Town Council - Regular Meeting

All right, good morning, everyone. We're going to call this meeting to order. Today is Monday, August 3rd, 2026. All council members are present, including town manager, deputy town manager, town clerk, and town attorney. If you'll please rise, we're going to take a brief moment of silence for one of our fallen islanders, and then followed by the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. If you don't know, we recently lost Brian Thomas, who was on our audit committee. His wife Dawn serves on our public safety committee. so he will be missed thank you

We thank you for being with us here today. As we begin this meeting, let us take a moment to express our gratitude for the opportunity to serve this community. We are thankful for the people of Fort Myers Beach, its residents, visitors, and all who contribute to making our island special. May we approach today's discussions with respect, understanding, and a shared commitment to make decisions that benefit everyone. Let us be grateful for the chance to work together towards a better future for our town. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Next is the approval of the final agenda. Tom, attorney, is there anything you want to say? I know there's one item that we probably are going to have to pull.

Yes, Mayor. So it's my understanding that we will be pulling the item R, which is on your administrative agenda. And that item deals with the asking you for authorization to foreclose on a lien that's had been in existence on 2815 Astera Boulevard. I've confirmed with staff that that lien has been paid, so there's no reason to move forward with that item. The other item that I have to ask for changes to the agenda is the executive session, which was announced to occur today at 1 p.m. I'm asking to cancel that and remove that from your agenda and in its place to add a proposed settlement agreement. And I will provide copies to you. Um, we're in the process of making those copies right now, um, before we get to that item. So that'll be added in place of item R no, that would, uh, under town attorney items. Yes.

Move to approve the agenda as a modified.

I've got a motion by counselor. Second by council McLean. Uh, any further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed hearing none that motion carries unanimously. Next is public comment. Yep.

I have two signed up. First is Donna Gallagher and following Donna will be Carol Stier.

Good morning.

Good morning. How are you?

Fair to partly cloudy.

I love it.

We just need to have you get up at the microphone, make sure it's turned on. There should be a little button there you can push to turn that on. Thanks, Frankie.

Hi.

My name's Donna Gallagher, and I live at 21166 Naughty Turn Drive.

Our property backs up to the church property. We are getting eaten by mosquitoes. If you look at my legs, they're eaten like crazy. So the pond behind us is stagnant. There's no movement in it. There's no anything in it. It used to get a lot of birds coming and getting fish. They cleaned up right after the hurricane, and stuff went back into the water, and there haven't been birds since. No birds. So right next to us, we have a lot that's church property that the grass was this high. I got the men, there were men mowing over on the church property. I got their attention by squirting water over the fence. And they did come and mow, but they didn't clean it up. So all the bugs, all the mosquitoes, everything's still there. Then there's the other end, there's a fence from the church and just junk is thrown back there. It's been three and a half years and it's a mess. It's just an absolute mess that we have to look at. I can't even go out of the house because I'm getting eaten by mosquitoes. I've called mosquito control and they said they come and treat it and everything, but it's not helping at all. And then I also have water that lays in front of my house because I have a manhole that's high and they were supposed to come out three, four years ago and repave it so that the water from the condos doesn't lay there. Well, they didn't repave it and the water comes off the condos and lays right in front of my house, breeding more mosquitoes. So I'm asking for something to be done, a fountain or something in the water so that it's not stagnant, so it's moving, and then to just clean up what needs to be cleaned up so I don't get eaten. I gave you pictures, so. Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you, Dawn.

Carol?

Sorry, Carol?

Is Carol not here any longer?

Carol? Is there, that's all you had signed up?

That's all I had signed up. Howie. Howie.

Hi, everybody. Welcome back. My name's Howie Hoffman. I've lived on the beach 27 years. I use Bay Oaks quite regularly, and we have these nets that were bought about two years ago, and they're supposed to be put up. I understand there might be money problems or something like that, but we have people that support the Friends of Bay Oaks that'll put up some money. but they told me because the fire station was going up, there was electricity out there, we can't do it. We have the nets, we've had them for a couple of years now. I'd like to see them put up and if you come up with a price on how much it'll be to put cement in the poles and maybe we could all raise some money together. And also we got pickleball courts there that somebody's willing to pay to have four more of them put in. And that's for without any expense to the town. I just want to see if we're going to move on that or not. And thank you all. Bye.

Thanks. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in public comment? Seeing none. We'll close public comment. Next is local achievements and recognitions. Counselor King.

Yeah, this is a tough one. You touched on it earlier, Mayor, and I'm sure there's other things going on, but with just the news that happened yesterday, I want to send out my sympathies to Don Thomas. Very stunning news and very sad news. I enjoyed Brian, I respected Brian, and I appreciated all that Brian has done for this island, as well as Don. And I just want to let them know that if we're needed, we're there for you. Please just rely on your family, your friends, your community, and let your memory sustain you.

I'd like to echo that too. Brian was one of the good guys. The amount of time and energy he spent with this town was just incredible. He was one of the guys that if I had a question or a concern, I'd call him and no matter what he was doing, where he was, he'd always call me back right away. I mean, he loved this town. So Don family, um, our hearts go out to you. And as council member King said, if you guys need anything, let us know. But it was a really sad weekend for the beach.

I would just echo those comments.

Council McLean.

I feel the same. I feel horrible. I didn't really know Brian well, but I knew him by reputation and my heart goes out to Don and the family.

Yeah, I won't restate everything again for the sake of time. I won't talk about the other things because they're not nearly as important at this time. So moving on, we got advisory committees, items, reports, and appointments. Our first is an appointment to the audit committee. We have one person, Mr. Dunlap, who has put his name in to fulfill one of the seats. Fill out your ballot and we'll get it to Nancy. Jim, you want to come up and say anything? Thanks, John.

Thank you, Mayor. Let me also take a moment, pass along our prayers and condolences to Don and the family. I'm sure as many of you, if you knew Brian, he became a friend very quickly. He served on the Charter Review Commission at my request when we were recruiting members through that. And he's the reason that my application's in today, because he called and said, we need you on audit. Would you consider it? And obviously, I did. So we are going to miss him. And because of him, he set a high bar on how to be engaged, how to be involved, and how to care about something as special as this place. So just wanted you to know that the reason that my application ends is because of Ryan. He texted me a few days ago and said, I'll support you in any way I can. But he's not here to do that. So if you have any questions for me on the application, I'm glad to answer. Mr. McLean, any questions for Jim?

No, I think he'd be a great addition.

I agree.

John?

Thanks for stepping forward. Appreciate it.

Thanks, Jim.

Thanks, Mayor.

Ready for the... Yep. Okay. Councilman King, James Dunlap. Mayor Allers for Mr. Dunlap. Councilmember List for Dunlap. Council Member McLean, Dunlap, and Vice Mayor Safford for Dunlap.

So 5-0 for Dunlap. Councilor McLean, is that your vote? Councilor Link, is that your vote?

Yes, and it's no easy one. It's just one box.

Vice Mayor Safford, is that your vote? That's my vote. Councilor King? Yes. And mine as well. Is there a motion to accept the nomination and appoint Mr. Dunlap to the Audit Committee? I'll take that motion. Motion by Councilor McLean, seconded by Vice Mayor Safford. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, that motion carries unanimously. Thank you, sir. Next is the Anchorage Advisory Committee. I don't believe Chris is here. She's not. Is there anyone from Anchorage Advisory? Earlier, Chris sent us a great detailed report to our email, so it's available for public records. Should somebody want it from the town clerk, you can simply ask for it. Thank her and everyone from the Anchorage Advisory Committee for putting in that work and sending that report. It's a good read if you have a chance to get out and read it. Next is the approval of the minutes from the town council meeting on June 1st, 2026 and the town council meeting from June 15th, 2026. Is there a motion to approve the minutes?

Excuse me. One change in it is the minutes from June 15th on page 51. Beverly Milligan is depicted as Beverly Mulligan throughout that document.

Do you need a Mulligan on that? Very good. Okay.

That's my only change. All right. Are there any other changes?

Move to approve is corrected.

Motion by Councilor King. second second by counselor any further discussion all those in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed hearing none that motion carries unanimously next is our consent agenda we have three state of emergency extensions first one is resolution 26-143 through 26-146 for the extension of local emergency tropical storm debbie The second is resolution 26-147 through 26-150 for the extension of local emergency Hurricane Helene. And the last is for the resolution 26-151 through 26-154 for the extension of local emergency Hurricane Milton. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Got a motion by Councilor King. All second. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, that motion carries unanimously. Items removed, we have nothing. That brings us to our first public hearing. The next three items on our agenda are public hearings for review of various land use requests. For the benefit of the public, please be aware that these items are quasi-judicial in nature. Our attorney will further explain.

Thank you, Mayor. On your agenda today, you have the three items. One is a variance, one is a home rule development agreement, and one is a rezoning. These items are all quasi-judicial in nature. which requires that your public hearings today comply with procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in our land development code. The quasi-judicial proceedings will be less formal than a proceeding before a circuit court, but they would be more formal than the remainder of your meeting. and we follow basic standards of due process that require certain notices, the application of the correct standards, and your decision to be made on competent substantial evidence presented to you through written documents or through oral testimony. Your responsibility is to evaluate the testimony and the information for each of these quasi-judicial items and draw a conclusion regarding whether the criteria in the Land Development Code or in state law has been satisfied. So speculation or opinions not based on competent facts cannot legally be considered by you in evaluating one of these agenda items. Testimony by professionals who have been qualified as experts in a particular area has been considered competent evidence by Florida courts, as well as testimony by neighbors and residents who have fact-based information such as minutes, surveys, engineering reports, or testimony that is based on their personal knowledge. Your decision is final. If a decision of approval is not obtained or if there is a tie vote, from a motion to approve or a motion to deny, then the matter being considered is denied unless the majority of the council members present in voting agree by motion before the next item is called to make an alternative action in lieu of the denial. Such action may be moved or seconded by any member regardless of his or her vote on the earlier motion. Um, denial of an application or a request is a denial with prejudice unless the council states otherwise. Um, if an application is denied with prejudice, no similar application for rezoning special exception or variants covering the same property or portion of the property shall be submitted for a period of 12 months. So members of the audience that are here today, if you intend to speak, please keep my comments in mind. And when you come forward, please state your name clearly for the record, whether or not you have been sworn in and your qualifications or your interest in the matter. So for purposes of efficiency, before we begin the public hearing on these three items, I would like to go ahead and dispose of a few housekeeping matters. My first question is directed to the town clerk. And I ask if all these agenda items have been properly noticed pursuant to our land development code. Yes, they have been. And at this time, if there is any town council member who has a conflict of interest that would prohibit them from voting on any one of these three items, please disclose this at this time so that we can make sure that we have a quorum present when that item comes up for review.

Councilor McLean? No conflict. Councilor Link?

No conflict.

Vice Mayor Safford? None. Councilor King? None. I do have one. It's for Agenda Item C, Ordinance 26-10 for the Silver Sands Resort. I will be recusing myself from that vote, filling out my Form 8B, and turning the meeting over to Vice Mayor Safford for that agenda item.

Okay. Thank you, Mayor. And the nature of your conflict?

I have a business agreement with TPI. Thank you.

Um, so at this time, uh, I believe it's time for the clerk to swear in anyone who is intending to give testimony on any of these three items.

And that would include public comment too. Uh, do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Okay. All parties have been sworn. Okay.

Our first quasi-judicial item is a resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach approving, approving with conditions or denying variance 20250260, requesting a variance from LDC section 34, table 34-3. for the property located at 102 Baymar Drive, generally referred to as strap number 29-46-24-W2-00155.1010 in Fort Myers Beach to reduce the required 20 foot rear setback by 7.9 feet to allow a rear setback of 12.1 feet for an enclosed access staircase extending to the second floor of a two-family residence within the residential conservation RC zoning district and providing for other clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of laws, Scrivener's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. If any town council member has had any ex parte communication to disclose, please let us know the subject discussed and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place, any correspondence that you received, or observations made of the site. Councillor Kane?

None that I recall.

Vice Mayor Safford?

I'm very familiar with the property as I resided two parcels down from it. Other than that, nothing.

Councillor Link?

I'm familiar with the property, but no ex parte.

No ex parte. I have none either. who's Jason Smalley has been qualified as an expert already by this town council based on his education and experience has been accepted as an expert in the field of land use planning and development in the town of Fort Myers Beach. Are any other individuals who would like to be qualified as an expert witness on behalf of the applicant at this time? Anyone? All right, seeing none. Jason?

Good morning, councillors, everybody in the audience. My name is Jason Smalley. I'm with the town's community development. And before you, today is a request for a variance. As the mayor has laid out, the request for the variance is to reduce the required 20-foot rear setback of the house to provide an enclosed staircase which will serve both sides of the proposed duplex. They're requesting a reduction of the 20 foot setback by 7.9 feet to provide a minimum setback to the stairs of 12.1 feet. The applicant's property exists within the RC zoning district. This is considered to be a compliant lot for size and area. The applicant's submission was reviewed by staff. There was a recommendation of denial initially given at LPA. That is the recommendation still based exclusively on the fact that this was a design choice that staff felt that the stairs could have been put somewhere else. At LPA, the outcome was 6-1, which caused it to come to you today for a review. Staff does have some boilerplate conditions of approval at the end there if you do decide to approve the recommendations here. And staff is here for any questions or concerns that you may have.

Constable McLean, any questions for staff?

JASON, ON THE DRAWINGS THAT THEY SHOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE REQUEST IS STRICTLY ABOUT THE REAR SETBACK, BUT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THIS BUILDING AS WELL. WAS THAT NOT SOMETHING THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE TOP FOUR, WHICH IS THE STAIRCASE for the top deck is 10 feet above. Is that something that doesn't require a variance?

I apologize. I haven't reviewed the height explicitly yet, but if I may make an assumption here, many people are utilizing the portion of the code section that allows for an additional 250 square feet of usage upstairs. Generally, it's associated with mechanicals or electricals. If they do have a elevator cab, and I apologize, I haven't dug into the floor plan of this one quite yet, but if they do have an elevator, for instance, the top of the cab with the mechanicals that are required by flood code to be up there rather than in the pit, oftentimes will lead people to need additional height up in that area. The code section that I'm speaking of allows for an additional 250 square feet to not be counted against your overall height. and an additional height of 10 feet is generally within what I'm seeing when you talk about a seven foot high cab, about 18 inches for the mechanicals or electricals on top of the cab, and then another separation between those electricals and mechanicals and the roof as called for by the National Electric Code and the Florida Building Code. To your point, though, no, I have not specifically looked in here, and I would defer to the applicant to see if that is exactly what they're intending to use. In this, when we're looking at this right now, what we're looking at is really just the layout, sort of the beginning point, and if they get the setbacks, we will absolutely be reviewing the height ultimately to ensure that it either meets that code section that I'm thinking of, of the additional 250 square feet, or it will need to be modified to bring it into conformity with that.

Okay, thank you.

I don't have any questions right now, thank you.

Vice Mayor Safford.

The odd shape of that lot, is that, if it would have been a normal shaped lot, would we even be here?

I think largely this is coming out from two aspects in my opinion. That's because it's a corner lot. So obviously it has more restrictive setbacks on an additional what would be considered a side setback in a normal interior lot. And then the fact that they are meeting today's code sort of pushes them into the middle of this property. So I understand that it is kind of a difficult one to lay out initially because you do have more restrictive setbacks. But people do this all the time. They know when they buy a corner lot, they're going to be a little bit more restricted, even though they're going to have a larger lot in general.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilor King? I guess mine would be just a pet peeve comment that we're here about a design choice, but isn't most everything a design choice?

I think that's a fair point, Mr. King, absolutely.

All right, thanks.

I've just got two basic questions. The first one is, you said you haven't looked at the height yet. I find that concerning that if they're here asking for something that's gonna require a variance, and you later determine that what they're proposing in their drawing doesn't meet code, they would then have to come back again and ask for a variance to the height, would they not?

Ostensibly, we would have them fix whatever problems would be at review stage.

Unless they wanted to have the design that they have, then they would have to come back and do this again. My question is why wouldn't we do that all at once under the same public hearing?

Just as a general comment about how these things lay out, a lot of times people don't want to go through the trouble of doing full-on designs, architectural or otherwise, at this point until they know that their general layout can work.

Okay. The other question is you mentioned that staff denial was based on a design choice that staff felt they could put the stairs somewhere else. Based on page 135, where would you propose they could put the stairs that wouldn't require them to have a setback because of the odd-shaped lot?

If they didn't decide to shrink the building in some respects to add the stairs instead of having usable space, they could have in theory used an interior set of stairs within the existing footprint and that wouldn't have necessitated it. Although I do admit that that probably interferes with any parking or any other uses downstairs that would be then dedicated to stairways instead.

OK, that's all I had. Thanks, Jason. Applicant, is the applicant here? No one from? OK. No. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment? Because nobody asked any questions, so I was thrown off a little bit. Is there any members of the public who would like to comment on this matter? If so, please come forward to the podium and identify yourself, provide your address, and whether you were sworn in. Any public comment? All right, seeing none, I will now close the public hearing and request a discussion or a motion from town council to approve, approve with conditions, deny with reasons, or a continuance to a time certain. Discussion? Councilor King?

I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve this with the conditions listed in the staff report.

Okay, got a motion to approve by Councilor King. Is there a second? I'll second. Seconded by Councilor Link. Discussion? Councilor McLean, any discussion?

I share your concern. I really think that there's a potential issue with the height of this. We're not asked to opine on that right now, but that's my point. And the second thing I'd say is that I think the stairs issue, from my reading into it, is it's because it goes up to the second level. If it was the first level, it would be able to have the setbacks, and I think that may be an issue we would want to look at in the LDC.

Councillor Link, any comments? No comments. Vice Mayor Saffin.

No, there's like eight lots in that area that have this weird shape to them. And it's not enough for the parallelogram lots where there were over 100, but there's right on that stretch of the sterile there. I'm very familiar with it. So I'm okay moving this forward.

All right. Councillor King, any other discussion? The only thing I have is just by looking at the drawings, it looks like it's the elevator shafts that protrude up into that extra 10 feet. Looks like there's two, one for each side, and then it looks like an open patio, which would meet the requirements that you mentioned, Jason.

So long as the required fall protection falls below the maximum height they're allowed, the 30 feet in code. Yes, absolutely.

Okay.

All right, got a motion by Councillor King, seconded by Councillor Link. There's no further discussion. Councillor King?

Aye.

Councillor Link? Aye. Councillor McLean? Aye. Vice Mayor Safford? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. That motion carries unanimously. Next is item B. This quasi-judicial agenda item is the first reading in public hearing on proposed ordinance 26-06. If approved at first reading, a second reading and final adoption hearing will be scheduled for Wednesday, September 9th, 2026, or at another time identified by town council. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach Florida approving or denying a home rule development agreement for property located at 6890 Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, Florida. Strap number 03-47-24-W1-00003.0010. owned by FMB HLLC as authorized by section 2-100 of the town's land development code and in compliance with the procedures and application and approval of development agreements with two phases of development and a request for seven deviations for the purpose of redevelopment of the property to allow restaurant, entertainment, commercial parking, and recreational use providing for terms and conditions including but not limited to the identification of the proposed use of the property, a finding of consistency with the Town of Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan, commitments and development obligations, deviations needed for development, providing for other clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of loss, scrivener's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date.

Mayor, before we get started on the merits of this particular request, the application, the town has been made aware that there are an individual on behalf of an association, Larry Gilham. I'm sorry if I mispronounced your name. He's the president of the Sand Caper Condominium Association, Inc. They have requested intervener status. if you were able to go ahead and make a determination as to whether you view them as interveners in this particular case, then we can keep a appropriate order and go through the hearing as we typically do. And there is the opportunity for the applicant to object to their request. Okay.

Well, let's hear from you first.

Absolutely. Good morning, Mayor. Megan Strayhorn for the record. I'm an attorney for the applicant. We're aware that there's an intervener request for purpose of the record. We will be objecting to their status as an intervener. However, I also would like to clarify that I believe it's a Larry Gillum individually rather than Santa Kaper as a whole. My understanding is there is a request for ten minutes.

We really should be hearing from the intervener first, making the request, and the reasons that they are setting forth, and he can clarify the status, and then, Megan, you'll have, again, the opportunity to put it on the record. Absolutely. So who is representing him?

Can you hear us? We can see you.

Can you hear us? I can hear you, and I'm online. AND I'M PRESIDENT OF THE SAN CAPER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. I'M ALSO REPRESENTING BOTH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SAN CAPER CONDOMINIUM AND ALSO TWO OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RESIDENTS THERE. AND SO I REQUEST THE INTERVENER STATUS SO THAT I CAN EXPRESS OUR CONCERNS AS DIRECT NEIGHBORS OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE IMPACT UPON OUR ASSOCIATION.

Could you please, for the record, state the names of the other two parties you're representing?

The other two parties are Jan Coyne, C-O-Y-N-E, and she's an owner in the association, and also John Tuttle, and he also is an owner, and I believe both of them are, I think both of them are also residents there. But I do represent the board of directors.

OK. Is anybody else having a hard time hearing him? I don't know if it's on our end or your end, but we're having a really hard time hearing you.

For the record, the request. Can you hear me better?

Not really.

I'm sorry to interject. However, we do want to keep a complete record. The request itself to participate as an intervener, what is your request? How many minutes would you like for your presentation?

I'd like at least five minutes for the presentation. I have delivered a document that is the essence of exactly what I will present. Fifteen copies were presented this morning and should be passed out.

So if council then can, I guess we could hear from Megan putting her objection of record and this is the document that was referenced.

Thank you, Nancy. Yes, I will reassert the objection for the record as to the intervener status. As far as, yes, thank you. for purpose of the record, reasserting the objection to the intervener status. And we would defer to you all if you all were to accept the intervener as to the timeframe permitted.

Megan, have you seen a copy of what was just handed out? Yes, sir. Thank you. I do have one, yes. Is there any questions for Megan? And Nancy, do you need an official vote from us?

I do. And the request again is for five minutes.

That's correct. Your request is for five minutes. That is correct. OK.

I'd like to make a motion to grant Mr. Gilleen intervener status.

I've got a motion by Councillor McLean.

I'll second that.

Seconded by Councillor Link. Further discussion? Councillor McLean? Aye. Councillor Link? Aye. Vice Mayor Safford? Aye.

Councillor King? Aye.

And I'm an aye as well. That motion carries unanimously. Now, you want me to go on with my spiel? If any town council member has had any ex parte communication to disclose, please let us know the subject discussed and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place, any correspondence that you received, or observations made of the site. Councilor King?

I've had a couple meetings with the neighborhood group regarding this and have received numerous emails, most in support, a few against.

Councilor Safford? Vice Mayor Safford?

Um, I'm the exact same, had a meeting a couple of weeks ago with the neighborhood company and, and, uh, the applicant, uh, comes from link.

Yes. On six 15, I met with a neighborhood group and their representatives of the property. I also received 22 emails in support and two opposed comes from McLean.

Uh, yeah, I very similar to everybody else, but I also did have a conversation with her, Mr. Gully as well.

I also met with the neighborhood group, and Megan was in that meeting as well here at Town Hall. Also had discussions with John, the owner, about this over the last couple of years as they were moving forward with it. I received the same emails that everybody else has received.

Mayor, it would be appropriate to ask the applicant's attorney if she wanted to inquire further regarding any of the disclosures that have been made.

I have no further questions now. Okay.

Who's representing the town on this Jason green or small? I guess I just say Jason. One of us. Yes.

One of us will show up. Jason green community development. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Let me go through my thing here. Come on. Nancy will not like it if I don't follow.

I'm so eager to be back.

I bet you are. Jason Green has been qualified as an expert already by this town council based on his education and experience has been accepted as an expert in the field of land use planning and development in the town of Fort Myers Beach. Are there any other individuals who would like to be qualified as an expert witness on behalf of the applicant at this time?

Yes, Mayor. We'll have two expert witnesses, both of which have been previously deemed experts in their respective fields for planning. We have Patrick Van Ness with the Neighborhood Company, and for engineering, we have Elizabeth Fountain with J.R. Evans.

Perfect. And has the property owner applicant seen a copy of the agenda backup materials from staff?

Yes, Mayor, we have. Thank you. Okay.

Jason?

Yes, Jason Green, Community Development. Thank you, Mayor. As you already described, the application is a multi-phase. It's a development agreement in front of you. And I'll turn it over to the applicant to give some more detail. But the initial first phase is essentially temporary uses, essentially with the second phase being built out of additional uses. In the request, there's also additional uses that are not depicted on the site development plan. just like a zoning district it would be allowing those uses which would require additional site plan uh updates and come back before you to revise those if those uses were going to be put on the site so if you have any questions about that later I'd be happy to answer them okay Nancy procedurally where would the intervener come in after the applicant or before the applicant

I think after. Giving the applicant the opportunity to cross-examine if they want, but the intervener doesn't really have the right to cross-examine.

Okay. Megan?

Absolutely. If I may, I'm going to move this lectern a little bit over so that I can hopefully, sorry.

Or you can move to the other one. It might be easier. Is that a design choice? I'll pop over here. Just got to push the button to turn it on. And see if this will work.

Can we have the slideshow, please? Okay. Again, for the record, my name is Megan Strayhorn. I'm an attorney for the applicant. We're here for a homeroom development agreement for the old Wyndham property. In addition to myself, as well as the expert witnesses, we also have owner representative John Callis here present as well. This is a home rule development agreement as Nancy has previously identified it is quasi judicial and it'll have to be found to be consistent with a comprehensive plan as well as land development code. The competent substantial evidence we are asking for this presentation to be included with the public record as well as the expert testimony in this case. This is a home rural development agreement essentially seeking to reestablish preexisting uses that have been located on the site with the exception of the hotel. There are two phases to the development agreement. The first phase being the immediate phase essentially. It will include a tiki barn, pole barn, with six mobile trailers providing the mobile restaurant. And then in phase two, the wave dissipation wall will be coming in, the pole barn, tiki barn structure will be finalized or made permanent, the restaurant will be permanent, as well as the addition of a pool, a lazy river, and then there's also the parking. This is not temporary. This is a home rule development agreement, although the first phase is that interim permitting phase, if you will. And it's designed as such to, in order to get something on that property as soon as possible, as quick as possible, assuming that we get an approval from you all. We come to you with a recommendation of approval from LPA. I believe there was one dissenting vote, if I recall. It was a very robust discussion at the LPA level. And the LPA recommended several either new conditions or modified conditions. So we will try and keep this as brief as possible while also providing enough background and testimony to explain the changes that have been made from LPA to here. The one condition that was not carried over from LBA, we've adopted and incorporated all of those recommended conditions. There was one condition that we will defer to you all, and that deals with the landscaping in Phase 1. So as Patrick is reviewing the Master Concept Plan, there was a discussion about including large planters in the parking area for Phase 1. We have not carried that condition over, but we will defer to you all and can explain further. We are aware of the intervener, Mr. Larry Gillum. It is my understanding, although I was not present for the conversations, but the team has made contact and have communicated with Mr. Gillum. And it is my understanding, of course, I'm sure that he will opine on this during his testimony, but it is my understanding that he made three requests of our team. We are able to accommodate one of them. but are unable to accommodate the other two. So as I understand it, there's a request for no camper parking, no camper parking overnight, which is acceptable. The second request was no dogs allowed, given the state and federal protections as well as Fort Myers Beach local ordinance regarding animals on the beach or dogs on the beach, I should say, with leeches. We're not comfortable including that provision here, although it's not going to be a dog friendly or bring your pet, but we are not comfortable including that condition. And then the third condition deals with the wave mitigation wall. I believe the request was to have the wave dissipation wall not extend to the southern boundary line, but rather fall short of it, because the wave dissipation wall precise location is going to be dictated or determined by FEMA, we're also not comfortable including any sort of condition regarding that. And from here on, I will turn it over to Patrick. He can review the background, the history, review the concept plans, and then when Patrick's finished, we will go through the development agreement and really just highlight the changes that have been made from LPA to here.

Thank you, Megan.

How do you feel today, Patrick?

I will forego talking about my emotions today and I'll jump right into it. So for the record, Patrick Van Ness, Megan did a good job introducing the project and again addressing that we had an extensive discussion at the LPA. We had a long presentation, but we also looked at the development agreement in detail. So with that understanding and that being part of the record and also understanding that we met with each of you and you've confirmed that you watched the LPA hearing and that you've already looked at your packet, we're going to make the presentation pretty quick today and we'll answer any questions you have. so um first thing that i want to say is in essence what we're asking for on this property is to re-establish the uses that used to be there except for the hotel so and we're all very familiar with the property you know it's previous home of the wyndham of the holiday inn we know what was there it was a hotel that had been there since 1960s it was loved by many it was a a go-to hangout on the south end for many residents, many annual visitors. It was family friendly and it was beloved by many. What we had there is we had the hotel use that we are not pushing forward, but we had a large pool with a pool deck area for recreation. We were asking to bring that back with a pool and lazy river in phase two. We had a restaurant, we had an outdoor tiki bar. Again, we are asking to bring that use back as a restaurant, permanent restaurant. And as you know, in phase one, the restaurant is going to be operating through trailers just because of flood zone issues once the wave dissipation wall is constructed and we've gone through fema for a map change we will then get rid of all trailers and this will be a permanent at-grade restaurant within the tiki bar so that existed before we're asking to bring that back it's also very important to note that Because I see the comments on social media. This is not a food truck park, folks. This is one permanent restaurant dedicated to this property. And again, it'll only be utilizing trailers until we get FEMA approval for a map change. We had recreational uses. We had access to the beach. We had water-oriented sports. We're asking for that use. We had beach public access. We're asking to bring that back. There was live entertainment. As you all know, they've always been good neighbors, very respectful of the folks around them. Nine o'clock, music stops. the outdoor portion entertainment ends and then the patrons are asked to leave and that's the way it occurred pre and we are self-imposing that on the property again wanting to be good neighbors so we're asking to bring that back and then with regards to Beach access, I don't know if I mentioned it, but we're going to be providing that. And we are trying to bring back the vibe that existed there. We've walked through the reasons why, at this point, the market and the conditions aren't right for a resort on this site. but we are asking to bring a commercial use that can be built quickly and that can operate quickly and hopefully before next season we are operating and there is a great tiki bar, a great hangout there for everybody on the south end of the island. So just to give you a quick reminder of what the property used to look like, you have three structures. The interior courtyard component, just to highlight, was approximately 31,000 square feet. So when we get to our site plan, our entire rec entertainment area that we're asking for is roughly 32,000 square feet. So again, very similar to what was there before. One of the things also that we have, and if you look here surrounding the buildings on all sides except for the beach, we had parking. Just important to point out that there used to be over 200 parking spaces there. Without the valet parking where top left corner that used to be tennis courts, they used to valet that when it was busy in season, they could easily get over 200 spots. But without the valet, approximately 200 spots. We are asking for parking associated with this venue. We know the parking issue has come up. We discussed it at length, but I just want to point out again, that was an existing use. It wasn't controlled nearly as much as we're going to control it moving forward, and it wasn't buffered nearly as much as this is going to be buffered moving forward. This is just to show exactly where the property is located to highlight the fact that this is a very large property, 11.2 acres. It stems from Estero Boulevard all the way to the Gulf. The development area, which is from Estero to the CCCL, is highlighted in this blue color, and that's approximately four acres. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to touch upon the site plan changes that we've made, and then Megan's going to take over, walk through the development agreement, and highlight all the verbiage changes that have been made. As mentioned, all the recommendations from the LPA have been incorporated. We're happy to do so. The only one was associated with landscape islands and the planters we don't know if that's really pragmatic practical and we defer to you on that so with the site plan starting at the northern part of the property we are When we went to the LPA, we depicted that multi-use pathway beach access, but it ended at the CCCL line. We were asked to just show it extending towards the beach just to depict the fact that we are providing access all the way to the beach, all the way to the water. So we've happily done so. That was always the intent. We were also asked to depict the fact that when you come in the two access points to pave those access points the parking lot if you recall we're asking for The use of stone or crushed shell That increases our pervious area. We see it as a benefit. However, we want a smooth transition from that rock to to Estero Boulevard, so we've paved those areas, so we show the aprons at both access points. So those were the only changes on the phase one site plan. On the phase two site plan, again, we carry forward this extended pathway to the beach. The aprons are there. And we have changed one of the notations associated with the wave dissipation wall. Previously at the LPA and possibly in your packet right now, it showed approximately 20 feet from the CCCL. The engineers have looked at that. They told us that we will not be deciding that. FEMA will be deciding where that wall is located. So we've changed that and we show it as to be determined. One more thing to point out, the southern access point, again, both access points existed prior to IAN. Those are the same access points that we are showing here today. In our initial application and at the LPA, we were offering a write out only. on that southern access point one of the council members when we met with you all suggested that maybe we keep it exactly as it was before allow it to be ingress egress we are perfectly all right with that and the arrow instead of being a just a unidirectional arrow is now bi-directional showing you know ingress and egress also so those are the only changes that we have made on our site plan. The other questions that we had and we thought you'd be curious about also is what's this Tiki Hut venue going to look like? and what we did at the lpa and and it was also to clarify it is going to be a pole barn metal structure but we wanted to show that it can be very attractive it can be basically decorated in such a way to make it look like a tiki hut to make it look very tropical so this is what used to be there the pre hurricane it was a pole barn it was a metal structure but as you can see in the interior it was made to look very tropical very beachy here's another picture of what it used to be the intent is to bring that look and feel back also once it's converted to a to include a restaurant inside what can that look like so we also provided an example this is a backyard social in Fort Myers some of you may have been there it's a large pole barn it's not going to look like this on the exterior but it just to kind of show you the size and what can be done so They've included interior walls, so when you look at this picture, the wall you see is interior to the pole barn. They've enclosed some of that space, and obviously they've decorated that. It's a lot more of a Nervin look than what we're going to be going for, but it just goes to show you that we can enclose it, we can have some walls in there, and we can make it look very attractive. So this is another picture of what Backyard Social looks on the inside. And then we worked with our client. He's got some engineers, and I just want to put a little caveat out there. Our architects did not design this. These are renderings from engineers, so they tend to be a little more basic than we typically put together. But what we do want to depict is the look and feel of what's going to be there so as you can see it's going to be a relatively large structure with a lot of seating we are going to add some landscaping to make it look attractive welcoming it's going to have a direct view of the beach and what you see a bit in the background is where in the first phase we're going to have those trailers for the restaurant for the bathrooms So this is a slightly different view looking from north to south. And a few things to depict here, the substrate for the parking rock for pervious area. As we mentioned in the first phase, we're not going to have wheel stops for every every parking space we're going to use a rope and bullard system and that is depicted here i think the the ropes are actually going to have a little more uh give to them they're not going to be straight line like that but again the engineers do that not the architects And then we are depicting that we are gonna have bike racks for bicycles and promoting the pad and bike use rather than everybody driving their cars. We have the multi-use path that we see here. And if you look at where the trailers are, again, this is not perfectly accurate, but the idea is we are going to have some movable, these seem permanent to me, but they're going to be movable planters or walls with greenery that will make the trailer area more attractive, that will shield those areas. The attempt was to depict that screening, but obviously they're going to have to be movable and we have to allow the trailers to be able to get onsite and offsite easily in case of a hurricane evacuation. Next two slides just give you an overall perspective from an aerial and a few things to point out is in this first phase, the areas of green that are a little more of a camel green, those are depressed water retention areas. As many of you may know, that parking area before for the Wyndham had no water management system. We are going to upgrade that and make sure that we secure our water on site. There's going to be depressed areas to capture the water, treat the water. Also, what's important that we want to depict is we in phase one are asking for terminal islands at the end of the parking aisles. We are not asking in the first phase to provide all the required landscape islands. And the reason for that is that as we get to phase two, we might have to tear things up and it's a shame to do it all over again. So we're asking for landscape islands on the ends. That will delineate the parking areas and they're gonna be there for safety. One of the things that we were asked, we were asking for just putting a hedge in there with some mulch. We were asked to add trees. We have added palm trees to each of those. Also, we were asked, well, instead of just doing a hedge with mulch, would you guys think of using planters? And we're not opposed to putting planters. We're just thinking that planters to really be effective in delineating the parking aisles would have to be pretty large. And the thought is, if someone in the parking lot clips a hedge, they might get a scratch to their car. If they clip a planter, it's a whole different story. Again, those planters would have to be movable. We have rock as a substrate, not that easy to move things around with rock, so we still believe that just a hedge with some mulch and the trees that we've added should be sufficient for delineating those parking aisles. So, as we mentioned, everything we've been asked to do, we've incorporated. That's the only one that is up for discussion, and we'd like your input on that one.

Patrick, before I move on, just a quick thing I noticed here. From phase one to phase two, it looks like you're cutting off the beach access on the south side of the property? In phase one, it looks like it goes all the way back to the property line, but in phase two, it looks like it ends at where the lazy river or the front of the building starts. Is that just the design?

So the beach access is really the multi-use pathway on the north side. The other one is a sidewalk, regular sidewalk, connecting, basically providing access from Estero to the venue. People... people can take the sidewalk up to the venue, and then if they want to navigate around the lazy river in the pool, they certainly can, or they can use the other dedicated beach access.

So it was intentional, that's all I was trying to get at.

Yeah, correct. So a few other things to point out here. We've got the little kiosk at the guard gate, so we are going to have an attendant on site. This is for phase one. Phase two is going to look a little different. All the green space on the south end, that's going to be converted as part of phase two where we would have this joint parking area that we discussed at length. I'm not going to go into those details, but it would be completely controlled, access restricted, used by valet only. and it would be well buffered. Again, if you have any questions, happy to go into that. But for now, we, you know, just want to highlight that phase two is going to look a little different.

Hold on a second. And you've got trees where that you were going to be adding in phase to those separations. Why are the trees there but not

the delineation that's going to be there in phase two the the trees are there just because again we had some engineers remotely leave trees there there are trees on site today um this is not a perfect depiction just a concept okay so i'm going to quickly go over some of the public benefits and the amenities being provided i want to highlight first of all that we are not asking for any additional height any additional density any additional intensity therefore we have no requirement for public benefit um if if you guys recall when you go to the comp plan and it clearly states that if you want to ask for additional hide more more density more intensity you need to provide public benefit that is not a requirement from us but we are happy to do so the applicant has already provided some of that benefit through the years they want to keep doing it and we were asked to commit to other things that we are happy to commit to so quickly go through those so we are providing the beach access that property was always used for beach access it wasn't a dedicated public beach asset access but we're happy to do so we are providing public restrooms so restrooms can be used for the patrons of the site but they're open to the public We are limiting the commercial uses to the uses that are presented in the development agreement. We are maintaining view sheds and view corridors. Obviously, we're going to have landscaping. We're going to have a large tiki structure, but we are not asking for additional height. We are not asking to cover the site with structures. Therefore, there's going to be plenty of Views view sheds for the neighboring properties We have committed to use Florida friendly landscaping. We have voluntarily limited our hours of operation We are providing bike parking golf cart parking. We're improving your stormwater management We are providing emergency access to the beach. So we know a lot of beach goers in that area the parking lot is designed in such a way where emergency vehicles can use the parking lot and can get right to the sand where the pathway is so the multi-use pathway is going to be paved but right adjacent to it for an extra 10 feet we're going to have stabilized subgrade so if a truck does have to go all the way to the beach they can use that pathway area WHEN IT COMES TO POST-HURRICANE STAGING AND RECOVERY, GOD FORBID, WE HAVE ANOTHER STORM. THERE'S SUFFICIENT PARKING LOT TO BE USED FOR STAGING AND RECOVERY. WE'VE COMMITTED TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. A very important commitment is to build that wave dissipation wall. I think this can be a great pilot project for the island. This might be the first project that can get it done and built. I think it can be done in very exemplary manner where it's going to be attractive, it's not going to be obstructive. We do have our engineer here, Elizabeth Fountain, if we need to discuss the design details, but we think this is a benefit not just for the property, but also for other properties behind us. It's designed in such a way where it should not have any impacts to our neighbors. Scouring is one of those concerns. It's also a concern for the agencies. It's also a concern for the engineers, and they design accordingly, and the agencies review accordingly, and they have to demonstrate that their designs will not adversely impact adjacent properties. So we feel that from an engineering standpoint, there are engineering principles in place to protect adjacent properties and this will be done according to best practices. One last thing that I'd like to highlight in light of all the discussions that we've had in the last few weeks and that you will be having moving forward this is a commercial use it is not subject to any kind of residential taxation reform therefore this is going to be on the books it's going to help the tax base So with that said, I'm going to turn things over to Megan. She's going to walk you through the language in the development agreement. And we've highlighted every section in red that we've made changes to. And once we're done with that, if you have any questions, I'm available.

Just a quick question on your type F buffer. If no buffer was required and you're putting a 10 to 20 foot in, why wouldn't you consider that a public benefit? or why would you not list that as a public benefit?

At least to the neighbors. I think if I didn't put it as a benefit, it was just an omission on our part, but we are exceeding the buffering. So you're correct where our parking lot meets the adjacent parking lots. There are no buffering requirements whatsoever. We are putting enhanced buffers on both the east, on the south, and the north.

And prior to Ian, were there buffers there before? I don't remember.

There were some buffers, but there was some fencing also, but it wasn't kind of a structured landscape buffer. It was existing trees. One of the things to highlight also, given that you're bringing it up and giving me that opportunity, is our neighbors did ask us to put a fence We're happy to do so. I think their concern was we appreciate the buffering, but we want to make sure that no one goes through the buffer and goes down to our property. So our buffers do include a fence both on the north side and the south side.

I've got a question, if you don't mind. So you were mentioning about the buffers, and I guess I'm a little bit confused because two of the deviations being requested are specifically around reducing the buffer size from what would be

Yes, it's not completely accurate. So our buffers on the, so buffers are always related to what the adjacent use is. So we've got a large property, closer to Estero, the adjacent use is parking lot. So it's parking lot to parking lot. Code requires no buffer, okay? Same thing on the south, parking lot to parking lot, that segment, no buffer. however where we've got our commercial use our tiki restaurant venue adjacent to multi-family there is a buffer requirement we have the option of either putting a 30-foot buffer with a wall or fence or doing a 15 no putting a 30-foot buffer without a wall or fence or doing a 15-foot buffer with a wall or fence The wider buffer without the wall has less landscaping. The 15 foot buffer without the wall has more landscaping. So what we are asking to do, part of our deviation is marry both of those. So we provide the wall and we provide the enhanced landscaping, but in just a narrower buffer width.

So if I understand correctly, where the parking lot would be, there would not be any requirement that deviation is strictly for adjacent to the commercial pole barn area? Correct. Okay, thank you.

Okay, if there's no other questions, I'll turn. I have some questions for you.

Yeah, go ahead. And maybe this is in the next piece that Megan is going to do, but I'm looking at the conditions that the LPA gave you, and I don't see that all of them were addressed.

Is there a reason? We are going to go through them one by one. If we've missed something, happy to go through it with you. I thought we covered everything. But if we've missed something, we'll address it, no problem. We'll catch it later.

Thank you. Thanks. Go ahead, John.

So Patrick, previously the primary use for this was obviously a resort. Yes. Right? And now there are scenes that although we're keeping the zoning the same, there's only accessory uses or the primary use could be argued as a parking lot. My question to you is strictly for the commercial use on the property, how much parking would be required, because my concern, obviously, where this is coming from is a person that parks at a resort would tend to stay there for days at a time, whereas the usage that we're considering right now is going to be very transient, and I'm concerned about the impact of the traffic on the south side, quite frankly. people that will be visiting this venue now will have a very different stay pattern than they previously had. So although there may have been 200 parking spaces before, how many are actually needed strictly for the restaurant?

Hold that thought. Yeah, we're going to take a 10-minute break. We just had a power blip, and I don't know that we're online for everybody to be able to see it. So we'll take a 10-minute recess. We'll come back at 1025.

Thank you. Thank you.

might have jumped the gun he's giving he's giving me a finger all right we're going to call this meeting We're going to call this meeting back to order. It is 1022. Where did we leave off?

Patrick, you were going to say something. Yes. I was asked a question regarding the parking. Correct. Mr. McLean was identifying that the uses are somewhat different than they were before from a resort to a restaurant and restaurant bar venue with rec entertainment. So just... I will definitely address your parking issue, just to clarify this notion of accessory uses versus primary uses. Yes, it used to be a resort, and the amenities associated with it were accessory to the resort, to the hotel. What we are asking today and through this development agreement is we are indeed asking for the Tiki, the bar, the restaurant to be primary uses. So those are primary uses. With those uses, we have required parking that we have to provide. in phase one the required parking per code is 144 parking spaces and in phase one we would be providing 163 parking spaces so that's an excess of 19. but that is very consistent with what code requires just a slight increase over the the minimum required So in phase two, as we've explained, the southern portion is a area that's gonna be secured, fence gated separately. And that area is gonna be for joint parking. So joint parking, as you know in the code, if you're a little short on the ability to provide parking on your site, uh there are multiple remedies you can ask for a parking reduction you can ask for off-site parking and the off-site parking typically occurs through a joint parking agreement if you own a separate property off-site then you know it's your own property not problem if not you can go to another property owner ask to share parking a lot of times some businesses are open for example during the day BUT THE BUSINESS IS NOT OPEN IN THE EVENING, RESTAURANT MIGHT NEED THAT PEAK PARKING IN THE EVENING SO YOU CAN ENTER INTO A JOINT AGREEMENT. SO THE AREA, THE ADDITIONAL PARKING THAT WE ARE PROVIDING IN PHASE TWO WOULD BRING US TO A TOTAL OF 237 SPACES. and with adding the lazy river in the pool our requirement would be 147 parking spaces so this is an excess of 90 parking spaces that would be for that joint parking use so we see that as a benefit again that use the parking and the parking in that location used to exist prior to the hurricane, and I brought back the aerial to demonstrate that a large majority of the parking was along that northern boundary. And it wasn't buffered, it wasn't controlled, meaning that hotel guests could park there, and if they wanted to leave in the middle of the night or pack up or whatever, they had complete access to that parking area, and they could use it. in this case that entire area is going to be available just for valley parking only so again very controlled it's going to be valley person dropping off the car and it gets picked up hopefully the next day and there's no need to ever go to that parking during the night but i guess if someone forgets their wallet in there or really wants access to their car you still have to get it but it's going to be very controlled so we think it's a better condition than what what it used to be It's going to be buffered. It's going to be controlled. Yes, it's excess parking Yes, it's also a solution to this parking issue that we have on this island We have numerous projects that have come before you that when they have to build rebuild and meet today's code It's very hard to provide all the required parking. This is an opportunity to provide some parking for those businesses so it's a win-win for each of the business and it's also a win for the island and that if there is a parking shortage at any given menu we venue we have a way to address that so um I know it's a long-winded answer but I think I've covered everything here

Yeah, you haven't really addressed the nature to the difference between the type of traffic impact that this parking will most likely cause. By that I mean the change in use from a resort to people coming and going for lunch, dinner, entertainment, what have you, staying for maybe an hour, staying for maybe six hours, but not staying multiple days or what have you.

I'm happy to address that and I can also have John talk to this. So John and his family have owned the property for 25 years. I've been on this island for 22 years. We did our traffic study. Our traffic study shows no impact on the adjacent roadway. So this is from a expert certified study that he's provided. ALSO, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS A RESIDENT FOR 22 YEARS, IN SEASON, DURING PEAK ACTIVITIES LIKE SAND SCULPTING DAYS, NEVER SEEN THE TRAFFIC BACK UP IN FRONT OF THAT PROPERTY. So again, it's never been an issue. We don't see it an issue. We see it as traffic has always flowed well in that area. We have sufficient parking for our facility. We have sufficient queuing with regards to the nature. So the hotel, again, we would like our visitors to come to Fort Myers Beach Park once and only stay here. We know that a lot of people that come here have family and friends in the area. There's a lot of movement back and forth. The hotel had a lot of movement back and forth. There was a restaurant there that was very popular for people that did not stay at the hotel. As a resident and also someone who's got young kids, my kids could eat for free. I could go hang out by the beach.

Patrick, you don't have to sell me on that. I live right down the road and that was my watering hole. Don't worry about it.

And I drove there. So there was always that traffic that was a transient traffic in nature associated with the venue because it was a very popular restaurant, very popular hangout. So materially, we don't think the traffic nature will change all that much.

Can you address, obviously like all of us, we watched the LPA and it was significant. There was a lot of discussion that was involved. One of the things that I believe was agreed to was just no public parking. In other words, parking for the venue only.

We were asked to put some signs where Megan's gonna show you where we've put that language in there We were asked to put some signs visible from sterile that would say for patrons only, you know, not not public parking lot and it's gonna be a parking lot that It's gonna be a paid parking lot so the intent is you know, you make people pay and You give them a voucher or a discount to use at the venue. We understand that it happens all over the place where people might... might go to business and then go hang out at the beach for the day. That's not the intent. That is not a dedicated beach parking area. It is for the venue. It is for the patrons. We are going to charge. And the way, as John has explained to me, if ever this were to become a problem, you hike up the parking fee and give a bigger voucher. That's how you dissuade people.

Most are operationalized the other way, right? If the parking associated with a venue is typically free for the patrons of the venue as opposed to paying for the parking, which thereby kind of you're paying for parking and you only get your discount if you're actually using the establishment. This has turned it completely upside down.

I THINK WE HAVE EXAMPLES. HOTELS HAVE DONE THIS FOR A LONG TIME. WHEN YOU GO TO A LOT OF RESORT PLACES, YOU PAY FOR YOUR PARKING EVERYWHERE YOU GO. YOU PAY FOR YOUR PARKING FOR YOUR HOTEL. TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COTTAGE. THAT WAS A VERY POPULAR SPOT. THEY ALWAYS DID VALET. THERE WAS ALWAYS A COST ASSOCIATED WITH PARKING THERE. I don't know if it flips it completely around. I understand what you're saying, but I think this is appropriate. I think it's been thought through by the owner. They do want to charge parking for their venue. They think that people will, it won't dissuade patrons from going to the Tiki Bar and the restaurant. And again, they in turn provide a voucher and provide a good experience and a great meal.

Thank you.

Patrick, just to tag on, I know that you charged before similar to what you're requesting now, and then you got the voucher. Did you do that with hotel guests prior to Ian as well, or did they get the park for free, or did they have to get the voucher as well?

The guests parked for free. Okay, thanks.

Patrick, I have a question in regards to parking. And if you stated it, I'm apologizing if I missed it. But if you should build a hotel again at some point, what would be the parking requirements for that? And that would negate this agreement? We don't know what the continuing phases could be and what the parking needs may be.

So as Megan you know, explain clearly is that this is not temporary in nature. This development agreement, once approved, is approved in perpetuity. And it's subject to the site plans that have been approved, meaning that the general concept, layout, uses that were allowed have to be consistent with those site plans. However, if ever in 15, 20 years, John's kids want to turn this into a resort, they have to come back to a public hearing. They have to either amend the development agreement, which would be a full hearing process, or they have to extinguish the development agreement, come back in with a CPD, and go through the public hearing process for the CPD, outline all the uses, intensities, density, sites, all that stuff. So, we're not allowed to make any of those changes unless we go through an amendment process or a CPD.

Thank you.

What's your lighting proposal for both phases?

So, lighting is going to be code compliant. We're going to meet code requirements.

Well, I know it's got to be, but you're going to have the parking lot.

So ideally, and again, the engineer's gonna have to see if it meets code requirements. One of the things that we find attractive is as you drive down Acre Boulevard, there's a private club kind of a lower lighting, Bullard's kind of amber lighting. That's a great look that we'd like to emulate. I don't know if we're going to be allowed to keep the lighting as low as that. I think our code calls for a little taller lighting, but that's the lighting scheme we're looking at, something attractive, amber lighting. Again, there's always a safety component that we have to meet, but there's also kind of trying to keep... a good look, good ambiance, and being respectful of turtle regulations also.

Thank you. John, any questions for?

Nothing currently.

All right, thanks Patrick.

All right, thank you.

Megan? She's hiding back there.

Okay. Let me skip forward here. So we will review the conditions recommended by LPA that we've incorporated into the development agreement. If at any time you want to ask questions or slow me down, feel free. And my apologies, let me pull it up here as well. OK, the first condition is going to be. Sorry, it's hard for me to see this far away.

You're going to start with the conditions.

The yes. So we are going to talk about the conditions that have been added from LPA to to here. So the ones that have been recommended by LPA that we have then changed. So the first one is going to be regarding parking and Section E regarding the controlled access. Sorry.

Okay.

There we go. Okay, there we go. That the attendant will be present on site from 6.30 to 9.30 p.m. This was recommended by LPA. We've incorporated that in. The next conditions come under the second phase, one of which pertains to the restrooms. Just to clarify that the restrooms will remain locked outside of operational business hours. The second one pertains to the COP boundary that there will be signage indicating where the COP boundary starts and stops. The next goes to parking again, and this is regarding Phase 2. So the controlled access, it's just restating the parking is going to be monitored by a parking attendant. They'll be present from 30 minutes before opening until... Everyone starts leaving around 9. I think the official ending hours are 10, but from 6.30 to 9.30. The parking surface, we were asked to concrete or harden more of the apron, so we've included that reference as well. There's another condition that we actually have not modified that I identified we will. If you look at Section 8, It pertains to the ingress-egress access points. When we started, we had initially requested for the northern to be ingress-egress, southern to be egress only. We've modified that to retain the right for ingress-egress on both locations. So we will have to modify that condition further.

Hold on. What you said is maintain the right. So it means that you haven't decided if you're going to keep it just egress on the south, or are you both going to be ingress-egress?

They would both be ingress, egress. However, from an operational standpoint, they're not going to be used. The southern portion will likely not be used for ingress, egress unless it's busy.

So you'll go in one way, but you'll have the option to go out either direction.

Correct. But as the property sits today, both access points have been used for ingress, egress. Previously in this application, we limited the southern to egress only. So we're reverting back to allow ingress, egress on both.

It was just the way you worded it. My apologies. Maintain the right to. That doesn't mean that you're going to do it. It just means you maintain the right to do it if you want to do it.

Correct. My apologies and thank you for clarifying. The next condition was suggested by staff regarding kind of a drop dead date, if you will, of the agreement in the event that phase one is up, but there's no signs of phase two coming on board. What sort of safeguards does the town have? So we did include this language. I will say that this was something that we had proposed. I believe staff's recommended language was a little bit more lenient, but the intent is to have the wave dissipation wall and permanent structures. So applicant, we were comfortable including this, which outlines that in the event that phase two is not completed within five years of completion of phase one, we need to come back. We either need to explain what happened, ask for a modification, an extension, but there would be a discussion about that.

I have a question on this one. Yes. And it just comes from what I've seen over the last, well, since hurricane, of developments that are coming online. There's a big difference between a TCO and a CO. And sometimes those can take a year or a year and a half to get a CO versus a TCO where the building is being operated under its normal use, but it hasn't technically got its certificate of occupancy.

Okay.

I would feel more comfortable if this said TCO versus CO, because it could go a year and a half. We've seen it with talking about amber lighting and things like that, where the TCO is in place, but a CO doesn't happen for a year and a half or two years later because of things that come up that maybe changed over the last couple of years with lighting. It usually revolves around environmental stuff. So for me, I would prefer to see this say TCO. versus CO. I don't know how staff feels about that or if that makes a big enough difference. But just going off of what I've seen on some other projects over the past few years.

T as in temporary?

Well, it's a temporary certificate. So it allows them to operate, but they don't have their permanent certificate of competency. And a lot of it seems to be held up on things that are outside the control of the developer or the property owner at this, you know, could be something that has nothing to do with planning. It would have to do with environmental or it could have to do with public safety. So to me, five years, this could be seven years or it could be eight years because of the language that's in there.

Okay.

And it's something, I mean, you don't have to make a decision this second unless you're comfortable making a decision. But if it goes to a second reading, I'd like to at least have you consider that.

That's fine.

I wasn't sure if staff was going to, well, that's a building code issue related. It's not really a planning issue, so I don't have any input on that, but we can look into that to see if that terminology is correct to be used.

If it goes a second, we can include clarifying language, um, CCO or TCO, whichever is first something. Okay.

Just something to look into between now and drop my notes down.

Okay. That has to do with the timing. The next, this is a very basic one. We just added Lee County Department of Transportation to the needed approvals. Next, turning to the public beach access, we were asked to clarify that the public beach access of the multi-use path on the northern boundary will extend all the way to the main high water line. We've included that, absolutely, and it will remain for the entirety of the agreement. Turning to the restrooms, we're reiterating that the restrooms are going to be locked outside of operational hours. sound. There was a discussion about the live music amplified sound. We were asked to reduce that from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. So we have reduced the amplified sound to 12 p.m. or live music from 12 p.m. to 9 p.m. That will be within the Tiki Barn. In addition to that, we've added what a clarifying additional language regarding ambient sound that we're requesting the ability to provide ambient music from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. And the idea being around the lazy river, around the pool, small speakers dispersed directly into that area. We were also asked for noise mitigation measures to be taken, which of course we incorporated so that we'll have sound curtains or established sound curtains on the southern and northern sides of the Tiki Bar to help limit any of the noise impacts to the neighbors. Regarding signage, there are two different signage requirements that we've included herein. One regards the COP boundary, and then the other pertains to no public parking, no beach parking, parking for patrons only, something of that nature. And in order to develop or move on to phase two, an additional traffic study will be conducted prior to phase two moving forward. Turning to the deviations.

Will that traffic study be privately?

Yes, the applicant, the property owner. Okay. Not on behalf of the town, but on the property owner. We'll provide that, absolutely. Regarding deviations, turning to deviation one, just outlines that the aprons will be paved for both phase one and phase two this will prevent kind of gravel getting into the you know storm water system or onto a sterile boulevard keep it nice and clean and also provide for additional stacking or queuing of the vehicles in the event of

One of the things I'd like to see you guys consider, again, if this goes to a second reading, is this first condition. I would feel more comfortable in phase two that it was more of a permanent, whether it be pavers, whether it be something just for the reason that you mentioned, gravel, things like that. I don't know how it would change. I know you couldn't answer it now on the spot, how it would change your water retention should you go to a pervious or non-pervious surface, what that would do for calculations. Uh, something to keep in your mind if it goes to a second reading that I'm going to be asking about. Cause I think having, if it's, if what Patrick has said is this is going to be a, this is the use, this is going to be essentially the permanent thing. It would be nice to have a permanent, um, parking lot there. And at least in phase two, you know, not necessarily have to do it in phase one, cause you are going to change some landscaping if it's approved. It sounds like so in phase two, I would like to see you at least consider that. Um, if it goes to a second reading.

Okay. I believe is that it? Oh, one of the conditions was making it was clarifying that in order to come back with a resort, they would have to go through the CPD process. I believe. That concludes the conditions that have been added from LPA councilwoman link. You had suggested or said that there were conditions that may have not made it over. Is there something specific that checked up? I've checked everyone. Okay. Okay. Cause when you said that, I said, Oh no, did I forget something? Human error does exist. So we're all there. I'm not infallible. Oh, my apologies.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir.

If I don't know if any other councilor had messages, but I have a recommendation that condition be added that we include some language in the requirements similar to the ETPP application when it comes to the trailers themselves. I don't see that anywhere in here since this isn't going to fall in the category of an ETPP application. I would like to see that there's some conditions in there. And really just it's in the application under general conditions. There's specific ones in there about that have to do with floodplain management, that have to do with FEMA requirements and our emergency response requirements. And we'll work with you on making sure that right language is in there. I don't think it'll be anything that you'll have a problem with, but we can absolutely.

I THINK EITHER IF YOU PROVIDE THE LANGUAGE OR IF WE JUST TAKE THE LANGUAGE THAT'S ALREADY IN THE ETPPP ASSOCIATED WITH HAVING A PLAN.

YEAH, AND YOU'LL SEE THERE'S SOME IN THERE THAT WON'T APPLY TO THIS CASE, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REMOVE THOSE AND YOU INCLUDE THE ONES THAT DO APPLY.

I'm may I piggyback on that? Mr. Town Manager, when you talk about the emergency temporary permit, I'm not sure that we ever thought anyone would have those for five years. Is there anything we need to add to the language to say that they are inspected or tested every few years to make sure that they can still easily be removed? I'm sure with our salt air and you know, the conditions we live in, just something that ensures us that if they have to go, they can go, not that they may fall apart in year four or something like that. Any thoughts about that, Patrick?

From our standpoint, that can definitely be included.

Yeah, I think that's part of the permit. I think there's language about they have to be maintained and they have to be plated. They have to be registered, road ready. So we don't have a problem with that.

That makes a lot of sense.

I certainly don't want to speak for you, but what I'm interpreting you're saying is everybody understands the road worthiness. But what we have seen, obviously, through these ETTPs over the last four years is you give someone an inch and they take a mile. And what was temporary once, now six months later has become a permanent fixture, and now we have to start code enforcement. So I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

No, that was not my issue, but I think that's a good one as well.

is there any kind of process we could put in as a condition that the applicant has to provide some sort of, or the town can inspect to ensure that quick disconnects are being used, not hard plumbing, you know, those kinds of things are what I think the town has seen a lot of over the last couple of years is it starts out temporary and then all of a sudden it's hard plumbed and then all of a sudden we have issues.

Well, we, we are happy to defer to what will, um, wants to have in there, but I think we'll be subject to the code requirements on those issues.

I think it would benefit you just as much as it would benefit the town. Absolutely, I concur.

So if we can have that be clarified.

Yeah. Before the concluding remarks, just a quick question, Mr. Allers. With regards to, I just want to clarify, so you're suggesting that we look into, in phase two, putting pavement rather than- Pavement, something, hardscape, I guess.

Hardscape, okay. I don't want to tell you how to, but to eliminate the rocks and the potential for more stuff getting into storm grains with a surge. I mean, hopefully we don't have to deal with that, but just something more permanent because if it is going to be a permanent use, it'd be nice to have something permanent looking. It'll just, I think, dress up.

Okay, just something I think I think our client is open to it Just just to give you a little insight when we were going through the design discussion of this Part of the discussion was well if we if we use gravel Obviously, there's there's advantages Costs and especially if you're going to modify things but but there is also this idea of it provides more pervious area so Again, if if it's the will of the council where we less pervious area Meaning that we don't use the gravel More hardscape if you guys prefer that we can certainly include that but again I we were trying to weigh both of obviously when you pave everything, you've got the pervious issue, but also the heat that is generated from pavement.

I guess if you're asking me my preference, I'd prefer to see pavers over asphalt, but it's kind of a happy medium, but I know the cost associated with that is.

So maybe as we move to phase two, if you guys can give us direction as a board, that'd be awesome because we are open to either way, but we'd just like some feedback.

Okay.

Okay. So with that said, In my professional planning opinion, we are consistent with the comp plan, the land development code. We have reviewed the staff report with the conditions that they have requested. Happy to abide by those. We, as mentioned, we've incorporated all the LPA recommendations except for the terminal islands. And again, open to your direction on those. WE HAVE TALKED TO MR. GALEAN AND I KNOW MR. GALEAN IS GOING TO MAKE HIS OWN PRESENTATION SO DO NOT WANT TO PUT ANY WORDS INTO HIS MOUTH BUT WHEN HE DID TALK TO ME AND I TALKED TO HIM PERSONALLY, THE THREE REQUESTS WERE ASSOCIATED WITH NO CAMPER PARKING AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ABIDE BY THAT AND WE CAN ADD in our science section that will put signs up on that. The dogs, unfortunately, I don't think we can supersede federal law. I think that would cause more problems than solutions. And then when it comes to the wave mitigation law, Look, I defer to engineers and to sound engineering principles. I know that neighbors can have concerns. I think there's a bit of a misconception between traditional seawalls versus what a wave mitigation wall is, and I think they are designed to address potential scouring, to also address impacts to adjacent properties and I would just ask that we defer to sound science and to you know sound engineering principles.

one quick question before we and then i'll see if anybody else has a question the question i have is we did receive an email from someone questioning the consistency with the comprehensive plan based on no new paid parking lots what would be your what would be your rebuttal to that claim that this is not consistent because of that that the primary use is a restaurant venue and restaurant entertainment bar venue and this is required parking per code Okay.

Thanks. So, with that said. Hold on. I'm going to make sure no one else. Okay.

Rebecca, any questions before we go to Larry?

Yes. Just about dogs. So, when you speak federal rules, I'm thinking service dogs.

Service dogs, companion animals, people have cards that they can bring them.

Right. i i would like you to consider the no dogs there are so many people who are concerned about the critical wildlife behind you and i can only imagine dogs and the code enforcement calls we'll get because dogs may be running around in an area they're not allowed we cover that by leash laws on the beach but i just want to make sure we don't fall in the gap so there are areas where you don't allow dogs but that does not mean that you have a service dog you can't take that dog so i I would like that to be something you maybe address or consider before you come back to us. We need to balance people taking their pets, service dogs, and protecting our critical wildlife.

And in vain with the other issue that we discussed, what I would ask is, I don't know if I'm smart enough to have an answer as to how we address that. So I would ask direction from council of how do we balance both? Do we put up signs that technically are not enforceable, but at least we've

Well, it's my understanding.

We've made an effort. That's where I like direction from you.

Yeah. I think it's my understanding if we say no dogs allowed, that does not exclude someone who has a service animal. They're allowed anywhere.

And if that's the case, I think we're definitely open to that idea.

So that kind of gives an idea that this isn't a pet-friendly park. We're not going to have to be worrying about picking up dog stuff, and we're also not going to worry about them heading off where we can't really enforce it when they're in the critical wildlife. I'm just going to give it some more thought. Yeah, yeah.

Maybe we would never maybe some educational signs in this area surrounded by critical wildlife area. Please mind your dogs.

I like that idea. I like being proactive on on the protecting the environment rather than prohibiting something. I think that's a good approach. I like that.

Anything else, Councilor Lane? That's it. Councilor McLean? Anything for Patrick before we move on to Larry?

Nope. Okay.

Hold on, we've got two more.

Is there a way I can request that Elizabeth step in and explain the law?

Let's make sure John doesn't have any questions for Patrick or Megan before we bring up Elizabeth.

that's exactly where i was going because we received a couple of yes you did a couple emails regarding that concern and then this intervener concern as well so i think it'd be hoover's to hear from absolutely yeah that that was my concern is we've gotten some emails even on other projects it seems like there's a a theory out there and i defer to you because you're the expert that a wall will affect negatively neighbors on both sides. Can, so can you explain the difference between a C wall and, and a mitigation?

Yes. Uh, good morning council for the record, Elizabeth fountain with Jr Evans engineering. Um, so the, the wave mitigation dissipation structure, It's really more of a system. And it's primarily designed not only to reduce wave impacts, but it also takes into consideration the potential for scour around. If it's not a contiguous wall from property to property, a lot of times we'll have to do a return section on the property lines. But we also account we we put in to the design scour protection features that are part of that structure. So it reduces those impacts. And a lot of times those return walls will have to end up a little bit inside the subject property that we're focused on, probably on the order of maybe six or eight feet. So there is a little bit of a gap that's typically put into place between the adjacent property. And when these walls are reviewed at the FEMA level, it's a very technical review. We have to go through and demonstrate that we've put into the design all those components to address any potential adverse impact. So that's that's the difference between like a standard ABC wall where it's those those same considerations aren't taken.

Elizabeth, would it be a safe statement to say that these are not meant to divert water? They're meant to break down the angriness of the water.

Exactly. So I think there's a misconception that these walls are like six, eight feet tall, meant to stop the surge and stop the waves. They're not. A lot of them are going to be between two and a half to three foot above the ground that you would see. And that's just enough to trip up the wave energy so it's really just affecting the bottom part of that wave water column that's supporting the velocity of the wave and so we're not trying to stop the surge or trying to stop the waves it's more of a reduction in the energy and as those as the water comes around it's not going to deflect or push more water onto adjacent properties because that adjacent property is getting the same or more direct impact from the coastal waves coming towards their subject property. I know that's kind of hard to visualize, but everybody within that line of a coastal event is getting hit. Yes, by the same level. It's just the ones that have the wave mitigation wall are getting less wave heights coming onto their property.

I didn't answer your question.

It did. Thank you. John. Took care of mine. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I'm good. Thank you.

Fine. Thank you. Thanks, Elizabeth. Thank you.

All right. Larry, are you still there?

So with that, I will conclude our presentation, and we're happy to follow up after Mr. Galin and answer any other questions.

All right. Thanks, Patrick. Mr. Galin, you're up.

Can you hear me any easier?

We'll just be quiet.

OK. Well, thank you for the opportunity. I represent the Board of Directors of Sand Caper Condominium Association at 6900 Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach. We're immediately south of the old Wyndham property. You've received a copy of the presentation I made to the LPA on June 16, 2026. But I do have these additional comments and requests I would like you to include in your consideration of the development agreement for the old Wyndham garden property. I've asked the neighborhood company through Pat and the owner of the property to commit to three things. I'm thankful they responded on Friday, 731, to my request for changes on the development plan. I want to add here also that I'm appreciative of the buffer zone alternative that they are proposing between our property. The three requested items, as they have told you about before, We can go to slide three if you have the presentation there. Though there have been no restrictions on overnight parking at this point, I asked them to commit to no overnight parking of campers, no overnight stays of individuals in their parking lot, and they responded favorably on the request, and I'm very thankful for that. I've asked them to prohibit dogs from being brought onto their property. This would be similar to the prohibition at Bonita Beach Park next to Doc's Beach House that quite clearly marked with illuminated signage. In my LPA presentation, I noted current problems we have already had with dogs on the beach and in the wildlife area. And I just say, we don't need another dog beach. Their primary purpose of the property is the service of food and drink and entertainment. Other than service animals, pets would not be in keeping with the purpose of that venue. They responded with concerns about federal law and service animals, which I do understand. At this point, I would request that they explore the reasons that Bonita Beach can prohibit dogs. I'm going to add to my comments here that when I did a brief search on Bonita Beach Park, it says that no pets or dogs are allowed on the beach park property or on the main sand. So someone is doing this, and I'd like to know how they can do that and if that can be worked into this application. But in any event, I would ask for no dogs other than service animals be allowed. If you move to slide four, I've asked for them to explore with the designer of any wave mitigation wall to consider tailing the wave mitigation wall at least 40 feet from our property, turning it to the east between the Lazy River and the Valley Park lot if necessary. I'd also ask to see perhaps a wall at some distance between our properties. that could decrease the possibility of redirected water impacting our property. I understand that wave walls are supposed to be designed to prohibit scouring of the property, even adjacent properties, in theory. Again, I ask if there is a need to extend that wall to protect a parking lot, or if it could be cut off right at the parking lot. So I'm asking the Town Council to include the agreed upon restriction of overnight camper parking in the agreement, I ask that no dogs other than service animals be allowed, and then I also ask for a promise to research the Bonita Beach dog restriction to see if greater restrictions could apply here, and a promise to explore an alternative wave wall design, as I have requested that it stop short of our property by quite a few more feet than standardly is done. And I thank you for your ability for me to make this presentation and look forward to your consideration.

Mayor, just for the record, were you sworn in when we were everyone in your testimony? You were OK. Thank you.

All right. Does anybody have any questions? We can, Council Member was going to ask questions of Larry, correct? All right. Council Member Plain, do you have any questions for Larry?

I'd like to, excuse me, Larry, I'd like to explore a little bit further the last statement about protecting the wave mitigation wall, protecting the parking lot. So your feeling is if they were able to provide the permanent structures and change the FEMA maps for the commercial area, excluding the parking lot to the south that abuts your properties, that is what your request is?

Yes, I'd be more amenable to that. I'm not an expert in the design of these walls, but where they're intending it to go includes potential impacts on the wildlife area and potential impacts on our property. It would be actually less expensive if they cut the wave wall off quite a bit before our property and ease our concerns about that. If they need to include turning the wall to the east so they can get the grating that they need on the property, we'll find that. If providing some wall protection between our two properties on that west end would help, that'd be fine too. But I just want them to consider an alternative structure that cuts it off sooner.

Okay, thank you. I understand.

Councilor Link, any questions for Larry?

No.

Vice Mayor Stafford? I do not. John?

Not really questions, but you're comparing a county park to private property regarding the dogs, so that's where you're going to see probably the difference. Dogs are not allowed in the critical wildlife area, and all dogs on our beach have to be leashed, so I guess I'm not sure why that's such a concern.

OK, well, first of all, the practice is not being done at this point. I see dogs running in the waves. I see dogs running up and down the beach. I see dogs chasing birds in the lagoon. So it's not enforced. And I don't know if a private property can enforce the same as the county park can for no dogs on the beach. But I do know that you could restrict animals that are not service animals. So if you required it to be no pets and then have them prove that it is a service animal, that would be helpful.

I believe the leash laws are being enforced and keep it out of the critical wildlife area. But if there are times where it's not being enforced, it does require somebody to call and alert the town to those issues.

Right. And I talked with a woman who said, you know, there was a man with two large dogs and allowing him to run in the lagoon. And she went up and asked him, you know, told him, you know, they have to be on a leash. They can't be in there. And he basically told her where to pound sand. And, you know, so he's got two large dogs, and he's a pretty good-sized man. And so now the woman has to call. and the people have to react by that time they're gone so i'm just i'm just saying that this in theory enforcement is right but there are not people down there to enforce that um on a regular basis and and it happens in a short time and there's not enough time to call in and get some somebody to react

Anything else, John? Larry, does Sand Caper allow the residents to have dogs?

We do not. OK. We are under the Federal Housing Authority. And so there are occasions when service animals can be allowed. But we are a no pet association.

OK. That's all I had. Thank you, sir. Megan?

I don't believe I have any cross-examination questions from Mr. Galin. I still have concerns about the dog condition, particularly if the beach, the town does have a regulation regarding leashes, allowing dogs to be on the beach, how to... enforced on a private property. We're open to including a service animal only, or please be mindful of the environmentally critical area. But those are kind of my initial concerns.

Or perhaps even dogs must be on leashes. All dogs should be leased. That's very helpful.

So it's kind of confusing if they're going to have a walkway, and then they say no dogs, but you're taking your dog to the beach. Right.

Well, I think that's why maybe the compromise is there's a sign that says all dogs must be leashed because they have to be leashed on the beach, right? Then it covers both. I apologize.

No, no, no. This is not intended to be a come bring your dog facility. It's just trying to navigate how... how to address that.

I'll just tell you where I stand on this. As much as I wouldn't want to put a policy in place to force Sand Caper to have dogs, I don't want to put a policy in place to force a property owner to not allow dogs to go down a beach path to get there. I'm a bigger fan of education. We know we have people that don't follow rules. Every rule out there, someone's going to not follow. But to try to create policy on a small group, to me, of people that do things that they're not supposed to do, education and then enforcement, I think, is always the path I select. But I'm just putting it out there for my fellow council members. If this moves forward, I'm in support of educational signs about the critical wildlife, educate people. But to stop people from bringing their dogs down your dog path to the beach, I'm a dog lover. I've got two dogs, so I get it, but we respect the laws. We keep our dogs on a leash. Not everybody does that. Again, I won't reiterate it, but I wouldn't want to do a policy decision on someone saying they had to do something as much as I wouldn't want them to do not something. That's just me.

That's all that I have. Okay. If there are any follow-up questions.

Anybody have any other questions for Megan or Patrick before we open it up for public comment?

Well, I do have a question for you, Elizabeth, please.

Oh, yeah. I had a question.

Yes. So I understand we're not the engineers. We don't understand wave mitigation walls. We do understand. Is there an opportunity during the design phase of the mitigation wall? I would assume that the line that you have drawn here is not an engineered design, correct?

Correct.

And so I guess what I'm asking is could there be consideration for not extending that wave mitigation wall beyond the commercial or less than as is necessary to help address some of the concerns of the neighbors? Is that something that could be considered during the design phase? And I'm not sure how we would word that, but this mitigation wall isn't designed yet.

Right. I think there are opportunities. Again, we want to approach it from a standpoint of trying to optimize the level of mitigation we're trying to achieve for the property and then the landward properties on the other side of Estero Boulevard. So I think definitely want to be able to try to protect as much infrastructure as possible on that property. But we can look at it during the refinement phase.

Yeah, I would think that in some regards it would be in your best interest to protect the critical infrastructure that you're trying to protect as opposed to spend the money to build it larger than it needs to be.

Correct. Yes.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Just before you run off. Can you talk a little bit about what else it does as far as changing flood zones should FEMA adjust it, what it allows a builder to be able to do versus what they could do if they don't have this in place?

Correct. So this property is encumbered by the FEMA map zone VE, which is the highest risk flood zone you could be mapped in. Implementing the wave mitigation wall helps reduce those wave heights such that you can change the map from a VE to an AE zone, which is the next moderate risk flood zone category. It is still considered a coastal AE zone, so there's still some wave action coming in, but because of that designation, you're allowed to, you've got more flexibility about what you can, the types of uses you can have on the lower level floors, as long as you implement proper dry flood proofing as well. So, for instance, you could have the restrooms on that lower level, you could have, you know, a restaurant space, the only limitation is that because you're also seaward of the CCCL, the DEP, Coastal Construction Control Line, there are certain things that still have to be at that higher elevation based on DEP's criteria. But they do have allowed uses such as retail, restaurant seating area. You just can't have permanent kitchens at that level. Those have to be at the DEP 100-year elevation. but she can have other recreational spaces and restrooms at the lower level.

All right. Anything else for Elizabeth? All right. Thanks, Elizabeth.

Thank you.

All right. Public comment. Amy, do you have anybody?

First up would be Denise Clint, and following Denise is Dan Duggan.

Good morning, Denise. I think it's still morning.

Yep, still morning.

Is that mic on? There you go.

I own a condo in the San Dirac condominiums north of this property. I also own a home in the neighborhood across the Sarah Boulevard. I APOLOGIZE. I CAME IN AT 2 O'CLOCK THIS MORNING SIMPLY FOR THIS MEETING BECAUSE I FELT IT WAS SO IMPORTANT TO BE HERE. AND I'VE BEEN IN MINNESOTA WITH SOME MEDICAL ISSUES WITH OUR FAMILIES. SO I'VE NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN ALL THESE PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON LIKE I SHOULD HAVE BEEN. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WAS WE DID MEET WITH PATRICK AND JOHN BACK IN APRIL, I THINK, OR MAY, AND OUR PRESIDENT DID SENT FORTH A LETTER STATING THAT IN FAVOR AND SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO SOME OF US ON THE ASSOCIATION AND NOT DO IT AS A GROUP. IT WAS HIM PERSONALLY. SOME OF US STILL HAD RESERVATIONS, AND SO IT IS MY FAULT THAT I HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVED. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT. SO AT THIS POINT, I'M JUST GOING TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF MY CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP TODAY IN MOVING FORWARD. LET'S START WITH THE DOGS, AS LONG AS THAT'S JUST BEEN THE LATEST ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE, TOO, HAVE A NO PET POLICY, NO DOGS ON OUR PROPERTY UNLESS IT'S SERVICE DOGS. AND WE CONSTANTLY SEE DOGS RUNNING ALL OVER THE BEACH UNLEASHED. IT IS A PROBLEM. I know that they say they're going to have some kind of security or whatever on the property. I don't know if that's somebody who can also monitor whether or not the dogs have leashes. I don't know. A big issue is, contrary to the pictures you saw, In front, going out to the beach from this property, it's very narrow. It is not a whole big ocean. We have that critical area that has the mangroves there. Our biggest issue is how people, traffic, dogs, anything, comes over onto our beach our private beach um one of the things i talked to patrick about is maybe since they're having a public walkway can we have some kind of like bollards and ropes going down the beach more to designate Just in the past you know since this project has come up and people haven't been able to walk down there We have personally put up a walkway with a fence so that people could come down We're getting people swearing at us yelling at us throwing garbage all over our property That's our concern. I know I'm on a time um and So there's a lot of concerns with how does it flow over? How do they go out to the beach rather than on our property? I also asked Ms. Baker to send out a photo that shows the rain from a couple of weeks ago.

We got it.

And how it's going over. And I know the engineers have to look at all this, and they will. but they also want to build as soon as possible, and I don't think that can happen until this situation is fixed.

I need you to wrap it up, Denise. Yeah, I'm sorry.

That's okay. It's just there's a lot more concern with traffic, people. The beach access is the biggest issue right now. So if you have any questions, feel free to contact us, but thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thanks for coming.

Dan's on his way up.

Good morning, all. My name is Dan Dugan. I'm the president of Captain's Bay Condominium Association, which the address that is listed for all five buildings is 22704 Island Pines Way. Yes, I have been sworn earlier. uh island pines where if you're not familiar with it would run right into uh it's east of estero boulevard and would run into the north public beach access by the way thank you very very much that was a huge concern amongst uh residents that live uh in our area with uh uh the Six associations under our master and next door at a sterile Cove For the longest time and by the way at Island Pines Way if it would extend I Side note. I just think that probably would be the better location for a crosswalk the south end of the island has been dealing with a entertainment and food desert, I'd say, for years. We all understand it takes time because of the devastation that Ian has caused. Our nearest place was two miles away behind Publix. Thank God we have some movement in Santini Plaza, which will alleviate it. But in season, it is extremely crowded. I have polled all the members of our association, and without one dissent, we are in favor of this project moving forward. Many of our residents have enjoyed the pinchers over at the old Wyndham property, and the family, a lot of friends in the association that know the owners and would like to see this move forward as quick as possible. They have been good neighbors. The sound restrictions always have been adhered to. We have never had a complaint from any of our residents whatsoever. Wrapping it up, just thank you very much for moving forward with your plans. Thank you very much for the consideration. As far as everything else that was said, we really don't have a dog in that fight. Thank you.

Well played, Dan, well played. All right, is there anyone else who would like to speak in public comment?

Here I have one question for Megan. Okay. You've heard a lot of comments made about the public beach access. It's the intent that it's an easement, correct? Yes. And that just for everyone's information that that easement would then terminate when the development agreement terminates, at which point there would no longer be the public beach access.

And it might be incorporated in a future application, but yes, we can only talk about what's here for the duration of the development agreement. So for the duration of this development agreement, it will be public.

Okay. A public easement for beach access. Yes, ma'am. Correct. We'll add that language.

Yep.

Okay. There's no other public comment? We'll close public comment. Do you have any additional rebuttal comments?

No. No, thank you.

All right. I'll now close the public hearing and request a discussion or a motion from town council to approve, approve with conditions or deny a second reading or it continues to a time certain. Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir. Could we discuss the planters?

I think that was an open question. Absolutely. So I would just share my personal experience with very large terracotta plants. planters that I had at my house and three times I've had to go to neighbors to retrieve them as even though I can't lift them up, they float. So that would be my personal observation on planters versus something that was permanent. But I'd like to just have the discussion so that.

Sure. Yeah. I mean, I'm with you. You know, even if it's hedges, I'm a fan of color. I've always said it. If you can add some sort of color to I mean, you look at the one that was done up on Old San Carlos. There's a lot of color, a lot of delineation. I agree with you. I'm not a big fan of the planters. They do float. And getting them out of a truck is not easy. Just don't ask me how I know. Or my feet. But yeah, I'm with you. I like the permanent vegetation versus the planters. Rebecca?

I would agree. We talked about that in our meeting and those planters were not of concern to me. I'd rather see them go as well.

Scott?

Yeah, I totally agree. Just like John said, they float.

John? I'm in agreement as well.

The only question I had and I brought it up in our meeting was what was going to delineate between the areas and still to be worked out, whatever is going to be in the parking lot, whether it's shell, whether it's pavers, what is going to be? Is it going to be a curbing? Is it going to be a what is it just going to be mulch that's laying on top of, you know, what's what's going to differentiate what's going to stop? I know you said you're not going to use the bollards or you're not going to use the parking stops on phase one. you're going to use the bollards and the rope. What's going to, is it going to be bollards and rope around it? Or what's going to keep people from going in there or driving over it?

So I think we were talking about having mulching at the base, benefits of mulching, you know, retain water, humidity, all that stuff makes it more attractive. I think we were suggesting more of the you know, in a garden when you use a plastic kind of, for lack of a better word, curving that you put on the edge of your mulch bed versus the rest of your lawn. I think we're thinking something like that. The other thing that you had suggested was maybe some of those concrete papers that you don't have to build a whole foundation. You don't have to dig under and build a foundation. It's just laid on top. I think that works also. It's attractive. It does retain the mulch, but it's not permanent where you...

yeah that that was my concern is you know there's companies others club that they do the small residential concrete curbing you've seen it they make all kinds of waves and stuff and it yeah it's there to keep mulching because we all know when you get that heavy rain if you don't have something keeping that mulch in it just goes everywhere and it turns into a bigger but it can be removed easily if needed i mean anybody that's been around since the storm and been down to fifth and crescent understands what kind of uh shovels are needed to clean up that kind of mulch when it goes all over the place so I would like to see something to be able to, I mean, it shouldn't be a huge cost, even if it's just something to try to keep that in.

John just gave you the nod that that's not a problem, that curbing that can be moved, that's kind of just at the surface, we can do that.

Okay. What other discussions do you have?

No, that was an open one that they were asking for some direction. I just thought we should give it to them.

The question I had since we're talking on landscaping is the reasoning behind between phase one and phase two why it seems like there's only two other areas that are gonna be in there that would be differentiators between parking spaces. Was that to keep the additional parking spaces to meet the requirements or what was the reasoning behind?

Can you repeat the question?

Yeah, so if you look at your phase one and your phase two, basically in the middle, down the middle of the property, it looks like you're just adding two more of those for lack of a better term, racetrack overlooking areas that would have the, I don't know, we don't have the, do we have it up on the screen? We could pull up, I could kind of, there's three of them actually, it looks like. That would be almost in the center of the parking lot. It looks like the only difference is you're adding three more of those. I'm just curious what the reasoning was for not having them in phase one versus bringing them on to phase two. It's a minor thing, but when we're pulling that up, the other thing I noticed was from phase one to phase two, it doesn't look like the areas that you're putting the bicycle parking in changes. So why are you not having the bicycle parking in phase one in the same locations they're going to be in phase two? It's on our page. It's packet 189. So see there, it doesn't have the three sections. And if you go to phase two, you'll see the three green oval sections in the middle of the parking lot. See, it just added the three there. I'm just curious about the reason why they were there.

Can we talk about the landscape islands? Yeah, the landscape islands. So the reason is, in phase one, we're asking for a deviation for no mid-block landscape island. that's not really a term but yeah I understand why you're asking for the deal I'm just understanding what the reasoning was and the reason is again this is more infrastructure needed where we're probably gonna have to reconfigure that parking lot so the idea is once we get the phase two we're going to be cold compliant we incorporate all the required landscape violence In phase one, it's fewer islands, less vegetation that you have to, you know, we're going to have to find a way to water those areas and less infrastructure associated with that. So it just makes the transition between phase one and phase two easier.

I'm just curious as to why. I figured there was a reason why. Can you answer the bicycle parking? Why that area doesn't seem to be changing just because you're just adding more bike racks?

assuming that's what's going to be there's bike racks you see on the top there you've got on phase one you've got them just down by where the looks like the dumpster area would be and then in phase two you've got them as you come in along the water retention yeah i think the thought was just that phase two expanded use uh we're gonna have a little more parking in phase two the requirement goes up slightly and we were just gonna add some more parking space uh bike parking spaces again I think John is gonna provide sufficient parking. If there's a lot of demand, we've got space, we'll put those bike racks in.

And just one other thing since I have you up there. These are all minor things. I'm just based on one of the comments that was made at the public hearing at the beginning or at the public comment and the bidding was stagnant water and mosquitoes. Is there anything on these water retention areas that you could put in to potentially eliminate? Not that there's going to be a lot of mosquitoes maybe coming from here, but I mean, I don't even know if you can.

The best answer I can give you being a non-engineer is we're going to have to go through the proper district permitting. District's got requirements. Again, it's going to be It's going to meet standards at the state level. It's going to meet local standards if we have any from a town requirement. The intent is you've got to address your water on site, you've got to go through the proper permitting, and you've got to abide by those regulations.

Just a personal question. Water features always seem to get my attention when I'm driving by.

Well, we know that both there and at Santini with heavy rainstorms, the sidewalks would get covered completely. So we've got larger identified water detention areas. And again, conceptual, they're going to have to go through the engineering design, and they're going to have to size them accordingly.

All right. That's all I have with the landscaping side. John, any other discussion?

No, I'm good. Thank you, Mayor.

Rebecca?

No, thank you.

Scott?

I'm good.

John?

I'll go ahead and move ordinance 26-02 to a second reading on Wednesday, September 9th.

If I may, can we also get direction on... Hold on a second. We got a motion. Let's see if we get a second, and then we'll do some discussion. So we got a motion by Councilor King. I'll second. Discussion? Go ahead.

I was hoping to possibly get some direction on the Phase 2, if we want pavement, or if we want some of the rock.

Well, since I brought it up, I would prefer to see pavers over actual pavement. But I'll defer to council on whether it's just me that thinks that or if they're okay with just the shells. I'm just trying to look at potential mitigation strategies for filling up drains and things that we've seen in the past.

So again, happy to address your concerns. We'd just like a little direction on that.

John, how do you, Councilor McLean, how do you feel about it?

i actually am leaning towards the shells because of the less heat that comes off of the obviously interlock pavers are very very nice and they're very expensive to put in but as far as asphalt versus shell i i would say shell honestly okay for the water retention and the heat that's generated off of

My question would be, are you concerned, Mayor, about the sewer system on Astero, those shells making their way to Astero?

Well, what we've seen in the past, obviously, with one when surge comes onto the island, even if there's a mitigation wall, there is all that stuff ends up in somebody else's property. All those shells, all those rocks end up in somebody else's property across the street. And now they're stuck with cleaning it up. So, yes, it's about the storm drains, but it's also potential mitigation for those across the street, which is what mitigation while will help with as well. Right. That's going to help the neighbors that are all across the street from it. To me, it's counterproductive to do something that would take a bunch of stuff and send it across the street. I agree with you. Pavement. If I had to choose pavers would be the choice over over pavement or I would choose shell over payment over payment. But I know it's expensive, and that's why I'm not putting it in there as a condition. It's just to have a discussion with your applicant and see if that's something. But if the council doesn't feel that it's important, I'm just one vote. I'm just one person.

And you're just thinking about if there's another storm that pushes everything, as opposed to just day in and day out, shells being brought onto Astero from normal wear and tear.

Well, and I can tell, you know, being off island, I get to see a lot of cars that come off the island and the amount of stuff that accumulates just from tires that come off, sand, salt, shells that you clean up at the end of every day. Right. Will this have that, you know, you're driving your cars out, is it going to bring all that out onto Estero Boulevard? That's my only concern. Again, I'm not dying on a sword over this, but just trying to think in the future for people that may have to deal with an unintended consequence.

Well, I'm wondering if there couldn't be a compromise, some considerations to think about. Um, maybe closer to the road, there's pavers or the drives out or pavers, but I like having the absorption as well, or something to think about, I think before next meeting.

I just want to clarify that the aprons from Estero Boulevard, I think it's roughly 70, 90 feet from Estero Boulevard, and that is going to be paved. Right. We've extended that further than what was initially proposed.

Scott, how do you feel about the hold?

As a condition, that would be a big nut for him. That's a lot of money. I just don't like it. imposing that, I think that they've extended the entryways. So I think that for now that suffices.

I agree with you that it's inexpensive, but so is cleaning it up if it's in my property across the street.

I can't argue that.

But again, John, how do you feel about it?

Does it make us hypocritical when we have it in our overflow parking? I mean, when I park over there, the inside of my car gets full of shells because of walking through it and then it's in my tires. So that bothers me to a certain extent, I guess.

Good point. I don't remember if the town came before the town to ask for a deviation to do that. So I don't know.

I know the town doesn't have money to put papers there right now.

Well, but again, we're in a discussion with an applicant who is requesting things outside what they can do by right. And does this make sense to ask, is there enough benefit to outweigh both for the applicant as well as the neighbors in the town? And I'm not asking to put in there as a condition now, but it's something for you and your team to consider between now and second reading. come back and say yes we want to do it or no we don't want to do it and here's what you know or maybe by then council decides they don't want to do it or they decide they want you to do it i don't know but just something to put out there for discussion to see if um if it makes sense but you make a good point john thank you mike my truck goes up and beach accesses as well yeah is there any other yeah is there any other discussion

yes um i request could you add uh 1 pm or thereafter to the second hearing it was for september 9th there was no time associated with that oh did it not uh so if you could just add 1 pm or shortly after i think that's what your normal meeting is scheduled that that would help thank you

Our meeting is scheduled for 1 p.m. on the 9th? Yes. That's right.

So in the motion, as far as when you're setting the second hearing, could you add 1 p.m. to that, please?

Yes. Well, Councillor King, would you like to amend your motion? So amended. Thank you.

I will amend my second to reflect having it at September 9th, 2026 at 1 p.m. Mayor, there was discussion regarding including the conditions that were in the ETPPS. Is that also part of the motion?

i think both sides does it have to be i guess both sides agreed on record that they would okay they would work with so they'll just come back with that to have that before the second reading because we can always add it at the second reading if it you can add it at the second reading correct yes we'll go back just voluntarily put it yes yes all right if there's no other discussion Councilor Kane? Aye. I'm an aye. Vice Mayor Safford? Aye. Councilor Link? Aye. Councilor McLean? Aye. Motion carries unanimously. See you on the 9th. At 1 p.m. At 1 p.m., yes. All right. Do you want me to read this and then turn it over? Or do you want to read it? I'll just take it over.

Okay.

Vice Mayor Safford is now going to take over and run ordinance 26 dash 10. Let me get to it. One second, please. Click on the click over here and then click on public hearings and then we'll click on the arrow and then click down there and picture it.

Eric, go ahead and stop the zoom link, please.

Here we go. Okay. This quasi-judicial agenda item is a first reading and public hearing on proposed ordinance 26-10. If approved at first reading, the second reading and final adoption hearing will be scheduled for Wednesday, September 9th, 2026 at 1 p.m. or at another time identified by town council. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving with conditions or denying a rezoning of property located at 1207 Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach. Generally identified as strap number 19-46-24-W4-0150D. From downtown zoning district to a commercial plan development with 11 deviations to allow for a 60-unit hotel and 2,500 square feet of commercial retail space and 46 parking spaces, providing for other clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of loss, Scribner's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. Let's see. If any town council member has had any ex parte communication to disclose, please let us know the subject discussed and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place, any correspondence that you received, or observations made of the site. Council Member King.

I'm familiar with the site. I've had a couple of meetings with the neighborhood group and their developers and received emails.

in a couple of them recently against the project council member link uh also met with the neighborhood group on the 15th of june and no other ex parte i'm familiar with the site uh so i also had a meeting with the neighborhood group um i

I don't believe that I've had a conversation with Mr. Torgerson about this one. I don't think I did. I may have. If I do, it doesn't stick in my mind. But I have seen several of the neighbors on Primo have voiced concerns about traffic and parking.

Yes, same goes for me. I had a meeting with the neighborhood group about two weeks ago and received the same emails that everyone else on council did as well. So Jason Green has been qualified as experts already by this town council based and based on his education and experience has been accepted as expert in the field of land use planning and development in the town of Fort Myers Beach. Are there any other individuals who would like to be qualified as expert witnesses on behalf of the applicant at this time?

Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor. For the record, Megan Strayhorn, counsel for the property owner and applicant. We'll have three expert witnesses with us today, all of which have been previously been deemed experts in their respective fields. So we ask for them to be recognized as experts here today. First, we have Patrick Van Ness with the Neighborhood Company for planning. For engineering, we have Brandon Fry from J.R. Evans Engineering. And then also for architecture, we have we have Albert D'Ambros from Studio 80. I believe Albert might need to be sworn in.

Do you need to be sworn in? Yeah. Okay. Is there anybody else that needs to be sworn in as well?

If you'll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? All right. Thank you.

I believe they've all been deemed experts in previous meetings. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Fantastic. Has the property owner applicant seen a copy of the agenda backup materials from staff?

Yes, we have.

Okay, fantastic. So would the applicant proceed with your presentation at this time?

Sometimes the staff will just do a very general introduction. Sorry, Jason.

That's okay. No problem. I appreciate that. Skip right over here. I've been waiting years to do that. Yes, thank you. I've been waiting years for you to do that. Yeah, so the application in front of you obviously is CPD rezoning for a 60-unit boutique hotel, some commercial ground floor, commercial spaces. There's several deviations that are included in your packet. And one of the things that I want to remember to do is anything like this, if it's going to be approved or put to a second reading, remember that the drawings that are there in front of you are being requested to be confirmed by you that they are consistent, in your opinion, with town codes. That way they don't have to do this later on, a weird kind of process that... is very cumbersome, so through this hearing process, they'll be looking to have those architectures accepted by you as consistent with the code. It's just a unique CPD thing. That's all, that's just the introduction to that. It's in the future land use category of Times Square mixed use commercial area, and currently with downtown zoning district. And I'll turn it over to the applicant.

Okay, does anybody have any questions for Jason?

Not at this time. Not at this time, Scott.

Can't remember that. Nor do I. Thank you, Jason. Okay.

Thank you. For the record, again, Megan Strayhorn along with me, as well as the expert witnesses, which I previously identified, we also have owner representative, Chris Flagg, who will come up after me to discuss the property and proposed project. This is a request to resell the property to a commercial plan development for the purpose of a boutique hotel. We do come to you from LPA with a unanimous recommendation of approval. You will have to find that this is consistent with the land development code, consistent with a comprehensive plan based on the application, the LPA hearing, this presentation, the expert testimony that will be presented to you today. We ask that the presentation also be included in the public record. At LPA, it was a unanimous recommendation of approval. There was one, really only one issue that was identified at the LPA level and that pertained to the proposed parallel parking spaces located on Primo Drive. We told the LPA, yes, we'll review it, we'll look at it, we'll come back with a plan. So the engineers and applicant did so. We're going to be eliminating a couple of those parallel parking spots, but shifting the rest of them further into the property while also voluntarily Deeding or giving up or allowing the town to use five feet of the property for the primo drive right-of-way so that's kind of the compromise that That we've reached but before I go any further. I would like to introduce mr. Chris flag to discuss the property and project Good morning

We all refer to this property as Silver Sands. We have just now recently reached an agreement with Margaritaville that it's going to be called One Particular Harbor. One Particular Harbor is Margaritaville's new upper-upscale luxury hotel brand. There's one in Nassau, Bahamas. There's one going in Bradenton. Some are condo components. Some have condo components to them. This one will not. This is, we intend that this would be just a regular hotel rooms like we have at the resort. And the real benefit of having the Margaritaville brand on it is the full complex with the existing resort. So from a parking standpoint, from a system standpoint, from a checking in standpoint, Cards, access, access, guest access, bands, all of that's going to be seamless across this property as well as the resort. So just wanted to let you all know that our name has changed from Silver Sands to One Particular Harbor.

Okay.

Can you hear me?

Yes. All right. Well, I apologize if I do get confused and refer to Silver Sands, but I'll do my best. You know, one thing, though, when they told us one particular harbor, WE IMMEDIATELY SAID OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE OUR SIGNS AND GET BIGGER SIGNS BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF SYLLABLES IN THAT NAME. SO WHAT YOU'LL SEE AS PART OF OUR PRESENTATION, WE ARE ASKING TO CHANGE OUR SIGN DEVIATION TO ALLOW FOR A LITTLE MORE FACE AREA TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW NAME. So for the record, my name is Patrick Van Ness, certified planner with The Neighborhood Company. It's a pleasure to be here today to talk about this CPD rezone for one particular harbor, formerly Silver Sands. Same thing I said with the previous application. We've met with all of you. You had some questions for us. I think we did our best to answer all your questions. We are completely aware that you have watched the LPA hearing, that you also have reviewed our packet. So again, we're gonna keep it brief and more than happy to answer some questions, but we'll quickly zoom through this if possible. um just a reminder of where the location is intersection of primo and estero boulevard um A little bit about the history, dating back to the 1920s, several iterations over time. But right before Hurricane Ian, there were 22 units on site. There was also a small hot dog stand refreshment counter called the Dog House. So everything was destroyed. with the Hurricane Ian. So this is an aerial view of what it looked like prior to the storm. And this is what it looks like today. As Megan mentioned, we are asking for an all suites boutique hotel of 60 units and 2,500 square feet of ancillary commercial at ground level. um i'll quickly go through this light but from a location site design compatibility standpoint just want to highlight that we are in the downtown core this is an area slated for the highest densities intensities ACTIVITY WITHIN OUR TOWN SO WE BELIEVE THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE AREA FOR THIS USE IT IS VERY COMPLEMENTARY TO SURROUNDING USES CREATE SYNERGIES AMONGST BUSINESSES AND AGAIN I THINK IT'S A HOTEL THAT IS ATTRACTIVE AND FITS INTO THE CHARACTER AND IS GOING TO BENEFIT THE DOWNTOWN AREA So biggest change that occurred, as Megan mentioned, is we were asked, and I think it stemmed from one comment from a neighbor down Primo, of the roadway is narrow and you are asking for parallel parking along the roadway. JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE PARALLEL PARKING IS COMPLETELY WITHIN OUR PROPERTY. IT'S NOT WITHIN THE TOWN'S RIGHT OF WAY. AND WE WERE ASKED, CAN YOU LOOK AT THAT? IS THERE A WAY TO MAYBE IMPROVE THOSE CONDITIONS? SO THE ENGINEERS WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND CAME UP WITH A GOOD SOLUTION THAT WE THINK ADDRESSES THEIR CONCERN AND ALSO THE APPLICANT'S CONCERN. SO ONE THING YOU MAY RECALL AT THE LPA THAT WE DISCUSSED IS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF THIS BOUTIQUE HOTEL IS TO PROVIDE SELF-PARKING. THEY'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR A LONG TIME. THEY KNOW WHAT THEIR EXACT NEEDS ARE. THEY HAVE ANTICIPATED HOW MUCH PARKING THEY NEED. so they as they describe uh they need 42 to 45 parking space to feel comfortable that they are providing sufficient parking that they don't have to go to a valet parking so if we eliminated all the park the parallel parking along primo we would be under that 42 number And again, they don't want to trigger the need for valet. So what we looked at and what we think is a good compromise is let's address the right-of-way width. And through that, we are providing an easement to the town for an extra five feet. And the town can do what they please from an improvement standpoint or if it's just extra space. between the property and the traveling traffic, it provides a little more comfort level. So what you see here is the revised master concept plan. We had two parking spaces that were at the intersection of Primo and Estero Boulevard. We have eliminated those two parking spaces. to though so this the the intersection is where you're going to have more the most activity so by eliminating those two parallel parking spaces we avoid any potential conflicts resulting from that the sidewalk in that pocket plaza remains in place and you do have a sidewalk from estero to the entrance to the parking garage and to the back side of the lobby area however moving north WE HAD TO ELIMINATE THE SIDEWALK. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE KEPT THE PARALLEL PARKING AND AGAIN TO OFFSET THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED THAT FIVE FOOT EASEMENT ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF PRIMO. So going back to the amount of parking, in doing so, we were under the 42 parking spaces minimum that they require. So we looked at modifying our loop road, our little loop drive that is internal to the project. So let me just fast forward here to what it used to be, okay? So that little loop drive used to cut back in under the building, and then you had your exit on Primo. so what we are proposing is to extend that loop drive unfortunately we had a bit of a green facing the waterfront the canal we've unfortunately lost that but it's more important to have the parking and keep it a south park hotel so if we look at this we've extended that we were able to fit in a few extra parking spaces and also we've hugged THE BUILDING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND JUST I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT ONE SO THE DIFFERENCE IS WE'VE TAKEN THAT LOOP ROAD HUGGED IT CLOSER TO THE BUILDING AND WHAT THAT ALLOWED US TO DO IS TO PUT ONE CONSISTENT BUFFER AT 18 FEET ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. THE REQUIREMENT IS A 15-FOOT BUFFER. WE NOW HAVE AN 18-FOOT BUFFER ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THAT THAT YARD. SO WE THINK IT'S A BETTER CONFIGURATION ON THAT SIDE. AND AGAIN, IT MAINTAINS THE MINIMUM PARKING SPACES THAT WE NEED. WE'VE ACTUALLY INCREASED THE TOTAL PARKING SPACES TO 51 PARKING SPACES. SO WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS AS PART OF OUR DEVIATIONS, BECAUSE WE HAD A PARKING DEVIATION, WE'VE HAD TO MODIFY THAT. I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THAT. SO IT'S A REDUCTION IN THE DEVIATION. So, also with this new name change, we figured we'll update our renderings and show you what those signs would look like. So, what you have on the side of the building, the proper term for those signs are blade signs. So we are asking for a deviation to increase the square footage associated with the blade signs. Also, we've determined that at the front of the building, there's going to be a logo for one particular harbor, and we're still going to need one, possibly two little retail signs. So what you'll see is in our deviation, we account for that also. Megan, did you want to point to? No? Okay. So again, just same renderings that we had at the LPA, just showing the signs and the sign faces that we have there. We can always go back to this if you have any questions, but we've got Albert here. We've got our footprint. We've got each floor depicted here. If you've got any questions, happy to answer that. Our height exhibits, nothing's changed. And this is just the layout of the parking that has been modified, so we just wanted to show that quickly. Density intensity at the LPA, we went through this in detail. The important thing to highlight is the code has changed, well the comp plan has changed, the code hasn't caught up yet. But the comp plan is now, we have now gone from, instead of doing a density conversion ratio for hotel uses, we are going to a straight FAR. I want to point out that the FAR that is allowed in this future land use category that we could ask for is a 2.5. We are asking for a 2.0 well beneath the allowance through the comp plan. from a transportation standpoint. Again, transportation is always a hot issue. We know that. But TI's conclusion from the expert is it's not going to adversely impact the roadway that is already impacted, essentially. We all know that, that in season it is a constrained roadway and it's going to continue to be constrained with or without this project. However, we do understand that we have to do our best to mitigate and to help out as best we can so we have committed to being part of the don't rent a car program which is kind of the educational program with the guests encouraging people not to drive a car if possible encouraging people to use transit or bikes or or walk around instead we are going to provide bicycles to the hotel guests WE ARE MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PEDESTRIAN REALM, WIDENING THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, ALSO PROVIDING FOR A LITTLE POCKET PLAZA WHICH IS GOING TO HAVE SEATING AREA AND IS GOING TO BE FOR PUBLIC SPACE, LITTLE LANDSCAPING INCLUDED IN THERE. AND ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT measures that we are providing and is going to be a public benefit. We all know that as you get near the base of the bridge, traffic slows down and we tend to have a lot of jaywalking in that area in season. So we have committed and the nice thing is the owners own both Margaritaville and this one particular harbor property and they've committed to a pedestrian barrier. along the side where the pool is for Margaritaville, all the way to the entrance to that pool area and to the La Dida area. So this is going to prevent any day walking back and forth. I've got pictures of what a decorative barrier could look like, but we show that at the LPA. It can be very attractive, and we think this will provide a transportation benefit. So going back to the parking, our deviation is going to change. We were asking for a 20% reduction. We are now asking for a 10.5. We rounded that up to 11% reduction from what code requires. So we are now providing 51 spaces and previously we had 46 spaces. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH OUR LIST OF PUBLIC BENEFITS IN DETAIL, BUT, AGAIN, SMALL PROPERTY, SMALL INFILL PROPERTY, DOING OUR BEST WE CAN WITH THE LOCATION WE HAVE AND THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT MITIGATING FOR TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, WIDENING THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF US, AGAIN, THIS MAY NOT BE A PUBLIC BENEFIT. PER SE THAT WE'RE GIVING SOMETHING TO THE TOWN, BUT WITH NEW REGULATIONS WE HAVE TO PROVIDE UPDATED, HARDENED, RESILIENT STRUCTURES. I THINK THAT BENEFITS US AS A COMMUNITY WHEN EVERYBODY REBUILDS. I HAVE TO DO IT FOR MY HOUSE, YOU GUYS HAVE TO DO IT FOR YOUR HOMES, BUT IF WE HAVE ANOTHER STORM WE'RE GOING TO DO WAY BETTER THAN WE DID LAST TIME. And again, public benefits, you guys are gonna be talking about taxes, state mandated requirements possibly with residential taxes. Tax reform, this is a commercial use. It would not be affected by residential tax reforms. This is an operator that has a proven track record in this town. They are ready to go. They are ready to build. And as soon as they build, this is tax revenue on our books. I'll skip through the deviations just to highlight where we've made changes. So what this deviation says is that we are asking for a deviation to the minimum sign face requirement, maximum sign face requirement of 32 square feet per sign. Excuse me, and we are now asking for two signs those blade signs to be That allow for up to 80 square feet which would essentially allow what has been depicted on this rendering and also for an additional 81 square feet to allow the signs up front where we're gonna have the logo and the retail signs again consistent with what is depicted and And then deviation 11 as I mentioned were the only change the deviation is to allow a deviation for an 11% reduction. Prior to that I believe it was 20 or 21. So that's different than what you have in your packet. AND THEN WE'VE ADDED DEVIATION NUMBER 12, WHICH IS A NEW DEVIATION. AND THAT WAS JUST AS WE WERE WORKING THROUGH THIS, TOM, I BELIEVE, SAID, HEY, I'D LOVE TO HAVE A WAYFINDING SIGN JUST LIKE WE HAVE AT MARGARITAVILLE. AND I SAID WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD THAT SO IT'S A DEVIATION THAT WOULD ALLOW WAYFINDING POLL SIGN AND IT WOULD BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF NINE FEET FROM GRADE AND IT WOULD BE ROUGHLY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS DEPICTED THERE ON THE PHOTOGRAPH. so before i go to my conclusion i just like bring that up every time we talk about hotel on this island this is the latest data from the visitor bureau just want to remind everybody that compared to where we were prior to the storm we are still over 40 down on the number of rooms on this island um SO I THINK WE NEED THOSE ROOMS BACK, WE NEED HEADS IN BEDS, WE NEED PEOPLE TO SPEND MONEY ON OUR ISLAND AND HELP ALL THE LOCAL BUSINESSES AND THIS IS WHAT I THINK A GREAT PROJECT, GREAT BOUTIQUE HOTEL THAT WILL CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS THAT. SO WITH THAT SAID, WE OBTAINED UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FROM THE LPA. We've read the staff approval, the staff conditions of approval. We support all those conditions of approval. We were asked by the LPA to address the parallel parking issue, which we've provided what we believe is a good compromise. So in my professional planning opinion, this CPD is consistent with the comp plan. This is the newly revised comp plan and the older comp plan. and we meet or exceed all ldc requirements so based on that i ask that you support our application move this on to second hearing and approve the project so with that said thank you and i'm available for any questions you have

I have one housekeeping matter, if you will, if you may. Post submittal of this package, we made some modifications to the concept plan and learned some new information. Can I respectfully request for Vice Mayor Stafford to reread the title? There are two areas in the title of the ordinance One, it should be 12 deviations, and two, it should be 51 parking spaces. So I would request just to have the title reread before moving on.

That is a statutory requirement, the actual reading of the title.

Sure. I can reread it. So we have 51 parking spaces and 12 deviations. Yes, sir. Then we'll reread it. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving with conditions denying a rezoning of property located at 1207 Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, generally identified as strap number 19-46-24-W4-015D.0050 from downtown zoning district to a commercial plan development with 12 deviations to allow for a 60-unit hotel and 2,500 square feet of commercial retail space and 51 parking spaces, providing for other clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, Scrivener's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. Nancy, that good?

Yes, that was very, very good.

Actually, I think you left off the last zero before the D. You did, on the strap number.

Oh, dear.

0150D.0050. Okay.

That's sufficient. Okay.

Yes.

Okay. Question time. Mr. McClain, what do you have?

I actually don't have any questions at this time. Okay. Council Member Blank?

I do not.

me my turn okay uh going off a couple of emails we received from uh residents in the area uh number one is the property still for sale

No, the property that this late, the listing agreement expired months ago. We didn't, we didn't realize it was on the website. It was on the website still. So it's been taken off the website, but no properties, not for sale.

Thank you. Also, they have concerns again about, uh, the traffic on, on the street, but they're talking about, uh, the town giving away height, density, intensity, uh, with nothing in return. And how would you react to that? I mean, for the last year on social media, I've seen all the smart people tell me that Margaritaville is the gold standard of this town, and now we've exceeded Margaritaville on this.

Yeah, so for the record, Patrick Van Ness, when it comes to benefits and... compatibility issues we have documented this at length in our packet and we've also gone through it as part of the LPA presentation I do have a slide I can bring back the slide we can go look at each of those points or we can just say that for the record we've identified what those benefits are but we we do provide benefit again that we think is commensurate to the ask thank you thank you

Is that it? That's it. So I have two questions for you. Have you guys spoken to the neighbors about the parking issue? Have you reached out to any of the neighbors, especially on Primo, about the project and their concerns?

So my understanding is it's one neighbor that I, at least there may be more, John, but what I was forwarded and what we got, it was one particular neighbor. Not to be confused with one particular harbor. But we believe that the compromise we are presenting addresses that concern to the greatest extent we can. So we are aware of it, we understand it, and we have modified things accordingly. JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE PERSONAL OPINION AND COLOR ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, I DO NOT APPRECIATE THE PERSONAL ATTACKS THAT THAT PERSON HAS MADE IN HER EMAILS TO ME AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO NO REAL DESIRE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THAT PERSON. WE THINK WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED OUR GOOD WILL TO TRY TO ADDRESS THIS.

Okay, thank you. Going with the goodwill, is there a way that internally you guys can not use those parking spots until the very last four? I don't want to codify or anything, but to be a good neighbor, to understand that there are some issues with that street, is there a way that those spots aren't used until the very last four?

Yeah, Chris, we had given that thought internally of if it's out of season and you guys don't need as much parking, maybe you just have to put barriers or planters in the way. So basically, they're not in use, but peak times if you need them. Yeah, we'd be okay with that condition.

Okay. I think that would be showing some good faith toward the neighbors and, you know, let's be honest. There's a lot of trucks there, especially early in the morning with deliveries and everything else. So I think anything we can do to help the flow of traffic would be really nice.

We can do that.

All right. Anyone else? Any other questions? Okay, public comment. Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this matter? If so, please come forward to the podium and identify yourself, provide your address, and whether you were sworn in. Okay, seeing none, we'll close public comment. Are there any other additional comments, rebuttals, or closing statements from you? No. Okay. All right. I will now close the public hearing and request discussion or motion from the town council to either approve, approve with conditions, deny with reasons, or a continuous to a time certain. John?

I've got nothing further at this time.

Rebecca?

Nothing further.

Nothing further.

Okay. Nor do I. Do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 26-10 CPD 2025-0286-1207 Estero Boulevard Silver Stands Resort now known as one particular harbor. With the changes as outlined for the parking and the reconfiguration.

And the second reading will be, if approved, the second reading will be September 9th at 1 p.m. At 1 p.m. Okay.

I'll second. Okay.

It's actually 1 p.m. or soon thereafter because it looks like we'll have a little log jam there with a couple projects.

Okay. At 1 p.m. or soon thereafter.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion?

Yes. Just for clarification, there's an extra condition is needed from what was in the staff report to deal with the right-of-way and the offer, I think. Was that what you were intended to include in that?

To include not just the parking, but also the deviation.

We'll prepare that condition for the second hearing to add that based on your direction. Thank you. Please. Thank you.

And for the record, applicant is in agreement.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion and a second. John?

Aye.

John?

Aye.

Aye.

And I'm a aye as well. Motion carries four to zero. Okay, do you want to take a short break? Before we, oh yeah. Yeah, we're going to take a break for 45 minutes. We're going to come back at 1 p.m.

you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, yeah.

Okay, we're gonna call this meeting back to order. It is 1.01 PM. We are now onto our administrative agenda. Our first item is resolution 26-142, fiscal year 2027, proposed maximum millage rate. This is a resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach, adopting a proposed maximum millage rate for the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida of 1.34 for fiscal year 2027, commencing October 1st, 2026 and ending September 30th, 2027 for the purpose of providing sufficient funds for the general government operating fund, setting the date, time and place for the first and second public hearings as required by section 200.065 Florida statutes for adoption of a tentative and final millage rate and proposed and final operating budget and providing an effective date. Will?

In the interest of time, I'll just turn it over to Mr. Jeffrey Newman, our Assistant Finance Director.

Welcome, Jeffrey.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jeffrey Newman. I'm the assistant director of finance. I've been with the town now for just about two months, so it's a pleasure to stand in front of you guys for the first time. So today I'll be presenting about the FY27 proposed millage. During this presentation, I'll be providing a lot of context. primarily to help inform, educate, and help people make the best decisions possible when it comes to taxes. Because every dollar that we use does come from the public. It's given to us as part of the public trust. We have responsibility to maximize that. So with that... This meeting is required by Florida Statute 200.0654 , where we're required to set a proposed maximum millage. The due date for us to submit it is at the latest tomorrow. That is to the property appraiser's office through the oasis trim system we have to submit it within 35 days now you'll hear me echo this multiple times in this presentation the millage set today is a not to exceed rate it is not the final rate we will have two additional meetings coming up to suggest whatever the final rate the town council decides upon those meetings are open to the public they will be noticed through the trim process that the citizens receive as part of the mailer from the property appraiser. We will also need to set public meetings on September 9th and September 23rd. Both of those meetings will happen at 5.01 p.m. So as part of the larger discussion today, I just wanted to lay out a few numbers because they weave their way through this entire presentation. What is a mill? One mill is equal to $1 tax on every $1,000 of taxable value. 0.01 mills is what I've used as the budget bedrock. That's $50,299.77. 0.01 mills because we budget at only 96% of the allotted mills is equal to $48,287.78. So for taxing perspective, pulling information from the tax collector's office, a town resident pays 13.4329 mills in FY26. of which the town is only making up 7.66 of their mills. So the town's millage in FY26 was 1.0294, and a town resident had a total millage of 13.4329. So breaking it down by what a town resident is paying for, as everyone will see on this chart in blue, There are four taxing authorities that collect a higher millage rate than the town. And I have outlined the percentages up there so people can understand it in its whole as the town makes up only a relatively small proportion of the average millage bill. So, putting it in a graph, the town's portion is equal to the blue sliver. That's 7.66%. As you can see, the big purple slice of the pie that is going to be your Lee County millage followed by the two millages that public schools get that is the orange and the green you'll notice there's some diagonal lines indicating that they go together and you also have the fire control special district for Fort Myers Beach that is the red millage Mosquito control, library, South Florida water, hyanthia, those all make up the small little slices at the very top of the pie chart. So, dialing it back and trying to compare apples to oranges. The state charges a 6% sales tax. If you converted the state sales tax into mills, Granted, the state has limits and the state has certain items that are carved out, but the state is charging 60 mils upfront on many of the items people purchase on a day-to-day basis. The town at a flat millage is 1.0294 as approved by this body for FY26. Another big difference currently between millage and the sales tax revenue is that mills are no longer referencing any kind of inflationary pressures. However, if your price goes up by $10 on $100 order at a store, sales tax automatically adjusts to that new price. So that's just some of the differences between mills and how sales tax is calculated. Now, one thing I wanted to go in, brief discussion on was what about non-millage revenues? So from throughout my career, common sources that have been brought to me is why can't we charge a sales tax, a room tax? Why can't we have a developer who's coming to us for a piece of property pay a lump sum into the general fund? I would just urge everyone to understand that Florida statute governs all of those revenue streams and localities are largely excluded by what's the maximum percentage they can charge, what taxing authority can impose them, how can those funds be used, how much can be assessed. For instance, Lee County collects a millage for room rentals, occupancy tax. That millage goes to the Tourism Development Council, who then vote on and can only supply money to tourism-related sources. So the town does not unfortunately have the legal authority to put a 4% tax on rooms, a 3% tax on alcohol. It's just not present in Florida statute. Many things like impact fees, which a developer pays for schools and roads, is specifically in statute prohibited. from going into our general fund. So largely, the town's biggest source of funding it can control tax-wise is its millage. We are just prohibited by Florida statute from going into too many other sources. Yes, we can do a little bit of work with utilities. Yes, we can do some work with fees, but by and large, the tax we control is our mills. The town can charge up to 10 mills as any taxing authority can in Florida. So the top three millage rates for a town resident are Lee County and the school district of Lee County. They make up roughly two thirds of everyone's property tax bill. Our proportion, as I said earlier, is only 7.66%. Now what makes our portion unique is that 100% of the tax dollars collected to support the town by a town property owner go directly to town residents. So this is a tax paid by our residents that goes directly to our residents, not anywhere else in the county or the state. This town unfortunately has no input on how the remaining 92% of mills being assessed by other taxing authorities go. So today, just for perspective, we can only talk about that 7.66%. So what would the net outcome be on my tax bill if we made certain changes? looking at a whole tax bill, ignoring what any other taxing authority may do this coming fiscal year, if we reverted to rollback, which is .9687, it would lower someone's millage by a third of a percent as a whole. If we were to adopt the 1.34 as our maximum millage, that would only increase a resident's tax bill by 2.3% because it's a proportion based on a small slice of the pie that a person pays. Real dollars, very important, but just putting it into a little bit of perspective. The three rates we'll be discussing today are the rollback rate, the unchanged rate, and the maximum proposed millage rate. This meeting only sets the maximum. As I mentioned earlier, there's going to be subsequent meetings, and a lesser millage can be adopted or chosen at any point moving forward at a public meeting. This is effectively a cap. So the rollback rate, in FY26, the town adopted a millage of 4.628 million. That is the part that we were allowed to budget at the 1.0294 rate. For both last year and this year, we're budgeting at 96%, which is in keeping with Florida statutes governing how much you should budget. Of that, in FY27, our rolled back will be 4.677 million. As you can see, there is... $49,000 difference between the two. So how is rollback set? Rollback is not based on what we adopted as projected income. Rollback is based on what was actually received. And the town is only at about an 86%, a little more than that, receipt ratio year over year. That lowers what our rollback would be, because it's based on dollars actually received, not the budget is set by the town. Effective for 27, something new for every taxing authority is that rollback rate is no longer going to be adjusted by the Florida per capita personal income. So how that worked in the past was that a rollback would be looking at dollars to dollars, year to year, And then they would multiply by whatever the percentage was for the Florida per capita personal income. I don't want to say that was an inflationary adjustment because it was based on changes to income, but it tried to move it in real dollar buying terms, not flat dollars. That was removed this year. The 3.99% which the state has in its documents had been finalized. That means that the town's rollback would have been 1.007 in that approximate area instead of the .9687. That lowered roughly the amount that the town would have collected in rollback millage by $187,000. It also means that to maintain 1.0294 mils, it will be an increase of 6.2% over rolled back and not a 2.4% increase over rolled back. So, how much will rolled back save a property owner? Now, I didn't want to go with below average to minimize the tax impact, because I think we have to just do a good estimate, so I went with a high median. Per realtor.com, the high median of houses listed right now is about $750,000 on the island. So if you use the $750,000 home, and that home qualifies for the $50,000 homestead exemption, A rollback will save the average person $56.51 a year, which breaks out to about 11 cents, 12 cents a day. If we adopt a rollback, that reduction of millage will further widen the differential we're looking to close by 293,000. that will climb our differential to about 1.8 million. If we maintain our rate, budgeting at 96%, and you have a $750,000 home, you will pay $720.58 a year, and that works out to about $1.97 a day. in total tax, which is that 11 and a half cents higher than if we were to go to a rollback. I have both features on this slide. So, 1.0294 mills is 6.2% above the rollback rate. It generates $293,000. To go above the rollback rate, legislative changes require a two-thirds majority. And looking at the numbers, two-thirds majority can only approve up to 1.0655 mills. Anything beyond that requires a unanimous vote. Now, the maximum millage rate. We set the maximum millage rate as per July 15th when the preliminary early budget was submitted to council, that rate assumed that we would close the millage completely with world back. That is prior to proposed budget adjustments, whether that be cost containment, non-millage based fees for service, things like that. The revenues at the moment at 1.0294 mills without adjustments are forecasted about 12.681 million. The proposed budget's roughly 14.181 million, which left the difference of 1.499 million. So, just to go through the math very quickly, The amount of 1.4499 million when budgeted per mill at 96% means that we would have to go 31.06 mills above the 1.0294 I built the budget on. When you add 1.0294 with 3106, that is how we got to 1.34 mills. Once more, that's the maximum before any kind of cost containment, fee changes, anything like that occur. If we set 1.34 today, we will not legally exceed that rate. That is a cap. Anything below that is at the discretion of town council. So if we were to go to 1.34 mills on a quarter million dollar, sorry, three quarter of a million dollar home with a $50,000 homestead exemption, that works out to about $938 a year. $2.57 a day, and I've broken out the math on this slide so you can see what it would be above the rollback rate. Now, one thing I wanted to do this year just for information is provide some millage benchmarking to see where we are lining up with all of our peers, because it's important that our residents, I think, get the best value, the lowest taxes possible. Now, these results are based on the last year of published information by the Florida Department of Revenue. These were the millages that all these jurisdictions adopted in 25, not the 26 that we're currently in. For the purposes of the analysis, I predicted that we would stay at a 1.0294 mills, because I had to choose a starting point. And I finished the analysis in late June of 26, and I updated it on July 1st when our new taxable values came out. So, the residents are in the bottom 5% millage of municipalities in the state. 374 out of 393 Florida municipalities in 25 charged a higher millage than the town does. Only 19 municipalities in total and several of them are equal to one another. That's the difference between the two. But only 19 municipalities charged less than 1.0294 mills. So we are in the bottom five percentile. So what does the average town charge? The statewide average mean is five. The median is 5.2. We are less than one quarter of the average Florida municipality to maximize taxpayer value. Of the 374 jurisdictions, I listed some peers in here such as Sanibel in 25 was 2.5 mils. Marco Island, 1.267, Naples, 1.23, Destin, 1.615, Key West, Longboat Key, et cetera. We are, geographically, we are closest to our post Ian Pier Sanibel, yet our rate is 59% below theirs. Now there are some communities in our area that are applying less mills. Estero, which has an unincorporated style of limited services, is .73 mills, and Bonita Springs, which is .847 mills with a larger commercial tax base than we have on this island. So as you can see below that, trying to find people who are close peers, it is a Southwest Florida common theme, where Southwest Florida communities typically keep relatively low millages. So one thing that we have in common with our peers here is we have very high property values, which allows us to generate sufficient revenues on lesser mills. We have a relatively limited and lean municipal service model. We are still in hurricane recovery mode, so we're able to rely on things such as the bridge loan in years past. And our low policy rate is policy driven, not necessarily a function of a higher tax base. Now, I did want to look at some of our Gulf Coast peer barrier islands. We were lower than all of those that you see up on the board now. Significantly lower in many cases. And when I looked at the Florida Keys, Southern Florida in general, we are lower than all of our peers there. Now, one thing to keep in mind is when I just look at coastal communities, coastal communities are average charging about 3.1 mils. Now, why we're low is that we have been able to rely on a healthy charges for service model. We have been receiving a number of grants such as from TDC to offset beach re-nourishment, CDBG to help with some of the construction projects around here so we have not been raising mills to run a lot of these capital projects on the front end. And one unfortunate thing with our current model is post-DN recovery, as anyone who was devastated by a hurricane will attest, does impact your taxable value and growth because things that are demolished, it's terrible but they cannot pay into our tax base. So there is some rate headroom and the only thing I mean by headroom is that per Florida statute, you can charge up to 10 mils So we have, if we had to go up, there is upward room. There are many towns who are already maxed at 10 mils or close to 10 mils. And if we were to adopt those, I listed the three common averages and how that would impact our budget. Not suggesting we go to them, just saying if we took on someone else's taxation model, that's what the revenues would yield. At the time of this report, we had only collected about 4.46 million of our budgeted 4.628. So we are still, as you can see, in a bit of a millage underperformance based largely upon the hurricane. Now, in conclusion, Once more to clarify, if the rate is set at 1.34 today, it is a cap on maximum millage. It will not exceed that. 100% of millage collected from town residents goes directly back to the town residents. We do need to set follow-up meetings for September 9th and 23rd at 5 p.m. The reason we select those dates is our meetings must follow the county's and the school board's meetings. So, with that, it concludes my presentation.

Will, do you have anything to add to that before we go to questions?

I'll go ahead and just open it up for questions at this time, and I think some of your questions may get to some of what you want to hear from me, or I could, but yeah. Councillor McLean, how about we'll start with you.

Thank you very much, Jeffrey. I was wondering if you could comment a little bit further on the 86.3% that had been recovered or collected. You said the reason for that was post-Ian recovery still, but that would have been year-over-year change, right? a budget from last year to what was collected this year?

That was this current fiscal year's budget. So just, it was an FY26 budget. If we looked at the millage that was adopted, versus what was collected, we're only collecting at about 86% of mills.

But that doesn't have anything to do with the timing or months left in the fiscal year or anything? I'm trying to understand the cause for it.

So typically when we do a millage, we start receiving the majority of our payments. The first large payment we receive is normally in fiscal year starts October 1. First large payment, medium size, comes in November, then you typically have a big December payment, and then a smaller January payment, and then by the time you get to the spring, it really starts to taper off, and by the summer, you're really not collecting mills. This is often when people have to settle up upon the sale of property, so I don't think we'll move much off that 86%.

I'm still not understanding

why it's... Jeffrey, I think it's because there's default in there. There's other reasons why people aren't paying their taxes. Yes.

It's just people that are not paying their taxes that are... Correct. That's what I was trying to get to.

Sorry. And that's remitted to us directly by the tax collector. We're not involved in those collections. Okay.

And so what was the number you told us as well? You don't you don't ever use 100% because you know there's going to be some defaulting taxpayers. What was it compared to what we are having? We set ours at 96% and so we're at over 10% gap. Yeah, so that's folks who live here not paying their property taxes.

Historically, what's a rolling average? Or say that maybe you don't have that, like five or 10 years. What is it of that percentage? Is it that why it was at 96% or why it is at 96%? Or are we just doing it year over year and we're not adjusting that 96%?

So I have not worked in the past. I would have to run our past numbers, budget to actuals, which I can gladly do, given a little bit of time. What I will say, having worked for other municipalities that were not damaged by the hurricane during that period, many of them are collecting right at 100%.

I can say last year we also set it at about 96%, right? But that's as far back as I can talk on.

That makes sense.

For budgeting purposes, we anticipate only bringing in about 96%. You cannot under budget less than 95% collection. You can budget up to 100, but not less than 95, and that's per state statute. That's very, very helpful. Thank you.

We'll sketch on. I'm mulling that one over. Rebecca?

I want to understand the rollback rate a little more. Is that saying, well, I'll just let you explain it. Because I'm thinking of it as that's if we wanted to have the same numbers, that that's what that rollback rate is. Can you explain that to me and to anyone else listening?

Sure, so the rollback rate is designed to be with government effectively bringing in the same amount of numbers plus new growth that has occurred during that year. So the reason our numbers are so close to last year's and that we're not coming in with a number sufficient, 86% of that is we have seen significant new growth on the island that's just being factored in for the first time. Um, the biggest, the biggest change is that they're no longer applying that Florida income. So normally they'd get to that final number. They'd multiply it by 1.0, whatever. And that would be the rolled back. So this year we've seen a decent amount of new growth that's paying taxes for the first time. And that's what's bumped that number up.

Thank you.

Anything else?

That's it.

Scott. I appreciate your comparisons with other coastal communities, but I've got a feeling we're comparing apples to oranges because a lot of these communities have fire, they have police. Have you looked at communities like ours that don't have either and how we compare to them other than Estero?

So I have not gone on a community by community amenities list. I can gladly do that if that is the council's direction and report back to you on as close to a peer-to-peer as we can get.

Yeah, because just with Sanibel, I know they've got police, right? And fire. And fire. And fire. So I would imagine there would be more just because of all those other amenities that they provide.

Admittedly so. And I will do my best to get that information pending the next meeting for you. OK. Thank you. That's all I have.

John?

Well, I guess I'm not sure if this is where we're going to start drilling down on all the numbers we've received in the last couple weeks or not. So I guess if somebody can help me understand that, because I've got a lot of questions about the information we've been provided since the 15th.

Yeah, go ahead.

OK. Where do we expect to end our fiscal year this year?

I'd have to see what our taxes are leaning to. Not taxes, excuse me. A lot of our fees for service do come in stronger leading into September because we have the return of tourists to the season. Right now, I think we're tracking largely with our historicals. I will tell you in a first pass that instead of needing roughly 2 million projected from the bridge fund, As we would have done in prior years to close next year, we're only looking at about 680,000. So things like parking are coming in much stronger than they have in recent past years. So I'd like to say we're on pretty good financial footing. I would just need to take a few minutes to go through and give you an exact number on that.

Okay, because now I guess I'm confused about a lot of things, but that's normal for me. But on the memo we got from the town manager on the 15th, the shortfall was going to be projected at $629,030. You said that's going to be covered by the bridge loan, correct?

For FY27, that's what we're planning on assessing against the bridge loan, yes.

Okay, how much is remaining of the bridge loan after that?

If we take that money out, off the top of my head, it'll be about $6.7 million, somewhere in that approximate area.

Okay, but now we have, as of the 30th of July, we had a budget gap of almost $1.5 million. I guess I'm confused.

The letter that I sent, Councillor King, on the 15th, the total in that letter was $1.499 million. there were two numbers in the in the narrative of my letter. One was a short, you know, drawing from the bridge loan, which would draw us down by 600,000. And the other one was another I don't have in front of me right now, but they were there were two large kind of reasons identifying for that shortfall. But then the total, if you went down to the end of the of the tables that identified the 1.49

So one thing with the bridge loan is the bridge loan can only be used to balance based on the historicals for the last year prior to the hurricane. And we cannot pull additional revenues or offset increased expenses beyond that out of the bridge loan. So the bridge loan is just a revenue offset in just the categories of what they were the year before the hurricane.

Yes, so I guess what I'm saying is it hasn't changed since the July 15th proposed budget. We're still basing our forecasting and our budgeting off of that same number.