Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

um i'd just like to welcome everybody back this is um this is our well it's my first lpa meeting um may we all have the uh courtesy and grace to make the best decisions possible for the town of fort myers beach amen The first item on the agenda is an approval of the final agenda, but item G, Sanibel Captiva Bank's application, has been withdrawn for the moment. May I have a motion with any other changes or including that?

Chair, could you announce the date that it's been rescheduled to?

Oh, yes, ma'am. It's been rescheduled to October 13, 2026. And that's a 9 AM meeting. Thank you. Yes.

Move to approve.

Thank you, Don. Second. Thank you, Jim. Any objection to the motion? That carries unanimously. And then the next item is an approval of the minutes for the local planning agency of August 11, 2026. If there are no corrections or adjustments to the minutes, may I have a motion, please?

I move to approve. Second.

Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any objection to that motion? Hearing none, that carries unanimously. And then the next item is public comment. And this public comment is for anything on the agenda that you wish to speak about, minus public hearings. You can still speak at this point, but if you're speaking on a public hearing or on the topic of a public hearing, you really want your comments to be held within the record of that public hearing. So if you have something general in nature to say, you're welcome to stand up and speak. Otherwise, hold off until your public hearing comes up. Is there anybody that has anything in general to speak about? OK, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing, and we'll go on to our first public comment. We'll go on to our first public hearing, which is Ordinance 2614. This is a CPD, and I'm going to let Nancy make her speech first. My speech.

So even with the removal of the one variance, you do have a very hefty schedule before you today. You have two rezonings, two special exceptions, and three variances. And all of these land use decisions, they are all quasi-judicial in nature. And this requires that your public hearings today comply with some procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in your land development code. In a quasi-judicial proceeding, it is less formal than a proceeding before a circuit court, but it is a little bit more formal than the remainder of your meeting. We must follow some basic standards of due process, that requires certain notices, the application of the correct standards, and that your decisions be made on competent and substantial evidence that's presented to you either through oral testimony or written documents. Your responsibility today as a member of the local planning agency is to evaluate the evidence, including testimony and the information, and then draw a conclusion as to whether or not the criteria that has been identified in your land development code or state law has been satisfied. So speculation or just based on an opinion that is not based on competent facts cannot legally be considered by you in evaluating whether that criteria has been satisfied. Testimony by professionals who have been qualified as experts in a particular area has been considered evidence, competent, substantial evidence by Florida courts, as well as testimony by neighbors and residents of the island who have fact-based information such as minutes, surveys, engineering reports, or their testimony which is based on their personal knowledge. So members of the audience, if you intend to speak, please keep my comments in mind. And when you do come forward to make any comments, state your name clearly in the record and whether or not you have been sworn in. We have a couple variances today and a couple special exceptions. A unanimous decision by eligible voting members of the LPA to approve a variance shall constitute final agency action that is subject to a request by anyone for an additional hearing or review by the town council. However, that request must be made within 10 days of the decision. Also, in ordinance 25-18, the town council expanded the LPA's authority to also approve a like-for-like special exception to replace a lawfully or permitted structure in the EC zoning district that was in effect prior to the natural disaster, which was Hurricane Ian. So at this point, I would like to go ahead and ask our town clerk, have these items been properly noticed? Yes, they have been. Thank you. And also, anyone on the LPA that has a potential conflict of interest that would prohibit you from voting on any of these items that are on your agenda, this is the appropriate time to make that disclosure. Ed?

None.

Jim?

None.

Jane? None. Doug?

No, ma'am. None.

And I have none. Okay, so you have a quorum present. We'll proceed on with your hearings. The next item that we need to take care of is to go ahead and ask anyone who will be making comments today to be sworn in to evaluate your testimony. And I'll defer to the town clerk to administer the oath. So anyone in the audience who will be testifying today, if you would please stand and raise your right hand.

That includes public comment. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

So we have several individuals that are present and in the audience that have been qualified previously as experts. Could we go ahead and identify anyone who would be providing expert testimony, either in the area of land use and planning, or engineering or anything to that effect. If you would just stand and be recognized so we can get you in the record. Just come to the podium and state your name.

Laura Tett, senior planner for the neighborhood company. Okay.

Ted Trisch with TR Transportation Consultants.

Ted, have you been qualified as an expert before the LPA before? Yes. You have. OK. Couldn't recall.

I think, Kara, you have as well. Yeah.

We all have.

OK. Just to get it into the record, yeah. If you don't mind, you'll get some steps in, you know. Sure. For those of us that count.

Kara Stewart.

Thank you. And Kara, you're the expert in land use planning. The expert on two variances, correct. Yeah.

Papanas Land Use with the neighborhood company.

And staff? You guys have been qualified as experts. We have Jason Smalley and Jason Green as well. So Madam Chair, I think we're ready for the first item.

OK, Nancy. This is ordinance 2614CPD20260099. This is the Diamond Head Resort. An ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida approving, approving with conditions or denying a rezoning of property located at 1999 and 2000 Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, generally identified as strap numbers 194624W40090B.0020 and 194624W40090A.0010 from the downtown and EC zoning districts to a commercial plan development with eight deviations to allow for a 178 unit hotel 8,300 square feet of existing commercial space, and 164 parking spaces. Providing for other clarifications is necessary. Providing for conflicts of law, Scribner's errors, severability, and an effective date. Ex parte. Don, do you have any?

Yes, I met with the neighborhood company to discuss.

Doug?

Yeah, I met with Pat Van Ness and representatives of Diamond Head.

Okay. Jane? Neighborhood company also and all the emails that we got. Okay. Jim?

I have the same. I met with the neighborhood company, reviewed all of the correspondence we received.

Ed?

I have the same. I met with the neighborhood company on site at Diamond Head and also received the same emails that the rest of us did.

So, Madam Chair, can we ask the neighborhood company, as representatives of the applicant, if you have any questions regarding the disclosures?

They might want to hear what I did. Because it's nefarious. No. I met with the neighborhood company twice. Once early on when the project, I believe, was still in conceptual form, and then recently. I have all the emails of record. And I also met with my friend Roger Hamilton, his wife Jane, and another gentleman whose name I still cannot remember, Mr. Mizell. Yes. And I met with them at Roger's home at Surfsong. We also have the emails. Do you have something else to disclose? I also met with a couple from Surfsong. Okay. And nothing else. Now, Pat, you want to question any of us or Ken question any of us on our ex parte?

No, ma'am.

Thank you. Thank you. So we'll proceed with a brief overview from you, Jason, and then go to the applicant's presentation.

Yeah, so Jason Green, Community Development. Actually, we'll go right to the applicant's presentation. I've been informed that they have some changes that they want to highlight and discuss and bring up since they didn't get to make into the packet. Okay. And part of that, you may have caught the description you talked about is rezoning of downtown and EC to CPD, and they're going to address that issue.

Okay. Okay. Who's going to make the presentation?

We'll see.

Okay.

Well, while we're waiting, I can go ahead and talk. Good morning. For the record, my name is Neil Montgomery. I'm a land use attorney representing the applicant. The applicant in this case is the Diamond Head Beach Resort, and the general manager is here. First time I've been in a hearing with another Neil, so this is Mr. Neil Hopgood. He is an expert in property management, but I don't know that that's one that you wanted somebody to stand up and say. I'm the attorney, you already met. Ken Glander and Patrick Van Asse who are planners. And Kayleigh Delhagen is the architect. And Patrice is the transportation expert. Nancy did an awesome job of going through the criteria for reasoning and the quasi-judicial nature and competent substantial evidence. And as she pointed out, the burden of proof is on the applicant, ergo that's why we have the experts to make a presentation to you folks today. Under the Caroline Woods case, lay testimony does not rise to the level of expert testimony on traffic, appraisals, ecology, planning, and that sort of thing. As Nancy pointed out, it's all based on, they can provide fact-based. We submit that today the experts will provide you with sufficient information to demonstrate that we have met the burden of proof. And with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Galander.

Good morning. It's been a little while. Like I said, I haven't had the chance to present in this forum, so I've got to get used to where I'm looking and making sure we have everything here. But for the record, I'm Ken Galander, certified planner with The Neighborhood Company here as agent on behalf of the applicant. We do obviously have a presentation that we'll walk through here. But the first item, as Jason Green pointed out, once we received the staff report, it was identified there was not a support for the effort of us, including the portion of the environmentally critical portion of the zoning within the CPD going from downtown and EC to the CPD. Basically, the opinion of staff was in inconsistency with the recreation and open space, the future land use category that's underlying that. And it was a proposed alternative to what you typically have seen with planned developments, including the environmentally critical area, to identify those scheduled uses that we felt could be appropriate, providing for that flexibility rather than going through the special exception process. But knowing that coordinating with our applicant, the owner of Diamond Head, it wasn't worth seeking that additional aspect of this request. So we have removed that. And based on that, we feel that that issue has been resolved with staff. And I'm sure they can go into that further as we go on. So our request is strictly from the downtown zoning to commercial plan development. for the development of the Diamond Head Beach Resort to include 178 hotel units, restaurants, recreational amenity uses, and the parking. I think we all know where Diamond Head Beach Resort is. It's been in the location for two decades now. Just keep moving forward. Subject property for Diamond Head and the CPD consists of two parcels, 3.45 acres approximately. You have the 2000 Estero Boulevard piece, which is the larger piece where the resort sits. And then on the north side of Estero Boulevard is 1999 Estero Boulevard, which is approximately 0.30 acres. future land use categories for the 2000 estero boulevard tract is the times square mixed use district and recreation open space in the 1999 estero boulevard is pedestrian commercial again the zoning for the 2000 parcel is downtown environmentally critical and the estero boulevard is downtown and the existing uses obviously is the resort and the 1999 parcel is existing parking lot A little background for the 2000 Estero Boulevard tract. The approval for the development occurred in 1994 and there was a subsequent amendment in 1997 with the full project completed around the 1998 timeframe. It was approved for 154 total units. And as part of that amendment, which is inclusive in our narrative and documentation, the amendment included a reduction in height from 15 stories to 13 stories and recognized that it would be in two phases. Phase one is complete. It was completed with 124 units. Subsequent to that, the Coast restaurant was built that removed three units. So existing right now are 121 lodging units within that main structure with resort amenities, the Coast restaurant, the beach restaurant on the ground floor. The phase two would then be the potential to build the 30 units originally. Now it's 33 because of the three that were removed as part of COAST. And there was actually an optional parking structure component to the development. So right now we have 121 units, 33 vested. 154 total, two restaurants. There's obviously the meeting areas where a lot of meetings occurred after the storm. You have the consumption on premises, which includes a portion of the EC zoning and parking at approximately 138 spaces. This is a site plan that we were able to locate as part of the electronic file for the South Florida Water Management District. You can see the basic consistency with what is existing on the site today. For the 1999 Estero Boulevard tract, it was originally a two-phase CPD, and it was under Resolution 9926. Phase one was to be a commercial parking lot, which was concentrated to support Diamond Head Beach Resort employees and or any leased parking. And phase two was potentially a commercial building. Then the town adopted under Ordinance 0303 new zoning, which took it from CPD strictly to a conventional zoning of downtown. Then a special exception under Resolution 013, bringing it back to recognizing the parking lot, again, for Diamond Head Beach Resort employees and guests, and also recognize uses consistent with the downtown zoning were approved as part of that special exception. Right now, it is a parking lot. It's been impacted by the storm, so there's approximately 28 spaces that could be parked there. This is the site plan that was associated with our special exception. So you're probably gonna get tired of me talking a lot through this presentation, so I'm gonna actually hand it off to Mr. Neil Hopgood, and I'm gonna provide a little bit more background, their perspective as the owner-operator of the Diamond Head Beach Resort. And then Mr. Van Nass will also be able to speak. Neil.

Good morning, Neil.

Good morning, Madam Chair, LPA members. I appreciate your time here today. For the record, my name is Neil Hopkins, General Manager, Diamond Head Beach Resort. For the past 25 years, I have proudly managed Diamond Head Resort. During that time, our team, as well as our team at Sunstream Hotels and Resorts, have taken every opportunity to incorporate ourselves and the business into our local community. When Hurricane Charlie, Irma, and Ian brought devastating circumstances to the island, we opened the hotel to EMS services and displaced residents without hesitation. The island events such as Relay for Life, the boat races, and the latest version of the island sand sculpting event, we remain a notable community partner. For our team, being an active part of the community has never been about what's in it for us. Rather, we have always focused on how we can help both the local businesses and the community thrive. As I'm sure everyone participating in the meeting today knows, Diamond Head committed to efforts to sustain, repair, and rebuild the island pre- and post-Hurricane Ian, our public benefit being a highlight for the team. Every year, the Diamond Head team takes great pride in maintaining the property. Although this remains a priority, we're also focusing on the need to stay relevant and competitive for our owners and guests as Fort Myers Beach continues to evolve in the hospitality sector. To meet the increased levels of demand for hospitality accommodations on the island, we are requesting additional rooms at Diamond Head that will also include enhanced amenities and service levels. This expansion of the commercial property will not only provide accommodations, but it will also assist with the island community with the ad valorem taxes. I include this as the town discusses their budget workshop, projecting a 30% millage increase. We have held a public forum with our neighbors and communicated our direction with our 1,100 timeshare owners. As many here likely know, most concerns were related to the obstruction of a current view. I can say the expansion design continues to provide viewing corridors, with drivers on a stereo having no impact. Although we understand not everyone will have the same wants, we feel that this should not be at the expense of our business. Finally, as it relates to increased traffic and parking, for 30 years we have managed and used our resources to ensure more than enough parking was available. In addition to this, the ability, the opportunity to add 33 rooms with two king-size beds would afford us the means to also market to our tour bus companies in an attempt to minimize congestion. the congestion I refer to during the two to three weeks of peak season, not the year-long concern some have projected. On behalf of myself and the Diamond Head team, I thank you all for allowing us to present our opportunity, and we look forward to your feedback.

Before you go, Mr. Hopgood, can I ask you one question? We started out by saying it's important to stay relevant and competitive. and that you need to do this to accomplish that. What happens if you don't stay relevant and competitive in this business?

I believe the rest of the developments that we'll take over will supersede us.

Thank you, Neil.

Good morning. For the record, my name is Patrick Van Ness. I'm a certified planner with the neighborhood company, and I am a fellow beach resident for over 20 years. It's a pleasure to be here today to talk about the diamond hepatitis. But before I go into my presentation, I'd really love to share how I'm feeling with you today. So what I can tell you is I come before you today feeling restless. And what's funny about feeling restless is a lot of times you don't really know why you feel that way. And I've given it some thought, and I think I figured it out. Kids are back in school. Routine, rhythms are changing. And the season is changing. We're transitioning from summer into fall and then into winter. And I fully understand that there are going to be some changes on this island with this season turning. And part of that creates a little anxiety. I guess the unknown creates a little fear and concern. And when I feel that way, what I try to do is step back a little bit and look at things from a broader perspective and also from a longer time horizon. And that brings me comfort because I know that We've been here, we've seen a lot of change on this island, and I think we are in a better position today than we were. I feel optimistic. I continue to be positive about the future of this island. I know that 2027 is gonna be better than 2026. We have some recent evidence of that. We've got the pier that's gonna start rebuilding. We have Crescent Park that reopened. And we have one of my favorite restaurants on this island that's just open South Beach in Santini. So with that, I remain positive. I know in my mind the rebuild, the redevelopment is not occurring fast enough, but it is chugging along. I feel that 2027 is going to bring about some of these larger projects that have been approved that are going to move forward hopefully in 2027, and it's going to put this town in a better fiscal position. So with that said, I look at the petition that we have today quite the same way. You know, when people look at some of the changes on the island, a lot of times people are a little concerned, and sometimes those concerns are unfounded and haven't materialized. And we've got perfect examples. You know, Matanzas Bridge was going to ruin this island. Margaritaville was going to ruin this island. And both of those are great projects and have been moving within the fabric of this community, and they're great assets to this community. So admittedly, Diamond Head was born out of controversy. And we all know that. But that happened 30 years ago. And I think a lot of the concerns and fears did not materialize. So over that last 25 to 30 years, Diamond Head has demonstrated to be a great neighbor, great steward of this island, and they've become an asset to this community. When I drive down Estero Boulevard, I don't look at Diamond Head as being problematic in any way. Actually, I look at it as being one of the nice resorts and hotels on this island, and I'm always proud to have events there or have my family and friends stay there while they visit. I hope that when we look at our petition today, it's not tainted by the history of what happened 30 years ago. We're in a very different situation. We've had a major disaster. And just like us and our homes, we're trying to do the best to rebuild something better and stronger. And today's circumstances dictate that for them to stay relevant and competitive, they need to bring about some improvements. And they need to improve their product and their resort. So I'd like to boil things down when we look at these petitions. And I want to just quickly address some of the issues that I definitely know we're going to be talking about today. So as always, we're going to be talking about hype. What I'd like to say is that the height being requested is no greater than the existing height on this property today. And in some cases, actually a little lower. We're going to be talking about density and density. As we know, we've gone to a pure FAR to evaluate intensity. We're asking no greater than what this future land use category allows, and we are consistent with the comp plan. And then we always talk about, is this request speculative in nature? Are these developers, owners ready to move forward with the project? And I can tell you that they've proven to be committed to this island. They are the same owners that built this resort and have been operating it for 25 years. And they've proven to us that they are good stewards. They're ready to go. They were anticipating and they were planning for improvements to their resort prior to Hurricane Ian. And they've had to change their plans, but they're ready to move forward and ready to build those improvements as soon as they can. And then the last issue is the big item for today. It's going to be related to views. Don't want to minimize anybody's feelings and I certainly understand how people get attached to their views and feel strongly about obstruction to their views. And the best thing I can do is kind of give you a little bit of my story and where I live on this island. So I live on Lauder Street and prior to Hurricane Ian, I did not have a direct view. of the Gulf and beautiful sunsets. I had the car wash. I had the real estate office there. Then I had Lahaina and Sandpiper. And since the devastating hurricane, it's really sad that we've lost those different structures and businesses. However, I'm afforded a beautiful view of sunset every night. And my whole family loves those views, love the sunsets, and we cherish those. However, I understand that I have no right to those views. I never had a right to those views. And while I appreciate them, I understand that those businesses are going to rebuild. And I understand that it would be unfair for me to object to those rebuilds because of my view being obstructed. So I will cherish them for now. When those businesses rebuild, I will support those rebuilds. And what I'm going to do to remedy the issue is I'm going to do what I used to do before Hurricane Ian. I'm going to walk down to the beach access with my neighbors, probably have a drink with them, and I'm going to enjoy sunset from the beach where my view is completely unobstructed. So with that said, I will turn things over to Ken. He's going to keep walking you through the details, consistency with the comp plan, with the LDC. And then I will be available with the rest of the team for any questions or discussions that you want to have. Thank you.

Thanks, Patrick. Ken, if you'll just give me a second. Amy, I'm remiss in not announcing that Jim Dunlap is not here, nor will he be. Do we need a motion to excuse his absence?

Yes, you'll need a motion to excuse his absence. Generally, we do that with housekeeping when they want to participate remotely, but he is not participating today. It is a complete absence.

I'll move for accepting his absence.

Second.

Thank you. Is there any objection to that? Okay, so just let the record reflect that Jim Dunlap will not be here physically or remotely. Go ahead, Ken. Sorry, it just all of a sudden dawned on me. I looked down there and he's not there. Yeah.

Very good. Thank you. Thanks, Pat. Thanks, Neil, for that. So as Pat said, I'm going to start jumping into some of these technical aspects of it. So I appreciate your patience and just we'll walk through this and hopefully it won't take too long. So this is a exhibit that helps identify what I was speaking to previously. So the blue portion, that is where the CPD boundary of the downtown zoning to CPD. But the green portion is also a part of the overall subject property again, but that is your environmentally critical area. I know Patrick mentioned some of these, but just drilling down a little bit, some of the key details. Again, our CPD boundary really encompasses 2.38 acres of that overall 3.45. Again, it is inclusive of those two parcels. Again, the 1.07 that I've recognized previously under the environmental critical, that is also your recreation and open space future land use category. So when we go through and apply any of the intensity criteria, that only would apply to the 2.38 acres. Again, the request is encompassing the existing tower, which has 121 units. The tower addition that we'll be walking through would include the 33 units. That is what is vested. And then the new beachside building, that would be the additional 24 units. It also would include a new pool deck, rooftop amenity deck. And from the 154 vested units, that is asking for a 15% increase. The height, seeking a deviation. Obviously, we're trying to memorialize a lot of the existing development into this PD to allow a max height to be consistent with, or as was mentioned before, the beachside building will be shorter than the existing tower. The zone height for the existing tower is approximately 109 feet, 13 stories. and overall is 127 feet. The new building zoned height around 100 feet, actual 10 stories. And that is an error on that note there. It is actually 117 feet from the ground. For floor area ratio, the maximum allowed under the future land use category is 2.5. We are proposing a approximately 2.13 floor area ratio. So location, site, and compatibility. We're in the Times Square mixed use district. And this is, as everyone knows, this is your downtown core area. And this is where the preferred most intense and dense development for the town is to occur. And it's focused on for the tourists, the visitors, and those residents living in town that would like that livelier entertainment options. Again, it's proposed to be a mix of your mid to high rise uses, vacation rentals, obviously tourist oriented commercial uses. Right now, north of us is commercial offices, residential, and vacant parcels. South is obviously the beach. To the east, we have single-family, multi-family, residential, and vacant. And to the west is vacant, but that is the future Estero Island Beach Club development. So as we've stated before, Diamond Head has been operating and in operation just almost about 30 years. And opinion is complimentary and certainly compatible with the mix of uses in this area. The location is convenient to those key activities. Residents, guests of Diamond Head certainly can easily walk to downtown, the Times Square, old St. Carlos Corridor, and even to the other end, the Bay Oaks Recreation Center. We're certainly staying within the development footprint on the property, so we're not seeking any deviations to the development standards regarding setbacks, which are allowed by right under the CR zoning district. As we know, when you go from PD, you have to utilize the commercial resort zoning district. So this is the master concept plan. What I'm going to do is kind of jump to this version. This helps you see overlaid the main area for what we're looking at in terms of the added and the expansion area for Diamond Head. So overall, The development on 1999 is consistent with what was approved under the special exception. It's bringing back that parking lot. The existing access is there, and it is actually to the west. It doesn't access onto Virginia, which was actually a condition of the special exception that it would not be accessed off of Virginia Avenue. Then the 2000 parcel, majority of the property is going to stay as it exists. So a lot of the notation on our master concept plan is helping identify a lot of these existing conditions, notations, helping clarify the staff's understanding of vision, visibility triangles, et cetera, identifying where those access points are. There's no new proposed access points onto the property. So to the dark portion of the master concept plan, the dark gray portion, that is the footprint of the existing Diamond Head Beach Resort. The portion just to the right, the royal blue, that would be the expansion or the addition to the building. The lighter blue is your pool amenity deck and then the beach side building closer to the beach. Then within the EC zoning district, they actually do have approvals for consumption on premises. And what we've identified there is they're using that area for recreational purposes. There's outdoor seating that has been approved originally. And what we have identified here is through those, the existing recreational uses, outdoor seating, to identify the dash line is your outdoor COP boundary. Next series of slides are going to be the renderings of the proposed improvements. So this is a view looking from the southeast towards the northwest. That is the beach side building. We have the two existing single family dwellings. One is built, one is currently under construction, the white one to the left of the tan single family dwelling. View directly from the beach looking north. The beach side building obviously to the right. The L-shaped portion of the existing building. And you can sort of see the additional units portion in the back. This is a view from the east. Obviously you can identify the new pool deck, amenity deck, the beach side building. The architectural design is to be maintained to be consistent with obviously the existing portion of Diamond Head. Views from the pool deck. Additional view. Additional view there. I'd be happy to jump back if you're interested or when we're finished to jump back and look at some of these in more detail. Thank you.

Yes. So this slide provides us, again, the footprint.

The red is the existing Diamond Head building. The yellow is the footprint for the new proposed addition expansion in the pool deck. The green portion is your additional to the existing tower. Blue is the pool and the beachside building yellow. Then as we elevate going up, these occur where the units would be. So the addition expansion onto the existing tower, that would be where the 33 vested units would be constructed. The 121 or the lighter is just whited out and the 24 units on the beach side building. Rooftop, there will be a proposed rooftop amenity area on the beachside building. And then for the addition, there is not proposed to be any further amenities for that. This is a view from Estero or your north elevation. The red is the existing, green is the addition, and then the new beach side building is the portions extending out to the left. For the height, again, zoned height, again, is taken from your design flood elevation plus the three feet of freeboard to the midpoint of the roof. The existing and the addition building would be approximately 109 feet, and the new building, beachside building, would be 100 feet. The actual from grade from zero to the very top of the buildings for the existing addition again is 127 feet and the new building 117. The existing building is 13 stories and the new would be 10 stories. That would be nine over parking. So looking at intensity and density, as Pat mentioned before, we are looking strictly at intensity based on the new comprehensive plan. And to build a 33 vested and add additional 24 units, we're again applying that to the portion of the property, the 2.38 acres. which is part of the Times Square mixed use and pedestrian commercial future land use categories and not the recreation open space. Again, the floor area ratio is a measure of intensity under the new comprehensive plan for your hotel and motel uses. The maximum allowed is 2.5. So the LDC has not been updated to recognize that we are strictly looking at the FAR, but as we all know, the comprehensive plan preempts that, so we are strictly looking at the Florida ratio. So for a 2.5 FAR, that would allow approximately 259,000 square feet of development. But under the zoning, under the commercial resort, you're limited to a 1.5, and that's why we're seeking the deviation to allow for us to go above that portion. So the existing gross floor area, based on our analysis, is approximately 161,000 square feet. That would equate to about a FAR of 1.6. Then with adding the new gross floor area, that would be building your 33 vested units and adding the 24 units, any of the back of house needed, et cetera. That's an approximately additional 60,000 square feet. So that provides us a total of approximately 221,000 square feet, which equates to, again, FAR of 2.13, which is what we're seeking, which is below the allowable that we can seek for under the future land use category, that maximum of 2.5. For transportation, zoning amendment as proposed will not place an undue burden on the adjacent roadway network as determined by our expert, Mr. Ted Treese with TR Transportation. Some of the commitments that we are focused on, as many developments previous to us, and we see the benefit is the Don't Rent a Car DRAC program. Providing bicycle parking, bicycle rentals to hotel guests, continuing that, expanding upon that. There's infrastructure for visitors to bike to, to provide for those racks. There's, I guess it's not golf cart, it's golf carts. Pardon that. So many people read this and they just never catch those things, you know?

We do know that.

golf carts rentals to hotel guests. And there's actually two leased trans stops very close in proximity to the project. I know this may be hard to see, but we do have as part of our master concept plan document is the parking plan. So on the main parcel or the 2,000 parcels, there's 138 parking spaces. With the new plan we're looking at for the 1999, that would be about 26 spaces that meet code, providing for ADA, et cetera, et cetera. We're also identifying on the master concept plan the parking plan here where the golf cart areas are, bicycle parking. And I want to just make one, identify one aspect of this is that there actually is a spot for a mobile vending unit. There is a Mojo's there. It is complimentary to the guests and whatnot for that project, but we at least wanted to make sure that was identified. And that is actually still, that is identified on our schedule of uses too. So for our parking, working with staff, and we appreciate all their guidance as we've been working through this for the last several months, we're to look at the existing conditions. and then what we are proposing. And what we wanted to do is, as we've been doing for many of our projects that we're looking at, is trying to get the best data, the most relevant data, the most recent data on the demands of parking for today. And with TR Transportation did an independent parking analysis and conducted that based on that recent data and the parking needs. The LDC also provides for the 33% reduction. You also have, if you provide four bicycle spaces, you can reduce by one parking space. So we obviously wanted to recognize that. So with that, The minimum required is 161 spaces, and what we have shown for our project is 164 spaces being provided. We also want to commit to, and as Neil mentioned before regarding parking, is they understand how they need to manage the parking, the demands, the seasonal events, the special events that come. And so they understand that valet may be an opportunity, and that could provide approximately 14 to 16 spaces on site. There's also ability that they have done historically is coordinating with adjacent property owners to just share any of the underutilized spaces. And there's also the availability of public parking in the vicinity, which looking at this exhibit, even I'm comfortable a five minute walk, quarter mile. There's 200 public parking spaces within that quarter mile of Diamond Head. So those are opportunities that visitors coming to Diamond Head, if by chance there is no parking on site, there is availability surrounding it that's within an easy walk. Looking at the comprehensive plan, and we're looking at the 2045 comprehensive plan. And in our narrative, we obviously have a detailed consistency analysis of the comprehensive plan, which is part of the record and part of the testimony here. Some of the identifiable policies to speak of, you know, protecting beach access, the existing public access, actually there is availability for the public to walk through the development, and which complements the public beach access that is right adjacent to us is public beach access 30. Regarding parking, again, we'll provide all the required parking within the existing areas. There's no new surface parking lots proposed with this development. The policy discourages new surface parking lots. We're committed to utilizing the valet or specially managed parking that could provide us up to 180 spaces and the opportunity for shared parking or utilizing the parking in the adjacent properties around us. Regarding FLU 1B2C5 and FLU 1B2E and Policy C1A2, we're supporting that greater intensity of the Times Square Mixed Use District and the commercial pedestrian districts which apply to the property. Again, they allow a maximum FAR of 2.5, which we're seeking around a 2.13 FAR, and providing that, encouraging the mixture of uses on the pedestrian accessibility throughout this district. Recreational open space, we are not providing any units or habitable structures within the portion of the CPD. We're wanting to maintain those existing uses, recreational uses, within this recreation open space future land use category. Spoke to floor area ratio before. FAR is the proper mechanism now to measure that. We're consistent with that. Maximum of 2.5, utilizing the plan development. Building heights, height is consistent with the prior policies and regulations, but through the comp plan, we're wanting to memorialize those under this plan development. And that added height really provides us that flexibility in design, less massing, and not creating such a walled effect that potentially could occur. Coastal setbacks structures will be located with seaward of the 78 CCCL line. We're encouraging alternatives to the car, alternative travel modes, and our traffic impact statement submitted and is found sufficient and not expected to create any undue burden on the transportation network. For the LDC CPD criteria, for all these sections identified here. Our narrative provides, again, detailed consistency for that. I could go through every one of those criteria word by word, but I believe our testimony as part of our submittal provides for that support. As mentioned before, we're looking at eight deviations. Six of those, in our opinion, are really just based on those existing conditions. We're just, again, memorializing those as part of the PD. They're associated with the reduced buffers in certain areas. We have buffer reduction for the parcel on the 1999, also regarding height. And then parcel lot size, the 1999 lot is below the minimum standard for a lot within that zoning district. So we have to seek a deviation for that. Of course, our floor area ratio, 2.13 above the zoned maximum of 1.2. and recognizing our parking analysis and incorporating that into our parking requirements.

For special benefits, public benefits,

We have a list here, maintaining the public's access to the resort, providing for those amenities, the public restrooms, et cetera, et cetera, that exist. That is an intent to maintain and enhance as needed. We do have, Diamond Head provides a discounted pool pass for locals. The Diamond Head will maintain the commitment to support the EMS and town officials for any and all emergencies. The strong partnership with the chamber and the town for any all types of events, charity, et cetera. Keeping the structure and any of the new structures, those will be hardened and resilient, providing the economic impacts, including the ad valorem taxes. And as we know, the movement of the state with the residential tax reforms, this is a commercial property, so it is not affected by that. improving the local employment and secondary impacts to the local businesses. Maintaining support of, we know that there is this drive still to have an elementary school on the beach. The commitment for the development is to seek support for that as well. The Don't Rent a Car program Alternative modes of transportation will be maintained and encouraged. And then as more and more vehicles are moving towards the electronic or electric vehicles, charging stations will be incorporated. I think you've seen this slide before. Fort Myers Beach is still well below pre-storm levels of lodging or hotel rooms, just below the 60%. It's hard to know. We don't know of any other lodging establishments coming online since then. So a lot needs to still happen. We need to get those heads in beds to support the local businesses and that cyclical nature of supporting this economy. The staff report, just to reiterate, as we read when we received it last week, the CPD with the proposed deviation indicates meets the criteria set forth under section 3485B and C and 34216.2, but they made the statement, however, with the inclusion of that portion of the recreational open space or the underlying future land use for the environmentally critical zoning. Again, we've removed that portion of our request and our opinion of that issue with staff should be resolved. There's a series of conditions. The applicant is fully aware of these stated conditions here and have no issues with committing to those. So in conclusion, it is my professional planning opinion the proposed CPD is consistent with your comprehensive plan and meets and exceeds the LDC requirements. So based on the expert testimony that you've heard today and competent and substantial evidence submitted as part of our file and presented here, we respectfully request the LPA recommend approval of the proposed CBT to Town Council. So for that, I'd be happy to answer questions. Thank you, Ken. Our team here, Neil may want to ask me some questions.

Well, I just want to make sure we're clear. So the application, the efficiency comment, and the PowerPoint and all the narratives you referenced are part of the record? Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

Anyone have questions for Ken, Ed? Any questions at the moment?

No questions.

Jim, questions?

No question, I'll just make a comment though. The slide that showed the existing hotel rooms fails to show all of the approvals that have been granted for additional hotel rooms that have not yet been built.

So which slide? The one with the blue.

Yeah, the hotel stock. You have open, closed, a deficiency that is shown on Fort Myers Beach.

Oh.

My comment is only we have approved a number of projects that have not been built that are not included there. That helps. that deficiency.

Okay. Jane, questions for Ken? I have several, but I'm going to wait until after staff addresses and, you know. Okay.

Doug, questions for Ken at the moment?

I have one. On the new proposed ten story beach side building, how many units are in that building? Proposed to be 24. 24, thank you.

Don, questions for honey? None right now, thanks. Okay. You know, I could wait for the staff, but I'm just going to tell you something that glared at me in this report. And it's in the staff report, but it is something about your application. It's referred, these 30 vested units are referred to as claimed vested units. you haven't shown us anything that validates that claim. We don't have a copy of the previous approvals from the county. So why, did you not find that a bit almost, well, beyond curious? The staff refers several times, maybe I should just ask them when it comes up. There's several references to claimed vested units, vested rights, and that's suspicious to me. It throws a flag up as if those units weren't validated in any way.

Sure. And we have provided documentation. It is in your, that the prior legal counsel has provided documentation that shows we have 154 vested units. There is acknowledgement from the documentation we do have that has been provided that says you have 154 units that are approved as part of Diamond Head.

But why isn't it in our package? I mean, that's part of the question that, you know, we need to see that proof. And also, things that are missing are all of your picture presentation. None of that is in our package. And also, the application itself is typically, did we, now do we take that out? Are we not doing that anymore? It's not.

I can't answer to the process for staff.

Probably not a fair question.

Did you provide those pictures to the staff for the packet?

Yes, ma'am. We have our full... Well, I know that they have a new system, so I don't know if that has something to do with what gets transferred to you. But we have documentation that shows all of our submittal documents, architectural renderings, et cetera, et cetera. Any documents that we have to try to answer that question about what is vested, what is approved, what's been amended, we have done our best to dig through. We've done record requests to Lee County. Nothing.

But I think, and I'm not trying to interrupt, and Neil, maybe you can assist as well. I think what our member is asking for is a copy so that we have it in the record of this proceeding.

Yeah, that's why I wanted to make sure that all the documents that he had submitted as part of the application were part of the record. Are you looking for us to submit a hard copy to the clerk?

So I don't know that the members have actually seen that. I don't know. It's probably somewhere in the system, and if there's a new system that's been implemented, it is possible that the LPA members did not receive that. So give us a moment. We need to look into that. And I appreciate your comments, and that is the genesis of the question.

I can't really talk to what's in your packet, but I can address the vested units. And I think it's a fair question. I can tell you when we started working on this case, we were contacted by Diamond Head. We, as always, did our homework, and we spent weeks scouring everything we could. We were told by staff that Fort Myers Beach has lost a lot of records and does not have records. Yes, but that was a county approval. Understood. And we reached out to Lee County and did the same, and Lee County has lost a lot of their records also. So this dates back 30 years. What we did is we then went to the attorneys that represented Diamond Head during their initial approval we've had discussions with them they have purged most of their documents as attorneys do what we do have and the best available information and staff will concur with us best available information is we have site development plans which is more the engineering approvals when projects move forward that we have included in our packet those SDP plans talk about the vested units and talk about the phasing and identify those 33 additional units that have remained unbuilt. So that is the best available information that we have found and that staff has also told us that's all they have. That's what we are going by.

Okay. Okay. If there are no other questions for the applicant at the moment, we'll move on to the staff report.

Hey, good morning. Jason Green, Community Development. I'll jump into some of the conversation we're having right now. The number is pretty clear in the county documents. I think maybe we confused the terminology that we're using in the staff report. There were units in the applicant testified to this. There were units that were built. and then removed in exchange for the restaurant and those are units that we don't have an answer for of do you get credit for those do you maintain those as vested units to to the ones that haven't been built because they were built they were removed and ultimately what they're asking for is more than the number anyway which they have a right to do through this application process so i apologize if that it wasn't a question of all of the units that are being invested it was just The number changes depending on how you perceive the original development and then what was removed in exchange for the restaurant.

Which was only three, correct?

But what they're claiming is they have a vested right to those three again. There's nothing in the original documents that say an exchange program, so to speak, and they're asking for more than that anyway.

Right, but technically, per the plan, staff's position would be there's at least 30 from the original approval. Is that right? That would have been available.

Right, that are not currently built. If you count the three that were removed, there's no disagreement with that. How do you deal with that? And there's no guidance in the code or in the original documents. Sometimes you have a trade-off. You say, we're going to have this 1,000 square feet or these three units kind of thing. There wasn't anything in there that did that. So ultimately, for us, it's not necessarily about the vested units. It's about the total package of what they're asking for, since they're asking for more than that. They're not trying to build exactly what they're claiming is vested. It's the total amount vested plus

Right, and then would the FAR still, I mean, obviously with the three units that were used for the restaurant plus even the 33 units, if it was within the FAR, it would still be approved, correct?

Right, it doesn't change the FAR because the box is the box. Exactly. What they're asking for is more than what the zoning, our zoning code allows, but under what the maximum of the future land use category allows. That's the reference to the 2.5. And that's the way this code was set up. You have certain FIR limits within zoning districts, and then you use a CPD mechanism as a way to go somewhere between that number and the 2.5 or the 1.5, depending on where you're at.

Thank you.

So yes, but to your point, there is no increase in an FIR by converting those units because it was within the same structure. Right.

Jason, do you have the document from Lee County Development Order that has the number of vested units in your package?

Yeah, I believe it's in their submittal.

Why wouldn't it have been in our package?

It didn't get in there. I can check. I was just trying to do to see how it didn't get attached, but typically we would do that. You're correct.

If we could get that before the end of.

Because a mix of that not being attached and the way the staff report is written that this is, they've claimed this, it implies that you were not able to verify that. That's what it implies.

I understand your point, and that's why the description I just gave is the difference between what they're saying is vested. There's no guidance on those other three. I'm not talking about the three.

We're talking about the 30.

I understand that, but the total number is debatable because... They had three who moved them. That was our point, and I apologize.

And that's what they, I think the term claimed is not, oh, they claim. It's they've claimed these three, right? Can I interrupt?

Mr. Lander has the document. Is there a way that we can throw it up on the screen or print it? How big a document is it?

It's the county document, I believe.

It's a big document.

I imagine. Yeah, I would imagine it's a big document. Unless you want just the.

Well, I mean, if we could just have the page. Right. Put it on the.

Ken, maybe you could work this out with Amy and Jason could proceed with his presentation.

Did you have any other questions while we try to be technical?

No, we're going to proceed with the staff report. Thank you, Neil.

So again, the request is for more than what the vested amount and what was remaining from the original approvals. And we already talked about the FAR. And so staff's review of that, going back to the original comment that I made when we opened, the concerns we had is the approach that was rezoning across the 1978 CCC online. To my knowledge, we've never done that. The town has never done that. They've never approved a rezoning past that line. It's maintained and remained as EC within the conservation area. And that was the primary objection and concern, kind of opening that Pandora's box, so to speak. And that's really more of a policy decision by you and the council whether to do that. There's an opportunity to evaluate and decide you do want to do that. But it's never been done. And it is inconsistent with the way that the recreation category is worded.

But to be clear, that's the part they removed, right? Right.

That was the part after having presented that to them and then reading it, we discussed it, and they decided to move forward with removing that as part of the request.

So not to jump to the punch line, but staff would then not be...

Everything else that's in the request is not really within our purview. It's the evaluation of whether it meets your public benefit and other components and whether you feel that it meets that criteria. Right.

Okay. Thank you. Jason. Sorry. Go ahead.

I just wanted to know if you could answer the questions, the other questions I had. Are we not putting the application in the packets now?

This one, I don't, I have to look to see why this didn't get attached.

Well, the question's going to repeat itself because it's not in any of the variances either. It's not, we don't have applicants, applications for anything.

Okay, then something happened with the attachments.

And did you guys receive the pictures prior to the package going together?

Similar to those, yes. Those renderings? Because a lot of times we say...

you know as per provided but we don't have those so i just want well so that and i actually haven't had that discussion with the applicant

There's two different, there's pictures to give you a feel for it, the concepts, and then there's under the code, you're allowed to, through the CPD process, ask for approval of the architectural design criteria. And then it's a judgment called evaluation based on the LPA and the council, whether they think they have enough information for that. And I guess I would ask for clarity from the applicant if that was their intent. They don't have to ask for that approval through this process. They can delay that to a later date.

Right. But many times we actually say we hold our approval or approval based on architectural rendering.

What's been presented.

And landscape, right? We tie a lot of times those together to say we want that to look like that.

Yes, if they're sufficient enough to give you enough detail. Right. Yes, that is the point.

I think this one's key in that they're attaching a tower to the existing building. They've clearly said it's going to look just like it did, but I think it's key to understand that.

I have one other question. It seems there's some ambiguity in the staff report regarding the 1999 parcel. Obviously, that needs to be part of the CPD because it's attached to it, but in the verbiage that's being used in the report, it questions whether or not it should be used in the FAR calculation. there's a statement that says, well, if it's one way, it's a FAR of this. However, if you exclude that, the FAR goes to this. Isn't the code clear enough to describe what should be included in the FAR? It's parking, though, right?

Yes, but we have some experience with, and Nancy talked about this with other projects, where there are parcels that were disconnected, and there's been debate years later whether they were or were not involved in the calculation. So then, for example, this, we would want to make sure these are connected forever, right, because that's the math. And so making sure that unity of title or whatever the terminology is, because what we've had in the past is a project come along and a parcel got sold off. that was part of a project, and it was part of the calculation, and then there's been years of debate whether it actually was or not, and it was a little confusing in the record. So then somebody buys that and starts to try to do more development rights entitlements to it, when really that parcel is part of something else. And we've had that a couple times happen. Yes, we have. I won't say any projects, but we've had that debate, and so I think really it's two things.

But in the presentation from the applicant, they only referred to including the parcel, which drives down the F.A.R. if you. Yes. Am I? Sorry.

Is 1999 not a parking lot? Yes. Okay. It is. Okay.

Right. But if you remove the acreage, it changes the gotcha. Okay. So there still would be, I believe, I didn't do the math, but I would believe they'd still be on a two five.

It's just a debate of how much more of the zoning district.

So that's that's kind of why that discussion came up is because we need to make sure that it's clear that we're including it, that it's forever counted towards that. Correct. And that it doesn't get sold off or get utilized in other matters. You don't necessarily want somebody coming back going. Now I've got 1.5 FAR for this parcel. and they get additional entitlements, and it ultimately would exceed what the intent was. So for that being connected and under common ownership, and again, I don't know if it's you need a title or other means, but that didn't happen in other cases.

Okay, Jason, let's reset and start over. You start your presentation.

No.

We kind of jumped right into the middle of it, and... Yeah, we kind of jumped in the middle.

That's all right. So... I was in different documents.

And that kind of summarizes it.

So obviously the application is for additional units and additional FAR. The applicant has submitted those documents, and I will confirm that, and their master concept plans to go with the request. As I mentioned, staff has reviewed that and if you look at the summary of the analysis and the applicant has talked about that, there are deviations related to site development. And really this is a, again, it's an existing development that's trying to bring forward some of those previous approvals and recognize those vested rights in some respect and request additional development. The staff report primarily was intended to focus on the EC portion of it and the concerns about rezoning past that line. As we discussed, the applicant has removed that request, and so we will ensure that the legal description related to the CPD matches those boundaries only, which I will say is a little bit of a challenge sometimes because you're splitting a parcel, and that's just the way it is in a lot of these beached front lots. So based on that, again, I'm adjusting here on the staff report because we originally was found to not be consistent with the, but if they, with the removal of that, then the project or the remaining part of the portion of the project that's in the recreation would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. And ultimately that would change the portion that we review that would change our recommendation as far as consistency.

I want to be clear on that. Yes. So with the removal of that environmental area, your staff recommendation changes from denial to something else?

Correct. But also remember the The scope in which we review it, the additional units, technically is not in that scope. That is an evaluation of LPA and the council to evaluate if their public benefit claims and what they're doing is sufficient enough to satisfy the request for additional units. We don't have a criteria to go by to evaluate that part of it.

Understood. But they're within their right for a CPD to request the additional, and this is what you said? Correct.

Correct. So that's why the summary of the analysis talks about it's technically correct with their application materials, and they have the right to ask for it, and then our major concern was the EC portion of it.

Right. Okay.

And again, are they public benefits? Are they not? That wasn't for us to evaluate. Does that make sense? Okay.

You know what? I noticed my employees point this out to me all the time. When I go, hmm, they get worried. And I notice that I do it now. No, I just, I'll ask you later. Neil, it's not your turn.

I just want to ask Mr. Green a question when you guys are done asking him questions.

Okay, no problem. Absolutely. Go ahead.

I'm sorry, was there a question?

I do. Okay.

Can I ask you now?

Sure.

Thank you. On page 41 of the staff report, you have the conditions of approval in light of your last discussion that taking out the environmentally critical areas that were consistent. So would those be the conditions that you would recommend? Yes. The ones that are listed there?

Yes.

Thank you.

Yes, page 41 has some recommended conditions of approval.

Go ahead.

No, I was done.

I was waiting for... You're waiting for questions? Yeah, if you have any questions. Your presentation is over.

Yes, we're just summarizing the end of it, and I'm confirming the conditions of approval are page 41.

Okay.

I'd be happy to discuss those if we want to tweak any of those.

So your approval, your recommendation of approval with the EC zone taken out, your recommendation of approval would be based upon whether or not we believe that the list of public benefits are valid?

Correct. We don't have a criteria to evaluate that portion of it.

Okay. Okay. Any other questions for Jason at the moment? none if they're none i'll let the public hearing begin at the public comment begin and then we'll come back to both the applicant and the um i want to do a break uh oh sure we'll do okay we're going to do a 10 minute break it's 10 23 because ken were you able to get that uh printed it's it's in it's in the process yes we submitted it to the clerk okay good we're gonna have a hard copy i just emailed it You just emailed it to us. Okay, thank you very much. We're going to be on break for ten minutes.

Thank you.

And we're going to restart the hearing.

So Madam Chair, if I could just ask for the opportunity to work with the other attorney. And let us just for the record identify what additional documents have been provided. I could do that.

Did you want to extend the break to do this? I can't read them.

O'Neill doesn't have a copy of it. Well, I can do it. And just to make sure that the record shows. So we have basically an email from Ken Gallander to Uma Sedum. It's dated July 9th of 2026. And that attached to that email is a copy of a document that's marked 94-12-024.002. And the project name on that document is Diamond Head Convention Hotel. And then also attached is a letter dated November 7th of 2000 from a Beverly Grady, who is an attorney with Retzel and Andrus. regarding the request for the extension of the development order. Also, the same number that I just read. And then there is a copy of a letter dated July 25th of 1997 to Donald Berry. from Walter McCarthy, and I'll defer to staff and the applicant to further explain, but at least we've got them identified in the record.

Yeah. For the record, I'll start, and then I'll let Ken and Jason take over. The reference of DO is Howley County, when they had jurisdiction reference development orders. as well as the Village of Estero and Bonita, when they all started after incorporation, they retained Lee County and the Lee County staff for a period of time to process applications. So that's why you would see that. And the project was really the impetus for the incorporation. So the zoning was approved by the county and some initial approvals and then jurisdictions with, but you still have the county staff. The Lee County process sheet was a normal document to track applications and information. And then Beverly would have been the person who communicated on behalf of the project and can discuss that further. And then there's a minor change. which reference the stipulations. So those are the two DO documents or official documents that are part of the county record. And it's not unusual for an attorney to communicate with the government to get confirmation about the status of approval. And it's not unusual to write letters. But that was the letter written in the due course of business, so it is a legitimate public record.

I don't have anything further to add to what our legal counsel has interpreted and what we have provided to you. Again, we have, through our documentation, my email to staff, UMA, is acknowledging we've tried. This is the documentation we were able to glean from all that effort. We believe it confirms that the project was approved for 154 units.

Well, there were two phases that were approved, evidently. And this phase two was, as I'm reading this, meant to be constructed on the 1999 parcel. True?

I don't acknowledge that.

You don't? OK. I thought it said the 30 units would be.

Because further approvals of 1999, that tract, if you go through that review process, the town down zoned us from CPD. And then it approved it for a parking lot only.

It looked like the combination of the two parcels gave you the 30 units in the one parcel. So you took 30 units from the parking lot in 1999 the right there and moved it over to the other with the way it read to me. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And a parking deck. I don't know where the parking deck was supposed to be. Don't know where the parking deck is.

I heard you kind of expressed a concern earlier, or Jason did, that we don't want someone to just sever that parcel. But I think that's why you have an ordinance that covers the entire property, and you can make that clear.

Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant at the moment?

I have a question for staff. Go right ahead. I want to make sure I'm clear on this. Your recommendation went from denial and then they changed what they did with the environmental zone and your recommendation is now approval. Is that correct?

Yes, but remember we're directed not to, we don't do the evaluation of the public benefit component that an applicant is presenting to you. and requesting the increase in units based on that factor. So we are not authorized or given authority to evaluate that essentially.

I understand that part.

So as far as consistency with the comp plan and the future land use categories, yes, as far as that. So we're kind of, we're limited in what, we can't give you an analysis of whether 30 or 40 more units Is consistent or not and whether those public benefits are sufficient enough for those additional units.

That's not well then who can Jason I mean Solely based on the public benefit issue.

This is very frustrating to me I mean, that's why we've tried to come up with a definition Yeah of public benefits for at least a couple of years now.

Yeah, we staff over the years of recommended quantitative analysis of you get this for this or this for that. Right. And we've, we're not there. So we're limited in what we can offer as far as consistency on that standpoint.

And any public benefit perceived or actual can be changed over time, right? So meaning we've enjoyed the benefit of holding LPA meetings and council meetings at Diamond Head, right? That doesn't mean that would be there forever, right, in a future storm or something. But the point is it's been a good public benefit.

benefactor we'll say you know as a business on the beach so no doubt about that right so where we leave it as that's not defined right for us and there's no criteria or points or standards or whatever for us to give you that feedback it's open to your interpretation what in that moment right of the application in this moment is you feel is beneficial

which we discuss on almost every one of these unique cases, right? Yes, we do. What is a public benefit? What's the value to you, Anita, versus me, Don, versus Doug?

Yeah. Thank you for asking. That's where we're stuck and can't go any further on that issue.

Yeah, it just stands to, I mean, it's just contrary to logic to me that if you didn't have everything you needed to say approve or deny, I mean, you had what you needed to say denied simply because of the EC section. That was clear to you, but removing that Now it's clear to you to say approve even though you don't have the criteria necessary to say approve. It doesn't make any sense to me. I think this is a big glitch for us. It's not your fault, Jason. I think this is a very big glitch, a real glitch. And it's a glitch for the public. I mean, what level of expectations? We've said this a million times. What level of expectations and comfort and security does the public have? And what level of expectations does Neil and the neighborhood group and every other developer who comes to see us have for the ability to develop their property? It's like this big vacuum. But anyhow, that was a little bit of... That's a soapbox for me. So I'm going to be quiet now, and we're going to open the public hearing. This is your time. Who would like to speak? Dawn. Dawn has a request of us.

Before she gets started, is there just an understanding for housekeeping purposes that their entire PowerPoint that you all viewed is part of the record?

Yes, Neil asked that question, and we said yes. OK, great. Thank you, Nancy. Go ahead, Dawn. Make your mic green.

Okay. I'm Dawn Currier. I'm on the board of directors of Surf Slime Association. My request, Anita, is we have got three of our owners present here who would like to cede their minutes to me on behalf of the board.

I said to Dawn early on that we have done this in the past, but only without objection from the LPA. Does anyone object to that? Okay, Dawn, so now you have nine minutes to speak. No, you have three other minutes and yourself. You have 12 minutes.

Okay, so I put the presentation. I'm not going to cover every detail because everyone can sort of read. It lets you know who's here, and we have two other of our owners who will be speaking. We would have had more owners here, but with sort of a late notice and a holiday Tuesday after a holiday weekend, we were unable to get people there here. As you flip to what is page three, that is a list of every one of the owners and our unit numbers at Surf Song Association. I'm going to talk just briefly about who we are as an organization, but I will start by saying that the association, the board of directors, and 100% of our owners object to this project as it is currently planned. Surf Song predates Diamond Head. We've been here for 45 years on this island. We were here before Diamond Head existed, and a bunch of our owners were actually part of the contingency that had some litigation and other things going on back in the 1990s. So as you think about what we're doing today, we're here for a long time, and we are an owner-occupied association, a condo. Many of us are Fort Myers Beach residents. Many of us are Florida residents. This is our home. We are not a timeshare. We are not renting out our units all the time. If we rent, it's for one month. We have very, very, very few rentals that ever occur. We are a community unto ourselves. And we are vested in Fort Myers Beach. The decisions that are being made, like this decision on this expansion, will have a longstanding impact on Fort Myers Beach, and we want to make sure that the future is protected. um you guys have made some excellent comments with respect to the fact there weren't a lot of pictures in what was provided for us to review in preparation for today's meeting so i put a few of our own pictures in here and so if you flip to what is page three you will see the highlight of the exact picture we saw the neighborhood group put up and then you see that big blue spot on the right side That is all surf song property. Our pool is sitting on the north end. That gray area is the expansion they're proposing. Our building sets to the right side of that, and we have a lot there in between. That blue property is all of what surf song is. So we are the adjacent neighbors. And I should point out that the triangle lot and then the It was tan home. That was to the directly with us 41 Pearl Street They've also put in their letter of objection and I know they were not able to be here today And the next towers below you can see we've gone through this they have shown you what those extra expansion looks like so if you flip to what is page four on the bottom and Took some pictures and the pictures may not do it justice. I maybe should have blown them up and put them in You know large size, but that is looking at what we look at today from various different views from our pool And if you look at the middle picture on the top there, imagine you can see the construction of a home. That's the one that they referenced previously. Look up from that where the sun is shining. That tower will take all of that area away, and it will be a tower about equal to what the size of that existing tower is. As you look around us, if you look to the right here, I went and took a picture down the street. That's across from where the Neptune used to be. There are no other big towers down in our part of the island. It is Diamond Head. I went over to Diamond Head. There was a few views. That is the tower down in the center. That's the tower they intend to move within several feet of our pool. So if we go to the objections, which is page five, we really have sort of a couple categories. One is the size, height, and density of the project. We see no incremental public benefit. We're not saying that Diamond Head has not provided But what they've committed to is the same thing they're already providing today. So how can that incrementally be a public benefit when it comes in particular to the height issue that you guys are being faced with that question? The impact to us as neighbors, the noise, the congestion, and then we also had questions about the prior agreements. So there's a lot of words on the bottom there regarding the objection to the size, the height, the density. If you physically would come and stand in our property, you would see that. And I think a few of you have done that and have seen that it is will be a completely different neighborhood with two tall towers, a parking structure with an elevated pool. And yes, it will, you know, it will it will be mammoth as IT IS ENTIRELY DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO OUR POOL AND TO OUR PROPERTY IN TOTAL. THERE WAS NOTES HERE THAT THE STAFF HAD PUT IN EXISTING HEIGHT DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE SAME HEIGHT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THIS IS NOT REBUILDING FROM IAN. THIS IS ALL INCREMENTAL EXPANSION THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR. And the standard in use for public benefit, again, it is our view that there is no incremental public benefit of this project. And you guys talked about the FAR ratio. I'll pass that, but I thought that was an excellent observation. We had two, which is they're including the different parcels. The math doesn't all add up my accountant and me looked at some of the math So if I flipped the next page again, it is our belief that there is not an incremental public benefit and Therefore on the height issue you guys should not allow this project to move forward There's some lack of clarity about what that occupancy rate a diamond head actually looks like we see it and 21 of our 29 units face Diamond Head. We sit on our lanais. We face Diamond Head. 21 out of 29 of us. And we look, and there is a question in our mind. How much capacity do they need? And to the point you raised earlier, you guys have already approved a bunch of projects. How does that help with hotel capacity on this island? The impact to our neighborhood, it felt like the presentation that was in the public records minimized what it means to all of us. And there's no question that the buffer and that variance they've requested about a five foot buffer. If you go back to my picture, that's the hedge. that would put everything right up right now we look at you know the back end of their parking it's a flat lot and so that is a problem the the view is being blocked by our sun we already have some of it from the north tower this would just be expanded and be a problem for us our views our views go away The elevated pool will have the impact of everything on the second and third floor is gone. We will not be able to see Sanibel in the lower levels. And the taller towers will eclipse a lot of the views for a bunch of the other units of those 21 units. So our property values will all be devalued, as will our neighbors. If I flip to the next page, noise, congestion, We already, and we brought it to the attention of Neil actually yesterday again, the special permit that Diamond Head has right now for noise, we're having problems with that. We have called. We don't have that all solved But we validated with the clerk that that permit is the still in in force and those noise levels are not in compliance today So you add all that extra pool area another 30 40 feet closer to our building. What do you think is going to happen? It's going to become even louder and so that That is there. The other thing they noted was that they're putting two king-size beds in all the rooms in the back. And so when you start doing math, again, I would just point out, it's more like they're adding 90 rooms, not 57, by the time you put this together. And finally, the previous agreements and precedents. I would just say that we had a couple owners, unfortunately, two of the owners who were party to some of those discussions with Diamond Head back in the mid-'90s actually recently passed away. So we're unable to talk with them, but we are scouring our records associated with what other documents exist in addition to what we just received. TO SEE WHAT ELSE WE CAN FIND. WE HAVE ENGAGED LEGAL COUNSEL. THEY HAD REACHED OUT TO LEAD COUNTY. THEY WERE ALSO UNABLE TO LOCATE CERTAIN OF THE DOCUMENTS. SO AGAIN, WE ARE SITTING HERE WITH A SITUATION WHERE WE THINK THAT THERE IS PERHAPS MORE TO THAT AGREEMENT AND WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND AND BEFORE YOU GUYS ACCEPT THIS, THAT IT'S VESTED UNITS, THAT TRULY THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO IT IN A NEW BUILDING. PERHAPS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT, AND I KNOW THAT WHEN WE HAD TALKED WITH NEIL OVER AT DIAMOND HEAD, HE HAD It was a direct question was, did Diamondhead decide to move from 15 down to 12 floors, or was that a decision that the court or someone else put on them? And the answer that he gave us was, that was a decision Diamondhead made. And if that's a decision they made back 30 years ago, why is it appropriate today for them to be able to allow them to build, not up, but out into a new building? I think it's a dangerous precedent, not just for us and our neighborhood, but for the whole island. So we really would like for you guys to deny and ultimately for the Fort Myers Beach Council to deny should it go there with the extra hearings. And so with that, I will stop speaking. I don't know if you have any questions for me.

We're not allowed to ask you questions, but thank you very much for the offer. Appreciate your comments, Dawn. Thanks.

Working, okay. I'm Tom Keith, I live in Unit 4E at Surfside. Tom, what was your last name? Keith, K-E-I-T-H, I've been there 16 years. And I've watched a lot of these meetings on Beach Talk Radio, and as I was outside, I didn't own a place here, And it looks to me like they have no proof that they can build this building from 30 years ago. And they say, well, it got lost, the city lost it, the county lost it, or the state lost it. You just can't come in and just make your own rules and go, well, now we'll do this. You know, we get to make up some letters, whatever. whole situation is i can't see anybody how anybody's board could vote for this thing right now with so much in the air that nobody knows the answers to so i don't see how you could vote yes or no appears to be somebody's got to go back and they have to go back and do their research and figure out what they can really build and then you add in the front building which has never been there i don't know how you get a permit to build the front building and the pool deck and then for this um Public benefit? The public benefit's there. It's a great place. We love Diamond Head restaurant, bars, the people, the staff are fabulous. But there'll be no more public benefit when you put up two more towers. Nobody will benefit from it. And then we talked about their timeshare owners. Their timeshare owners now are going to look out their building at the back of a building. My brother owns a timeshare there. He's not very happy. A lot of timeshare owners aren't happy because somebody's going to lose their view. Or you'll have to look this way to see the water instead of looking where you used to look. But in what I see here as an honest person, there's no way you people can vote for or against us today. It's impossible. There's no proof. They have proof of nothing. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Tom. Who else would like to speak? Roger?

Good morning, I guess. Still morning. My name is Roger Hamilton, and I live at 2088 Estero Boulevard, which is also Sirson. And I should start out by saying I'm not here to criticize Diamond Head. I think they're great neighbors. We do have some issues, but we're trying to work through them. uh but i am here to object to the rezoning and expansion request this is an expansion it's not a rebuild from ian so it's not rebuilding like from like they're asking for two additional high-rise towers and that those both of those will have a severe impact on our homes i'm sure most of you have visited the site as a matter of fact i've heard all of you said that you have been there And you probably walked away thinking, well, you know, this is not too bad. Maybe we can get through it. I would tell you that if you came to our property and viewed it from our side, you're going to find that your attitude, I think, would certainly change. Neil was there yesterday. We took him through a couple of units, and I think that at least opened his eyes to what our concern was. They claim these additional 33 units. Maybe they have them, maybe they don't. My question would be under what circumstances are they entitled to? Are they under the original footprint? Or could they build them just any way in any shape that they want to build them? I find that hard to believe. But just let's say for the sake of argument they are entitled to these rooms. The one thing they're not entitled to is to devalue our property. Construction of these rooms as presented and the additional tower will do just that. As I read the LDC, any requests need to be sensitive to the nearby residential uses. This does not meet that criteria. The construction of Diamond Head was the driving force for the incorporation of the town of Fort Myers back in the mid-90s. Residents at that point in time did not want high-rise condominium high-rise buildings and based upon all of the recent surveys I've seen Most of the residents still feel the same way. They do not want high-rise buildings on this island The revised LDC allows for more floors based upon public benefits being offered So you do have a way to approve this but I would tell you that if you look at the benefits they list Ask yourself if they are truly public benefits or just amenities to their business. I would suggest the latter. They should be applauded for their posting and support and their contributions to local organizations. I think that's great, but I also think that being in business for 35 years, I would look at that as just being a good corporate citizen and meeting the needs of the island. We do not want Diamond Head to fail. We want them to succeed. Many of our residents patronize that place and we're grateful for it. And I would just close in saying we are not anti-development. but rather we are pro-reasonable growth. And we would love to have the opportunity to further talk to them about this and see where we can agree. But as it stands now, I would ask that you turn down this proposal. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Roger. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? No one? Are you sure? Okay. We'll close the public comment. Okay, LPA members, questions? Yeah, thank you. Neil or?

Yeah, I'll start with rebuttal. I appreciate the concerns of the residents, but the criteria is, as the staff and Nancy outlined, in terms of consistency with the LDC and the comp plan. I didn't hear any testimony, expert or otherwise, that identified any inconsistency with the comp plan or with the LDC. I did hear people say that the public benefits don't count. They do count because while they may be doing some of them today, they're not obligated to subject to this approval, those commitments would be binding. And furthermore, if there's lack of clarity about what's required under the Rinker case and others, the regulations get construed against the government in favor of the private property, and they're still in this instance, but the applicant has demonstrated the public benefit. And so I think that while I understand that there's concern about the view, again, under case law, they're not entitled to a view over someone else's property, unless there's some kind of legal document that guarantees that, and I don't believe there is.

The only component of rebuttal to what was spoken to previously is regarding buffers. We have an existing development, existing conditions that were approved, and the buffers that are there exist. We would have to do significant site rework, eliminate parking, et cetera, et cetera. But what is critical to it is the setback. The structure proposed will meet the setback that the town requires under the CR zoning district of 20 feet. So that is not a deviation or not deviating to that. A reference to the deviations to the buffers are recognizing that we have existing conditions that are not compliant with the existing code. So we want to recognize that as part of the deviations. So again, the structures proposed will meet the by-right setbacks of 20 feet.

Thank you, Ken.

For the record, Patrick Van Ness, I took a few notes, and there's a few things I'd like to address. But as I mentioned initially when I started our presentation, this boils down to views. That's really the crux of this issue, and I'll touch upon that in a second. But let's touch upon public benefits. And Neil is not here bragging about what they've done, but I'll do a little bragging for them. I think if anybody questions benefit, we have to look at the record and what they've done for this item, especially after the storm. Not only that, they have provided benefits that other people had to put in their PD. They volunteered those. They did that without being asked. They have bikes for their guests. They have golf carts that they are providing. They have provided an open access to their resort and opened it to residents for years. They have showers and a foot wash that is available to the public. They allow people to go use the bathroom. And they've done that without even being asked. So I, too, wish we had better criteria in the code and in the comp plan when it comes to public benefit. Unfortunately, we don't. We have provided at multiple times information to staff and to council members about how a program could be administered. Jim Dunlap presented it to you guys in detail, and a lot of that information was provided from us. So I wish we had better criteria, but we don't. But I think all we have to do is look at their record and look at what they've done. Also, with regards to the vested units, your staff has explained that Notwithstanding proof or no proof, and we believe that we've provided the best available information, is we're here today asking for a PD rezone. So if you want to discount the evidence we've provided, you can. We're still here asking for the same request and it's part of the process. And we've justified that request and your staff says that we have met the criteria. So let's now address the views. And again, I understand this is a sensitive issue and people feel very strongly about their views. But again, I ask you to look at what are they entitled to? What is their right? And also, when people present their side of the story, let's look at their property also. And how do they affect the smaller buildings on the other side? Do you think any of those buildings have any views through their property? Absolutely not. They block it. It's one massive wall. So I think that we all need to be considerate of our neighbors. I understand that. But let's not lose the context of they also block their neighbors, but their neighbors have a certain right as to what their views are. And we've looked, and we've discussed that with you one on one, and we've looked at other scenarios of what we could build. If we were to build additional rooms consistent with their building and their height we would block their views completely so the alternative is what we have presented we think it's a better alternative it just it provides some of those view corridors and some light and air and blue sky again i think the alternative of building something that would be consistent with their building would be way more impactful And if we were to look at maybe taking a story off or so and being consistent with code, same thing, it would be a long mass along the entire property and would present more impact. So that's it for my rebuttal. We have met the criteria. Your staff concurs. And I just would hope that we are all considerate of other people's rights. And we look at this in context. Thank you.

Thanks, Patrick. Anything else from your team, Neal? No, ma'am. Thank you very much. Anything from you, Jason?

I'll try to clarify. Staff has said that the criteria of the things that we are responsible for reviewing. I just want to make sure that that was clear with what we talked about before.

Yeah. It's as clear as mud because it says, it says deny or approve. I mean, it, this is, this is almost like a new thing for me. I don't know why I'm looking at this differently right now, but I'm, I'll bring that up at another time. Okay. Let's see if anybody has any questions. Don, questions?

No, I don't think I have any questions.

Doug, any questions?

No, I don't have any questions.

Jane? I, I looked this over quickly. The phase two of the development, does it state anywhere whether it is supposed to be in the footprint or, or it can have a second building on the property? And I didn't see any clarification on that.

I didn't see any clarification on that.

Okay. Ken, would you agree it doesn't state that it's completely vague about that?

It is vague to that. Okay. Nor for or to that. Yeah.

So, okay. I guess I should have asked Ken earlier, but it just came to me about the parking lot across the street. You know, my understanding was that was employee parking. And is that lot connected to the property for parking and cannot be built upon or whatever in the future?

IN RELATION TO THIS APPLICATION? YES. THAT WOULD BE CLEARLY, YES, IF WE WANT TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR, THAT'S THE INTENT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE DEPICTED. THERE'S NO RESERVATION. ANYBODY CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND ASK FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SOMETHING. BUT, YES, TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR where we get in trouble is when we transfer things from one area to another so i think just making sure that it's clear that that's your intent to limit to what it is right now what the proposal is then we have to make sure the conditions say that clearly i think okay the parking calculation also um

You know, they're providing golf carts, so they're taking up parking spaces. So can they count those parking spaces that way? Because they're using the parking spaces. If nobody rents the golf carts, the golf carts are there taking up spaces.

smaller spaces, I would assume. I would defer to the applicant to explain how their parking of their... I don't know if there's a ratio or percentage of the parking lot that's reserved for golf carts.

The golf carts are not in any vehicle parking spots. They have their own designated area of where they are.

Okay.

And they're provided for guests, correct?

For guest rental. Sure.

Yes.

And the... Maybe another condition should be about the valet parking. Is that going to be to the lot across the street? Because I find the parking lot full a lot.

I'm sorry.

Valet parking, is that to the lot across the street with the employee parking, or is that On the property?

That's an operational question. The intent is to use the parking as parking. We don't really, we don't analyze that or characterize that. I think that's part of their, that could be limited. That could be a condition, I guess, in theory. But that's more of an operational thing.

Okay. Can, okay. I'll listen to if, I might have another question. Okay. Jim, questions?

No questions.

Ed, questions?

No questions.

Gosh, I can't. I don't have any questions, but Neil, I want to say something to you. There aren't many people on the island I respect as much as you do. I cannot find one single public benefit that I would qualify as a public benefit based on the conversations and, quite honestly, the commitment that the LPA made. A year and a half, Amy's gone. This summer, I asked Amy to send me all the discussions that we had on public benefit because it's such a huge gap in our planning processes right now that we have not defined it. I understand the benefit for not defining it because it lets you say yes to anything or no to anything depending on what your subjective view of it is. But I don't think that's fair to someone like you and the Sunstream organization. It's not fair to the people who live at Surf Song. It needs to be defined. But our definition, when we all talked, and you all correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the things was that it had to be perpetual in nature and dedicated solely to the public. So like a restaurant is not a public benefit. A restaurant, we defined it in contrast to amenities. It is a public benefit to have the Sunstream organization on Fort Myers Beach because you all have demonstrated that you are great corporate citizens, but that's not a criteria for me to say yes to this project. It is, you know, people have talked about the incorporation, and I was one of those people back in 1993 and 4 or whatever. who was at the County Commission hearings until after 11 o'clock at night waiting to protest that development, along with Bob and Ginny Young, who lived at Surfsong, and Sonny and Elaine, who lived at Surfsong. They were wonderful people and they were dedicated. But what Diamondhead and Sunstream effectively did in the ensuing years was bridge that gap. I was telling, who was I telling, was it you Patrick? I was telling somebody the other day when Diamond had their topping off ceremony, they invited me, David Lawrence invited me to come and sign that beam. You can't imagine the criticism I received for doing that, but it was that It was that hand reaching across the void. And it was important, and you all have done it. That doesn't allow me to approve your project. I asked you the other day, and so you all know, Don, I said, you know, Don encouraged, remember when you said, what was the case we were talking about? I don't remember what case it was right this second, but you said, we have to be willing to talk to developers about other options. And so I said to Neil, Do you have a plan B that doesn't include that tower? We didn't hear anything about that potential today. I don't know if you do or you don't. One of the scenes that you showed me was the elevated parking garage and that massing of units elevated that was just major. That was concerning to me. But that's not in front of us either. And the... It almost pains me. to vote against this project. But that is where I'm going to go because I don't feel like I have the ability to say, yes, these public benefits are the public benefits that we as an LPA have said, not a single one of them. They're all lovely things and they're all wonderful amenities of Diamond Head and they're part of what make your property wonderful. But as far as criteria for public benefits, I don't think they meet that threshold. And that's where I am on that. And that shouldn't surprise you, Patrick. I mean, I'll let you say something in a second. It just, you know, well, that's it. Dom, are you going to say something?

Yeah, I would just say, you know, I might challenge. There are a couple, right? I mean, there are public restrooms. They do allow public access. Now, I don't care about the restaurant because they benefit from that. If they made it a private restaurant, it would probably flop. Right, so I think that's maybe not, but I do think the public access, the charitable organization, some of the things that have happened, I mean, even, you know, again, the town using it, I think they are public benefits. Are they there today and do we get them Do we get anything different because of this? No, because this is the first one we've seen where it's actually an expansion, right? It's basically a hey, we had approval for a phase two and we want to do phase two. Now, I agree with you. I asked the same question when I met with Patrick originally, and that was, hey, this beachfront building, You know, it's extra. Is that is that really you know, is that really something that, you know, has to be part of this? Does that does that break the project if you don't do it? You know, I do. I always look at the alternative in these and say, OK, if you built three above parking all along there and got your 30 units, too, I think Patrick maybe made the point earlier, that's worse to me for surf song. So I feel like I want to give them some credit at least for looking for a way to preserve a view that is not entitled. I love my views, but if somebody builds in front of me because I'm across Fistero Boulevard, I lose that view. And I didn't buy that property over there. so I'm not entitled to it, right? But I do think that today there are good views, there are great views. think the two homes that were built in fact i think one of them we we saw objection to that right when it was being rebuilt because it's taller because of the the uh the building or the uh base flood i i just i guess i i don't think we're entitled to our views and i think that because there was an alternative that would have completely blocked the views i feel like the property or the property owners have at least made some accommodation to say, we respect our neighbors and we want to try to preserve some view. Now, I think because of base flood, I think because of the pool deck, I think people on the first or second floor probably still lose, you know, because of the houses there and that together, I think they lose. So I don't know how to fix it for them. But I do think there are some, you know, there are definitely some significant steps that I think were taken to try to be accommodating to the situation.

I find the beach tower kind of challenging. I think that's the 24 extra units are all in that beach tower. I'd find it easier to support the project if the beach tower wasn't part of it. If they get the extra 33 rooms in the addition, I think I'm OK with that. The beach tower, I'm sort of struggling with. And not only because it blocks Surfside's views, but it seems intrusive on the beach right there bumped up against the coastal control construction line. I just don't have a good feeling about it.

Jane, did you want to add something?

Yes. Those were both very much part of why I didn't sleep last night, but also because I'm wondering if this is a yes or no question because this is what is in front of us. Or can we say we would approve the 33 units but not the 24 units? And that's kind of where my head was too.

Well, I think it's a CPD, right? Right.

I know that they have the right, but I don't see the public benefit for the additional. Plus, I do feel it is going to be very intrusive there. And I just feel like they would be getting their 33 units or 30 units in the back building, and those other three would be in the front building so that they wouldn't be... allowed but they have used those units as restaurants. So that was their choice to convert those So that that's my thought process.

Okay, Jim Well, I'll start with the general statement and that is it is Somewhat disturbing that these applicants come in and they think that a cap on the FAR, in this case 2.5, is somehow something you're entitled to. That's the maximum. It's not what you're entitled to. You don't have to try to get to, in my opinion, with the 1999, you're at 2.4. You know, there's no motivation other than, hey, we're going to get as much as we can versus, you know, here's a good project. Here's what we need, whether it's 2.2, 1.5, or anything else. But as far as what my colleagues have said, I agree with everything I've heard so far. My analysis is sort of in the same vein. The key question is I think the 27 new units are treated in my mind a little differently than the 30 existing and the 24 or the 27 needs to meet the criteria for public benefit and I don't see the additional units with the list of which I consider most of them existing as the word incremental came up is there was nothing new there that would support a validation for the 27 new units.

Ed?

Yes. I can't support the big tower on the beach. The buffer really bothers me. I tried to envision it both when I was at Diamond Head and when I drive by and it's just too much for me. I don't think people are entitled to a view either, but they also don't deserve to have to look at that much bulk. So I can't support it.

Patrick? I am not going to let you rebut anything because it's our time to talk, but I am going to say this. You know, I think that there is an inclination to see something other than what we saw. And I don't know if it's the will of your people to ask to continue this and come back with something else, or would you like to accept a motion and go to the council with whatever it is that our motion is? Can we take a minute? Yes. Oh, sure. Take a minute. Take five. Take five. Could I ask a question? Yeah, go ahead.

Sorry, I just want to ask one question. The convention center or kind of conference room side of the hotel, I'm assuming the structure didn't support building anything there, right? Because, I mean, when you look at the arrow, like I'm looking at Google Earth, when you look at the arrow, there is kind of a footprint there that could have gone up. I'm just asking if that was considered. I never asked when we met, but...

I think I think what you're asking is we've built on top of the existing building.

Well, there's a portion of the building that's shorter, right? Where where the on the would be the north hand side where the where the where we held the council and LPA meetings. That's only, I think, three or four storey. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. But come on up.

Also, before Neil talks to you, we do have an alternative that we can show you that we've assessed. I think we've been asked, you know, you didn't present us an alternative. We can show it to you. We have to show it to you. And we'll take a few minutes and come back to you.

We've already closed the public hearing. We've already done everything. Let me hear what Neil has to say.

Just a quick question for clarity. Define the public benefit for me, please.

I mean, that is the important question that the town of Fort Myers Beach has not been willing to define.

For what we've done already, without being asked, before we've even come to this stage, we've given. We will continue to give. Another storm comes in, hopefully not. we would continue to give. We would open ourselves up again. We have nothing to hide. We've done this in the past. That is our public benefit. Nobody has touched that. We are not a private entity. We do open up our restaurants. We believe that that is a community service for us, especially when there's nothing else on Fort Myers Beach. To pride. Yes.

I had the same question.

I think you're marvelous.

What else could these people do?

Right?

That's my question about a public benefit. Exactly. If someone said, hey, given the cases we've looked at to date, could you give us some recommendations for what a public benefit would be in a project like this? I don't know what it would be. I mean, they don't have space for parking. They don't have, you know what I mean? Sorry.

Madam Chair, I did just confer with Jason Green, and I don't think he's had the opportunity to look at whatever their alternative is. Yes, I know. Okay, thank you. And then what time do you want us to come back?

We're going to say we're going to come back at 1140. Thank you. Okay, so that's 10, 14 minutes.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

So we went back and we discussed it. And I think I understand what the LPA is telling us. So if I understand this correctly, I think you were saying that the addition component is something you could support. However, the new tower is where you're getting the heartburn and the concern. So for the ownership group, the need for those units are important. That is what justifies all the other investment with the amenities. We do understand and we'd like to get clarification on that if we're reading this correctly. We would like to keep the addition for sure and it seems like that's not the concern. But we also want the additional units. So what we would want to do is move forward with our petition. However, give us an opportunity for council to come back with potentially revised drawings and see what we can do from a location or design of that additional tower. But and we'd like you guys to make your recommendation accordingly. And that would help clarify things with the understanding that the 33 units should be good with 24 is what the concern is. And our job is to go back and look at that.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

That's a new request for us. Would somebody like to take a stab at a motion? Because what Patrick is saying is, I mean, are you clear with what he's saying?

Yeah, but I also want to have that additional condition about the parking lot being attached to the condominium, to the hotel.

So, well, it is because it's part of the CPD.

Right. Okay. I just want that not to be able to be sold off or have buildable rights over there unless it's for parking.

Okay. So, um, my inclination would be to make a motion to deny and tell you why I'm denying it. I don't know if somebody else has an inclination to make them. Well, you know what? I'm just going to do this. I'm making a motion to deny the application as presented to us solely or primarily because of the. C word new structure. I don't necessarily have an objection to the units added to the existing building. I have an objection to that C word structure. But my motion would be to deny it as it is presented.

Madam Chair, can you clarify the C word structure, which criteria is that?

It doesn't meet the public benefit.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

Would you also consider adding the condition for the parking lot across the street to be attached permanently to the Diamond Head Hotel? She's denying it. I'm denying it. Oh, true. Never mind, but- I'm denying it. Should it be approved?

Yep. Well, I mean, should it be denied? So is there a second for the motion to deny? Second.

I have a question. Okay.

Yep.

There are 27 new units, but only- Actually, yeah, you should second and then have- Jane did. She did. Okay, thank you.

So there's 27 new units being proposed, but only 24 of them are in the Seward Tower. But as I understood the motion, You are adding three units, the difference between 27 and 24 to the approval.

Yeah. It's not an approval and I really don't want to reflect any number of units. I just gave an explanation why I'm making a motion to deny. My motion is to deny. It's primarily based upon the tower. I'm sure that the council, well, we have one council member here. I'm sure that the council members will listen to this and they'll see it. And I also feel certain that the Sunstream Group will discuss that in their presentation.

On the basis of just the motion. Yeah. I understand. Thank you.

Okay. So there is a motion to deny the application. I don't know why we're, we're beeping back. The motion was seconded. Is there any discussion, further discussion on the motion? Okay. My vote is yes. I support the motion. Jane? Yes. Don?

Yes.

Doug?

Yes, and I want to also add my thoughts that I'm OK with the 33 existing units or 33 new units as part of an addition. I'm struggling with the 24 units in the beach tower.

Okay. Jim? Yes. And Ed? Yes. Okay. So the motion passes unanimously. And hopefully that record will be clear for the council when they go there and understand what we were talking about. okay hopefully thank you all the documents will be included in the yes and the pictures because i think that's important okay um we are uh would yes let's go let's go on let's do hideaway or do you need a break patrick because kara stewart's here right we can move we can jump ahead of you for a minute if you want Okay, so I'm gonna let Kara jump ahead of you, okay? So we're going to move, thank you folks for taking your time out to be here today. We're going to move, Kara, your first one is Seaview, correct? Okay, so we're going to move item E up and do the variance request for VAR 202601402908 Seaview Street. This is a variance request. Are there any ex parte? Don?

No.

Doug? Jim?

None. Ed? None.

I called Sarah. I called Kara last night because I didn't understand exactly what the situation was. And that could have been resolved if we had had the applicant's application in our packet, but we didn't. So just an FYI. OK. I won't say it again, Jason, don't worry. Would you like to start, or would you like Kara to start? Kara, come on.

Kara Stewart, representing the property owner at 2908 CDU Street.

The request is, can we read the title into the record, please?

Well, of course we can because that's what we should have done to begin with. This is VAR 20260140, 2908 Seaview Street. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving, approving with conditions or denying variance 20260140 for property located at 2908 Seaview Street. Fort Myers Beach, generally identified by strap number 304624W2003M00090 to allow a staircase to encroach 1.3 feet into the required 6.5 foot side setback for this property. Provided for conflicts of law, scrivener's errors, and severability, and providing for an effective date. Go ahead, Carol.

Thank you. The request before you is for a variance, as Madam Chair had mentioned, for a staircase which is approximately six feet wide but encroaches into the side yard approximately 1.3 inches. During construction there was a problem with the elevation and the design had to be modified. Unfortunately, when the permit was originally issued, the permit identified the staircase with a return coming into the setback. The setback was displayed on the site plan showing the setback meeting to the building, not necessarily to the return of the staircase. So during construction, when the contractor had the issue, they thought they would be okay and they continued and made an adjustment to their elevation and extended the stairs. one of the items in the staff report that I would just like to also bring there was a comment that neighbor compatibility there's nothing else in the neighborhood and I could took a little bit of exception to that because right across the street I happen to have also have done variances for a property with multiple variances that entire street of Seaview I believe the majority of the properties that have received minimum use determinations Staff has recommended approval with a condition, which we have no objection to. I'm here to answer any questions you may or may not have.

Thank you, Kara. Jason or Jason, anything on this?

So again, I'll reiterate that the application itself did find at the final as-built survey that the encroachment was 1.3 feet out of whack. We recognize that. We brought that to the attention. Usually the staff would have the flexibility to be able to do an administrative variance if warranted. Unfortunately, in this case, it's over one foot, which throws out an administrative variance so that they needed to, it necessitated them coming in to request a full variance because of the additional .3 feet. But I agree with what Kara laid out in the application, or in her presentation, excuse me.

Okay. Any questions for Kara or for Jason? I have none. Thank you, Cara. We'll open the public hearing. Is anybody here to comment on Seaview? Hearing none, any other questions or comments from the LPA? If not, may I have a motion, please?

I move that we approve variance 202.601.402908, Seaview, finding that the requirement of the variance, including hardship, have been established.

I'll second.

There's a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? We need to add one condition of approval.

Yes, you're correct.

Okay, so including the conditions found in the staff report. Any other discussion? Your vote, Jim?

Aye.

Doug?

Aye.

Don? Aye. Jane? Aye. Ed?

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries unanimously. I'm just going to take care of one more, which is... I don't know why we're getting such feedback today. This is variance 202-60134 for 5654 Williams Drive. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving, approving with conditions or denying variance 20260134 for property located at 5654 Williams Drive, Fort Myers Beach, identified by strap number 284624W30020B.0440, requesting two variances from section 34-631B2A. of the land development code to reduce one, the side setback by 7.2 feet from 15 feet to 8.8 feet and two, the Western water body setback by 3.6 feet from 30 feet to 26.4 feet to allow for the construction of a habitable fourth floor, providing for conflicts of loss, Scribner's errors and severability and providing for an effective date. This is a variance. Is there any ex parte from you, Ed?

None.

How about you, Jim? None. Jane? None. Doug? None. Don? None. I'm familiar with the property and I spoke to Kara about this. Okay, Kara?

I would like to hand out a Kara Stewart for the record representing the owner at 5654 Williams. Before we start I just want to hand out one photograph because again the record unfortunately that was posted on the LPA agenda did not include any of my paperwork. So I just want to clarify a few things although staff is recommending approval just to maybe help you make some of your decisions.

Thank you Kara.

Thank you.

So before you is the photograph of the dwelling unit from the water side view, which you will see shows three skylights, one in the center that is operable that folks climb out of to get down to the deck. So we're before you today to discuss converting that area, it's approximately 392 square foot, into a fourth story and make it officially habitable and probably a little more safe at the same time. Anyway, your code, when we do a fourth story, the first step that it asks us to meet the first criteria is that the setbacks on the ground floor are increased by five feet on the sides. I think on all sides, or on the sides anyway. This property, the building exists, so I cannot meet that. That's why I'm here. The next step of the review process gives you six items that you are supposed to also be in concurrence with, one or many. We comply with four of them. So out of the six potential, we meet four of them as the structure stands today. One of those is that the setbacks on this fourth floor are increased by 10 feet. So what this structure is now doing with that fourth floor, my setback on the water body that I'm not meeting my ground floor setback five feet that we're here for you today, the actual fourth story is setback 50 feet. The requirement is that I set back 35 feet. So I have an excess of 15 feet on that side where the question arises for the variance. On the other side of the property where I'm not meeting my side yard on my ground floor, my setback to the structure is 32 feet. The requirement is 20. So again, I've set back in an additional 12 feet from what your requirement is. The water body setback is 38 feet. The requirement is 35, so I'm meeting that one. On the front, my front setback is in excess of 100 feet, so I'm way beyond the requirement. The other unique part of this parcel is I don't need to do anything to height. The building was constructed during the time that the county Was the regulatory factor so to speak that we were using their LDC. It was built high enough so essentially all we're doing is taking an existing roof line and I'm just going to demonstrate silly, but take taking it and just We're just raising we're building two knee walls on either side and then a wall along the back to install doors to get in and out of The ridge is staying the exact same way that it is today. The lot coverage on the property is also something that's worthy of noting. The existing lot coverage is only at 15.21%. As we all know, we're entitled to afford it. Not entitled, but the code allows a 40% lot coverage. So again, the structure warrants this type of a correction, say, to what's happening today. One of the other criterias that we meet is that the impervious area, our impervious is only at 42.18. So again, we're in compliance. Staff has recommended approval. I just wanted to point out the technical aspects of this to help you make your decision. And I'm here to answer any questions.

thank you Jason whichever one it is Jason Smalley senior planner with towns planning and zoning department so thank you to Kara she she laid it out I wanted to just go in and reinforce a couple points here because this is something interesting for staff we haven't had this exact example as of yet But just to put numbers to this, what we're talking about is in the height section, the overall building height section of 34, 631, and we're looking at subsection C. In this section, it gives two different options for an applicant to either raise their home or to produce a fourth floor. So everything that we're talking about comes from this section. The allowance, again, to reiterate what Kara had said, the allowance for an additional floor comes with additional setbacks. They already meet two of those setbacks. The house was designed that way. So their request is to then meet the additional five foot setbacks that would be necessary on the two sides. And what we're talking about is one of those sides is a water side. So that has already a 25-foot setback. So what she's asking for is the additional setback variance to clear from what would normally be a 25-foot setback. But to get the additional height, you have to push that side to 30, for instance. So the house itself is largely already set back that way. The requests are just to clear the difference in the five additional feet because as Kara had mentioned, the house is already developed. They can't go back and now change the walls or the lower level to meet what the requirements of this code section are today. I did want to point out that staff had done a little research here, as was pointed out in the aerials that you received. We determined that somewhere between 2005 and 2006, the upper deck portion was developed. And we believe by 2006, the stairs leading out of the skylight were developed, allowing access to that upper deck there. So this has been existing for approximately 20 years. We don't have anything specifically as far as code cases about noise or additional height, so that was not anything that was in the record. Again, the applicants do sit next to already existing homes and those homes, while they may be rebuilt in the future, are relatively low to the ground. They're sort of older existing homes. So the neighborhood compatibility is the only slight question, if only because this structure is currently measurably higher than the houses around them. I would point out that as the neighborhood redevelops, and we would expect most of the neighborhoods to redevelop, that any new homes would be elevated and much taller, just out of necessity to meet the floodplain regulations. But at this point, this house is somewhat unique in the neighborhood just based on its its more relatively recent development.

The it's not that recent, Jason.

It's been there 20 plus years, 20 years. I'm just comparing it to some of the older at all. Sure. Yeah.

Homes that 1979 ranch house. Exactly.

Exactly. We're just pointing out that this house is of a different time, of a different design, and out of necessity to meet the floodplain regulations that may not have existed in the 70s or 80s at that height, that this structure is by necessity taller than the houses in the general area around them. We have not received any notification from the neighbors that they wanted to contend with this issue. If they are here, they are welcome to speak, but staff is here for any questions or concerns that you may have.

Okay, thank you.

In the, what would be 2004, 2005, when the fourth floor was put in, was it permitted?

I can't find any evidence from 2004, 2005, but ostensibly that would have been done under the county's regulations. But in my records, I don't have anything to validate that that was legally constructed.

Go ahead. So where it says, analysis says it was compliant at the time. So it was compliant at the time when it was built in 2003 without the deck. I assume it had some kind of roof over, but not necessarily. The roof over is all new.

No. As far as we can tell, the roof was designed with some sort of either loft or some sort of storage space upstairs. Again, we don't have the layouts of the floor by floor to tell definitively, but there was some amount of space, and as Kara mentioned, approximately 392, give or take, square feet that are upstairs and usable in this little portion.

so it will be living space not just is this height inside that living space

meet our type requirement for today we don't have we don't have the original documents to establish where they are today but ostensibly when they come to permit that work upstairs we're going to have to show that it meets today's heights which would be the 30 feet plus the five feet that they are asking for as part of this request remember the additional floor is tied in with a maximum of five additional feet so right now where they are in an RS or residential single-family zoning district they would be allowed 30 feet above base flood elevation if this is approved to satisfy that additional height additional floor section it comes with five feet of additional height built into it so ostensibly they would be 35 feet and they would need to show us that their habitable space now is going to meet today's codes Karen do you want to add anything to that

When the house was constructed, I think it was 2003, I looked at the building plans. It was constructed as attic space. So it was all existing. The elevation and the height on the home was increased at the time because of the increased setbacks. The code that was enforced at that time allowed for the house to be constructed just the way it is. with increased setbacks. It was under the Lee County's Land Development Code at the time. And because of the increased setbacks on the property at that time, it allowed the additional height. The area has been used, I guess, for umpteen years. I don't really know. And it's over the course of time that this is, and we have the code now to allow it to get legitimized. When they called me, I was very frank with them and I said, this is the only way I know how to try to get this legitimized and get it correct and maybe a little more safe at this point. And I felt the two-side setbacks, because we are overcompensating on the upper levels, which was really when you all did this code, it was to increase that corridor. It's not going to be viewable from the front. You're going to see it from the rear, the photograph that I provided to you. And just as Jason said, they have to go for a building permit.

I have a question, if I may. So is the plan to enclose that deck?

No, no. In fact, in the packet are the construction drawings to do the construction, which only includes, like I mentioned, these knee walls on either side of those two. In that photograph, the skylights will become a sliding glass door, two knee walls, and then the front wall along the front. The deck stays just the way it is. Right now you have that spiral staircase up the back and or you climb through the window.

Okay, I see now.

Thank you.

Other questions for Kara or Jason? Okay, is there anyone here to speak at public comment on this project? Hearing none, does anyone feel comfortable to make a motion to approve or deny this request?

I would make a motion to approve it.

I got to go back to read what I got to say.

Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve resolution of the beach local, Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency, approving or approving with conditions, the nine variants, 202, 60, 134, for property located at 56, 54 Williams Drive, Fort Myers Beach, identified by Strat number 28, 46, 24. W30020B.000440. Thank you, Doug. Addressing two variances. With the subject to the conditions suggested by staff. I'll second that.

Thank you, gentlemen. So there's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, your vote, Doug? Aye. Don? Aye. James? Aye. Jim? Aye. Ed? I keep forgetting. Aye. And I'm an aye. Motion carries unanimously. I voted on that. I just didn't have my thing on. She always forgets. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you for moving me forward. Yeah. Thank you, Kara. Okay. Would you like to take a break for lunch or do you want to continue? How does everybody feel? Lunch. Lunch? Okay. We're going to take a break for lunch, and I think there's plenty of pizza for you all to enjoy some as well, so please join us. Okay, we're going to take a little break for lunch. How about we'll reconvene. It is 12.08. Why don't we reconvene at 12.30? Bless you. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you.

That was very good. Thank you for lunch.

Yes, thank you.

Yes. Thanks, Amy. I can't tell. It's got a red light. Does that mean we're go? Well, okay. It is 1231, and we're back, and we are going to move on with the generosity of... Ken and Patrick, we're going to dispense with these special exceptions because we have other folks sitting here in the audience. So we're going to do number C, which is SEZ20260116. This is 7702 Estero Boulevard, the Eden House Condominium Association. This is a special exception and a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving, approving with conditions or denying special exception SEZ20260116 requesting a special exception for the property located at 7702 Estero Boulevard, generally identified by strap number 034724W4 04300.00CE to redevelop a pool deck, patio, tiki hut, fencing, landscaping, and irrigation seaward of the 1978 coastal construction control line within the town's environmentally critical EC zoning district, providing for conflicts of law, Scribner's errors, and severability, and providing for an effective date. Don, any ex parte?

None.

How about you, Doug?

No, ma'am.

Jane? None. I have none. Jim?

None.

Do you have some? I said none, but I didn't have. Ed?

None.

All right. So we'll begin with the applicant. For the special exception. Are you talking about the special exception? Sort of. For Eden House? Yes, ma'am. Well, good for you. So look, I didn't even jump ahead of you. Go ahead, Ken.

Well, we thought this one was going to be saved, but that's OK. No, I didn't know it was you or I would have passed you over. At least you didn't call me Fred.

Go ahead. Go ahead, dear.

Go. Ken Galander, for the record, with the neighborhood company. I just want to kind of just lay a little very general foundation to this. Do we have our presentation?

There you go.

Ta-da. So the applicant property owner is Eden House Condominium Association. With me today is Laura Teft. She was actually the project planner. And also agents, Rockford Construction, Jason Passero. But Laura has been with our firm now for several years, and she is an experienced land use planner, zoning. I don't know if you want any further basis for that, but I am now going to just pass the baton over to Laura and this will be her presentation for you.

Thank you. Just for the record, hasn't she already been accepted as an expert? Laura, have you been accepted as an expert?

I don't think so. So tell us your qualifications, if you will.

I am a certified AICP planner. I graduated from FGCU with my master's in public administration with an environmental planning concentration.

And you're very good at contacting people and keeping up with us, which I thank you for. Well, I tell you what.

Do you want to tell them what AICP is about? I mean, that's a very prestigious designation for our planners.

I have to have four, seven years of education or of experience after my master's and then I was taking a test that was through APA, which is the American Planning Association.

So it's almost like you had to do a residency. I like it sometimes. Well, congratulations, Laura. May I have a motion to accept Laura as an expert in her field?

I'll make such a motion to accept Laura as an expert in her field.

Thank you very much, and thank you very much for the second. Any objection to that? Hearing none, you're officially an expert. Thank you.

I'm here today to present the Eden House Condominium Special Exception. The property is located at 7702 Estero Boulevard. The subject parcel is 1.6 acres, and the future land use category is medium residential and recreation and open space. The existing zoning is residential multifamily and environmentally critical. The existing use is residential and beach, and the surrounding uses are hotels, beach, and some single family and residential condominiums. Here is the location of the property. And our request is a special exception to allow like-for-like replacement and reconstruction of accessory structures and site improvements, including the pool deck, patio, tiki, fencing, landscaping, and irrigation, which are located within the environmentally critical zoning district. The condominium has been in existence for approximately 30 years. The structure was significantly damaged and is currently undergoing reconstruction and renovations from Hurricane Ian. The proposed redevelopment are the accessory structures. The reason for the special exception is they are located within the EC zoning district. special exceptions are permitted for the reconstruction and repairs of accessory structures through the land development code section 6366 and then LDC section 352 E3 reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance or to correct damage to existing structures which encroach into the EC district and their customary land accessory uses. This is a picture of the development pre-Hurricane Ian, and this is post-Ian. So what we've done here is identified the structures that were existing pre-Ian, and you can see the pre-existing Tiki hut, the fence, the pool deck, and the pavers for the patio, also the landscaping. So this is our site plan that was submitted showing the 1978 Coastal Construction Control Line. And this is a close-up so you can see the structures and accessory uses that were there pre-EN and what's proposed to be replaced. The patio deck is 955 square feet approximately. The tiki structure is eight by 12. There will be landscaping and irrigation that needs to be replaced as well. And that's all within that green area. So the reason for the request is damage caused by Hurricane Ian to accessory structures and features within the EC zoning district. The justifications is what I'm going through now. The possible effect of the special exception on surrounding properties, it's existed in Harmony for the last 30 years. It's to bring it back to its pre-EN condition and the accessories will not have an effect on the surrounding properties as they co-existed previously. The hardship, which is unique about the property, is that the property was in existence prior to the establishment of the Coastal Construction Control Line, and they have the EC zoning district now. Findings and conclusions. Whether there exists changed or conditions which make approval of the request appropriate, yes, this is due to the damage from Hurricane Ian. staff has recommended approval with conditions there's no proposed new development only replacing like for life and it complies with local state and federal regulations the request will protect conserve and preserve environmentally critical areas and natural resources the request is compatible with existing uses, will not cause damage, hazard, nuisance, or other detriment to persons or property. And the request will be in compliance with applicable zoning provisions and supplemental regulations pertaining to the uses that . The proposed condition from staff is that should the pool deck, patio, tiki hut, fencing, landscaping, and irrigation be destroyed, the approved special exception will become null and void, and new structures will be expected to be built to meet the codes at the time of review, landward of the CCCL, or they would need to apply for a new special exception. So in conclusion, we find that we're consistent with the comprehensive plan, land development code, and applicable requirements. We agree with staff report and the recommendation of approval with condition, and we respectfully request unanimous approval from the local planning agency for proposed special exception as submitted and presented.

Thank you, Laura. Any questions for Laura?

I have a question. So what's the nature of the landscaping? Is it like beach plants or lawn or what?

If they have not given a finalized plan to us at this date, that will be addressed at their DL level. Okay. Any other questions for Laura?

Thank you very much. Jason?

Good afternoon. Jason Smalley, senior planner with Towns Planning and Zoning Office. So Ms. Teft laid out the understanding of the existing conditions, her view on why it is approvable. Staff wanted to go ahead and establish some of the facts again, just to make sure that they are on the record. at this time the applicant's submittal states that the structures themselves existed as far back as the early 1980s staff can't confirm that what we can say is that as of the earliest aerials from lee county property appraiser we can establish that these structures were in existence as of 1996. The applicant, again, is requesting the ability to repair what was existing before in a like for like manner, which includes a portion of their pool deck and patio. Tiki huts, I would point out that while the applicant is showing one tiki hut to be replaced, That staff does show on the aerials that there were two tiki structures. One of them is relatively small, only about 40 or 50 square feet, what I would refer to as sort of a standing table with a tiki roof on there. The reason I'm bringing this up is just to establish that that would be a like for like condition. If the applicant chooses to do something less intense and only develop one of those, that's perfectly within their ability to choose that. But staff just wanted to ensure that the like for like replacement would include this small thatched roof table structure if they chose to build it. It would also be in compliance as long as they meet the setbacks. and it is replaced in generally the same footprint which is relatively close to the CCCL as the code section calls for that everything should be clustered as close to the 1978 CCCL as possible. Along with the tiki huts, the pool deck and the patio they are also looking to replace landscape irrigation that would have been found in that landscaping just some numbers to this the pool patio portion the portion of the pool patio which extends seaward of the 1978 is approximately 500 square feet give or take most of the area back in that EC area close to the CCCL line as mr. Ekman had alluded to his plantings and landscaping and AND ANY LANDSCAPING THAT IS DONE SEAWARD OF THE CCCL WILL HAVE TO BE DONE IN CONCURRENCE WITH CHAD AND THE TOWN'S PLANTING REGIME. THE STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS IS A OR HAS RECOMMENDED AN APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS WITH THE SINGULAR CONDITION AS MENTIONED. AND STAFF IS HERE FOR ANY CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE FOR US.

Thank you, Jason. Questions or concerns for Jason? None? Thank you very much. We'll open the public hearing. Anybody here to speak on this? close the public hearing. Any follow-up questions for the staff or the applicant?

I'll make a motion. Thank you, Jane. I make a motion to approve the special exception S-E-E-Z-2-0-2-6-0-1-1-6 for Eden House Condominium to make a like-for-like special exception to replace and reconstruct pool deck patio tiki's. Tiki Huts, fencing, landscaping, and irrigation for the multifamily accessory structure located in the environmentally critical zoning district with the one condition as written by staff.

Second.

Thank you, Jane. Thank you, Dylan. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, your vote, Jane? Aye. Don? Aye. Doug?

Aye.

Jim? Aye. Ed?

Aye.

I'm an aye. Motion carries unanimously. Congratulations. We're going to move on to Windward Passage Resort now. That is SEZ 20250125. That's 418 Estero Boulevard. A resolution of the local planning agency of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida. approving, approving with conditions or denying SEZ 20250125, a special exception for property located at 418 Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, identified by strap number 244623W103000.0010 and known as Windward Passage Resorts, to provide for reconstruction of fencing, tiki hut, shuffleboard court, a shuffleboard pad, pool, pool deck, pool equipment, irrigation, and wash off stations in the environmentally critical zoning district, providing for conflicts of law, scrivener's errors, and severability, and providing for an effective date. Any ex parte, Ed?

None.

Jim? None. Jane? None. Don?

None.

Don? None. And I have none. So we'll ask the applicant to come forward.

Good afternoon, LPA members. For the record, I'm Morgan Hyla with Davies Law on behalf of the applicant, Windward Passage Resort Condominium Association. And this is a special exception request to permit the reconstruction of accessory structures on the subject property that were destroyed as a result of Hurricane Ian. I have with me today our client representative, Sarah Walter. The subject property is located at 418 Acero Boulevard. It's currently zoned RM, environmental and critical, and designated as mixed residential and recreation on the future land use map. The work proposed under this special exception is on the portion of the subject property zoned EC and designated recreation. Here's an aerial of the subject property, and here's a close-up of that. My client is seeking to obtain a special exception approval for the reconstruction of a pool fence, shuffleboard court, pad, pool deck, pool equipment, and wash-off stations. When my client sought to permit this build back post-Ian, town staff informed them that a special exception was required because they were seaward of the 1978 postal construction setback line. all items will be in the exact location as they were prior to hurricane ian we're not proposing anything new just want to obtain approval for the build back of what was destroyed here's a another area of the property the orange line is the 1978 cccl you can see the line actually goes through the pool and those things that we're asking for a build back of our c word of that um Let's see, there's an aerial showing just the scope of the work. Again, those items are in the same location that they were previously to Ian. Staff has determined that it's consistent with the special exception approval criteria set forth in sections 3488B and 6366B of the town land development code and our recommending approval. And my client is agreeable to the condition that was mentioned by staff. We're respectfully requesting the special exception to build those things back. And we're here to have and happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Jason.

Jason Smalley, Senior Planner with the Town. So as was just mentioned, the request today is a special exception for a like-for-like replacement. Again, for the record, they are requesting to replace fencing, shuffleboard courts, and shuffleboard court pad, pool, pool deck, pool equipment, and wash-off stations that are directly adjacent to the 1978 CCCL line. Again, staff, this is an existing older community and the structures themselves only go back, the aerials for them only go back to 1998. We were able to establish that generally those structures were in the CCCL and were there as of 1998 prior to the storm. To put some numbers to this, the applicant, the area that has been developed within the CCCL area, excuse me, within the EC area, C word of the CCCL, constitutes roughly 4,600 square feet. That encompasses everything, the pool deck, the pool shell, some of the shuffleboard court and the surrounding area. So what you're being asked to approve today is roughly 4,600 square feet. Not all of that is going to be fully redeveloped. Some of that will be just paver area and will not contain structures. But the expansion is for a one-run replacement within those areas. And as was mentioned, the staff has recommended approval with one condition. Staff is here for any questions or concerns that you may have.

Thank you very much. Any questions for Jason? Hearing none, we'll open the public hearing. Is anyone here to speak on this? We'll close the public hearing. Any discussion or questions, or does someone have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve special exception SEZ20250125 for Windward Passage Resort, like for like special exception to replace and reconstruct a fencing. uh shuffleboard court shuffleboard board court pad pool pool deck pool equipment and a wash off station for the multi-family accessory structure located within the environmentally critical zoning district with one condition as stated with the staff report and with the tiki hut oh

I don't think he said tiki hut.

There's no tiki hut in this one.

I think there is.

Yeah, there is a tiki hut. I don't see it written in that little thing on my page. Well, it is written. It is here. Fencing tiki hut. I would like to add a tiki hut, please.

I'll second that. Thank you.

She's so stubborn. But it's not there. Look at that. There's nothing there. How come it's on mine? It's not there. Jane has the amended version.

Oh, you're looking at the amended version. I'm looking at that.

Dawn's looking at the real one. Yeah, I'm looking at the real one. There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on this motion? Hearing none, your vote, Jane? Aye. Don? Aye. Doug?

Aye.

Jim? Aye. Ed? Aye. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, ladies, for waiting. Okay, I'm just going to do one more. I feel bad, but you know, this other gentleman is sitting here. Okay, so this is... Not like you're sitting here.

We did it. Okay, we'll go back. No, no, let's do it. It'll be quick.

VAR 202-60053 for 3180 and 3210 Estero Boulevard. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving, approving with conditions or denying variance 202-60053 for the property located at 3180-3210 Estero Boulevard, generally identified by strap number 24. 294624W1001000150 requesting two variances from LDC sections 341174 and 34638 and table 34-32 allow an accessory structure to be located closer to Estero Boulevard than the principal building and reduce the required 25 foot street setback by 20 feet to allow a 5 foot street setback And two, reduce the required 10-foot west side setback for a waterfront lot by five feet to allow a five-foot side setback from the west property line, providing for conflicts of law, scrivener's errors, and severability, and providing for an effective date. Don, do you have any ex parte?

I do not.

How about you, Doug? No, ma'am. Jane? No. Jim? No. Ed? No. Nor do I. So is the applicant here? Come on up. And then tell Patrick and Ken that you appreciate getting on. Tell us how you feel. Go right ahead, sir.

Can you turn your mic on, sir? Oh, yes. Yes, you have to hit that. There you go.

John Carsey, Studio One Design. Nice to meet you. Here for the applicant. Nice to meet you. We are just requesting to rebuild the existing cottage that was there since the earliest we found was early 60s, the building was there. It was always the primary structure. The road of Estero Boulevard grew closer to our property than we're growing to the street. It's the same footprint, it's the same setbacks we're requesting. It's a two bedroom, one bath condo project. in the 60s there was an attached carport which made the footprint even bigger than it was now again she had purchased the property after the storm the family's been on the island since the 70s they've lost four homes in ian they bought this property hoping to house everybody in one address now instead of building back four homes So we're not asking for any new footprint. We're trying to keep it as the same way that it was. Like I say, it was probably 63, 64. We go back and find that cottage where it stands, where it stood. Okay.

Anything else?

That'll do it.

Anyone have questions for the gentleman?

It's either for the applicant or the staff. Has this been determined that it qualifies for a like for like?

It's not a like for like request. Excuse me? It's not a like for like request.

Sounded like from the presentation. He's saying he's rebuilding what he wants to rebuild. What was there?

In the same footprint but larger.

Yeah, so the special exception process is what has the like for like. The variance does not. This is being a new structure rebuild. I understand your point. It doesn't qualify as a like for like.

OK.

Yet the building is like for like. Two bedroom, single bath, same square footage, single story. And it was an elevated building even in the 60s. It was about six feet off the ground.

So how about if you all vote on it? Because the whole issue is whether or not it's final agency action. And if there's no one that requests an additional review, it would be final agency action. Right, because it's a variance. Because it's a variance. They've been granted that authority. Okay. The like for like, I think, falls with the special exceptions.

Yeah, I think so. I believe the like for like is for the special exception.

It's an accessory structure, right?

No, yes and no. It's a residence, so it's an accessory apartment is what the terminology. I wouldn't qualify it necessarily as a shed.

Why don't you make your presentation? Why don't we do that? Why not?

You asked me questions. I'll come back for more questions. Jason Green, Community Development. So the application is to replace what was a secondary residence on the property, as the applicant has just described. He has some drawings that we've included in your packet showing the setbacks and where they're measured to. There's a... revised version, there's three on page, I guess it's the next to last page, to show the setbacks. Part of that was because originally they were measuring to the foundation, but there's a bay window type structure that projects out, so they revised to show the setbacks and the measurement from there, per our discussions with them. The staff has looked at the data and the history of Lee County property appraisers. There actually isn't any reference to the secondary structure under those historical records. There are pictures that clearly show that there was a similar structure the similar location but there wasn't any confirmation of that through bedrooms and bathrooms and other separate identifiers on the property appraisers property card staff as you know we have criteria that we have to evaluate this for against excuse me under well there's two again there's two variances that you mentioned And based on our criteria, staff found that under Section 3487, that does not satisfy criteria one, two, and three. It does satisfy criteria four and five. And this is a conforming size lot to the RC zoning district. I would also like to make a note that the impervious surface is greater than what's allowed. So if you do recommend approval for this, we have included a recommended condition that they have to meet that criteria because that is not one of the variants. That was not an item requested for a variance. So basically it's an expansion of the driveway that triggers over that impervious surface area. The structure is elevated, obviously, and quite close to, proposed to be quite close to Sterling Boulevard. Did you have any questions? You look like you have questions.

Questions for Jason?

Okay. Okay. Section 341138 allows up to 850 square feet.

Yes, under an accessory apartments.

They want to build 864 square feet. Is that correct?

John, we revised that, right? I'm trying to remember.

No, wait, the only way you can speak is at the thing, but it does say here 850.

Right, because we did find something that the original building was the 852, 850, I think, that the existing footprint was.

And then one of the exhibits shows the building at 871.9 square feet. What are we being asked?

That's true.

So under the proposed guest house, there's a revision August 3rd, 26, and they've labeled that a 724 AC area.

So it's the structure with the porch.

And part of the discussion we had with John was, where do you measure square footage from, depending on the record? Is it the perimeter of the building? Is it the center of the wall? Is it interior square space? It's not really defined. So from application to application, we try to be consistent. They have measured that as 724 AC area.

So why wasn't this considered a post-disaster build back? Yeah.

Because they have to meet setbacks for post-disaster. And post-disaster is typically for a single- I think they have to.

That's the whole idea about the post-disaster. If you build it in the same location, same footprint, blah, blah, blah.

I thought it was an- And typically, it's not a single-family house. There's already a single-family house on the structure. That structure did not- Right.

But, so you can only have post-disaster build back for a single-family structure.

The second, for the primary structure, yes.

Primary structure. Right. Okay, so it's a variance. Yeah, because this is an accessory, this is an accessory unit.

It's an accessory department.

Okay. Okay, questions for, any other questions for Jason? Or for the gentleman?

Is the intent, is this for family, for rental? Do you know what their intention is?

Oh, it's a family. I can't guarantee whoever buys it next wouldn't do rentals, but this is family overflow.

And how long have they owned this property?

This property? Right after Ian was purchased. They have had houses on the island since 72.

Jason, the staff recommendation is denial on this. Based on the criteria that's required under the variance, yes.

The first item is de minimis and the minimum necessary. That's nearly impossible to prove. In other words, you could move it around and get a greater setback if you really wanted to get to it. You could shrink the size of the bucket. That's what we're bound by.

They could move the structure and make it compliant.

Closer to compliance, yes. I don't know if you could get a compliant structure, but you could get closer to compliance. Looks like it did.

Other questions for Jason or the gentleman?

If it was in addition to the main house and we attached it, we would lose that availability of that garage on the right-hand part of the home that exists right now. So that's why keeping an attached structure is better usage than an addition to the main home.

So you're saying you couldn't adjust the setbacks at all because of the access to the garage?

It would be exactly right. It would be getting tight, maybe a few feet, but otherwise it would be getting tight to the main home and losing access to a garage on the right side of the main home.

Oh, you know what? Yes. That's his old house.

If you look closely at the diagrams, you can see the outline of the existing house and the stairs and the proximity.

It's a little bit light.

But if you zoom in, you can see that.

I thought it was Jesse's. OK. There's no public here to comment on this. But the public hearing is open. No public. The public hearing is closed. Gosh darn it.

Well, conversation would be, I do recall the property being there, and it was being used for the family itself. And I feel like they should have the right to rebuild, and they aren't enlarging or expanding. And there is a hardship to get to the other garage if they would pull it in further. I'm tending to feel comfortable with giving it to them. Anybody else? Is that a motion? That was a conversation. Okay. I guess I could make a motion.

Do you all remember this property? It definitely had that building. It was Aldo Red's house. I remember it.

It was definitely there. I know. I was trying to figure out who owned it, whether it was Jesse or... No. Okay. I'd like to make a recommendation to approve the variance VAR-202-60053 at 3180 slash 31... 3210 Astero Boulevard. Oh, I'm sorry. Did I say that wrong? Yeah, 3210 Astero Boulevard. Two variances from the LDC section 34-1174 and 34-638 and table 34-3.1. I'm sorry. I can't see these days. to allow accessory structure to be located closer to Estero Boulevard than the principal's residence, and to reduce the required setback of 25 feet to a setback of 20 feet, to allow a 5-foot street setback, and to reduce the required 10-foot side setback from the waterfront lot up to 5 feet. There isn't water on that property. There is. It's beachfront. I know, but not to 5 feet.

No, it's a waterfront lot to have a wider side yard setback. So the math to get to five feet.

Waterfront lot by five feet allowing for a five foot setback from the west property line for the proposed reconstruction of an accessory structure intended to use as an accessory apartment within the residential conservation zoning district. With the condition, just one condition?

Three, proposed three.

Three conditions.

OK, is there a second for the motion?

I'll second it, just clarifying it's five feet on the front and five feet on the side. That is the actual setback.

OK. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, your vote, Jane? Aye. Don? Aye. Doug?

Aye.

Jim?

A reluctant aye. I guess I think the building could be moved back further from Estero, and it would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. But I agree with Jane. I'm looking at it mostly as a build back. So aye.

Ed?

No.

Um, yes. Motion carries a six to one, but with one dissension, you will have to take this to the town council. Okay.

Madam chair, that's a motion or a vote of five to one.

Five to one. You're absolutely correct. Cause Jim Dunlap is absent. Thank you, Amy. We'll just add Jim's vote. Um, okay. The next item on the agenda is, um, the hideaway. Oh, let's take a break. No ordinance 26, 15. Okay. CPD 202-60039, 5601 and 5607 Estero Boulevard, the Hideaway Village. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving with conditions or denying a rezoning of property. Hold on a second. Property located at 5601 and 5607 Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, generally identified as strap numbers 334624W2002040290 and 334624W200010120 from commercial resort to commercial plan development with nine deviations. to allow the redevelopment of Hideaway Village as a 30-unit boutique hotel with accessory uses, up to 3,500 square feet of restaurant commercial space, a minimum of 36 parking spaces, a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5, and other development standards as provided herein, providing for conditions of approval, providing for conflicts of law, Scribner's errors, severability, and an effective date. Any ex parte from you, Ed?

Yes, I met with the neighborhood company right here at Town Hall.

Jim?

Same, and then I did see Amy forwarded to us an email this morning that she received.

That's right. Jane? I also had a meeting with the neighborhood group. I did not see the email this morning. Doug?

Yeah, I met with Ken with the neighborhood group.

Met with the neighborhood company, did not see the email.

I have not seen the email, but I did meet with the neighborhood group, and I'm very familiar with this property. Very familiar with this property. Okay. Ken.

Good afternoon, Ken Golander for the record with the neighborhood company. First off, a little introduction, property owner, and we have owner, representative, applicant. SLATSA LLC, Mr. Kenneth Nathans, unfortunately he is north of the border and wasn't able to come down today. We do have, with the Luminio Group LLC, we have Matt Arminio here as well. Again, I'm Ken DeLander with the Neighborhood Company, also assisting on the project, Patrick, and Laura also. Apologies, Laura, for not having you up on the screen. As well, Ted Trees with TR Transportation, our architects, Chris Reyes with the JCAN group, and our civil engineer, Mike Pappas. And thank you to all them for contributing as we walk through this project over the last several months with staff. The application and basis for review. Again, this is a CPD rezoning as Nancy at the beginning of the meeting today, quasi-judicial, and our consistency must be met through the Comprehensive Plan and LDC. Our application was in this flux area prior to the 2045 adoption, but we have provided for recognition of consistency with those updated policies reflected with the old policies and compliance with the PD review and approval criteria. Regarding our competent and substantial evidence all of our application documents we have submitted those are Documented as being provided to the town and our comments and responses public comments staff reports and presentation as recognizes those being entered into the record for this project and Again, our rezoning request is for rezoning from commercial resort to CPD to allow for the redevelopment of the property with a 30-unit boutique hotel, accessory uses such as a little pantry, gift shop supporting mainly the guests, restaurant or pool area. fitness rooms, et cetera, et cetera, and the 3,500 square feet of commercial restaurant uses. Maybe hard to see, but the old Hideaway Village property as it exists is at the corner of Estero Boulevard and Lazy Way, and also it's a unique property. To the north of it is a Lewis Street. Subject property is made up of two parcels, just over .6 acres. Future land use under the current comprehensive plan is medium residential. Again, the zoning is commercial resort. The property is vacant, and to our surrounding uses, we have mainly vacant parcels, Lewis Street. We do have a few single family dwellings being currently identified as being short-term rentals. under construction yeah vacant park parcels in esteril boulevard to the south and then vacant parcels lazy way essential services mosquito control district and the currently vacant women's club property and to the west of it is also vacant So prior to Hurricane Ian, the Hideaway Village Motel is basically your classic motel lodging, more of a Jeanette-type units, basically an island staple here for quite a long time. It was made up of three buildings, 23 units. Twenty-two of those were guest units. One of those was an onsite management unit. Post-hurricane, it was complete destruction. as the ownership came to us during the feasibility, what to do, evaluating those opportunities, those options. So through our effort, it was understood and given the guidance to maintain this ideal location for a more casual family experience, like hotel, but removed from that hustle and bustle of Times Square. And it evaluated us to come up with this concept for this very small boutique hotel. As part of our process, we're always striving to do the public outreach. We did have a neighborhood open house just last week, sent out notices to our surrounding property owners. We had one They weren't necessarily a neighbor. They were representing the women's club as part of that. And just for full disclosure, Mr. Patrick Vanass actually lives in the neighborhood, so he's very familiar with what existed there prior and our efforts to work with the property owner to develop this project. So this is an aerial pre-Ian of the Hideaway Village. Some unique aspects of this, it's just one of those developments that over time and back in the day, you had multiple access points onto Estella Boulevard. You had back out parking. Again, those three buildings containing the guest units and the manager's unit. Along Lewis Street, which is the little stub street to the north there, you actually had some in right of way parking that was associated with the development there prior. And I'll go into more of that and our intent to still utilize that as a component of the development.

Ken, don't go away from this slide. Can you tell me something I thought of the other day? Does this property have any beach access, any dedicated beach access, or where would somebody who's staying there, where would they go?

Would they walk down to Flamingo? From my understanding, there is no dedicated beach access for this parcel through an easement or anything like that. a beach access point just off of Sterling.

And then there's one just right off of the one where Pat goes and watches the sunset. Exactly.

That's where Pat walks to the sunset when there's views blocked. So there's opportunities to get to the beach from there, public access. I don't think we need to dwell on this image. We just need to move forward with trying to get something back here. In current conditions, cleaned up the property and working through the process for this PD. So we are obviously in the Mid-Island area, that quiet center, as we've all come to know, which is made up of that mixture of residential. We know that there is commercial mainly along Estero Boulevard, and it's encouraged to promote some of these smaller resorts in this area. And we're wanting to achieve that through this small boutique-style hotel. Also, integrating within it a sit-down restaurant and a coffee shop, cafe components. All will be open to the public. As you can see, our property was, is a unique unique property and so we had to come up with a unique fit our building orientation setbacks to make sure we can still ensure that compatibility meeting those consistent with the code as they exist we wanted to provide for those pedestrian bicycle amenities ensuring that there's areas for shade or proper landscaping bike racks etc We wanted to also encourage pedestrian connectivity. There's no requirement for a, well obviously there's the existing pathway sidewalk along Estero Boulevard. None is provided along Lazy Way, but we wanted to provide that sidewalk so as people, we encourage those in the neighborhood to come in. They can obviously get off the road and then get onto the property. partake into the restaurant, et cetera. We want to eliminate the nonconformities, and we feel that these smaller hotel resorts are compatible to the neighborhood based on the intent of where the comprehensive plan desires these developments to occur. This is our master concept plan. The green portion obviously is the open space buffering surrounding the property. The darker green is your pedestrian connections from the public space, public right of ways onto the property. There is now only one access point onto the property and that is properly located in accordance with your code, not off of Estero Boulevard. The main access point will then either, you're able to park on site at grade parking, or you move through and go under the building for parking as well. portion of the understory area would be your jump lobby some of the back of house components one aspect that we did work with staff a very good point is ensuring that we had larger vehicle and or emergency vehicle accessibility onto the site and off before It was realized that they probably couldn't go under the building. The height of that building was around 13 feet to the ceiling. So we added another egress point onto Lewis Street there. And we are, as you can see, proposing some maintaining the parking within the Lewis Street right of way. Before, the prior development had about 11 parking spaces there. We're down to approximately five, and that was to ensure that we could provide that other egress point. And utilizing that parking within the right-of-way, it was determined through our review of city documents that there is a resolution 1820 that allows for private use of public right-of-way. Specifically, they identify for parking as long as that was existing prior to 1995. So there is a condition as part of our development that recognizes that and that we're committed to maintaining that proper permitting through the town. This is renderings. The next several slides are renderings and elevations. This is the south view. Looking down, mainly down Estero Boulevard, you can see that the majority of the building is three stories over the parking, or four stories. The pool deck area would be on the more western portion, just above the second story roof. This is a view directly from Lazy Way. The little stub out portion of the building to the left side there, that is the location of the cafe or coffee shop that would be at grade. The second story level would be, I don't know, I don't think the pointer works on video screens, but that is where the proposed restaurant would be just above the cars at grade there. This is a more direct view looking parallel or perpendicular to Estero Boulevard. This is Lewis Street. Again, that is also from Lazy Way. That is looking down Lewis Street. It's just a closer view of the cafe. We have a little patio area just offset from the coffee shop. And then just above that, in that general area, would be the main sit down, a little bit of a higher end casual restaurant. Just a close up view of the cafe. For our height, Again, zone height is from the design flood elevation plus three feet of freeboard to the midpoint of the roof. We're looking at approximately 47 feet. The actual height from grade to the top of the roof is 63 feet. And we're looking at a maximum of four stories. And this is associated with a deviation, which I can go into more detail. Later, again, we had 23 units. We're asking for seven more, but inclusive of some commercial restaurant space to complement the resort and the boutique hotel for residents and guests that can enjoy that. Florae ratio is a measure of an intensity specifically now for hotels and motels. Medium residential, which was previously mixed residential future land use, is the maximum FAR of 1.5. The LEC has yet to be updated though to eliminate the We'll call it also the equivalency ratio or the conversion of base density to hotel density, but we want to strictly look at the intensity per your comprehensive plan now. Commercial resort, however, limits that 1.5 down to 1.2. So through our analysis, what we're requesting is a 1.5 FAR. That would allow for a maximum of 41,165 square feet. Based on our conceptual schematics, our architectural, we're at 1.47, so we could just use that little flexibility for the 1.5. Transportation, the proposed request will not place an undue burden on the adjacent roadway network. Again, we are committing to a lot of the similar commitments and benefits of providing for different modes of transportation. Don't rent a car. Again, the proposed pedestrian sidewalk. that we're doing that isn't required, but we think that is a significant benefit to the public of ensuring their safety and efficiency of moving around the neighborhood. For parking, if we're applying the strict application of the LDC standards, we're looking at 72 parking spaces. As I've mentioned in the prior hearing today and for others, we've utilized an independent parking analysis. And through that analysis, utilizing the latest data, the latest applications of the appropriate manuals of parking generation, shared parking, Our peak parking demand would be 36 spaces. We are proposing 36 spaces with this current concept that we had some more spaces, as I mentioned before, within the Louis Street right-of-way, but those had to be diminished down due to ensuring we had better access, especially for emergency vehicles. Comprehensive plan, we've gone through an extensive detailed consistency analysis with our comprehensive plan. I could go through each one of these specifically, but we believe we are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff has also opined as well our consistency with the comprehensive plan. Apologize for the spelling error. As well, with the LDC and CPD criteria, we feel our application is consistent with showing that we meet those criteria with the LDC. Public special benefits, extensive list, elimination and reduction of those nonconformities, improved pedestrian and vehicular access, Rebuilding and resilient hearted and improved structure We've increased our buffers setbacks Improving the public realm enhancing the landscaping providing for the pedestrian connectivity with the added sidewalk Bringing back a small boutique to this area Etc For our deviations, spoke to this for referencing the height. Strict code is three stories. We're asking for four stories. Parking, again, utilizing our independent parking analysis. We are recognizing that parking spaces are required typically to be required on-site, but recognizing our ability to use that public opportunity for using public right-of-way for private parking. Connection separation, the buffering, that is specific to The portion where our onsite parking is adjacent to Lewis Street, you're required to have a 15 foot buffer. We're currently showing 10 feet, but we're asking for five feet. Floria ratio, again, asking for 1.5. We do have a deviation for signage, asking for, since we have potentially three different businesses, we're just asking for the opportunity to have that flexibility for those signs. I think we've talked about this too, and I think that is a very good point of before. I think we need to recognize what potentially could be built as we reference this. So based on the staff report, the nine requested deviations and the recommended conditions, staff indicated that we meet the applicable criteria and that we're consistent with the comprehensive plan. We are agreeable to all the conditions laid out for us. And in my professional opinion, the proposed CPD is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets or exceeds the LDC requirements. Based on the testimony, competent and substantial evidence submitted, presented, and on record with the town and the recommendation of approval with conditions from the town staff. We respectfully request the LPA recommend approval of the proposed CPD to town council. I would be happy to answer any questions, and I appreciate your patience walking through that.

Thank you, Ken. That was very thorough. Does anybody have any questions for Ken? Ed?

No questions.