have an old I think you have an old agenda. >> Oh, got it. >> Too many players. Is this the right one now?
>> Okay, start over. Make a recommend u making a recommendation for a motion to deny ordinance 2605 CPD 2024616200 EO Boulevard outrigger Resort mixed use.
>> Is there a second for the motion >> based on >> Yeah. based on the inconsistencies >> based on the inconsistencies uh with the comp plan and the two points I brought up in comments. >> I uh will second
>> any discussion on this motion your vote. Jim, >> yes. >> Jane, >> yes. >> Uh Ed, >> no. Um Doug. >> Um I because it's um >> inconsistent.
>> Inconsistent. >> Um Don >> I J >> I >> uh I motion uh carries 6 to one. Um the next item on the agenda
is um a special exception. This is for 6200 EO Boulevard outrigger resort mixeduse special exception. This is a special exception for construction in the environmentally critical zone. This is a resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida,
approving approving with conditions or denying special exception SEZ 2024112 to allow reconstruction of a major accessory structure in the environmentally critical EC zoning district as authorized by section 6366
of the town of Fort Myers Beach Land Development Code uh for property located at 6200 Estero Boulevard providing for Scribers Aerys severability and an effective date. Jason >> exparte. >> Exparte. I apologize. Um, exparte. Jim,
>> same. >> Okay. Don, >> as stated previously. >> Okay, Doug. >> Uh, as stated and none related to this specific issue. >> Okay, Jane, >> as stated. >> Jim, >> same.
>> Ed, >> the same as stated. Well, I'll say as stated, but I have had a lot of conversation with people, concerns from people about the location of the tiki bar and um and their desire for it to be
located in a more central location because of the impact especially on the properties to what I'm going to call the south. Um and otherwise everything else stands. Okay. Uh Nancy or Jason, you want to begin?
>> I just wanted to ask um everybody's still impartial, right? Having made all the disclosures and Rich, you don't do you want to ask him any other questions? Okay, go ahead. >> Jason Green, community development. Uh the special exception before you is for two purposes as you mentioned, expansion
of consumption on premise in the EC zoning district, which is governed by section 34-1264 uh G. And second item, special exception to allow the recon, well, excuse me, the construction of a structure seawward of Lee County 1978 coastal construction
line uh per section 6-366. Um I think it's been talked about, so maybe we need to discuss this. Uh the previous building was approximately uh 800 square ft, but was a I think a storage building um of what it was. Uh there was previously a
uh uh tiki bar that was a portion of the property within the EC zoning district on the previous site. Um based on the analysis of excuse me for a sec hold on give me one
second here. All right. Uh under the town's codes those two sections need to be analyzed for compliance. Um the special exception for the coop the request is 50% of the EC area which is
greater than traditionally allowed by the code. But the application >> Jason this isn't the coop. This is only the construction of the T. COP is the next one. >> Oh I'm sorry. >> That's okay. >> I did skip that, didn't I? >> Hold on. Let me back up.
Okay. this is just their ability to construct it. >> So my apologies. We combined the staff reports for and I started reading both it all links up together. >> So uh the consumption premises I said 50% of the EC and which is greater than typically allowed by the code but their
request is to reflect the uh the previous alcohol beverage uh approvals under the Lee County zoning ordinance from I think it was 95-083 or something like that. So that's essentially their request is to expand that coop area.
>> Okay. Anything else? >> No. >> Any questions for Jason? >> Uh Mr. Yvanovich, anything or Alexis? Anything on the >> Alexis come up, but we are going to it's hard to separate the two. Uh, so we're
going to go ahead and present them both and then when you vote, we'll come back up again and ask you to incorporate the prior prior testimony because >> you mean the T, the cop, and >> yes, they're all together. >> Very good.
>> Um, so you don't have to three times. >> Ready? I'll ask uh it to pull up our presentation >> and Alexis say your name for the record. >> Alexis Cresbow with RBI uh representing the applicant. I just have a couple of slides to walk you through um visually
some of the points that Jason made. Uh next slide. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Oh. Um, it's slide 147 is where we would like to start. >> So, while they're doing that,
>> as much as everyone would like, >> we approve this. Can they go ahead and build the tiki? >> Well, God, I hope so. >> Just want to know. >> I think so. Yes. >> God, you're devilish. >> Ask
While that's being pulled up, um Jason alluded to the um Lee County zoning resolution uh 95-085 approving the original Outrigger Hotel. Um just noting for the record that that resolution allows the following uses by right. a bar or cocktail lounge,
commercial use of the beachfront seawward of the water body uh setback line as well as consumption on premise. So uh based upon those historical approvals we want to walk you through this is something that can be approved independent of of the comprehensive plan
and uh uh CPD zoning district. >> You you said that this is by right. This is allowed currently per the CPD zoning approval in place per the 1995 Lee County zoning approval.
>> It's currently in place. >> Next slide, please. >> Alexis, could I ask you a question while you're while we're waiting for what? What number? 135 to come up. >> 147. Um, >> did the Charlie's Boat House parcel was that included in the original CPD?
>> No. >> No. I kept looking for it. I could not find it and I thought, "Okay, it wasn't." Okay, >> that's correct. >> Thank you. >> Uh, next slide, please. >> So, the special exception and variance petitions apply to the 5 and 12 acres of
the overall 9acre site that is seawword of the coastal construction control line. That area is hatched um in the red area. Um, this area was encompassed in the Lee County CPD zoning approval. At some point, the Fort Myers Beach maps
show this area's EC zoning, but it was in fact included as part of the uh CPD approval issued by Lee County back in the mid '90s. Next slide. So, kind of summarizing the Lee County approvals in place and as well as the historical use um on the of the
property, there is a liquor license that was included in your backup materials that encompasses the entirety of the 9 acres. um covered the property to the mean high water line. Um as Jason noted, there were existing structures seawward of the coastal construction control line
prior prior to um Hurricane Ian. So there was two structures I I'll ask you to go to the next slide because it's better to see as I talk through it. There was a recreational activities building which is the uh southernmost
Next slide please. the the southern building is the uh 805 foot recreation activities building that existed. >> Eric, can you zoom in on that? >> Yep. >> Thank you. Uh so that uh was closest to
that southern property line uh closest to Gulfide 12. Again, 805 square ft. This allowed for beachfront activities um to be offered to patrons of the hotel and and area. So that uh structure was
entirely uh uh seawward of that coastal construction control line. The tiki bar that um was on the property straddled the coastal construction control line. The majority of it was in fact landward of the coastal construction control
line. 725 square ft bar uh with 150 of it plus or minus uh seawword of the coastal construction control line. So when you look at this, we'd like you to take into account that there were two separate structures, one partial, one fully seawword of the coastal
construction control line. We are asking to locate uh the current bar in the location of the recreational building. So we we understand that that southernmost building where we're proposing to locate the bar was not historically used as a bar, but we are
not allowed to expand the historical bar area um per FD. So we have to work within the footprints of the impact area seawword of the coastal construction control. >> And Alexis, could you tell us that square footage again? >> Yes. The southernmost
uh pre-existing building was 805 square feet. Mhm. >> The uh portion of the historical bar Seawword was 150 square ft. So we had 955 square ft of beach impacts seawward
of the coastal construction control line. What we are proposing is 800 square ft total. So, a reduction in what was historically there and in order to locate it in accordance with FD's standards of of locating within the
historical impact area, we are proposing to use that footprint of the recreation building, trim it back slightly and have an overall net reduction of beach impact. >> Can you identify where the property line ends on this
to the south? No, I mean on the side. The side going south. Yes. So that is the property line. So there are no setbacks required for buildings to be built. >> There are there are >> there are setback requirements.
>> Sure. There is there is a 15 foot setback and we are requesting the variance associated with this is to allow a 10-ft setback because the pre-existing recreational building was 10 ft off that property line. So again,
we've got to locate where the previous buildings were, which requires us to sight it on that recreation building and which is 10 ft from the property line. How was that building off of the property line built
when it was totally out on the EC, but it was outside of your property line? >> It's with um the recreation building is with is 10 ft into our property. So, it's 10 ft north of the shared property line with Gulfide 12. >> Yeah. You just don't see a property line south of the building, but it's there.
>> It is. Yeah, >> this is just an inset. >> Yeah, >> this is really >> So she's the black line that continues south of the red line is is the property line >> according to the survey. >> I was laying my my pen on the southern
>> So the thing that's down below is just a blown up of >> Oh, that's what was confusing you. Okay. Yeah, that's just a blowup. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. So, if you can go back one slide, I just want to make sure I've covered the key points of the historical use of the beach. Uh, so the
liquor license applied to the entirety of the 5 1/2 acre acres of the property that are seawward of the coastal construction control line. There was a 725 ft tiki bar in place for many many years. About 150 square foot of that was
seawward to the coastal construction control line. The activities building was the largest area of beach impact. It's 10 foot north of that southern property line, 800 square 805 square feet. Um, this included electricity and plumbing. And
so that total area of impact prehurricane Ian is 955 square feet. Uh, next slide. And then go uh one slide further. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, these are just uh denoting locations. If
you click again, that'll answer Miss Plumbers's questions uh regarding where those are located. Next slide. Thank you. Next slide. Uh this is just a copy of the uh U
alcohol permit from the state. um attached to it was uh the entire property uh description uh denoting coop allowed over the entirety of the property. So the way the Fort Myers Beach Code is set up is it speaks to an
expansion of COP into this area seawward of the coastal construction control line. We would submit that it's really not an expansion. This is a retraction. We we would be trimming back uh the cop from what historically existed attached to the original hotel. Next slide.
So what we're proposing this is this was the master concept plan a little bit simplified in terms of some of the labeling. The area highlighted in yellow is where we would propose to have alcohol service on the beach area. Um associated with the project that would
extend from the northern property line to the south. Um it's not the entirety of our beach area. that um is approximately 250 ft um seawward of the coastal construction control line and it's about half roughly of our of our land area that is seawward of the CCCL.
And so the the yellow indicates where service could occur from that bar where you might have people running drinks to folks and then the actual bar structure itself is is shown in the blue box if you will um in again in the location of the historical uh recreation activities
building. Alexis, does that does that slide indicate um what that distance might be from? >> It's 10 feet. It the blue box from the southern property line. >> Okay. That is >> No, no, no. I mean the the yellow box.
>> The yellow box. >> So the yellow box from the um property line, not the south property line, the whatever other I >> moving towards the Gulf. >> Yes, ma'am. Uh how wide is that? because you're telling us that's your coop area. >> Correct.
>> She said 250 ft. >> 250 feet from Okay. >> And two and a half acres in its entirety whereas our beach area is 5 and 1/2 acres. Okay. >> So slightly under >> half >> half of it. >> Got it. But you have current approval to
the mean high water line. >> The current cop. Yeah. >> Yes. >> So you're proposing to officially reduce that down to this box >> coming into compliance with the beach code. bringing the zoning into a Fort Myers Beach zoning district as opposed to a Lee County district.
>> We are proposing to retract that. Yes. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Next. >> Does the applicant plan to have like umbrellas and chase lounges and for the for the hotel and the um you know condo
guests in that yellow area? >> Yes, that was intended. Yes. Do you know if that would be available just for residents and guests or would it be available to the public too? Well, >> this would serve the the beach club as well, which um Mark noted in previous
hearings, memberships would be open um not only to residents of the project and and other London Bay projects, but also people at the beach. I um in terms of u public beach chair rental, um >> I don't know if anyone would like to speak to that. Again,
this is all contingent upon we're getting the other project approved. >> If the other project doesn't get approved, then we'll develop under the existing CPD or we'll develop under live local >> and then perhaps we'll just keep the entirety of the the beach
>> as a COP. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh next slide. >> Oh, Jason has something to say. >> Yeah. So, those are just some labeling, but I would normally be clicking through here. If you can keep clicking.
Um, all right. So, to summarize, we want to locate the proposed uh outrigger bar, bring some bring back some of the nostalgia of the beach. Was the intent of incorporating this with the hotel condo uh framework that we had presented earlier and the the location of the
former impact of the recreation building. Um this would be a reduction in the total building footprint in this uh area co seawward of the coastal construction control line. Um reduction to that encroachment. Um and we would think a a significant public benefit
based on discussions we had. Um next slide. The variance is I I believe we had staff recommendation of approval. was simply to allow a structure to be built in the former recreation building location which was 10 foot off that property
line. Next slide. And this is just demonstrating that location. Next slide. Uh we did um working with staff once we got conditions uh modified some some aspects of their crust in terms of hours
of operation. Your code does provide guidance for alcohol consumption in the EC zoning district. And so we were in agreement with staff on limitations regarding no off-site coolers. Um having contiguous over ownership of the parcel,
which of course we have in this case. Um conditions related to maintenance of litter and debris. Uh I think most importantly probably to folks here and and listening are the limitations on hours of operation. 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. or sunset, whichever is earlier. That is written in your code. We were in
agreement in limiting the hours of the bar. Um, in in accordance with that, entertainment also is restricted unless allowed by a special permit. So, the intent was to have a nice daytime feature for residents of the area in the
south end of the island. Uh, certainly for use of patrons of the hotel, residents of the project, but for really the surrounding area. Um, but have it be be quiet at night. Uh, closing at sunset in the winter time is, you know, 5:00 p.m. or so. So, um it wasn't was closely
limited in order to address compatibility with our neighbors and um restrict the use. Uh next slide. Oh, I should mention the T sea turtle uh requirements also in terms of lighting. All of that was incorporated into the staff reporting conditions which we're
of course in full agreement with. Um our application materials include uh our analysis of our uh compliance with the special exception criteria. I won't belabor that uh today, but we uh would submit for the record that the data analysis demonstrate that the request is
consistent with the land development code, your criteria for special exceptions, and more specifically your criteria for um encroachment or expansion of uh alcohol in the cop area as well as reconstruction of the building. Um so that concludes the
presentation and um we're happy to answer questions. >> Thank you very much, Alexis. Uh right this second we are only going to be dealing with the construction um which is uh what this particular item is for. Um
I'm going to open up the public comment. Would anybody like >> I don't want to hear from Jason first. >> We did hear from Jason. He didn't really have anything. >> Well I just let me I was just introducing that. Let me if you don't mind if I could take a moment just to >> Sure. >> point you to the staff report because the staff report does we try to combine
them for efficiency and that didn't work. Um there's two components of this section. Trying to it's a big packet here. Uh the construction in the EC that you refer to is uh there's a criteria listed in the land development code and the staff report identifies that is a
separate section uh LDC section 34-88 and those criteria specific to construction the EC are provided uh for you and the public in that report separate from the COP issue also. Um, so those are broken out. If you have any
questions about those findings, that's all I wanted to point out. >> Thank you, Jason. >> What? That's on page 200 if anybody's following along. >> Thank you. >> What would this What would the proper setback be for this?
>> I believe that the the variance was 15 feet, I think, is what the uh original setbacks are in the code. a five foot variance. >> But the special exception is dealing with the use and construction in the EC, not the not where exactly it is.
>> Exactly. >> So that's the challenge is the way that the variance versus a special exception applies. So what's in front of you right now is a and I would like to apologize, but it's a it's a tiki bar or other structure. Um this use of cheeky keeps getting used and as far as I know it's
not a cheeky. Uh that's a separate definition, but it's it's a activity building of some type that they're trying to ask for, right? It's a bar. Um that's what's before you as far as the special exception. You you could in theory approve the use
and deny the variance and which then they would have to relocate it to a different spot and whether they or shrink it or whatever other options. >> But the variance is included in this. >> It's a separate request, but it's >> a separate request. their their application for special exception includes the location.
>> The next one is the COP and the last one is the side setback variance. >> Okay. >> So, uh staff does believe that this is also contingent on CBD approval. It wouldn't be appropriate to have this structure uh approved and be located in the EC without the other uses that went
with the resort because it's really tied to the resort. >> And do you feel that FEMA will allow this building to be built? >> Well, will it count against us? We have to review it under our regulations and and regulations that are force not force that are adopted by federal government
and our own. Um that is a question but I haven't reviewed the building plans. We haven't seen that. >> Basically we could approve this and it not get built. >> Correct. >> To bootstrap off of that. Um the question staff report is a denial based on the fact that there's no
comprehensive plan amendment been approved. If the approval had been granted, would the staff recommendation be in favor of this? >> Well, in related to the CPD also, is
that it's a it's a function of the adjacent zoning and request for the resort, right? And it's on its own is an isolated request. No. Um, I would have to reconsider that depending on the CPD component. I think that the the opportunity to rebuild something is what
is generally in front of you is a question for you. That's usually what we see. This is a somewhat of a new use in the EC zoning district. It would stick out if it was just by itself, right? So, >> further to Jim's question though, if we approve this, it's not tied to anything,
so it's not going to happen. >> No, not necessarily. I mean this it's for a structure and a use that that requires a special exception approval. In theory if you did it they could go >> we don't have CPD or all that. >> Correct. >> Okay. Good. >> They could
>> they could build it then >> except that Jason um >> there's a whole other things that you asked about fee regulations and other types of things. >> They've got to get all that done. But on page 2011 under special exception findings for construction in EC there is a criteria that talks about whether the
request is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and intent of the comprehensive plan. So would would that finding then change because the um comp plan text amendment was not adopted? you're saying. >> So I guess I guess re then answering the
original question that the comp plan generally talks about not putting things in the EC and that's why this is a little bit unique to to what you normally see because you're normally rebuilding things that were there. So I I would say no, it wouldn't necessarily change as a recommendation because the comp plan
says don't put these types of uses in the EC. And so whether it is tied to the CPD, I wouldn't recommend you do it separately on its own. Even with the CPD, our concern is that you're expanding commercial activity and uses into the EC zoning district.
>> So, I don't know that the CPD changes our opinion on on the com on on consistency with the comprehensive plan as Nancy was asking. >> I'm going to open the public comment. Would anybody like to comment on this uh construction in the EC zoning district? Uh
Steve is here. Okay. Uh yes. Come on up, David. Steve, you weren't here earlier when people were sworn in, were you? >> No. Okay. >> Hi, David O'Brien from Gulfide 12. Uh as I think I stated at one of the previous
meetings, the you know, this all ties together to me, all three of them. You can hardly comment on one without commenting on all three. And and this is the number one issue for Gulfide 12 residents is locating a tiki bar
essentially uh approving a variance to move it as close as possible to us. When you think about your own backyard uh when you go out in your you know in your lai or you go out in your backyard what are you going out there for typically you're
going out there for some quiet relaxation time. Would you like a tiki bar 10 ft from your border? You know, essentially right next to your lai or your pool where you're trying to relax. We don't. Uh so, personally, this is one
item that to me seems like there's other alternatives of where they place the tiki bar on their property. uh central location. You know, they just showed they want to have service on whatever that is, 250 ft, 365 ft wide. Seems like
service is a lot easier if you're doing it from the center than if you're doing it from one side. uh at uh one of the public meetings that that I became aware of indirectly that I went to uh at Island Winds and and
talked to uh Mark Wilson and his group and about some of the things that we were in opposition of uh for their plan. One of those was the tiki bar and and I brought that up there. I also brought it up at the first uh LPA meeting to him
and asked if he could move it to a different location. The only response I've gotten to that was Gulfide and and this was at the island winds um uh meeting was that uh their development
was going to impact Gulfide 12 the most. And that's all I've heard about it. So, there's been no accommodation or response or or anything that that tried to uh make this more livable for the
residential residents that'll be most impacted by it. So, we are opposed to it uh throughout our entire development. Everybody is opposed to it. >> Thank you, Dave. Uh anyway, Steve, when you come up, we need to swear you in.
Amy, >> if you'll raise your right hand, do you 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. >> Thank you. Welcome. Hello, LPA. >> Your name?
>> Steve Johnson, uh, resident seminal way. Uh, I'm here to strongly object to any construction in the environmentally critical zone. I don't uh as I had mentioned earlier and I have stated and for the record uh that's exactly what it is an
environmentally critical zone. Everybody wants to be by the water. London Bay wouldn't be here investing all this time and money if it wasn't valuable. We can't give it away. I saw the term encroachment in many of the slides. We're going to reduce our encroachment.
It's encroachment. We can't allow encroachment. Where does it stop? The sand, the beach, the water are the town jewels. They have to be protected. I, for instance, have uh spoken to the
town, I have a non-conforming uh building on my property and I simply asked if I raise that building, can I rebuild it? Abjectly, no. I absolutely cannot do it. So when we
talk about grandfathering, which was essentially what they're asking for, some type of grandfathered benefit, grandfathering stops when that the term grandfathering is simply that that right now you have a non-conforming building in a place it shouldn't be.
So once that building is gone, there are no rights to rebuild that. It's time to conform with the current codes and protect the the the sand beach as it's supposed to be protected. You all have that responsibility here in the LPA to
look out for the residents, to look out for the value of this beach to all the the the property owners and all the residents. Uh the environmental critical zone also certainly um protects what what wildlife
we have. uh our our turtles, our our birds, uh everything that everybody comes here to enjoy. So, where do you draw the line? The line is drawn. It's called the triple CL line, and we have to stop any construction past that,
especially in situations like this where you're starting from a blank pallet. Thank you. >> Thank you, Steve. Anyone else care to speak? Marca? So, Marshall O'Brien, Gulf Side 12. I'll just echo what Dave said. Um, the
location of the tiki bar 10 ft from our pool is a huge uh loss of privacy. Um, a lot of residents of Gulfite 12 have young grandchildren playing in the pool in the afternoons. They should not be subjected to uh alcohol being served,
uh, adult language being overheard, the fence. Um it's just way too close and uh the bar needs to be uh placed where it used to be in the in the center of the um property. Thank you. >> Thank you, Marca.
Anyone else? Katherine. Katherine, were you sworn in at the beginning? >> Marvelous. My name is Kathleen Borman. I live in the south end of the island. I don't live in Gulfite 12. Um I live within walking distance of the outrigger and
certainly had, you know, many lovely evenings at the tiki hut, which is very precious to those of us in the south end. Um some of us have a little bit of a problem with it being referred to consistently as our beloved tiki hut. We view that as a little bit of a carrot
being thrown out to us in terms of let's support the project. I don't think anybody in the south end is really opposed to development. We certainly can use some Santini is coming along. It's coming along slowly, but this whole
project um that is being proposed today is still going to take five or six years to go through and by the time we get there, Santini, I think would be fully up and running. And it gives us our our restaurants, our sense of um enjoyment
of life, quality of life, but it gives it to us on a scale that is uh more moderate. I think the biggest problem with all of this is that um it's just too big and that's been sent many times. Um I've sat through all of these
meetings. I've sat through two presentations at Grand View. I've sat through things on social media. I sat through a seven-hour meeting, a three-hour meeting, and I've been here since nine o'clock this morning. So, clearly, it is something um that I'm
very very concerned about and interested in. Um my problem with the t we live I'm on Bay Beach Lane, so I am in an environmentally critical wildlife area. I walk across to my beach access. I love it. But because it is environment
environmentally critical and I take it very seriously, if I walk my dog on the beach, I get in my car and ride up here to Flamingo or someplace where I can walk it. So it is really, really important to take care of the birds, the wildlife, everything else that comes
through there. So I am concerned about this location of the tiki hut at the outrigger and it is encroaching. It truly is. That's a brilliant word and it's what it's doing. Um, it's encroaching on the the wildlife.
It's encroaching on its neighbors. It's the one thing I think when I hear about people on the south end are approving of this property, what they're really approving of is the tiki hut. It's like that that buzzword that gets everybody
going. If there was no tiki cutout in the proposal, I think a lot more people would look at it seriously and say, "It's just big. Can we make it smaller?" We're going to be okay in the South End with places to go that are more casual, more low-key. Certainly, London Bay has
quality construction. Grand View is proof of it, but I'm not sure given the neighborhood we are in the South End, as I'm watching my clock dwindle down here, is in our best interest. Thank you very much for listening. Thank you, Kathy. Uh
Dave. >> Hi, Dave. Nusbomb. For the record, I have been sworn in and I have also been here since 9. >> Um, >> so have we. >> Just a few things. Um, we all would like
to have our lifestyle returned. Mr. Wilson read some of the comments and the letters. Certainly, both the uh Windham Bar and the Tiki Bar and Restaurant at
the Outrigger were a factor of that life. I've also recognized my neighbors. We had a a symposium where all of the beach people came in and listened to his proposal and
that question came up as far as moving it. And I also asked Mr. Wilson, can you not move the tiki bar closer or further away and take one of those arguments out? His response, and I don't know how
true it is, is if they move it, then they lose the ability, you know, to serve in that location. I don't know if he can serve in the other location. Um, but we need something on
the ground floor. If we put it on the second floor and elevate it up, you lose that whole beach access. come in, have a sandwich, have something to drink, use a restroom, and go back out. That's what
we're looking for. If we need to move it, then we need to move it. But if we by moving it, it takes it off the beach and takes it away from the people, then you've lost that because nobody's going
to come in and walk up a flight of stairs or whatever it is. You'll lose a lot of that. So again, I go back to my opening comment. I'm not sure what the answer is. I want
to I want to honor the people that are my neighbors and respect their wishes. If we can move it and if we can do it so that it doesn't sacrifice, you know, uh the lifestyle, fine. Um, if
it has to stay there, uh, maybe there's walls, buffers, screens, enclosures, uh, so on so forth, or possibly having the seinals build a a tiki structure there that's very temporary and
permitted by the county. I don't know what the answer is. I do know that we need to do something. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dave. Was there somebody else who raised their hand? Yes, ma'am. Come on up. >> I I didn't think so.
>> If you'll raise your right hand. Sorry. Do you 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. Thank you. Um Kathy Schultz, 394 Astero. Um I wasn't prepared to speak here today. I was just coming to
see the hearing. Um, but on this issue, the land development code states that when existing major structures that were built partially or fully seawward of the 1978 CCCL are
reconstructed, they should be built rebuilt landward of this line. And repairs to accessory structures require a special exception. The first time I ever spoke before this body was regarding a special exception. right
after Ian to rebuild a swimming pool um that had been damaged by Ian. And um you've probably seen there about a dozen buildings that have structures past the CCCL. Swimming pools, uh seaw walls, uh
cresciente uh island uh island reef, a vacation villas, and um each of those organizations has come through and very diligently rebuilt like for like. So now you're being asked to approve
something that's new and um a more intense use than what was there before. I think that you're not really doing a service to all these other residents of the island who are carefully trying to preserve the objectives of the EC zone
and um even EIBC went through contortions to move their buildings back behind the CCCL and I would hope that this applicant would do the same. Thank you. >> Thank you, Kathy. Anyone else?
Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Um, >> yes, please, Mark. >> Yeah, just just a quick comment. Um, first of all, why is why why do we think the tiki bar was important? Very first interactions with council, very first interactions from the public
meetings was we want the tiki bar. That's how it came about. And the desire was we really really want that and so that's why it's there. And there seemed to be a great request from a number of
public. David has spoken to me twice. He spoke to me after the initial meeting that Dave Nespam organized and he invited all of our neighbors and that request didn't come directly from London Bay because Dave said let me bring the neighbors in to talk to you. So, we
didn't ignore David and we didn't ignore God 12. But at the meeting with with when David spoke to me and he spoke to me after after the last um hearing when we were talking about it, I said to to David, I would love to move the Tik Bar.
I'd love to bring it more to the center. I totally agree it would be much better, but the issue that we have is what the state will allow. and the state c state certain things and Elizabeth can talk about this far more eloquently than I can and with a lot more in-depth
knowledge. So I'm just going to let Elizabeth have quick word. >> Good afternoon. Elizabeth Fountain of JR Evans Engineering. We did have an initial um meeting with D State Representatives about this topic
specifically. We outlined the existing conditions that were there prior to Hurricane Ian's impact. Um described what we wanted to do and as the determination was as long as we kept within the same impacted footprint that
was there previously and we weren't expanding any type of foundation um that it would be considered um to be allowed. we definitely would have to go through the permit process with the state for for the proper CCCL permit.
Um, but we did have that initial meeting as part of our really due diligence to understand if it was a possibility. >> So, >> so Elizabeth, the reason that you moved it to the south uh was because that was an 800 square foot building.
>> Yes. Yes, ma'am. >> Seawward of the of the CCCL line. And had you kept it in the middle, the TQUR could only be 150 square feet. Ex. >> Exactly. >> And was there discussion about recessing the other 650 square feet within the
footprint of the CPD and leaving it in that original location? >> We we did not discuss that. >> Okay. >> A matter of understanding the state's position on >> Yes. >> Didn't it only encroach 150 ft? It was actually It was actually >> 600 some.
>> Yeah. 600. >> Yeah, it was bigger. Exactly. >> Yeah, it was. >> Yeah. So, I mean, so you you'd have to build a 650 foot one, right, to be up against the CCCL now. Is that right? >> It it was it was more about what encroached or what exceed, you know,
expanded seawwards that >> the 1978 line um into the, you know, what the the state calls the active beach. >> Yeah, I get it. I just you said 150 feet was land word and I think it was actually the
>> I I I meant what she meant that I meant the reverse. Yeah. >> So basically it's it's 800 square foot if you put it back where it was and had it behind half behind of the CCL or the EC zone or get
>> uh another 155 ft right up against the property line. No, no, no. It'd be 650 if you put it where it was. But you have a wave mitigation wall there that I think might be a problem as well. I think >> and they have a larger building already
embedded in the ECC line that that they choose to use for the tiki which gives them a in my mind the manageable tiki size because 150 ft ain't going to do it. >> No, it's not 150, it's 650. >> How about the other that's on the other side of it? They build 650, they can't encroach, >> right?
>> Yeah. So the question is also if you met the proper setbacks, would that go against you as far as being able to rebuild in the location you're asking to be built in? >> Moving it over 5T more.
>> I mean I I think it has to stay within the same footprint that it was previously. >> If you deny the variance though, it will shrink the size, right? I mean they you can't encroach, right? So you so it would go back to a 650 or 700 square foot if you didn't if you didn't grant
the uh side setback variance I believe >> it's making sure that we we fit it in the same >> extent that it was before >> the level of encroachment >> I just want to I don't I want to clarify J green community development anything upland on their zoning CR and other
zoning site they can build what they can whatever they can request that's consistent with the code of course >> right there's no limit to that >> that's the active beach limitation because it's being chosen to be on that side. So this this one line or the other once you're on the other side of it and you're in the upland portion, it's town codes regulations for commercial
development. Period. >> Yeah, just to Mr. Dusbomb's comment, it would be possibly two floors up because it would be on the wave mitigation wall. I think in other words, if they moved it in. >> No, I mean it wouldn't be any higher
than anything at grade on their other on the other side of the line that they just proposed. And again, I don't know without FEMA regulations without seeing the building. Maybe it would maybe it is required to be elevated. I don't know. But that's a separate separate conversation. The point is the limitation is because it's in the EC,
>> right? >> And the location is because the other structure in the EC, they're not limited by this use on their upland side >> on their space. Right. >> Correct. >> Thank you, Elizabeth.
>> Mark, did you want to make any other clarifications? Is that Thank you. Um any other discussion on this? I feel twick on this one. Um
okay, no other discussion. Does somebody want to make a motion? Oh, not one of you are shy. >> Well, I'm the bad guy today. I'll go ahead and make it. Cool. >> So I I want to can I ask Nancy a procedural question here? Just make sure I'm remembering from
>> our destiny conversation. So this is for structure in the EC >> in tiki bar in theory for alcohol consumption. The alcohol consumption is also a separate request that's separate. This is just for any approval would be contingent upon and subject to the consumption on premise decision of where
that cop area ends up being. >> Well, this structure could be a sun shade. Yeah, it is just for a structure. >> Yeah, but you're you're approving you're essentially proving the use and if you approve it for for a bar essentially, then you want to make a contingent. I would request that you would make a
contingent on the other cop area >> because that area that area is going to be entirely your decision when we get to that part of it. >> I mean, shouldn't it be on having the CPD approved also because we don't want the tiki bar there without the bu the >> That's for your discussion.
>> Yes. And there is also the consistency issue um because it is one of the criteria. >> That's correct. Right. >> Correct. So any any recommendation approvals would have to go to the findings the criteria and find it to be consistent with the policies of the
comprehensive plan. Also >> don't forget there is an existing CPD on this site. >> There is >> there there is an existing CPD. We asked for a different CPD which you denied. But we have an existing CPD for
the Outrigger Hotel which was one of the byite options. >> Okay, >> let's not forget that. >> So I'm going to unfortunately disagree because your zoning district is EC. He has a previous approved zoning district of CPD through Lee County. The town
adopted a comprehensive plan and zoning codes that changed that. He's here because he's allowed to argue that they have a right to some of those uses. That's why we're in a special exception. That's why the COP is a special exception. Your zoning district is EC and your future land use category is recreational.
>> And I hear what you're saying. I'll allow the legal arguments between me and Nancy should they come about. >> Well, I I'd like to hear briefly because that just th I I went woo. >> Well, I I have yet to see a specific notice to any property owner, prior
property owner, that there was an action to reszone the property. The last formally approved zoning on this property was Lee County and it was CPD. I hear what you're telling me. I hear everything you're saying. Our position is I have a CPD on the entire nine
acres. That's all I'm saying. Putting that on the record. That's all I'm saying. and staff's opinion is the town adopted land development code and a zoning map to go with it when it originally adopted its code and that was what adopted those zoning districts and those zoning zoning districts of the EC implemented your recreation category
that you adopted with your comprehensive plan that goes back to the foundation of the original code >> but it didn't change the CBT qu CBD qualifications for this parcel because there had been many action on it >> the the zoning district the zoning change on this portion of the parcel
when the pound adopted a zoning map establishing the EC zoning district on this portion of the property. Seaw word of the 1978 line >> in your opinion requiring a cease and desist should the property ever not exist. It it goes to ours then regardless how it was approved by Lee County.
>> I have yet to see an amend a repeal of a portion of the CPD. There was no formal action taken by the city council to repeal a portion of the originally approved zoning. Well, I'm asking. >> All right. You have our two opinions. So,
>> you think there was >> you took action as a town to adopt a zoning map that designated the portion of this property of everything along this your entire EC district was created by you and the adoption of that zoning map. And that zoning district is defined
and and outlined in your Now, the town has a there's a there's some code sections that talk about >> recognizing historic zoning districts and approvals and and things that were approved by Lee County. Um >> the rounding up one and a half to two kind of provision. That's a attempt to
recognize that the Lee County had TFC 2, which was two unit zoning district, right? You've done things to try to incorporate and identify those things. That's why you have lots of record that lots of things. But the town adopted a zoning map with EC.
They're using the previous approvals as justification for the COP as an example, and that's fine. That's for your decision to judge that in my opinion. >> Okay, >> I'll make I'll make a motion. >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead.
>> I'm going to You pass those cookies. No, I'm kidding. I'll make a motion to uh uh deny the special exception SEZ2024112 to allow reconstruction of a major accessory structure. And the reasons are
u the all the the staff listed a number of reasons why it's not compliant. I'm not >> in favor of building back in the environmental zone. And I think the developer really proposed this because he was
hearing from a lot of people that they missed the tiki bar. Uh and if there maybe there's a better way to put that amenity back somehow, but this does not seem like the right way to do it to me.
And it's it staff was had a number of uh pretty good reasons why it was not in compliance with our procedures and goals. >> Is there a second for Doug's motion? >> Second. >> Okay, there's a motion and a second. Is
there any discussion on the motion hearing? None. Your vote. Doug. >> Hi. >> Ed. >> Hi. >> Jim. >> Hi. >> Jean. >> Hi. Don. >> Hi, >> Jim. >> Hi. >> Wow.
I >> Okay, got it. Next item is SEZ 201241126200 Estero Boulevard. This is the COP expansion. A resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida. approving approving with
conditions or denying special exception SEZ 2024112 to allow expansion of consumption on premises in the environmentally critical EC zoning district as per LDC section 341264G1
for property located at 6200 boulevard 6200 is sterile boulevard excuse me providing for air severability and an effective date um is there Any exparte that anyone would like to add to the record at this moment? Jim.
>> Don? >> No. >> Doug, >> none. >> Jane, >> no. >> Jim, >> no. >> Ed, >> no. >> I have none as well. Nancy, do you want to still ask the question if we all have open minds? >> Sure. Do you still have open minds? >> Do you have minds? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> I'm going to get my mind blown. >> Um, uh, Jason, >> sure. I'll just be brief. the uh applicant has already shown you the area in question for the expansion of the COP. Uh on page seven of 10 of the staff report uh it spells out the criteria
that's listed under LDC section 34-88 uh which discusses the criteria for a special exception in general. Um as the applicant mentioned uh in the previous thing uh excuse me uh hearing I think they'll probably say the same thing that they had a previous zoning approvals and
other uses under a CPD. Um, I just wanted to point out that so yes, the reason why they're here and the process was allowed under special exception because the area in question is bigger than what normally will be allowed under the code. Uh, and those provisions don't have um a process by which to deviate or
change from that. However, under uh 34-12642B2, there's a section that says approvals that COP approvals that existed prior to September 4th, 2012, they can use a special exception process to come back and and ask for that and the expansion
of that. So, so therefore, since that was under the previous zoning under Lee County, that justified using that section for the process to be here. Um, just to kind of explain that rationale. So based on the criteria listed above uh
and uh findings and and looking at what the impact or intent of the two and a half acres to the EC potentially could do um and especially especially since it's not associated also with um uh any other kind of structure or or resort or any other type uh staff would recommend
a denial of the request for the expansion of COP at this of this size. So the question is since we didn't approve a building, they you couldn't just approve CPD on the beach in the area that they
>> too many C's and too many >> too many um this would have to have the building as part of it or is this just >> No, I think Couldn't they serve from the hotel? >> Of course. >> Sure. People can drink wherever >> the restaurant. >> It's not it's not dependent upon the
tiki. >> No. No. So, but the coop area is an alcohol, right? So, right now, there's nothing to be associated with it in theory. Um, but in addition, it's two and a half acres, which is substantially greater than any other coop that we know on the beach. So, um, but again, that
size question is open to interpretation. >> So, Jason, let me ask you this danger of not understanding your answer, but >> okay. >> If we don't do anything on this, in your opinion, do they retain the entire beach to the mean waterline per cop?
No, not in my opinion. No, that's why we >> it goes away if we do nothing or do something. >> We are we have said and their application is to get >> I know if we don't approve it, >> correct? >> Is it is it go back to what currently exists or now it's all gone. >> It's EC.
The code says you have to apply for this to get consumption on premise. >> Today they're representing they have the mean water line. They are representing they owned the ME water line and they've represented that their previous zoning approval under Lee County gives them rights in the EC district. I previously
stated that I believe that your code says the EC district has to do this and this is a process that was created so if you had something approved before 2012 and that would apply for old zoning approvals under Lee County that you could come forward and justify and ask
for within their right to ask for it. Well, I understand that. Just trying to understand the default position. >> I think we disagree and the applicant disagrees, but yes. >> What can they do today with that beach relative to alcohol? >> In your mind? >> I mean, I'd have to go back and look at some old alcohol beverage licenses, but
they don't have a use on the property that would go with alcohol. Um, I don't think you allow alcohol on the beach in general, but um, there's nothing to serve. There's nobody servicing. So, typically your consumption on premise is an extension of a commercial business. Okay.
>> Okay. Um, Mr. Mr. Ivanovich, you want to add anything? >> Probably. >> I believe I have to carry forward um at Alexis's testimony. Um I I fundamentally disagree that the hotel
either in its prior form or some modified form is prohibited um from uh serving or actually consuming alcohol on the beach. I think it would if you want to make sure you never get a hotel on the uplands, make sure nobody
who is staying at that hotel can take a beer or a glass of wine that's offered to them at the hotel and walk on the beach with it because I think that's what you just said we cannot do. >> That's exactly why I asked for the clarification because we're going to make a decision here. >> Yeah. So,
>> you're saying it's irrelevant what we decide. They don't have what they have >> today. No. What what he what the gentleman just said was if you approve a hotel and don't allow them in the That's a different conversation than can they do it today. >> No. >> No. I don't believe they can do it today. Somebody can't go out and serve
and sell alcohol on the beach today. >> Well, I don't think Mark's going to take a get a little trolley and walk out there and set up a cart. >> No, but if you build back, you guys want somebody to build back the outrigger. >> Yes. >> That's your ultimate goal. Build back the outrigger. >> You need cop on this. You're not going
to give that authority to have >> I don't disagree with you. >> That's why I asked it was the first thing that they were told that we wanted. >> I for clarification staff agrees with you that that's probably going to be associated with it. The point is the size and the timing of this is not
consistent with the code. >> I need to answer your question. >> Yeah. Oh, if you're going to get a cart. Oh, come on, Mark. Let me see. Let me hear it. Marks Mark's cocktails. If this whole development thing doesn't work out for London Bay, maybe. All right.
>> I'll be your customer. >> Um, >> but without without the comp plan amendment, this request is inconsistent with the comp plan. So the size in the request is bigger than what the code allows, but
again they're allowed to ask for that because of the previous approvals and approving just consumption on premise doesn't make any sense when it's not related to a resort or related to a structure or related to anything else. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I I
>> Well, I I think the answer is the the complaint amendment that you all voted against is irrelevant to this request. If we want to build back the outrigger in its prior form, which some people say you'd like to see happen if
you don't approve this EOC cop, right? Did I get the right? I'm so tired now. I got all my letters wrong. you you can you can take that by right option off the table. So Rich, would you agree that this is that we do need a development on
the upland for this? >> But you already we can fundamentally disagree about whether or not >> the existing CP >> you're saying you already have this >> but even if you don't let's say he's right. >> Yeah. >> Let's say he's right >> just for argument sake >> because that's what we do in law school.
Let's assume he's right. I have no ability to put alcohol. I cannot have someone consume alcohol in the EC portion even though I have the right to rebuild >> the hotel. >> That's why this is exactly what I was trying.
>> That's why I'm trying to get Jason to say that >> it goes away. Everything goes away with >> everything goes away. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I now that that was Did you all get that light bulb as like I did or no? >> Or you weren't already. I don't.
>> Okay. Okay. Uh, we'll open the public com. Did we have public comment on this? I'm like so tired. Uh, we'll open the public comment on the cop expansion. Anybody have anything to say about it? Okay. Close the public comment. Um,
discussion. Anything from anyone? Someone like to make a motion? I'll move approval of special exception Z2024112 COPM premises 6200 S Boulevard. >> Is there a second to that motion? >> Second. >> There's a motion by um Jim Dunlap and
seconded by Ed Scoover. Any discussion on the motion? None. Jim, your vote. >> I. >> Ed? >> I. >> Jim, >> no. >> Jane, >> I. >> Uh Doug, >> I. Don >> I
>> I the motion carries six to one. Okay. Now we are on to the uh variance for the side setback. But do we this this we're having a side
setback to construction that we already said no to. >> You have recommended now to the special exception for the structure in use. Yes. >> So this would be a requested variance to that structure. >> Okay. I'm I'm going to uh open the VR 202502996200
EO Boulevard. Um, this is a uh resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving approving with conditions or denying V20250299 requesting a variance of 15 foot reduction to the required 25- ft
sideyard setback for an extra access accessory structure to the outrigger resort in the EC zoning district to allow a 10-ft sideyard setback in order to accommodate the historical location of the Tiki Hut for the property located at 6200 EO Boulevard, generally referred
to as strap number 334624 W300120000 in Fort Myers Beach and providing for other clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scribers errors, severability, and providing for an effective date.
Any ex any exparte Jim? No. >> Don, >> no. >> Doug, >> no ma'am. >> Nope. Jane. >> J. >> No. >> Uh, Ed, I I have none in addition to all the other disclosures we've made. >> Um, Jason, >> uh, thank you again. I'll try to be
brief. Um, as you mentioned, there request for the variance to a structure um, which has not been approved yet, and it would allow for a 10-ft setback. So, a variance of 15 ft. Um and based on the criteria uh within the code which is uh it's in the staff report and section
34-87 um the request does not meet the criteria. U in other words the the minimus is they could have changed the shape or or the size of the structure essentially. Uh there are recommended uh conditions of approval if this application was considered for approval.
Um and so with that I'll just be quiet. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, Mr. Ivanovich, you come up and say your >> wish I could say ditto. >> I just want to bring forward the >> case. I'm afraid you're going to fall over that. That's that would be Well,
that might be a >> one way to get >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um, we'll open the public comment. Anyone wish to make a comment on this? Uh, okay. We'll close the public comment. Any discussion by the LPA on
this? Uh, no, no comment, James. >> Yes. So, if we deny this motion to reduce the sight set back, are we basically saying if they come back with a
uh construction, they could not rebuild based on the >> You're saying no. based on on the fact of the footprint of what it was. >> Is that a question for us?
>> No, I mean the the subject at hand is the amount of the variance from 25 to whatever, right? And in this request, it's to 10 ft. I don't know enough about their site plan there on the thing to look to see if they reduce the variance and increase the setback. Could they
still build a structure? I I would assume the entire >> 30 by 10 foot structure instead of a >> right there's no structure. I know. I'm just saying >> correct >> a 30 by >> right >> uh >> and unfortunately you can't give a blanket variance to properties.
>> Correct. So they in theory you could reduce it another five or another 10 create a bigger separation. That's the whole debate of dimminimus. >> You wouldn't accept a variance request on a building that doesn't exist. >> You can't and and then secondly is that you can't apply a variance to blanket property. Correct.
>> Okay. >> Just just to make it a little bit more muddy. The the variance is not about a use. Mark, >> you need to open up your bar cart right now. >> I know it's a little maybe. No, I guess
it's okay. It's after three. Um, >> it's after three. >> The Outrigger Hotel had an activity building. This variance would allow the Outrigger Hotel to rebuild the activity building.
It's not a use. It's for a structure. So if if you want to give the Outrigger Hotel an ability to keep providing services to the hotel guests, you can approve this variance. It's not for the bar. It's for
>> No, but Rich, it's for a structure. >> It's for a structure. That is not You already said no to putting the bar in the structure. >> We said no to a structure, right? >> No, you you said no to the >> bar. No, they said no to a structure. >> They said no to a structure.
construction within the EC zone, >> but our special exception was for the tiki bar. >> I have a I have a question. There's no structure there right now, >> right? >> Correct. >> It got washed away, >> right? >> Correct. >> Right. So, this is to rebuild a
structure in a in a historical location. >> The the Yes. The special exception previously heard was to build a structure in the EC. This is for a variance to that structure. >> A premise. >> Yes. Let's be transparent. >> Premise was they couldn't get the tiki
done which everybody indicated they wanted. We're not going to approve another structure on Adam and not even be able to describe what it is we approved to be built there. So the tiki is gone as it sits today. >> Your recommendation? Yes. >> Yep.
Well, I would make a motion to deny variance 20250299 requesting a reduction of 15 ft to the required 25 ft setback. >> Is there a second to Doug's motion?
>> Second. >> Okay. Second. >> Give it to Ed. >> I'll give it to Ed. Um, so motion by Doug, seconded by Ed to deny the setback request. Um, is there any further discussion on the motion? Uh, your vote.
Doug, >> I. >> Uh, Ed, >> I. >> Jim, >> I. >> Jane, >> I. >> Don, >> I. >> Jim, >> hi. >> I motion carries unanimously. So, uh, you can still open your bar, Mark.
Um, so that you know I um I hope I hope that the conversation as all over the board as it has been here today uh encourages
a something with London Bay to present to the council on June 3rd that they can approve and especially and I'm just going to say say this because it it is gorilla dust. Is Tom Brady still here? Because three
of them will be in an election cycle that will qualify for the following week. And and it's really important and I know you know that. So, um anyway, uh would you like to take a quick break so folks in the room can leave because
that's the end of this unless um Mark or Rich you care to say anything. No. All right. Uh, let's just take a quick 10-minute break and we'll come and finish up the meeting. >> Afterwards, can we meet at Mark's Tiki Bar? >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
Thank you all. Uh we're now on the administrative portion of the agenda. LPA items and reports. Dunlap, anything? >> No. >> Don, >> no. >> Doug, >> no. Ma'am. >> Jane? >> No. Jim, >> I just want to clarify that my no vote
on the second last um special exception >> was based on I think we all won a tiki bar and alcohol was uh based on designating 2 and a half acres without knowing how that would come into an
overall plan. >> That's all. >> Okay. Thank you, Jim. >> Ed, >> no. Um, wait. I have a note here. So, let me just tell you what it was. I I would I would really like to know if
there is some way that we can amend our uh requirements for especially commercial applications that it be required to provide us with the technology that's available today.
uh that they are required to submit um real life realistic representations of their project. Is that possible or does anybody care about that like I do because I'm a visual person. >> I just I think it's
I don't know. I I I think it might be I mean I think drawings are fine but I think if you're talking about three-dimensional type things I think that might be asking a little much at this stage because I mean there's this is a long road here right >> the technology is definitely there but it's still very costly and time
consuming to create 3D models >> it also wouldn't allow for some variability in the moment you'd be cauterized into that view they said wait what could you change this and change this now do we need a new model or what was the purpose of the original design and we got attached to it because we
could see it. >> Do you all agree with that? >> Yeah, >> I think it's a tool could be used, but for a small one unit building, I think it would be a little burdensome, but having a ver
virtual tour of the large larger projects would definitely help, especially >> something like this. But requiring it might, >> you know, I mean, it may may hinder somebody from bringing something to the process, right? I mean, I think we already have a pretty difficult process
to >> maneuver. >> And in reality, I think we just be completely honest with each other. If it was beautiful and they took the 3D and everything, we'd still be talking about the height and the far. So, it wouldn't change the core conversation. It wouldn't change the premise on the votes. So, as beautiful as he can make
it, he's not going to seduce us into ignoring those two items. Okay. And therefore, I think it would be unacceptable. >> Okay. Nancy, any items? >> Uh, no. No items today. >> Jason, anything from you? >> No.
>> Um, any note on next items for the next agenda? >> No. June 16th. Is that what we did? >> June. Oh, did we settle on June 16th? >> You did. >> I did. We did. >> I don't know. I did. >> I don't know if we confirmed that with anybody else at the town, frankly, but
>> I think you voted on >> We did. Okay, good. Let me just put it on here. The LPA. >> Okay. >> Okay. Sounds good. >> And there's a couple projects that will be on there. So, >> if the agenda is not >> small projects though, >> h >> just small.
>> No, there's potential for a couple projects. >> Bigger. >> No, >> they're coming. >> Bigger fish to fry. >> Yeah. If the agenda is not too large, I think I need asked a meeting or two ago if we could add a what is a public benefit
>> meeting. >> Well, to talk about initiating the ordinance that we said in our comprehensive plan we would do. >> So, I we can I just would respectfully request that we do that in August when we come back. Okay. Uh we have special
meetings with council and your meeting. Uh, we're not done with everything you just heard. I think it's g be a little much to kind of prepare that good conversation, that decent conversation. >> Well, in case I don't tell you all, I will not be here in the uh for the August meeting. >> So, I would be happy to try to dig out
previous conversations and documents that we've passed out to you and the council of examples and and things >> um and ideas that maybe >> could generate some other ideas if that gives you a starting point over your break. We're only having one meeting in June.
>> One meeting. Yes. As far Yeah. As far as I know. >> One meeting in June. Yeah. >> So, need a moment on the public benefit thing because obviously we did put in some time. Um >> I think it would be productive to get a sense for the receptivity of an additional meeting and
recommendation from us because we did put in some energy. We had a joint meeting. It um in my mind ended where it started. Uh there's on record um leaders we have in the community that do not want to get any deeper into that. We even had the discussion sitting right here
>> at the uh comprehensive plan meeting. >> Jim and I brought several suggestions forward on that. The only thing that ended up going in there was a title for all the reasons. So, if you'd be interested in maybe having a follow-up conversation with the mayor or whomever between the two of you and say, "Is this
worth our time?" or should we wait till after the election and have the new council set the tone and tenor on that and we have a meeting with them about it and see if there's a change of philosophy around >> I'll I'll do that and then I'll report back to you at our next meeting. >> Super. Thanks. >> Okay. Um because you're right. I we did
do a lot and especially you the two gyms and uh and it just fell flat. Yep. Okay. Um All right. Anything else from anyone? If not, could we have a motion to adjourn this extraordinary meeting at
3:33? >> Thank you. We stand adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you to those people out there who have been watching.