Good. All right. Good morning, everyone. We're going to call this meeting to order. Today is Monday, June 2nd, 2025. It is 9:00 a.m. This is a regularly scheduled town council meeting. All council members are present. Town manager, town attorney, and town clerk.
If you'll please rise for the invocation, followed by Sarah and the pledge of allegiance. Today we ask for guidance as we respond to the requests before us on this agenda. Enlighten each one of us here to do what is best for the people of Fort Myers Beach who have put their trust in
us as we listen to public comment and to each other. As we deliberate, help us to reach the decisions that will best serve the people of Fort Myers Beach both now and in the future. And grant us the grace to be kind, truthful, and courageous when faced with the difficult choices and not let us lose sight of the
common good. Amen. Amen. I aliance 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. Thanks, Sarah. See, that wasn't so hard, was it? All right. Next, we have the approval of the final agenda. Uh there is one item some LBA members are here that have requested the opportunity under um uh
recognitions. Is that right? Is that where you want reports under you want to do it at the local achievements and recognitions, right? Um I checked with Nancy. There's no there's nothing that would prevent us from being able to do that.
No, they're okay. It's not a matter or anything that's coming back to their their uh LPA. Okay. Is there any objection to that? None. Okay. Are there any other changes to the uh the agenda? Move for approved. Motion by councelor
King, second by councelor Safford. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Hearing none. That motion carries unanimously. Next is public comment. I have nobody signed up. Is there anyone that would like to speak in public
comment? Seeing none, we'll close uh public comment. Next, we have the honorable Matt Caldwell here from the properties appraisers office to give us an update. Matt, good morning. Good morning, council. Thank you very much for uh giving me a few moments to speak with you. Uh your team, I don't know if
it's made its way to your desk yet. I hope so. The uh early estimates went out on Saturday. Uh, as you'll recall, June 1st is when we send uh the topline numbers and then July one uh will be our final revised refined uh version of those numbers for you all to use for uh
building your budget. And then our process, we'll continue to work on uh perfecting the numbers at an individual parcel level uh in time for the trim to go out uh in late August. Uh but in terms of what has actually gone uh out
this weekend, uh I think most of us have had conversations casually over the past few months and the expectation uh was for a more or less flat uh year-over-year uh numbers uh not just uh jurisdiction by jurisdiction but countywide. And that more or less was
the case uh for the town of Fort Myers Beach. you're taxable. Uh we're showing an increase of 3% uh year-over-year. Uh and you do have uh really your story here is the story throughout the county. If you when you look at the breakdown
chart, your just number uh which is the the objective market value uh is down about 2 and a.5%. uh and I think all of us have seen uh the market demand has been returning back to a more sustainable normal level after several
years of you know put your house on the market and it sells in two weeks that's that's not healthy. Uh you you want to be in a much uh more stable uh long-term perspective. Um so the market itself uh and this is the caution I want to give
everybody as they look at our numbers. the market itself may actually have uh retreated even more than two, three, four percent, but what we're experiencing in this county is obviously at the same time we're bringing properties back onto the tax roll as they are being repaired. And so, uh, for
your case, uh, what is shown in our chart as new construction is going to both be both true new construction, but then also contain all of those properties that are coming back on the roll. Uh, so you all had about $860 million uh, in that new construction
line. Uh but to show you how much of that is just property coming back on the roll that has existing caps that are coming back into place. The taxable as a result of that was only 167 million. Um so these are a lot of properties that have been owned uh by those property
owners for a significant period of time. They've got buildup of either homestead or a 10% cap. Um but again the the actual taxable the the number that you're going to use uh was an additional 167 million coming back on the role. uh
and that will probably you know looking forward as you think about okay how do we grapple with this year and then going into next year um I you know this is the crystal ball moment uh in terms of the overall market again it definitely has uh shifted to a more stable environment
compared to where we were in 21 and 22 with the co demand uh the level of intensity that we had here uh is that going to continue to show a decline uh are we going to be kind of more flatline again into next year. Uh that's the uh
$100 million question. When you figure that out, let me know. We'll go make a lot of money together uh on the bet, but we're all familiar. There's a lot of things up in the air that are in in uh flux in the national economy and the global economy. Uh we're we're such a large community, definitely the county
size, um that we are a part of the global economy at this point. And so what happens in that world affects us more than maybe it would have 20, 30, 40 years ago. All right, questions, Mr. Mayor. Um, I I do have one question for those that maybe don't remember last year when you
were here. There was questions about, you know, pre-torrm the valuation of your property versus your just your your or your building was something. Say for instance, it was $450,000 for the land, $450,000 for the property after the storm that altered. So those people that
rebuilt their homes that were able to rebuild it under the 50% rule, now they're seeing their property just just their property value at say 50,000, but now their property value has gone up to like 1.2, 1.3. You know, to some obviously that that seems to stink, right? Because if we
were to ever have another water event, those that just spent all that money rebuilding their homes are pretty much out of luck. Can you explain as to why that switch happened again? I know you explained it last year, but we have new people here that maybe didn't hear it last year. Yeah. and and we're um you
know the hurricanes have accentuated a uh reality that we were all going to be grappling with regardless. Those of us that have been here for a while, you you we know kind of the age uh when improvements when things they get built in waves. Um and so let's let's talk first in the condo complex and I know
you're talking more about single family, but in the condo context for example, uh the the earliest the condo law was passed I think in ' 66 ' 67. Uh and so when you just think in general, your oldest condo buildings are now 60, 65,
70 years old. Uh if it wasn't organized as a condo, these were the kind of buildings we could all guess. You're you're getting to the end of your economic life for a building like that. Um so we had a reality that was uh probably going to creep in slowly uh that uh was uh facilitated much more
rapidly um because of the damage from the storm. And that's we're seeing that effect here on Santael and Cape Coral. Um you you've got that suite of improvements. And so now shift your mind also to the single family side. Uh this is very acute right now. For example, in in South Cape Coral, South of Cape Coral
Parkway, all of those homes were primarily built between, let's say, 1955 and 1975. Golf American was building them like gang busters. Uh now you find yourself with a 50-year-old house on a direct golf access canal. Uh the the
value was all in land. The the the people that are moving there and buying today are going to tear down that house regardless of the damage from the hurricanes. Um that it just doesn't meet the need. Right? Nobody's going to go spend $750,000 to a million dollars for
a quarter acre lot uh as a vacant piece of land and want to build a onecar garage, one and a half bath house. Uh that's just not where the market is. As much as as those of us that have grown up here may like it, we may enjoy it. Uh you know, when you come to the beach context out here, the the woodframe
cottage is exactly the kind of place I would love to live in with no air conditioning and the windows open every day. Don't know that my wife would live there with me. That's not great. Uh but uh I would enjoy it at least. So um that that that reality was coming to bear. Uh
we could see it as it ca was coming up Bonita Beach, right? All those of us that have seen it. All of those uh old beach cottages by and large. The market was tearing them down, building new modern homes. Uh and it was creeping north towards Fort Myers Beach uh over
time. And and really what's occurred because of the storm was it uh hypercharged that effect. And so those properties uh that uh sustained the level of damage that it just wasn't going to be economically feasible. Now you see that demand come in and and
repric the land. And and that's the that's what's happened. The land has uh at its core been recognized as as the most valuable asset in in the dynamic between the land and the improvement. Um and it's it's got to work itself out through those market dynamics. And what
it does mean, as you've pointed out, rightly, is some of these oldest structures that were perhaps able to qualify to rebuild uh rehabilitate the existing structure under the 50/50 dynamic. Um that's going to be a lot more challenging going forward just
because the value of the land is now so radically outpaced uh the value of the structure as a as a portion of the whole. But in general, people that are in that scenario, and I know there's quite a few that are in that scenario that I brought up, that they still have the ability to go out, get an independent appraisal to be able to
correct those numbers should you ever have to have another issue with dealing with FEMA. Yeah, it everybody, it's good to remember that the FEMA guide book uh list, the private appraisal is the first most preferable way to address a 50-50 concern. The tax role comes second on
the recommended list. and and uh just some simple structural differences. Uh you are allowed to use the value as of the day before the disaster. Um in the context of South Florida, uh our disasters are typically hurricanes. So we're going to be talking about
September, October. The tax role is based on January 1st. So as a number, as an observation of what's going on in the market, it's always going to be 8 n 10 months uh stale compared to what has actually occurred and and what would maybe be in your best interest as a
property owner. Uh the other feature is that we have uh built a uh tax valuation system that's designed to be incredibly favorable towards the property owner. Uh our we have very little interest in overt taxing and having litigation with
property owners. And so, um, as a result, that's not to suggest the numbers are wrong. Um, but my first duty is to make sure that everyone is treated equitably, that the relationship between the Gulfront home and the Backbay home is appropriately captured in the values that we've assigned to both of them, not
that those actual values are the true perfect number of what you would sell it for in the market. In fact, it's probably going to be lower uh than the open market value just as a result of how it's structured. So, uh, the the shortand is if you need to get a roof permit, if you need to get an air
conditioner replaced, the tax roll is probably great. Save you three, four, 500, maybe 800 bucks on a private appraisal because the ratio is not a huge deal. If you're going through a complete reconstruction of your home post disaster, you really should go get a private appraisal. Uh, that's going to best reflect the circumstances that are
specific to your case, uh, rather than relying on a on a mass appraisal tax valuation. All right, John, any questions for Matt? Um, I'm not sure if you want to go there, Matt, or not, but I know uh you had supported the uh amendment on the ballot last year for uh
increasing the uh guess I'm losing my train of thought there. Losing the U for your property, the increase the homestead by inflation. Yeah. Um talk out there and I'm not sure where it is now, is about removing
property taxes altogether. Um your thoughts on that and how it would impact the municipality? Yeah, this what a time to be alive and be a property appraiser. You know, Ken got 10 his last 10 years. Uh he had a nice stable market, no disasters. He leaves, I get COVID, three hurricanes, and now maybe we'll just get
rid of property taxes. Um it's uh no, it is a valuable conversation. Um and you know, I I've just the other day I tried to condense my thoughts and I would I was shooting for a two-page memo and it ended up eight pages. So, I won't recite all of that by by memory, but uh just
the big things to think about. Um when we talk about, let's say, the the big picture, we're going to get rid of property taxes. Uh the question I I ask each of the legislators and the leaders is okay, make help me understand, define what you mean by that. Uh because there are not just two forms of property tax,
advalorum and non-avalorum, but when you when you zoom out, you see the two purposes. You have general revenue lines and you have fee for service essentially. Um, for example, most of us in Lee County pay our annual garbage bill through our tax bill. Um, so when someone says we want to get rid of
property taxes, do you mean that people aren't going to pay for their garbage pickup? Um, that that's going to be offloaded to the to the sales tax. I don't think that's what most of the leaders mean. I think they're really talking about the big general revenue lines and that's going to be the big county general revenue line. It's going
to be your big city general revenue lines. It's going to be the school general revenue line. Um and then it starts to get into what's the practical reality? How can you address that? Um uh the the the
the likelihood that the legislature would be able to come up with a satisfactory formula to divvy out a sales tax on a prora basis as a replacement for say your general revenue millage at a town level. Uh I I just don't think that's very likely uh to be
achievable. Uh what I do think is is achievable is uh you do have the single biggest tax line is the required local effort. That's what goes to fund a large part of the education finance program. That's the K12 uh system in Florida. Uh
that represents 30 to 50% of everyone's tax bill. That one line and that's the line that the legislature has the most discretion over uh directly. so they could uh realize immediate tax relief uh by changing the structure of that tax
line uh without having to touch anything else that that gets talked about. Um in in terms of then another layer when you look at uh homeowners uh the homestead needs to be fixed. I I I was supportive of adjusting for inflation because I I
had observed the infirmities in the current homestead at at $50,000. you're still far short of what the original homestead was intended to achieve. In 1934, we adopted Florida adopted the first homestead of $5,000 when the median home was
$4,500. So for lower and middle class homeowners in Florida at the time, it was a whole exemption uh on their property. And of course today with a $50,000 exemption and the average home value is say $400,000, we've really lost the uh the
thread right in the story. Um, so just by inflation, just the sheer, you know, loss of the value of the dollar, the homestead needs to be moved up to about 125,000 just to be the same as what $5,000 was back then. And of course, going from a million people to 24
million people, we also have the dynamic just demand has has driven up the median value. And so they're going to want to try to address that as well. I I there's this is the point at which we could dive off the cliff into all the myriad ways you could try to to address that. But I think that highlights that there is an
issue uh and it needs to be fixed. Um and I'm I'm encouraged and hopeful from that as much as they are at loggerheads say over the budget right now. Um uh I take comfort in that all three pieces the governor, the house and the senate all agree that property tax needs to be
a priority of the upcoming sessions conversation. Uh and we're certainly attempting to to inform them in much the way that uh I did here this morning. Thank you. Yeah. Anything else, John? No, I just uh thank you for always uh coming uh the expertise you and your
folks offer and your willingness to always work with us. I appreciate it. Oh, absolutely. Jim, good morning, Matt. Thank you for being here. Um as you know, everybody knows we've had an unusually high turnover of both residential and commercial property since Ian.
Can you explain from a revenue standpoint? We're heading into our budget cycle as you can imagine and so we're trying to understand better how that turnover affects because obviously when there's turnover you lose your homestead and you lose that 10% cap on the commercial side. Can you explain
that should from a revenue standpoint be beneficial to Fort Myers Beach. Can you can you kind of give us a sense of what that impact is? How significant is it and is it continue to is it going to continue to to be a benefit to the Fort Myers Beach as we go forward? Uh from a revenue standpoint, it it will be a a
benefit. Each time those properties transfer, they reset to the full just value uh whatever that may be. And so that'll be reflected uh that the the just and the taxable are the same uh in that first year. And so you'll see that show up in your taxable line. Um, I
think it has has been in fact in the previous two years uh that's probably been a big I know it may not feel like it because I know in year one you all lost about half of your taxable value and we've recovered about halfway last year um obviously with only a 3% gain.
We're not back up to where we were two year the year before the storm. Um, so my suspicion is that in the previous two years that reset of the cap was a big driver of keeping the the decline, the decrease from being as as severe as it
could have been. Um, now as the market has kind of moved into a a more stable uh flat period, um, it's going to continue to be a factor. Uh, but I don't know that that's going to be the most significant driver. I think you're still going to see uh the continued either uh
re occupation of the damage structures come back on the roll will be uh the major driver looking at 25 into 26. Um, and then what we're seeing now that we're getting to it where the the structures that aren't going to be rehabilitated are being torn down and
getting them either transferred. So that and that that's the you know at scale um there's a lot of value in all of the the the property, but obviously all parcels are your most valuable pieces of property. So any of those that uh are
still in the the ownership uh name as of the pre-torm now they've torn down the building. So either building the new facility or getting it sold. That's that's where you're going to see the most uh bang for your buck, so to speak, from a revenue picture is when those parcels move. Um and and y'all are out
here every day, so you see kind of where where everybody's head's at in terms of those questions. Thank you, Karen. I'm good for now. Thank you, Scott. So I know I know you don't want to buy a lottery ticket today with me, but crystal ball, when do you think we're going to be back up to preian? two,
three years. Yeah. I mean, in some markets, uh, we our closest proxy is to look at Michael, uh, up in the panhandle, uh, to go back a ways and look at Andrew in the on the
east coast. Um, in terms of some properties, specific properties, um, they don't ever go back to what they were. Um you you we can go down and visit with the Miami Dade property appraiser and he can show you the properties that are still not reoccupied
uh 30 years later. Um just it it it destroyed whatever was the the small business or the tourist attraction or the the thing that just you know redevelopment still hasn't come to that. Um, you know, not not to describe it necessarily as an advantage, but you know, Fort Myers Beach is better
positioned than say Inland Homestead and uh and Florida City were in terms of the the demand, right? Beach demand is much higher and much stronger. Um, and so looking at the effects of Michael is probably a better proxy. Panama City, Panama City Beach, um, we're seven years
removed from that storm. um they have recovered fairly well but still not completely. Um and again the contrast to the inland uh areas um so from a revenue picture I I think a five-year window is probably the most reasonable thing that
you can take. Um but that's totally contingent again on really where the global economy goes over the next two years. Um because our demand is so heavily tied to retirees and and second uh second homes. um the folks that uh
are most comfortable making that kind of investment are the most prone uh to be affected by global uh economic swings. And so that's where I say we really are held captive at this point uh to that that dynamic. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Well, thank you, Will. You got
any questions for Matt? No, not at this time. Thanks, Matt. Thanks for taking the time to come down this morning. Always appreciate it. Absolutely. Have a have a good day. Good luck. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Next is local achievements and recognitions. Should we start with the LPA first? Anita, you want to Didn't
mean to catch you off guard, but it's going to be a whole show. Oh, are you all coming up at once in the videos, please? Thank you. You didn't watch the last LPA meeting, I guess. I'm Anita Sarasita for the
record. Mr. Mcus, very nice to see you in person. uh we said we were going to come and pay tribute to you. Yes, indeed. So, you know, having sat been in those chairs over the years, um
there are just a few people that are so memorable and have left such a mark. Um, I don't think ever a group of LPA members have come to pay tribute to an employee. And Sarah is worthy of that
praise. Um, Sarah, you have um pulled us out of holes, pulled us back from crazy loopy conversations. You've helped us and guided us. and especially in these last couple of years, you've been a rock for us, never wavering when we get a
little too emotional or somebody in the audience does. And uh you're going to be greatly missed. I um I would be selfish to tell you I wish you were staying because I know you're looking forward to your next adventure and uh I hope you
find every happiness there and how fortunate that community is to be getting you. So uh Mr. Mayor and council members, thank you for the opportunity to say this. And I think my other friends here might want to say something, too. Sure.
Jim, they're acting like they're shy. Since when? Good morning, council members. Sarah, I would like to thank you. Um, whenever we started to veer off, you always get got us back within
the guard rails. Uh you were a source of just the knowledge that you were able to bring to us uh about the comp plan uh development codes. You will be missed. Thank you for your service. Thank you.
Thank you all for the opportunity. Sarah, we wish you nothing but the best and you've just been such a depth of knowledge and a rock for us. Thank you for everything you've done. Change your mind, Sarah.
Talk her into it. Well, we've been working together forever on the LPA, and it's always been a pleasure. You always come with an unbelievable package and presentation to us. But I think Sarah presents herself so amazingly in everything she does. I mean, look at her haircut and
her shoes. Even when she's on crutches, she is fabulous and we will definitely miss you. Take care, Sarah. In life, as much as we do what we do in the LPA, too, if you want to make better decisions, you need better
information. You guided us through very difficult learning curves, new languages for some of us, and clearly the code compliance things that we can't even pretend to get into what you think. And what you must sit there and say is, "Oh, these children, they just don't get it. But you never treated us that way. You
taught us and I said, "Oh my gosh, you discovered the right answer." So, thank you for doing what you did for us. We're going to miss you. I've got your cell phone number. I hope you're happy, but you're gonna miss us. Don't get too excited, Sarah. Your day isn't over yet. Yeah, I know. And it's a
long one. Yeah. What better way to send you anyway. All right. Thank you all for coming out and seeing those kind of words. Uh we'll start with you, Scott. Well, I I just want to echo their statements. Man, I I was on the LPA for
quite a number of years and Sarah, I learned so much from you and like Jim said, you're you're patient with the kids and I I want to thank you so much and I wish you the very best. Thank you so much, Scott. Sarah, I remember first meeting you when
we moved here and we were trying to get a pool in our backyard that turned into a poacher stamp pool. It's like a big hot tub. But nevertheless, we got it in and there were several meetings and several tough conversations about what we could and couldn't do. But
you maintained all the way through just like you have in every situation from before Ian, after Ian to this day. So, we will so greatly miss you. And I'm not kidding when I say you still have a
chance to change your mind. There's no reason you have to leave. We get it. We get it. It's fun here, right? Yeah. Very exciting. Very exciting. Truly. Buy a couple horses. Right. There you go. Oh god. No. You're going to get some trouble on that. Um truly you've been
the best and I really appreciate everything that you have done and we're ter going to miss you terribly. Vice Mayor. Well, I I can't top what's been said about Sarah. We've worked together on the LPA as well as the council and just thank you for your service. I I hate to be the turd in the
punch bowl, but I I do want to recognize today for the first time uh maybe in five years, I'm I'm going to recognize an in an inanimate object. Um what I have before me today is the interlocal agreement that was signed between the town of Fort Myers Beach and the school
board of Lee County. Both uh bodies adopted this interlocal agreement unanimously and it was done after Ian to get our beach school reopened and uh a lot of effort was put into this uh particularly by the parents of the of
the beach school kids uh and the kids have been through a lot and this agreement was signed negotiated for four years. It was to allow us to get back on our feet as a community. And in the agreement, and rightfully so, there's
tough metrics in it to make sure that we can increase enrollment and that we reduce costs. And we made demonstrable progress in that prior to Hurricane Milton. And obviously, that's a bit of a challenge right now after Milton because our schools closed. And uh we we just
asked the school board and the elected superintendent to hear us. Uh we've demonstrated our goodwill. Uh we we we we ask respectfully that the interlocal agreement be respected. Uh there is going to be a uh school district
workshop uh tomorrow at 1:00. If folks can make it, if you can't make it, what I would encourage you to do uh last Wednesday we had a an emergency town meeting. Uh the ad hoc committee parents put forth a presentation that really gave some excellent information and
background on the situation. If you haven't had a chance to see that, go online and take a look at it. I know a lot of folks watched it. Take that information and use that as ammunition, if you will, respectfully, to formulate some kind of an email correspondence to the Lee County School Board and to the
elected uh school superintendent. Um, if you have friends or family in Lee County, if you know of Beach School alumni in Lee County, reach out to them. Encourage them to email their school board members, uh, to reach out to the superintendent again respectfully. and
plead with the school board. All we're asking for is that they respect this agreement that was reached again unanimously by the town and the Lee County School Board uh to help us get back on our feet. We're willing to do our part. We just ask respectfully that you'll honor this agreement and do your
part and we can get these kids back into the beach school as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. John. Well, I'd like to recognize Jim's new nickname. Oh boy. Oh boy. Punch punch bowl. Um Sarah, I just wanted to say thank
you. Um I can't add to what everybody but your your attitude is just infectious. Uh always smiling, always friendly, always welcoming. So thank you for all you've done for Fort Myers Beach. Yeah, I won't reiterate everything, Sarah. Obviously, you know, being on the
LPA, it was, you know, I think the analogy about teaching the kids is is very good, Jim. You know, and I remember when I was a kid, we've been fortunate. We've had both you and Jason who are both wealth of knowledge you know at least since I've been involved in the council meetings and and in the LPA and
to go from if anybody was members when they were a kid and they had the vinyl records and you'd speed it up to like 90 be that was Jason Green and then you came in and it was like whoa I can understand the words through the song now. So nothing against Jason but the knowledge and then how you've slowed it down for us children has been uh has
been great. So you'll be missed but we still got 142 pages to keep you here. Thanks, Sarah. Blown out with a bang. All right. Next is the uh uh advisory committee's items of report. We've got
the citizen appointment to the charter review commission. We have I believe it's 11 11 people that have applied for five positions. Correct. Are there any alternates that need to be If you so choose to um pick a couple alternates, you may. The last charter review, I
think, had two. Okay. They were never called into action, but they would sit through the meeting so they would know what was going along through the entire process in case somebody had to drop out or couldn't make a meeting over the course of time.
Are you okay with that, Nancy? Yes. Okay. So, we'll start with the five and then pick two alternates at after those five. Is that how you want to do it or do you how do you want to It doesn't I think discretion. Uh, I think doing the
five first would be preferable and then um based on whoever's left. So then can we get a second sheet of these so it doesn't get too convoluted? And then there's also an asterisk for those that don't understand. The asterisk next to Rebecca Link's name just means that her application came in after the deadline
to submit to be part of the the commission. Correct. So everybody make their five choices and we'll see where it goes. Yes. And mayor, as you recall, um our process is basically once you make your selection, uh we'll the clerk will announce your vote. There is a uh
tally sheet um visible on the screen. Um you'll then have to certify that indeed that was your selection and then um a vote and the appointment. Okay. So make your selection and give it to you.
The clerk will announce the votes or the selections to be precise and then Nancy the process If I remember the process correctly, it's if for some reason all five aren't unanimous at the beginning, those that have a selection will go to
the next round of voting. Correct. And everyone else then would not. Correct. Okay. Okay. Maybe we'll need more than one more sheet. I've got a maybe two or three votes here. Okay. Perfect. Okay. Um, this is from Vice Mayor
Adhalt, Anita Sarasitta, James Dunlap, Edward Skunover, Brian Thomas, and Henry Zuba. Um, Council Member Woodson is Michelle
Cherney, James Dunlap, Beverly Milligan, Edward Skunover, and Brian Thomas. Um, Council Member Safford, James Dunlap, Beverly Milligan, Edward Skunover, Brian Thomas, and Henry
Zuba. Uh, Mayor Allers, Anita Sarasa, James Dunlap, Edward Skunover, Brian Thomas, and Henry Zuba. And then Council Member King is
Michelle Churnney, Beverly Milligan, Edward Skunover, Brian Thomas, Henry Zuba. Okay. So, with five votes up there is Brian Thomas and Edward Skoonover. Both have
five. Then with four votes is James Dunlap and Henry Zuba. And then I believe with three votes is Beverly Milligan. Those would be your top five. And then each getting two votes is Anita Sarasa and Michelle
Cherney. Okay, so we've got our five. So if each council member can certify that indeed that that was your vote. Uh yes. Councelor Woodson. Yes. Werhol. Yes. Councelor Kane. Yes. And mine's yes
as well. Okay. So now a motion to appoint the top five would be in order. Someone would like to make a motion to approve the top five selections of the five council members. Some moved. Got a motion by councelor Woodson. Second.
Seconded by councelor Safford. Any further discussion? Do you want a roll call vote? Yes. Okay. Councelor Woodson. I. Councelor King. I. Oh, I'm sorry. Councelor Safford. I. Councelor King. Hi. Still an I. Still an eye. Vice. And I'm an eye as well. That motion carries
unanimously. Yes. Mayor. Yes. Uh, we'll need a couple waivers. Yes. For uh Jim Dunlap and Ed Skunover and Brian Thomas. Please, could you um state for the record the reason for the
waiverss? Yes. Uh James Dunlap is on LPA. Ed Skunover is on AAC and Borab. And Brian Thomas is on the audit committee. Okay. And Nancy, in the sake of expediting
process, does it make sense to have the two other only vote getters as the alternates or would you want us to revote again? I think I I'm in agreement with that. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's within your discretion. I mean, you do have selection criteria in your rules,
but you can wave the rules. It seems very logical to do it that way. Um, however, uh, regarding the waivers, for the record, we would need a motion, some type of action. I'll make a motion to grant the waivers to the three people the town clerk
listed as needing the waiverss for serving on other comm community other committees. Pretty correct. Okay. A motion by Mayor Aller, seconded by councelor King. Any further discussion? I'm an I. Councelor King. Hi, Verhole. Hi, Councelor Woodson. Hi, Counc. Hi.
Motion carries unanimously. Um, regarding the two alternates, um, in the event that one position does come open, how do we notify who would be the first person within the two? So perhaps we do take a vote on that. Okay, we can
do that of just the two remaining correct vote getters. Okay, that makes sense. So you just want like a number one number two as far as Okay. Yes. And whoever the number one and this would be
both only between Anita Sarasita and Michelle Michelle Churnney. Okay. The clerk will announce and then we'll certify. You want to clear the votes for the two maybe.
Okay. Council member Safford has Anita Sarasa. Um, Mayor Allers, Anita Sarasitta. Now, I'm just reading the number one vote. Okay. Okay. Uh, Council Member Woodson is Michelle Churnney.
Shernney, Council Member King, Michelle Shernney, Churnney, and Vice Mayor Adder Halt is Anita Sarasita. So, with a vote of three to two, Anita with three votes, Michelle
with two. So, Miss Sarasota would be the first alternate and Michelle would be the second alternate. Um, just for the record, if you can certify that that is the way that you voted. Councelor Kane. Yes. Vice May Herrell. Yes. Am yes. Councelor Woodson. Yes. Councelor
Safford. Yes. Okay. A vote. All right. I'll make a motion to approve the results as Anita Sarasit is the first alternate and Michelle Cherney as the second alternate to the charter review commission. Second. Motion by Mary Allers, seconded
by councelor King. Any further discussion? I'm an I. Councelor King. Hi. Vice Mayor Hall. Hi. Councelor Safford. Hi. Councelor Woodson. Hi. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. Congratulations. Now the work
begins. Uh next is the approval of the minutes from the town council meeting of May 19th, 2025. Are there any changes or a motion to the approval of the minutes? Move to approve. Motion by councelor King. Second. Second by councelor Safford. Any
further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I I opposed hearing none. That motion carries unanimously. Mayor Nick, could we do a waiver for um Anita Sarita? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, we uh I will make a motion to approve a waiver for Anita Sarasita to be the first
alternate for the commission review commission charter review commission. Second motion by Mary Aller, second by councelor King. Any further discussion? I'm an I. Councelor King. Hi, Vice Mayor. Hi, Councelor Woodson. Hi, and councelor Saffron. Hi. Motion carries
unanimously. Next is our consent agenda. We have five items all related to the five hurricane five hurricane state of emergencies. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? So move. Second. Motion by councelor King, seconded by councelor Woodson. Any
further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Hearing none. That motion carries unanimously. All right. the well we have more than three but the next there's
three mixed in here items on our agenda for public hearings for review for various do you want me to tell how many I guess I can state all of them can yeah just for the benefit of the public so yeah for the benefit of the public we have five items on our agenda and our public hearing for review of various
land use requests for the benefit of the public please aware that three of these items are quasi judicial in nature our attorney will further explain Thank you mayor So, zoning revisions, special exceptions, and variances, these are all quasi judicial in nature, and this
requires that today's public hearing comply with procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in our land development code. Quasi judicial proceedings are less formal than proceedings before a circuit court, but they are more formal than the
remainder of our meeting and must follow basic standards of due process that requires certain notices. the application of the correct standards and your decisions made on competent and substantial evidence that is presented to you in written documents or through
oral testimony. Your responsibility and duty today is to evaluate this testimony and the information for each item and draw a conclusion regarding whether the criteria in the land development code or in state law as may be applicable has
been satisfied. Pure speculation or opinion that is not based on competent facts cannot legally be considered by you in evaluating an agenda item. Testimony by professionals who have been qualified as experts in a
particular area has been considered to be competent evidence by Florida courts as well as testimony by neighbors and residents who have factbased information such as minutes, surveys, engineering reports or testimony that is based on
their personal knowledge and information. The town's council's decision is fal final. If a decision of approval is not obtained or if a tie vote results from a motion to approve or deny, then the matter being considered
is denied unless majority of the council members present in voting agree by motion before the next agenda item is called to take some other action in lie of the denial. Such other action may be moved or seconded by any member
regardless of his or her vote on the earlier motion. If the town council deni decides to deny an application or request, the reason for the denial should be stated in the motion. The denial must not be based on a determination of public support or
public opposition to an application. Rather, the reason for the denial um also cannot be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable and should be based on a lack of competent and substantial evidence in support of the required
criteria. Denial of an application or request is denial with prejudice unless the council states otherwise. If the application is denied with prejudice, no similar application for reasonzoning a special exception or variance covering
the same property or portion of the property shall be submitted for a period of 12 months from the date of denial. However, denial of an application with prejudice will not uh prevent an application for a different reasonzoning
which in the opinion of staff is substantially different from the original request. If the council's denial is without prejudice, then the applicant may make modifications to the original application and submit the application to the town council for reconsideration
or submit an application for other action for town council consideration without having to wait the 12 months. Any resubmitt will clearly state the modifications which uh have been made to the original request. If you intend to
speak today, please keep my comments in mind. Um, anyone as you come forward, state your name clearly in the record, whether or not you've been sworn in and your qualifications or your interest in the matter. So, purposes of efficiency,
before we begin any of these public hearings, I'd like to go ahead and address a few items. The first I must ask the town clerk, have all the agenda items been properly noticed pursuant to our land development code? Yes, they have been. And at this time, if any
council member has a conflict of interest which would prohibit them from voting on any of these items, please disclose that at this time so that we can make sure that we have a quorum present for review of the item. John, any conflicts? None. Vice Mayor, no.
Council, none. none. I do not have any. Thank you. And at this time, if there is anyone present, including the applicant, the property owner, staff, who intends to provide testimony for any of these quasi judicial hearings, if you would please
stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the town clerk. That includes public comment. Yes, it's usually my line. I thought I'd get ahead of you. If you'll all raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth? Okay. All parties have been sworn. So, mayor, we can proceed to your first quasi judicial item. If you would read the title. Okay. This is a quasi judicial agenda item is a second reading and final public hearing for the adoption of a resoning and proposed
ordinance 25-04 commonly referred to as Arch's commercial plan development contingent on adoption of comprehensive plan amendment proposed in ordinance 25-05. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving approving with conditions or denying the reszoning of 4.98 acres of property more
specifically described herein from commercial marina two parcels reserv residential conservation five parcels commercial office one partial and down and then then downtown two parcels to a commercially planned development CPD zoning to allow a mixeduse development
including 263 lodging units, commercial retail space and public open space more specifically described as 436 441 445 450 Harbor Court and 435 438 Bonita Street and 935 and 939 Thirdrd Street
and 401 Old St. Carlos Boulevard. Also identified is the following strap numbers 24-46-23-W3-000027.000024-23-2-26-23-W3-000026. 000024-23-2-26-23-W3-000026.0000204-46-23-W3-003B.020-46-23-W3-003B.01904-46-23-w3-0030C 0190 2-46-23-W3-000030C.000060 2-46-23-W3-000030C.0040 24-46-23-w3-0030A.01104-46-23-w3-0030A003 01104-46-23-W3-0030A.0030-46-23-W3-0030A.0020
and 24-46-23-W3-0030A.0010 0010 Fort Myers Beach, including deviations for height, setbacks, hotel units, parking, landscaping, and access. Providing for clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scrier's errors, severability, and
providing for an effective date. If any if any town council member has had the exparte communication to disclose, please let us know the subject discussed in the identity of person, group or entity with whom the communication took place, any correspondence that you
received or observations made of the site. Councelor Saffrey, I've had several since the last meeting, I've had several conversations with Mr. Vaness of the neighborhood company. Um I did a site visit with one of the neighbors, Leah Greg.
Um, and I've gotten emails both for and against, but not very many. Okay. Councelor Woodson. Since the last meeting, I've had emails mostly for a couple against. Um, I've
had conversations with Pat Vaness. I've had conversations with neighbors. Chris Mero I made a site visit with. Um, who else? several conversations with neighbors, not necessarily on their land, but by
phone. Vice May, I I would say it's very similar. Had uh since the last meeting, a number of emails uh had conversations uh in person and on the phone with neighbors. Um and
again, had a number of emails both pro and con. Councelor King, pretty much the same. Yes. Having made these Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Your disclosures. You sure? I'll wait. Since the last meeting, I've had emails both for and against.
I've met with Leah Greg as well in person here at town hall. I've had conversations via email with Chris, another neighbor. I've had phone conversation with Mr. Freeland. That's it. So, having made these disclosures, members of council, um, have are you
able to come to today's hearing with an open mind and available to listen to the testimony and evidence that's presented to you? Councelor King, yes. Vice Mayor, yes. Councelor Woodson, yes. Councelor Safford, yes. And I'm a yes as well. The, uh, attorney for the applicant is
present, uh, Miss Megan Strahorn. And uh this is a good opportunity for to allow her the ability to ask you any questions regarding your disclosures. Morning Megan. Good morning everyone. I do not have any follow-up questions regarding that, Mr. Burch. Okay. But we can do the
experts if you would like to. Um yes, I believe mayor that I think that's next. Yeah, I'll read my script. Judith, are you going to handle this one or is it Sarah? Judith. Okay. Judith Frankle has been qualified as an expert already by this town council based on her education and experience. has been accepted as an
expert witness in the field of land use planning and development town of Fort Myers Beach. Are there any other individuals who would like to be qualified as an expert witness on behalf of the applicant at this time? Good morning, mayor. Yes, Megan Strayhorn, a legal counsel for the applicant. We have a couple of expert witnesses we would like to offer for our certified
planning. We have the neighborhood company including Patrick Vaness as well as Ken Gillander. Uh both of which who have testified in front of you all and have been previously been deemed experts in their respective fields. Regarding engineering, we have Elizabeth Fountain from J.R. Evans Engineering. She has
also testified testified before you all today uh before you all and has been previously been deemed an expert in her respective field. So, we would proper these witnesses as experts at this time. Okay. And because they've been sworn or they've been accepted, we do not have to do it again. You don't have to vote on
that. I don't know if there's anybody else in the audience that anyone else on behalf of the applicant that would like to be deemed an expert witness that hasn't already been. Okay. Has the property owner applicant uh seen an a copy of the agenda backup
materials from staff? Yes, we have reviewed the application and backup materials. All right. Thank you, Megan. Go ahead. Good morning. Judith Franco with Community Development. Um, uh, since
we've all heard this application previously, what I'm going to do is give a brief summary, go through some of the the highlights, some of the things that have changed since the previous meeting and then I'll open it up for um, questions. uh Freeland Florida Holdings LLC with
their agent, the neighborhood company, is seeking concurrent applications for a smallcale comprehensive plan land use map amendment and commercial planned development resoning. What we're going to review right now is the CPD resoning.
Um any approval of that would need to be conditioned on the following approval of the comprehensive plan um uh map amendment that would follow this uh application. So when we get to the portion of findings and conclusions,
you'll hear that this proposal does not comply with the existing future land use map, but would comply once that second application um if that were to be approved um following this application. So, I'll remind you again at the April
8th, 2025 LPA meeting, the LPA voted unanimously to recommend approval with conditions of the CPD um and the requested um uh CPA application. Additionally, uh the site consists of 4.98
acres. Um and with the uh proposed pedestrian commercial future land use map change um that would allow for a maximum density of six dwelling units per acre. Um and what is being proposed
here is 263 lodging units which is would be reached through an equivalency factor of 9.1. Um also in consideration of the uh proposed um commercial um the pedestrian
commercial future land use category that would allow up to a 2.5 F um when creating a comprehensive uh I'm sorry when creating a commercial planned development um the code requires that we
look at the standards and criteria of a commercial resort zoning as the standards So not necessarily the zoning category which the the property finds itself in. Um so there's a little bit of differing
um FS which would be allowed. So in the commercial resort zoning district um you would be allowed a 1.2 F while in the downtown redevelopment district which is the neighboring um zoning area here you
would be allowed up to a 1 eight uh F. Um there is a deviation request to allow for a maximum F of two within the U Arches Bayfront Resort. Uh I will also
point out that that includes the um below flood parking area. A number of CPD applications we've heard recently request a deviation to exclude the parking from their overall F count and this project does not do that.
Um the uh proposed height uh was a maximum zoned height of 81 ft. Um and zone height is measured from that base flood up to mean roof height. So it's not 81 from grade but 81 from base
flood. Um the nearest uh property um is Marina Village which is a six-story condominium building uh with an overall height of 71 ft which is from grade. So in terms of neighborhood
compatibility um staff has noted uh two main things about this proposal. um that the proposed development is compatible with the uses found along Old San Carlos Boulevard in the downtown zoning area. Um however, it appears incompatible with
the residential neighborhoods that are uh directly abuing um and has the potential to create additional nuisances um such as noise um and traffic both vehicular and pedestrian into the residential area. Uh there are eight
proposed deviations. I'm going to go through them um somewhat uh quickly, but if please stop me if you have any questions about this. Um the first deviation is from uh land development code table
343. Um to have a minimum lot width of 100 ft, a minimum lot depth of 100 ft. Um, this allows for a minimum lot width of 80 feet um and a depth of 80 feet for the old San Carlos Boulevard and Third
Street um property. Um, this will allow those um parcels to sit closer to the street and further have interaction with the uh the public realm. uh deviation two land development code
34-3 which is for the floor area ratio which we we just discussed. They're asking for a maximum F of two that is inclusive of the um below flood parking areas. Deviation three um is for the
equivalency ratio to allow equivalency ratio of 9.1 um to achieve the maximum guest units of 2 63 units. Um deviation for on the 263. That's how many rooms that they're requesting. Yes. How many rooms would
they be allowed by right? Well, so by right is tricky because it's it's marina zoning which I believe has zero uh density. So if you kept the marina zoning and the marina future land use, they could not have any dwelling
units. So by changing it over to um pedestrian commercial. So if that application is approved, then it's um six dwelling units per acre, they have about five acres. So that's 30 units give or take. And then you could
multiply the maximum you could equivalency factor you could multiply that would be by right would be three if the units are less than 450 square feet. So it depends on the size of the units. So three times 30 is
90. Um but that's again contingent on the the change in the future land use category. That would be I don't want to best case scenario but if if the approval was made to change it to the pedestrian commercial and the maximum 3.0
equivalency factor and the 450 square feet that would be the maximum that they could get if all that criteria was met. Yes. in in theory, I don't know that all of the the like the the without reviewing it that way like
the portion on on Old San Carlos, you know, they would also need probably height deviations. I'm not sure how they would, you know, functionally get that, but just in strictly in terms of numbers that would be allowed. Um, yes. Okay. But then it's because when we talk about
by right, it's like how are you going to situate all that and and then the parking and there's a number of factors that go into it. So okay. Okay. Okay. So deviation 4 um uh land development code table
109. Um in this situation, the south portion uh where the linear park is for the project um the required buffer between a commercial development and a residential development um is a 15 foot
buffer with a solid wall. Um, and it requires that the requisite landscaping, which I don't have off the top of my but it's it's a certain number of trees and a certain number of shrubs
per 100 linear feet. They be located outside of the wall um facing the uh um neighboring use. So that the there would be at the property line there would be landscaping facing the residential area
and then behind that the wall and then that would be 15 feet. So you could uh depending on what kind of trees you choose it would impact um exactly where the wall will go. The wall doesn't necessarily have to go at 15 feet. It could go conceivably at 10 feet and then
have some other landscaping in the other five feet. Um the um applicant is concerned about accessing um landscaping for maintenance purposes when it is um on the outside of
the wall. So they would have to um potentially get an an easement from their residents residential properties for access to the landscaping um by putting it on the outside of that wall. The um I have spoken to some of the
residents about this um some of them are are concerned about this particular deviation um and would prefer the landscaping to be facing the residences as opposed to having just a flat wall. Um I think
there are some challenges to consider with that. Um this deviation is asking for a fence instead of a wall. Um the applicant is going to discuss this also. The what I've heard from the neighbors who have contacted me is that they
prefer a wall. Um there is a wall on a portion of the property. Now um and the neighbors understanding is that provides somewhat of a sound barrier as well as a visual barrier. Um uh I don't think that
particular wall would be able to stay. they would have to you know rebuild the wall. So the location of that current wall um just in terms of complying with this code section um is not so important because it's going to have to be uh my understanding
it's going to have to be reconstructed in any case. Is there any questions about the the code sections a little bit? Um, so is there anything in the code that would allow if that's the concern putting vegetation on the resident side? Is there anything in there that prohibits
alleviating the applicant from having to maintain that and that if they say they plan it but the the requirement of maintaining it would fall on the property owner that it's property it's sitting on. So if it's on your property then you
would I mean typically you would be required to maintain it. The problem is accessing that portion of the property. So if it's on the other side of the wall for a typical tree five feet um uh width is not going to be enough. It depends on
you know what kind of tree you choose and all of that but you're probably going to need more than five foot width to get any kind of substantial tree in that space. So, um, we're talking about probably setting it back, that wall or fence back at least 10 feet from the
property line. Um, you know, and trees don't stay within their property line. Hedges don't stay where they're they're planted. You know, they tend to expand. So, um you wouldn't want a situation where um their landscapers come out and
then the neighbor or rent renter or uh new property owner didn't know that they were allowed to access. It would have to be an easement. So, it would be like a a formal agreement so that any new property owner would know that their their landscapers had the right to
access their property. Um I guess you're opposite what I was saying. What I was saying is their their responsibility would end at if they planted the plantings on that side. That's that's where their responsibility as an applicant ends. It would then fall upon the current owner or any future owner to take care of that landscape that's on
their property. Typically, that's that's how it works. If the tree grows over into your yard, then you have to trim the tree on your side of the property line. Um, is that what you're asking? Yeah. What I'm saying is if that if that's something that gets negotiated, if that's something that ends up coming
out being if this were to get approved, is that something that's doable both legally and if if the applicant plants the plantings on the back side of a wall that that's where their responsibility ends, then it then becomes and it falls on the property owner there to maintain
it after that. So, it typically would be a um agreement between the two property owners as far as here's the line and who's going to take care of what. There may also be some irrigation lines um that could also be on the outside of the
wall. So, they would have to resolve it with the property owners. So, I have a question with with that solid wall. There's two there's two walls behind that property. Would would this deviation move where those walls
are or would they remain exactly where they are? So the with this deviation, this allows the the Arches Bayfront Resort to put the wall well or fence because that's what they're asking here
is for fence, but I've heard there's some ability to to negotiate on that. Um pretty much at the property line. That's what this deviation does. That's not what I asked. What I'm what I'm asking is where that current where those two current walls are at the corner. Uhhuh.
With this deviation, where will the new fence be? Closer to the to the to the neighbors or at the very same spot. This would allow them to put it closer to the neighbors. Yes. Because that wall is not at the property line currently. It's set
back a certain distance. And there's some history I understand there that has to do with with drainage um and what um there's some um uh storm water drains there that are actually I believe on Moss Marina property. I know they have
their drainage expert here is probably going to go into that in further detail, but that's um on the Moss Marina property, not on the residents property. And then they put that the wall um uh further into their property. So it's not that wall is not currently at the
property line now. So they could in theory move it closer. Gotcha. Thank you. So could I ask Judith and if you want to yield to Sarah on this because she's moving to Virginia. You're welcome to do so. This is obviously a bit of a Gordian knot uh from a professional
planner standpoint. What's the compromised position? And again I'd be happy to hear from Sarah too because you have to live in this world. But but but what's the how do you untie the Gordian knot there? What's the compromise? I think there's a couple things to to consider. The the wall probably provides
more of a sound barrier um between the uses and more of a visual barrier as well. Um uh the wall should be finished. If if the desire is to not give them the
deviation for the fence and require them to have the wall, I would um suggest a condition requiring the wall on the resident's side to be finished. So, not unfinished concrete block, something attractive, either stuccoed or painted. Um, I think there
is the ability to maybe do some landscaping on that side, something minimal, but not the full um uh five trees and and large shrubs. Um, so I I think that there there could
be a a compromise in there now um to to you know maybe make both sides equally unhappy maybe. Um but the the the wall has been there for, you know, a significant amount of time and it's
something that the residents are are used to having that barrier. So, I think continuing that makes sense. Um, as I said, it's going to have to probably reconstructed anyway, so it's going to look a little bit different. Does that help you? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Okay.
John, do you have anything on that? Not currently. Okay. So, that's that's uh right. That's deviation four. Um deviation five, uh land development code section 26-77B um does not allow new or expanded seaw
walls. Right now there's a boat ramp um close to Marina Village. Um and this would allow them to uh fill in that um seaw wall and replace the boat ramp because they're not going to um need that with this development. Um, deviation six is from land development
code table 343. Um, and that's for height. This would allow them a maximum zone height of 81 ft. Uh, deviation seven from land development code table
343. Um, before you move on from six, just a question on that 81 ft in the rendering that shows it doesn't include the koopas and that's probably part because of our code. Correct. Your code does not. Yes, the there is an exception for hooplas and some other architectural features that come above it. You're
required to measure to a mean roof height. So the architectural renderings have a um peaked roof. So you take the um the eve height and the peak height and you get that average in between and that's what we're going to measure too. I'm just wondering should this move
forward if it would make sense to to be a little bit more specific in that deviation as to include that language simply seeing how things when they get to that CO process how things it could be a different staff it could be a lot of different things that maybe interpret that a little different. Okay. Um I to
me I think it would be important to to codify that a little bit because I could see this being an issue if approved down the line when this is completed that some would say wait a minute it says 81 ft overall from base flood. Why is this include? Why is there extra height above that? Yeah, it's part of the reason we
specifically say zoned height, not actual height because we're also measuring from base flood. So, it's going to when you're on standing in front of the building, it's going to feel taller, right? Um I understand it, but I and if you're comfortable with it, that's fine. I just wanted to bring it up to see if it was going to be something that could be a point of
contention down the road should this get approved. We could add it as a I don't know if if you're comfortable that it's not going to be an issue based on the planners side of things down the road. Should you be here or someone else? I don't have any issues with it. I just wanted to make sure that we're
covering all of our bases should this go forward. The other thing that we're that may um alleviate some of that is that we're going to include as an exhibit in the ordinance the architectural renderings as well um as a guide
framework for anybody looking at this in the future to say this is you know not specifically but generally what we're we're looking for. So having those those couple of the visual aid right already existing on those um okay should help anybody in the future determining that.
Okay. Um Okay. Deviation seven. States property setbacks in a CPD um district um have to look at the commercial resort zoning um for adjusted
setbacks uh and build two lines um specifically located within the old San Carlos tract. Um, this deviation will allow for a more cohesive urban streetscape along that old San Carlos um, property. Uh,
deviation 8, land development code section 34-2020. Um, this is for, uh, parking regulations to allow for a parking reduction of 50%. Um, this is something we talked about in the first meeting. Um and there's some conditions that relate
to this specifically and um we're going to be asking for you know your direction on that. Um uh staff's um findings were that 50% was kind of greater than typical uh
reduction for that area. um and that a um 33% reduction um might be more in keeping what's allowed in the nearby um uh downtown zoning. Um staff suggested
that if the deviation was approved to require um a parking study after the property was fully um uh built out where all of the the um the rooms are are sellable and most of
the um retail spaces were occupied to then allow them after that point to have a commercial parking lot. Um which is different from what they're asking for. They're asking for um to begin the project with including the commercial um
parking lot use as an approved use in their schedule of uses. Um and this deviation would allow for that. Um uh wouldn't that kind of be putting the cart before the horse or the horse before the cart in this case? I mean to get a study after the building is
already built. It's kind of what's the point? So if if you were to um not wish to approve the commercial use staff is concerned that the the well two things one that the
property is not going to be sufficiently parked and LA allowing this commercial secondary use which is not really it's not required for the running of the resort if that's allowed initially um then there will be conflicts in parking
people um traveling to the resort and not having any place to park and having to turn around and having that caused uh increased traffic um and increased nuisance to the the neighborhood. What staff's initial suggestion was to say to
not permit the commercial use of parking until the property was fully open and running. let them do a parking study to prove to us, yes, at peak season there's still all these things um uh parking spots available. They're not being
utilized to the full extent. They have the ability to do maybe they've decided at that point to do full valet parking. you know, we don't know that yet how their operations are going to run. And then then grant them the ability to um have the commercial parking and putting
it in the ordinance now to allow for that process would um they would in the parking study staff would evaluate that and then we could sign off on it at that point without having them to have to come back to you all to um add that as
an additional use. They're suggesting something different. Um what they're suggesting is that you allow the um the commercial parking use now is one of their their schedule of uses for um 45 parking spaces. So if you if the 50%
reduction is granted, they have 45 uh extra parking spaces. What that's what they're saying is saying 10. Well, because we're disagreeing about the right amount of reduction that they should get to properly park it. um because there's a there's a number of
uses that are not really accounted for currently in our in our parking requirements. So, it's going to have the um the ferry which we don't really know yet how much that is going to impact parking, people coming going. Um
hopefully it'll have a positive um impact on reducing traffic. Um, which is why we're suggesting we don't see the correct or the the appropriate parking now, but we see that there's a possibility once it's open, once they
implement all of the the programs that they're suggesting that they're going to they're committing to implementing that, then there could be that space and then a parking study would give us that information. What they're suggesting is
for for they're asking to um you all to grant the deviation now allow them to have the commercial parking now. They're still offering to do that parking study um to be able to expand their commercial
parking um after that point because their feeling is that they're going to have more than 45 spaces available. I guess my question lies in the study after the fact, regardless of which way it goes in this deviation. What if the what if the study comes back and says
you're grossly underparked by hundreds of parking spots? What what does the town do then? Well, we wouldn't allow them I mean, if you if if we haven't granted them commercial parking, then we would we would say no, we're not going to grant that. But if you But how would you stop
it? If we we would um uh condition the ordinance to say the condition for um a commercial um shared parking lot is conditioned on uh a successful parking study to be
evaluated by staff. You know, one year post um full operation of the property or 80% operation of the property, something like that. And then at the staff level, we could approve that so that they wouldn't have to come back. The other option is for you just to not allow it at all and then they have to
come back and ask for it later. So that's another option or you can, you know, grant them the ability to do the commercial parking and, you know, with this deviation. And I I understand all I'm not trying to get too far into the weeds on. I'm just trying to understand the point of it all. So how is the staff ever going to know if someone is there
to enjoy the prominade or eat at a steakhouse or versus staying at the resort? So I don't think we need to we don't need to know that. So what we need to This is there's like a standard um uh process for doing these parking studies.
I it's if um especially on a property that's already um built and then you want to add a use. So you've already built say a shopping mall and you want to develop another section of it. So there's a process to go through to do a parking study to see whether you need
more parking. They have people come, they sit in the parking lot, they see, you know, the the um occupancy. It doesn't necessarily matter to the study where exactly everybody's going. It's about the overall use. And because there's a lot of uses happening on this
property. So, there's the hotel, there's going to be retail, there's going to be restaurants, um they're going to have a events hall for weddings, um the ferry terminal, the marina use. There's a lot of things going on. It doesn't necessarily matter to the parking study
exactly which use people are using. How long are they staying there? Um, how much of the the parking garage is being occupied at any time to see whether there's an addition whether there's overflow. Maybe I'm just the only one not getting
it. It still doesn't make sense to me how this parking study again, let's say it comes back and it says that there's grossly underparked. What does that mean in real world scenarios as far as commercial uses on the property? So, we at that point we wouldn't be able to do
it if it came back. It's the project is fully built out. They get the all of their approvals. Um, and we find out it's underparked. We're just not going to allow them to have anything more at that point. And that's where that's what I need clarification. What do you mean by not allow them to have anything more?
What? More commercial. You want to help with the I think you guys are thinking about different terms. We're talking about when she says commercial parking, she doesn't mean for the commercial uses. She means paid parking. So if they wanted to pay like $20 and then go walk
to the beach. Understood. Okay. So they wouldn't be allowed to pay people to pay to park, right? Yes. Now that that's a clarification. Okay. No, that's okay. Yeah. So they if they want to charge their hotel teaching the students. Yeah. Okay. I I understand that. Appreciate it.
Okay. So that's deviation eight. Um uh I don't think at this point I'm going to run through all the findings and conclusions. We did that at the at the last meeting, but obviously I can answer any questions. The main thing is it's not compliant with the future land use map, but that would any approval here
would have to be conditioned on that approval um with the second application you're going to hear. Um, I did want to point out because I did talk to specifically to two um, residents and I know you all got a letter from the residents. Um, I did want to point out
some of their concerns. Um, the one we talked about a lot at the last meeting were the gates or the potential for gates at um, the ends of Bonita and Harbor. Um the uh master concept plan
that you have in your packet shows um kind of a T hammerhead we've been calling it turnaround portion at the end. Um that was to accommodate turnaround because Harbor and Bonita are both narrow. Um and there's not really
enough room, you know, on the road proper to do a three-point turn there. And that was something that the applicant was trying to account for so that to reduce people u backing into residents driveways. Um there is a second option the applicant is going to
present. Um what I heard from residents is that they prefer to have the gate right at the edge of the property. Um and they prefer not to have any um uh pedestrian not just vehicular. I felt at the last meeting we talked a lot about
vehicular access. Um what I heard from the residents is also don't want pedestrian access there at Harbor and Bonita. Um which is a little bit different than what I might have suspected because um if you were a resident living on Harbor and Bonita,
you would if there was no pedestrian access there, you would not be able to walk through to the waterfront. You would have to go around to Arch's Way. Um but the neighbors did express that that was their preference. Um, so there's two options in terms of uh
gates, which I know the applicant is going to go over with you. Um, and the residents were not as concerned about people turning around in their driveways as um I think both staff and the applicant were trying to solve for.
Um, they want access there to be only for emergency vehicles. Um, and we didn't talk about at the last meeting is that if the desire is to put those gates right at the property edge, then I think it probably makes sense for the
town to vacate those portions of the right of way that um go into the property. If the desire is to put the gates after the ability for a turnaround, maybe the town doesn't want to vacate those um those street ends because maybe something
um some other use or or need could arise. But I wanted to point that out that we should probably about that whether the town desires to vacate those portions or not. Um other concern from residents was construction noise.
Construction is is always noisy. Um uh but I think directing construction vehicles to use um the Arches Way or the easement that connects to Old San Carlos
would alleviate some of the you know having the construction vehicles travel through the residential area. Um, the applicant has also said that they are willing to consider keeping the existing uh wall during construction, which may
also help with with sound and and dust carry um and things like that. Um, third, privacy screens at certain locations on the rooftop areas. Um, the wall at the property boundary. Um, what
I heard from the neighbors is that they prefer a wall over a fence, which we discussed. Um, sir, do you have the or sorry, Judith, do you have the page number? I know that it's in our packet. I just I'm having a hard time finding it. It's included with the CPA application. Okay. Somehow it So, it's
down below. Yeah, it should have been with the CBD, but it's included after the CPA application, the letter from the neighbors. Okay. So, I don't know what page number that is, but all the way up. I knew it was in there. I just can't remember. At the bottom because it lists everything you're going through. Yes. We also got an email. Yes. They're
concerned with noise from the garage. They like the um the renderings that are provided showing louvers there. Um and as I said, the the renderings are going to be part of the ordinance. So that reference is would be included. Um and
their concern about drainage. I know we're going to hear a little bit about the drainage from the issue from the applicant. Um so I'm uh staff is recommending denial of this application. um mainly because land development code
section 34-85B11 asks whether the request will be compatible with existing or planned uses and not cause damage, hazard, nuisance or other detriment to persons or property. Um while the request is compatible with the existing commercial
uses in the downtown area, it is incompatible with the abuing single family neighborhoods. Uh however, the town council votes to approve. Staff recommends and we have whole list of conditions which again I'm not going to run through all of them. The um applicant I know is going to talk
about them. Um I would ask when we get there that we're all very clear about which ones we want to keep and if we're going to adjust any language just to be as specific as we can about it so we can um make sure we capture it accurately for the ordinance. Um, I did want to
point out at the beginning of the conditions of approval in the staff report, um, one, two, and four are really about those gates. So, when we're having that discussion, trying to be specific about that language, where we want those gates to go and whether
they're pedestrian and vehicular and and what exactly they look like. And then, um, the issue of parking that we talked about is condition number 21. So again, we should think about exactly what language we want to keep or exclude from from there.
Okay. John, questions for Judith? Not at this time. Vice Mayor, nothing addition. I'm good at this time. I'm good right now. I'm good right now. Thanks, Megan. Good morning, council. Megan Strayhorn
for the record. Uh legal counsel for the applicant and property owner. Um before the beginning of the presentation, I just want to respond. Um, many of the comments that Judith has made, we have incorporated into our presentation. So, we will be responding to those concerns,
particularly comments from the neighbors and and nearby residents. Um, in the application, the applicant or rather Mr. Vaness has creatively created uh arguments as to the compatibility and other uses. So, we're happy to take
questions on those once I will defer to to Mr. us on those, but uh once he gets up here, we'll be happy to answer questions on those, but those specific issues won't be presented in this presentation. We're going to try and keep the presentation limited to uh what
has changed from first reading until now. So, I've already introduced the applicant's team. In addition to our expert witnesses, we also have ownership representatives from Freeland Florida Holdings LLC. This is the subject property which is
nearly five acres and includes 10 parcels. There are two applications before you all. Um and just for members of the public who are present or watching the area location map outlining those 10 parcels which are subject to
this reszoning. So there's a mixture of zoning classifications at play including marina, residential, office, downtown which this request uh requests to change all of those to a commercial planned development. Some background, this is an
older um well not this but some background. We had a unanimous approval at the LPA, a favorable approval at the First Town Council, and we're here now for I'm going to skip through some of these. So, this request is to reszone a total of 10 parcels into the
commercial plan development. Um, our presentation, we are going to try as best as we can to get through this as quickly as possible. However, there are a lot of details that we will need to go through. We're going to do our best to
make it as riveting, thrilling, and exciting as humanly possible, but we do ask for your all patience today. So, how we are structuring our presentation, we have broken it down into three different sections. First, at the first reading,
council, you had all asked us to identify, you identified four specific items for us to go back, review, look at. So, first Mr. Vanessa is going to get up here and explain those four items with the help of our engineer from JR Evans, Elizabeth Felton. Next, we will
review the letter that everyone has received from the the neighbors and which uh Miss Judith has spoken about during her presentation. That letter has six items included in it. We'll go through each one one by one. And then finally to give both Pat arrest and you
all arrest from listening to Pat talk. I will get up and I'll address I will address the conditions of approval. We are going to go through the conditions of approval one by one. There are about a little more than 30 conditions of approval. More than half I can say we
are in agreement with. So hopefully we can speed through those and really focus on the ones where applicant has some concerns or staff has concerns. So that's kind of the order of presentations. If I can add um the conditions of approval, uh staff has met with the team. Yes. The development
team. Um we really would like to walk out of the meeting today with as much specificity as possible. Um and this will assist in u getting the ordinance signed and letting them do their thing. Absolutely. Yeah. So our goal is today
we have all conditions ironed out, detailed out. we can fix, tweak those which need tweaking and get it executed as quickly as possible. And without that, without further ado, let's get into the fun. Good morning. For the record, Patrick
Vaness, certified planner with the neighborhood company. If I can just have a side note before we get started, I want to thank you all as a council in supporting the beach school. It's very import for all the parents but very important to this community. So greatly
appreciate that. Another side note also u Sarah thank you very much. Uh Sarah's been a consmate professional from this side of the table. She's always been a joy to work with very responsive very professional on time. Thank you very much and good luck. Um so jumping right
into it. Um we were asked at the uh first um hearing uh from council to look at a few issues. So there was four items. The first one was to look into the alternative uh turnaround
configurations and um also um fully restricted access at the end of Bonita and harbor or uh some kind of of um maybe pedestrian access only or or some kind of alternative. So we have looked
into that. We've got details on that. Um we were asked to look into the uh drainage. Um applicant has hired experts uh to talk about this. We've got Elizabeth Fountain that's going to go into more detail. Um we were asked to look into the phasing plan and
construction mitigation. Um we're going to address that. And um number four was to um put a commitment in there with regards to the setback or barrier at the edge of the sunset deck. We made a
commitment at the last hearing, but we uh we we can reiterate that and talk about that today. Also, Patrick, just quick, this may be in in your world, this may seem like a minor one, but I just remember to me one of the important things was the applicant at the first
reading. I thought to his credit made some significant commitments to not only operating a water ferry terminal but also operating a water ferry and you were going to come up with some language to codify his commitment. Is that part of your is that going to come in a different section? Not in the four items
here but it is one of the commitments and we're going to go through all those commitments one by one. I'll let Megan do that. Very good. And uh we can we can discuss it at that point. Thank you Patrick. Before we move on, one of the things, I don't know if it's on here or if it's going to be later in your presentation that was brought up. I know it was a long meeting at the first one.
It was towards the end. I'd ask that you look at to some of the requests from the people on the other side of the canal that had issues with building E maybe coming down a little bit to be more in line with what's allowed by right. Is that something that will be addressed hopefully later in the presentation? We we can we can address questions. It
wasn't an item I think from that standpoint. Uh our original request stands uh and we have uh provided some buffering for that and our design hasn't changed but we can certainly discuss it.
Um there there's one last item that was part of the discussion but not necessarily a formal request of us. Uh one of the questions was if not for if you remove the parking under the buildings what would the F request be?
Uh we had our architects come up with um some detailed tables counting all that square footage and if we remove the parking under the building instead of requesting a uh 2.0 F we would be looking at
1.22. So parking is significant takes up a lot of space. So that being said, would that let's say that was the scenario that you were dealing with today hypothetically you don't want to answer. I'm just curious is would that would that change your ask then to go to commercial pedestrian
based on that number? No. No. What what it would be is if we just went the alternative route, we would have to ask for a deviation to change how the F is calculated to exclude it. Um it it wouldn't change the amount of parking we provide or it wouldn't change the amount of total square footage for both
combined the resort and the parking. It would just be a deviation the way you calculate it. Okay. And and again we we felt that asking for 2.0 is under the 2.5 that is allowed under pedestrian commercial. So we just were fine with
keeping at 2.0 and including the parking. I guess that was my question is if let's say you didn't would you then ask for downtown zoning district or would you have still stayed we would have kept pedestrian commercial. Um so the the first item uh as was discussed
was um how do we treat um the the the terminus at both Bonita and Harbor. Um we were asked to talk to the neighbors. Um we met um onsite uh we
spent about two hours uh talking about various issues. Uh drainage was the the the majority of the discussion we had. Um one of the things that we were hoping for and if you recall at the last meeting we felt that there wasn't
consensus from the neighbors as to exactly how um those access points should be treated. Um we were hoping that when we met with them we would have the majority of the neighbors there. Uh unfortunately
uh we had two households represented. Um they they have talked to their neighbors. We're not dismissing any of that. Um but we have also heard from other neighbors that they they have we we are seeing differing opinions. Uh so
what we're thinking today is we're going to show you alternatives. we are happy to take your comments and and let you take the lead on this and um see where we go from there. Uh but I will present those two two alternatives and we're happy to to have that discussion. So the
uh the first alternative you're seeing here is what we're calling option 8. It would be a fully gated access with no turnarounds. Um it would allow for emergency vehicles only. Uh that would
be through the stabilized subgrade between Harbor and Bonita. Um it would provide uh a pedestrian gate with a Kiko if desired. Again, we've heard from some people that they don't want pedestrian
access whatsoever, including the neighbors. Um so, u I think I think we we we can weigh both of those options and and see where we go from there. Um and what we had those uh turnarounds in
our design, if we were to go to a fully gated at the property line, uh those would be just converted into heartscape and landscaping, maybe extended uh water fountains, that type of thing. Uh so that's uh option eight. Uh and and just
you know just it's a little hard to see on this slide but um where you've got the extension of of Harbor and Bonita onto the property you see a red gate that goes right across the property line
and also goes around uh the roadway and there would be a need to gate all those areas to control access not just for vehicles but also for the pedestrians. And that would also would that that
option A that would not allow exiting either would it? It wouldn't. We could to have a gate where it opens one way and it's got a code on one side. So that could be for the residents, but the guests would not have the code and they couldn't exit. No, I meant more
vehicular people coming out of the parking garages. Will they be able to exit an opportunity? They won't be able. There would be absolutely no exit from from vehicles. It would just be emergency exit and entrance. Correct. Um just want to point out that understanding that some neighbors want a
turn turnound, some neighbors don't. Um if we're going to go with that full gate at the property line, we prefer not having a turnaround. And the reason for that is that we thought we came up with a very attractive design. Um, we we
really like the design with the linear park and the memorial garden. I think there's there's value there and um not having the turnarounds is a way to to keep that design intact. But we we've provided a second option that would
provide uh that full turnaround. This is a modified uh hammerhead configuration. It meets all LDC engineering standards, emergency vehicle standards. Um, and what that would allow is a fire truck
could back up and turn around. There would be no need for the stabilized subgrade between Harbor and Bonita. Um, it would be uh again would fully control uh car access exiting the property. Um
it would also allow for a gate for pedestrians with a key code and same thing that would be optional. And um any kind of uh turnaround that we had previously that would be remaining that would be
hardscaped and landscape that would be converted. Um if you look at this design as you can see it does encroach into that linear park and memorial garden. Um, we don't think it's it's consistent with the original theme
and the original uh design. Uh, we would prefer option A, but we we uh, as promised, we told you we'd look into this and come back with I got a question on this, Patrick. My I guess I visualize this a little bit different. I thought at the first hearing there was discussion about the town had some
rightway or you'd look into some right away. I envisioned that the hammerhead would bas basically be like a tee on Bonita Street and Harbor Court. So it wouldn't go into your property. It would stay on whatever the town's. So I've got a slide for that. When it comes to the
uh the letter that we received from the neighbors and they had kind of did a quick schematic of what that could look like, right? Um essentially the thought is got about 50 feet of rideway. Uh the roadway might be 20 ft. Um, so if you
did a T turnaround within the ride ofway, you could kind of extend it on both sides. Uh, unfortunately that configuration would not meet engineering LDC requirements,
wouldn't um wouldn't meet emergency vehicles requirements. So if if something a if a substandard uh hammerhead was provided um we could maintain a stabilized sub subgrade but again that would be have to be approved
by the town. Uh you would have to support this nonconforming hammerhead and the other concern was it would be in front of someone's property where currently they don't have that configuration and we don't necessarily know. We've had no indication from those
property owners that they would support that. We we've heard from other property owners that would like that configuration, but not the immediate uh uh folks that abuck uh the property. Well, I certainly don't want to speak for those property owners, but I my
guess is this is still going to have some intrusion into the side of their property or whether no matter how the configuration of the hammerhead is configured, right? Yeah. I just was trying to this to me looks completely different than what I had envisioned, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. And and one of the things that we we talked
about the first time around is that if we did something like that, uh that that tea that goes into our property does create potential for people to to go back there and park or or or do whatever. Um as mentioned, this meets
code, but we do prefer optioning. So why wouldn't what I'm envisioning or what I just described, why would that why why wouldn't that meet code? I help me understand because I guess the way I envisioned it was for those that miss missed Arch's way and and instead of
turning around in the driveways, they essentially just have a driveway on either side that they could pull in back up and turn around versus going into your property, cutting into the linear park, just using the rightway. So this is what the uh the neighbors sent. And you've got that that little exhibit to
the right that shows that configuration. Essentially what it would be is those two legs of the te would be shorter than what code requires. Uh so if you got 50 ft of rideway, you're at 20 feet, you've got 15 feet on each side
that you could do those those little T legs. That is not co uh compliant. Those legs are not long enough. Um, could the town approve that? Possibly. Uh, I if I
don't know what the mechanism would be exactly, but if the town supported that, we'd be fine with that, too. And we'd be happy to to pave it accordingly. U, we just don't think that's something that currently the code doesn't support this.
I guess I'd be curious to hear from my fellow councils. That was my vision of what I anticipated seeing there, but I'd be interested to hear what you guys think about what you envisioned in that discussion from the first hearing. I I would just say I and I don't mean to not answer your question, but I'd be
very curious to hear what the neighbors have to say in response to it because they, you know, they've got to they've got to live with it, but I I would yield to the neighbors on that because it sounds like you've got given them some good options. Perhaps maybe a better question would be the gates, the pedestrian gates. I mean,
I based on what Nancy was trying to say and with staff, I would like I think to me it makes more sense to try to address these issues as we go versus go through the whole presentation and then try to remember to go back and talk about this and then move over there. I like that idea. You know what I mean? I just think that would help give staff better
direction as we go through on should this get approved. This is this is what is kind of being presented. Does that make sense to you? The one thing that that I would ask is um some of the some of the questions that you asked us to look into and some of the concerns from
the neighbors are similar. So, if you maybe let us go through those four items and the letter from the neighbors because we we are putting forward some solutions. uh we haven't been able to address every concern they had, but we
we address um as best as we can most of them and and I think once we we do those two portions of the presentations, you're going to get that full information. We'd be happy to talk about this. Okay. I'm fine with doing it that way.
Okay. Um so this again we we this is just a modify a uh exhibit And it was more to kind of show you that there's multiple ways we can address this. So th this was Ben telling us, well, I've
looked at both of your solutions. I thought the gates would be a lot simpler than what you have. So what this configuration essentially does, it it simplifies the amount of gates. Um but what it doesn't do is so for example
if someone's got the key code the intent is to shut down the linear park after sunset. So it would be shut down but the prominade is open till 12. So a neighbor could access the key
code. They want to go to the prominade no problem. But if someone decides, I'm going to go hang out in the linear park past sunset, this configuration, while it's a lot simpler on the gating configuration, doesn't address that that
possibility. So, so we just threw that in there just to to let you know there's there's many ways to skin a cat here. Uh we haven't looked at every single option, but it just goes to show you even even with those two options, you could slightly modify some of the gating
and it does have effects for pedestrians if that were the case. So the the second issue was drainage. Um so the applicant has hired J.R. Evans Engineering uh who are experts in drainage and flood plane
management to address the issue. The engineers conducted research. They looked at your existing drainage plans that Tetra Deck did. Um they uh did a site visit. They met with the neighbors and they coordinated with staff. And uh we think they came up with some some
good solutions for both the backyard drainage for the ability properties and for Third Street. And I'll turn things over to Elizabeth and she'll go in into more detail. Good morning, Elizabeth. Good morning. Um, Elizabeth Fountain for the record
with JR Evans Engineering and I've been um accepted as an expert in the field of civil engineering, storm water management, flood plane management. So, uh, as Pat mentioned, we did uh, conduct some data collection and evaluation of that data from looking at existing uh,
topographic data, survey data, uh, the previous for master plans prepared by Tetratech. Um we also did a site visit with the neighbors um on May 21st. So the the screen provides an exhibit where
we really detailed out the flow patterns bing of the existing drainage flow patterns for surface water runoff and identified where there's drainage bowls or flat areas um particularly for the rear yard area of the the three
neighbors on Third Street um that are circled in the orange. That's where there's a pretty good drainage bowl where water just sits there and has to reach a certain elevation before it would actually be able to leave that that bowl. Same thing with the portion of Third Street that's in front of those
three homes and in front of the potential future um Arches Way intersection and then a little bit halfway the width of the adjacent parking lot. Um that's a really flat area of Third Street. It's
it barely gets it's like 2.89 elevation to a three. So there's very little elevation change in there. So water would again have to pond there and then once it reaches a certain elevation it can exit. But it's it does
provide some prolonged street flooding. So based on that evaluation and discussion with the neighbors, we understand that the for the the rear yard area of the um Third Street neighbors, it's very important for them
to be able to maintain their overall drainage conveyance. There are two existing great inlets there that are um outlined in blue. Um and from what we understand is once those inlets are cleaned out
periodically they function very well and we understand that the neighbors are very concerned that those might go away with the development of the arches property. So we in in an effort to maintain that conveyance, we are
proposing to put um inlets strategically placed just inside those neighboring properties um because they did not want to have a linear drainage easement to go along the the rear property line. They thought that would be too obtrusive. Um
there's existing structures back there. I know there's a pool deck that extends pretty much to the property line for one of the properties. So, that wasn't going to be feasible. Um, so to address that, we thought, well, we should put we could put inlets just inside their property
with a connecting storm water pipe to a main line that would basically be a bypass line that would go out to Arches Way and then extend to the bay. So, that way it's it's a dedicated conveyance route for that those neighbors. Um, so
that they can maintain their existing storm water convenience. So you you went in the backyard, you saw these drains that were originally alleged to no longer be functional, but the neighbors said they were functioning if they were cleaned. You you confirmed that they could function well if they're cleaned and
you're using you're offering these inlets to take their place. Is that in essence what you're doing? Exactly. What was the reaction of the neighbors when you made that offer? Their reaction was positive. Okay. They did not want to have a um a parallel drainage easement. They would prefer to
have an ement that was perpendicular and the easement would just be to cover the drainage inlet itself because it would be right there at the property line and we would those would be strate strategically placed not to impact any of the existing infrastructure on those properties. Thank you.
So the bypass line again would go out to to the um to Arches Way and then run up to to the bay and it would be you know oversized um just to help accommodate additional capacity that may be needed
and so this would solve the problem that Third Street has continuously had for years and years and years. This ponding water. Yeah. This is mainly to uh mitigate the concerns from the third street neighbors rear their rear yard drainage. And then as a followup we
looked at the issue with actual third street and our solution for that would to be providing a connecting storm water pipe that runs out to the third street right ofway and place an inlet right there at the rightway line. Now that that provides two two benefits. One,
it's immediate relief for current ponding that might be happening on Third Street. And number two, it provides the town with a point of connection for future improvements that you might want to implement. Um, as far as part, you know, it's part of Third Street drainage improvements down the road. You could
easily tie into that inlet because it would it would be connected to the bypass line to the bay. So, we're talking at the at the side of Third Street that's closest to Old San Carlos, not where it makes the turn into
Harbor Court. Correct. Correct. Okay. This is close to Old St. Carlos. Okay. Yeah. Isn't Harbor Court one of the big issues as well that floods? That's that's I mean that whole neighborhood pretty much has flooding issues. This wouldn't solve that. Not necessarily.
No. this it would really provide relief for that flooding that's happening immediately on in that flood in that flat spot at third street that we noticed we do know that the um the grates drop you know
um Bonita is the high point the intersection of Bonita and first street is the high point so will go towards old San Carlos to one side and then towards Harbor on the other side so being the expert what would it take toate the
problem on Harbor Street. And Karen, you live there. You probably can. Bonita Street. Does that have issues as well as flooding Lake Harbor? Is it is Harbor and Third the worst? Harbor and Third. So, what would it take to alleviate that flooding issue on Harbor?
I I do know in reviewing the um improvement plans, I guess preliminary improve improvement plans by Ted, there is an inlet proposed um at the end of Third Street and somewhere along that vicinity of Harbor
and Third with a pipe that goes out to um that connecting canal, but I don't know what the implementation wasn't that the issue we've always had with not getting an easement out to that canal. require an easement. So the only way that if you can't get an easement
would be then and again I'm just trying to understand your methodology the if there's not an easement to be able to drain that water from Harbor Street out to that side canal. The only other way then would be to drain it down Harbor Street down third to connect into that.
Exactly. There would be a set of inlets placed along Third Street that would eventually connect to the one that we're proposing. Then it would make sense to probably have one at the end of Harbor to take that water runoff in there. So that would all tie in and then run down Arch's way and go out. Yes.
Okay. But you're not proposing doing that. Not at this time. Okay. So this is our um solution for immediately addressing the third street
um localized flooding issue. Um, and I'm here to answer any questions or have additional discussion. Okay. John, questions? Nothing current. Please mayor, just just in lay terms, the the drainage behind the neighbor's house
behind live on third, but behind in their backyard. Yes. You're you're switching their drainage to an inlet. Could you just define what the difference is in lay terms? What's the practical? Yes. So, right now there's two inlets. They're they're spaced out.
Um, and there's a connecting pipe, but those inlets, keep in mind, are on the largest way. So, you're using the term drain and inlet interchangeably. Drain inlet. Yeah. It's a great inlet. It's an inlet with a grate on top. And then um there's a connecting storm water pipe between them. And essentially we're
we're proposing to move those replace those um so that the inlets are just inside the neighbor's property with a connecting pipe tpipe to the main bypass storm water line. Just curious, this is
minutia, but with this improvement, would they need to be as cleaned as often? Would they function better? There should be a regular uh maintenance program for them. So they would still and and you would be responsible for that maintenance. There will be an easement placed. We would propose an
easement to be placed, a drainage easement to be placed over top of the new inlets and the new pipe specifically for maintenance activities. Yes. Thank you. So, I had heard, and maybe it's just rumored, but I had heard that there
was some give on a an easement off of Harbor Court somewhere there going to the connecting canal. Is that strictly a rumor? You did not talk to anyone about that or
um Yes, for the record as um I heard the same rumor. We haven't been able to confirm that. Um but my understanding is is some of those
at the intersection of Third and Harbor, there are vacant properties that might be coming forward for construction, right? And we think that could be a great opportunity to request an easement. And again, that would be consistent with the plan that's already
uh been designed by Tetrate Tech in the ideal location, right? I mean, there's actually four vacant properties that could work. Yeah. And we heard the same thing. We we were we were very happy that uh someone might be providing it,
but then we were not able to confirm that. We can either confirm nor deny. Okay, Scott. I'm good. You know, for me, there's a lot of talk about what ifs, right? What if this property owner lets us what if that we
know we can do things down down Bonita Street, down Harbor Court, down third to to alleviate this. Just ballpark just idea. What do you think the cost would be to I'm assuming that Tet's design doesn't currently have it running down
the streets um on our rightway. I'm assuming it's designed to dump out into the alpha. That is correct. Rough ballpark. Could you give a buff rough ball? I mean, I certainly won't hold you to it, but I'm just curious as to what the cost might be to be able to, let's say we we did what we discussed to alleviate Bonita and Harbor Street to
tie into that third street drain. Being an engineer, could you give a rough idea of what that would be for these improvements to to improve the what I just had talked about instead of worrying about if we're going to get an outfall down one of these? Oh, to go ahead and put the inlets in along Third Street. Yes. And then they tie in well
Harbor Street to put the inlet on Harbor and then at the end of Bonita to be able to allow that to drain into the easement that's already there going through Arch's way. Bonita is not really the problem though. No, but my point is is if if you're going to put something on on Harbor or
Bonita or Har Bene which one's the end one I can never remember. Harbor's the if you're if you're going to run that pipe from there to the third street inlet, you might as well put one there to capture the water from Harbor Street is so it's not like it would be adding anything more than just another drainage
or inlet, whatever you want to call it. So just for the town, just for the third street rightway improvements to to alleviate the flooding that they're dealing with probably on the order of um 100 be 75 grand. Okay.
All right. Fair enough. Again, I won't hold you to it. Okay. Sold. Yeah. Really? Sold. All right. Thanks, Elizabeth. Thank you. All right. Um I will keep going from this point. Um
the third item we were has to look into was the phasing plan and mitigation uh with regards to construction. So as you recall we had more phases last time. We now have four phases. Three of those are upland phases. The last one is the
marina component. As we all know uh dealing with state and federal agencies can take a long time without permitting. So that makes sense to be the the last phase. Um few things that are important to note. The green part is phase one. Uh
we've incorporated Arch's way as part of phase one. So the idea would be to put in Arch's way as soon as construction begins. That's a way where we can uh eliminate any construction traffic along the local street. Everything would be
directed to Arch's way to the project. No local uh construction access on those roads. Um then what we did is we made uh building E the what we have in blue or teal uh phase two uh that would be built
right up uh where the canal is and once constructed would create some buffering or shielding uh from the construction on the rest of the resort. Um, we also uh are committing
to build a concrete wall. Um, we we like this idea of a decorative wall fence. Previously, we've met with the neighbors. Um, we we fully understand. They explained that with previous storms, they felt the wall actually
protected their properties. A lot of debris was found on the other side of the wall. So we fully understand that um we're okay with providing the concrete wall and not only providing it at the end of the project but as soon as each
phase is demoed and cleared the next step would be to put that wall immediately that would provide some mitigation when it comes to sound dust erosion and uh that's a commitment that we've added to to those those commitments that we'll go through. So
Patrick just just to be clear just so I understood what you said. So, you're committing to doing the the solid concrete wall that abuts the properties which would be on the south side of the property. Yes. Um but doing it in the phases at which you do the phases of this construction. Yeah. So, so a
portion of it already has a concrete block wall. So, if we if we don't have to demo that because we're not there yet. So, uh if if you look um building and that's one of your deviations is to keep that wall that's
there versus to keep it in Yeah. to keep it in place until we get to that demo phase. Once we demo, next thing we do is is install a new concrete wall. Is that your understanding, Judith, of that deviation, how it's worded? Well, there's multiple things that we're
addressing as part of that deviation. We're addressing We were addressing the fact that um we wanted that decorative wall versus the concrete wall. Um we're committing to a concrete wall. We were also asking to maintain all the caping
on the resort side and we'd still like to do so and we're going to go into that and um sorry. So yeah, he's correct about the the deviation, but if you want the wall if you're agreeing with this um offer to
put in the wall first as part of the the construction phasing, we should probably add that as a condition because this is about the the deviation is about the end result. So, in theory, you know, they could put the the wall in last, but if they're offering to put it in first or or during one of the initial phases,
then we should condition that in the ordinance. And that's instead of a fence, it would be a wall. Yes. Right. So, the requirement is for a wall. They had initially asked to do put a fence in instead of a wall, but now they're, you know, because I've heard from the the neighbors that the wall is important um
and will provide benefit. So, they're they're I guess requesting to keep a portion of that deviation. So, we would alter that language. Um, but they would put in the wall instead of a fence. Thank you. Um, and I think we have that as part of
our conditions and and if we don't, we can certainly add that. Not a problem. Um, and then the other thing is as part of our submitt for a development order, uh, the contractor would put together a construction management plan. Um, you
often see that for project projects. You may have heard the termote, management of traffic. Uh so it's a plan that staff would review and that would go along with the construction permit and um the construction company would have to abide
by that plan. So uh I I think that's that's a good way to mitigate and provide some guarantees to neighbors as to how the construction would take place. Uh it's too early at this point to know exactly what that would be, but the applicant would work with the contractor and they would provide that
and submit that to uh to the town. Patrick, this is just my two cents and I I appreciate your willingness to to go to the concrete wall because that as you guys well know, you had the same meetings I did that was a point of contention with the neighbors along there both for dust and noise and things
like that. To me, it would make more sense knowing construction doing things in phases usually is more expensive to do because you're setting up and taking down. Would it make more sense to agree to do that concrete wall maybe all at phase one to be able to provide those
gates? And the reason I suggest that is I've been on both sides of constructions, right? The management pro side of it and then working it. And as you're doing construction, you will have construction vehicles going down Harbor and Bonita trying to get into the project that way versus trying to go down Arch's way. They're just going to
do it unless you have something set up off site where you're busing people in, which we can have that conversation, too. But by having that done at the first phase, I think that would and then the drainage part of it at the same time, I think that alleviates a lot. I think that I don't want to speak for the
homeowners, but I think that would help alleviate their concern as far as dust construction. You're still going to have that, but I think that would mitigate it a little bit. It's just something to to chew about. That's just my two cents on Well, I I will turn things over to Elizabeth because Elizabeth is a civil engineer, not just a a flood plane
expert and she can talk about that. My my understanding is a site that's going to be phased like this. Some of those uses like the bolt barns uh will stay there until they're ready for demo. And typically what you do is you do demo and you regrade the site. and and as part of
regrading the site, I think that's where the site's got to be graded properly before you put in that wall. But what we fully intend is that wherever there's no wall, there would still be a construction fence uh with lining. So I think the idea would be those access
points would be completely fenced off. Okay. So, um, you want to address that maybe, Elizabeth, and and talk about the grading of a site and get the grading of the site, I think what you're trying to get at, Pat, is the ease of grading that site would be easier if that wall wasn't there because the grade of that wall is not going to
change, right? Whether you do it at the beginning or you do it in the middle or you do it at the end, that grade is going to be the grade. The drain is going to be the drain based on the elevation. So, maybe help me understand what would be the benefit of doing it phased versus doing it at the beginning.
um depending on where the wall is located. Obviously, if it's close to the property line, then um the existing grade will pretty much match. It should be consistent. Um I think where it gets tricky is if we were putting that wall further inside
the property where you might have some elevation change, then you know if if it's a there's a limit on the wall height. Sure. Then you have to make sure you're measuring it from finish grade. Right. Um, so it just depend on the location, whether the fence stays where it's at or
whether it moves out to the property line, right? Okay. Yes. Yeah. Could I just take it up 10,000 ft? Uh, and and maybe if Ben could come up for a quick second. I'm not asking Ben. I understand there's all
kinds of finance and mark market, you know, dynamics that are in place, but just trying to get a sense of your vision as we look at the phasing. Is it your vision to to have the arches basically completely done before you opened or you do in a perfect world do you hope to open it in phases? What's
your vision? Uh Ben Freeland for the record. So I mean obviously we'd prefer to build it all at once. I think mayor mentioned that costs are more efficient. You could do it all at once. So this phasing is just anticipating if we need to phase it out how we would do it. But the goal would be to build it all at the
same time and to open it all at the same time roughly. Yeah. Okay. Just want to clarify that. Thank you. But I think one allows us to do a couple things a little bit quicker. So, it wouldn't be your intent if, let's say, this was the the scenario had to go based on financing and all the marketing and all that kind of stuff. You wouldn't want to open
phase two until phases three and four because I think that's the I don't want to speak for you, but I think that's the question you were getting at. Would you want phase two, the blue building E, would you want that to be operable while you're going through phases three and four, or would you that building a condo
kind of hotel? Is that what you were trying to ask? I'm just trying to understand I'm just trying to in a general sense your vision was it to to open it incrementally or to have it open it all at one time in other words do it in pieces or actually I think the goal is to do it at
once but if you have to stage it based on you know the economy or different reasons that this gives us some flexibility. Okay. So yep thank you. Okay. Um if I If we have no other questions,
I'll move on to um item number four. Um item number four was we had a discussion with regards to the sunset deck. We did make a commitment. So that's been added as part of our conditions. Uh it was to to provide a setback from the edge of
the building of 2 feet. And also what we've added in there is that within that setback there would be a low-lying decorative or structural or vegetated component to create a barrier um on that edge. Uh again it's it's very early in
the design process as to exactly what's going to look what it's going to look like but and and one of the things that we discussed with Ben is to maintain that design flexibility. He doesn't know what the architect's going to be proposing. He doesn't want to uh get
into that level of detail, but uh you know, as committed, we'll provide that two-foot setback. There will be some kind of structural barrier or vegetative barrier in that strip. And obviously, you saw what they sent in the letter. I
didn't even think about it, but it seeing how it worked or how it works at whatever the name of the big resort is up in Puna Gordo. When you go up there on the rooftop, they've got that like in their picture, they've got that. It's glass, but it's a one a protector to keep somebody from potentially falling
over, but it prevents that view corridor and it dampens that sound a little bit. Is that something that you had discussions with the neighbors to consider? Is that not something We got the letter from the neighbors. We we did discuss it with them. Um and I think we we talked about it internally. Um that
that was, you know, we we made that commitment at the last meeting that came on. Um, I I think in talking with Ben, Ben did not rule it out, but he said, you know, as he as he explained to us, it's it's so early in the process, he doesn't know what the architect's going
to want to do. And and I think we don't know also from a structural standpoint how much reinforcement is needed or or or any of that stuff. So, I think we we just felt it was too early to commit to that. But you're not opposed to it. But
the idea is well I think the idea is we provided a mitigation and we think that what we provided is sufficient but we're not opposed to it. I think when he would move on to the next phase that what might be one of the the different
configurations he might consider. Um so I can u those were the four items as mentioned also we were asked about the F. We talked about the F uh without the parking. So, what I did is I took the letter from the neighbors that you all got a copy also. And um
I've got a slide for each of the requests and what we have in green is is um our position and and points of discussion. So, um the request from the neighbors from the letter and and and I
just want to be careful when I say the neighbors. I I'm saying it it's from the neighbors that sent us the letter. And my understanding is they did talk to their neighbors. We just don't know and we don't want to make it seem that we we we've
confirmed that everybody's been contacted and everybody's aware. I think they've made their calls. We don't have any evidence that everybody necessarily supports the letter. But again, those were were fair requests that they made
of us. We'll address them one by one. Um so um the first one was they indicated that they wanted no note turnarounds uh actually let me correct that no turnarounds on the subject property
turnarounds within the existing rideway. They wanted a full gate with no vehicular access and absolutely no um pedestrian access including the residents of that neighborhood. Um you
say my conversations with them that wasn't the case. The case about the pedestrian. Yes. But they were okay with the gates for emergency use only not just a solid gate that wasn't usable. So you're saying that your meeting was different than that? Uh, no. Emergency use only. Okay. But no, no other
vehicles, right? Um, so we agree with with gates and fencing. We just have to figure out what kind what configuration we're going to do. Um, as we already talked about, the turnaround, the way they've designed it, doesn't meet code.
Um, if if there's a way the town can deviate from that standard, uh, we'd be happy to retain that that configuration. Patrick, you're the planner, so I mean or Judith, is there a hybrid way to do this? Because the way
that you had yours proposed obviously went into your property. Yeah. Is there a hybrid approach that could achieve this without taking up a lot of your property like your proposed does and taking up the rightway? Is there is there a hybrid approach to be able to do that to be compliant with the code or would we have to basically put a
deviation into ver to deviate from the code to be able to make Yeah. So, I I'm not as familiar with the street requirements and turnarounds, so we would have to look at it. What what I would like to point out here is that the the initial version the we were
concerned about the turnarounds really for the fire trucks. I mean, that's the largest vehicle that you're going to see. And there was the I don't know if we can go back to that plan. Wouldn't if you had the gate there, wouldn't the fire truck enter into your property, have the ability to turn around and come
back out, right? The fire truck is is was being accommodated in the initial plan and is being accommodated now, but there was a a stabilized um surface. And if you look at the the um between building D and building E, there there was like a circular turnaround in there
and they've they've kind of taken that out now. So that that extended T is really to accommodate a fire truck and not necessarily to accommodate, you know, a typical and that's and that's the hybrid approach that I'm trying to get at. Is there a way to keep what that turnaround that
you had, shrink the amount of encroachment into your property to have such a big turnaround and work with the town's rightway? I guess is there a way to use a small a much smaller portion of what you have proposed on your property to be able to achieve the turnaround using the
towns rightaway with and come into compliance with the code. Does that make sense? So the emergency response still has a turnaround on the property, but we can significantly shrink that hammerhead to be able to allow regular vehicular traffic to turn around and stay compliant with the code. So I I'm not as
familiar with with the like if we're talking about just the uh like a typical vehicle turnaround. I don't know what those dimensions are, but they've got to be shorter than a firet truck, right? So I mean I'd have to take a look at that code and see if we could accommodate something like that. Um just trying to see if there's a way to achieve what
both sides are are trying to achieve. Um what I heard though from the I mean the the right of way there is a little bit I mean I don't know if they're they're trying to figure that out but that the right of way there is a little bit wider than the asphalt. The
asphalt is about 20 ft wide but the actual rightway is 50. So uh I think maybe you could accommodate something in there. It wouldn't be standard. And does the rightway run so on this picture up here from left to right, does the rightway run the entire length of that or is it just in front of Bonita Bonita
and Harbor Street? Is there any rightway that goes beyond the street edges? At the at the at the street ends, I mean a little bit. So that where you see that the asphalt there in gray, yeah, that's about 20 feet. The width there is really closer to 50 feet, if not 50 feet there
for the for the whole right of way. So where they've drawn in red, I think that's where they're they're the neighbors are saying that you you could take up to that much space that 50 feet width into their property, which is I mean it's so that the red up there is
wouldn't be town right away. That would be the applicant's property that you would have. Well, it's still town right away now unless it was to be vacated. Okay. Because there were single family I mean there are single family lots there. So the town's right ofway goes all the way up to the the MOS. So our street
width is fine at 50 feet, but it's the length, horizontal length left to right there that would we would need to work out as far as how much space would be needed to be able to pull in a vehicle back up and then come back out. I think so, but I also think that might extend
somewhat onto their and that's that's the hybrid part I'm trying to get at. Is there is there a hybrid way of being able to achieve that without staying compliant with the code? Maybe it takes a little part but not significantly what they have proposed in option A or B, whatever it was. I think you understand
what I'm trying to say, Pat. Yep. I I fully understand what you're saying. As mentioned, there's there's many configurations we could look into. Um if if I may just make a suggestion again, even if we were to do something similar
to what they have on their exhibit and and Ken was looking at the width of the right right away and he measured more 40 feet rather than 50 feet in that area. Um, and there's existing driveways on those properties
that abut uh the arches. So, anything that would be essentially outside of our project boundary would impact the neighbors and and again, we don't know if those neighbors would consent to that. So, I think what you're saying,
Dan, is what if we did it on our property, but instead of doing the the very um the much longer modified turnaround, we do something that that is we ask for a deviation, we do something smaller, I think that's another feasible
option. Um but but if we can get maybe through the public comment, find out sure the direction we're going and we'd be happy to maybe take a recess at that time, talk to your staff and maybe we come back and say we discuss it, we think it's it's doable this way.
Perfect. Okay. So we just we just took a look at the at the actual width requirements and it looks like for a standard vehicle we were talking about the T at the end there that you would need um 70 feet. So, if the right of way is uh 50 feet wide there, um which is
still town owned right ofway that you need 20 feet extra on or overall 10 feet on either side, right? 10 feet on either side, but to accommodate um a uh fire truck, it looks like 90 feet of length. So, that would be 20 feet on either side of the town right away that they would
have to, you know, give up into their property. Um, and that would be assuming they didn't want to have the turnaround that they had in their original proposal on their property to go in, turn around, and come back out, right? Okay. A lot of options.
Yes. And um, as I mentioned, I think we were looking at the code and Ken was was pointing out some other details, but but again, I don't think we need to go into those details. If we have a general direction as to what is preferred, uh we'll we'll take a little break and sit
down with your staff and try to get that figured out. Um then there I think there was um I think that's for the access issue. We've addressed that. Um the second
request was requiring uh construction barriers um and We've addressed that with our discussion of that concrete wall. Um, also the other mitigation that we we can provide.
Uh, we think Arch's way is the appropriate access to the construction pro project. They're talking about that easement that runs between um right by by the parking lot where you've got Guahu Willies. Uh, yes, we've got access
there, but as you all know, a lot of people come and go in that area. I don't think that would be very conducive to construction traffic. We still believe Arch's way is the appropriate access point for for construction. Um, and just just to identify that that when you go
to construct this building, OSHA is going to require you to have some of that safety mitigation anyway, right? Yeah. So, I think what you're saying is you're going to you're going to be required to do it, but not the entire time that you're building this entire it's not going to just be there all the time. Is that safe to say that way?
Because I think there was some misunderstanding in some of the people that I talked to from the neighborhood that it made sense to have a 40ft wall of of scaffolding. It just it's not that's not conducive. It's that's another issue was um put a tall wall with a barrier.
So, so what we the way we looked at it was scaffolding with a a liner on it. Um, part of the problem is we we did talk to to our engineers and construction folks. Typically, when you see that in in a redevelopment of a building, um, there's there's a building
there and it's either the scaffolding is attached to the building and the building protects it from the wind. Having 40 ft of scaffolding with with a liner becomes a sail. And I don't even think we could get that permitted. And I think Frankie's kind of shaking his head that we wouldn't allow that to happen.
So, so we we we think that the the concrete wall would provide some mitigation and uh we're committing to doing that. But just to kind of alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors as you build this, if it gets approved, you will have to do this type of mitigation anyway when it comes to
scaffolding and catch catchalls and all that kind. You're going to be required to do that anyway as you construct it. Yeah. I think I think uh Just from what I've seen, when people do stuckco, for example, and they're close to other properties, they make sure they put that that liner to protect adjacent
properties from that stuckco. Very good. And I see that you go back one and I see that there that's a little different than what we talked about earlier, which helps me understand a little better with the concrete wall would be built immediately after demo. Yeah. So, as you demo the buildings, then you would construct the concrete wall. Okay.
Yeah. I was misunderstood that you weren't going to start the construction of the wall until you started the construction of the building, which I'm guessing if you did the demo, you're probably going to follow up right. It would be right after the demo. Yeah. Um so this was
um regards to that glass wall uh the setback from sunset deck. But the the difference also in that request compared to the last hearing, they were asking for um some
kind of a setback also for the deck where you've got we've got the pool between buildings B and C. Um we had not addressed that area because all the
activity on that deck is towards the prominade. The pool is going to be towards the prominade. the restaurants can be the towards the prominade. So all the activity was towards a prominade. So we we didn't see the need for that. We had not addressed that. Um as mentioned
we we have our commitment. We've shown it on on the master concept plan. Uh two foot set back of the railing on the sunset deck. A commitment for some kind of structural or vegetated barrier within that area. Um we we did talk
about limitations uh when it comes to sound and activity on those decks at the last hearing. We've carried that forward. That's in our commitments. Um and as I mentioned uh buildings B and C, we don't think it's needed. All the activities towards the uh
prominade. Um number four, we've talked about in detail. Uh we're happy to provide that concrete wall. Um the but we do want to maintain deviation number four. So the two
important components to deviation number four was we were asking for a decorative wall that would have been partly concrete, partly aluminum. We can change that. It could be conditioned or or we just change our deviation. We will provide the concrete
wall. We are concerned about maintenance and access to the landscaping. That's why we'd like to keep it fully on the side of the resort so we have full access. We can ensure that it's wellmaintained um and that there is no conflicts over
time with neighbors um and and we'd like to keep that component. The other component was there the existing wall varies in height and we we took a look at and we saw the the variations.
Um the code says a wall um maximum six feet, but that's above grade. And one of the things that our our engineers looked at was that existing grade is 1 to two feet uh higher than most adjacent properties. So when you put the wall on
top of of that existing grade, you are going to maintain that seven to eight feet in height. uh next door. Um number five was with regards to the parking garage area.
Um the the initial request was uh we had heard I think the neighbors had heard that possibly that it it wasn't going to be enclosed. Uh we we assured them that it would be enclosed. However, we have it designed with some arches and those
arches would be louvered. Uh we need to keep air circulation, make sure that we don't get fumes in the parking garage. So, we are committed to keeping our our our design consistent with those renderings. They were okay with with those arches. They did ask for 100%
valet parking. Um we um you know would like to retain the right to have both South Park and Valet. Um as you understand um the Freelands will be the developer builder. Uh they're going to turn this
to an operator. Uh obviously they need to to make their resort attractive to get the best operator uh possible. And I think most operators want to keep that flexibility of both self park and valet parking. We'd like to maintain
that. Um neighborhood drainage. Again, it's been addressed uh previously. Um our engineers do have some solutions for the backyard drainage and also the um third street drainage where it does meet
Arch's way. Uh and my understanding is uh there are plans uh already in place to address the remainder of third street and I think what we're proposing is compatible to that and is is going to
make a big difference and and alleviate the third street uh the most significant uh flooding that occurs there. So that kind of wraps up um what you had requested of us and also the requests from the neighbors. Um if
if you guys can give us a little direction for example on on the turnaround. Yes, we want to turn around, we don't want to turn around. Um, and if we can take public comment, then we might have a better idea of what seems
to be the consensus and we could talk to staff and take it from there. I think it makes the most sense to take public comment. Then we can come back and discuss with both our staff and you to see what everybody up here is thinking. Perfect. Thank you. Are you okay with that direction? Yeah.
All right. With that, we will open up public comment. Is there anyone Oh, let me read my script. I don't want to get in trouble. Public comment. Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this matter? If so, please come forward to the podium and identify yourself, provide your address and whether you were sworn in.
I have nobody signed up. No one signed up. Who would like to be first? Chris. Good morning, council. Chris Master. My address is 923rd Street. Um, I was sworn in at the beginning of the meeting. I'll be referencing um a letter
from neighbors that is on page 592 of your packet. Um, if you wanted to follow along. Um, but I'm here on behalf of over 60% of the neighbors on Third Street, Harbor Court, and Bonita Street. I'm representing the neighbors that are
out of town. I'm here representing the neighbors who are exhausted after years of rebuilding. I'm here representing the neighbors who aren't here because they already know you're going to change our neighborhood forever. Um, I met with personally I reached out to every single neighbor in
our in our um in our neighborhood that I had contact information for. All of them responded in support except for one. I didn't get a response from that one. Everyone else in our neighborhood, the hands have changed. The properties have changed a lot over the last two years. I
don't have all the contact information for the people in our neighborhood. I tried my best to reach out to as many as I could to get a neighborhood consensus because that's what we were asked and have heard so much. But the Arches project before you is a huge ask from the developer. They are asking for
increased height, increased FAR, increased density, a comprehensive plan map amendment, and eight deviations from our town code. As neighbors, the items we are requesting are so minimal and they're required for the protection of
our neighborhood. As neighbors, we ask that you make these six items a part of your conditions for approval. These are not concerns coming in at the last hour. They're concerns that have been repeatedly brought to the freelands and ignored over the past two years.
Everything they're doing is to maximize their property. The turnarounds that they say they can't fit, they're trying to push it on our right away. They have the property. Put it on their side. The drainage that they've proposed on our in our to fix in our backyards. The drains
on our are on our property. They're pushing the wall as close as they can to the property line. And they're asking for an easement to get on our property to clean these. They have the property. The drains are already on their property. The landscaping they're asking for a deviation for. They're asking to
put it on their side to beautify their park, not beautify our neighborhood. You look at some of these um other properties and parking lots and things that have been approved to be built where they have to build a fence and landscaping's on the outside of the
fence. It makes the neighborhood look nice. It does. Um that's the kind of things that make our town look nice and beautify our town that are in the codes that should be required. So, I just ask that you listen to
neighbors. Um, we're we the the things that we are requesting are so minimal be compared to everything that the developer is asking. Um, as far as the turnarounds, the preference is from the neighborhood. No access, no pedestrian
access, no vehicle access inside or outside. Um whether a turnaround can happen or not, I think people are okay with either way. We don't want people accessing the resort through our neighborhood. Um I'm happy to answer any
questions. Like I said, I've met with so many neighbors. I'm happy to um continue on and answer questions that I thought are fair. But you can force them to do these things. You can force them to put in glass walls. You can make them put the FNB logo on every step of the resort if you wanted to. You can make them do
design changes. You have the key for approval. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. Anyone else like to speak? Bill, you just standing up to stretch or you coming up? Morning. Morning. Bill V 3580 Boulevard.
I've been sworn in. Um, a couple things that come up when I'm watching this. One is that it seems like it's a de facto vacation of the rightway for the road that's going into the property. It makes sense to me that if if the town is is giving up that right ofway, they should
do that in exchange for a whiteway. Move the wall back, maybe connect Matanzas and Bonita together and uh and and make it into a circle. I mean, it seems like it's fair if you're going to if you're going to give up town right away, even if it's de facto, give up town right away to get
some of that as a as an additional rightway on the um on the residential side of the wall. The other thing is about the wall. I understand that the wall is is good for sound. It's good for um for getting some privacy, but they're also terrible for scouring the event of
a storm. After Ian, I went on Strand View and Bay View, and there was a huge scour along the wall. Even if it's a breakaway wall, it'll guide the water along the wall and you'll get a lot of scour. If the wall is right next to residential properties, then that scour can can risk those properties and it's
very severe. It doesn't take a knee in. Just takes enough to get water flowing and our sand moves very easily and it can undermine those properties. Um, also, as they said, the the this is is is more compatible with old San Carlos and not the residential neighborhood.
Now, it's very clever on their part. They have one little finger of land they acquired that touches old San Carlos. That's a very very small part of the property when there is a huge line that affects the residential property. So it's like when they say most of the
effect is from the residential aspect and and all these properties going to be affected. The other thing is that again you move the wall really close to the property, you're putting them at risk for a lot of things and you're also just it's like it's like nickel and diamond. They're as much as possible without
really thinking about the effect on the neighborhood. So, thank you. Thanks, Bill. Anyone else like to speak in public comment? All right, seeing none, we'll close public comment. We'll bring it back up for Well, we want to have discussion now
or do we want to close the public hearing? Well, is there any rebuttal? I guess it's based on public comment. No. Thinking about it. Do we want to um address the conditions of approval now
or do we want to take a recess and then get into the conditions? Nancy, what do you suggest? Do we close the public hearing? Do we keep it open to discuss this? And then I have nothing to I'm so sorry to interrupt you, but to answer the initial question, I have nothing to rebut with the public. I
figured the conditions of approval. There's what 30 of them or so. Um, and they're very detailed and it's I think it's very important the council understands the project. Um, I know staff and the applicant they spent a lot of time. Um, I would recommend you take
a small break so that you can review that entire packet of information together with clear minds. Well, I think it's to me it's important to have a conversation with council before you take the break simply because are there any going to be any potential changes to those conditions that are in the packet
based on what was testified here today? Okay. So to take a break and not and then come back no and then discuss it and then go back. So you could have a general conversation with council and then after a break go into the details because the details really is going to
require a lot of concentration. Okay. So, I guess my question is procedurally, should we keep the public hearing open until we have that discussion before we close it so that we can still have conversation with the applicants? You can do that or you could close it
and then reopen the public hearing if you wanted to. Okay, we'll do that. That way, which way avenue are we taking? Well, let's they want to talk, I think. Well, I think I think we need to have there's been a lot of cons. Yes. you know, discussion about what you're willing to do, what what may or may not
be a change in the conditions based on recommendations from council. So, I think to me it makes the most sense, but I'll love to listen to my fellow counselors to find out are some of these to me, in my mind, some of these conditions are probably going to change, correct? Based on the testimony that was
here today. So, it would make more sense to me to have that conversation so that when we take the break, you can discuss the recommendations to the changes of the conditions. Okay. To be able to come back up. Do we want to I think I'm a little bit still unclear.
Do we want to go through the the conditions of approval one by one or do you want to maybe take a consensus as to the big ticket items i.e. the whether it's gated, ungated, turnaround, the Bonita Harbor Court issue. Um I I think that's the best idea is to the big ones
first and then as we go through after the break we can go through one by one and how they've modified and do they need to change or do they not need to change okay based on that but I think it's important to talk about the big items that were hanging out since the first hearing. Correct. Gates things
like that. Correct. Everybody okay with that direction? Okay. So I think as it you know as it turns to the specifically the gates of Bonita Harbor Court we've heard a couple of different versions. Our preference is really let me see if I
could go back to is what has been presented as a modified version A. This provides for the gate which would be no vehicular no pedestrian access but in the event of emergency vehicles needing a turnaround they would have the ability to do so.
So that first one there that option A based on what we've heard now and talk about all the options that we have does it make sense and if that is 50 feet or it's 40 feet and we only need how many feet I don't remember exactly now how many feet you said Judith that it was that we needed there to have the does it
make sense to push that in and the question that was raised by Chris and his public comment is the road where does the road where does our rightway end based on that black line going into that property is it where their property line Correct. So where that well then where that property line is everything we
would ask for the what's above that property line or what's behind the gates to be vacated. So what I'm getting at is to try to not to not change your design. To me that's a significant change in your design. Is it possible to move the gate back to allow for that hammerhead
turnaround on their property and not affect their park? So there we go. So this is what you saw. This is what you saw at the first meeting and what the LPA saw. So this accommodates the issue of the U fire
truck and emergency access. I'm saying keep this but move where the gate is where the arrows are. Move that back to be able to meet our code to have the hammerhead turn around with the rightway and then whatever little sliver on either side of the grass there. Right. So that's so there are they're
um they have purchased single family lots. So those ends there where those black arrows are that is still town owned right away unless the town chooses to vacate it. Okay. Um so you know you do have some ability there to use that
full 40 uh 50 foot rightway and then to get to that 70 foot using option A not this option. If you stay with option A, you're accommodating the fire truck turnaround, right? They've got the stabilized um area for
that. And then what you're saying is to where the townowned right ofway ends, which is essentially where Moss Marina begins now to keep the 40 the 50ft right ofway as townowned, not vacated, and then have them add 10 feet on either
side to get to the 70t that they would need for a typical vehicle turnaround. I guess what I'm I'm looking at trying to do a hybrid and I keep using the word hybrid because do we necessarily need to have that 50 feet of rightway or can we vacate part of it in exchange for allowing the turnaround to happen on
their property? Does that make sense? So you're kind of maybe you're vacating a little bit to allow that to happen. So that it's the turnaround's not on private property. It's not on the part of it is Tom right away but part of it then would be on their property as well. So there's they're going to gain a little bit from the rightway to be able
to keep that design. Am I making sense to anybody or is it just in my head? I mean, if I had a piece of paper, I could draw instead of 70 feet wide to reduce it to 50 ft and allow them to turn. No, no, no, no. What I'm saying is keep it the way it is, but we need to have the expansion horizontally. Correct. To be able to make that turnaround work off
the town's rightway. Do you understand? But the turnaround is behind the gates, not in the neighborhood. Right. So, no, the turnaround would be at the end before the gate. No, because that's not where the residents want it in every conversation I've had.
They want it behind the gate. I I I I don't I disagree because then you in order to turn around, you'd have to access their property. So the gate you would allow more access, not just emergency access into their property to turn around to come back out the gate, right? I don't know that that's what the residents are
requ the personal property for the turnaround. I think they're saying keep the turnaround on their property, but my understanding and Chris you can nod. I think what you're saying is the gate needs to be at the end of that hammerhead, but the hammerhead needs to be on their property. Is that what he's nodding his head? That was my
understanding. Not go in the gate to turn around to come back up. Yeah. What I understood is that they want to limit that access as much as possible to have it only emergency vehicles. And what I and again the we could ask Chris, but to
have that gate at the edge of the property and have no turnaround is what I understood because they don't want anybody turning around or to encourage that or for anybody to know that's a possibility because once you put the gates further into the
property then people can stop there. Uber could drop off even if it's technically not allowed and not permitted by providing that extra space. It's it's letting people know that there is that possibility there. Um we I mean staff and the applicant were trying to
accommodate for a turnaround that it sounds like the neighbors don't actually want. They would prefer to have straight gates there which would let um anybody know that the right ofway is only 20 feet wide and it would be very uncomfortable um for Uber, Lift, Door Dash, anything
to access there because then you you would have to you know walk a certain distance to get to the property and would encourage everybody to go around. Um well I think whether you encourage somebody and Chris you can nod your head again. I think we're all smart enough to understand whether you have a turnaround there or not. And people are going to go
down those streets to go into that property. Without a turnaround, they're going to use the driveways to turn around. If the neighborhood is okay with their driveways being used as a turnaround for FedEx and everybody else, Uber, whomever else going to turn around, I'm not going to stand in the way of that argument. But that's not my understanding of my meeting neighbors
that their concern is they wanted the turnaround. They just didn't want to lose their property to do it. And if I'm mistaken, please nod your head. Is that the understanding? because you when you did come up here and talk you did say you were fine with it either way. I I'm trying to understand would you prefer to have the turnaround as I'm describing or
would you prefer to just have a straight gate and no turnaround? Do you mind if I Mr. Mayor ask I ask for unanimous consent to proceed out of order to allow Chris to speak for one minute in response to your question? I have no issues. Any issues? No, Chris. The preference of the
neighborhood is that there's no access down Bonita Street or Harbor Court. So, we understand there's challenges to putting in a turnaround. If if the option is open it or not, we want it closed. No turnaround. We don't want
access. Yeah. Secondly, our preference is to put in a turn. But you said no access down those streets. So what you're what I'm hearing you say is you don't want cars down that street at all into the resort. Yeah. Into the resort. So our second ask is yes. We would like
it if it's possible to put in I think we're on the same track, Dan. A hybrid non-compliant turnaround where a small vehicle. So someone comes down Third Street, they look down Bonita Street, they see a gate. Okay, I'm going to continue down to Harbor Court. They
drive down to Harbor Court. They see a gate. They got no option to turn around but into someone's driveway. Exactly. It's might be the people's at the end of Bonita Street. It might be Karen. It might be your driveway because they're turning left. They see a gate, they're turning left right there. But my my point is, Chris is there's no way that
we're going to be able to restrict access down Third Street to go down Bonita and down Harbor Court. Not restrict Third Street. Restrict Bonita Street and Harbor Court into the resort. My did that I I'm going to do whatever you guys I mean I'm going to try to
support you guys anyway I can. Yeah. No, I think you were on the right track, Dan, with the hybrid. We want some kind of small turnaround so a small vehicle can can circumn Bonita Street or Harbor Cord if they get down those streets without getting into a driveway, but
restrict the access into just emergency vehicles only. So we don't want a lift to be able to sit in the turnaround and guests be able to come in and out of the resort. All right. I'm thinking if you have a turnaround, you're just encouraging cars there. See, that's what I'm You're encouraging cars if you allow access into the resort. There's what
does someone sit at the end of your street, Scott. There's a turnaround at the end of your street. Yeah, they sit they I've got cars coming down my road all the time, you know, liluin and spinning around and it's they turn around and they move on. They don't sit do they sit there and park for a reason. Some it's at the end of a neighborhood
street. I guess that's so I guess the question Chris and we we want to do everything we can to make sure you guys are happy and don't don't think we don't I met with you I mean so you're you're thinking like Dan you would want that turnaround in their
property a minimal turnound minimal turnound instead of no turnaround okay but to the extent of we want it fully gated Because currently they're presenting a turnaround with hybrid pedestrian
access. No. So gate, let's talk about the gate for the cars. Pedestrian access. I think we all understand that the gate. You want the gate on their property. So you don't want them to have to go through the gate to turn around and come back out. Yeah. No. Okay. That's Yeah. Where I wanted to clarify.
Restrict vehicles going into Arches because again, there's no way we're going to stop traffic from going down Bonita and Harbor regardless of what you do. The neighborhood does not want traffic going into the arches through the neighborhood street. That's and we get that. Yeah. Okay. I think I think we've got clarity as to what you're
looking for. At least I do. Hopefully everybody understands. I I understand what what you guys are trying to say. By having a turnaround, you're I don't think that promote just having a resort there is going to promote traffic down that street. Right. But when when you so when you're driving
and we'll just use my my street and Coconut Street as an example. They're they're side by side. Coconut's a dead end. Rarely do cars go down there, but my my my street has a turnaround. It's not a dead end. So I more traffic coming down. I I think if you This is just my
opinion. You live there. I know. If it was dead end, you put signs dead end. I I think if you put a turnaround down there just encouraging cars to to go down there. That's my opinion. I don't I mean it's not a culde-sac. I mean, you're talking culde-sac versus a
small I again I I think Chris's preference was to have a small turnaround or at least the neighborhood's preference was to have a small turnaround should cars go down there. I wouldn't want people backing in my driveway to turn around if they had a different option. But I don't live in that neighborhood. Karen, you live
there. What? But they're not going to turn around and carry I know she's but I did talk to probably five different residents. Um one only owning four properties, one owning two properties.
And they basically said definitely the gates, no turnarounds. Um putting at the beginning of our street on Third Street, deadend street, no outlet, that type of thing.
So, it's getting away from encouraging anyone to go down. Right now, the UPS trucks and everything, they just they back up if they have to. They just back out of the street and go on. I mean, the garbage trucks, they come in, they back down Bonita, they back down Harbor
Court, and they go out. I mean, that's what they do now. So if we had just gates there with absolutely no turnarounds, then we could say deadend street, no outlet. Well, you would still have that signage regardless. We would
still have the signage regardless. I do want to put on record that there are other residents besides those who are present here that have explicitly told us ones that are contiguous to the Mosina property that have really expressed concerns over any turnarounds and specifically having this type of a
hammerhead configuration. So that's the difficulty that we're dealing with is we have a lot of very vocal opinions which is great but now we're to brass tax of which avenue are we going to go and unfortunately I believe it's an avenue that no matter
which avenue you all get to select there's going to be somebody that's not particularly thrilled with it. Oh, without a doubt. I think future council members e boxes are going to if this gets proposed or this gets approved are going to get filled with people that live in that neighborhood about cars turning around in their driveway. Right.
So, so it's you can't win either way. We cannot win either way. We are trying to figure out a magical concoction of a h this hybrid approach. But I did want to put on record that the neighbor that is contiguous to Moss Marina has explicitly
told us that they don't want that in their backyard. This hammerhead configuration and the other ones are Yeah, I'm not a fan of that one at all either. That's neither are we. And so just for the record, you know, we had talked about where the gates are. The gate would be behind the turnaround. So it it does pose its own issues of people
parking there, waiting, drop off service, Uber service. Um but then it alleviates the issue of well if somebody does turn co go down accidentally where do they turn around? So it's we prefer this approach. We think
it's cleaner. We think it's more as you were indicating dead end. Do not pass go. Do not um enter. Well, and and going back to what you said, Judith, at the end of the day, you're talking 10 feet on either side of the existing road to
make this compliant, right? 10 ft. Not necessarily. I mean, it depends on what you're trying to comply with. If in order to do that um smaller um hammerhead, that's what the code asks for is uh 70 ft. They they pointed out
that in this in this option a the area between Harbor and Bonita is intended to be a stabilized surface so that the um uh emergency vehicles could drive over it. So it's not just going to be like dirt and sod that the fire truck would sink into. So it'll be stabilized. So
really they could provide um a small um you know 20 feet on on one side um on either on the kind of the north side of harbor and the south side of Bonita to accommodate just a typical vehicle turnaround and not have to accommodate a
um emergency vehicle turnaround because the emergency vehicles are accommodated for again I I'm saying this option that they have up there makes sense. All I'm proposing and I'll just propose it and we'll see if the consensus of the council if if it's 10 feet on either side of what that is on the outside of
the fence, not the inside of the fence. So the configuration stays the way it is. So you can turn around with your emergency vehicles inside there, but adding the 10 feet on the outside of the fence gate. Outside the gate, I'm sorry, gate. The gate would only be used
for vehicular access. there would be no there would be no pedestrian entrance or access through that so that if someone did go down and that that's all I'm proposing is the extra 10 feet that you and Sarah had talked about on either side to make that area a little bigger to be able to should someone go down there not have to use a driveway to turn
around. That's what I'm proposing as a suggestion if the majority of the councils and I'm not going to live or die on the sword over this thing but just trying to get this part of it done to move on to the next section. Uh, one item that I do want to, you know, if the town's wish is to utilize the town's
right-of-way property to affectuate this turnaround, then that would not be a condition in our ordinance because we can't be constructing or working on your right of way and your improvements. So that would be the concern with us is if
you all as a town want to effectuate a turnaround on the existing Bonita or harbor outside of our property that that's your decision but we couldn't necessarily you would have to condemn right that was my understanding is the
roadway is the rightway but left to right of that on this picture would be we would need if it's on this side of the fence though. But if it's on if it's on the outside of the gate, then that's no longer a property. So I'm confused at
No. So on your on your property, but so moving this before the gate down, moving the hammerhead, no south. Uh decreasing the size of the hammerhead. So the the roadway there is 50 ft that the town
continues to own into your property. What we would need is either additional 10 ft on either side into your property. So 10 by 20 and 10 by 20 on either side or 20 by 20 on one side something like that to accommodate. So it would go into
your property as it does here just not quite so much. It would be a much smaller because this is this configuration is trying to accommodate for the fire truck and in scenario A it would just be for a typical vehicle. Um so it could be much smaller but it would
be similar to this. So you We would the vehicles would use the town right away plus a small portion of your property. I believe Pat and K are trying to put together a modification of a of something like this but smaller. Well, let's see if there's consensus from the C. I mean, again, I don't want to I
don't want to belabor this for an hour, you know. Well, I bet we'll still be talking. We will. I'm sure we will, but does everybody understand what I'm saying there is it's not, you know, it's going to be 10 feet essentially on either side. does it could be rock. It could be gravel. It doesn't have to be asphalt. It could be, you know, it
doesn't have to be a previous surface. I mean, it can be something very landscaped. It can be, you know, very small. It doesn't have to be obtrusive. I'm just to me that's I'm always a fan of options and that provides an option for people that we know are going to go down that they're people are going to
get pizza delivery there. The pizza delivery guys aren't going to know to go down Arch's way. He's going to see that they're in their that building and he's going to go down to Harbor Court and realize he's gonna have to turn around. you turn on someone's driveway. So, how can we design it where it's very minimal? It's not obtrusive to the neighbors. That's what I'm proposing,
but I will I will fall back to the council to decide if that's a path we want. Again, I'm not going to die on the sword over it. I just think that makes the most sense as far as options. John, what do you think? I'm okay with it. Vice Mayor,
I honestly don't know, but we'll come back. I will yield to the will of the majority for compromise. Yeah. Okay. Karen, so I just know of the residents that I spoke to and they said no
turnarounds, no nothing, just a gate, a locked gate. No in the thing, no turnarounds and signage. Well, yeah, signage is going to be regardless. Hey, Scott. I thought I said my Okay,
guess you're you're the tiebreaker, Jim. Well, this this is extremely unscientific, but Chris Chris, do you are you nodding in support of what the mayor is proposing? Do you nod? Is that is that your will? Would that be based upon your conversation with the neighborhood? Yeah, I think that makes I
think between that and Okay, then I'll support it. Okay, there you go. So it's that easy. Dad's laughing. Yes. Let's let's in summary what what exactly was decided. So providing turnaround
question you know in front of the gate. Yeah. For the record as Mr. Mayor I think I think when you you were talking about a modified turnaround outside of the resort and I
think staff was saying inside. So, I think I think there's a bit of a conflict there. Sarah, come on. Educate us children. This is just what I'm hearing. I'm hearing you say and that you want the
turnaround to be on their property but outside of the gate. Correct. So, and Okay. Yes. You're using your property but it's outside your gate. Understand? Gate would be pushed in. Yes. And we're going to have a little
after recess we're going to have a little exhibit of what that could look like. Okay, perfect. Now that we all understand each other, I don't speak in Swahili for a minute. Okay, so I think it's safe that we can move on from the Bonita Harbor. Okay. Um and move on to
the next issue that uh that we want to address. Um where do you want to go from here? So we have Bonita Harbor. We presented the drainage as presented. Are we happy with that? Well, we can start with the drainage. My
preference would be to add that inlet so that it all the streets would tie in. That would that would be my preference. That would solve that would be a true public benefit. Not just for that neighborhood. I think for the resort as well as anyone that traverses hopefully
nobody traverses that street. Let's not go down that road again. But to me, that makes the most sense as far as fixing that drainage issue. I would agree with that. Like have them all come together and be have an outlet because they do flood.
So from Harbor Court down with an inlet at Bonita and then it ties into that third street entrance. Yes. At the corner. Scott, I agree. Yes, sir. Consent. One concern that I as the attorney would
have with that is so far the applicant property owner has been going above and beyond to providing drainage fixtures beyond the property beyond what would be impacted as a result of this
development. In order to be imposing conditions to development, there has to be a legitimate state interest involved and the con and the the condition has to be related has to have a nexus to that legitimate government interest as well as to the development of the property or
the adverse impact proposed by the development of the property. Now, we have included in our drainage plan the um a summary of what could be done to mitigate the the impact of the
property that will have on the drainage. Now, that includes the inlet on um Third Street as well as fixing some of the other drains or relocating them which are already in existing. Uh, I'm not going to sit here and say yes or no, but I'll put my concerns on the record that
once we start going further and further and further away from the development of the property, we're getting further and further away from that rough proportionality or that nexus. Um, we can go back and talk as a team, but as
the attorney, may I have to put that onto the record? I was trying to get back to that. That would just be to clarify that there is no voluntary intent to agree to that condition. Well, and that's has not been um correct. That has not been
discussed or committed to, you know, right now. We have gone back to the neighbors. We have met with the neighbors. We've met with the engineers. The engineers went on site with the neighbors. Have identified. We've met with staff. And this was the plan that seemed to address all of those concerns
as best as we could do. So, um, where do we want to go next? Well, we only have two more, right? So, we have we got the the turnarounds, the drainage, the wall, the private, the phasing or wall. Are we
happy with the the phasing and wall? I stated my I stated my concern. I would prefer to see the wall constructed. You know, I maybe they'll be challenging, but to me doing section I appreciate that again you went from seven to four. Um I would like to
see the drainage be incorporated into phase one of the project and you know the wall and the fencing. You can still use the you know maybe it'll give you construction fencing. I don't know. something has to
be done there to be able to help mitigate that in my opinion the potential dust and demolition and I know you have to have a construction fence but does it make sense to just again I'll I'll fall back on the will of the council on what they think there but I
think you've made concessions as far as building the wall as demo happens correct yes so the wall my my understanding is the existing wall would remain until we get to that segment of the phasing The wall would come down, would be immediately replaced, and would stay
there. Then you go on to the next phasing. The existing wall would remain while you're working on phase one. The wall would be demoed, would be replaced, and then but through your deviation request, that wall would be pushed back to the property line. That is our
request. Yes. So the wall would be on the property line and then invol also involving the relocation of those drains, which is why we included that in our drainage plan. And then Chris had mentioned inlets I think is the the concern was having the drain on Moss'
property versus on an easement on am I stating that correctly that there was concern about having those outfall or the drainage whatever you want to call them inlets. We use inlets or drainage, whatever the engineer would prefer to use. Um, be on Moss' property
versus is that does everybody else hear that same thing from I think so. Engineerly wise, maybe we should talk to her. How does that does that impact your engineering design or uh Elizabeth the Fountain for the
record? Depend. Well, that really depends on where the wall is located because that wall is going to prevent collection of that rear yard drainage if you put it, you know, in between the the drain inlets and the neighbor's property.
That's a good point. So, couldn't the wall be designed to have a cutout to allow the drainage to pass through just that section or I mean whether you have whatever side of the wall it's on, it's going to block water from one side or the other. Correct. So, we were that's what we were proposing to put the inlets because
those inlets are specifically for that rear yard drainage area. Um, so capt coming off those rear yards. So, if the drainage of the inlets were on the the property owner side, that would catch the water coming and then Moss Marines
or Arches would be responsible for collecting all their water then dispersing it. So, their water wouldn't go to that drain necessarily. It would go directly to the back bay or whatever mitigation you have to put in. The arches would have their own internal storm water management system that'll be designed specifically for water, you know, water. So these drains that are
outside that wall would be specifically to catch the water from within the res. Okay, that makes sense. John, how do you feel about the whole wall thing? I think I'm where Jim was a little while
ago. I'm not sure. Jim, are you unsure? No, I think I think the wall seems to be an important piece of the puzzle and it seems like the applicant has addressed that. I guess it's just the placement of the wall and the placement of the drains. I I think you make the engineer makes an
interesting argument. I'd be curious to hear what Chris says about the drain and the wall and that and the correlation between the drain and the wall. Um, it seems like doing that wall a and b doing it early would help mitigate some of the construction issues and some
of the other privacy concerns. At least from what I've heard, if I understood it correctly, I guess I have I have heard concern about the wall being moved four feet. That that that's a that's a concern and and then the landscaping piece. But, you
know, there's a lot of give and take that goes on. So, I don't know and the landscaping piece you know this is something that we've discussed internally um that we have discussed internally so the concerns there are a couple um we've
mentioned the maintenance issues of trying to access that landscaping I know that there is a discussion about maybe we make a condition that we're only obliged to uh put in the landscaping and then forget about it but that can also lead to certain property rights
infringements, implied easements, adverse possession. Um, if you know a neighboring resident is claiming that, oh, well, I've maintained this area for x amount of years, then that could infringe on the property owner's property rights for that area. So, that that is a concern. Um, so we would have
to have landscape easements, maintenance easements, and the whatnot. It would have to include as I believe it was Mr. Dup that had indicated about you know irrigation lines and things like that but it gets into a maintenance um nightmare. What if the neighbor doesn't like the trees that we put in? Even
though they don't have a specific say there could be uh unintentional damage to the to the landscaping on our property. So there are concerns on both ends. Um, and that's why we are requesting to put the wall on the property line, which then creates the
drainage to be able to be relocated more in uh on line with their residential properties. That would be better. So, they we wouldn't be moving any of their or removing any of their existing drains. We would be relocating them. So, that was our given take for that.
So, you're basically So, because I was thinking as you were talking, if you were to where the drain is by Chris's house, for instance, that's on Moss' property. Correct. Correct. So, what you're proposing is moving the wall to where that drainage inlet is and moving the inlet further onto the private
properties. Correct. of the the homeowners. Correct. As opposed to bringing up the wall to the edge of that where the existing drain is. I I want to be careful here because I'm not fully um certain as to where those drains are located, whether they're on the property
line, whether they're set back from the property line. So, I don't want to misrepresent anything. Uh but our proposition would be to put the wall on the property line or as close to as possible and then those drains which have been in place with the intention to
relieve the drainage on those backyards would be to place that drain where it could be more efficient and effective into the backyards. If that answers your question. I'm not sure it does, but No, I I I think we're both saying the same thing, but essentially what you're
saying is you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to move the wall all the way to your property line and then encroach on the private property owners with an easement to be able to move the drain from where it's currently located. When I was out there, it looked like there was still there was some survey stakes. I don't can't say that they were. They weren't, but the survey
stakes made it look like at that corner of that property there, the drainage was on Moss' side of the property. What you're proposing, again, as I say cake and eat it too, is you're proposing to get the maximum amount of use of your property based on that wall and moving the drainage now over as opposed to
leaving the drain in where it's at and putting the wall on that side of the property. Ju just to clarify, um I think that it might be helpful and and um we can have the engineer discuss it in more detail if you want. No matter
what, if we were to put um the wall offset from the property line with landscaping. Those inlets are going to have to be modified. There's going to be a new system going in. Sure. And we're going to have to accommodate for the landscaping and the drainage. One of the things that they talked about instead of
having the the big grates that we currently see, these would be smaller inlets that would be placed strategically to to best drain those those properties. So, no matter what, there's going to be some kind of a change associated with with what's
existing. Yeah. Judith, you look like you have something to say. Yes. I I just wanted to reiterate that the reason why we proposed relocating the drains to just inside the private property line was to eliminate the need for a parallel
easement along that rear property line. That's right. So that way we just have the the smaller drains to collect that rear yard drainage and then the pipe would go towards a main line that would be on the Arches property. So what if the the property owners didn't want to
give you the easement to do that? Then we would have to go back to the drawing board. So So just so I understand. So So you're moving the wall back so you can have the drains be on the closer to the private property and be more effective. Is that
in essence what you're doing? Yes. That's the purpose of moving the wall, having the four feet movement of the wall. That is that is one of the the benefits of it. Yes. Um, and really I think we were just proposing that the the inlets further
inside the their property just to eliminate the need to have a a drainage ement parallel because it would have to be like 20 ft wide and that would further encumber their property. So, if it's just over the drains with the pipe connection to the
main bypass storm drainage line that would be within the Arches property, you know, on the other side of the wall, wouldn't it make just trying to think, wouldn't it make more sense construction-wise then to provide yourself your own easement if you were
to move that concrete wall on the outside? Just let's say you move the wall up to where the edge of that drain is now. you're on your own property. You could have your own easement. So then if you did landscaping there, you have your own easement to be able to walk on without going onto their property by
simply just moving the wall two feet from where you currently want to move it or however wide that inlet is. You see what I'm saying? So to me, that would solve a lot of issues. Yes, you're going to technically lose or have an easement which could then take care of that landscape buffer that you have the ability to go on your own property and
maintain. But then it also allows you along your property to do what you're talking about, Elizabeth, and having that I'm trying to understand what is the need to to move that to push the wall to then tee into something that's going to be on their property and go down. Does that make sense engineerally
wise? To me, I'm not an engineer, but to me that would solve a lot of issues, right? No, I understand. And it's something maybe you want to discuss when we take our break here. Yeah, let's do that. Does that did make that make sense? Okay. Yes. Thank you. Yes. I think regards to the wall, there's cons
I think it's a fair to say there's concerns with the deviation request requesting for it to be on the property line and the landscape on the interior. Um, but even if the landscape was on the outside on our property, there would still need to be maintenance easements to access it from the nearby residence
from the contiguous resident because we need to get to it. So unless it's directly on Bonita where you could or harbor where you could drive up and then access it, we still Couldn't you access it from March's way? Not in the middle. I mean, the the
parcels that we're talking about, you wouldn't be able to walk straight over. We'd have to access it up going up Bonita or Harbor and then those individual parcels in the middle. We would still need easements on from those property owners in order to cross their
yards to enter to access our property. So either way, you would need an easement. Correct. Whether you move it or whether you landscape it, you need an easement either way. Correct. Okay. So, I just have a quick question though. So, the the piping that Elizabeth is talking
about Yes. Does that take the place So, that I'm assuming is underground and then takes the place of the swailes that are going in on every property with reconstruction now. Yeah. It would the pipe would be underground. Yes.
Um there still be there may There will be some grading that would promote getting positive drainage off those rear yards into the grade in lits. So would that be in the yard then and not on Arch's side? That would
be in the yards for more. So that would be an additional easement if you will or additional what exactly? I think the goal would be to make sure that those grades were placed um in a way to
promote positive drainage. And I don't I don't know if the great if the yards would have to be regraded like along the rear property line or not. Um they're existing have they have pretty low um great elevations today, but the main piping would be on the
Arches property. So there'd be a connecting pipe from those great and lints that ran perpendicular to a main storm drainage line within the Arches property. It would go out to Arches Way and then to the bay. And when you say that the
drains are strategically located, like right now there's only one that I've seen on there's two on Chris's property and then on the other Marilyn Andersons, I believe. Yes. So, you're saying that there those two
will remain, but there could also be more to help with the drainage and not necessarily a swale. I was anticipating those we would be replacing those but in a slightly different location but all all in all to make it more
to convey the water. Yeah. With more capacity. Yes. More capacity to get it off their property. be quicker. Okay. Yes. Okay. But again, I just want to reiterate, Karen, I think what I'm what I'm saying is this could the applicant has the ability to
do all of this within their property. They may lose a couple feet on that back side, but you have the ability to still do all of this within your own. your your wall is going to be offset a little bit, but everything you're talking about now you're eliminating a tee because what you're talking about is having to put the inlet on the private property,
go underground and tee onto the main inlet that will take you down into the main outfall, right? I'm talking about eliminating all that, keeping the straight line that you have, it's already on your property and just moving the wall on the other side so that you if there's landscape buffering that needs to be done there,
you already own the property. Now, as far as easement, I don't know where the other drain is where if it's around that corner or why you would have to access it from I think Megan said you'd have to go down the middle of the properties on Bonita. I don't understand why you would have to do that if you couldn't why couldn't you access that landscaping
along your own property line where the red line goes all along the private properties. If that drainage there is all within your property, you would never have to walk on someone else's property. You wouldn't need an easement. I think that would benefit the applicant as well. Is that something engineerly
that can be done. Judith, so I just wanted to point out I'm not an engineer, right? But in terms of the in terms of the the code requirement, there's a the code requires a 15t buffer, right? So without the deviation,
you would set that wall back 15t, put the landscaping, and then you probably have enough room for, you know, not a vehicle to enter, but a landscaper by foot to come in and landscape. and then you could potentially put that drain issue on that, you know, between the
property line and that wall, right? So, in that scenario, there's enough room to accomplish those things. Um, I also did want to point out two other things is that in terms of the attorney brought up nexus, um, they are providing this now.
So, it's a continuation of of mitigation efforts they've already undertaken. So I think that there is a connection existing for them providing the uh drainage because it's part of what they've already been doing. They just have to redo it to make it work and I think to increase it probably um for
what's going to be required um in the review process. Um secondly, we could think about um a public private partnership for the storm water for the area in general. Now that's approaching a larger kind of agreement here. But um
the town has plans to improve storm water there. We could potentially, you know, work with them to develop that moving forward. So So again, we're back to easements are needed either way unless you were going to go to that 15 foot setback.
We're talking about different things. So the drainage is only needs a certain width for access and then vegetation, you know, landscaping needs a different width for access. Um,
and so I guess you'd have to consider both pieces and how you want to allow access. um easements aside, let's just based on what I've just said, is there a way, what would be required to
let's say the wall stayed on the other side of the drain, the drains where it's at, but it gets enhanced obviously for what it needs, the inlets run down and connect down to Arch's way. Is there what would be required then if if they were required to put landscape buffering
on the other side of the wall? Again, easements aside, what would be required from the town to be able to allow them to do that? Yeah. I mean, so as you point out, there's a potential. It depends on what kind of landscaping, right? How deep are the roots? Are they going to impact the pipes? All of that kind of things. I'm
not sure the exact distance right now and whether those drains are exactly on their fully on their property or not. So, there's also that as well. Um, and then there's, you know, maintenance long term. So, if those drains are like half on their property, half on the
neighbor's property, you know, it becomes a an issue. Um, and I I do know that there needs to be substantial work done to get it up to, you know, current standards. Okay.
Thanks, Elizabeth. Thank you. What's next, Megan? Okay. Well, if we circle back to the initial items highlighted by council that we bring back and discuss, we'll turn to the fourth item, which is the setback barrier at the edge of the sunset deck.
So currently in our master concept plan, the revised master concept plan does include a um 24 inch setback from the edge of the structure. And we can include a commitment that we would provide a lowlying whether it be
structural, vegetative, hardscape, something of that nature to ensure that even though the wall or the edge is right here, you would not be able to access it. There would be two feet away from that. So it'll be more interior. Um
so that is what we are currently proposing and I think that's what we're comfortable with. We're not will there eventually at some point in time is there a possibility of a glass being constructed there? Maybe perhaps but we're not in the design uh abilities to
make such a commitment at this time. And we are only discussing what is on this sunset deck which is attached to building B. are not going to get into the building C's for the reasons stated previously. Yeah, the building C pool deck makes sense. That's not that's not
facing anything. But I do see the concerns of the neighbors on on A and B based on their the Bodega restaurant and the sunset deck. You know, the privacy thing is I can get a building a go ahead.
trying to get asked for the record. Um, yes, we we uh I guess we forgot to talk about the dig with the market and the outdoor seating there. Um, so I think what we've proposed is
again a detail like the trellis or what you do up there, I think it's very premature to address that. I think we've got one property that abuts on the other side of Archesway. We've intentionally uh angled Archesway to create a wider
buffer there. I think the idea is we'd much rather plant that area with mature trees and and uh hedge where the property owner currently one-story home would not see the roof the rooftop deck
area. And the same thing is the patrons there could not see in the backyard. We'd much rather put heavy landscaping there than have to decide what kind of physical barrier would have to be associated with the building. Well, I want to be cognitive of, you know, you
guys obviously don't want to block your view from there, right? You're going to have a good view. That's I think Ben testified to that very You don't want to block your view, right? I certainly don't want to block your view, but I want to be I want to be, you know, I want to show some compassion to the neighbors that are going to have this directly in their backyard to try to
provide them some some a little bit more. I appreciate the two-foot buffer. I would like to see it honestly go a little bit farther quite honestly, Patrick. And I'm not saying it has to be glass. I'm not say but that you will do something there to help private. Again, I I agree with you. I think it's too
early. Could we say yes, you got to put glass there, but does it make sense engineering? I don't know. I'm not an engineer. I'm not a designer, but I think having something that doesn't necessarily block your view, but does provide some privacy to the residents would make sense to me. And I get what you're saying. I was actually talking about the Bodega building. Well, both. I
mean, just again, the pool, I think the pool, you're not going to see that from any of the residents. Yeah, but the bodega and the sunset deck I I would like to see. And again, we don't have to get it down to the exact what the material or what it's going to be, but something that could provide an additional I would I would prefer to see
that. Maybe my fellow counselors wouldn't, but you know, it doesn't seem like a substantial request from from the immediate neighbors that are abing the property. Yeah, I I just see I just see a distinction between the Sunset deck and the Bodega deck. That that building
is removed. It's not a tall building. It's it's going to be shutting down that that that area for eating, shutting down uh relatively early. It's up against San Carlos. We're going to provide that buffering close to the neighbor. I think
I see it as two different issues. Again, in the spirit of compromise, I'd be happy to agree with you on that with the bodega because you have the driveway, you're going to have buffering. That makes sense. But the sunset deck is going to be looking over the top of and again we're we're happy to take your direction where what the feel is. Okay.
We'll take the break and we'll come back with how we can address your concerns. Megan, you're getting your steps in. That's right. That's right. It's a good day. So, those are the kind of four items that you all had asked for us to go back to. Were there any other big
ticket items that you want to get out of the way now before we go into the conditions of approval? The um one of the things that they had on there that wasn't was the parking. I know you're going to have those louver things there. Do those louvers have anything behind them as far as like screening or is it
just going to be open or I'm trying to think of the open for for air flow. Well, yeah, I understand that, but I didn't know if there's going to be I don't know if we have a picture of it or not. Hold on. Let me see. and they're they're just going to gonna be like a normal louver like you'd have it. Um I mean I think those louvers would
provide quite a bit of noise mitigation personally, but let's see. I'm getting I passed it. Yeah, you don't have to chase it down. I I know what it looks like. I just Right. There we go. Right there. So, what was the question? I just
wasn't sure if there was anything going to be behind it as far as like I any kind of screening if it would be open. My guess is it probably be open. It's it's I don't know the answer to that. No, that's fine. It's not that it just wasn't sure if it was going to if it was just decorative or if it was going to be fully, you know, if those were just decorative, but it sounds like they're
going to be open for ventilation. Correct. Yes, that is how the ventilation would be achieved is through those openings. And I believe we have reached a you know we had indicated with the neighbors whom we met with that the design will be consistent with these renderings and they seemed to be yes that's good as long as you know you're
not staring into the cars into the parking garage type of thing. Okay. Okay. John, you have anything else before we take a brief break or break to let everybody do what they need to do? Huh? Nothing currently. Vice Mayor? No.
Karen, I'm good. Scott, I'm good. All right, then we'll take a How long of a break do we need? How long do you guys need? How long have we left? 15. I'm hearing 15. All right. How about 20? We'll do 20. That way it is. If people need to grab something to eat, they can grab
something. 20 it is. Okay. We'll take a break. We'll recess for till time is it? We'll say 1:00. One. I don't have my glass. speaking. All right, we'll call the meeting back
to order. It is 106 p.m. Megan, do you want to or Ken, whomever? Who's coming? Okay, that's one of the items that we were working on was a uh yet another option for that Bonita
Harbor gate. So, it's just got it. Okay, let's skip the Bonita Harbor Court. Let's jump into um let's see the drainage wall landscape is what I have written down. So, there is one item that was addressed about are
we going to be putting in an inlet on third the corner of Third Street and Harbor Port. We are not proposing that. Um, if at some point time in the future, if the town wants to install an inlet or a drainage there and have a pipe that runs down Third Street to connect, we
would be open to that in the future, but we're not imposing any condition that we're going to go above and beyond even more to to provide that third one. The existing drainage system or proposed drainage system is all along our
property lines. Let me see if I can get to kind of where it shows where these inlets would be. There we go. It's kind of small. Um, but the inlets would be on our property line. So, connecting to our main uh underwater storage system and
whatnot. Uh, specifically as it pertains to the drainage for the backyard neighbors, there are three locations. Hold on, let me get closer. If you can see on the corner of Third Street and Arches Way is where those the
backyard uh drainage for the neighbors located. So in addition to the drainage, we've also discussed the location of the wall, the location of the landscaping, this deviation number four, and we have two
options. If we keep the wall roughly where it is and its existing location, it varies. It's roughly somewhere between three feet and off the property line in some locations up to six feet in others. But if we keep it in generally the same location, um we keep the
drainage on our side of the property. So outside of the wall, but arch Arches property uh we would and then the additional landscaping there would be no landscaping on the outside of the wall. We'd have to keep the landscaping on the inside of the wall for a couple of
reasons. Number one, the landscaping could be um inconsistent or could fight against those drainage pipes underneath. We don't want to be in and causing any damage to those drainage pipes. So, the landscaping could be on our side of the property. The wall would still be pushed
back between three and six feet depending on where the location is and the drains would sit roughly where they are today or as close to the property line as possible to catch that backyard drainage system. In that scenario, we would still need a drainage easement. Um
they're roughly, I believe, you generally speaking about 10 to 15 feet wide, bless you. So, it would would have to probably extend a little bit onto the neighbor's property, but um just so that we could access that pipe, which the pipe would be located under our
property. That's option one. Option two is still maintaining the location of the wall about roughly where it is. The landscape would be on their side or on the outside of the wall still on our property or yes on the exterior of the
wall. The drainage would then be relocated to be on the property owners or the residents of properties or as close to their property line as possible. Now, in that scenario, we would be complying with the code
requirement of having the landscape on the exterior of the wall, but it's imposing additional conditions on those property owners adjacent or contiguous to Moss Marina. There would have to be a landscape maintenance easement. There would also have to be a drainage
easements if we're putting it on their property line. And it would be a little bit more encumbersome on to them. So, those are the kind of two avenues that we've selected. Um, but in both scenarios, we we've heard council's thoughts and considerations about really
not putting that wall all the way to the property line. So, in both scenarios, we're agreeing, okay, fine, we'll keep the wall generally roughly where it is now. It's just how do we see where the landscape is versus where the the proposed inlet pipes are. So, does anybody have any questions,
comments, or thoughts on those two approaches? Scott, do you want to go first? Yeah, I I appreciate the fact that you guys are keeping that wall kind of at where it is and doing a solid wall. I I think that the neighbors pretty much agree that
that's what they want. I honestly I think the first option is better. You guys keep the landscaping on your side. I know it's a deviation, but I I just think that would probably be the best option. So, thank you.
Yeah. So, I agree. The wall staying where it is, it doesn't encroach anymore. Um, I do like the idea of the pipes being on your side of the wall versus the
resident side of the wall because of just what you said. you plant some, they can plant anything they want, but if it if it messes up with the pipes underneath, all it does is cause more hassle. So, this way you're in control of that piece of it as well and what
those root systems are going to be and that type of thing. So, I think option one is better. Vice Mayor, I I concur. That seems to address the majority of the neighbors concerns and I appreciate your flexibility on it. John in agreement.
Okay. Well, just real quick, I just so I understand. I want to make sure that I understand. I'm excited. Based on what Karen just said, did you say that? So, the inlets are going to stay where they're at, but then they're going to tee into the main drain on Moss's side of the wall. So, that the inlets will stay in their general location. They
might have to be modified and slightly relocated. So, right now, the inlets, and again, I don't want to misrepresent anything. I don't exactly know where they are like on the survey, but I believe there is close to a property line um on the skirting the edge of the Moser property line. The drainage or the
inlets would remain in that general location. Um the wall would be general location. Okay. General general location. So you have inlet wall landscape arches bayfront resort. But that's what I based on what Karen said. She made it sound like it was going to
tee into the main drain that were taped the main because you had said that you were worried about not putting it there because or landscaping there because it would interfere with that pipe. To me, that sounds like the pipe is going to be on the property owner side of the wall. No, no, no. In no scenario is the pipes
completely under the the pro the uh maybe I misunderstood. There is no scenario where we would be putting excavating pipes under the residences. Okay. They all the Oh, would you like to take That makes sense because we were I think your initial when you initially
said it, you made it sound like Okay. It was staying where it was. Yes. Yes. So, there would be an upgrade to the system, but the inlets would would be in the same location on the outside of the wall like where they are now and connected to
a main storm drainage. bypass line that would be on the other side of the wall that would go to Arches Way. Okay. And then in option one, you're proposing then you would vegetate the moss side of the or the arches side of the wall but not the correct but they would be free
to plant what they want on that side since there's going to be no piping there. Should the homeowner want it's their property, right? Or no. Well, they could plant on their property, but it's still our property. So there would be a drain or an inlet and still regardless of where the location of that inlet is,
there still needs to be a 10 to 15 foot wide drainage easements that would be controlling what could be planted there. So this scenario e either scenario you're still going to need an ement sign off from the property owners to be able to Yes. Okay. Understood. All right. It
was just a a matter of how much you know the first scenario imposes a much smaller incumbrance onto the residents backyards. So, it sounds like with the drainage, we're going to keep the old existing location. Generally speaking, the drains will stay in their rough sly
same location, but we're going to keep all the landscaping on the inside. Yes, ma'am. Just just to be crystal clear. So, there's a uh only a portion of this property has an existing wall, right? So, we're only talking about it
being set that set back that 3 to six feet where there are inlets or after it makes that turn where there are no inlets. So, and I think maybe we want to say exactly which which properties are going to need that easement because I think it's just the ones on Third Street
we're talking about, not the ones that are on Bonita. Yeah. So, you're asking what is the what's going to be the setback or is there any setback for the rest of the wall that doesn't exist now? Right. Well, so the the wall um turns so it it it's in the backyard of those
properties on third and then it turns up and abuts one or two properties there on beneath their backyards. Um, so I I just want to be clear when we're writing this up where we're expecting that the drainage easement is only going to be in the backyards of those I think it's three properties that are on Bonita and
then they could put that wall because they are going to have to reconstruct it um closer to the property line on those Bonita properties where there is an existing wall or is your intent to have that wall still be in the general location even though there's no inlet or
I believe that was the intent is where the wall is now is where it will today close proximity. But what about the walls that aren't currently there? Will those then be going on your property line down wherever there wherever there's no concrete wall? Now, we would keep it somewhat consistent. Maybe
they're not going to be set off five feet, but roughly about a three-foot setback. So, it wouldn't be directly on the property line. Set it back a little bit. Make sure that it's consistent. Maybe for the wording, it could be not to exceed whatever the closest distance is from the current wall. Does that give
you heartburn or does that give you heartburn? Just I'm just trying to make it easier for you to have to understand it. Just trying to make it easy for everybody else. Should it go forward? I'm just right. No, I appreciate it.
Got it. Okay, let's see. So, we did the tree. Oh, regarding the um rooftop and sunset decks, we have at the last council
meeting, there was a specific request to look into the sunset deck of of B. We did. We provided a 24 inch setback. are making a commitment to provide some type of low vegetation, hardcape, softcape,
something to make sure that uh no patron's going to be leaning over the edge of that. We are not uh going to provide anything for the bodega roof restaurant rooftop deck. I think that's far enough excluded and there's enough
vegetation in front of it. Um and we are not prepared to make a commitment to provide any type of visual screening on the sunset deck at this time since we have already um included vegetation and buffering. I think that was after LPA and then after the first town council
we've already set back uh 24 in from the edge. So what we have proposed or what we've come to the table with today is going to be our final position on that point. Um this project is a a very detailed project. There's a lot of
components to it. We have made a lot of strides from not just from LPA, but thinking back to 2023 when this was first when the redevelopment of Moss Marino was first envisioned and brought up. The vision of that redevelopment is
starkly different than what was brought before you in April of this year. Um there has been a reduction in the total number of units, a reduction of buildings of sizes of heights and in
addition to that this is arguably the project that has provi been proposing or is proposing and providing the largest amount of public benefits that the beach has seen. We have now we are now opening up the Bayfront prominade to the public. This is a private marina, private marina
and dryboat storage where it is not open to the public but providing a bayfront prominade. The Mr. Freeland and the Freeland family has already committed. We are so passionate about this project and this island to even propose to operating the water ferry that if they
can't find somebody else to operate it, we'll do it ourselves. There is additional the linear park that is being proposed. There are substantial public benefits that are being proposed. So when it comes to asks that are going
above and beyond what has already been discussed, considered, and committed to, we're going to be greatly limited in what else we can be providing. So to summarize for the sunset deck, we've already set it back 24 in and
we're going to provide the lowlying decorative structural and/or vegetative barrier within that setback. That's what our proposition is. So those are the three three of the four items that we've been discussing. I don't know if we're ready for Okay. But does anybody have any
comments about that after? Well, I guess personally I would I would disagree with some of your comments there at the end. Of course, I mean they're definitely subjective. To say that you're proposing far more public benefits than any other project is
subjective. It's not factual. And I could we could spend three hours here going back and forth on public benefits and what I consider an amenity and what you consider a public benefit, right? We're not going to do that, but we could. But I think it's it's a little disingenuous to say that you're asking for a substantial amount. Mhm. So it
should be proportionate to what you're providing. And you've given three examples of what you feel are substantial. And again, I think it's it's a little disingenuous to stand there and say that you're proposing more public benefits than anyone else that has come before us before. I don't think that's a fair statement. Understood.
Does anybody else have any else that they would like to add? Thank you. Okay. So now with that, we can turn to the Bonita Harbor Court and the gate and kind of another modified option. I don't even know what number we're on. C. Um, so or
D or E. So, okay. Do you want to talk or you want me to go to it? Whichever. Go ahead. You can save me if I need anything. Okay. So, this is we've talked about providing a turnaround before the gate, but doesn't comply with, you know,
emergency vehicles. And that's what this looks like. So you would still have a car would still have the ability to turn around before they reach the gate. I think whether it's this version or whether it was our first modified
version B, you're still going to be running into the same concerns of is it going to be used as a Uber Door Dash, you know, drop off type facility. This is just another option.
Our preference is the first option that we presented which has gates at the right at the property line of Bonita and Harbor. That is our preference. I think that that's the cleanest approach. Um that restricts vehicle access, that restricts pedestrian access. You don't
have to walk around and worry about all the other convoluted gates um accessing the pedestrian park. I think with this having the gates, you'd have to have pedestrian gates on the sides of the linear park. Um, which
then could negate that public benefit in and of itself. Megan, I think you're going a little aggressive here. That was I understand what you're trying to do here, but again, I don't think I'm maybe articulating well enough what I'm trying So, you see that little white box in the top left hand side there? That's the the
arrow that's pointing towards Harbor Street, the big black arrow just to the left of it. You see that white box where you where the start of the turnaround is? What I was suggesting is not have to push the gate way back to where that turnaround is, but the gate could be at if that curve of the walk path was to
continue on. The gate could be on this side of it, right? Your gate could be there. So that that little small white box, the the the minimal smallest amount needed to to come in compliance. Sarah, I think you understand what I'm talking about. So you would take that same stain little white box and put it on the other
side and that's where your f that's where your gate would be. Right where that edge of that white if I had a piece of paper I could draw it out for you. But do you want to point to that? I would. Yes. Maybe this one. So I'll point to this. So what I'm saying is right here where this white box is. That's your gate. This little piece and
that little piece are the turnaround. It's just wide enough that you need for the car. So this would have just a little jog in here. You don't have to push your fence way back there. So you still have all of that property. I'm talking just a small minimum amount of area where this white box is and where this white box is, which I believe is 10
feet. That would have to come this way 10 feet, this way 10 feet, and whatever the width needs to be for the width of the car. So, it' be like a this would be like a little T if you were to continue that white box all the way across. That's all I was talking about. Very minuscule, very small, very So, it wouldn't interfere with the linear park.
It wouldn't interfere with anything. would be small enough to meet the code, but it would I don't think you need to push it all the way back up to where you're Yes, we were trying to keep it entirely on our property just because it's because then you would still have all that drive there. I mean, I don't
necessarily want to be telling the town what to do with their with their with their property. Well, I'm just again, I'm just proposing that that's the that solves a lot of the issues without having to reconfigure your linear park, pushing your gate way back, making a big turnaround there. Nobody wants a big turnaround.
but just trying to eliminate cars that do go that they're not turning around people's driveways. I think at at this point um I would like to hear from from others. You know, this was one this was our interpretation of what we were hearing as having this modified approach. Sure, we could bring the gate
down further, the the the yellow line that you see um past, but I my perception of what the neighbors have been requesting, there has been a larger
consensus of we don't want turnarounds versus it'd be nice to have a turnaround. That's my perception and that's my understanding. Um, if you are proposing to have some type of partnership or something where
the where the town and applicant and private property owner create some type of a modified turnaround that's a little bit outside of my control. I can only make commitments to what, you know, the property owner which I represent is able to do. Uh, but at this point, I'd like
to hear from others what what what other what everybody else thinks. Um, again, applicant would like to have a a gated completely. I think that's the cleanest, easiest approach with no turnarounds, but but and I'm agreeing with you. I see
you crossed off all the pedestrian. There would be no pedestrian access, right, through that that entire I see you did that on there, but yeah. No, I'm Scott. Go ahead. What you got? Whatever is in your mind. I'm I'm more of the no turnaround whatsoever, but I I I'm in
agreement with Dan. I thought that was what Dan was talking about is just be able to if you do have a turnaround just do a couple feet inside your property so it's not um on the neighbor's property. So I I I'd be okay with that. I mean
it's very minimal. It's you know still obviously the signage don't drive down here. That that's I that's what I thought he was talking about. Just boom boom right there. Yeah, for the record, Patrick Vaness. Um, so, so the little
leg of that hammerhead that veer is left is 10 feet wide. Okay. So, we that the little wide box, if we were to scoot it down and cover that, we're still we still have to meet at least 10 feet. Or
are you guys saying we cut that down to 95 feet wide? Well, there's no dimensions up there, so it's hard to tell like how wide your turnaround spot is. I Is that 10 feet? But but yeah, that that that that leg that turns is 10 10 ft wide. Okay. Or 20
ft wide. Okay. 20 The leg that turns left is 20 feet. About 10 feet. 10 feet in. But how wide is it? If it's 10 feet in, that's got to be 20 or 30 feet wide. How wide is this section, Ken? Right
here. This piece right here. We know this is 10 feet this way. What is this? 20 feet. Yeah. So, this could shrink in half. If I may tell if this is Sure.
Yes. But move it all the way down to your property line. Exactly. Ken Ken is playing around with the PDF on I figured somebody was I don't have the access to it. But what he's got drawn is essentially exactly what I was referring to. But it's great. Give him a few minutes. He can he can get that
wrapped up and the AV folks can project it up on the screen because that to me that wouldn't interfere with your linear park then. It wouldn't it would create a little bit of a turnaround and it doesn't even have to be paved. It could be rock or crush shell or something, you
know. I I think that could be a good solution. Again, you know, you're dealing with people that are typically used to abiding by code. So, so we're a little rigid in in deviating, but uh we'll see what he puts together. Um,
anything else? Well, I think she wanted to finish hearing from the other council. Maybe recreate the wheel. And that's fine if we wanted to if anybody else has thoughts while Ken is working on this. But those were I think the big ticket items that we wanted to address before we get into the conditions. Megan, if um if there is
agreement as to the schematic that Ken is working on when we do our conditions, we might want to attach that. Y does anybody else have any comments while we're waiting for Karen? I'm actually want to wait and see Ken's
schematic because it might be the best negotiation yet because otherwise I would be with the dead-end streets, the no turnarounds because that's the feedback that I've been getting personally. So yeah, I mean this that to me is a lot of
wasted space. Vice Mayor got any I'd like to see this new iteration as well. No pressure. Yeah. Well, in the sake of continuing on, is there a way we can continue? You want to start going through the conditions as he's doing that or
I'm fine with fine with either. Okay, there are let's we could start we could start on the conditions. There are 30 plus conditions. I think there are 10 of which which um staff and applicant
differ. So I'll try and spend my time focusing on those rather than going through all. Um Judith, are you going to want to go through every single one so that you're 100% clarified instead of jumping around if we can do it simultaneous? Yes. Okay. Yeah. So I think that makes the most sense so that
we can move. Yeah, that's all right with you. Yeah. So basically if number one you both agree you we move on. We move on. And the way that this is presented that is on the PowerPoint right now anything that the applicant has is requesting changes to what the ordinance
that's in front of you will see in highlights. So as you can see in the first two slides there are no highlights. Now what is important to note is that when I'm looking at the conditions of approval there are several conditions of approval which are directly tied to the Bonita Harbor Court
issue. So I will notate them. So what you have up there, unless I missed it, I don't see in our conditions of approval anything highlighted. So no, it's just on your your your side. Yes. So just on the PowerPoint for easy access right now. It starts on 309 for us. Okay.
Thank you. So go ahead. Yeah. So just so you're aware of what happened. Um staff worked on the conditions of approval after the second reading. First hearing. after the first hearing, but then after that um I had individual meetings with
uh residents. They had meetings with residents. I think that they met with some of you all and then we had a meeting jointly um last week, end of last week to kind of go through these one by one and see where we were um we had movement on based on the the
feedback that we heard up to that point. Okay. Okay. Okay. So very briefly, the condition one, the owner will provide an accessible stabilized surface between the Bonita and Harbor Court or B Harbor Court and Bonita Street. I'm going to circle this one because depending on
what provision we select, that might need to be modified, but we have no problem with that and we are in agreement with staff. The MCP indicates the access points at Harbor Court Bonita Street provide for emergency limited access only. limited access to allow vehicles that have unintentionally
driven down Harbor Court to temporarily access the Arches property, maneuver through the turnaround area, and then exit the property. This condition will be modified based on whichever configuration is selected and
I don't think there's any um disagreement between staff and applicant on it. You'll essentially just be removing the temporary access to the property. Correct. To maneuver, correct? So, in either event, you'll either have the property completely gated or have a very small turnaround. But
under either condition or either configuration, there will still be signs, dead end street, no access, no th you know, no throw through on Third Street and Bonita Harbor will still exist. The walkover pedestrian bridges bridges will be so high to permit fire
and other emergency vehicles to pass. That's fine. Pedestrian controlled access will be a system of the gated sections with keypad. Kind of scanning through these so we don't waste too much time. Applicant is okay with this condition. Staff's okay with this
condition. Um access to the Arches Resort through the easement number will be for ve vehicular travel only. Applicant is fine with it. A detailed landscaping plan showing the location and type of planting uh and that the landscaping material will be native varieties Florida friendly. We're fine.
uh the western boundary, the canal adjacent to building E. This includes a thickened buffer, the five foot wide buffer will be provided and provide a minimum of five trees per 100 linear feet. Uh we're fine with that. Vehicular
access to the resort will be focused and directed to Arches Way. This includes that signage which I was just discussing on um Third and probably Benedan Harbor as well. Applicant Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Um, access points to the resort from Harbor and Benita will be gated and allow emergency vehicle access only. That's related, but it'll probably still remain because there will be gates regardless of which configuration is chosen. The property will include a dedicated transit
stop. Uh, condition on approval from Lee Tran. Uh there we're okay with this that the final locations will be determined at the development order approval and the maximum o over allowed commercial space is
25,500 square f feet. The hours of operation for amplified sound for outdoor areas will be limited to the following unless otherwise temporarily permitted. So this is where we're going to get to our first um provision. So under A, which pertains
to the Arches Gateway Restaurant, which is attached to building A on the master console plan, there was great discussion about the hours of operation during the last meeting. Uh we have agreed to limit the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to
10 p.m. All amplified sound will be oriented away from adjacent residential properties. However, upon reviewing of the proposed ordinance, we see that uh a provision of live music is not permitted outdoors at this location was added. And
the applicant, this was never came up during the discussion at the first hearing. The applicant is requesting the ability to have live music at Arch's restaurant. So, that's our first item.
So, you need direction. Yes. Yes, that is correct. John, how do you feel about the live music permitted outdoors at this location? It's not interfering with the neighbors though. Correct. This is the one that is furthest away. So, it's not It's by the pool, right? Be the one.
And this was building Let's see if I can go. Is it the Bodega building? It's the one on San Carlos. It's right on of old San Carlos. Uh, my opinion, every other restaurant has live music on San Carlos.
So, it would it's on this little green leg that's up there. Yeah. Yeah. For some reason, I thought it was a pool, but though you've got your direction, the consensus. Okay. That that I think you guys are saying remove it.
It says it says not permitted, but you're going to get rid of not. Well, yes. Allow allow live music. Okay. Okay, let's see if I can get back. Yeah, allow it. I mean, every place else all
open San Carlos has it. And again, our hours are already limited. So, okay, I'll quickly um Yes, summarize. So, the sunset deck hours of operation we're good to go with. That was as
discussed at length um during both prior hearings. Bayfront prominade we are fine with. Pool deck for buildings B and C 7 a.m. to midnight is fine. Pool deck for building E is good. The outdoor deck of by the events chapel 7 to midnight we're
fine with Linear Park Memorial Garden 7 to 1 hour after sunset. Fine with that. So 13 is the service of alcohol on promise consumption. We are um in agreement with all of those conditions and limitations. So for the
downtown ferry and water taxi facility stop we are proposing let's see so right now staff has it and this is a matter of semantics right now staff has it called the we would like for it to be referred to as the water taxi facility
and stop. I think staff is in agreement with that because terminal has separate definitions and code requirements. Can can we use the word ferry as opposed to taxi? That's what we would prefer. I think that that best defines what we are proposing, but we're leaving the option
open that in the event that an outside operator wants to come in and operate a taxi. Yeah, let me just say for the record, I mean, we could actually have both uh because there would be with the Moringfield and other entities around the taxi is an interesting dynamic to
supplement a ferry. They're not mutually exclusive and they kind of symbiotic with each other. So yeah, I just I just don't want people to be confused because the word taxi sounds like it's for a like an Uber for one entity. It's the ferry serves everyone and has up to 49
people on it. So I think it's I just I just want people to understand what you're doing because it's it's substantial here. It is. Could I also also I just with going going through this language first time I've had a chance to talk to you about this language. Um, one of the things I
remember on first reading is that, and I think this is a certainty, if you will, assuming the town uh meets its obligations, but for the stops, you've got three stops. And I I thought we were under the working under the pressure that we had four stops. And the one that's missing in my eyes is the is the
moundhouse. Yes. And again, if I'm operating that ferry, if there's nobody that wants to stop at the moundhouse that particular day or afternoon, it's a beautiful day, maybe there's nobody that wants to stop, you don't have to stop. But if there are people that want to stop, you make the stop. And I I would
just say from a public benefit standpoint, I mean, the water fair is a huge public benefit, but for the community and for the town, I think the the ferry has the ability to potentially double the attendance at the mouth, and it's huge. So, if we could, and that's something the town can control if we we
we'd have an obligation to make sure our we have capacity to to to take the ferry on, which I think we've talked about, and I think we can. So, I'd like to include the Arches Resort, the Moundhouse. Uh, and then I I I know you guys want some flexibility with respect to Marinas because it's you still have
to negotiate a deal, but I like a Mid Island location and uh and once and a stop located at the south end. So, if we could have those four stops, that would be great. get in a minimum you don't you can do more. Um let me explain a little bit of the we
have no issue including the moundhouse specifically based on our conversations with staff um it appeared that um identifying the mouthouse as the potential location would have its own
problems because it is my understanding uh that we would not be able to stop there now. There would have to be a docking space. It would have to be access of which we were not sure if that was going to be able to be effectuated. And the reason why we kept the language
a little bit more broad as keeping it in Mid Island and South Island is that Mid Island stop could be the mouthouse or it could be something different. Yeah. I just I I it's as the leazison on to the cell camp committee which oversees the moundhouse. Okay. Jeff's here. He can
opine. All of our conversations over the last year have been working under the the premise that We would welcome a ferry stop and we would help facilitate one. So that would be on the town. But I think is that correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff? No, you're correct that we actually I don't
um we actually already have have had stops there with previous tours. Um we have two we have an observation pier and and a dinghy dock. We could modify each either one if we had a bigger bigger vessel. Um but yeah, it's ready to go for it's got two docks. And it's one of
these symbiotic things where your the guests at the Arches if it's a rainy day and they want something to do or they got kids. I mean it's it's could be a win-win for your customers as well and obviously would be a win-win for the town. Judith, you look concerned. No. So I mean I think it's a it's a nice idea, but there would be some work to to get
to that point. So there might be something interim until the town gets to that point. Um I believe there's a CPD right now governing the moundhouse. So that might prevent this. So we would have which is a thing we could work through, right? If we had just maybe yield to to Nancy to to put in language
to protect the arches. In other words, put the onus on the town to make sure that we take care of our end of the deal to be to make it be a an ADA friendly deal with all of our internal restrictions, get those clarified for the Mountain House. And if we do everything incumbent upon the town, I
want to make sure that it's included as a stop in the ferry stop because I think it could really be helpful not only to our moundhouse and to our residents, but also to the to the to the customers of the arches. I I agree. My my only point was to say in the interim until we're
able to accommodate that at the moundhouse, allowing them to to have another Mid Island location. We No, no, no, no, no. You're misunderstanding. I want to have Mid Island in there in addition to the Mount House. Yes. Okay. Because you've got Snookbite and you've got you've got the fish tail and and
again I appreciate the fact that there there could be contractual challenges and I don't want to put the arches people in a box but that should absolutely be the aspirational goal at a minimum. And again I wish them the well if they want to go elsewhere and further and out and about and and that's great.
Um, but I think we need to let our people know on this island that they're there's great potential to be served at uh at Mid Island through the snook bite and we have to reference them by name because I want them to have that flexibility but also on the south end as well because if if you don't have those
two key stops then it then it changes the whole dynamic of the of the of the of the of the exercise. I I think I mean again I want to I don't want to be too prescriptive here but I think it's everyone's expectation that at a minimum it gets down to the fish tail. Hopefully it gets to stuck bite as well and
obviously they're going to have to work through all those challenges and I don't want to I don't want to restrict them but for our initial commitments if you would like to supplement uh our second stop which currently we have it listed as a mid island location for
comprehensive plan figure 10 table 72 um we can remove that and replace it with a mid island location of the mount house but I don't believe we're at the ability to make a commitment to add a fourth stop assuming that the town contingent
on the town providing the required docking infrastructure. Yeah. So Sarah just pointed out the the CPD for the moundhouse would indeed have to be adjusted because actually um now the
only permitted um docking there would be for moundhouse moing is limited in moundhouse visitors during posted operation hours or otherwise authorized by town council. So yeah, that's fine. We could just make the make the agreement incumbent upon the town making the appropriate changes in the CPD for the bound house. Yeah. And if we don't,
then they don't have to stop there, right? Yeah. Because I think parking is also probably an issue at that location as well. I know that Well, I think boundhouse is working on some parking opportunities as well. So we've you got to remember this is two, three years down the road. So we've got some
time to make accommodations. If we can double our attendance at the moundhouse, that's a pretty pretty worthy goal to strive for. Plus, it gives the the folks at the arches something to do another option, you know, to visit and do different things, particularly on a rainy day. So, I just I I don't know why
you can't have four stops in there. Can you explain that to me again? Why would you have a ferry if you're only going to have three stops? That seems odd. Because in the in the future, could it expand beyond the three stops? Absolutely. Absolutely. Oh, four stops.
Yes. Absolutely. But right now, we are still at the very, very early beginning designing stages where we're not even sure exactly where these stops are going to be located. The purpose of this commitment is to show you that we are committed to providing the service while also not overcommitting to something
that cannot be fulfilled. So at this time we believe that it is consistent with a comprehensive plan which does talk about a water ferry connecting the north side of the island to the south and that what is what this commission is trying to uh effectuate. So we are
requesting three stops at to start with one would be the Arches Bayront on the north side. If you want to have a mid island stop or the moundhouse as the second stop that's fine. And then a the third final stop would be at the south end of the island. So that's where we want to keep it. So maybe as a
compromise. Um because what I'm hearing the applicant say is that it's three. Correct. Um the town the council um vice mayor is saying they want or he wants and perhaps the others will also agree a stop at the moundhouse. So,
I would suggest that if you're not willing to come off of three, that you put or consider putting in a sentence that says additional stops may be added in the future, including the Moundhouse um
specifically when available or something to that effect because they're asking you for a stop at the Moundhouse and I was trying to effectuate that by including that in one of They don't want that. They want four stops. I I can't be
clearer than that. Oh, I and I hear you. And um we are just trying to tow the line here of we're we're offering a very big benefit already. So trying to find, you know, where that lies. Well, can I
jump in for a second? Yeah, please. You know, the water fairy to me in concept is a great idea and I understand the importance of it. The more I've been able to think about it, the more I look at is How is it practical? Right? You know, if you're going to sit in traffic for an hour and a half to go from the south end
to the north end and then have to, you know, go back on the ferry if you're taking the ferry, anyone that's been in the back bay knows to go from Snookbite or to go from Fishtail to the north end of the island is an hour because it's a no wakeake. And if it's going to cost
money, so if I have to pay 10 $20 to get a roundtrip ticket on this ferry, practically does it make sense for me to spend 10 or 20 bucks to get on a ferry that's going to have however many stops along the way and take the same amount of time it would take if I sat in the comfort of my own vehicle or took my
bike to get to the north end of the island and then sit on the ferry again an hour to an hour and 15 minutes to get back home all while I'm paying for it. So practically, I'm not I understand the concept and I get it and I support it, but it doesn't to me it doesn't sound
like a public benefit. It sounds to me like a revenue generator that I would never use if I had to pay for it. Let let me help you a little bit, Mr. Mayor, because you have a boat. You're you're younger than I am. Uh, I I could just tell you living in the in in the Bay
Beach Lane area, there are a lot of people who really grimace at the fact of sitting in traffic for an hour and a half to go to the north end during season. And what they do is they take all of those uh uh dollars and they take them off to Bonita
and to Naples and they would love to spend them on Fort Myers Beach. I think you're underestimating, and you'd know better than anybody as a ship captain or boat captain, that watching the sunset, going on the bay and having a cool beverage on your way to have dinner on the north end and all the activity that
goes on on the bay side, it's just beautiful. Uh I can just tell you based upon my informal survey of my neighbors in my area, they they will be loading on that ferry. They'll be year- round subscribers and there'll be tremendous demand and those will be dollars that
would be kept on the island instead of driving off the island because I'll just tell you the vast majority of the folks on the south end spend their dollar especially with all the things closed on the south end and then hopeful hopefully that'll change over the years but they're spending it off island and they're going they're going off island
south and uh and I would gladly pay money to get on a boat to have part of that. It's part of the experience as well as the the convenience and uh and maybe I'm all I all I can just tell you is my experience as a south ender particularly when there's nothing on the
there's nothing on the Gulf side yet on the south end and during traffic we're stuck that the island is closed the north island is basically closed. I can hop on a bike. I'm nuts with my wife. We'll go on the low tide. We'll take our bike down on the sand. Uh but most people will not hop on a bike uh for
dinner uh from the south end to the north end uh in the middle of season. And so I just think that that not only will it be great and if they make money off the ferry, God bless them. I I if it breaks even and and there's a profit, I think that's the greatest thing in the world, but you got to remember it's symbiotic relationship. Not only is that
great public benefit of the people on the south end, but it's taking customers not just to their place, but to Bargitavville, to Time Square, to old San Carlos, all the shops and restaurants there. and and and you know I I feel sorry for the folks in Bonita and Naples but I really don't feel that sorry for them because we need the
economic development. So I feel passionately about this and I and I I think just knowing the the applicant I think they'll want to do stuckbite. I think they'll want to do fish tail and they'll do their best to negotiate that and I don't want to put them in a box on that. But as we on the south end look
for glimmers of hope uh in the future, potentially the short-term future of our island, knowing that we're going to have a stop and that that's a priority for this particular proposal, uh gives us hope. And I I it's tough to calculate the value of hope and I don't want to be overly melodramatic, but it is grim on
the south end right now on uh with during season and and we need help. So, I I'd appreciate support on this and uh uh and if if they if it's so successful they make money, God bless them and I hope they make lots of money. Yeah, I again, Vice Mayor, I'm not I'm not
trying to downplay. I agree. I think this is is it it would be a benefit. However, I think it could be more of a benefit. That's I guess what I'm trying to get at and all I was trying to depict is that knowing how long it takes to get from one end to the other without stopping, every stop you add is going to add to that time. And if it if every
stop is going to add probably 15 to 20 minutes. So each stop you're looking at potentially from the south end to the north end a two-hour excursion both there and back. So now you're talking four hours to go to the north end and back. And I just I just want to make sure that people understand the practicality of what it's going to take.
Now that may that that could be a very good point. I appreciate that. So and and to me a true public benefit would be that if you on the south end as a resident could use this service as a resident without having to pay for it. I'm not saying they shouldn't make money at it, whoever operates it, whether it's a town or third party. But to me, a
public benefit is to allow someone to use it. Let me say this. I I I I I'll I'll take your your con particularly since you know the the boating world. I'll take your advice about lessening the number of stops. Maybe we could put the mouth, put the south end in, then if they choose to do the mid island, that
would be great. But but but this concept of of of a free ferry gives me pause long term. Short terms, it sounds great. It's good good good politics for me to push for free fairy, but if if it doesn't if it doesn't generate revenue,
if it's not self- sustaining, then the long-term uh value of it uh declines demonstrabably. I'd like to see him price it for the market. I'd like to see them do well enough where they consider expanding it to to to to San Carlos, maybe even other parts of Southwest
Florida where they could take maybe some of our workforce back and forth. Maybe people who want to invo avoid traffic. I'd like this terminal to become a hub for inter modal transportation on the water that may involve other fairies, involve other companies. Um and and the only way you do that is if you if you
price it in a way that incentivizes the operators to do well. So, so I sure it's I I I've thought about, hey, let's subsidize it or give them a discount, but man, we want this thing to be sustaining and we want it to be a model
that that others will emulate. And if we if we force a subsidy on it or we ask for it to be for free, I I think that that short term it's great, but long term it doesn't uh it doesn't ensure its its its uh its survivability. So, I I I
I'm hesitant on that piece of the puzzle. I get it. I get its appeal, but I can just tell you as a South Ender, I I you just tell me how much it is annually and I'll and I'll have a my wife and I will have a subscription. So, and and I don't think I'm alone. So, it
certainly works. Obviously, you look at the what they do up in Tampa, they've got the same type of setup up there. I'm just trying to be realistic and try to be practical. I like I like your idea about the the speed though because obviously the speed is if it takes longer than an hour it's going to be challenging for some some people will think that's I mean I I I'm not
disagreeing with your four positions. I I mean the moundhouse snook bite um fishtail and and arches and if there is something that opens up mid island then sure but to me those are the four I looked at snook by this mid
island but maybe has a different definition of mid island. Yeah. Well, mid to me mid island would be somewhere between Arches and and Moss Marine or sorry maybe maybe we just maybe we take the mid put mound out in take the mid island out and hey can we add flippers
you know where do we stop right no but no but exactly no but that's the great thing I don't want to mandate flippers but if flippers make sense economically add them on I mean you guys will figure that out if I may I'd like to to just add a few things I certainly appreciate this this discussion
And I think it'd be awesome if we if we had a a very successful uh ferry system and water taxi. So, just to address some few a few quick concerns, I I think it's important for us to step back. Okay. We we've had
uh a local community here for many many years. There wasn't a ferry system and there wasn't a water taxi. you now have an applicant that is willing to provide that. Okay, it started off where they committed to providing a multi-million
dollar terminal, for lack of a better word. And the idea was that there was going to be another third party provider that was going to provide take that risk on and invest into a water taxi and a fairy system. We found out that that may
not happen. So we had the applicant step to the plate and say at a minimum we are going to provide three stops. Okay. Again going above and beyond what they had originally committed to in
order to make this happen. They wanted to be successful. They're hoping to add some stops. And I think the idea is with success is where we can mitigate if if the trips are taking longer and you can have multiple uh fairies possibly
running. There could be an express route just like any other transit that that we can have a maybe a water taxi if someone really needs to get somewhere quickly. Also keep in mind that not everybody's going to go from the south end to the north end. Someone may just want to stop mid island and go see a friendly local
restaurant Mid Island. And I think we've talked about that that we we can't just have just two nodes that function on this island. We want to ba maybe have activity elsewhere and we want to encourage people not to do that drive north and south from one end to the
next. So I think I think it's like what I'd ask is is help us get this off the ground. We need to get it off the ground. Well, we need I'm glad you said what you said there at the beginning because I I I read it but I glanced over it. the fact that they're willing to
operate it should you not be able to find a third party is committing that that it's going to at least happen. Yeah. Because I think you and I both understand that it's going to be financially challenging to make this happen. Exactly. Despite three or four stops, it's going to be financially challenging. The tickets are going to be probably more expensive than people
understand to make it even a break even adventure because it's happened on the island before. People have tried to do the water taxis and they failed because it's very expensive. liability insurance alone is going to be very expensive. So, I I I appreciate their willingness to step up to the plate and say at a bare
minimum, we'll operate it. So, I I I appreciate you saying that. And I think it's just, you know, let's give it a chance to to be successful. Um if we replace Moundhouse uh instead of the Mid Island, that's fine. Or or if we
understand that the Moundhouse could be the Mid Island stop, we're okay with that. I think it's just a question of let's keep it at the three. Let's make sure that it's successful and then we can start looking at expansion at some point in the future.
Okay, don't leave Patrick. The last sentence of this language uh continued operation of the ferry will be contingent upon financial feasibility. Now, I understand that as a business,
but at some point, h how is that going to be how is poor Judith going to define that? In other words, you know, you're going to be bringing folks, and again, it's I think it's tremendous what you're doing, don't get me wrong, but you're going to be bringing customers to your facility and obviously they're going to
frequent other places on the north end as well. Um, what what does that mean? Uh, in other words, if the first year doesn't go well, will you be you just will stop? I mean, what what how how long how much how much time to determine that viability will be? I don't think we
we've addressed the time. I I think the concept there was look, if you've got one of your local business that is losing money year after year and you've imposed something or they they've
accepted to provide a certain benefit, if it's hurting them, I don't think that we're in the business as a town to start saying, "We don't care if you're losing money year after year. You're going to keep doing that." I don't think that's what the intent is. I think the intent is someone's investing a lot of money to
try to get this off the ground. If it's successful, we all win. But at one point, if it's not successful, the bleeding's got to stop. I think that's what the intent here. I don't know how you you go anything beyond what we have,
maybe the attorneys can suggest them something, but I think we all understand the intent of we're not going to ask one of our local businesses to keep bleeding year after year. I I I understand what you're saying. I don't disagree with you. But is it fair then to say then how can you consider that a public benefit
if there's no certainty that it's going to be a viable solution after year one or year two? Well, because if it's not going to be there, it's not a public benefit. The public benefit is you got a multi-million dollar investment which no one else is doing. So what what happens
to that investment if you decide after a year that it's not financially? Well, it could be like any project that we've got on this island. someone could could build a project and could provide multiple numerous benefits. We can get hit by another ean and those things get
swept away or destroyed and and who knows but but the thing is the initial benefit in itself the initial investment is very significant. So again, we can't guarantee or have a crystal ball for the
future, but just in itself, I I I would make the argument that that initial investment, that initial risk that is being taken is a sufficient benefit. Could we could we do this Patrick just in case people forget these conversations and and and again I I
appreciate that the the applicants operating in good faith here but I want to I wonder if we could just add a sentence at the end uh you know before discontinuing uh the service based upon a a financial feasibility issue. uh the town or the the applicant would explore
working with the town in a in a a private public or public private partnership because there may be a point where the town would see it in its interest to see this fairy continue and maybe play a role in its success. I'm getting some nods from our clients saying yes. Yeah. Because I mean if
you're if it's really bleeding you guys but we see it people are using it and it's successful then maybe the town has a public interest in and maybe increasing the stops too if the town got involved. I just want to I don't want to I don't want to rule out that as an option. Yeah. Okay. And I'm not trying to be devil's advocate, but I will.
Well, I hear your point. And you know, now you start talking public private now it goes from a public benefit to potential a an increased taxing thing that you know, you got to subsidize it to pay for it. So now it goes from being a benefit to now I've got to pay for it. So how does it be a benefit if you're
paying for it? Also, not saying that it would, but I'm just trying to option number three is you close it down completely. Well, that's nobody uses. We got we got a county trolley. We got that's subsidized heavily. We do a lot of the transportation challenges that we we do with the trolley and what's the other
the uh tram that's heavily subsidized because it's in the public interest to subsidize it. And I'm not saying if Ben can make this work from a free market standpoint, make money off it and then continue to grow it or have other vendors join in, great. But if it doesn't, then we will as a at some
point, again, maybe we'll say no. But at some point, we may determine it's a public benefit. Traffic's so bad that it's worth just like we do with the tram and the county is with the tram and the trolley. Maybe there's a maybe there's a benefit somewhere long term. Mr. Vice Mayor, I completely agree with your
point that if you survey downtown restaurants, I think they would definitely be happy and see that as a benefit to have people from the south end be able to jump on a boat. just in my building. If you could see the people that drive off to Bonita Springs and Naples for dinner, I mean, it's just
it's in in my complex. It's really frightening. And uh boy, all those restaurants on Fort Myers Beach could sure use that business. I'm talking about during season. Anyways, enough I I don't want to certainly climb on a boat before I climb on a trolley to go from this.
A non-airconditioned trolley. Okay, I'll turn things over to Megan. So, Vice Mayor, this has been kind of your Yep. Are you comfortable with Yeah. I think I think some good good good good discussion. Let's just add a little sentence at the end. Do you need more clarification? Something along the lines
of property in the event of a financial unfeasibility. Property owner will communicate with town staff and offer a private public partnership before discontinuing. Before discontinuing. That sounds good. Um I do want to loop
back quickly to the number of stops. So, right now we have the three and and vice mayor, this is really to your point of contention. Uh would it be allowable if our second stop be we can either say a mid island location per the comp plan
figure or um well I think I think that's a good question. I think just thinking Jeff helped me here. I think if the moundhouse is that mid island stop, we've got a challenge at the moundhouse to get some more parking. Correct. We've got to start thinking outside the I mean because we obviously you know if if if
the people in that neighborhood use it as a stop and they all some drive or some close that's a good area for traffic to to avoid traffic nightmares. If you could hop on the the ferry at the moundhouse as opposed to being because even from the Mid Island Moundhouse it's potentially half hour 45 minutes to get
north. We I know we've been talking about some parking options. We've got some Yeah. We have the 216 the overflow. Yeah. um that has some and then a couple more spots here and there, but we could really look at it he more heavily if we if we need to. We can't obviously do
much on the mound. We don't want to. So, um no, but I I think there's 216 doesn't get used very much at all. There's there's spots down there and there because I I think about Snookbite and you know during season their lots already full. You know, they could overflow somewhat to Publix, but how
much does Publix want to be that lot? Uh let's just go ahead and just leave it Mid Island. That's let's and then we can and if moundhouse ends up working out to be ideal, we'll work with you on it. Connecticut street is so Connecticut I just wanted to get clarification from our expert planner. So just to by way of
background so in number two it does list the comprehensive plan figure although the moundhouse is not specifically enumerated the Connecticut street is. And of course it it's at the end of Connecticut street. So that would work and and quite honestly it's a challenge for the town and the and the mouth house
and the cellcap folks to to to to to really see how much we want to embrace it and and I I think they do but we'll we'll see. So regarding the three stops, we're okay with those with the three stops as proposed. I think so. Yeah.
Okay. Um now I want to jump back a little bit. There is I will read the first sentence. So, the property owner will construct as part of the development of property a minimum 1,400 square f foot indoor aironditioned ferry water taxi facility on the property as
depicted on the master concept plan in exhibit B. There has been an additional sentence added which the applicant has not discussed or committed to or I should say has not committed to and it goes on to say which shall include office space for the town's marine staff. applicant is requesting for that
sentence the the pertaining to the office space to be removed. Um although there has been discussions or town staff has reached out to the applicant team requesting it our position has always been if there is a vacancy and you the
town want to pay market rate we'll be happy to enter into that lease agreement but we are not in a position to make such a commitment at this time. I'm sorry. I was just so we are asking for that to be removed because that has never been contemplated
or committed to by the applicant. Well, I'd like to hear from our staff as to if that wasn't there, then why is it added now and what is the purpose reasoning? I don't know if whomever added it. I didn't add it, but I came talk to you the beginning conversations that we had with Pat when
this uh project just took off and we had an initial conversation with town manager and myself and Pat that time. Um, you really want to make it go and help the town. These were ways to help the town. I have staff in a trailer underneath the bridge like trolls
currently and uh granted this project is a couple years from fruition, but uh you're going to have this beautiful ferry building and all we were requesting was desk for our harbor master and admin to run the moring field out of. So the intent wasn't to have
people it wasn't intended to have it wasn't a transient thing for the people to come in and out or it was just office space. Just office, right? Just office space. The upland facilities were not part of this discussion. No, that that got taken out right away with the discussion that we had with that and and
as Megan indicated, there were discussions. Y I will acknowledge that that it was brought up and what I stated from the very beginning is again I'm not the owner. I can't commit to that. It's going to be ba based on available space. And let me see let me say a couple
things in fairness to to the applicant on this one because as the layers on to the Anchorage Advisory Committee, I talked to our Harvard master just this past week about this came up at our Anchorage Advisory Committee meeting. I think in fairness to the applicant
because the Mooring Field is a in essence it's not literally a not for-p profofit. We're not allowed to make a profit but we also have to cover our cost. So we have to charge fees enough to cover our costs. In other words, we basically need to be revenue neutral. We
were renting space from Harbor House. Prior to Ian and for us to rent space from a private entity, if it works out, maybe Harbor House is best, maybe something in the Kansas, maybe maybe this new location is best. I don't think
it's inappropriate to pay market rate because if we were to ask for a free rent or a subsidy, you're ask you're in essence you're asking that from the uh you're subsidizing the the people who utilize the mooring field, not the taxpayers here at Fort Meyers Beach because the people who pay fees to use
the moing field are the folks who cover the costs of all those facilities. So, it's a little it's a little unique and a little different. So assuming it breaks even assuming it breaks even which which we by statute or not or by by by agreement uh are required to have it
make break even. So so I think in fairness to the applicant on this one I could live with that because uh again it may be nice to have but even Curtis said you know harbor master said you know there may be other locations that might be better for us regardless we're going to have to pay rent and we've paid rent
previously and again it's not the it's not the taxpayers of Fort Buyers Beach who are paying this rent. and it's those who pay the fees to use the moing field. So little unique situation here and I'd hate to see the applicant have to subsidize the those who use the mooring field. So in that sense I I think this
makes sense. I think but again are you are you asking Megan to eliminate that line completely or correct enhance it to I think do what you're saying to me I'm hearing you vice mayor say that you want to keep that option there at market rate whatever I don't know that's a no market or are you
saying there should be nothing provided there how do you if how do you guys feel about that if if it's at least it's a if we pay market rate and it's available but I I don't know why you care right so we just we can't guarantee ask for a guaranteed space if we don't even we we
ourselves as a town don't even know if we're definitively going to use it. Yeah. I think I think what our position is unless somebody stands up and corrects me is uh we are not at a position to make that commitment now but if there is a vacancy of course we can
rent it to the town for market. Ben you want to come up because I thought I just heard you say there's always there's what I was going to say. Oh, I thought you just said there's always vacancy. There's always room. If it's vacant, if it's vacant, and if you want to stay, if you want to include that sentence, we'd be we'd be
fine with it. We're just not prepared to say we will rent the town office space for market rent at this time because it's so far up in the future. So, in the event of a vacancy, Yeah. And in fairness, the town doesn't even know definitively that if that's our ideal
location either. So, Right. Exactly. It's a tough one. Y So we propose to remove it with the understanding that you know we're the freelance have been here for a while. So um I I'm always again I'm a big fan of options. So if there's a way you can
word smmith it to keep the option available by eliminating it. I think you eliminate the option but there's nothing codifying and saying that you know what I mean. I don't know. I'm le leaning on you on this one. If you eliminate that completely, then they could say even if it's vacant, we're not we're not renting
it to the town. Right. Technically, that's correct. But I think that um Megan had offered some language and Mr. Freeland as well that you know if if vacant spot if office space is available um the town can notify and request the
opportunity to rent um at market rate office space. I if you're comfortable that if removing that last line is keeps that option open without having it in there. Is that fine with that too? I just Well, if you take
it out, I mean, the option may still exist. I mean, if they have vacancies, they may come to us and say, "Would you like to rent?" Or we might go to them and say, "We understand you have vacancies." It was still a possibility, but having it in there, it reminds people that maybe that's is an option
to move forward with in the future. What would you involved in the I'll follow your lead on? I I trust the I mean the I trust the applicant that if if we have a need and we're willing to pay market rent rent that they'll make space available for us. I mean, I don't
I don't know why they wouldn't. I mean, we're Well, yeah. A rented space is better than an empty space, right? Exactly. So, we're good with just removing the which shall include the office space for towns brain staff with based on this discussion.
Everybody okay with that? Thank you. And then also just to clarify, we're changing the terms from it'll be a downtown ferry water taxi facility and stop where staff and applicant are in agreement with that. Uh with that, let's
move. Let's keep this moving to number 15. This pertains to the day do slope. So condition I would skip over condition A. Um we're fine with condition A. Condition B was an added condition once we saw the proposed ordinance. This was
again something that to my knowledge has never been discussed. Um please forgive me if that's wrong but and was certainly never committed to. So that sentence is two dock slips shall be allocated for use by the town as needed. So we are
requesting to remove that condition. Staff want who added that one? Sorry Judith. Um we understood that that was a um a desire of the uh marine the harbor master harbor master um to have space
for when they're coming to access you know the the pumpouts or um if there was going to be office space there then they would have dedicated slips that they wouldn't have to um rent the town the um
CPD we have with fishtail there is a spot there for town um boats. So, we thought that was Is the spot there just for temporary use or is it there for you can more there as long as the boat wants to sit there or it's it's rented. I
mean, it's it's um not owned by the town, but you know, for use by the town in perpetuity under the CPD with Fishtail. Well, I guess what I'm trying to get at is there's a difference between having a pump boat sitting on your dock 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and one that's pulling up to be pumped out and then
moves on to wherever it has to go from there. So, I guess that's what I'm trying to get at is is that what is the intent of having two versus one or for for use? Well, the the this is what we heard from the harbor master that was desired and that for their use not to be
used by the moing field uh you know I don't know what the term is the people who rent the guests of the moring field. No, I think what the mayor's asking is is is the are we going to park the boat there? Yeah. Are we going to just we currently we have to basically
pull we're minus one vote. That boat will be here in a in a matter of months. Um Once we have our two boat fleet back, the pump boat and our regular patrolmaintenance vehicle, um, one of them we always have to pull out when we're done using it because we have no
space to to to park it. Currently, Matanis in is allowing us to take the pump out boat and work there, but that's not a long-term solution either because they're redoing their whole area as well. So again, uh that's a service that
we provide not only to Moss Marine, but we also provide it to all the other marinas um the pumpout facility as well as the Moringfield. Um and we have for a number of years ever since we got into that business. Um again, I think what Curtis was asking for was a a permanent
home for the boats. That pumpout boat is not there all day, seven days a week. It's actually being used probably about five of those days. pretty good for a good majority of that day. But just to have a home so we're not constantly trailering out our boats and trying to
store them someplace when they're not in use. I think that's what we started out as. I understand the intent, but I think this goes back again to that same thing. The last one is, you know, if is this going to be a is the town through the
Moringfield going to pay for these spots or is the town asking for them to give two spots because this looks like it's to should be allocated to me. That's dedicated spots that don't cost anything. Is that the intent? Yes. Well,
no, from the town. From the town. Yes. Sorry. From the town. Obviously, Megan, you've told us this. You want that eliminated, but Scott, what do you think? What about we pay market rate? At this time, we're not allocating,
we're not willing or able to commit to allocate to slips to the town. So, my understanding, I know that there was a discussion and I may have missed some aspects of the discussion, but um when specifically we're discussing the town pumpout boats and that um source of
information, my limited understanding is that once this marina is open and operational, there will be a new pump available on site. So, the resort operator property owner will be doing the pump out service. So, as far as the
town's pumpout boat is concerned, I don't think there would be a need for them to even use it. So, clarify. Yeah. Yes. Because I guess my question my question would be what would be the difference if the town just took one of your slips and rented it anyway? Yeah.
Okay. Ben Freeland. So, what we committed to was to pump out individual mooring boats one day a week. They could come to the marina and we would pump their boat out. not to pump out the town's pumpout boat. That's already
handled. Pink Shell committed to it. I think you've got a deal on fishtail. That's already handled. Okay. What I agreed to was that a vessel could pull up. We'd give them a dedicated day a week. All morning boats that maybe if the pumpout boat wasn't on schedule or whatever and they want to come and pump
out, we would do it. All they needed is pull up to the dock. We'd say, "Hey, go to slip uh 3A and we would pump your boat out." So, with our facilities, so we're willing to do that, but I'm not willing to have the pumpout boat at our docks. This is going to be a very
high-end resort. I really don't need a pumpout boat sitting on the baywalk when you guys walk by with your ice cream cone for your grandid. It's not really the spot for it. So, just to be clear, what does that clarify? What's the other
What about the day-to-day vote that you're talking about, Frankie? That's the It should be our regular maintenance and maintenance slash code vessel. What about a boat like that? It doesn't have anything to do with pump out. Okay. So again, this is your dinghy docks, your
facilities for your moing field. Everything are down under the bridge and on the tan. We're your if I look at all these things, you're trying to slide all that over to our facility. the office, the moorings, the boats, the all these asked for to ship that whole operation
to us. That's really not what the agreement was going in here. That's all new. That all just popped up. So, and I do want to add something else in the record. There is already a commitment condition that some of these docking slips will be allocated or
designated for charter boats specifically. This is to increase public activity and access to this property. And we just don't know how many extra slips we're going to have. So, we're requesting to remove this condition um
for the reasons previously stated. But again, this is something that has been included in the ordinance without ever being discussed or committed to. So, it's a little bit unfair to be receiving a proposed ordinance and to be seeing conditions that you're supposed to agree
to that you have never discussed. So, I just want to jump in and my understanding is is that there was prior discussions about it, but that the prior discussions were never put into a draft um ordinance that these are needs from the harbor master. And I think Frankie,
you're here to speak on his behalf um asking for it. But one thought that I did have um what about like fireboats and uh sheriff deputy boats? How would you accommodate maybe one space for
public entities whether it's the town or one of the uh life safety vessels? I think those would fall it would dep depend on on the reason but brainstorming off the top of my head if there was an emergency situation I believe there would be emergency protocols being utilized um I mean
correct me if I'm wrong coastard facility coast guard facility I I mean I'm not whether it's there or not to me I'm struggling with if you're going to rent spaces there if the town wanted to be an applicant and pay the fee to pay the monthly fee to dock a
boat there. You're basically saying no, you can't. The town of Fort Myers Beach cannot rent the space. What I'm saying is with this condition, two dot slopes shall be allocated for use by the town as needed. We can't agree to this language in the event that there is
again going back to the office space. In the event that there is a vacancy and the town needs a I don't know a dayby-day slip or something and you want to pay the market rate for that boat slip, then that's a sorry then that's a
conversation we can have at that time. But we're just not able to make commitments now because we don't know how many other slips are going to be available. Oh, sorry. And I'm fine with the if the town wants to pay market rent as long as it's not the pump out boat, not like a work boat. If that's a normal vessel.
Fair enough. Yeah, that is totally fair. I I believe that's totally fair. Coming to your dock, Karen. Yeah. Right. Pump out our vote then. There you go. So, that is our position. So, we would request for that condition to be removed with the understanding
that if you guys need a a dock slip for one of your regular vessels, we can have that conversation. How do you feel about that, John? Removing it. I'm okay. Vice Mayor, I am okay with that. And again, if we have to rent a slip for our new boat, which by the way,
we'll soon be having a a naming competition for. So, put your thinking caps on. Uh, I think we should pay market rate and I think that should come out of the Moringfield funds which again are paid for by those customers. So use the Moringfield.
Okay, Karen, I agree with Jim Scott. Same. There you go. Okay, good. So, we're good with removing 15. 16. Moving right along is the non-motorized watercraft docking. This pertains to that paddle board kayak type of dock on
the um marina side. We're in agreement with this condition and with this wording. So, let me jump forward and please if there is a condition that I'm summarizing and jumping over, but you as council have concerns, please feel free to stop me. Uh, for 17, the guest and
employee shuttle. There has been some language added. Um, and I did in full disclosure did speak I was able to speak with Judith after we prepared this this slide. So the last two sentences, let me
read it into the record. It says, "In the event the park and ride is relocated, property owner and or resort operator will provide an alternative location for guest and employee shuttle service. Property owner and or resort operator will make a good faith effort to expand the shuttle service in the
future to allow use by the general public." So there are two conditions or two sentences I should say. Uh, as I'm reading the first sentence, to me, when I read that reads with the intent of that the property owner must construct or find, you know, al alternative
location for this park and ride. I did speak with Judah. That is not the intent. So I think we can reach an and this was in response to proposed language that we did propose that said in the event that the park and ride is removed or relocated the resort owner
and or property owner will make a good faith effort to continue that service which is not written here but that would be my proposed language. So removing these two sentences regarding the second sentence, the property owner pertaining
to expanding the shuttle service to allow use by the general public. We are not in a position to make such a commitment at this time to the property owner is not in the roadway transportation business. The resort owner will not be. If there is in a
future where different resort operators are reaching into or creating a program to reallocate I don't know airport shuttles then we can look at that in the future but there is no such type of thing now and I think some of this is
excuse me contained in the the following condition which is the don't run a car program of collaborating with nearby businesses. So, our proposition is to remove these two sentences. Uh, but we will certainly make a good big effort to continue the the service um in the event
that Lee County removes their park and ride. I don't know if Judith wanted to say something. So, um I'm going to in agreement in general. I think we could keep the sentences and adjust them. Um to be clear, we have no knowledge of um
LeR relocating, but the point was is that it's mostly we assume um employees who are using that. Employees are not coming generally from the airport. They're going to come from the the Summerland Road place. So if for some reason that was relocated or ended, they
would determine um an alter alternate location, which could be the Walmart parking lot. We're not intending for them to purchase property and and establish some kind of new park and ride location, but the idea was that they would choose an alternate location for their employees for that shuttle. So that was the intent with that sentence.
So I think it could be kept and and modified slightly to be clear there. And then the second sentence again goes with the following condition with the don't run a car program. So, we've discussed at some point in the future there being
um kind of a a a common um shuttle service to the airport. So, we were asking that the um the owner or operator um participate in something if that were to manifest in the future so that the Arches doesn't have to have their own
shuttle and Margarita has their own shuttle and Pink Shell has their own shuttle coming from the airport. the system that would probably make the most logical sense is if the entities, you know, would establish some kind of uh agreement to to pay into a shuttle service. So that's what that is. We
understand that that's not in existence now, but it's the suggestion that if something were to um go forward in the future that they would participate in a in a you know a joint program like that. That makes sense for me. The last few sentences weren't as important as you
know the December through April part of it. Is it my understanding is Pink Shell do they operate that shuttle for their employees all year round or is it just during season? I think it's all year round. I think for the employees I believe it's all year round but they do
it through a Lee TR program, right? Um, it's not just them hiring the the vans and operating it independently and I'm not sure exactly the mechanism whether there's a discount or how that works, but they do it through a lean like ride share kind of
program. Ride share is not the right word, but this I mean this is a significant resort that's going to require quite a number of people to operate every day and just to be able to get the employees there without having to bring that many more cars over the bridge. one, it'll help free up some
parking. Whether it's commercial or not, we won't go back through that again. But to me, I would really like to push to make sure that that program gets implemented with at least the employees. I completely understand the December through April. If there's a shuttle service that I think what you say makes sense. No sense having everyone have
their own individual shuttle. If there's something that can be operated for all the resorts, so be it. So we we could separate it out and just like the first sentence, minimum twice daily in season for hotel guests and then a second sentence following um some
kind of shuttle from the Summerland Square Drive to operate where wherever it comes from just to try to bring employees in versus bringing all those cars in. Our problem was general public. Oh, so that yeah, in the last sentence that's was the general public, but the
idea with that is is not is people coming from specifically right airport, not from I can understand why that would be I mean there's already leran there. So that general public can take lean. They don't doesn't have to be on this
project or this this applicant to be able to do that. But the employees to me would be on the applicant to make sure they get here from a universal location similar to what Pink Shell does seems to work really well for them. Yeah, just my two cents and what I think should be
incorporated in this wherever that location is, whether it's the park and ride, I don't know where where they're picking people up, but Okay. So just just for clarity, the last sentence, you you would like to remove the last sentence and then maybe
add language specific to employee shuttle. You know, I'm I'm okay with Yes. But doesn't have to I'm okay with both the sentences what they're proposing. I mean I if the park and ride moves, it would only benefit them to want to bring
people to their resort from there. So I think as you said, Vice Mayor, they've been around for a long time. I have no reason to believe they wouldn't be good operators or or want to do this. But for me, it's more important that the the employees get a ride to work from off
island. I just want to review. So, are you indicating that you want more clarity regarding the employee shuttle up front like outside of the season? Is that Yeah, I I would I would like you to
try to follow the model that Pink Shell uses, however that work. I don't know how their model works, but they bust their or van in their every single day to work and bust them back to keep that amount of car and I think they they do it year round versus just during season
uh for the record. Uh so so the title um and I know maybe we we incorporate that within the sentences underneath but it does say guest and employee shuttle. So so the idea is it's for guests and employees um but only in season from December to
April. I I think we but just I want to clarify the guest and employee thing first. So So just so you you guys understand our issue was general public. Again, that could be misconstrued. That could be, you know, someone that lives uh at the other end of the county saying
they will not come pick me up and they will not drive me to Fort Myers Beach. Again, we don't want to be responsible for that. We're not transit. Um, so the idea was always yes and employee should also were willing to do that and and there's been discussion about this lean program for
employees. Unfortunately, we're not super familiar with it. From what I've seen, there are benefits for sure for the the the the hotel operator to use that service. So by we don't negate that
in any way. Uh I think the idea was we're going to provide a shuttle no matter what. Can we still use the uh lead trans service for employees? For sure. We just don't know the details of it. Um so at this point I I think this
this condition we were putting in there doesn't negate the other one. This was just on top of the possibility of using LER. Yeah. I I don't want to pin you down to one specific service versus another. If you want to operate it yourself, buy a van and hire an employee to run back and forth, so be it. But
it's the time the employees I think should be for the entire year year round and you can do the December, April with the shuttle from that from a secondary location. And maybe at the end, if your concern is with that last sentence, your willingness to participate in maybe it's
it's to allow use from the airport or to and from the airport for hotel guests or something along those lines and eliminate the general public part of it. So, I would suggest um in the the first sentence where in season December through April, shuttle service for hotel
guests and then and employees and then in parenthesis year round. So it's clear the employees are going to be however you need to word it to make it and then at the end I mean we can strike out general public. I'm okay with good faith effort to expand shuttle service in the
future um to operate collaboratively with other Fort Meyers beach um business or or maybe just put the word airport in there somewhere because no other resort I'm sure is going to want to go out to the middle of Liacres or Cape Coral and pick someone up from their house. I mean, they're only going to want to
operate it from the airport to their resort. I was talking with my client. I think we want to distinguish between guest and employee. I think uh in season going to the airport would be in season for guests. I think for from an employee
standpoint, we can extend that year round where it's a combination of going to the parking ride and a combination working with Lee Tran and their service. But yeah, whatever. But in combination, we would keep an employee service year
round. Yes, that. Okay. I think we're okay with that. And no matter what, exclude the general public piece. Yes, we don't exclude general public. Are you okay with the language? Say we kept that that last line. Property owner and or resort operator will make a good faith effort to expand shuttle service in the
future to include the airport or something. But I mean, it's not forcing you to do anything. It's just keeping wording in there saying that you're again saying the I think the obvious but so one idea could be and Junith I think
you were trying to talk but um the don't run a car program has kind of other examples of partnering with other businesses. So perhaps we could add in there. So in two it reads the established partners with businesses on Fort Myers Beach especially in downtown
zoning adopted and as amendmented to provide incentives and discounts to to guests who do not drive. Maybe somewhere in that sentence we could say and in the event of partnering businesses creating an airport shuttle will make a good
faith effort to collaborate with them. Something like that. I'm okay with that. Okay. So we'll include it because I think it would it logically makes sense to include that into that provision. Okay, Judith, are you comfortable with that?
Does that make sense, Judith? Okay, this is and this is al in line with what we discussed. Thank you for your patience as I make sure I take notes on this. Um, so I think we're good with number 17.
So to clarify, the employee shuttle will be handled year round, whether it's uh provided by us or provided by Lean or a combination of both or a combination. Um, so we'll revise that first sentence to accommodate that. Um, forgive me if I
missed this, but this first sentence, the in the event the park and ride is relocated, property owner and or resort operator will provide an alternative location location for guest and employee shuttle services. That's perfect. So, as Judith said, it's um in the event that the park and ride
is relocated, property owner and or resort operator will make a good faith effort to identify the alternative location to town or something along those lines. Okay. Okay. Moving on to 18 in fast fashion. Not
quite, but we are in agreement with staff that we're going to utilize the but we're going to put don't run a car in quotes. Cross out the program since there this is a uh an idealistic program which has not come to fruition yet. So in the event that it exists, we won't be
participate in it. But we don't want to be bound to participate. you know, we can't really be bound to participate in a program which doesn't exist, but we're going to make a good faith effort to continue these services. So, it's a little bit confusing. So, in that first sentence, we're adding in that we'll make a good faith effort to encourage
all guests to use alternative modes of transportation. Um, again, it's going back to technically this program doesn't exist currently, but hopefully as more businesses come into play. Can I just help you just real quick? property owner and resort operator will promote a don't rent a car
program. Then it could become your own. Okay, that's a take the word the I'll just put the word a. Then it becomes your own because you're right. There is no uniform don't run a car program. Every every or number of hotels already instituted and they've instituted it with their own stamp and and terms and
so forth. That'll at least get your to put your thinking cap on. Do you still get names for that? uh hats are coming in my financial disclosure for yes I think our our only concern is we
don't want to be you know five years down the road if a program has never existed to for somehow that to fall back on us. So as long as it is clear in the wording that we're going to be taking forth these efforts on our own and you can call it whatever you would like to
call it but well you that's what the intent is. The intent would be to provide incentives to not rent a car. Correct. Correct. Whatever they may be. Exactly. All right. Well, then in exchange for maybe a limiting network program, maybe can you go a little deeper into that first one where you got
that dedicated page? Maybe give an explanation on that page as to why you're promoting these things and referring to the don't rent a car. You know, I don't know if you call it don't rent a car page on your website. That would be kind of weird. But you call it whatever you want. But just
Anyway, never mind. Yeah, just hey to drag it on forever mind what what just I'll try to work with you just in terms of best practices just because the applicants here what what the pink shell does which is fascinating is they they'll have their concier service. They'll they'll literally reach out to
the guest before while they're arranging their trip and let them know that hey Fort Myers Beach you don't need to rent a car. You can walk everywhere you need to go. You can rent a bike. You can do a golf cart. You can do whatever you want to do. and that kind of preemptive information they have found it to be
extremely successful. Anyways, digress. Um I have a couple of things I underlined but I think that they are redundant so we'll move forward. So including bicycle rentals, ferry service, shuttle service for the resort guests and employees are information
that will be included on the website. Let's see. And then for three, I think this is just highlighted because we needed a little bit more information, but um Judith, I guess I'll ask you this. You know, after our
conversation on Friday, are we okay with this as as worded or what are what are your thoughts? I mean, if the The town council would like this language included, we can include it. My um concern was it says
participate in mitigation efforts. We don't currently have a program with which they can participate in. They're listing out things that they will try to do, but we don't have any way to um check necessarily. the um the one that's
not highlighted incentivized to park off Fort Meyers Beach. We asked them, do you have a off-site parking location? They don't have that. Maybe they will in the future. They don't have one of those have that location right now. The they could provide water fairy discounts for hotel guests and that would be a
concrete thing that we could measure, but I would include that within um a you know, reasons not to rent a car. we're going to give you a discount on the water ferry system would be part of um number one there three just seemed
um we didn't have any way to um measure that control that I mean and some of those things the the uh multi-use pathways the ride hailing stop that's on the master concept plan we didn't feel like we needed an extra bullet point for that um well I'm still on two are you
okay with the language that they have crossed out and underlined on number two It essentially says the same thing. It's just you're you're you're eliminating will receive. You're basically saying they are going to get a discount and
theirs is basically saying we could do a monetary or a voucher for a free drink versus a monetary. I think that's fine. I mean, I think they should probably include that on that dedicated web page. You know, the the incentives that they're going to
provide to their hotel. Oh, yeah. I agree. Yeah. Um, I don't have a problem with that. Megan, you okay with that? No. So, I I was just looking back because I think there was the last sentence is on two. I think this might be an older version from one. Yeah, because that's not on
ours. It's not in our correct. So, just ignore that because I think what I would say for number two where it says establish partnerships with businesses for Ver Beach. That's where I would add that sentence from 17. Yes. About the good faith effort to expand shuttle service. That could go with number two
there as part of their that's exactly partnerships. Yeah. But I didn't we didn't really feel like three was necessary. Um I would just include any discounts or whatever you know as part of one what they're going to provide on there. So eliminating number three completely and just including that
wording that you both agreed upon into two. Is that what you're saying? So the good faith sorry. So the good faith effort about partnering with businesses for the airport shuttle service will be included in two. Okay. And the if we ignore the last sentence
which is crossed out because that came from a prior version working with staff. Um the only change to two in addition to the good faith effort about airport shuttle the through would be replaced with the such as because I think the intent of this are it's really these are the examples of what we're going to be
doing and I think that makes it clearer but about removing condition or the third one that's really up to you all. I thought that's what you were you were getting. I didn't feel like it was necessary. The the water fairy discounts for hotel guests I think would fall
under one um you know because that's an incentive you know you're going to let the the uh resort guests know about is a reason for they should they don't need to rent a car because there's going to be this water taxi water ferry um well the fact
that number three isn't even in our packet we we took it out they they wanted to put it back in but so we will that's unusual we will cross it out does anybody have an issue with three not being in I don't
see it's not redundant. No. And I think it's I think it's I think Judith is right in the sense that it a lot of them are um addressed in one and two. John, you okay with that? Perfectly acceptable, vice mayor. Yes. Okay. Okay. Moving along.
Number 19. Number 19. Um Okay. Number 19. There's a sentence added. Condition C. A dedicated bike path for safe travel to and from the resort will be incorporated into the site and reviewed at DO. The existing proposed we are okay for the record 19A
applicated staff are in agreement with 19B applicated staff are in agreement with it is only 19 C. So there is already a multi-use pathway which is included in condition 20 that has been outlined in the master concept plan. Um my reading of a dedicated bike path
means an additional path that wi- which will only be used for bicycles. So we're requesting for that to be removed. Our site is constrained. We've already have this conceptual plan to include the multi-use pathways which is in the master concept plan. And I think that
that should serve the same intent. What do you think? I tend to agree Judith. It seems like it's redundant language C and A. They've already gotted bicycle and pedestrian pathways. Yes. What we talked about though is we don't know um exactly the width of the pathway
going through the linear park. I mean, I think they they've told us, but it's not on on the master concept plan and whether or not um a portion of that was dedicated solely to uh bicycles. What they're saying is no. Um that it would be shared. And so we're suggesting some
kind of like signage so that people on bicycles are aware that it's for memory surgery. Wasn't there on a previous rendering Arch's way there was a dedicated bike lane or something along the sidewalk? Is did I There's a a shared path or shared path whatever you wanted to call it.
So was the sidewalk and a bike lane combined type thing or it was a share path on the roadway right? Wide sidewalk an 8 foot sidewalk next to Archway. So you're proposing just keeping that
listed as a multi-purpose. So it could be bike or pedestrian. Yes. Okay. People are going to ride on it if they want to ride on it. You're not going to stop them. We will remove 19c. Everybody okay with that? Okay. Number 20. Staff and applicant are in
agreement with number 21 is our next um item which we will review. I think applicant and staff are okay with condition A. Condition B. It is condition C. So we've heard staff's position. The applicant's position is we would like
the ability to provide commercial paid parking upfront once everything is developed. the resort operator will be making sure that the hotel guests, the resort guests um whether they're staying or or coming
on will have sufficient parking. It doesn't make logical sense that they're going to shoot their own foot by offering commercial paid parking um in excess of what they are able to provide. So, we are requesting the ability to provide the commercial pay parking
upfront, but in conversations with staff, it appears that, you know, the the town is interested in reviewing parking studies or having parking studies. So, we will do the parking study once we are open operational. Um,
but we are requesting to have the paid parking up front. Megan, I'm sorry, I'm disagree with you on this one. I agree with staff on this one. I think it's without knowing exactly what you're going to need to grant you that use now without
knowing. You could rent those every however many parking spaces you're going to end up with 338 whatever it was. You could rent every one of them off technically if you really wanted to if your hotel was empty. So I have to agree with staff on this one. I think that thing should stay.
I'd be curious to hear from other council members about whether to provide it up front or Yeah, I I have to agree with Dan. Providing up front seems like a lot. I think you guys should wait until you're till you
open and address it then. Yeah, I think it still provides that option to be able to to get the study and should it become that it's available, great. Then I have no objection. But so just to be clear, If you if you're um okay with the
deviation for parking that allows them the 50% reduction um but you don't want to allow them that what our code call shared parking which we call commercial paid parking. If you do not want to allow that as a use now and want to make it conditional on the
um parking study, then we'll need to strike through A because A says that they can have the paid parking. So C is what's up now. I don't Well, I don't want to put the cart before the horse here and say we're agree or disagree with any deviation at
this point, but we're talking specifically about this one condition item that you have in here. Right. So the C is there. So the paid parking A, that is the condition that they're okay with because that would allow for
the 45 um that's the paid parking in addition to their parking for their resort use. That's the additional commercial paid parking. Well, so so you're saying if C stays, A has to be crossed out. would their their position is to have
both to um I understand what their position is. I'm asking your position. So what my position would be would be to strike through a make require the parking study once the resort is open. Um and we would it doesn't say here but
maybe we say 85% occupied or something along those lines. and then to be allowed to have condition A or potentially more than 45 um spots for that commercial use if the
study determines that there's a greater um you know open available spots. Well, again, I'm comfortable with where you stand on this position or where staff stands in this position. So, I'm willing to follow your lead whatever you feel is necessary to achieve that. if that means
crossing out A and keeping C. Um I think until we know exactly what you're dealing with, to me it doesn't make sense. Okay. Can so I I don't want to be a contrarian, but I just we we've had so many conversations over the last two
years about sort of letting market forces work and let the business owner I mean obviously the arches is going to have every interest in making sure their guests have parking and so and they're going to know immediately what they're going to need for their guests and what they're going to be able to to use for commercial
parking. To hire some outside firm to tell them the obvious seems odd to me. Uh to your point earlier, Mr. mayor. Um I don't I don't like any of this language and you know I'll live with it if we if that's the consensus, but I I I'm comfortable taking this out because
uh it it just doesn't make any sense. The fact that the arches somehow is going to not want to provide parking for their hotel guests just it doesn't make any sense to me. So, what I will say to that point, I know that Patrick's going to disagree with me, but is that once you're
offering the paid parking lot, say it's full that day, it fills up, you're going to get traffic coming through to visit that commercial spot. Um, and in thinking about mitigating impacts on the residential area, it just means more traffic coming through that area. But if
one of the things we've talked about for years, Judith, and we we came real close right before Hurricane Ian, is having a parking app that says which lots are open, which ones are full, which ones have spots available. So when you come over that bridge, you immediately know where to go and where not to go because
we have so much congestion when people are looking for a spot. They have no idea where where to go. They're trying stuff. they'll turn around and and my hope is is that smart smarter people than me will come up with this app at some point and we'll actually have be able to tell folks where the open spots
are. Um so but but that's a good point, but technology is going to get to the point where it sort of makes that kind of moot. I think I hope anyways, but of course we'll have self-driving vehicles in a couple years anyway, so maybe it's all moot. But
if I may, just wanted to to add a few things. Uh, I'd like I just want to clarify this so we all understand this resort will be providing paid parking to their guests. This will not be free
parking. So this idea of any overflow parking, they're not going to for they're not foregoing income by providing it to somebody else. The idea of this overflow parking was really it provides parking to the
general public which some people see as a benefit. And when we first started having this discussion with staff of the reduction should be a 50% reduction or a 33% reduction, that's where we had a bit of a disagreement. Okay? And and what
we've indicated from the very beginning is whatever the overflow is, that's what we'd like to be able to offer to the public. We thought there was a benefit there. And also we thought to this business especially in the slow months
of the year if they they're going to be putting this capital cost and I I know about 10 years ago when I talked to the engineers maybe Elizabeth can tell me but a parking stall in a parking garage was 10 plus thousand. So, they're going
to be spending that money up front. And if there's any way during the summer season where the parking is not full, if they could supplement that income, we also saw saw it as a win-win. Public gets parking, they get some revenue offseason, but in season, by all means,
the priority is going to go completely to the guests. They're not, you know, by offering it to the public, they don't benefit from that. They're still they're still got paid customers through those guests. at the at the resort. So again, we we
don't understand why this has become this complicated. We thought the intent of the parking study was that we don't have a good handle as a town regarding parking and this was going to
be a resort that could be used as an example of that we could apply to other resorts saying there's x amount of rooms they've got multi-use they need about this much parking so when other people come in in the future you would have a
very good sample I thought that was the intent Because ultimately, I think we all know this, what we need as a town is a parking study for the entire town to get a handle on our parking issue. But again, we haven't stepped forward as a
town to do it. So, I think the idea was here's someone that's willing to do it, pay for it, and we are going to get some very good data that could be applied into the future. But, but that's the the context. That's the big context as to how we got here. So, I would just say
just please keep that in mind. But Judith, is it safe to say that these parking spaces aren't going to sit idle? They could still be cars parked in them. Correct. They just can't charge for them. Is that Oh, you mean they could just offer them for free? Well, no, I'm just wonder No, I'm just I'm just trying
to understand. He's making it sound like we they can't use these parking spaces if they don't get granted this commercial use. What they Yeah. So, um it's would be part of their schedule of uses to allow a commercial
shared uh paid parking lot. So, it would be an additional use. So, if they're not permitted to do that, then they they're going to most hotels these days, resorts charge for um you parking your car. There's usually a daily rate for that.
Um so, it would still be for their um their guests or, you know, people coming to an event or whatever operations at the resort. it just wouldn't be a be able to be advertised as a commercial, you know, public parking lot. They
wouldn't have that ability to use that as a additional commercial use for the property. When you say advertise, so again, I'm trying to ask, they wouldn't these spots if they weren't not being used, if they don't have this use, they wouldn't have to sit empty, would they?
Well, I think if if the individual was not coming for a resort use and was not making, you know, payment as a hotel guest or whatever for the resort, then they would not have the opportunity to sell those spaces, rent those spaces,
but they could still park there. I guess that's what I'm getting at. You mean for free unpaid? They're not do that. They're not going to do that. Why would they do that? But you you're asking So, but you just said that you're okay with the commercial. Now, you're saying you want to let them charge. So, we're trying to get down to
the difference between them and our staff. Well, so let let me ask let me ask it a different way. What what's in Margaritavville CPD? Do you know with regards to parking? So I don't know that off the top of my head whether they have the ability. I believe
that they do have commercial parking there. However, they're running their thing is well they offer $20 valet parking. Well, it's all valet parking. This is self-service. Yeah. And valet Thank you.
I Ben Freeland, I'd just like to mention a few things. So, from a parking perspective, we've done a lot with traffic and parking mitigation, right? We've done water fairy, shuttles, dra bike racks, golf carts. So, we've invested a lot up front just to mitigate
this, right? Plus, we're building them as a business operator. I think Patrick can both mention obviously we want to park our guests first. So, that's just logical. I've heard you guys mention that on other developments. Leave it up to the business owner run their business. So, it seems like something
that is pretty normal. And to her point, there's no way for us to know. I mean, that there's no way to manage it. Somebody says, "Hey, I'm going to go and get an ice cream cone and walk the Baywalk and I'll pay 20 bucks a part." How am I going to know if they walk down the street and go to the pier and don't
do it? And now I'm going to be sitting there in season. We're fa we have a phasing plan, right? I could be sitting there with a whole empty facility, people driving all over the island in season looking for a parking spot and I can't help it. That's Ben, that's what
I'm trying to get at. That That's where I'm trying to understand this. But if I can't pay, if I can't park them, they're going to keep driving around and I've got a whole empty facility. I'm on phase two. So, if you trust us to manage that properly, it is some income opportunity.
I think it's a town benefit because we can then legally park people. Otherwise, I'm like going, "Wow, I've got 50 46 parking spots, whatever it is, and there's it's peak season and you got a concert series going on on Sunday. I can't help them."
I guess my question is where where did the 45 come from? Did you guys negotiate with them or you're telling them 45 or that comes from the the deviation, right? So the the code lists out based on your uses
how much parking you need. Um and then um and then there's there's an allowance in certain cases in certain locations for reduction. Um in the adjacent downtown area the reduction is 33%.
I believe so. So it's you multip it's a multiplier of 67. So that's what staff suggested when we initially looked at this that the 33% production reduction was more in line with other similar uses around there. Their deviation is they're
asking for a 50% reduction. There's a um a chart in there um in the agenda materials that shows how they did their calculations what would be required for all of those uses and then with that reduction. So with that 50% reduction,
there are 45 spots left over. Gotcha. So, and what there and I'll point out too is that um I think seven of them are um uh street street parking spaces. Um
so they're not all in the in the garage. So that's where we came to and that's part of the reason that we pushed back a little bit is saying that we didn't feel like the the deviation was the right ask. Um they disagreed with us. So that's where we've got to is well the
offering of doing this study and maybe that there is more. Um I think I'm better understanding what you're trying to accomplish here now. Look, you're essentially saying, and again, Ben, I'm not trying to get in the way of you guys making money, but in fairness, you guys are the one that
proposed the scalability of this project, not us. So, Patrick, for you to stand up here and say, you know, it costs a lot of money. You're proposing the project. We are not. So, how you recoup your money, I'm not going to stand in the way if you want to rent out these spaces if they're not being used. That's not my intent. My intent is to
try to understand I think I better understand what you're trying to say is you don't know how many spaces are going to be required based without that study to be able to say how many need to be provided for the commercial use versus what's going to be required to be used for the and that's what will dictate
that percentage. Yes. And I I appreciate they're agreeing in in any case to do the parking study. I don't feel like we have enough information um about parking in general in the the downtown area. Um most projects that come in are asking
for a deviation one way or another from the parking and we don't really have an idea whether that's on point or or not. Um uh you know and there's a number of commercial lots. I pointed this out previously, commercial lots, but you're
not allowed to park overnight in the commercial lots. So the resort guests couldn't use them. I mean, I do think a hotel is better positioned than some of the other projects we've looked at because they know how many guests they're receiving that day or what events they have planned and can, you
know, adjust those needs, you know, day by day. Um, and certainly if they have at least some valet parking, they can, you know, make some accommodations that way. Um, but I think that the, you know, there's a couple of uses in here that
are not accounted for in their overall um, uh, parking calculations. One thing we talked about is the the ferry. We told them we can't call it a terminal because the code specifically has parking requirements for a ferry terminal. Um, the ferry is not probably going to be there overnight or there not
going to be multiple fairies, you know, in their off hours being serviced at that location. That'll probably happen someplace else. So, we feel like it's technically a terminal. Um, and so they don't have to account for parking that way. Um, so I
mean, whichever way you'd like to go, I would like to have the parking study. I think that that would be useful tool for the town to have an understanding of of um allocation of parking um based on their commercial, whether it's right sized or or not. Yeah. So again, I go
back to I think what we talked about earlier is Let's say they get the approval to use it as a commercial, which would allow them to then charge for the parking. They would still be required to have the amount of rooms or spaces available for the amount of guests, right? Whether
however many parking spaces they would need to park those guests. If they have no guests, then they could use them to fill the need for parking as as as they see fit. Is that is that fair? So, let's say now you they're in there, they're in there, everything's going fine. Now the
study comes back and says this is way off. It's 150 spaces way off based on what does the town have in its toolbox to be able to say this is way off. You were approved to be commercial. You can't take it back. What what's the point of having
the study then? The study would only I agree it would not resend anything but it might allow them more allocation towards the paid parking. That's the only Okay. All right.
So, we're hearing a lot of discussion and one item that we we really would like to have the ability to provide the paid shared commercial parking up front. We are still willing to commit to complete the parking study in the event
we'll add an additional yet another condition. In the event that the parking study shows a deficit, then the property owner will obviously have to mitigation efforts to reduce that parking. Whether it be valet, whether it be, you know, fair enough, whatever. And again, I'm
not I wasn't trying to stand in the way of making money for these parking spaces. That was not my intent. Right. And if it shows a surplus, then that would, you know, give us a little bit more parking spaces to have available. That's fair. That's fair. Fair. Totally fair. Okay.
Let me make sure I notate that. Megan, you need another pen. I might I might just want a clarification. There was a lot of commercial non-commercial. Okay. So, commercial parking up front,
then a parking study. Um, are we okay with the timeline of the parking study, Judith? Do you want to keep it as is or do you want to because right now it says um fully operational all buildings receiving gas all units sold all retail space occupied
for at least a year is how it's currently phrased and then during peak season. So, we would open the open Arches Bayfront during one of the phases if we're able if we're able to open it during a phase,
operate the commercial parking, um then have a parking study during a peak season once it's fully operational and provide that to the town. Good. Okay. Deficit. Let's move
on as much as possible. still. So 22 is golf cart parking staff um and applicant are in agreement. 23 is Bay Front Pro I assume since we're on the paid I'm assuming these 13 would be paid parking
spots as well or are they non-paid parking? Those are condition C. Oh, sorry. 22. Okay. It shall include 13 dedicated golf cart golf cart parking spaces available to guests for youth or the public. Um I don't think that we
anticipated them being paid golf cart parking or are they just open? I don't know. Are people charging for golf? Not usually, but I don't I don't know if we've had if we've contemplated this to
be honest. It might be, but yeah, not usually. Maybe we should make it. I'm just Most people they encourage it because you can get two two into one spot. You could get two golf carts in villages. Sometimes they get four in one
spot. It might be whatever. Yeah. I mean, you could get four families in one parking spot versus one. I just not not sure that it had to be depicted in that or not. Yeah. All right. 23. Okay. 23. Um items A and B we are both staff and applicant are in
agreement. 24 staff and applicant are in agreement. 25. Sorry. Thank you. Pertains to the linear park and memorial garden. Uh we are in agreement 26 is the pumpout. So this
will be our next item to discuss. Um, item A, we are in agreement. Item B, there's two specific topics that I want to address. The first is highlighted, the second is not. So, let me read this into
the record. Property owner shall provide a convenient high-capacity PSI 1020 on-site pumpout and fueling service for moing field users, the town, and the general voting public. One of our first content uh items of
contention is the the the specified PSI is an engineering question. We're not at this level at this time. Do we feel comfortable including numbers in this resoning? Um we could still provide a convenient high-capacity
on-site pump. We're just asking to remove that PSI 1020 because we don't have we don't have the engineering knowledge what's going to be necessary there, what's going to be needed there. But I also want to jump forward to another item which it says uh for and
fueling service for moing fueled users, the town and the general boating public. the town, we are able or be willing to provide a pump out to the town's maintenance vessel or um something like that, but this would not be for the
town's pumpout bar. I don't know what what it's referred to as, but it would not be for the town's large pumpout bar. So, couldn't you just cross out PSI 10-20 on-site pumpout end and just leave it as fueling service? I mean, I'm assuming you wouldn't turn down the town's money
for fuel. So just extend your cross out include onpipe pumpout service or on-site pump out and those words. So what I was we could we could do that
another you would just want to cross out that's okay. I would assume you'd still want to take like I said the town's money for fueling if the town chooses to fuel its boats there. Right. Okay. And we're we're fine utilizing a a pump out for a small vessel. It's just
we're not it's not intended for the large pump out large or whatever it's called. I might be using the wrong. What is it? Well, how does it how does Nancy How does that vessel contradict the pump out discussion from before? Because I think
Ben agreed to one day a week or whatever boats could come in individual vessels to come up. We're not pumping out the pumpout boat that the town owns. That's what this is trying to clarify. I think that's what this was designed for. They wanted this high capacity pump out
system so it would pump out the vessel that goes around the boring field and and pumps into those boats. So, we're not pumping that out. But that I don't that I just want to clarify that here. We're willing to maybe just remove the word town in there. I I really have to
defer to Frankie because um my understanding was that the only authorized pumpout boat is the town's boat. So if maybe down the road if you guys get authorized then you could do your own pumpouts of others. I didn't
understand that we were intending to use your site to pump out our boat, but that our boat goes there and pumps out your boat, but then you charge your your customers who are mored there. But I'm only the attorney. So I'm gonna defer to Frankie because I don't know how this
discussion all started prior with with Pink Shell before Pink Shell came in and the use of their pumpout facilities. We have been pumping out boats at your facility for well over a couple years that I've been here anyway. And I know I don't know what you charge the people for us coming in there, but we have not
gotten anything for those of pumping out boats. Everything that we do as a town is done and handled under a grant. we're allowed only a specific area to operate that that field boat. Um, as far as putting a pump in, I believe the early discussions was if you were going to
have a pump out, I think that's where it kind of got sidetracked. Um, the pump out that we use over at Pink Shell currently is of the older style and it takes a little longer to do. All the new high performance pumps can get it done in like roughly about 15 20 minutes with
less noise than what we're making right here in this room. And and that's I think what the language how it got in there. How it got individual vessels or to pump out this was to pump out the pump out boat itself. That's why I want to clarify that's what I'm not agreeing to do is pump out the town's pump out
vessel. I'm willing to have individual vessels come in. Um and we'll confuse everybody if we go back to what you guys are doing right now. No. No. And but I mean even on on a private level if you're able to do that then you're talking to to town attorney's questions. You're talking about FWC permits. You're
talking with D permits and those type of things that they would have to get on their own to provide that service. We already have that. And as we get our docks redesigned, once this is we know what direction we're going here, if we're doing a resort or marina, we'll have our docks redesigned. We'll have our uh high-pressure pumpout system
reinstalled. It got destroyed in Ian and we haven't rebuilt it because we've been going through this process. So that's about a quarter million dollars. So that's not been on site. So, we've used the town pumpout boat to handle our customers in the near term and they've been fine to do that. They just haven't
got the invoice since it's $5 a boat. So, it's not a not a money maker. It's just a service that I think all marinas provide in the morning field. But, I just don't feel that this facility is where a pumpout boat and I can I can agree with you on that. But I don't but that's what that and if you want to take
on Moringfield boats, if they want to drive over to his place and pump it out, so be it. I don't necessarily need that. We have no control over that. goes and we're willing to offer that service to individual voters, fuel the town doing anything. So, how do we what do we need to change up here to to Yes. Okay. Thank
you for that. So, um my proposition would be to remove the PSI 1020. Um we could continue with the on-site pump out and fueling service for moing field users, the town individual vessels. I mean, I'm not sure if the town has any
individual vessels that needs pumpouts or just remove the town We don't have any. Yeah. Okay. So, there was also a prior discussion about some kind of license agreement uh regarding the pumpout use. So, it sounds now that
you're not offering that uh service to the town. So, then we don't have to have that agreement. And I think that we where we landed on that agreement is we never were going to enter into a licensing agreement because it was a service that we were offering that if it whether it be a town vessel, a general
public vessel would come in pay the whatever the charge is as we've discussed $5, then that would be enough. So, what I don't want to do is to reward this and limit it so that it reads that if the a town vessel wanted to come up
and you know I can't I don't know if there's any town vessels that need to be pumped out the town pumpout boat but if there was one we would still be able to provide that service to the town and we would be still be willing to provide a fueling service to the town. So would it
would it make sense then after the word town to just in parentheses add excluding excluding town pump out vote. Yep. Okay. That would make it very easy to understand. Yes. And then we would remove the PSI 1020. Should we ever get
a boat then down the road that has a head on it. You have the ability to go and Right. We're not trying to, you know, that's all. Okay. So I think 26 that was B 26 C um we're
fine with and 26D provides the I'm moving forward. I thought I was moving forward. There we go. Oh, it's not included in here, but 26D said service shall be provided one day per week subject to change at the discretion of the property owner and or the resort operator. such
day shall be posted either on the resort website or via the on-site signage and via designated VHF radio call. So that's pertaining to the pumpout service that's being offered at the marina. Jumping ahead to 27A, we are asking for it to
read the final design must be generally consistent with the renderings. Uh so we're asking to include that generally. There's been a lot of discussion with staff. This is what has historically been included in your prior um plan development applications or
ordinances. So, we're just asking to have that word generally included. Is there any objection to that? I'm seeing the nos nos. Okay. Um are we
comfortable adding that in? I'm seeing no objection. So, I'm going to move on. No objection. generally consistent. I mean, does that give you any It gives them more flexibility. This was an issue that was discussed and debated. Yes. Uh between staff and the applicant.
Correct. Um whether the word my position was that basically if the word generally is there or if the word is not, it is still a discretionary call on the part of staff as to whether or not the renderings are basically what has been
approved. So it really doesn't make that much difference. However, using the word generally does imply additional flexibility on behalf of the applicant. And this was really to answer those, you know, while we are all understanding of
what this means, once this gets developed or getting to, you know, permitting phase, there's a reviewer that might have a more stringent uh perception of reviewing it. We don't want to have to go back and do a CPD amendment to ask to relocate a in to the
west or I mean that's an extreme example but just giving us flexibility that the renderings will be attached to this ordinance they will be generally consistent with uh the final design will be generally consistent with those renderings and I believe it's I'm sorry
the topic well just to add to the discussion the topic that we discussed was the louvers the louvers were very important to the residents um should there be some type of deviation or variation of the louvers. How far can
they go in changing it? Because they're putting something there. Is that generally consistent with it or is it specific to be the type of louver that was depicted in the in the drawings because that was a um concession that
was given to the the resident. So it is a discretionary call uh on the part of staff um as to if it is um consistent with the renderings. Having the word generally there it might imply that
there's more flexibility on the part of the applicant but at the end of the day it may not. So it's a lot to do about this is like my favorite word shall. Yeah. He's like,
"Shall." What does shall mean? Yeah, we can. So, does this give you Harper and Nancy and having this in there? I see your point about the lures. Yeah. And I'm okay with it. Um I think Ken brought up uh the other uh Meer side the Meers side project has the word generally in
it and you know, in an effort to move on, we kind of staff we just said fine, go ahead. Um, again, it's going to boil down to the discretion um that staff exercises. Correct. Agreed.
So, unless we continue to like to discuss generally, I'm going to move on to 28, which is promotion of the Fort Myers Beach School. We are in agreement with this language. 29, outdoor boat storage on land is prohibited. We are fine with that language, but we are
adding an additional condition just to make it more clear that the existing use of indoor dry storage and structures may remain until construction is complete. And this is to memorialize the existing
use of the boat barns um and also differentiate it from 29. So making it clear that there's not going to be just boats standing on pavement outside. But we are asking to impose an additional condition.
Okay. No objection. The the existing use of indoor dry storage which is happening today will continue during if it if we go through through the phased construction approach, we would be able to keep the boat barns until that final
stage of con of construction. So if you had to do the construction on the ancillary canal first before you got to your bigger buildings then the boat barns would stay there until you get to that centerpiece big buildings. Correct.
That correct? I was just the the ending until construction is complete. Well, you're basically saying they're going to come down when you're starting phase three believe. Exactly. Yeah. Okay. I mean obviously we can't have the boat barns while we have active construction
equipment and materials. So it's really just to memorialize the existing use so we can keep that present. Um 31 there has I just real quick I just want to go back to 30. So what's the intent for construction if approved on
building E? Is it going to be behind the current built buildings or is it going to be in front of the current boat buildings for your construction access? That's a good question and I don't know without looking at this. Hold on. So,
I think it's important to have that in there so that if approved, the residents understand where they're going to be dealing with the traffic. I think the boat barns would be Can you repeat your question? My my question is if the boat barns remain correct, where on the
property is the access going to be for the construction? Obviously, if the wall is completed first, they're not going to go down Bonita or Harbor Court. Where are they going to where are they going to access that blue building? If the boat binds way, is it going to be behind the building? So, between the residential properties and their
building, or is it going to be in front of their buildings, between the water? I don't Okay, go ahead. Currently, there are two bolt bars on site. There is space in between. It would be between those two. Another thing why we'd like to keep that in there and we hadn't thought of this but
your staff brought it up and we thought it was a great idea was when we are in the midst of construction does it make sense to maybe keep one bolt barn for storage of materials and for again the
shield of neighbors does it make sense so we we we figured that's that's something we we might want to look into and why demo it when you can get a use for a while. Yeah. Well, it makes sense. I just wanted to know is it gonna be between the buildings or you gonna try to sneak it behind the wall? Be between
the buildings. Okay. Thank you for helping. Okay. So, are we good with 30 as is that the existing use of indoor dry? Well, your 30 our 30 is decorative lighting, but yes. Yeah, ours is different. Sorry. My proposed 30, the
applicant's proposed 30 uh would be the existing use of indoor dry storage and structures may remain until construction is complete. Nancy, just would it make sense to instead of it having 30 and to stay align with what we have in the packet, would it make sense to make that
as say letter A under 29 29 a 29 A? That that would be preferable. And also 31 is not in my material. So I don't have and it's not underlined. No. And that's fine. That was a I can explain where 31 came from. That was a carryover in the
um the proposed ordinance that was sent to us. It was just highlighted uh and it was subsequently removed once it got to this stage. So this was I think more of a note of the as it pertains to the right-of-way vacation. What I'm saying is my 31 in the packet says state and
federal permitting required. Correct. So my 31 is different and it's not underlined. So you have a different version I believe than what we have. I understand what you your disclaimer at the beginning, but it's causing a little bit
of confusion. Okay. So let's erase 31. We'll pretend like 31 does not exist because staff has removed that from the ordinance and we don't need to discuss it. Okay. Judith, what do you mean? I would
like Sorry. No, you're fine. I would like direction on whether you want to vacate that land or not. So it doesn't necessarily have to be in the ordinance, but if your will is to vacate up until the gate or not vacate, then to me it would make sense is if the gate and the
wall is is built everything on the moss marine side of that to vacate would make sense. Okay. And we can Does that make sense to everyone else? That in an earlier condition as a sub. So we'll do we'll keep it in but add it in. You want to keep the
condition in and then add it in earlier or you want the direction to vacate up until the point of the gates. Yes. So it should be lumped with the um conditions associated with the gate. Correct. Okay. vacate at property
line. So that would be included in the initial 10 conditions and we do have to go through the vacation process. Yes. Okay. Yes. I'm ready for vacation. We are we
understand. So jumping back to what our proposed condition 30 is. We're good with that. jumping ahead because I thought we were going to put 30 as 29A. 29A. 29A and then 32 becomes 30 again.
Yes. Yep. Then the decorative the decorative lighting plan. I'm going to also look at the same one that you guys have. So I think it just be easier that this is already here than trying. Okay. So the decorative lighting plan we are in agreement with. The state of federal
permitting. we're in agreement with and the non-seal area separating we are in agreement with so which leads us back to the ever never ending question of what do we do with Bonita and Harbor Court
does he have his little PDF thing ready no pressure Ken I forgot modified version X you've only had 10 minutes to get it together wake up Ken plug you in that one this I'm gonna try and skip back.
Thank you all for your patience during that. That's very helpful. Thank you, staff. Where did I write this down? So, Mayor and council members and Megan, um when we go into the U exercise of finalizing the final ordinance, we will
work off of the one that's in your packet and we will make your changes to that version simply because the public saw the one that was in your packet. Right. That was my concern. Yeah, absolutely. And that's fine. Um I'm sorry, we want those added. Everybody,
please, we need we can't hear up here, so it's difficult to Can you guys discuss why Ken comes up and shows us his little exit sketch? Okay, that's fine. Just change it over. So, there
I could just have a break to confer it. There you go. Go ahead. Nailed it. Oh, that's what you you That's what I was trying to understood. Except you made it green instead of a
red gate. Chris that you understand what Okay. Okay. So, this is option X. We'll we'll call it option U for turn that includes a turnaround at
the end in prior to the gate. So now the question becomes do you want a turnaround or do you want to gate at the property line? Oh I think both. I think having what for me having what you have there and then the yellow is your gate.
Correct. So your wall would go back to where the you know however but your gate would still be there. You'd still have the gate and that minor turnaround. And do you need us to go through the minutia of does it have to be pavement? Can it be rocks? What I mean, how deep
into the woods do we need to go? I mean, unless you you have a distinct preference. Yes. I don't know that we need I don't have a preference. What I just asked the applicant is that if they're willing to amend their master concept plan to show exactly what they're showing now, then the condition
number four refers to the master concept plan. So if this is indeed approved, they will amend the master concept plan to reflect the condition you have here. I mean, I would say that asphalt is probably preferred because that's the the roadway that's because otherwise the
rock runs off all the time. I know, but unless you have a specific No, I I have no Scott, are you okay with the illusion or the illusion? Illustration illusion. It is an illusion. Yeah, that's that's what we
were looking for. But I I would I don't think it should be I mean, you've got multi-million dollar thing. I don't think it should be shell. No, that's fine. I I didn't I'm not dying on the sword over what the pavement is. Not
finishing it. No, I'm fine. I'm fine with this. It needs to be asphalt and gated and gated. John, good. Got it. Look at that. We found a solution. We found a solution.
Leave that up there if you could, guys. I won't touch it. I may have a moment with staff. No. Is this the discussion about the pedestrian access? Oh, okay. I thought the pedestrian access is closed up. Well, that's I think we can
make that discussion very easy for them. I don't know. Is anybody in favor of having pedestrian access? It's It's Xed off, but I think in the condition four, we're still reading. Well, selfishly, yeah. I'd like to walk right down that street and walk in. Work on your pole
molting skills. Karen, didn't they didn't they offer a code though for going to be closed off completely. Well, the one idea was to have a code, but then there was a lot of discussion because three4s of those homes at some time or another during the year rentals.
Yeah. And so then the code gets passed around and then everybody has a code. So I think that's why it was kind of nixed, right? I mean, it's not like you're talking a walking a quarter of a mile here or anything. No, I think I can handle it.
Right. What are we working on, Judith? We got radio silence here. Sorry. Um, sorry. So, Uh we just wanted to be crystal clear. So condition two, I don't know if we can put that up. I want to
add a sentence there to specify the um that gates are going to be provided after the turnaround and that those gates are only going to be um utilized by emergency access. No um other vehicles permitted. Yes. Okay. And then
we want to keep the language about the um pedestrian access by keypad for no res. We want to strike that out. The only access along that south property line is via emergency entrance only. If I can for number two, you might say
as shown on the master concept plan. And then we're put beyond the gate will be vacated or north of the gate will be vacated. Did you bring your pajamas? access points to the resort from so there will not be any and I think
I've heard you guys discuss this there will not be any pedestrian access from Benita Harbor into correct yeah anywhere along the south property line correct So there'll be no the only access is emergency access and arches. Yeah.
Arch's way obviously. Absolutely. Yeah. So specifically harbor. So we'll make sure that the conditions reflect that as well. Megan, can you bring the mic back towards you? Thank you. Thought you guys must have been sick of me by now. Okay. Um and Judith, did we want to go through
the additional conditions? I will start. So based on what has been presented today, are these going to go to the end then? These will go to the end. I have nothing that I can show you because everything was it's very organic here. Just working on the fly. So let me
briefly discuss the items that I have jotted down. So one of the items that we discussed was the wall drainage landscape system. So
we are still requesting the deviation to allow the landscaping to be placed on the interior of the wall. The wall will have to create a condition where that the wall will be set into the property roughly between 3 to 6 feet within the
property line. The drainage will sit on the exterior of the wall on Arch's Bayfront property. there will have to be a drainage easement associated with that inlet and the landscaping the required
landscaping will be on the interior of the wall. So the development will include um here's are some proposed languages. The development will include finished a finished masonry wall constructed immediately after the demolition of each phase. However, the
existing wall shall remain until replaced with the new wall. That's one. Um jumping down, this is also pertaining to construction mitigation. Uh construction traffic shall be limited to Arches Way and construction management
plan will be provided as part of the development order process including best practices to mitigate for construction nuisances such as odor and noise whatnot. And then finally including the condition that this is pertaining to the
privacy screening for the sunset desk or the setback I should say. The sunset desk and building B shall include a 24 in setback and low-level plantings and or hardcapes. So those are some of the additional um conditions that we are going to
include. I'll let Judith also go through. I'm up to 36 if you start adding a lot of conditions. Number nine. Nancy, if they remove number nine,
wouldn't change the numbers, but I just jotted them down from the last one from 32. So that would be additional conditions. adding the the wall immediately after
demolition to provide um a sound barrier during construction, the construction vehicles entering using Arch's way. Um the addition of the drainage. So I I cut and paste from their um their presentation about the drainage that
they're willing to provide. Setting the wall back three to six feet to accommodate those inlet drains. That's where we are. And drainage ement that was associated with the wall. We could put that as a sub for the drainage
side. Yeah. Okay. And where did you add is that the construction entering through Arch's way? Is that where you're going to add the discussion or do we need to add the discussion about it will pass in front of the southern boat barn? As they said,
it's going to pass between the two boat barns. Between the two boat barns. Does that make sense to add that just to give a little more? Yes. Yeah. While they exist those concrete trucks will be loud. Is that all of them? I think dare I say
I I you dare you dare. I believe so. I think that there we're going to have to work with staff to finesse really the the wall language and drainage language and whatnot, but I think the intent almost to closing the public hearing. Yep. I think the intent we we understand. So
So and council just so you know um you know working with staff is great after these things but sometimes there's disagreement. So in the event that we are not able to come to agreement on the actual language, we may come back to you just to say is this really what you
meant. So I just want to go ahead and let you know about that in advance because unfortunately we had that issue come up with some of the other projects. Understood. Judith, you good? Megan, I would prefer
not to have to come back. Oh, well, I would prefer not to come back either, but uh you know, if I'm caught between Megan saying one thing and Judith saying something else, I'm going to go back to you to ask you what did you really intend right when you
directed that to us. Okay. All right, Megan, you're good. I think that that's all of the conditions that we wanted to. Okay. I will now close the public hearing and request a discussion or a motion from town council to approve approve with conditions or deny with
reasons or a continuence to a time certain discussion. Scott, any discussion? Uh I I think we've covered everything in detail. I'm glad I'm glad we got to a good place. Yeah, it's been very long, but I
appreciate everybody sitting through the discussion. This is a big project and it takes a lot of conversation from both sides to get to something that potentially could make sense. So, appreciate everybody's time. Karen, any discussion? No, I just think that we are in a good place. I think we listen to
every side. I think there were struggles and conditions met on every bit of along the way. So, I'm ready to move forward with um a vote. Okay. Jim, you want to discuss or does somebody want to make a motion and then we can discuss
or vice mayor? Well, I'm looking for my second page of my agenda. I I uh at the risk of being redundant and the fact that we're being we've got a lot else on the agenda. I was very
pleased at the discussion today. I think everybody gave I think we've reached common ground on most of the contested remaining issues. Um, I do I'll say just again for the record, I think this project uh
is in the public benefit. I think we've again as an island done an excellent job of and I use this word carefully, but we've democratized our beaches to the Gulf of America. got 36 beach access places, but it's very difficult for people to experience p in the public
sense uh the beautiful bay uh side properties of this of this island. And this does a great job of democratizing the bayside of Fort Myers Beach. And I'm obviously also excited about the ferry and a number of other things that this has to offer. And therefore, I would
move approval of ordinance 25-04 Arches Resort CPD. Okay, there's a motion by Vice Mayor Ederhol. I'll second. Seconded by Councelor Woodson. Mayor, may I ask a question? Um, the record that you have before you incorporates the staff report
that contains all the deviations and conditions and everything and it's condition on the approval of the CP and correct and deviation 4 is being adjusted to remove the request to put a fence instead of a wall. I'm sorry.
Okay. I would I would have second I would ask that my motion reflect the comments of the town attorney and Judith our planner. Okay. Second. And my second would reflect the same. Okay. Got a motion and a a second.
Discussion. John, any discussion? No. Scott? Nope. Karen, I guess I I do have a little bit of discussion and this one has really been tough for me um simply because the discussion has been so good. You know, it's been from the very
beginning, Ben, you and I sat in that that trailer and where it came from to where it is now is leaps and bounds. So, I commend you for that. Where I struggle on this one and where, you know, still tossing it around in my head is how is it consistent with the comp plan and land development code. And where I
struggle is of the properties that you have listed, five of them or 50% of them are in the residential conservation designation. In my interpretation of the comp plan, commercial intrusion is is not looked
upon very very positively. And to take five of your 10 parcels to put them into a residential convers conservation to a um the highest intensity and density use that we have in pedestrian commercial.
Um to me gives me gives me a little bit of a pause. Um, you know, asking for 200% increase in density is is difficult for me to to get behind. I I I fully support you and thank you for your, you
know, your commitment to the island for the decades that you've done it and I have no doubt that um you're going to continue to do that. Um I I still have some issues with with the drainage. I thought I heard up here was unanimous consent from the council that um trying
to get this drainage issue under under wraps was going to be important, but it wasn't brought back up, which I'm I'm a little upset about, but it is what it is at this point. I'm sure I'm going to I'm sure I'm going to be in the minority. I have no doubt about it. Um I do support you and I do support a project there. I
just can't support the project as it's proposed, but I appreciate all the negotiations and back and forth that we've had here today. It's been a very long meeting. Um, and this is a this is a I'm a supporter of you and I'm supporter of a project. I just for the reasons stated, I I can't I can't
honestly say that I believe that it is uh it is it is in sight with what the comprehensive plan and land development code um sought out to do specifically with commercial um the commercial intrusion. To me, it it it this is
a this is something that could potentially open a door. And I'm not a I'm not a person that likes to use the word precedent. Um but to me, this opens a door that's never been opened on this island, this approval. and and um maybe this is the only one that will do it,
maybe it won't be, but um this neighborhood will be impacted and and although their asks I thought were very minimal um to not adhere or at least u try to to to get closer to a resolution
to get them on your side was part of the reason that I think has led me to it. And up until I started talking, I didn't know which way I was going to go. But unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to support the project. All right, we got any further discussion? Uh, Vice Mayor Adhalt, I.
Uh, councelor Woodson, hi. Councelor King, hi. Councelor Safford. Hi. And I'm a know the motion carries 4 to1. Congratulations. Long road. Next is our item B. This is an agenda. This agenda item is a legislative second reading and
final public hearing of for adoption of the proposed ordinance 25-05 which is a small scale of comprehensive plan amendment related to the Arches redevelopment project. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, amending the town of Fort Myers Beach, adopted future land
use map dated January 1st, 1999, contained in the town's comprehensive plan for properties located at 450, 445, 441, and 436 Harbor Court, 435, and 438 Bonita Street, Fort Myers Beach, Florida. Also identified as strap
numbers 24-46-23-W3-000027. 000024-26-23-W3-000026.000020-46-23-W3-0030B.020 024-46-23-W3-0030B.0194-46-23-W3-0030C.00604 006024-46-23-w3-0030C.000040 24-46-23-W3-0030A.0110 0110 Fort Myers Beach, amending the future land use map for these parcels from mixed residential four parcels and
marina two parcels to pedestrian commercial providing for clarifications as necessary providing for conflicts of loss scrier's errors severability and an effective date. Nancy, do you need me to continue on through my cheat sheet? Um,
communication legislative. You don't have to do exparte in um legislative matters. Um but if you want to, you can. No, no. In the sake of time, we will we've discussed it enough. Okay. Judith. Good afternoon. Judith Frankle uh from
community development. Uh the Freeland Florida Holding LLC uh owner of the subject properties and the neighborhood company. applicant for the owner are requesting a comprehensive plan future land use map amendment. The amendment requests a change of 3.53 acres of
marina future land use uh now known as Moss Marina and one acre of mixed residential future land use um to pedestrian commercial. There are no text amendments to the comprehensive plan. This is simply a map change.
Um so we went through this on first reading. I'll go through it again. Um uh briefly the marina future land use um is uh pretty restrictive um in what can be accomplished on um in that location.
It allows a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 and no density. Um the mixed residential future land use will allow for a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 um and typically allows a density of uh six dwelling
units per acre. Um the combined marina and mixeduse residential parcels could allow a total of 295,990 square feet um through a CPD.
And with this change to pedestrian commercial, um that could allow up to 493,317 square feet, uh which is an increase of about 200,000 square feet for development potential. Um in terms of neighborhood
compatibility for this map change, um the comprehensive plan refers to the area both as the north end and the core area. Um the 1999 comprehensive plan doesn't provide exactly a vision for this part
of the core area. Um however, it intends the north end to be quiet and downtown adjacent. Um whereas the core area is intended to be part of the um downtown action with a high level of commercial
uh activity. Um I'm going to continue through here. Um the main purpose it goes through in the staff report the specific requirements of the different future um land use categories.
Um the point that staff wants to make sure is understood is the future land use map amendment does increase the potential for nuisance issues for the surrounding single family homes. Issues of noise, traffic, visitor, guest vehicles, delivery service, sanitation
vehicles, um as well as view obstruction and general congestion can be associated with significant increases in commercial and lodging activities. Um these concerns, as I noted, can be addressed and maybe have been addressed
to your satisfaction through the accompanying CPD application. Um the town council is charged with determining the thoroughess of those mitigating measures. um as proposed in the CPD application. Um staff does find however that the request to amend the future
land use map um is not clearly in the public interest which is what the comp plan charges us with identifying clearly in the public interest. Um although additional commercial land adjacent to the existing downtown um may be beneficial, it does not
necessarily provide a clear benefit to the town and will result in and noise impacts to the nearby residential uses. Um uh the Moss Marina has acted um as a
buffer between those uh commercial uses and the neighborhood even though it is a commercial operation. Um it's one that the neighbors were used to and was sufficiently controlled that the neighbors did saw it as a buffer between
those uses. Um it can also be considered that the area lacks sufficient pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to support the proposed amendment. Um the residential streets harbor bonita and third do not have sidewalks at the
moment. They don't have um public infrastructure. You may want to consider that we've now cut off the resort from that. So there may be less pedestrian or uh bicycle um crossover into that
neighborhood at this time. Um staff in our recommendation reviewed the request um and found that the comprehensive plan amendment request did not meet the requirements set forth in land development code section
34-92 and comprehensive plan policy 4C4. Therefore, staff recommended denial of the application um to change 3.53 acres of marina future land use and one acre of mixed residential future land use to
commercial to pedestrian commercial. However, if the town council finds that the concurrent CPD application for this area adequately demonstrates that the proposed development is, and I put in parenthesis because it's a quote from the comp plan, clearly in the public
interest, not just in the private interest of a petitioning land owner. Approval could be granted. Um, approval of the application would be recommended if the CPD application is found by the town council to sufficiently address policy 4 C10.
All right, John. Questions for Judith? Not at this time. Vice Mayor? None. Council Wilson? I'll hold. Council, I'll hold. What's your name again? Oh, Megan. Good afternoon. Um, almost evening, but good afternoon. Megan Strahorn for the
record, legal counsel for, uh, the applicant property owner, Freeland, Florida Holdings, uh, Florida Holdings LLC. This is the CPA request. I am going to keep this very very brief. We have presented this hearing um at the LPA level that had a unanimous approval. We
did a presentation at the first reading which had a unanimous approval to move it forward. And we have our application materials prepared by our expert witness and expert witnesses Mr. Patrick Veness as well as Ken Ken Galander. We would
ask to incorporate by reference into the record not only the LPA hearing but the also the town first town council hearing as well as the very initial LPA hearing on this matter which occurred April 8th 2024 uh where it was first presented. Now
that wasn't a favorable vote vote but it was a very very very very detailed presentation. We incorporate those here too by reference as well as uh supported by the underlying application and materials. Um if you all have any
further questions, we would be happy to go through them with you all. This is about the same property and project requesting for everything seven of the 10 parcels to be converted into the pedestrian commercial category zoning designation.
So, wire team is here if you have questions. Otherwise, we can defer to you for a vote. Any questions? Uh, Scott for Megan and Nor Patrick or any of the other team members? I do not. Karen, I don't.
Vice Mayor, no questions. Council King, none. Okay. I do not have any at this point. I think we covered them all. I think we covered them all. All right. If I can, just for the record, um, so the approval of the LPA is basically their recommendation
that the proposed change is consistent with the comp plan. Again, um, basing their approval that it is in the public interest. Um, so I just wanted to make sure the record reflected the consistency issue. Okay. Yes. And and thank you, Mr. Brit, for that. And, uh,
our expert has previously testified that this is consistent with the intent in the vision of the comprehensive plan. Okay. Thank you, Megan. Public comment. Yes, please. Is there anyone here that anyone still here
that would like to speak to public comment regarding this uh this amendment to the future land use? Seeing none, we'll close public comment. I'm assuming you don't have any rebuttal. Okay. And I will now close the public hearing and request a discussion or a motion from town council to
approve. approve with conditions or deny with reasons or a continuence to a time certain discussion and or motion. Anyone? I'll make a motion to approve ordinance
25-05 comprehensive plan amendment marina and mixed residential to pedestrian commercial flu arches resort. Okay, there's a motion by councelor Woodson. I'll second. Seconded by
councelor Safford. Discussion, John. No discussion for me, Vice Mayor. Nothing additional. Okay. Uh Scott, again, I'll just reiterate the
same reasons. I I can't support this. I agree with the staff's recommendation that this is clearly not in the public's best interest and it is in the interest of the private petitioner, land owner. Um, but again, I I support what you're
trying to do here, just not in the intensity of which it's being proposed. So, right, we got a motion and a second. There's no further discussion. Councelor Woodson, I. Councelor Safford, I. Vice Mayor Hall, I. Councelor Kane, I. And I'm a no. The motion carries unanimously
4 to one. Congratulations. Thanks for sticking out what, eight hours a long time. All right, that brings us to item C. This is a quasi judicial item is a first reading and public hearing on
proposed ordinance 25-12, the salty crab redevelopment. If approved at first reading, a second reading and final adoption hearing will be scheduled for June 16, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. or at another time identified by town council. This is an ordinance of the town council of the
town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving approving with conditions or denying to reszone the property located at 1154 or Sterile Boulevard generally identified as strap number 24-46-23-W3-000011.0000 in Fort Myers Beach from downtown to commercial plan
CPD to allow for one and increase in floor area ratio from 1.2 2 to 1.96. Decrease the setback from 10 feet to zero feet. Decrease side setbacks from 20 feet to 0 feet and for a 100% reduction in parking requirements from
58 spaces to zero spaces and increase signage from 32 feet to 115 square ft and conditions providing for other clarifications as necessary providing for conflicts of laws. Scriveners error severability and providing for an effective date.
If any town council member has had any exparte communication to disclose, please let us know the subject discussed and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place, any correspondence that you received or observations of the site. Mayor, I'm going to interrupt you. Um,
under item number two, did you say decrease the street setback? I think I may have just heard decrease setback. It said discreet. Well, I I thought I said discreet dis decrease the street setback with that fee. I believe I did, but Okay, we'll correct it. It's verified.
Okay, it's verified. All right, John, any exparte communication? None that I recall. Uh, Vice Mayor, I don't believe I've had any pro or con. Okay. Uh, I've had none. I did not have any. Obviously, I've been by the site many, many times.
We'll wait for councelor Woodson to disclose her exparte communication. I tried to read slower. I tried to go faster. Too much information. I have had no
conversations since the last time they came before us. Well, they couldn't have first. I mean, well, yeah, but they can't. Oh, wait. This is salty crap. Never mind. I have had nothing. I had nothing. Okay. Judith and I got nothing. Judith has
Judith Frankle has been qualified as an expert already by this town council based on her education and experience has accepted has been accepted as an expert in the field of land use planning and development in the town of Fort Mary's Beach. Are there any other individuals who would like to be qualified as an expert witness on behalf of the applicant at this time? Fred, who
else you got with you? You've been, I think, qualified already, haven't you? I have. I have been for sure. Um, I have with me uh Greg and Jimmy, they're architects on the project and we couldn't have a civil engineer, but he had four o'clock appointment makes all of us I know got us all um so
I'll let them share how you doing I'm Greg Walden vice president BDG architects 400 North Ashley Drive sweet 600 Tampa Florida here on behalf of Salt Okay. And what's your expertise? What is your I'm a licensed architect. Okay. And
you sir? Good afternoon everybody. Um I'm Jimmy Penley. I'm with BDG Architects. Um I'm a senior project manager. I would move that both of these gentlemen be considered expert witnesses. I'll second that. Any further discussion? Vice Mayor Edel. Hi. I'm an
I. Councelor K. Hi. Council Woodson. Hi. Councelor Safford. Hi. Motion carries unanimously. You are now experts. Okay. Judith. Judith Frankle with community development. Uh RVI Planning and Landscape Architecture on behalf of Greg
Powers and Clownfish Restaurant Holdings. The applicant is requesting a resoning from downtown zoning to commercial planned development. Uh the request is to rebuild the Salty Crab restaurant as well as an ice cream shop at the 1154 Astero Boulevard property um
after the existing the previous establishment was destroyed during uh Hurricane Ian. Um they initially came to us with variances um but we found that what they needed really could only be accomplished through a CPD. Uh, and I'll I'll walk
you through that. Um, this application was heard by the LPA at their May 13, 2025 meeting, the LPA voted 7 to zero to approve with conditions the CPD with deviations. Um, so this property because
it's a because we um we had to go with the CPD route. The CPD requires that you use the standards of a commercial resort zoning. um when you're requesting deviations. So even though the site falls within the downtown zoning, they
can't use the downtown zoning as their standard. So some of their deviations that they are asking for come out with that which would have been in line with the downtown zoning but are not in line with the commercial resort. Um and Judith, as you go through on those, can you just specify just for the record
which ones if it was in the the the zoning district that that deviation wouldn't be required? Yes. So why don't I do that now because some of these get covered when we do that. So um their first deviation land development code
34-650 645 table 32 342 um is for a street setback that specifies in the commercial resort zoning that no building or structure shall be placed closer than 10 ft to a ster boulevard to allow for a zero foot setback. So if this was if they were not
looking for a CPD and then they they could accomplish what they want with just um a variance or by right then they would have a zero uh lot line setback. So this deviation is caused by the CPD mechanism. Um uh the second deviation
land development code section 34- 645 table 342 is for side setbacks. It's similar here in downtown zoning. They would be allowed to have zero um uh zero foot setbacks, but because the code
requires when you're doing a CPD that you look at the CR zoning um standards, they need a deviation to get to the zero lot line. Um, deviation three from land development code section
34-645 table 34-2 um for floor area ratio. So this is why they had to come for a CPD because they need um to deviate from the required uh F. Uh the CR zoning district has a
maximum of 1.2 two floor area ratio whereas the downtown zoning would permit a 1.8 F. What they're asking for is a 1.96 F um which is much closer to the downtown zoning um upper limits closer
than with the commercial resort requirements. Um the applicant has also asked to consider and that includes all of their um area even storage in areas that are below BFE um that sometimes
other applicants ask for exceptions from or deviations from. Um they've noted that if those areas of storage and circulation on the ground level were excluded, the F would be closer to 2 point 1.3.
Um, deviation four um, from land development code section 34-2020 D2A and H uh, for restaurants requires a minimum parking area of eight spaces per 1,000 square feet of total
floor area um, plus any outdoor seating area. So, this restaurant previously had zero parking. Um, and that's what they're asking for 100% deviation to provide no parking for the restaurant. Um, we did
work with the applicant to ensure they had some pulloff areas for loading and unloading. Um, we wanted to make sure that they were not going to impede traffic on a sterile boulevard. Um, it's a small space, but they have figured out
a way to all lot some space for large van to be able to pull off. Um, and typically with restaurants, those um, services occur early in the morning. Um, so we don't expect there to be any conflict with the Star
Boulevard. Um, Judith, it's my only question for this is that you say it lots for a large van but not like a semi-truck for like a beer truck or No. and the applicant can tell you the spec specifics, but it would not allow for
um a large I don't even think a box truck, but we can ask them for the specifics. Okay. Thank you. Um yeah, because that was I mean this that was a big big point of contention with Lee County and Lee County Sheriff's Office about blocking the sidewalks. Yeah. Blocking the center lane. So, parking on
Lee County's Crescent Park. It was a big big thing during previously they had been able to there was a a parking area for um Crescent Park. Yes. There abudding them. The preliminary plans they have not
submitted to us but the preliminary plans we've seen from Lee County um get rid of that parking area. There are removable ballards where they could get their maintenance vehicles on there. They also are proposing to have um trailered uh restrooms that would be
road ready to be hooked up. So they have um removable ballers for for those types of access, but there would be no longer their proposal is to have no longer have any public parking in Crescent Park that all of their parking would happen at uh Lyn Hall. Yeah. So that was the big that
was a big problem is that A8A parking spots there, right? They had that one guy that Yeah. pretty much sat there every morning wanting to pick a fight. Um and they did I know they initially had reached out to Literan because there
is a a stop there but Literan is did not want to give any kind of agreement for them to use the space because there is the potential for conflict and um although you know they could potentially use it during early morning hours, Lyran was
not comfortable putting in writing you know any kind of agreement because this the stop is dedicated for the um the public transit service. I'm just wondering because it's early in the morning, is it something that potentially waste in a way could an agreement be worked out to be able to pull in there early in the morning to
get them off of Sterile Boulevard? I don't know if it would work or not. I just don't want to go down the same rabbit hole we went down before before the storm that LCSO was calling us saying why are they parking on the sidewalk and they parking in the center lane or blocking crescent or just want to try to avoid that.
So the applicant has a presentation and I think they're they've have somewhat of a a plan to alleviate that. It was just difficult to accomplish a full turnaround for a large truck on such a small property. So they've they've made some adjustments from what we initially
saw to be able to get um even a smaller vehicle to not a small vehicle but a a van or something like that to do deliveries. So Judith just again this will alleviate questions down the road but the uh As I understand the new Crescent Park design, and maybe Jeff or
you guys know this, but they're going to put restrooms right over in that corner. Could the restrooms somehow be incorporated into the Salty Crab and then allow maybe the Lee County then allows them some use to park and and drop things off. And the
the problem with that I mean I'll let the applicant answer your your question. I didn't know if you were involved in those conversations. below flood. Like the salty crab can't have any restrooms below flood. So that ground level, there's no bathrooms in there. All of their bathrooms are up on the second
floor. So that would mean that everybody visiting Crescent Park would come in through their facilities into their restaurant to use their bathrooms. And I don't know that that would be I got convenient. Okay. Um not even for the little ice cream proposed things down.
I'm assuming that's on the other side of the the uh No, they they cannot have I mean I'm not the flood plane manager, but the the they cannot have restrooms below flood because it's in the high velocity zone. It is or is it just on the other side of it? No, it's it's
within is the way the line comes. So, how are you getting away with having an ice cream shop down there? So, well, I'll ask you guys when you come up with that. Okay. So since you've mentioned that um that is some the statement that I will
make is that this is a zoning approval that you're making and um anything along those lines will get reviewed at DO. So they have reached out to the flood plane manager for the town to work through that. There are some limitations in
terms of where the utilities are located, shut offs and things like that and how they um potentially have have gates or other systems to accommodate that. Um uh the approval here today does not guarantee them the right to an approved development order or you know
approved building plans. That's still a process to go through. Um so okay to say that mean to sidetrack you on your that's okay. So we just that was deviation four was parking. Um deviation
five uh land development code section 30-5 A1 A1. Um this is for signage. Um uh typically typically you'd only be allowed maximum of 32 square feet of sign area. Um, and this deviation would
allow for five signs for the Salty Crab Bar and Grill with a combined total sign area of 115 square feet. They have a um a diagram showing where they're proposing to put those signage. So, they have the front on a stereo, but then they also have the the full side that
faces um Crescent Park. And so, they're asking for a large larger sign there. Um, and they've noted the signs are in size ranging from 14.2 2 ft to 20.1 square feet. So, none of the individual
signs are over that 32 square foot uh maximum. Um in discussing the the findings and conclusions and the recommendations, I would point you to the findings and conclusions as stated in the staff report. Um but in general
um we find that the application is compliant with the u town's comprehensive plan um and is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and intent intensities, intensities and general uses as set forth in the Fort
Meers Beach comprehensive plan. Um I can answer any questions with that but I would um refer you back to the the staff report for the full run through of those findings and conclusions. So um staff is recommending approval with conditions of
this application. Um uh we have four conditions of recommended conditions of approval. Um one being a phototric plan that would comply with all of the turtle friendly rules uh of the town. Um the applicant
has offered as a public benefit to provide a canal levered shade structure from the eststero boulevard facade to shade um the public sidewalk in front of the property. Um uh third condition final architectural design must be
generally consistent with the renderings provided that I believe they're going to show you today and the applicant must apply for and receive all federal, state, and local permits uh for the reconstruction of the proposed structures. So that's covers the compliance with the flood plane regulations.
Okay. Any questions for Judith? John? None at this time. Jim Karen, I'll hold off. Scott, I'll hold off as well. Thanks. Okay. Hey, you're not Megan, huh? You're not Megan. No, I'm not Megan. I'm not Ken.
Oh, yeah. It's been a long day. Sorry. Oh, it's funny how that is continuing on and sticking. Anyway, Fred Dropick from RVI Planning and Landscape Architecture. Glad to be here with you this afternoon.
Um, I of course want to be expedient about this, but there's enough there's enough details that I just got to hit that'll probably answer questions, but I will try to uh keep it concise. Um, we've gone through the request. Uh there's really not too much more to say
about that. So um except that um we are to meet the the height and the the height requirements of the downtown district and then we would have met the the setback requirements of the downtown district as well. So those are two points that we're not asking for a
height deviation. Um I think we meet the goals objective policies of the pedestrian commercial commercial future languages category particularly in this downtown core with a walkable restaurant. Before you move on and not to go back to to did you did maybe did I
miss it is the you said there was the variances they were requesting you thought it was better for them to go into a CPD. What exactly was it that you're going through that pushed you to recommend a CPD versus going the variance route? Yeah the the floor area ratio. That's what it was. Yeah. That's
the only thing that caused Okay. Yeah. We were initially we had a variance for uh for for parking. And then when we were doing the CPD, we we put the signage in there because it was easier. It was easy to capture it then instead of doing a special exception later. It's pretty much the same reason the beach
bar went CPD route. Correct. Yeah. For the most part. Yeah. So when you're when you're hitting some of those things that are controlled by the comprehensive plan, then it makes sense to take them to the through the CPD process instead of the individual variances. So over
over density, over um F. Okay. Thank you. Uses this would be other ones. Height height. All right. So, let's go right to the to the site. I know everybody knows where
the site is. I want to just show that with a little closeup that we are um next to the Margaritaville building. There is a sidewalk in between. There's a five foot sidewalk on the Margaritavville side, but we're proposing zero foot setbacks on our building. So, it would be right up against their parking or their sidewalk
area, which are just designed as service entrances and exits in the back for the Margaritavville building and similarly for ours. Um, isn't it considered a beach access though, too? Uh, not on the in between the buildings. No, I think I thought the beach access was on our
other side by Crescent by Crescent. I thought that was considered a beach access as well. Is that the one? Okay. I think that was the one they added, but the five feet. Yeah, I thought it was on Yeah, but you're right. There's one right there. I thought it was on the other side, but Yeah, it could be the
one that's on the the entrance side to the stairs and all that. That could be the one that I'm thinking of. Yeah, but but you're right. There is one there. Um, so the pass and here's the reason I show this is that
um this really leads into our floor area ratio request. So the original restaurant and I I rounded up the numbers to make sense. These they're ballpark. So but I I rounded them up just for ease of discussion. Um the exact numbers didn't didn't really make
a difference on this discussion. I I think you'll see what I mean. So the the the restaurant use previously was uh you know landward of the CCCL was about 6,000 square feet total. Um approximately 5,000 square foot were
under some type of roof. Um and then 4,000 square feet of it was all on the ground floor. So all their back of house, restrooms, everything was on the ground floor. Um the the second floor area was less than 2,000 square feet and they had seating up there for the
restaurant. Um so what happens when we now need to elevate all those things that were on the ground floor before they need to go onto the second floor? Everything under roof is now F. So um really it's the the expansion isn't as
significant as the 2.0 F sounds. It's really that we just need to elevate almost everything that's real useful. Um, so we'll show you the exact floor plans, how we broke down the bottom floor to get better use out of it, and then the top floor is the majority of seating and all the back of house, um,
the elevator service and the restrooms. There's some pictures of the past. I mean, everybody knows what this part looked like before. It's fun to see pictures of what it did look like. And then hopefully you feel like the new design is a great improvement over what it what it was and just the the new and
modern look. So those go from uh pictures, you know, a couple years before Ian to on the far right hand corner there the um right before the final removal of the destroyed restaurant. So the future here's we'll go through some of the architectural
renderings. This is of course looking um you know going down Astera Boulevard looking at the Margaritavville to the left of the building. So it's a a twostory structure with fairly fairly high floors but we're about just under 26 feet total as far as zoned height. So
so we're four or five feet below um the zone the zoning requirements for 30 feet um over flood. And uh so the the flood elevation here is about 19 196. So is that that ground floor we kept it a little bit lower. The
actual floor height is really on that where that second level of the white uh crossing uh the white beams are crossing there. That's the actual probably service level of that next floor. Um so tall but tried to drop it down and make it a little more pedestrian friendly and
interacting. Is there a reason, this is minimal question, but is there a reason why I mean the the previous slide the salted crab used to be so colorful and so vibrant and you really like flipped the page to dull and gray and not vibrant and like what it was before. Is there a reason why that or is this just
for display purposes and it might be different colors? Well, I mean it may it can be different colors. So part of it was Margarito had so many colors on it that it almost starting to we did have we had several renderings where we put different colors on the facade. It
almost started to blend in a little bit and look like it was part of Margaritaville. May that was a little bit of it. Part of it modern color palette with the gray is is attractive because then it makes everything else that you put in color really pop out on the building. So the logo any mural then
pops out. We are not opposed to color and looking at color on that. Um it's it's just something that that for those reasons they've made the the gray look um you know that kind of weathered weathered ocean look. So I just remember so many people would stop along the boulevard or the side of the buildings
and take pictures because of the artwork and the stuff that was on it. Yeah. I mean it was Yeah, I see. I see what you mean. That was a cool interaction at the street level. So again, I understand it's a minor thing, but we're not opposed to to doing that and looking more color brought into that beyond the
mural and the logos. Um, so you see to the right there that that's a crescent beast entrance. It obviously isn't accurate to exactly the way it will be. Um, but and with the removable ballards there, but this gives you an idea of the interaction with the
ster boulevard. This g is a the straight view. So, it shows some of the uh the awning that we want to create sort of create some a little bit of shade at least in this area over over the sidewalk and then there'll be the ice cream shop there that is more of the
interaction with the pedestrians there. So, Fred just so when the Miller beer truck semitr comes where does it park? Yeah, it there is not a place for that right now. What happens then? So, they have to work and I can maybe have even Greg and they work with them on a daily
basis talk to that more. right now we will have to work through a solution for that. So we made the so we made the we added which never existed at all a delivery area and so we could some restaurant supplies that are in smaller
trucks and or vans will be able to back into there and use that. Um that does not obviously occupy a box car or box truck or any type of semi whatsoever. So that is true but I mean 19 foot height.
It wouldn't accommodate that. The width probably uh the width is the width is tough. I mean, these guys could have figured it out a little bit closer, but um I'm not sure about the 19 foot height, but that's not what we were proposing there for the height on that door. It's a 10
foot more of a typical garage door, like a single single uh single aisle garage door. So, I mean, just in your mind, what's what's the plan when the beer truck comes? what happens. Yeah. So, do you guys want to take that one? Yes. So, that's one of the discussions we've been
having with Greg Powers at Beach Hospitality Group and the intent is to do all those type of deliveries in in the early hours or or either early or late at night uh in the time when when the bus service wouldn't be running. Uh there are certain vendors that have
they'd actually trust with keys to the restaurants. They do that now and other tight spaces they have other communities. Uh and so that that's their intent on those. other other deliveries. Uh they propose to do the smaller van van service deliveries or even shuttle.
So so it may be um a multiaceted delivery where they would pack up the van offsite, bring it there and and do it to the loading bay. There is Lee County they don't want to they don't want to facilitate your parking on a metro basis. So they're not in terms of
parking on on the park for Crescent. Yeah. Just just you have a little So that's still under design. We have reached out to Lee County. Uh we are in discussion with them, but that's not anything I can sit before you today and say that anything's been worked out on, but we certainly reached out to Lee County. Well, I would encourage you to
work with the town for wasting away as well as maybe Mr. Rashard and his on Crescent Street. He's got the parking there. Okay. Maybe that location could work because I really don't want this to get into a thing with our staff has to go down there every single day because
the beer truck is parked in the middle of the street and then we have to get Lee County Sheriff's fault. I mean, it it it got very contentious. So then they started backing into Lee County and then the gentleman in the 88 parking spot was calling. So it we don't want to go down that rabbit hole again. Not for us or
for you. Yeah. Nor do we. Yes. All right, this is uh facing Crescent Park. Um so the proposal to bring the mural back. Um and then it just shows a few of the little bit of the signage. Um underneath there are circulation areas
which we thought was was that are open circulation areas. So you know some of those thunder or thunderstorms in the afternoon or whatever people could come under there. There's circulation areas to stay dry if you're caught out in the rain uh on a walk or on a bike ride on there. Towards the beach side, we have
some uh we have seating uh underneath there on the beach side. And then of course the restaurant and everything is up top. We have service down below, I assume. Yeah, we have service down below. Yep. Um the windows that you see on the upper
floor are retractable doors, so they are able to be rolled up. Um, and so create a great open air feeling, especially in the uh in season when it's cool, a little bit cooler out. Um, so create a great open air feeling to the entire building. So that's on that side and on
the beach side. There's rollup doors on tracks. The this one I can show you little little bit later, but that's just is the more detailed rendering for you guys. This does show the um signage and I'll go I'll go into that
when I get to the signage sign. I have this kind of repeated on the signage uh signage slide and we'll get into more detail there. Um this is a view from the beach side. Not exactly accurate. There's a lot of other stuff happening there with the the seaw wall or retaining wall and a few
other things, but it does give you an idea of what the facade will look like. Another awning on that side. And then there is approved coop and a service area on the beach that um they intend to use but not change in any way from the uh current approval to put seating there
and have service on the beach. Um there's requirements for that. Haven't that outlined on the slides but if you have questions about that we can look at that cop ordinance that's approved. I'm assuming it be the same footprint as what they had before. Exactly. I think it's 1261 ft or whatever roped off for
requirements for hours of service and those kind of things. Yeah. Um and that's the beachside uh elevation as well. Um this would be included us in there because we're we're far enough
along. I mean the the Greg and and uh P and the clownish they want to move forward this as fast as they can. So, um, with optimism, we've been moving forward with development plans, meeting with flood plane managers. The civil plans are, you know, fairly far along.
They've been working on floor plans for almost better part of a year through revisions of this. So, we're ready to go um as much as we can be uh pre-zoning being approved. So, they would like to be open by the uh by the end of 2026 if
they can. um aggressive schedule, but that's their that's their goal now is try to get that as permitted as fast as possible. So, we'll do everything we can. You say open by the end of 2026. Yeah, that's what they that's what they're hoping to do. So, so okay. Yeah,
there's still I mean they have a lot of things in the works already. So, um we'll see where it comes out, but we're going to move forward as fast. So, not not this season, but next season. Yeah. Yeah, that would be the goal. uh site plan. There isn't much to show. I mean, we occupy most of the sight of
the building. This is a a non-conforming lot. It's only 35 ft wide. So, even by pre-1962 standards, this didn't even comply then to the 40 foot lot minimum. So, um and I do say that because I mean there's there's really true no way to
design parking on this site. Um you couldn't pull in and have any type of turnaround. So, there's no no place for parking at all on this site. Um, so non-conforming lot and this just shows where the cop area is in the blue shade and then the rest of the site is the uh
is the restaurant and then uh obviously it goes clear to the water which isn't part of this request at all. Um on the right there are the hours if you did have questions about the hours of operation of the coop area and of the operation of of that in general.
Um yeah, the 1561 square feet, that's what it is. Um those are the limitations for the hours of service on the beach. The um so building heights, I use the this elevation, but just shows that we're as you know, two stories um we're
allowed up three and then 25 uh feet 2 in above FD the design flood elevation. So 391 39 ft 1 inch actual height and then zone height 252 and then floor area ratio. So this
is where we this is where we get uh uh into the discussion a little bit about what we did with the site plan. So like I said the reason for doing this and needing this F is elevating everything out you know out of the VE zone up above. Um so and then everything under
roof is F now. So, um, that's where we're at the 1.96. That's, you know, almost the the entire site times two. There is a few areas on the bottom here. I'll show you the floor plan. And I got I got a got a hard time for all
the color choices I used to say at the LPA. So, uh, you know, now I have new ones. So, did lavender or periwinkle? That's purple. Fancy. Yeah, that's pretty. I thought maybe it's more lavender. Um, I was told the or the it's not orange. It was coral. So that's
coral. And then the light blue, I don't know, seafoam or something. There you go. Yeah. Yeah. Nailed it, Fred. So the orange the orange area are the circulations uh where you're you know exactly that walking around. Patrons are walking to either get get to seating,
get to a bar, get to another area, get to an elevator. Um the blue area are the areas that we created for storage and drop off dump dumpster storage and other dry storage. And in that also could be included something like fl uh employee
bike storage something like that because a lot of people that'll work here will work on island and and and bike up here. So we can do use that area for bike storage as well. So we did good idea. Good idea. So,
um, so those blue areas are really that we really, at one point we didn't have as many of those shown. We're like, we really need to at least solve to the greatest extent we can on site with some delivery. Um, at least for the smaller things that limit the issues and we
understand there are still some hanging out there that we need to fix. Um, but we will we will do that. We will fix that, but we at least tried to do some on site. So in that uh seafoam light blue area, we uh if you remove that area and
not count that towards the F, we're 1.72, which would comply with the 1.8 allowed in the downtown district. Um and so that's kind of that didn't determine that, but we were trying to show um what that would look like. So, if you remove all those circulation areas, which we
didn't try to push that as a as a as a justifying that we were, you know, at the proper F. Um, I didn't think that was fair. But, um, the, uh, if you move all the circulation areas and blue areas, then you're at we're about 1.3
with actual usable area. All right. Planning analysis. Um, she did a great job going over these. Um the setbacks I think were were fairly obvious about that, you know, because we're in the CR district now. Um no,
zero setbacks are allowed anymore. So, but we do comply with the the downtown district where it was the uh F we just hit on parking 100% deviation. Um and then the sign area. So, the sign
area I can dress here. Actually, I'll do I'll do that. I'll do that in a second. Let's go to the the parking first. So, we did put in a little bit of time and effort to look at, you know, parking the region. So, we made a map that shows the quarter quarter mile uh walk shed, which
is, you know, a standard that everybody uses that most people can walk and that's a standard walkshed. Some people push it up to a half mile. That's the big orange circle. That's a half mile walkshed. And we include and so but we counted the parking spaces. We're not as accurate as I've
heard some people present that that there's people on a beach that I know that know this down to the exact number of parking spots. I rounded up. It's 800 plus in this walkshed. Um so we believe that we're central in that walkshed in that downtown core that this is the exact right place for a use that was
pedestrian oriented on a stair boulevard next to time square next to a beach surrounded by 800 plus parking spaces that can be used. the and of course the it operated for years and years and years very well
without any parking. Um the sign area here's why we did this. So I think uniquely this this has three facades. There's the Astera Boulevard, there's Crescent Park there which faces you know Time Square and
then there's the beach side as well. People walking down the beach and can see it as well. So we really have three useful facades which with pedestrian traffic on it. So there's the pedestrian traffic that we were trying to to capture um at a pedestrian level. So you
see the signs over maybe the entrance um by Sweet Willies or on the lower part there um to to so people people don't look up naturally. So if you're walking along Stair Boulevard, you're just going to look to see what the restaurant is by looking over where the entrance might
be. So we have one smaller sign there, but then one up one up taller and one up a little bit higher to see from a greater distance like Time Square or somewhere around there. So we're trying to capture two things, three facades and then pedestrian scale and the automobile
or the the greater distance scale. And so that's why we proposed um five signs uh ranging from 14 square feet and then the larger one we did put on the uh beach side on Crescent Beach is 40 square feet. So, it is double the other ones. The one above the mural is a
little bit larger. Um, the uh and that that does total the 115 square feet though. So, that was our request. We thought the and we thought the logo of this it it's kind of it's almost historic. It's it's it's playful.
It looks good. I think it has a beach vibe to it. I don't think it's a detractor or something. It looks like just huge words that we're trying to get, you know, up there just to, you know, advertise the business. I just think it looks really good and uh we're just trying to work through those those
three facades and the different uh different uses there. We are not asking for a deviation for sweet willies. Um every business in a multiple business location is allowed 32 feet. We have two 16 square feet signs for sweet willies
underneath the uh initial entrance. So there's no deviation for that. It's just for the salty crab signs. the um the staff report did a great job with our LDC compliance and and they're in
agreement that we meet the 12 criteria and the comprehensive plan consistency. They outlined well we're in agreement with the staff report on that as well and it's a long day so I'm not going to go through these individually. Um so here's let me
summarize the key points and conclusions and we can just get to the to the questions and concerns that you have. So, it's a rebuild of the downtown staple and uh I think a much needed service in the Times Square area. Um fresh new look built to all the modern
construction standards and codes which is exciting. Um improved the walkway. So, we improved the walkway along Ster Boulevard with some shade as much as we could do. Ground floor design to interact with the public and produce interest and pedestrian interaction consistency with the comp plan there. Um
ground floor open air seating, beach service in a highly walkable location. Um that facade facing Crescent Beach Park in Time Square attractive and inviting. We think mural the mural will become a uh Instagram photo place and a
place to get a good picture there. Um F deviation is really because we're moving back a house and everything to the second floor and putting everything else under under roof. And then parking deviation is consistent with the original restaurant. Um and we believe that's in the proper location and
essential for the rebuild uh on the non-conforming lot. So with that um you know staff recommend approval. LPA voted 77 to zero to approve it and uh and we're looking forward. We believe this is consistent with the comp plan and land development
code um given the uh asked for deviations and we ask for a motion to vote to move the second hearing. There you go. Scott, questions for for Fred? Yeah, I I I I love this this
project. The only my only concern is the the big deliveries, the beer trucks, the you know, the Cheney Brothers big big trucks. Um, have you guys thought outside the box? Maybe talking Margaritavville, maybe talking some of the the neighbor businesses potentially
getting a delivery there and then picking it up or I I know you're you're in contact with with Lee County, but Dan's right. Before the storm, there was always an
issue with with the beer truck. I mean, it was daily. It was constant. Yes, it was constant. And I I'd like to see if if we decide to continue this to a second second hearing, I'd like to see some some type
of solutions or or you know, ideas that you may have to to mitigate that those deliveries because I mean in season it just about once a week, right? Yeah. Well, the issue was with not so much the
property owners as it was the the people delivering the truck, the truck driver, he don't care. He just wants to get it off his truck and in there. So, he's going to stop wherever he can stop closest to the building. So having some sort of plan in place to say that this is going to be in their contract if you're going to be our service provider. This is where you have to park or you're
going to be paying significant fines because they got to the point where they had to be they had to started finding them and that caused your property owner to start calling Lee County that they started calling us saying why are your guys coming down on them? Well it's yeah we don't want to come down anybody. We
just just want everybody to, you know, you know, set some time frames maybe in there so that you got to be here from this time to this time. Obviously, traffic and sometimes you can't do that. But to your point, it's it's crucial that you have some sort of plan in place to be able to mitigate that. Yeah. I
would ask that you come forward at second reading with some ideas as well. One of the thoughts you might talk about is with your beer distributor and your liquor distributor. Sometimes maybe as a courtesy to you as a good customer, maybe they'll come in a smaller vehicle where they can accommodate your parking. Yeah, possibly. I mean, that has been
one of the discussions that we had had. So, Oh, yeah. And if you're going to use the same one, I think your point, Scott, Margaritavville, if they're coming with the one truck from the if it's the same distributor, one unloaded and and you guys could pick it up from there and move it across the
street. But, yeah. Maybe you guys pick it up in a van and then Yeah. All right. Well, yeah, we'll definitely come with I mean, we've been working through options. will come with a more solidified plan for the second hearing for sure. Did have Mr. Powers was here but he couldn't couldn't hang
on the whole day but um uh this has been brought up as knowing this was going to come up as one of the major issues for quite a while. So we'll continue to work through those and see what kind of better progress we can make the next two weeks. Okay. Thank you. That's the only that's
that's my only concern. Okay. So I know you've been in the works a long time on this and probably just recently in the past two or three months the wave mitigation wall has come into play. So
have you given any thoughts to maybe not at the very beginning but as things progress on conversations with the wave mitigation walls would that be something that you would be considering to add on? It could also change your first floor
dynamics. It could could change everything else. Yeah. Um I'm not I I haven't looked into it enough to understand how that interacts with the current retaining and seaw wall that's there now. It' be it' be in addition to in addition to Oh, in front of Oh, and
it changes the Vzone to coastal A. Right. Right. Which big deal which is huge from building perspective. Yeah, I can tell. these guys have talked through that discussion at this point. Yeah, I mean I've been I've listened to those
hearings and I with with Elizabeth Fountain working on those and so I mean I think it'd be outstanding. So we coordinate in whatever way we could for sure. I mean I would not steal your thunder but that was one of the things I was going to bring up as well. it. I mean, I would even want to go as far as
to make it a condition of approval that you partake in the MIGA because I think this council has been very clear that this is going to be a a big big thing for us that we want to push forward for multiple reasons. So, um between now and second reading, if that's something you can take back to your client, because I
I would feel comfortable making it a condition of approval that you're going to partake in that simply because I think your neighbors probably will as well, both Lee County and Margaritavville. Yeah, I'd be pretty confident that they're going to want to partake in being part of that. Yeah. And
I wish Greg Greg was still there because him and him and uh Mr. Torgensson have been in several conversations. So that may been brought up already. Very possible. Okay. Yeah. So if you could just bring some details and conversations back for the second reading
if it goes the second reading. Yes, of course. Anything else? No, that's it. Jim, I concur with uh what's been said. Nothing additional. Jim or John? Or John, sorry. Nothing
additional. Um the only concern that I have up above and beyond what was is that little walkway now, that five foot walkway between there in your plans. It's really hard. My concern is that's going to be a very very dark alley and bad people do bad things in dark alleys.
some sort of illumination obviously environmentally friendly to 24-hour illuminate that because I believe I don't know if you've looked it up Sarah or not but I believe it is a beach access but it is a beach access the width but as big as 5T but it'd be nice
to you don't show it on your your renderings but to have some sort of illumination to keep that well lit at night to keep the bad people from doing bad things in the dark I think as well if you ask that the uh Mr. mayor each uh Margaritavville should
participate on on their side. Yeah. And well, I don't know if it need to be both sides or I mean it might be more difficult for Margaritavville at this point to add the lights, but if sounds like Well, they do and they do have they do have some out there. Okay. They have downs along that entire path. Okay. Oh,
that's right. They do. Was a concern when we were going through Margaritavville set. Yeah. The walkway at the time. Well, yeah, because Salty Crab was there at the time. Yeah, it was there just in in I'm not sure how it shakes out in practice, but because the
beach access is on the Margaritavville property, they are responsible for lighting it. Um, generally we discourage people from shining their lights onto other people's property. I'm not saying shine on, shine down, basically like step lighting so that the sidewalk is
illuminated, right? But because it is part of Margaritavville, Margaritavville should bear the responsibility for lighting that. So then don't I'm not sure. Okay. What happens in practice? Maybe we could check into that. Um, in the meantime, whe
as long as long as the sha as long as their building now the photometrics line up so that the one foot candle or whatever it is of public safety if they have to enhance that from their building to be able to achieve that or work with Margaritavville to ensure that the
phototric study is met for public safety. That's all I got. All right. Public comment. Anyone here still here wish to speak on public comment? All right. Seeing none, I will
close public comment. I'm assuming Fred, you've got no additional rebuttal statements. I do not. Okay. I'll now close the public hearing and request a discussion or a motion from town council to approve. Approve with conditions or deny with reasons or a continuence to a time certain. I will move to move this
to the second reading. um encouraging you to look into the few things that were brought up here today um for the second reading on June 16th. June 16th at 9:00 a.m. I'll second. Motion by Mayor Aller, seconded
by Councelor Woodson. Any further discussion? I'm an I. Councelor Woodson. I councelor Safford. Hi. Vice Mayhol. I councelor King. Hi. Motion carries unanimously. See you then. All right.
Next item E or item D. This is a quasi judicial item. Agenda item is a first reading and public hearing on proposed ordinance 25-13 Island Beach Club. If approved at first reading, a second reading and final adoption hearing will be scheduled on June 16th at 9:00 a.m. or another
time identified by town council. This is an ordinance of the town council. the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida. Approving approving with conditions or denying to reszone the property located at 1836 Eterero Boulevard generally identified as strap number 1 19-46-24-W4-3200.00CE and 1
19-46-24-W4-32000.10 1010 to reszone from downtown to commercial plan development CPD and request four deviations from the requirements to provide one an operable one operable doors along a sterile boulevard, two screening material on the
ground floor. Three, increase the build two line setbacks and four increase the maximum allowable height by 18 ft providing for other clarifications as necessary providing for conflicts of loss, scrier's error, severability, and providing for an effective date. If any town council
member has had any exparte communication to disclose, please let us know the subject disclosed and the identity or the person of the group or entity with whom the communication took place, any correspondence that you received or observations made to the site. John, I only recall one email from a concerned
resident on Myar Street. Vice Mayor, I I I concur with John on that, but that was the recent one. And then obviously previous to that we've had lots of uh uh uh email correspondents. I would also say that I did watch the uh LPA hearing in its entirety as I assume all my colleagues
did. I'm just letting the attorney know that that we watched the presentation already was excellent and so that's all I have to disclose. Okay. Uh, councelor Woodson, I would uh voice the same thing as um Vice Mayor Ado Adhold and I will say
this is the second time or third time through I believe for these folks. Um, councelor Safford. Yeah, hopefully third time's a charm. Um, I echo the same sentence. I I I did receive a email I believe yesterday or the day before from
Mr. Van Fawson, was it 71 Miramar? Um, other than that, since that last meeting, not not very many emails, but I I know these people want to get get this going. And yeah, I haven't had anything really other than what's already been
discussed. I did at the LPA hearing happened to run into the applicants out and had a brief conversation with them just outside the trailer here, but other than that and that email, there really hasn't been anything for or against. Um Judith again, Judith Frankle has been
qualified as an expert already by this town council based on her education and experience has been identified as an expert in the field of land use planning and development in the town of Fort Myers Beach. Are there any other individuals who would like to be qualified as an expert witness on behalf of the applicant at this time? Good morning or evening council. Not
evening yet. 5:00 got one minute. 5 o'clock. Good day. Good day. There you go. We have That's the lawyer. We have Fred Dropick with RVI, who of course you've just admitted as an expert. You've admitted him prior. We
have Mike Sheileely, our architect. Um, you've admitted him prior. And we do have John Shaw here. He is an expert as far as managing and construction. Okay. So, perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Judith. Oh, I'm assuming
you have seen uh a copy of the agenda backup materials from staff. Yes, Judith. Judith Franco with the community development. Um I'm going to apologize because Jason Small was set to present but he had to leave. So, um bear with
me. Um this application is for a commercial plan development uh resoning for a 75 unit time share condominium with four deviations. Um the applicant is a stero island beach club association time share and they're here with their
agent RVI um landscape and architecture. Um, Stero Island Beach Club uh was originally developed in 1981 uh through Lee County um with the 75 units and that has been 75 units has been verified through their HOA documents and Lee
County Property Appraiser. Um there were originally two buildings that were two and three stories tall. Um uh in considering this application, we remind you to keep in mind that they will need to apply for a special exception for the
portion of their pool deck that is seawword of the um coastal construction control line. Um, okay. The applicant's lot is in the downtown zoning district, but as I said previously, because they're coming in
for a CPD, then we compare them to the uh commercial resort um standards. So, I'm going to walk you through their um deviations. Uh deviate from land development code section 34-995 B1 and four regarding entrances
uh which requires a primary entrance and views into the first floor of commercial buildings. Uh where the primary entrance to all buildings shall face the street uh and where a building French frontages exceeding 50 ft. Um, operable doors or
entrances with public access shall be provided along streets at intervals averaging no greater than 50 feet. The intent of that is for like a retail or other similar commercial entity to have their entrance facing onto the street.
Um, you can imagine if it's a retail store, you want to have glass windows so you can see in and have that street interaction. Um as this is a commercial it's a commercial commercial planned development but it is a um time share condominium. Um so um staff felt the
requirement to provide an entrance is less relevant in this situation because of its condominium share use. Um not having an entrance on a stero will not largely impact their business or their visitors. Uh deviation two is from land
development code section 34-992C which requires the principal facads of hotel buildings that will not contain commercial uses below base flood elevation to screen under building uh parking areas. Um they do intend to
screen about 50% of the parking area um of the building facade on Asterero Boulevard and Palm Avenue. cable to be fully screened and a five foot hedge in the unscreened areas to help hide the vehicles. Um, pre
Ian, even though the time share is categorized as a hotel motel because of the time share um use, it is technically considered commercial um but there are no storefronts or retail uses on the ground floor because of the vzone and the nature of the time share.
Um the applicant has proposed a series of plantings around the building which will partially obscure the ground floor area including parked vehicles. Um the requirement for the screening is somewhat at odds with the land development code requirement that ground floors on the beach side of a stereo be
developed free of obstruction to mitigate risks during a storm event. So, they've kind of split the difference by partially screening it and then providing um uh hedges and landscaping so that the parking is not going to be fully visible, but it still allows it to
be mostly open. So, in the case of a storm event, water could uh flow through without impediment. Deviation three is from land development code section 34-674A1 that requires build two lines in the downtown district at this
location to be from 5T to 10 ft do not require bill two lines rather minimum building setbacks for the building on Asterero Boulevard of 15 ft. Um the minimum 15 foot step back on Astera Boulevard is to provide for softening of the mass and height by providing
distance from the right ofway property line. Um so by setting it back further than the requirement um they're able to have more landscaping more um uh style boulevard beautifification and it kind of
um further minimizes the massing of the um structure past that setback area. Deviation four from land development code section 34-675B3C that requires maximum height of 30 feet above base flood elevation
and no taller than three stories for properties on the south side of a stero. Um, so they're requesting five stories with four stories over ground level parking. Um, 48 feet above Florida D design flood
elevation. Um, staff recognizes that the location of the applicant's lot is adjacent and relatively close to multiple uh, resorts which are both more intense and taller than the proposed struct structure. The revised designs have taken the critiques of the previous
designs from the wider community into account and have proposed a more modestly tall building which will have a larger footprint compared to previous proposed structure. While the large area of open space has been removed to meet a more sprawling design, the structure is much
more human scale uh when compared to other resort style projects in the area. while the applicant is requesting an additional 18 feet of height. Um, that's mainly being used to accommodate the pre-existing 75 units with the applicant
is entitled to. Uh, staff agrees that the additional height is a proper request while utilizing a commercial plan development resoning process and will retain the general scale of what existed on site pre-storm. There are a
number of um public benefits. the applicant is offering which I'm sure they're going to walk through with you. Um there are uh listed the findings and conclusions in the staff report um which
I would refer you to read there in its entirety. Um the main takeaway is that the staff finds that the proposed development is in compliance with the intensity of the district um and with the comprehensive
plan. Okay. So staff is recommending um approval of ordinance 24-13 with the four deviations contained therein along with the conditions of approval that follow in the staff recommendations which I can go through after because I'm I'm sure
they're going to walk you through um all of the proposed public benefits. Okay, John, questions for Judith? Not at this time. Jim, none? None. Scott, none at this time. Yeah, I don't hear any
Amy, right? I think I can actually say good evening now. I suppose good evening. As long as you're not saying good morning. Not this time. Challenge accepted. Yeah. Right. Um again, Amy Tibau with Brett and
Andress. For the record, I do represent the applicant. And along with uh me and Fred, we have Jim Merley and John Shaw. Jim is the president of the board for EIBC. John Shaw is with RAL and is the
property manager for this site. Um we also, as I mentioned earlier, have Mike Sheileely with MK Architects. He has done quite a bit of work on this project, both iterations. And then of course Bob Huff with Mecca Engineering. And to reiterate, oh,
there we go. Sorry to reiterate, um, this is a CPD request. Again, we are seeking to rebuild the 75 units and associated structures, uh, that were there prior to Hurricane Ian. This is a
time share condominium. We are asking for a maximum of five stories, which would be four habitable stories over ground floor parking. Uh, a maximum zoned height of 48 feet as measured from D design flood
elevation and we are proposing a Florida area ratio of 1.2 that does include the ground level parking. So not we are not asking for a deviation from that and with that I will hand it over to Fred.
Do you want me to keep Yeah, I can do the So, I won't go too deep into the history here, but um initially we came to you guys with some larger view corridors.
Um we had started with five stories on asterero and 10 stories along Palm Avenue and that sort of L-shaped design. Um, we did get a recommendation of approval from staff and from the LPA, but again, there were some issues that
you guys had with the height. We understood. So, you did deny, you clarified that it was without prejudice, which is why we are back here in front of you today. So, we resubmitted in February. We reduced from a max of 10 stories to five and we reduced the F in
conjunction with that. So again, eliminated that deviation request that we originally proposed and we've added some public benefits that will really improve the pedestrian environment um specifically will improve beach access
number 31 and will hopefully give the town some revenue as well. So Fred will cover those public benefits in greater detail later in the presentation, but we just wanted to hit on that up front. Any questions for me? Questions? Scott? Nope. No, I'm good.
Jim, no. John, nothing current. Thank you. All right. Good evening, Fred Dick for the record from RV landscaping and architecture um or planning and landscape architecture. I'm not an architect. Um
so there's history here. I want to I'm not going to belver this stuff too much because I I think this our redesign is very positive. So I'll get to that. Um, I have some historical pictures here that just show accesses from the Myiar Palm and from Astero Boulevard what it
did look like. Um, I want to point out some things that that that changed. So, there was backout parking on the Palm. That's gone. Now, all the parking is going to be under building and we're going to provide landscaping on Palm. The uh there was limited or really no landscaping on a lot of areas on here
just in the really parking islands and a few other areas in the parking spots. So, we're going to enhance that. greatly and we have a landscape plan to show that uh multiple exit on a sterile boulevard. So consistent with the comp plan the LDC requirements to eliminate curb cuts on a stair boulevard for
public safety as much as possible we are proposing no access points onto the stair boulevard except for pedestrian sidewalk access. Um there were uh removed a lot of parking up front. It's all under building now behind that. So, and that enabled a lot of green space and
landscaping uh that I think is really going to beautify this stretch. Um, and there was uh the prior building. So, that was the uh on the right hand side or the the Myiar street side. That building was three stories there and it was only
about 10 feet off of Myar. So, now we're set in the build the closest building now will be a minimum of 30 feet away from Myar and we'll show you what we did with that uh access way. There we go. Um, few things that you you'll see later in a quick it'll
hopefully just be a quick and fairly straightforward special exception, but there's an existing pool there and pool deck area that are beyond the CCCL line. So, they can't be part of this zoning. Um, but the uh we do intend to put those back. The the PA decks are still saved.
You've seen them on site. They're still there to put them back. Um but uh that pool was to remain pool equipment to be replaced. Um and then the CCCL line is really there to show you that there was part of that building. Um it affected almost I think 10 units and that were
over that line. So now they need to be moved back. So that was a little bit of the uh the height increase as well as we're pushing all that stuff back now. Uh no parking on the palm there. Uh there was we closed another entrance on Myar as well. There were two. One was
real close to Astero Boulevard. That one's closed. And the main entrance is now about halfway down Myar um to just really better viewshed circulation for a steroid from that entrance. In fact, it was in an odd place enough that for the
most part they had that roped off a lot and didn't even use it. So, we're closing that entrance on Myar. There's just one on Palm, one on Myar now. Uh entrance on stair closed and that's it. So, let's look at the let's look at the design. We'll point out some
of the things um that we did here. So, I think the first thing you notice that there's really two two habitable floors over parking. Um and then so I'd really call this like a three and a half story uh because there there are living floor or living units uh in the middle point
there that are a third a third story of living units. And then there's some open area uh terraces and open uh useful space up on the roofs that we think are really attractive. Um this shows it isn't
exactly what be there. The landscape plan that we have shown identifies the number of plants and everything that will be required there. Um but we do show the landscaping here. I think it's going to look great. But the one thing I want to point out is that the one deviation we asked for about cover, you
know, screening the the parking below, what we did was do the inter intermediary um or intermediate uh living walls and then the rest of it is open. There's a there's a little bit of an odd thing on the rendering that looks like it's
almost glass underneath there. It isn't. It's all open except for the green the living walls. So you would be able to see through there, but we thought that broke it up and looked really good with some living walls in between there and added to the green and the enhanced landscaping and just kind of tied it all
together. You can see behind there, that's where the the five stories. So you know, a good view from a stereo, you probably won't really see the fivetory building and it's for living over parking in the back. So that on a sterile boulevard, we're within we're
within six feet of complying with height on a sterile boulevard. So if we would have put a parapit roof on there, we would be within three inches. So but we chose a uh a pitched roof just because we think it looks softer. It's a little more residential in nature and ties in
better. And then we have to measure from the mean of that pitch. So it added six feet to it. But we thought that was a worthwhile tradeoff to be a little bit higher there with that roof. because of the softness that it gives the that feel to it. Uh just less commercial in
nature. This is from where you can see down a little bit of Myiar. I think a nice thing on this side as you see that corner on Myar and Asterero now is a fairly decent size area where we're going to really landscape that. And we're also going to provide a little bit of pedestrian interaction there with a
uh a bench, a sidewalk that goes into the building, but also has a shaded bench area so anybody that can is walking down uh Ster Boulevard, wants to take a break, they can sit there. It's a full public bench with a bike rack there as well. Fred, would you consider in in
the effort of It's a very small thing, but you know, as we've been trying to promote walkability, bikeability, and you said this going to be a rest area for someone that wants to walk by. Yeah. Would you consider adding a a like we have at Bayside Park essentially a watering station that would allow both
dogs and people to fill their water bottles up above? Yeah, it's got, you know, like the ones at Bayside Park. I just think that enhances I mean people, it gets hot. It would be nice if they have a place to sit. Something to consider between now and potentially. Yeah, I mean I think that's an easy one,
too, but I don't want to speak for that. But yes, I think that's a great idea. So, yeah, we're going to do and we're going to do it through landscaping. So, we'll have some trees that'll be a little more shade trees that'll grow over the benches, the bench and the bike rack there. And yeah, watering station. It's a great idea. That looks nice.
The uh this is just a view from the top. So, here you can see a little bit of down Myiar. So, the building is is is 30 feet off of the our property line. We use some of that up for some of the public benefit. And I'll run through I'll run through that. But this shows a
little bit of the terrace area um you know up above that. I like I even like from the street. It just provides that like little activity and interaction there. Um but then just for the for the people that use the time share, I mean what a great fun feature to have up
there. Uh I did some comparison. So I want to show you where we were and where we are now. So this was the building prior. Shows the 10story build, the 10story part on the back on uh on Palm and the height that we had on the front. And uh I think just the contrast really
shows. I think the I mean honestly the continuing to listen to the vision of for my beach and everything. I think that building on the right we finally it finally feels like it fits into what we really you know would really want to see here where the other one you know 10
stories uh I mean it's it's just a whole different feel and we get it. So um I think we're much happier with the with the design even though it took some extra time. I think uh I think this is going to be a much better product and a much more
um I guess for lack of a better word just more of an intimate feel to the place and feel more like it did before. I mean if you're up 10 stories it's you you aren't interacting with people down on the you know at the pool deck level. If you're only two three two three stories up you really feel more connected to everything else that's
happening. And I'm excited about that part. Um this is the from the the view from the top so to speak is the comparison what was and what we're proposing now. Um this is the building height and
story. So the one on the left shows the three and a half stories and shows where we're height into the the mean of the pitch roof and then the the fivetory um zone height of 368 and 477. So we rounded that up. So our total request is
for a zone height of 48 feet over flood. We just gave her some few inches to play with there. Uh floor rate ratio like uh like Amy said we are uh at 1.2
uh overall we comply. So the ground level parking is 387,000 square feet. If we eliminated that we'd be at 75. So I don't think we we didn't push the envelope here. We've just complied with what we needed to do. uh the site plan. These are some of the
highlights and this is where I can get into showing you at least the locations of those public benefits. Come on. There it is. So, that shows that we're minimum 30 feet off of uh off of
Myiar, off the rightway, which corresponds with our property line uh dedicated perimeter buffer. So we have 5T on Palm, 5T on Myiramar, and then 15 feet on uh Astera Boulevard. Minimum landscape buffers. Um no buffers
are required, but that's part of what we wanted to do to enhance this. The single access on Myar. So there were two and now we're down to that one. So that's where the single access to our property is located. Um the uh we're
about 120 ft at one point. And I know the concern was and I think it was because it was 10 stories about creating a tunnel effect with Diamond Head next to it. And so we had the measurement for 120 ft away with the lower building is probably not nearly as much of effect but we're still 120 ft away from the uh
Diamond Head building. Uh and then the dumpster is of course on that side. It aligns almost perfectly with uh Diamond Heads dumpsters as well. So that'll be two quick pickup points and should and doesn't create any noise for any residential uh
properties. So now let's show the where the public benefits pieces are. So up front what we were just mentioning. So now it'll be seated shaded seating bike rack and a water station or hydration station uh
there on the Myiramar side. So and this is this is on EIBC property. So we were able to set the building over far enough to create space. So what we thought we could do and is create five parallel
spaces on our property along myar for the beach access. Construct those and then turn them over to the town to use for beach access to be able to charge and turn them over in perpetuity. So we do construction on them and then turn them over to the town. We're also
proposing a five- foot sidewalk on that side of the parallel spots. So five foot sidewalk that connects to a stair boulevard runs down to as far as we can on Myiramar. Um there is a retaining wall there. So it gets we have to turn it back out onto the out onto the road
at the end, but we ran it as far as we could at the end of Myiar. Now this is different than our LPA and this is really the only major change since our LPA presentation. There were two other parallels parking spaces south of our entrance that we
show showed prior in discussions with with several people the property and the property management. What we found out was this and and them managing this property and being you know facility caretakers and on-site and seeing all these things all the time. What we discovered was this beach access gets
used a lot for drop offs. There's no parking or anything, so people didn't use it for that. They would go to the Diamond Head side because there's all kinds of parking on there. But people go down here, stop at the end, drop off beach stuff or whatever. People go out on the beach, then they would back up
into one of the neighbors driveways, turn around and head back out, and then find a parking space wherever, and you know, dad or whoever had to walk the long the long way after they found a parking space went back, but everybody else was dropped off beachside. So, we thought, what what if we formalized
that? We solve two problems. We solve a problem with people coming down and parking in the parallel spaces. Where are they going to turn around and making it somewhere official? They could have used our driveway that goes into our building. But what if we make it official as a drop off point and it'd be
a turnaround. So what we how we designed that was it's 30 feet deep and it's 22 feet wide which would accommodate two cars parked side by side and one being a possible handicapped accessible side. So, not lining it like a parking space because we need signage
that say no parking, just drop off zone, but we want to make it wide enough for two cars could be there at the same time and one of them be handicapped accessible if necessary because there we are proposing a moi mat there too. So, you could drive your person down there that would need a wheelchair or
whatever, drop them off there, they would just go on pavement right to a moi mat and be right out on the beach. So, we thought it kind of killed two birds with one stone. And we would construct that along with the sidewalk, the parallel spaces, and then and then
finish the pavement on Myar. It's about 45 ft of pavement that needs to go to the uh CCCCC line and then turn that over to the town for your use to do as as you want to with it. So, with that turnaround area, you
would stripe it or whatever. basically delineating that it's a drop off zone, no parking type of thing. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. So, we thought that I mean I love the idea. I would use that personally. I mean what you
know this area along the beach there it's not you know with like a stereo island beach club diamond and stuff. The beach is not that busy there. You had a drop off zone like that and then you go and park in one of those parallel spaces. I mean that's the best of both worlds. So um so we're excited about
that. We we do acknowledge that bless you. When you you know the first time we came here, we were really thinking this is this is a rebuild. Um you know, they have the right to rebuild their 75 units. Do we need to really focus and concentrate on public benefits? And we
and we didn't that much. Um but uh just going through that process and just in in abundance of caution and just wanted to be just even a better neighbor if we can. Um we thought through these uh public benefits. So Fred, will your entrances into your parking garage, they
assume they'd be gated of some sort, restricted access? People can't pull in there and just park, right? Um but as deep as we can, you know, up almost underneath the building where the gates would go, but yes. Yeah. So no parking under the building
for the public. Yeah, we are meeting our parking requirements, but there isn't a whole lot of extra. You know, they used to have 88. We're proposing 91. Um but You know how that goes. They get used up pretty quick. Um the occupancy rates on EIBC historically
are over well over 90% in season and over in the mid 80s um offse. So very well used and because of that they do end up using most of the parking space most of the time. Uh we are proposing this as a you know
one of the conditions to to attach this to lock us into um what would what would be planted there. So we do have a breakdown of it doesn't show exactly every species that we're going to put there. But what we did do is coordinate
with the garden club on the right hand side that list of species. Those were ones that we worked through them when we were working through Pink Shell. We worked through them on one other uh project as well. And so we met with them three different times um and came up with this species list that we're now
using that's as least salt tolerance can be and preferred plantings at least by the garden club um and native species of course. So this locks us into how many plants are we putting along the different buffers um as a
uh you know just as an assurance that we'll we'll do what we say we're going to do. the uh planning analysis. I don't need to go into some of this part uh very much at all. Um Judith went over the first two deviations very well. Uh the uh of
course we're asking for 18 ft more in additional height and we we hope to feel like the public benefits offset that. And then um the build two the build two lines, you know, we did the the additional setback so we can have some landscaping and green space on all the all the sides and
create a softer feel for the entire site. Um LBC compliance and comp plan that we agree with the staff staff report. So I'm going to just let that go. Um and we wouldn't be presenting something we didn't feel wasn't
consistent with the LDC and comp plan um ex outside of the deviations. So, um, we did do an a benefits a public benefits and we did an economic study. Um, I believe the entire economic study was in your in your packet and was
included. I'm just going to hit quick on some of the highlights, but I thought it was a great exercise to show the difference of how much a time share can really affect things versus even a hotel. Just the positive impact is really substantial. Um, this list outlines the nine things
that we're proposing as a uh as a public benefit. I did include the 30-foot view corridor down Myar Street on there. You know, that wasn't an important one from for us. It wasn't one of the high we tried to do things well beyond that um because there's discussions about what
isn't isn't a view corridor. So, that's fine. We didn't rely on we didn't rely on that, but we did try to create some more space between the residences on Myiramar and our building. So that was really I think the big benefit there. Fred, would you consider adding a 10th
one in the spirit of same as before the public private benefit of the the mitigation wall participating in in whatever that's going to be? Yeah. Would you consider that as a between now and
we don't know what that is? Well, coral we will. Yes, I can consider I think Fred could between now and the second reading, Fred, I think, can explain it. Yeah. You can explain to him what it is and the benefits that would benefit them as the 75 unit owners as well as public benefit as well. Yeah. No, I I think
that's a tremendous idea. So, between now and the second reading, if you could just catch them in the spirit of time, I don't want to go into exactly what it is, but you guys can work it out between now and the potential second reading. Yeah. No, I think that's a good a good one to add to the list. So, we'll talk
through um the things in the color. I know some some projects have put that up as part of the public benefits. I didn't I listed it here because it's true, but um it's we're not qualifying that as any of our public benefit because it's stuff that we're required to do. It's going to be more sustainable because of the
building requirements has a huge economic benefit because it is a time share. Um the safety with closing a sterile boulevard I think is significant for the traffic circulation and then it's going to be a really good quality design. Really excited about having this kind of new infrastructure on Fort Myers
Beach. Um so the economic study I'm going to go right to the uh the conclusion on this couple of couple of cool numbers beyond the uh the um occupancy that I just mentioned the 90 plus in season mid 80s out of season and
the amount of people. So on average then with the number of weeks that are there and the number of bedrooms available about just over 11,000 people a year that go through EIBC. On average each person spends
$971 uh per person uh per week per state. So that adds up to almost 11 million worth of economic impact just directly into the local restaurants and services. Um, and that's year round. So, this is a little bit more peak season, but this is
steady year round traffic that any restaurants that's within, you know, quarter mile to a half mile, which are these that we found so far, it's a half mile town square from AIBC, um, are going to get used by these 11,000 people
over and over and over again. So, beyond the the the tough challenges that there is with rebuilding a time share, um, and I'm going to have Jim Merley kind of share um his next steps and where he's come from and where where they are now on on what this is going to take to
really get this done beyond zoning. But, I mean, the benefits I think in the time share are just outstanding. What a location for that that close to Time Square. And so um my conclusions I mean as a for AICP certified person myself I believe
this is consistent with the comp plan the LDC the goals policies and objectives. Um and uh would recommend that or ask for an approval to move us for second hearing. Um but before we finish I want to have Jim be able to
kind of tie this all together with his take on it and give you guys idea of what the next steps it's going to take to rebuild this thing. Okay. Just make sure nobody has any questions for you before John. Any questions for Fred? No. Jim, nothing. Karen, I'm good. Scott, um
have were you able to see the uh email from the resident on Myiramar? We did not. Okay. Um you send it to me. I'll forward it to them. Okay. His his two concerns were how narrow
Myiramar is and you guys are offering to to widen it. Correct. 17. Why? Yeah. Add parallel spaces which would widen it. Yes. But not widen it's not widening the actual pave. I think it's about 18 ft. Okay. But you he another concern was the
turnaround which you addressed. So you got that. The other other one was the uh electrical poles running down Myiramar. Yeah. And those were uh those were for the other build the second building which is now no longer there. So we'll have a chance to we should have a chance
to redo that. I don't want to speak to what engineering can and can't do but I mean that was dedicate that was only there for the second building that was on our site. So we should be able to get rid of that. I'll forward I'll forward the email to Amy so you guys can she's
already got it. She's already got it. Got it. Okay. Well, it's coming still, but Is that something like that? It wasn't. Yeah. So, it's our hope to that we we can get rid of should we should be able to get rid of those. Now, I'm sure there's an easement and stuff there. So, it'll take a little bit of effort, but Okay. Yeah. It was it was for our
service, so I think we can redo our service when we rebuild. Should be able to throw that thing underground and put it on, you know, on the site. Okay. Thanks, Fred. Thanks. Hey, sir. Come on up. I'm back with my 75 slides.
Perfect. Great. You probably remember me from the LPA meeting. I'm Jim Merley and as Fred and Amy said, I'm the president of the EIBC board. Have been for seems like all my life, but uh at least these last three years seems like all my life, but I
think the last seven years I believe. But anyway, uh just a little bit about EIVC. And if you watched the LPA recording, I'm sure you did. I got a little emotional, but it's a uh family place, affordable,
uh and it's not just family, but it's the friends you meet. And that's what we've been working so hard over the last three years, trying to get it back to the way it was. And uh hopefully with a good outcome today, we'll be taking another major step forward in getting
that done. A little bit of background further background on EIBC is uh we have owners that actually reside in 40 states across the United States. We have owners as far away as Spain, the UK, Canada, Germany,
and I just heard Guam. But uh anyway, I uh many of our owners date back the original change of a uh hotel into a time share back in the 80s. I was not one of them. Couldn't
afford it back then. But uh I was lucky enough to buy my first unit back in 2006 and have continued to take my family down each and every June. That's when the kids were out of school and hope to continue to do that even though they're all getting a little bit older
now. Anyway, um you know, I'll try be as brief as I can. The first time I came down here in 1975 uh driving rainstorm 20 plus hours from Indianapolis in a uh
minivan coming across that old wooden bridge. Sounds like a religious song, doesn't it? That old wooden bridge. Maybe not quite. uh ran to beat the band and uh it was so great to pull into that parking lot there at 1840 Boulevard and be there for a week
and been going back minus a couple of years every year since. But anyway, hopefully with your assistance today, we can get back to where we were. As Fred said, uh you know, we we want to continue being good neighbors to the uh Stero Island
community and uh We we feel that we've been that. We want to continue to be that as well. Representative of our owners, we had before the storm, we had 3825 possible rooms that could have been owned by owners. And the vast majority
of those 3825 were owned. To speak highly of the ownership that we've had in the past three years, we've lost less than 10% of those owners, which speaks for the ownership itself. I mean, they're they're sold on
the island. They're sold on a beach club and they're looking forward to uh us getting this rebuilt with your help. That's pretty impressive. I would have thought it would have been more than that. Very impressive. Well, and it and
it uh as as board members, it's one of the things we have to keep a close eye on because as we go through this rebuild process, eventually we're going to come to assessments and uh owners are going to have to lay out some dollars and the
fewer owners that you have, the numbers go north. Sure. But, uh again, we're it's right at 9% that we've lost and hopefully we don't lose many We're convinced that we'll keep trucking along and hopefully that we get this
submission that we presenting today approved. We've already started work on uh getting the RFP ready to send out to architectural firms. Our bylaws require that we can't that we have to get
ownership uh acknowledgement that we're going to do it. And then secondly, it requires that we actually do an RFP for hiring of an architect. And that's been a financial responsibility that the board did because we didn't want to outlay five or
$600,000 to hire an architectural firm uh from the getgo, not knowing what the plans were going to be, and secondly, not knowing we're going to get approved, but we're going to get approved. Anyway, uh so that's going to go out uh my fellow board members and
and other people behind me have been listening to me push about getting this RFP ready to go. So assuming we get through the second hearing successfully, that RFP is going to be going out to architectural firms
within a day or two after that meeting. We're going to have a board meeting on the 18th of June, two days after the next town council hearing. And at that point, going to uh finalize another
bylaw requirement which is sending out proxy votes with the plans that have been approved at least through this council along with our best estimates for rebuild cost and assessments for our ownership to approve the plans and uh
and those assessments and those hopefully be back uh middle of August. But I mean we're moving aggressively behind the scenes as fast as we can but at the same being fiduciary and having the responsibility of being financially responsible to our ownership
because it's it's our money too, but we speak for a lot of people. Anyway, um I don't have anything else other than my 75 slides that you want to show. Battery's dead.
I failed to mention that uh we've been trying to be good uh good neighbors to uh the chamber and to the women's club with the u sand sculpting events. We just committed ourselves to uh since we don't have a lot going on
around the resort right now, we committed to the uh chamber. I believe it was u to allow them to use our sand out behind our property belt sand to extend that uh event that they just need more space and
so we've already uh guaranteed that they can use it this year and uh but hopefully not in a couple years but maybe not. Any questions for me? John, any questions? No questions. I I can respect and appreciate having gone through
rebuilding um the assessment issue. Um nobody could hear me. So, well, they missed out on the 75 pages. So, I can respect and appreciate that and and hopefully things continue. Thank you. Um, I tell you what is nice this
time is there was some um struggle last time between your ownership. Um, there were a couple folks here that were not behind you and uh it's nice that they're not here today. I guess maybe that's been addressed and and I thank you for that and I think that speaks
volumes as well. Well, I I think the thing that really addresses those two gentlemen, that party that came in is the number of all through this process. This is three. I think Karen mentioned earlier, I can call you Karen. It's fine. Um, this is this is this is the
third renovation or addition, if you will, of what we've put up. And uh you know, every time that we had a different set of plans, we've been very diligent in sending out copies of those latest plans and again our best estimates of
what it's going to cost to our ownership so that they've been apprised of what what's going on. You know, they can see the recordings of our board meetings and all that. But I think the proof in the pudding is the number of people that have stayed with us.
uh we've lost 9%, but that's a heck of a lot of people that that stuck with us and I believe will continue to stay with us. And uh regardless of what those other two gentlemen had to say, uh one of them uh well, I won't say anymore. We get it. Good luck and
congratulations. Thanks, John. Jim, I just would briefly say to my fellow Hooser, uh great presentation, uh great design and tremendous effort. So, thank you and thank you for your patience. Thank you, Karen. Can we go back to
design number two? No, I'm kidding. She's got jokes. She does. Hilarious. Good. Flying objects from the ground. Yeah, really. I think it looks fantastic and I'm anxious to move you forward. Thank
you, Scott. Good persistence. Thank you. Thank you for hanging in there. Yeah, thank you. You know, I'm looking at your construction timeline. That's pretty aggressive, but that says that what you just reiterates what you said, you know, 14 to 18month construction timeline is is pretty aggressive,
but congratulations if you Did we say that? Well, that's what it says in the packet. What? It says once approved and permitted. Well, like I said, look like I caught you by surprise there. No, I appreciate the the the willingness
to continue moving forward. I know it probably wasn't very easy for you and your owners and and u but I think the persistence has paid off, right? And we're where I think a lot of people feel much better about this project than they did from day one. So, thank you for your
time. Thank you, Fred. Anyone else? No. Okay. With that, we'll open it up for public comment. Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this matter? If so, please come forward to the podium and identify yourself, provide your address, and
whether you were sworn in. Anyone like to speak? Nope. Okay. I'm assuming there's no addition. What's that? I think this is a record. Okay. Are there any additional comments or rebuttal statements from Amy or Nope. Nope. Okay. I will now close the public
hearing and request a discussion or a motion from town council to approve. Approve with conditions or deny with reasons or a continuence to a time certain. I just need a clarification, mayor. Uh the title says ordinance 25-13, but in the paperwork it looks
like 24-13. 25. It's got to be 25. It's got to be 25-13. That clarifies it for me. Thank I will make a motion to approve ordinance 25-13 for 1836 Astera Boulevard uh to move on to the second reading for June
16th at 9:00 a.m. Second. Have a motion by Mayor Ali, seconded by Councelor King. Any further discussion? Yes, Mr. Mayor. I I for our next meeting, I'd like you guys to take a good hard look at that email and see if we come with some solutions for for that for those houses
on Myiramar, especially with regards to the electric because now I'm hearing that quite possibly th those electrical poles need Myiramar. So So if we could just take take a good look. I'll definitely look, but there's
just frayed wires and stuff off of the Well, I understand. But those those units aren't operating now either. So, okay, I'll take just take a look at and then Fred, if see seeing as how if you could educate your your clients
though with the mitigation wall as to what it would be and how the bene it would benefit them as much as although it's considered a public benefit, it's just as much a private benefit as it is a public benefit. Okay. Any other discussion? No, sir. All right. I'm an I. Councelor K. I vice manhole. I
councelor Woodson. Hi, Councelor Safford. Hi. Motion carries unanimously. We'll see you on the 16th. All right. Next is ordinance. This is a legislative agenda item. Is a second reading and final public hearing for adoption of proposed ordinance
uh 25-03. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, amending article 3, beach bicycle and vehicle safety of chapter 28, traffic and vehicles of the code of ordinances of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, to allow the operation of electric bicycles and
sidewalks, estab establishing safety regulations, establishing a maximum speed and passing procedures, requiring operation with the flow of traffic, establishing responsible parties and penalties, establishing additional regulations for the safe operation of
bicycles on sidewalks. providing for codification, severability, conflicts of law, and an effective date. So, I will start and I think officer Yazo is here. Um, I think he'll finish officer officer, sorry. Uh, anyway, um,
this item uh has been before you before. Um, this is the second and final reading. Uh, the proposed ordinance in your packet on page It starts on page
um 764. There are a few changes that you had asked for uh at first reading which we were able to implement. Those changes appear on page 767 and they are highlighted in yellow.
Um basically uh the first one is clarifying that there would be some signage adjacent to or markings upon the sidewalk. Um that also bicycles would not be used on in on a sidewalk in a manner that endangers the safety of
pedestrians. Also uh adding a requirement that bicyclists must use due care and avoid collisions with pedestrians, including uh reducing speed, giving an audible warning when necessary, especially when approaching children, pets, or
individuals who may appear appear confused or incapacitated. Um also some changes on page 768 regarding the penalties. Um, and I think at this point I'll defer
over to officer Yazo for um, discussion of those penalties. Council Thomas Yazo, emergency services for Myers Beach. And now officer, I gave that up many years ago.
So I think what we need to address with this is just the safety aspect and how we want to try to pursue some of this. Again, we've talked about this before. Uh for us to pursue an ordinance violation with somebody would be a little bit tough with some of this. So, I think it's going to be more of a
recommendation uh and reinforcement with education. So, if we wanted to do the basic fine on any ordinance violation, there's going to come a challenge of the enforcement part of that. So, we had talked about a speed limit, and I know
that wasn't really come to with the with the number, but I think if we're going to establish a speed limit, it should be established in the same manner as what's on the beach when any uh motorized vehicles used on the beach, and that's 7 miles per hour. The average human adult walks about 3 miles per hour. So, again,
it's a little little bit faster than that. So, they're going to have to be very conscious of that. Again, with enforcement being an issue, it's going to be more education and us setting up areas with signage and us getting out there uh feet on the
street and making sure we're out there with people, stopping people in the more uh egregious areas, which we know is towards downtown. Tom, the uh thought I said thought I read 15 miles per hour on here. Now you're suggesting seven. That was a that
was just the number that came up at 15. I that's I would still recommend seven, but we can we could stay at 15. I just I think that 15 is fast on a sidewalk. Yeah. Yeah. So, um I never recommended 15. I was something that came up, but it
definitely would have to be lower than that to my mind as a recommendation. So, I can comment on that. That was one of the questions that had been asked at first reading um whether we could implement a lower speed limit. Uh we do have concerns about doing that and the
reason uh the basis for our concern is preeemption of the regulation of speed for lawful operation of a uh ebike. So we would stay with the 15 because of state statute. Yes. Okay. Understood. So basically what
you're saying Tom is the imposition of any of these fines would really be difficult to administer unless there was god forbid an incident where that's correct. Yeah. The enforcement the enforcement of this as a whole is going to be hard to be very honest with you. I'm not saying we can't do it, but
there's a real challenge to it and it's going to require more manpower and more uh continued continued officers, our rangers, our deputies being on the sidewalk and being in those areas, which takes manpower to make that happen. And
again, we can't run radar. Uh there's not enough mass with the vehicles a lot of times for us to pick that up. So, it would be a visual speed estimate to try to engage with that. And I think the the bigger priority out there is just to make sure people are aware of the safety
issues that come with with a bike that weighs 70 to 80 pounds, 100, you know, 150 pound person on top. It comes down to anything where you have mass and velocity, uh, ending up against a human body is never never a good outcome.
John, questions for Tom. I'm not sure if this is Germaine or not, but the accident that happened yesterday, would that have been involved in any of this or No, sir, that wasn't relevant. That was a that was a motorized vehicle on a street that moved
out into the Astero Boulevard uh appears to be unsafeely. I wasn't there and I did not do any reconstruction or the accident report. Okay. But that's what I'm seeing from the video. Appreciate it. Anything else? No. Jim, just a question for a town
attorney. This preeemption issue, as I understand it, uh Nancy, the uh state has preempted uh local municipalities by requiring that sidewalks in general are required
uh to be allowed on the sidewalks, bikes. And so, so what you're and I'm just talking about traditional bikes. So, you're saying that the state also has a law that preempts the regulation of the speed limit of electric bikes?
Yes. Um, and it's section um 316.008. Um, on page 775, we did a very short analysis of this particular issue. Um, the ordinance that you have must restrict such vehicles to a maximum
speed of 15 miles per hour. Um any ordinance adopted must restrict u ebikes to a maximum speed of 15. The case law provides for an implied preeemption of regulations to the state when the state mandates certain requirements. So for
this reason we're saying that the town should not consider a change to the language as stated in the statute even if the proposed change would lower the speed. So I guess what I'm I'm wrestling with conceptually here, I'm not an attorney. So So you've got a dynamic
where the state has preempted the local municipality to require traditional bikes to be allowed on the sidewalk. You have a state preeemption that says that you can't impede the speed limit of electric bikes past 15 miles or under 15
miles an hour. But yet we are allowed to restrict electric bikes from sidewalks. Correct. So yes, the issue becomes a um implied preeemption where the state has an
overall uh scheme of regulation. And so although it may not specifically give you language that says you can't do this, but because they have a totality of regulations on a particular area, there is an implication that you can't
really do more, which would be to lower. Interesting. Uh, I would just ask my colleague next to me at an earlier hearing, councelor King, I believe you recommended, and correct me if I'm wrong, which which you
will, uh, uh, that you recommended a sunset provision at some point so we could revisit this almost like this would be a pilot program. I like that idea. Was that you who said that or was that someone else? I wanted us to revisit it at at a certain point. I didn't know if it was a year or could we
is it is it could we get consent to include a sunset provision at one year to sort of force us to take another look at it based upon the record over this coming year. Would everybody be comfortable with that? I don't have any issues with it. That would take you through a full season. Yeah. Give us a full season look at because I've even though I'm going to vote for this, I've
got very serious concerns about it. Uh, and I think having a sunset provision would allow us to to assure our residents that within a year we're going to take another look at and take a look at some of the data. Obviously, talk to Tom here and get his sense of what's been happening and and we'll have a lot
more evidence before us to consider whether this is a good idea or not. That's all I've got. Uh Karen, so in one piece of this I saw that there's um directional signs like
you would be on the sidewalks, you would be going with the flow of traffic, not against it. That's correct. So is that something that we can enforce? Because that's obviously highly visible. Yes. Um that's enforceable by all means. That's something that we could definitely uh I
would say we start with education again as we always do and then we could definitely enforce that part of this by all means and we would have enough signage on each side of the road or even are we are we thinking about putting any
kind of arrows on the sidewalk at all or is we would need permission from the county to alter their sidewalks in any manner but yes we do have the ability to put up enough signage though to make that happen. Well, you could certainly ask again, but the answer so far has always been no. But yes, sir. Doesn't
mean you can't ask again. Okay. Because that's the public safety committee. That's been an issue of wanting to get some sort of striping down the sidewalk, but it's been always been a push back from the county to be able to do that. But just the fact that we could enforce
that because it's so visually off. Okay. Yes. Yes. And that's going to come again for us to be smart in how we enforce that. Uh timing staff where we're going to put them. I've already spoke to uh Commander Ler about this and some combined staff on uh the area that
we would do together with a ranger and a deputy. Uh they they can't commit totally until we see where we stand and how we could set up some manpower for that space. But yes, that's something we could do. Okay. Thank you, Scott. Um all I have is I agree with the vice mayor. I
think we should put a, you know, revision clause or let's take a look sunset clause, however you want to say it, after a year. I think that's a fantastic idea. So, we've got hard data and you know, yeah, I don't have anything anything
more to add. There was something, but it slipped my mind. Was it Can I ask one question while you're thinking about it, please? Uh, Tom, there's a provision in here which I like. It says when passing a pedestrian, the operator of an electric bicycle shall reduce the speed of the electric
bicycle to idle speed, meaning the lowest speed in which the electric bicycle can operate and maintain steering control. Generally, this will be between 1 and 3 miles per hour. Do you given your life experience, do you think that particular I'm I'm less worried about somebody going 15 miles an
hour than I am having them go 15 miles an hour passing a pedestrian. Do you think that language is potentially enforceable when someone's passing somebody? Again, it would have to be a visual speed estimate. So, we would have to have some training uh given to our people. I know LCSO does get some
training in that. So, I would defer in some respect to that unless they wanted to offer the training to our people as far as v visual speed estimates and go from there. But yeah, it would have to be there would have to be some more training on our side to make that happen. Maybe perhaps instead of having
to rely on something that you've admittedly said it's going to be very difficult to, you know, just like going the opposite direction, all bikes have the ability to be pedled. Correct. So, if you're going to slow down to 1 to 3 miles per hour, maybe that's some language that could be added that would
require you to be pedaling your bike past pedestrians versus under full power. You know, we aren't putting anything with restrictions for different classes of the bicycles, but you can see if someone's pedaling when they're passing pedestrians versus someone
that's just hitting the throttle. I guess that's a that's a that's a challenge for Nancy. Again, Nancy, not that I doubt your your your assessment, but how do we limit when passing to 1 to three miles an hour, which I think is a wonderful idea. How do we do that without violating the state's electric
bike preeemption? I think it's because it is a um component of the safety regulation of that. Um, you know, everything's going to be subject potentially to challenge.
We have it there. Hopefully, they'll do the right thing and comply. Yeah. I I I definitely think keeping it in there and I'm hoping that particular provision, Tom, is enforceable from your standpoint because that's the one that really potentially does harm to people. I I think the officer or the ranger who
would write that ordinance would have to be able to articulate that it was done in an unsafe manner. So that would be the case. We'd have to bring it before a magistrate and articulate on our side that we believed it was unsafe in the way it was done and that's way we can enforce that as opposed to trying to
dictate and say yes, they were doing six miles per hour when they should have been doing three. But as I as I as I as you look at the education opportunities and the signage opportunities, I think that that particular phrase would be really helpful to promote. I agree. Just from an education standpoint,
I didn't see anything in here. You done? Please go ahead. The only thing I didn't see here, maybe I missed it, was companies. Obviously, we get a lot of transit people that come in and get the electric bikes. Is there anything that we can add in here? There's a requirement to rental companies to
provide documentation to the rentals or have them at least sign off in their waiver that they have to follow certain guidelines based on these or speaking to most of them. Some of they most of them have that language uh in their their rental agreements about acting in a safe manner carrying you know when you're
operating the because it is in some respect it's a motorized vehicle in some respect. So a lot of it's in their language already. So, uh, we would just reinforce that. I guess we could probably have something more particular to the ordinance, but, uh, we do that on an average basis. We go talk to them and
we do speak to them about where they when they're talking to their people about the golf carts going up on the sidewalk and all the rest. There is some of that in their in their contracts already. With all due respect, Tom, I think Nicole's going to potentially play the biggest role in all of this because I'll have to I have to and I think my
colleagues would acknowledge this is that there's there's a lot of misunderstanding out there for people who ride a bike on the sidewalk responsibly and kindly, they will still likely be yelled at by people who don't believe bikes are allowed on the sidewalk in general. And then you're going to have this dynamic of passing
people uh in your electric bike or a traditional bike without slowing down. So, I think this if I'm going to push if I was pushing education, I would let people know that, hey, you can ride a bike on the sidewalk, but when you pass somebody, you know, here's here's the proviso. I mean, because that's
particularly for the rental entities. I mean, that's it's definitely going to be a PIO space for us in some I don't worry about our residents. I worry about folks who come here and just don't know or or they're knucklehead. The ordinances are different all across just Florida, no less the rest of the country. But the
signage will be very important to that as well because if you get a good enough if you get good signs up and they're put they're put in places where people are looking uh they do see them. They may not like it sometimes but they do see them. Wait a minute. Are you saying we're not going to get the discounted 3x3 signs that seem to go up everywhere?
It's like you got a discount on those things. No sir. Just like that. Nobody can see it. All right. Thanks. Any other questions for Tom? All right. Thanks Tom. Public comment. There's no one here. No. Okay. So, we know how to clear a
room. Yeah. I'll now close the public hearing. Request a discussion or a motion from town council to approve. Approve with conditions or deny with reasons or a continuence to a time certain. Discussion or a motion. Anyone? I'll make a motion to approve ordinance
25-03 for bicycle safety with all the conditions that we discussed. So, according to my notes, there's two. Um, one is in the paragraph which is paragraph five on page I believe
768. Uh, where it references generally this will be between one and three miles per hour of pedaling. uh pedaling without the electric assist. Um and then the second um possible amendment would have been to sunset this within a year
or revisit revisit to come back and revisit within a year. Not necessarily sunset, but don't revisit. Do you can you do it with just revisit or do you have to have the sunset dynamic to force us to I think revisiting would be better because that way it can remain in in place. That's fine. Second. Okay. We
have a motion by councelor Woodson, seconded by councelor king. Any further discussion? Councelor Woodson I. Councelor King. Hi. Vice Mayor. I councelor Safford. I I'm as well. That motion carries unanimously. Our last public hearing is a legislative agenda item and is a first reading and public
hearing on proposed ordinance 25-08. If approved at first reading, a second reading and final adoption hearing will be scheduled for June 16th, 2025 at 9:00 am or at another time identified by the town council. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida,
amending land development code section 34-236 notices to require applicants for resonings, development agreements, and developments of regional impact to provide mailed and posted public noticing prior to local planning agency and town council public hearings, providing for severability,
severability, codification, scriveners, errors, conflicts of law, and providing for an effective date. Judith Judith Franco with Community Development. Um, this ordinance has um come about because of some constraints
that the current regulations uh place on staff and some of the confusion that we heard at LPA meetings from the public about when noticing was uh required um and what the impacts for not um uh providing that notice would be. The
current ordinance um asks for uh mailed notices but um it specifically states if that is not conducted then the the the applications can go forward. So there's essentially
no consequences for not doing and so just let me back up. Noticing is different than advertising. So there are state requirements for advertising of ordinances and that's when we send things out to the newspaper for public advertisement. So we still have to
comply with state regulations. This is in addition to the state regulations. This is our own regulations for how um items that are going to a public hearing either at LPA or town council get further noticed um to the public. And what has been happening is um the
applicant provides staff with a map of a 500 foot radius. Staff puts together a postcard, mails out those postcards and uh posts the sign at the property. Um what happens in a lot of other jurisdictions is that noticing
requirement, the burden of that is placed on the applicant themselves and not on staff. Um so in thinking about what would be um clearer and appropriate. Um, this is the ordinance before you. So, it does a couple things.
It requires the applicant um, in most situations in I think all situations when they're going to public hearing to do the noticing themselves. So, mailed notices and postings on site. Um, it makes it uh a
requirement, not an option. Um and then the if they did not fulfill that obligation then they could not be heard at public um at the public hearing. Um uh so the difference here is if you are
in a a single family um residential neighborhood and you're asking for a variance then we um are the way this ordinance is written you would not have to provide a mailed notice to everybody in a 500 foot radius. you
would only have to provide mailed notice to the abuing property owners. Um and that's to make it a little bit simpler. Most not all but a lot of the property single family um homeowners they do the application themselves or maybe with a little bit of help. Um and generally
those variances are for setbacks and the people who are going to experience the uh biggest impact are your abuing uh neighbors. So, um, and in a lot of cases the variances, they go to LPA, they're unanimous, and then they don't go on to town council. So, this simplifies it a
little bit for those specific cases, but anything larger would still have to notice in the 500 um 500 square foot 500 foot radius. Um, something else to note about it, in some communities, this mailed notice
when the applicant is required to do it, they require certified mail. Um, there's a associated with that. We are not requiring that at this through this uh proposed ordinance. What would be required is that they would have to provide um uh proof of those mailings to
staff and we would you know coordinate that with the town clerk. So they could photograph those mailed um postcards with the stamp at the post office um a copy of what they're mailing um and the a photograph of the sign when they
posted it on site so we would know. It also provides um a time frame of seven days ahead of the public hearing. So, you'd have to do it seven days before the LPA just to make it clear what the expectations
um are for the applicant. Um this is not unusual in other communities to require the applicant to do this. Um we feel that this would not violate um state statute because now even though the town does it, we bill the uh applicant for
it. Um so they would just be taking on the cost instead of running that cost through the town first. It would also reduce the the burden on staff because those postcards take a lot of time to run through and um uh print out and everything.
Okay, Scott, questions for you. I guess my only question is what about the neighbors that are across the street? Yeah. So, I'll read you the the A lot of times if it's a view if it's a view corridor issue, so for single
family or two family home variances, so not a CPD, right? Um not a special exception, the applicant or their agent must provide photographic proof of mailed notices seven calendar days prior to the scheduled public hearing date. Applicant shall mail written courtesy
notices to the abuing property owners and property owners parallel to the subject property line across any right of way. So it would be across the street. So if you're um in the middle of a block, it could be um up to say eight
properties. So like the three across the street, the two next to you, and three behind you, that's eight. Okay. So it's it's all the the immediate neighbors. So across the street um next to and behind but it it's much less than a 500 radius
would be if you're in the middle of a neighborhood um just to reduce that for homeowners. Yeah. I just want to make sure that people across the street were directly across the street were still giving notices because a lot of times it's you know somebody's putting up
something it's going to block their view or was there there's still a requirement to have a sign posted in the front yard of a public hearing. Correct. Yes. So that would still be there. Yes. And what we have now, we have a template that we use for both the sign and the postcard. So we would post that template on the
website. So the applicant would, you know, could just download it and use that template that we're already using. Okay. Anything else, Scott? No, sir. Karen, so I'm assuming across the street could also be across the canal because
you might end up with canal that language. It's not specifically in there, but we could we could add that in. because there's a lot that ab but just by canals. Okay, that's a good suggestion. Jim, nothing. John, nothing. Karen got
mine. Thanks, Judith. Uh, public comment again. No one's here. Come on, Tom. Don't you want to say something? Tom, the canal thing. No offense, Tom. No offense. All right. Right. I will now close the public hearing and request a discussion or
motion from town council to approve. Approve with conditions or deny with reasons or the continuence to a time certain. I'll make a motion to approve moving ordinance 25-08 to its second reading uh with the amendments that were just added uh to
June 16, 2025 at 9:00 am. Second. All right. Motion by Mayor Aller, seconded by Councelor King. Any further discussion? I'm an I. Councelor Kane. Hi. Vice Mayhole. Hi. Councelor Woodson. Hi. Councelor Safford. Hi. Motion
carries unanimously. We're officially done with the public hearings. We will move on to the administrative agenda. The first is RP2-25-02-8- FMB for the comprehensive recovery and resilience imple implementation
plans. Who's taking this one? So I think this was the first grab at the apple for the CDBGR. This was our planning grant that uh we went for as a town and uh we had to go through the whole process with HUD and and how we draft out an RFP and
how we put it out for solicitation. Um Jason worked really hard on this one and uh it seems like it's still kind of a fight every single time we have a conversation with the project manager, not ours, the counties um over this one, but we got to the point where we
actually had a selection of a vendor and uh we wish to go with AECOM um as our long-term planner. Uh the way it was written, it was for comprehensive recovery. We know that we've already gone through that is it has really no basis as far as uh dealing with our
comprehensive plan that we're already in the the tail end of. This was more of a adaptation of what R2P2 presented to us and what uh Daniel Tomzac and his team presented to us for a projected long-term recovery. So we're looking at
that five 10 15 year out. Uh but what we did is we also put language in there to uh encapsulate the downtown district, Times Square and things like that um that we could reap immediate information from as soon as we met them. So that's basically what it was about. So is this
a requirement as part of the HUD funding? Yes, you have to as you have to bring the the selection before council and council has to accept it because I'm I'm consulted to death here when I read through it. It's the consultant will work with the town's consultant. So we're hiring a consultant to work with a consultant. No, we're basically the
consultants be Jason and I. Okay. So, it should say staff, not town consultant. Correct. Okay. I was confused like we're hiring a consultant to talk to a consultant. It doesn't I mean I don't know the consultant world but I mean that sounds like a good gate. That's why it's so lucrative if you Yeah, I guess so.
That's why I say those who can do those who can't consult. John, any questions for Frank or your staff? Funding comes from CDBGR 100%. Thank you. And the nice about this is the county front is going to be fronting us that that money available up front.
So this is going to come out of that 1.4 1.5 whatever it was. That was the the first one that we went to and then the infrastructure ones came the planning services. Thank you for Jim. Nothing Scott that was my only question. All
right then. Is there a motion for RFP 25-02-8? So move. Second. Motion by councelor King, seconded by councelor Safford. Any further discussion? Mayor, I just need to point out to you that um the recommendation is uh basically approving
the selection of this vendor, authorizing the town manager to negotiate uh with them and then um authorizing the town manager to approve the final agreement subject to my review. And I think that's because of a
very expedited um deadlines that we have to get that done. If you want to elaborate. So, so there's a certain time frame that you have to once you set out your RFP, you garner in your your bids, you select a person. We're kind of already pushing that envelope on when we should vet that
vendor. It was just because of the way the meetings fell. Um but yes, it is is a requirement just like we would do anything else with the federal government. It usually goes to the town manager. He selects the people that he wants to either work with it or he takes that on himself and and we move forward.
But we have to have that documentation in place so we can get it back to the county and return back to HUD. Understood. Any further discussion? I forgot. King did you make the motion? I King did. King did. Okay. Who was I?
Okay. Councelor King. Hi. Councelor Safford. Hi. Councelor Wilson. Hi. Vice Mayor Adam and I as well. The motion carries unanimously. It's been a long day. Yes, it is. Next is the uh approval of a final settlement agreement between the town of Fort Myers Beach and Florida
Municipal Insurance Trust for Hurricane Ian insurance proceeds in the amount of $737,500. Nancy, is this you? Um somewhat. Um I had worked with Andy on this and also Linda Beck um who both of them are not here today. Um but in the
uh backup material you'll see that um shortly after Hurricane Ian um there was a lot of uh working with uh FMIT which is the Florida Insurance Municipal Trust uh to try to file claims on behalf of
the town for uh liability or not liability for wind and uh flood. And um along those lines, I they had reached u an amount that they felt that FMIT felt
that the town was due. Um your interim town managers, they hired um Garrett adjusting um out of Pensacola and his job was to go back and basically analyze and review all of the claims that had
been submitted and what had been paid. Um and of course there was some disagreement as to it. Um he was hired on a uh recovery basis a percentage of any additional funds that he would be able to uh
identify. Um again there was disagreement between his numbers and FMIT's numbers and that resulted in a uh negotiation of of what the final settlement could be. Um, I'm really not at liberty to discuss the u the matters
that were identified during the uh negotiation. I I will tell you that the league uh FMIT was at a much different place than we were. Um, however, the compromise that came up was the amount of um
$737,500. And to put this uh matter uh to completion, um we would be recommending we myself and Andy who participated in that mediation that council u accept this and this would close out all the claims
existing with Hurricane Ian. There may still be some uh claims that are outstanding regarding Hurricane Helen and Hurricane Milton, but this would close the books on on Ian and allow us to to move forward. Um Will, I don't
know if Andy briefed you any more on it if you want to add to it. No, nothing to add. Just the discussions that we had, Nancy, you were bringing me up to speed on this. Just otherwise, I think it's prudent to move forward with this decision. Close the books on this one. Yeah, I agree with NY's recommendation.
And then the fee for would come out of this 737 here. Yes, correct. So, some might characterize it as found money uh money that we initially had not been given by uh FMIT.
Um, but you know, numbers are numbers. And um, I think there was about a year and a half of analysis and negotiation back and forth between uh, Garrett and the FMIT folks. And do we have Garrett on is he still working for us in regards
to Helen and Milton or We don't have anyone? No, we had him um on a short-term um contract shortly after Ian. And that contract was um ratified, I believe, because um he was in hot demand uh after Ian, as all public
adjusters were. Um we were able to um establish a relationship with him and this is the uh the results of that relationship. So where does the if this if we accept this agreement, where does this in your
terms found money end up in the budget. Uh I defer it over to the the town manager. Um a general fund would be my initial thought. Yeah, Mr. Mayor. What about putting it
uh in our reserves? Since it's insurance money, we need we need to build up our reserves. I mean, that's always the Well, I'd like it to go wherever gives us the most flexibility should you need
it, whatever pool that ends up in that it allows us the most flexibility. So what I have heard um I think perhaps um from uh discussions with Andy um you are going to have an expenditure
uh to terminate the lease of these modular units um because we will be breaching that lease in order to work u transfer over to the new building. Um I haven't been involved in that conversation. So I'm going to defer to Frankie as to where what the status of
that is. Currently, they came and made an evaluation of the the status of the trailers, the condition of the trailers and the furniture, and we're waiting to hear a response back. That was just last week. So, once they value that, that's where we'll know what to proceed from there. Is there any reason why you're
not involved in that discussion or negotiation with them or got to a point? Frankie is taking over that. Um, but that will be an expenditure that that's probably going to come your way as far as terminating the the lease agreement.
Um, this is a pot of money that we really had not anticipated. So, the idea would be maybe that would be uh one way to spend it. Um, having heard what council said as far as putting it into reserve, that's another. But I will defer to your uh town manager working
with our finance people to figure out the best place. We will have to pay Mr. Garrett. Um, and then I think it's it is subject to your discretion. All right. Well, I guess with that then I'll make a motion to approve the final
settlement agreement between the town of Fort Myers Beach and FMIT Florida Municipal Insurance Trust for Hurricane Insurance uh proceeds in the amount of $737,500 and allowing the judgment of the town manager to place said funding
in whatever bucket makes the most sense for flexibility. Yeah. Second. Got a motion by Mary Allers, seconded by councelor Woodson. Any further discussion? I'm an I. Councelor Woodson. Hi. Councelor Saffford. Hi.
Vice Mayo. Hi. Councelor King. Hi. The motion carries unanimously. Next is an appro to approve the selection advisory committee recommendation to award RFP25-03-EN to is grade Bay Oaks Recreational Campus to Persons Service
Corporation. Jeff, yes. So, we finally are getting this Bey Oaks thing hopefully on the right track. Um, so we we put it into two different uh RFPs. This first one being the grading. Um, getting it raising it 3 ft, getting it basically to where somebody can just
come in and put irrigation in inside. Um, and pickle ball courts. So, they'll crush all the concrete. There's way more concrete than what we need back here. Um, so they'll crush what we need and then they'll haul the rest off or put it
in the old town hall lot. Um, this was by far the uh best selection we had and just the only selection we had. So, we only had one person bid bid on this. Um, and they are subcontracting with ICS to get the job done. the uh the first part
of it we're hoping to get done the grade if we can get rid of these trailers would be maybe one of the first weeks in July. They think they're aggressive but they think they might be able to do it and then alls we have left is um we have another one coming in next the ITB is
next week for the sad and the pickle ball courts. So So I guess the the elephant in the room in the question is are we still on pace to not lose that million dollar grant? Right now we are. Yes. that would be subject to your approval of the actions that we're recommending uh which is uh awarding
this bid to uh person services corp and then authorizing the town manager to very quickly um prepare and negotiate an agreement with them not to exceed 1 million 1.689381.63 uh subject to legal review and then
authorizing the mayor to go ahead and sign that. We will not have enough time uh to bring that back to you at a subsequent meeting because of the deadlines. Okay. Well, in the spirit of time, I will make a motion to approve based on what was just stated by our
town attorney. So, I don't have to be watching them and you'll and then we'll come to you for a signature to approve the RFP 25-03-EN for Pearson Service Corporation. Yeah. Second. Motion by Mayor Aller, second by councelor King.
Any further discussion? I'm an I. Councelor King. Hi. Vice Mayor Hall. Hi. Councelor Woodson. Hi. Councelor Saffry. Hi. Motion carries unanimously. Uh, our last item is a resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach awarding
RFP-25-03-EN to person services group as the most responsive and responsible bidder to complete the fill and grading of BOS recreational campus project as recommended by the selected advisory committee authorizing the town manager to negotiate and prepare an agreement for the recommended services in the
amount not to exceed $1,689,38163. 3 cents subject to legal review authorizing the mayor to sign the agreement providing prescribers area severability and an effective date. So I skipped ahead. I apologize for that. You did. But hey, we got to get this done,
right? I know. I know Miss Councelor King always brings up the funding. This is part of that grant that we got. Um and then the 1 million match. So part of the grant you're talking about the CDGR grant funding or just the grant for No, just part of the million dollar grant.
Yeah, the million dollar. Got it. Okay. Thank you, Joe. So, none of this has anything to do with that approved funding, but just haven't received funding for the CDGR parts. No, that that's more the pool Newton OSC and the North Tower.
Any further questions? We covered it. Again, I will make a motion to approve what we just said. We're going to approve a resolution for RFP25-03-EN for persons services corp. I
will go ahead and second. All right. Motion by Mayor Aller, second by councelor King. Any further discussion? I'm an I. Councelor King. I may I I councelor Woodson. Councelor Saffro. All right. Motion carries unanimously.
Final public comment. Mr. Yazo. Town manager items. Yes, Mr. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, counselors, I have three items. Uh, first to update you on my efforts at Fort Myers Beach School tomorrow morning. I'm meeting with Superintendent Carlin from the school
district. Myself and it'll be Becky Bose will be accompanying me uh tomorrow to begin discussions at your direction to ensure the preservation and longevity of the school and look into all possible options to ensure that the school uh district adheres to the ILA.
Yes, sir. I just have to a question. I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but I think that's excellent that you're meeting with her. Uh, seems like somebody else ought to be in that meeting. Is that that going to work? Um, I defer to the town manager. Happy to do whatever. I discuss that
with Tracy. I I just think she has so much institutional knowledge and there's a lot of I think the superintendent has a learning curve as well on this just because she's new and I think there's some history here that really lends itself well to our case and
uh and I you and Becky are wonderful but she's got that history you guys don't have. Yes, sir. Um, secondly, I'd like to recommend to the town council that uh you hold a joint meeting with the LPA uh to discuss the results of the public outreach for
the comp plant that they have ready ready to bring to you. U suggestion, go ahead. I I would love to give like a little once you discuss the joint meeting, I'd love to just uh let everybody know kind of what we covered at and what we got out of those
meetings. So go ahead, discuss the joint meeting and then I'll just give everybody a little bit of input on the compception of a couple of date recommendations. Okay, go for that. No, no, figure out the date and then June 10th um or June 26th. Oh, uh June 10th
would be after the uh the LPA meeting is following the LPA meeting on that day. Uh June 26th would be at its own designated time. I can do either one. I cannot do June 10th. Yeah, I've got a doctor I've got a
doctor appointment June 10th. June 26th, I can do easy. We have a cell cab meeting at one o'clock on the 26th. So, if we did it in the morning, maybe morning on June 26. Okay, we'll verify that uh with I'll have the staff look into it. We'll get
that Amy will get that out to to everybody. Uh it looks pretty good. Sarah, please. And that would be to be at 9:00 a.m. at 26. Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry. Well, what was the time of your meeting tomorrow with the superintendent? 8:30.
8:30. Thank you, sir. So, I uh Sarah Propes for Community Development. I just wanted to let you guys know um about the public input that we received. We had three different events and we had an online survey. So, the first event was at the uh library
grand reopening. Uh we had it next to the band. It was a very productive event. Everybody, a lot of people came out. It was it was a ton of participation. Um, the next event we went to was the Bayside Concert Series. That was a more uh relaxed scene. We got
a lot of different input from people who were just coming and going from the event. I thought that was nice to sort of hear from a different group of people maybe that wouldn't necessarily come to the library. Um, the third event was at the library but indoors. It was uh a
more focused event. We had a couple different uh displays and we had sort of a Lego exercise so that people could place them on the map and see what different size buildings would look like and what you know where things should go. Um we had the online survey and we
got 118 respondents. Um which doesn't sound like a lot but it's actually pretty good in a small town. Um we heard a lot about so the main input that we heard was that uh residents want to uh have well-maintained accessible parks.
Uh they really appreciate the parks and the recreation opportunities in the town. Um of course as you would assume there are concerns about traffic congestion um getting to places especially during season. There are concerns about um not having all of the
amenities that they may want on the island. We did hear from um the majority of the residents that we heard from were over 65. So, there were concerns about medical facilities and accessibility um and traffic safety. Uh residents did emphasize how much they appreciated the
beach. That's still our biggest asset here and uh they want to ensure protection, access, control, uh cleanliness and uh sustainability. the beaches. They also a lot of people spoke about the moundhouse. So, that's an amenity that people really do appreciate
um but maybe is is uh under acknowledged or maybe not known about by people that are outside of um a lot of the visitors probably don't know about Moundhouse. Um, so coming up next, uh, I won't be involved, but Ed Ing and Jason Green
will be coming to you guys, uh, have some joint meetings to discuss all of the findings, suggestions on what to do next. The comprehensive plan will be your next step. Um, hopefully we're pretty close to where we need to be with an adoption for comprehensive plan.
It'll take two uh, council hearings. So, there will be uh we'll have to figure out the budgeting and um the budgeting hearings and how that can work out with the comp plan hearings because that's going to be falling probably in the same time frame. Uh then you can move on to the land development code. I've been
talking with staff. I've been talking with my staff um trying to make sure that everybody kind of understands the issues and uh what probably needs to be resolved in the code in the next round. Do you guys have any questions?
Not for me for this item, but I have a different question, but I'll bring it up later. Scott. Um, yeah. My only question is the uh impact fees. Are you guys close? Stealing my thunder. That's a couple items. It's Jason Green. Uh, I'm
sure I know that he is working on it. I He's going to have to answer your question and he will be at the joint meeting. Okay. So, he'll be at the next town council meeting. Time's running out. I mean, these these approvals are if you look at some of these timelines, they're moving. Yeah, they want to move fast. We had a joint conversation what about a
couple of weeks ago uh when he was involved with that and he did mention that they're they're right at the finish line with coming up with recommendations for that. Well, rabbit needs to run faster. We're getting closer to do and shovels going into the ground.
So, this is an important thing to But Scott stole my thunder, so I'll let him. Sorry. It's all right. I was gonna wait till my time, but no, that was that was a question. Okay, Karen, any questions? No, I'm good. Jim, nothing right now. Thank you, John.
Thanks, Sarah. Thank you. Well, that was a long time to sit here to just have that little Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. You're enjoying your flowers. And what was your third item? Third item was just a calendar reminder. Next
community forum. Uh community forum number two for the strategic planning is June 12th at the same location. Uh same location. Yes. Are we wanting obviously we don't need council there as well or it was wonderful having the council there participate or couldn't
participate. Sorry but uh but to support um and uh you know again thank you several of you wanted to acknowledge the staff effort on that so far. I really enjoyed the first event. So pass that on to staff and So yes, we'd love to see
possible there. 501 again. 501. 501. And what was the date? I'm sorry, Miss June 12th. June 12th. Okay. And that's it. All right. Town attorney items. No items. No items. Okay. Where
we at? Oh, council member councelor items and reports. John, uh, just one quick one getting back to the vice mayor regarding the Matanzis pass fishing pier. Uh, reached out to my considerable contacts and came up with uh, the FDOT
is getting out of the pier business. They have removed the stairs that were considered unsafe. If Fort Myers Beach wants the fishing pier, we can purchase it, but it is my understanding this would not be cheap. And that's my report to the vice mayor.
Okay. Thank you, John. Vice Mayor, uh I have a sort of an odd request in the sense that I uh we have an M&P meeting on Thursday and I'm asking for an excused absence. Uh I would normally call in and would I've never missed a
meeting, but I would call in if I could, but I will be on a train uh to Chicago for going to a wedding. Uh so, and I don't my experience with Amtrak has been phone and internet doesn't work very on the train. I'll try, but in the interim, I wonder if I could get an excused
absence in advance in case I fail on Thursday, which is highly likely. I have no issues. Karen Scott, none. No. I uh I would ask uh because I'm heading out tomorrow morning relatively early. I
would ask uh will or have Tracy assigned at some point because the uh the school board workshop is at one o'clock tomorrow. uh if you whatever you deem appropriate if you would get in touch with the key ad hoc committee
folks if you have any update that you can give them prior to the one o'clock might be helpful just to keep that line of communication going since might affect the tone of that meeting. Uh so that would that would be great. Uh again the school district uh workshop is at
1:00 tomorrow at their headquarters. uh and encourage folks uh if they can't be there certainly to send an email to their members of the school board and uh uh the superintendent as well as reach out to your friends and family and alumni in Lee County. Encourage them to
do the same uh respectfully. That's all I have. Mr. Mayor, thank you. Council Woodson. Well, as a followup to what Jim was talking about, so the one o'clock um school meeting, school workshop, so I think there's possibility
of a number of us council people attending that. And so I just want to make that public that we would be attending. Um we would not be having our own private meeting, but we would be in attendance to support um whatever
happens for the Beach Elementary School and to get our points across individually if need be. I think that's outstanding. Councelor Woodson, I would encourage Nancy to take whatever or Amy to take whatever action even though the
school board has noticed it. Somehow we have to notice it as well. At least that's what I've been advised in the past. Yeah. But thank you. That's all I have. Scott, um, two things. I'm happy to announce that uh thanks to Tom and and
um Andy and and Will, we were able to get and Frankie, we were able to get those two temp uh 15minute parking um spots signs are up. They're they're a go. They're being used. They're being used. So, thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Um yeah, they're it they're
located right literally across the street from Nervous Nelly's right under the bridge. First two spots. So, okay, it's good stuff. And then also the I noticed signs for the Uber drop off or lift drop off, whatever on Third
Street, there's signage there for those couple of spots next to so Yeah. And my other question, now that we've we've got a charter review committee, are we going to have a liaison? Are we going to decide that next meeting or
Congratulations Second motion. It's all yours, Scott. If you Oh, really? Sure. I'll do it. I I was going to say if you don't want to, I would love to. I would love to. You can be my alternate. Okay.
Do you need an official vote on that or just consensus that Scott is going to be the liazison for the chair? I think consensus would actually be okay with um councelor uh Woodson being the alternate if you can't make it. All right, consent
there. I have nothing in the sake of time. I will save anything I have for a later date. John, well with the Amtrak boy leaving, I'll send you out with Choo Choo Chaboogie and move to a journ. Wow. All right.