Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

This is a regularly scheduled meeting of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency. It's 9:00 a.m. and it's Tuesday, April 21st. Would you please rise for the invocation and the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Uh well, I just wish everybody a good day. Amen.

Amy, your invocation at the town council meeting yesterday was beautiful. You're welcome. Okay, first item. May I have an appro uh motion, please, to approve the final agenda today? So move. Thank you, Jim, and thank you, Jane. Any objection to that motion? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. And now for the minutes of March 10th, 2026.

Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Jane. Any corrections or objection to that motion? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. Next item is public comment and this is public comment on any item that is not on the agenda. I'm guessing you folks are here for a public hearing. So you'll want to wait. Um we'll close the public comment and move on to our first public hearing which is a variance request. Can we do a roll call real quick? Oh yes we can because we have two we have two members absent today. Um let's start on this end. Ed, Ed, it's good over Jim Bowen, Anita Sarasa, Jane Plumber, Doug Ecman, and uh both Don Sedith and Jim Dunlop have excused absences. Thank you. So, thank you,

Madam Chair. You do have a short somewhat short agenda today, but I have a few words I'd like to say. Please do.

Thank you. So, you have three items on your agenda and there will be public hearings for these items. Uh they are all variances. Um, variances are quasi judicial in nature and this requires that today's public hearings comply with procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in our land development code. However, today's hearings will be less formal than a proceeding before circuit court, but they will be more normal than the remainder of your meeting, and we must follow some basic standards of due process that require certain notices, the application of the correct standards and decisions, and your decisions to be made on competent substantial evidence presented to you either in written documents or through oral testimony. Your responsibility today would be to evaluate the testimony and the information for each item and draw a conclusion regarding whether the criteria in the land development code or in state law has been satisfied. So speculation I think um or mere opinion I believe that is not based on competent facts cannot legally be considered by the LPA in evaluating an agenda item. Testimony by professionals who have been qualified as experts in a particular area is considered competent evidence by the 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 and belief. If you intend to speak, please keep my comments in mind. and anyone in the public um when you come forward state your name clearly for the record and whether or not you have been sworn in. So on your agenda you have three variances. The uh land development code has been amended to provide that a unanimous decision by eligible voting members of the LPA to approve a variance shall

constitute final agency action subject to a request by anyone for an additional hearing or review of the matter by the town council if the request for that additional hearing and review is received by the town clerk within 10 days. Um all of you are eligible members. So uh should you vote unanimously on any of these um the variance would be final um unless there is an appeal or a request for an additional review or hearing. And for purposes of efficiency regarding these three items, I'd like to go ahead and ask um our town clerk if these items have been properly noticed.

Yes, they have been. Okay. And also, does anyone uh on the LPA uh have a conflict of interest that would prohibit you from voting for on any of these three items? Ed, any conflicts? No conflicts. How about you, Jim? No conflict. Jane, no conflict. Doug, no, ma'am. Okay. So, if there is anyone in the audience who is intending to provide testimony or make comments today, uh we would like to have your testimony under oath. And if you could rise and the clerk will administer the oath.

If you'll raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. All have been sworn.

Thank you very much. So, I'll read the title. It's B2026014. This is for 831 EO Boulevard. Uh this is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving approving with conditions or denying variance request 202600014 requesting one a variance from the land development code section 34638D2B to allow a second level balcony encroachment into the required street setback in the RC zoning district. and two, a variance from the land development code section 34631B3A to allow an enclosed 38 square ft rooftop scrub structure for mechanical equipment to extend above the maximum permitted building height for the property located at 831 EO Boulevard, generally referred to as strap number 244623 W3005B00 in Fort Myers and providing for other clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scrier's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. Doug, do you have any exparte?

No, ma'am. How about you, Jean? I did talk to Matt yesterday. Okay. The day before, whenever that was. Okay. Jim, anything? No exparte. Uh, Ed, I received a letter in the email uh form that I I assumed everybody else got. And I also did a driveby of this property. Okay. Thank you very much, Ed. And it doesn't look like that. Uh yes. And I got a notice from Cara that you were going to be here. Um Matt. Okay. Thank you. Go right ahead. Uh Jason,

good morning. My name is Jason Smallley. I'm the senior planner here with the town's planning and zoning office. As was just read into the record, uh before you today is, excuse me, are two variances. Um one variance is requesting to allow a second uh living level balcony, which would usually require a 25- ft setback for everything, including outside balconies, to be set back at 25 ft. They're asking to uh to uh extend into the front 25 setback uh 6' 10 in which means that instead of providing the normal 25 they are asking to provide a 18 roughly 18 ft setback for this second level um second living level balcony. The second variance before you is a request to uh go beyond the 250 square feet that has allowed for additional heights on the roof. Uh staff uh during review had noted that while they did utilize the 250 square feet for their elevator and stairway uh what I'll refer to as a vestibule that they did request uh or they did plan for an additional 38 ft which I'll call a closet and that is to have u AC equipment in it. Uh so generally staff would put the limit at 250 square ft. They are asking for an additional 38 square feet to accommodate this excuse mechanical electrical closet for the AC units. Uh this is a multi-unit structure. So it's being built as more than just a single family home. Uh the recommendation from staff was for denial of the uh balcony request and for approval of the 38 square ft enclosure

on the roof. staff is here for any questions that you may have and the applicant's representative is here as well. Thank you very much, Jason. Questions for Jason. Ed? Yes, I have two questions of course regarding the first variance. I noticed sliding glass doors are in that location for the proposed balcony.

If I remember correctly, they had uh redesigned to add the doors in expectation that they were going to ask for this. Uh, at this point it was originally approved to have the balcony railing stop them at the doors so the doors would not be operable and they could not go out onto what would have been the roof of the lower balcony uh level. Their request today, I believe, is to then essentially expand the the balcony and allow for use of it through that that slider. Is there something in the process when somebody's building a building like this that that the town would stop them from putting in sliding glass doors knowing that there can't be a balcony?

There's nothing in my land development code that might deal with that. I apologize. I I can't answer for Florida building code or fire code if that is a requirement against it. I would have to assume that it wasn't an issue since it initially did go through building review. Okay. And the sec for the second variance is is the storage area already built? I believe the walls of the storage area are already built and that uh they would need to come in to enclose it and put the extension of the roof line over that 250 or 286 ft area if this were approved. So essentially it's already there. It just doesn't have a roof on it.

Um I would defer to the applicant to see how just how far into the build process. uh because this structure itself was uh brought in for revisions and that's when the additional square footage was noticed. So I I think that they have already built the walls, but I will defer to the applicant exactly where they are in that process on the roof. Thank you, Jason. Yes, sir. Other questions for Jason? Jim, anything? I'll wait for the applicant. Okay, Doug, Jane, anything for Jason? No. No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Of course, Matt.

I guess I'll start with the question. Yes, it is built. Um, it really um Matt, say your name for the record.

I'm sorry, Matt Noble. Um, I have been uh found to be an expert in planning, zoning, and the land development code here. Just um but yeah, it's existing. It really needs a roof. um more so because the electrical equipment is within that space. Uh they've already had to replace parts of the electrical equipment because it hasn't been covered. And this is a new structure. I mean, and it's kind of our environment here, the uh prevalence of salt water. It's not good for electric. So, I I didn't want to spend a lot of like time on that as the staff, I think, realizes it too. But yeah, there and I would say there's a lot of errors that happen with the whole project from the get-go from the there's a lot of blame that can be a fixed to the staff to the applicant. But I think what do we do to make it right and what do we do to make it the best structure we can at this point? That's this effort. Um the uh you know I could I could talk about there's other opportunities but we probably need to amend the code. Uh there are two huge beam I don't know how many of you have actually gone out there and looked. It's kind of hard to see what we're talking about from street level. You can see the top of the AC units poking up and you can see a couple of very large beams coming out of the wall. um you know that that would in the perfect world that whole area should be roofed. Um but of course we we're limited to the 250 square ft and we're we're going beyond that with this 38 ft to uh cover the really important mechanical

um stuff. the fuse boxes, the electrical connection for the structures, you know, that that's important. But I wanted to spend my time talking about the you the roof deck. Um, if you've driven by the structure, I mean, the structure is essentially done. You know, there there's just a few things that need done to the structure to make it complete. putting the elevator in to the structure. For one, I know I with Brandt, I think, who will testify a little bit later, uh I walked all the way to the roof and back, you know, to make sure that I had a good grasp of what was going on with the structure. Um the uh it's important to note that uh and that's part of the blame that shared is all this went through permitting. It was all permitted you know and probably there were errors on the staff part there were errors on the applicant side with the engineering. There were a lot of errors done. But if these two variances are approved, then everything is consistent with the code to finish the structure really needs the two variances. The and uh keep in mind I I feel for the applicant, the Courtney, they have been at this since the hurricane. You know, it's taken them that long, over three years to get to this point, to get to this room. It's killing them financially. And I just want the town to help them. I mean, they're asking for your help today, you know, to they they want to

they want to finish the structure. Um the structure its location is somewhat special. You know, it's right side of the um well, right across this the street from Lyn Hall, right? So, it has marvelous views of Lyn Hall Park out to the Gulf. Uh but if you look just to the north, what view does it have? It has the water tower, the north water tower and Fred Payne's parking lot, you know. And then beyond that is Fred's White House. Um, you know, I know hopefully you saw in the packet, uh, Fred Payne did review the application and did provide, I think, a couple of letters in support. Um, but before today, I walked the neighborhood several times after, you know, climbing the structure with Brandt. Um, and I did uh run into Mr. Payne who invited me into his garage. He's got a marvelous garage, you know, and uh we we he shared a Coke, a Diet Coke with me and we talked about the project and I'm like, "Have you looked at everything, Fred?" He's like, "Yeah, there's nothing wrong with the structure, you know, and it's kind of sandwiched between the park and the parking lot, so it's got got its own challenges." He he recognized that. I was hoping he would actually be here today. He mentioned he might, but who who knows? At least he did provide the letters. You know, he has no issue with the structure. He's happy, you know, for the variances to be approved um and for the structure to be coed at some point because he he realized he's sat there for three years and watched the whole thing from his driveway and

says, "Wow, this has just taken these poor people years to get to this point." Um, and that's something to keep in mind. the the views from this structure are like incredible. You know, when when I climbed up, each floor has views out over the park, you know, and of course there's going to be improvements to the park, but I think that's going to add to the atmosphere that this unit is located in. Uh, beautiful views out to the Gulf, beautiful views across the park. you know, if you're a people watcher, it's a great piece of property. Very active pedestrian uh uh coming and going from the park and from uh Time Square. It's a very active area. And I think that's part of the the uh the things that should be taken into account by the LPA is the specific location of the property. You know, the the property is in a some people think it's less desirable. I think it's very desirable. You're very close to the park. You're in walking distance to the beach, walking distance to Time Square and all the restaurants. It has a very beachy feel if you've been by it. And you can clearly see that it's consistent with uh today's flood requirements as the two units are elevated parking underneath. The old pool that was there was incorporated in the design. So they reuse the existing pool. Um the this request is simply to allow the uh the deck to be used as a deck as a uh viewing platform. It's not going to be covered. There's no roof over it. Um,

the solution to put the railing up against the building, I think, is less than optimum. I think in your packet, I think Mrs. Courtourtney, it was even shown climbing the fence straight over the little barrier that has been permitted. Uh, it's really not much of a barrier. Um the applicant would prefer to put a life health safety barrier around that porch. Uh they just see liability long term, you know, and if it becomes a rental unit, very hard to control what people are going to do. But, uh, I think it it is very beachy, you know, and it's no different than any number of units up and down the boulevard that have stacked uh, patios, you know. The the difference, of course, is it extends into the rightway

because there's a door. The entryway door is right there that uh, the covering provides cover from weather for that door. And that that's really, you know, is everybody's looking for help from the LPA to move this forward and finish this project. You know, it's been over three years at this point. Well, let's see what questions we've got for you, Matt. Yes. So, I have questions. Go right ahead. Um, so if I understand it right, the deck itself is already in place. It is. And you're just asking to extend railing around the deck so that the deck can actually be

used a walking space or seating space. Seating space, you know, so you could stand out there and look or sit just just like the deck right below it. So what's the what's the deck made of? What's its composition? I believe it's concrete. It's poured concrete or pre-cast concrete. Wait, wait, wait. You you you you can't can't speak yet. You could come up in a minute. Hold on. Just hold on. Do you want No, you're you're doing fine. Hey, why don't you come up and tell us who you are and then you can answer Doug's question. My name is Frankel. Wait, wait, wait, wait till you get to the microphone. My name is Frankotell. We'll whip you into place before you're finished here.

My name is Branotell. I'm owner of Bayside Building. I'm the contractor on this job. Okay. Nice to meet you, Frank. Welcome to Fort Myers Beach Town Council Hall. Thank you. Yeah. So, Frank, um, yeah, tell me about So, you there's a concrete deck already there. Yes, concrete deck. Everything everything that we've done has been, you know, approved by the architect, engineer, and then by the time then you So, I've just been doing everything from plans from here on out. So, the deck is 100% all concrete pre-cast structure. So there's like doorway, sliding doors or something? Yes, there are sliding doors, but every single thing has been on the original plan from day one. So then the including the railing,

the railing only came out that little bit. But once it was built, then we realized that that's a serious hazard, especially with people coming back on vacation. Exactly. Yeah. Excuse me. People are going to climb over it so they can Yes. I'm very very afraid of the safety issue here because you all know how Fort Myers Beach is there. Come here, vacation. Somebody's going to jump over that. Now you're, you know, you mean 20ome feet up in the air and so we're just looking to make the whole thing look the same, have the deck come out for the safety of everybody, especially where it's at. Ever happened down there? There's a deck below it with railing, too. Right.

Correct. What's the railing material? It's uh it's all aluminum. Aluminum. Yeah. Okay, I get it now. You get it? Yep. Jane, no. No question. Jim, I have two questions. Not and they're both on the terrace patio, whatever you're going to call the deck, but how did this evolve with not being in the original plan? I I mean somehow you got to a point where you built it, put sliding doors in it and then put a rail across the front

that that that was on the original plan. I did not even realize that it only came out a short period until way later. And I mean I could go on. I I had a partner. He took care of most of that. I was the one in the field. He got a divorce. He's left. He's left me with all this. So this a lot of this is a little bit new to me as well. So, as soon as I found this out, this is was my concerns that I brought back up to make sure that this place is safe. And that that's my statement is there's a lot of like all the way around. Well, but our our problem is on a variance, we have to find that there's a hardship that was not self

self-caused. And in this case, I can't hear anything that's saying that this hardship wasn't caused by the design that was approved. I was approved. Yes, I I agree with you that yes, the that design was wrong. That's why we're asking for varance right now because once it was up, we realized how bad it was. I like I said, I never noticed that it was just a small little area and never really thought about somebody jumping over and but now that it's there, it's definitely a huge safety hazard. I have another question. Yes, sir.

Um, yeah. On the plans, the engineer architect dimension 2 foot 9, that's the space we're talking about now. Does the engineer architect Was there a reason for that? Because it seems unusual. Yeah. So, there might have been a reason. I don't know what the reason is, but has the architect or engineer that signed and sealed these drawings. Do we have a revised drawing that's signed and sealed by the engineers? It shows that it's okay to put the railing on the outside. No, not yet. But if it's a I can get it.

I just it just seems like a conscious decision by the designer. And it is signed and sealed plans. And I don't know I don't know why because it makes sense. What you're saying makes perfect sense to me but for some reason that designer set a dimension at 2 foot n in. And there must have been thinking about something. Yeah. So that was revised afterwards. At first he did have just just maybe sticking out 6 in or so 4 in. And then he did revise it to go out step onto it a little bit. But I that's this this we're still in the exact same problem with having another eight feet of deck that somebody I guarantee is going to go over the top of it. And yeah, I understand what you're saying.

You know, um yes, I said we said there's a lot of blame to go all around. We're just trying to make it right. So, were these originally windows and then switched to sliding doors? Always sliders from day one. Yeah, I just think the designer should sign off on it for, you know, I don't know why they picked I mean maybe 6 in initially and then they made it 2 foot n but it seems like so obvious that you would run the railing all the way around like you're saying that it seems funny that it's not wasn't designed that way from the get-go

unless there's a reason. There there's no reason other than we're kind of at the end and the uh the engineer is less than thrilled to actually touch it again. You know, I mean that's been an issue.

He's he's basically taken no responsibility for any of this. We've had to raise the roof because he did not allow enough for the elevator to go up. If we knew this whole thing was going to happen, we wouldn't even have put the elevator all the way floor. like he cannot use his rooftop structure anymore. We spent $30,000 on these beams that showed that the beams were actually supposed to be covered that didn't get caught until two and a half years in. So, like there's lots and lots of issues. That rooftop structure that we're talking about just with that, it's lower than the 250 ft variance. It's actually back to the 18 inches that we had to actually add

to get the elevator. This roof is only going to be just at the original height. And all is the elevator equipment. He was saying AC, but it's the elevator equipment. It, you know, no big deal. But, um, it's the elevator equipment that was supposed to be up there. And every single electrical panel is right down that wall we have had. And it's a pool. There is a big lip that's supposed to have a door and a roof on it. This thing pulls up and all the water comes right down the center of this house, all over the electric panel. We've had to replace all the drywall, um, all all the flooring, a bunch of electrical outlets and everything. It's just, it's been a complete disaster.

Do you think that these two variances remedy everything for you? Close enough that we can move on. We, you know, like I said, it was supposed to have a roof over these two $30,000 beams that are now just up there and useless, but they're, you know, they're approved. But it was supposed to be a living rooftop structure. So all these people can come up there and actually enjoy that roof. Otherwise, he wouldn't even put this on here. Um, so there's there's a lot of different things that went on. So now he's not going to have that. The beans are just going to be sitting there just in the middle of nowhere with no roof structure on it to help with anything. Um, so um

and maybe he covers those beams long term with some kind of fa fabric to provide shape. That might be possible. But yeah, I mean, I'm not even concerned about that. I just want to get first of all, I want to make sure that all the electrical in the place is 100% protected. I mean, this is going down three stories all the way down into the bottom storage unit. I mean, it's it's a mess. So, here's our quandry. What Jim was just saying to you is that

there's a criteria for us to approve variances. I understand. the the the hardship has been created by you everyone who has built that house. Um so it's like it's a self-imposed hardship. Well, it was also approved by everybody. So all I did was follow the plans that were approved. You know, I can't I'm I'm not an architect or engineer, so I have to trust my architects and engineers. I'm not, you know, the city c I I have to assume that, you know, everybody does their job. It's very, you know, and especially I'm sympathetic to you. Don't get me wrong, but he's mean.

Well, well, Doug's Doug's right. I think this was a design choice. It was approved because it was code and it was something that either the architect, the owner, there was wasn't anything that staff made a a mistake on. Um, it was functional the way it was designed. But now you want to move the railing out thing is is a very serious safety issue from my point of view. You'd have you'd have I'd have a hard time thinking the house could get a CO with the railing like that. It It won't. It won't.

I'm inclined to u recommend approval subject that the the railing and the perimeter that they're asking for is meets all aspects of the Florida building code for loading and you know the structural aspects of it. And somehow it's anchored to this deck in such a way that it complies. Um, needs to be a health, life, safety barrier. But, uh, the deck's already out there, so we're really just talking about extending the railing. Well, the railing's against the structure now. Yeah. They're they're asking to move it out six feet, 10 in or whatever.

Yeah. To the But the deck that it's attached to is already there. I mean, we do have pictures if you see them, you know, to so everybody knows if you'd like that. That's okay for the moment. Let me just see something. Ed, do you have questions for the for the gentlemen? Not for these people. No, not for these people. Do you have questions for Jason again? Um, not necessarily a question, maybe a comment, but um, I just the way that this that we're allowing this first deck to happen and then saying on the second level, you can't have the same deck. Exactly. I mean, it should have been caught somewhere with the sliding glass doors cuz once the sliding glass doors are are there, it implies that you can walk out them.

Yeah. And and when I did the driveby, I agree with with these gentlemen that it's that railing is right up against the house and it and it's I mean it's not safe. Uh people see an open door, they walk through it and that could easily happen especially if it's a rental and I'd like to fix the safety factor. Yeah, I would agree that. Jason, do you want to address that? Can you restate the question then? Well, it wasn't really a question. He was just stating that we're allowing them into the the setback on on one level. So the the structure is already there. Mhm.

And the second level we're saying, well, no, you need a variance for that because you're in the setback. And it and it I still think it should have been caught when the when the sliding glass doors were going in that we should have said, well, wait, that implies it's an exit because it's a door and and it is not an exit. So, I think I think we have different silos of what everybody's looking for. To your to your point, um, when planning and zoning is looking at it, we try and stay away from hypotheticals. We we try and look at what is it that they're proposing? Does it fit within the realm? Um, we do have to rely a lot on the building side review to see does this meet Florida building code? And if it meets Florida building code, but it's just not recommended, there's not much that we can do to say don't do this. I'm going to turn it down because I I think this is going to become a health and safety issue. So, I I absolutely take your point. I think it's just a matter of the way that the reviews are siloed between people with different specialtities and and what they're looking at can lead sometimes to this. But I will I will state even though I did not do the initial review on this one, I did catch it on re-review that staff should have caught this initially. We should have caught the um what I'll call the fourth floor roof. Um we should have caught the uh the window being designed in such a way that it would cause hazard. um staff has gone back since this has come up and since we've been bring we've attempted to bring it up to town council for review or to bring it to you for review uh to go ahead and stop spend a little bit more time when something looks a little bit odd, interrogate our assumptions a little bit more. So, I do take your point and I I do take responsibility for unfortunately catching these issues on my re-review when they came in for for resubmitt.

I think this is kind of like the case we had on Lover's Lane where they have built the second floor balcony and it had to come in afterward after the fact to correct the fact that they had a a balcony on the second floor which was not supposed to be permitted but it was well and in that case was that not a denial when with the concern that it would turn into a party deck And no, that that single family house months ago. That was um that was that was over there. That was on that wasn't that one.

It wasn't that one, Jim. That was that was a different one. But I I feel like since there are sliding glass doors that were permitted in the initial um permit and were built to what was permitted that we now have to protect the space that we allowed people to go out on. So I am in favor of uh approving the railing. Okay. Well, let's we we got the picture now. Is there anybody here to speak for public comment on this issue? No. So, we're closing the public comment. Do we have any other questions for the staff or the applicant? Do you have any conditions you want to put on? I think Doug has a condition. Okay.

Yeah, that's that's what I heard. The conditions that were included are generally the boilerplate conditions in here. So, I don't think I have anything additional to add there. And I uh take Doug's point to be that um essentially they're going to have to meet FBC fall safety requirements before the CO can be issued. I I think that's a absolutely has to happen will happen and if they don't meet that then they'll be stopped at CO and they'll have to go back and redesign to meet Florida building code. So then that doesn't need to be stipulated in a motion. Is that what you're saying Jason? I I don't necessarily think that that itself needs to be stipulated. Um Okay.

You can add it if you want. It's just it's going to be gilding the lily since we're essentially going to be doing that anyways with final uh building review. Okay. Do you want to make a motion? Yeah, I would make one follow-up question first. The railing that is there now that's against the structure, how tall is that? 36. Is it 3'6 in? Yes. And the railing that is now going to go, if this is approved, around the outside of the balcony, how tall is that? That would be the same. So, you're going to put a three a 36 foot. That's part of the That's a Florida building code has to be 42 in. Yeah. But if somebody could walk out of the sliding door,

Yeah. they could walk out the edge, right? 36 is all that seems so low. It's going to be slightly higher. Yeah. Oh, it has to be 42 in. 40 42 as far as I know. Saying it has to be 42. Okay. Well, 42 36 in. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Go ahead, Doug.

I would um make a motion to approve um this variance uh 20126104 83 831 of Sterile Boulevard. uh one to uh variance from the LCD allow a second floor level balcony enroachment um in the form of extending guard rails around the perimeter of the deck that comply with the Florida building code and two a variance from LDC section 34 631B3A to allow the enclosing the 38 foot rooftop structure for mechanical equipment to prevent rain from flowing in there

with the conditions with all the with the conditions stipulated by staff. I'll second that. Okay. There is a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Uh your vote. Doug I. Jane I. Jen I. Uh Ed I I motion passes unanimously. So much. You know I could feel your stress. I could feel your stress, man. So, good luck. You did a very good job for your first turnout here. I I don't know. I I'd like to get better at it, but I really don't want to see you again. I don't want to see you again. But, no, it's it's been a it's been a good experience. I'm very grateful. Thank you very much.

We're grateful to have good people like you working on the island. Thank you. Appreciate it. Yeah. Yeah. Appreciate you. Thank you. Okay. Good luck to you. Good. All right. Good luck to you so much. Hopefully nobody uh challenges this decision, in which case it's final 10 days. You got to wait. Okay. You're welcome, honey. Okay. Next case. V206011. This is for 1161 1165 Boulevard. A resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning. I have a question. Yeah, go ahead. Wasn't there two variances involved with that? Yeah, we did. We did them both. There were two in the motion. Got it. Thank you.

You're welcome. Um, this is for 1161 and 1165 E of Sterile Boulevard. A resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving approving with conditions or denying variance 202600011. This is a request for variance from the land development code section 34676A to multiply the parking requirements by 0% and allow a 100% reduction in parking requirements. I laughed when I read that because I never read it said like that. Never before. uh where a maximum percentage of 67% is multiplied with parking uh requirements to allow a 33% parking reduction by right for properties located in the downtown zoning district. for the property located at 1161 1165 Eststero Boulevard generally referred to as strap number 194624 W4150E0010 in Fort Myers Beach and providing for other clarifications as necessary providing for conflicts of law scrier's errors severability and providing for an effective date um Ed do you have any exparte on this case

uh yes I did a driveby Okay. How about you, Jim? No ex park. Jane, I spoke with Matt. Um, uh, Doug, no, ma'am. I don't have any either. Okay, Jason.

Good morning again. My name is Jason Smallley with the planning and zoning department. As was just read into the record, this is a request for a variance on 1161 1165. Currently, the location of this building uh in our code requires that they provide 67% of their parking requirements. Now, this is an existing multi-use building. So, they've got residential upstairs, which carries its own parking requirements, and then they've got uh parking requirements on the lower commercial level that are generally going to be um five spaces per thousand square ft of of use. Um through our analysis we came up with a number of eight parking spaces required under today's code. So if they were doing this project brand new today we would ask them to provide eight parking spaces. Currently they're providing seven four of them on site one of which is an ADA space. And they have three uh rented parking spaces with an agreement um I believe with the owner himself. I believe he owns the parking lot and he owns this building. So he has a parking agreement with his other uh commercial entity to provide three additional parking spaces there. Um staff's concern and our recommendation for denial largely had to do with the fact that there already exists a status quo where they do have if not compliant parking. They do have almost compliant parking. Nothing that they've proposed right now would require that staff go in and and have them add additional parking. So the the building footprint as it exists today um even with the eight uh parking requirements is being served by seven that they currently have. Uh staff's issue was that the status quo is being broken here and that they're asking to do away with the entirety of their requirement.

Understand it. Um, now I do take their point that if this building existed 75 ft on the opposite corner from them, they would by right already be given a zeroed out parking requirement. Uh, the quirk of our code is that in downtown we have multiple intersections and multiple areas that are afforded different parking requirements. Unfortunately for them, they just happen to sit on one of the corners that's not covered by the downtown pedestrian parking area, which is by right given zero. So they have a they have to provide 33% of their parking requirement as of today. They get a 67% discount. To say it another way, Jana, it looks like you have a question here for clarification.

I I don't understand why. So tell me where it ends and why the end of time square time square. Oh

yeah. In our code it specifically calls out the pedestrian um pathway on both the bay side and on uh the Gulf side and those areas in that corridor right there are generally offered uh or are given a discount of zero. They don't have to provide any parking because the understanding is that the park once uh parking lot located in the old San Carlos uh area would provide the parking that would be necessary for those locations. We just wanted to make the point um that again if they existed 75 ft AC caddy corner from them

they would more than likely be covered by that zero parking requirement. But as it stands now they have 33. um they are providing a vast majority of what they would need currently. So staff's concerned about the further erosion of parking. We understand that that is their business model and they have to make it work. Um but the point is that that's a a very difficult area particularly at the intersection of Crescent and Asterero. And so if you've got uh if you've got people looking for parking, they tend to be slow going around that corner. or they tend to back things up. Uh staff does also have concerns about the existing backout onto a stereo. But as I mentioned earlier, because they aren't changing the intensity of the use and they aren't changing the footprint of the building, we have nothing in our quiver right now to require that they rip those parking those backout parking spaces out. So they exist in the status quo. They just don't want to have to count those. Uh but seemingly they will keep what's out there, the at least the four parking spaces. Um so again, staff's recommendation is for denial here simply based on this is a deci uh a decision that they're making. The status quo does have seven parking spaces and that's that's our position on this one. I will defer to the applicant's representative if they and if you have any questions or concerns for staff, I'm here to answer them.

But didn't across the street at Salty Crab, that's not Time Square. They have nothing. You are correct. Yeah. But they they have uh it's not exactly just the the pedestrian area. It's also the difference between north of a north side of a stereo versus the south side of a stereo. It's a very quirky code if I may put that out there. But well, it's a unique location. It is. It is. There's a lot of equities that have to be balanced there. I I get that. Jason, I I have two questions. How many residential units are upstairs? I believe there's three to uh Oh, excuse me. Um,

we would have to assume that there would need to be overnight parking for at least three units and there what would be the solution? Where would these people park if this was granted? Currently, they have the ability to go either park on site or park in one of the three leased uh spaces that are available. There's three covered three spots covered with the parking agreement. Exactly. Does that allow for overnight parking on that? I apologize. I haven't I I didn't read the agreement that closely. Perhaps the applicant can defer whether that allows parking overnight. I believe it does, but I will defer to them on that.

It does. The second question is if we have a retail space is not an ADA space at least one space required if you were building new or you were doing enough work to trigger uh ADA be brought into compliance I believe so as it stands now nothing in our code is triggering us to go tell them add additional parking add additional ADA A no, but there is one ADA spot. Now, there is currently one ADA spot. They're asking to eliminate that.

Uh, I didn't read in there that they were necessarily eliminating it. I think they just wanted to eliminate the on paper requirement to have the parking, but I'll defer to the applicant's uh representative if they have any idea, if they have any intent to pull out that uh backout parking spaces um and remove the ADA space. I would have serious concerns if they wanted to remove the ADA space because the balance here is it's quirky corner as you say and there are these spaces that are existing are sort of uh I don't know if the right word would be dangerous but they're peculiar. Yes.

But that has to be balanced with you know the building as it sits does have some parking requirements. It does. Um, if you afforded them the zeroed out requirement, then they would be on their own to ensure that their residents or uh or visitors have somewhere to park. I don't know if they're going to continue the um parking agreement with Mr. Rashard's other lot or not, but uh the applicant is here if they'd like to pine on on what their plans are. There's a vacant lot behind it and there's parking at Margaritavville across the street. So, I guess that's a question for the applicant as to whether there are other options. So, thank you.

Yes. Ed questions for staff. Not for staff. No. Okay. Go ahead, Matt.

Yeah, I'll I'll pick up right on how kind of quirky it is. I mean, the parking lot shape itself is not normal if you look at it. There are like some peculiarities to the parking lot design itself. Um, look at the fill. It's higher than the boulevard by a large measure. Um, we believe it just from its operational over the years, it's a problem. Uh, pe people have a hard time navigating it and it puts them in conflict with all the traffic at the light at Corkcrew Road or at Crescent, excuse me. Um yeah, the the applicant uh thinks there's better alternatives for that space long term.

For example,

uh could be outdoor display for the building. It could be a pedestrian mall for a place for the pedestrians to gather and sit, you know. So there that's all to come. The first question is, can can he not have a parking requirement for the building? That's the question. He does provide parking in downtown in a variety of other locations. He has a parking lot on Crescent Street. He has a parking lot over off Fifth Street. I mean, he's got other parking lots. And that's kind of his point is it's not been an issue. The parking can be provided in other locations. other than the building and it's not different than other buildings in the town. Uh Salty Crab has been brought up. They're not required to have parking. So in downtown is not required to have parking. So there are buildings in the town that don't require parking. Uh and that that's kind of the request here today is not to require parking for this building given its location. We believe it is a safety hazard trying to back out into arguably the most

that building has been there for 175 years. I mean, it's been there forever. It's always that it's always had that parking. It's always been mixed use.

It's always always there's always been residential on top and then something on the bottom depending on what those somethings have been. Quite honestly, I think it's been better since the light went in there because at least people are stopped and allow somebody to to you know back up or whatever. I just you know what this is like this for me this is a question without knowing what the ultimate impact of that answer will be. That's why I said for what? So you want to remove the parking to do what? Just to have that space there. Uh probably not. Uh what is that going to be? If there was some big picture like we're going to remove this and this is what we're going to do. That would be much more um understandable.

Understandable is a nice word to use. Understandable than just we just want to get rid of our parking. Well, it's it's not just that. It's they he does want to do something else with the property.

Okay. What is that? that like I said either display area consistent with everything that I'm envisioning and what he's envisioning is consistent with the code either outdoor display for the building or a pedestrian plaza that provides places for people to sit right opposite the pool at Margaritavville. Okay. So, is he going to So, there's three designated parking spaces in his parking lot. Are those going to remain? Um, it it depends on the decision.

Okay. So, is there a is there an agreement at this time for those three designated parking spaces? There there is an agreement uh for him to provide those three spots elsewhere. Yes. Correct. But no, I mean in the parking lot it has in the Crescent parking lot it has three designated parking spaces. Correct. Okay. So those could be marked for the three units upstairs or whatever for housing potentially. Sure. I mean that's the way it is now.

Yeah. Because I I actually have never seen a car parked there. Well, not in recent time, but yes, but over the years there certainly have been. But the only thing I can envision is that he's thinking about putting a restaurant there and then that will turn into outdoor seating. Um, that's the only thing I can envision potentially

potentially. But so I feel like we're being asked half of a question and I just I'm very uncomfortable with that because why eliminate parking in an otherwise overcrowded place? I mean look that place has been vacant essentially since the hurricane. There have been some contractors trucks and things there but it's been vacant. And so now the question is we'd like to get rid of the parking for what? For what purpose? For what reason? I it makes I I feel like we're not getting the whole story and for that reason I'm I'm I'm opposed to this. I mean I I asked him the exact question you're asking and I'm sure you got the answer you've given us. I don't know.

That's exactly that's exactly what I got. There's too much unknown. Yes. Yeah. Well, other questions for Matt. Do do you all share my frustration or not? Or do you think it's just okay we eliminate it? It does say in the in the narrative provided by staff approval of this request will allow the applicant to remove the existing parking and replace it with pedestrianoriented improvements including outdoor patio or seating areas. Outdoor patio or seating areas for what? Well, a restaurant could go in there and it could be outdoor seating. It it could be, but all those things are bigs.

Yep. and and I I just, you know, I know this applicant and I've known him more than half of my life. He's he's a great business person and and has been a very good friend to me, but I don't understand this ask and I feel like it's only halfway in front of us. But but that's just me. Ed, do you have any thoughts on this? I do. I was, if you read all the narrative, it talks about the changes that we've made in the comp plan and

about trying to eliminate these curb cuts and whatnot in this area. And when you drive by this particular building and you try to envision a vehicle trying to back out of this building to the intersection of Crescent and and Aero, not only is it dangerous, it's virtually impossible for them. And yeah, Jason, if you want to comment on that, that'd be great. But um I think that there should be a curb there and we should create more walking spaces rather than uh parking spaces that you have to back out on a stereo.

No, I I think staff's in full agreement. Um we've been trying to slowly move the backout parking out whenever we can. Sometimes we're successful, sometimes we're not. Um, this particular backout I agree is difficult because you have so such a high density of pedestrian traffic. The backout requires that you go across the sidewalk and then sort of stop and wait for somebody to give you the space so you can fully get out into into the um drive aisle or into the uh road aisle. Travel lane.

Travel lane. Thank you very much. I haven't had enough coffee this morning. I'm just going to invent new words. So, um, we we do agree that it's tough. Uh, I think staff just disagrees that the change in the status quo is to the benefit of the town at this moment. I I agree that in the future if there were a plan brought together to holistically look at what what's happening here and and change the layout of the site. I I think that's a discussion that can happen. But my real fear here is if we lose the parking spaces in lie of some sort of public uh display of merchandise or or pedestrian activities are are encouraged there. I I would hate to see us lose the ADA space because the ADA space is important and it's already in a placement where it is at the shortest distance to that building. So even if they shifted that off to another parking space that Mr. Rashard owns um people utilizing ADA spaces are going to have a much longer distance then to get to the building. So I think I think staff at at a baseline would say that we if if this is offered to them, we would like to see the ADA space retained at the very least or an ADA space provided in a very close lot um just to make sure that we're not disadvantaging those folks. Mhm.

Could the joint parking agreement to the south, there's seven spots there. He owns the parking lot as well as the building. Is that correct? That's correct. Could he grant himself seven reciprocal parking spaces instead of three by expanding it, creating one ADA space? That's possible.

Then he meets staff's requirements. We have known parking including the ADA and we can get rid of what we see as a potential problem with the existing parking lot. That's a that's a possibility for sure, but I would agree with Anita. There's a lot of unknowns here at this point to be asked to gr be granted a a variance without knowing what the end result's going to be.

Well, I think the fact that there is parking available and they seem to be willing to address the parking in in a um in an agreement. I do feel that the three dwelling units definitely need to have a parking space um because I don't know anybody that lives without a parking space. But uh and if the ADA is important um if that can be added to the parking agreement, you know, I I do think that parking area is difficult and I don't see how you could put seven cars in that parking space anyway because you'd have to come in at such an angle and you'd have to get out somehow. But um I do think that that corner is so difficult. you you can't ride a bike through it. You have to step you have to get off your bike to get around the corner because of all the poles and stuff that are in the corner. I just think it's a difficult pedestrian area that you know having a car back out onto a stereo. This would be a appropriate time to remove that. if the parking spaces could be um approved for the housing and if it's going to have a business downstairs, they're going to need to be able to

Those are so many ifs. I mean, you know, honest I those are so many ifs. You're asking for a variance to go to zero parking for what purpose? What's the purpose? Usually a request to eliminate parking or to minimize parking is because I have a restaurant, the beached whale. We have no space for parking. Okay, we eliminate their parking. But that's not this case. This case is just I want to get rid of my parking period. If he has a use for it, he'll have to come back to deal with the parking.

But then that's when this should happen is what I'm saying. I just I find this very peculiar for this. I find this I find this really I can't support it because I'm asking too many questions. The what if what is this? What is this for? Why? To eliminate a curb cut? No, this has been here for a hundred years. That's not the reason. What is the reason? because you want to redevelop the entire building and just go ahead and get rid of the parking requirements on the front end or because you're going to I mean, look, think about it realistically. That location, that building could be redeveloped and brought out to the edge of the property. That's where that building could come out. Eliminate all that parking and bring the building out there. Do you want that to happen? Because now you'd be giving that space. or if it was a So I and I'm not saying I'd be opposed to that. I'm just saying I wish John would give us the whole picture here and and then I'd say, "Hey, fantastic. He's redeveloping that corner, not just getting rid of parking on that corner." It to me it just doesn't it's it's it's uh there's too many questions here for me to say yes to a variance.

I want to go back to ask you staff the question of If this corner was to be redeveloped into by taking away the parking, nothing can be built out there without a variance to bring it out there. Is that not correct? Or without variance for the place of a variance for the placement of the building or variance to parking. I think parking is eliminated. Is there a zero setback on a stero on this site? Yeah, it would be a build two line I believe to 010. Yes, it could come out by right to the sidewalk. Just like a surf club.

Okay. Just like surf club. It could correct. Yes. And you know, in our in our um somehow misguided wisdom of shared parking in the downtown area, we see what's happened with that. I mean, the beached whale, they're almost a victim of their success because you you can't get to it because of a lack of parking. And so, our idea of, oh, there's plenty of parking available, there really is not plenty of parking available. There is there's a parking deficit and a serious parking deficit.

And not probably not next month, but during the time of year that is most complicated for people to park. So, uh, Matt, do you understand? Do you see what my concern is? I mean, I do. Okay. And of course,

uh, if I may, one last thing just to put it on the record for staff's position. Um, so the recommendation of denial is based um mainly on the fact that if approved, this would be a furtherance of a nonconformity. I wouldn't want to make a recommend a recommendation of denial. Clearly, John's got something of a plan. The applicant, let me say the applicant has a plan some that's percolating maybe. So maybe this is continued to a date uncertain and at that date uncertain, we get the plan or maybe it is better just to deny it. I don't know.

Um Madame Chair, you the applicant does have the option of withdrawing the request as well. You I don't know what I I don't know what the votes are. I know what mine is. I think Jane is on the fence here. I don't know where Jim is yet. I don't I So, you might want to see Doug. How do you feel about this? I'm kind of on the fence. I I was kind of okay with it until I heard everybody talk and realize that there's other issues. I I kind of like the idea that's being expressed that uh it'd be a lot easier to approve it or recommend approval of it if we knew what the space was going to be used for, what the what the plan is, what the plan was

um in general, you know, less cars better kind of, but also the ADA issues and things like that. So, I guess I'm I don't have enough information to vote approval. That's it. It's not It's not necessarily denial. It's We don't have enough information to say yes. What do you think, Jim?

Um, I agree with both Anita, Doug, and Jane. um that there's not enough information, but I would be much more comfortable with if we had an alternative for the parking, whether that is an amended agreement covering the spaces to the south with the reciprocal agreement or an agreement with the vacant property in the rear or with Margaritavville that if we had replacement parking spaces, I think I would be happy to be supportive of it to get rid of what I think everybody sees as a a conflicted intersection with the existing parking. But without an alternative, I'm uncomfortable with it. Whether that means you withdraw, you ask for a continuence to talk to your client, or it's a denial.

Ed, yes. Um, I agree with what you're bringing up, Anita, but um the the parking that they currently have I I view as useless and and a danger uh both to pedestrians and to drivers. So, I'd like to see that parking um disappear, but as a LPA, we should know, you know, kind of what your idea of what you're going to do next with that area would be. What would you like to do, Matt? I think you should do your motion. So, you're not going to ask for a continuence or anything else?

I'm not authorized to do that. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um well, I'm going to make a motion to deny the request. Second. Um, can we put on the record the basis for the denial? Um, a lack of a lack of adequate information to fulfill the criteria uh required by a variance request.

Can you um be specific as to the criteria? Um, it begins, let's see, in the staff report, it looks like it's on page uh 42 of your packet, 42 of 57. Uh, so I'll say that the criteria as stipulated in the staff report beginning on page uh, did you say 42? 42. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Do you agree, Jim? I concur. Any any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, my vote is yes. Your vote, Jim? Yes. Ed, yes. Jane, yes. Doug,

yes. I you know I'm I'm sorry to do this but I well okay is what it is. Yep. Next item madam chair. So because it was a denial um they would go on for additional review and um to the to the council to the town council. That's right. Correct.

Yep. Okay. V2600026. This is for 340 Washington Court. A resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving approving with conditions or denying v uh the variance request 202600026. This is a variance from the land development code table 34-3 requesting a 3.25 25 ft uh reduction of the required 10- ft side setback and 8.75 ft of the required 25- ft rear setbacks in the RS zoning district for the property located at 340 Washington Court and providing for other clarifications as necessary providing for conflicts of law scrier's errors severability and providing for an effective date. Is there any exparte? Doug?

No, ma'am. Jane, no. Uh, Jim, no exparte. Uh, Ed? Yeah. I drove by this property from three different directions. Each direction, but the water. Okay. Yes. There's a lot of vegetation there. Um, I I I live in this neighborhood, so I'll just put that on the record. Okay. Um, Jason,

good morning again. My name is Jason Smolley. I'm with the planning and zoning department. So, as was just read into the record, um this is a request for two separate variances. One for a sideyard setback and a variance to reduce the rear setback required for the construction of a new pool deck along with a um shade structure on that pool deck. Uh the plans indicate that they will be developing a pool later on, but at this point nothing with regards to that pool uh requires a variance. So before you is is the request to bring out the new portion of the deck that would be concurrent with the furthest point of the existing house. So this is this is a very old house. It it exists on the lot. The lot itself is um it's unique, not perfectly unique. It's what we would consider to be a shoulder lot where your lot wraps around the edge of a canal. Um so it does provide seemingly on paper a lot of spa, a lot of area, but it tends to be unusable area because you would never be able to meet the setbacks uh to build in that little arm. So, the applicant is requesting to build uh this new deck, this per I believe it's a pergola on the deck. So, it would be in within the same footprint and would take advantage of the same setbacks that he's uh asking for relief from today. But the closest point of the house is 6'9 in. Uh he intends to bring the edge of the deck to that furthest point so that there's no gap between the edge of his house and where his deck would begin. um as would end up happening if we uh were applying the standard 10- foot sideyard setbacks. He's also requesting relief in the rear of um 8.75 ft and that's to a water body

setback. Um, so the the proposed deck and the proposed shade structure could be um up to almost 9 ft closer to the water than would be allowed for under today's code, which would be 25 ft because the proposed structure is structurally integrated into the house and therefore it has the same more restrictive house setbacks. Um, the applicant is here for any questions that you may have. Uh staff is here for any questions or concerns that you may have from us. Thank you, Jason. Uh questions for Jason on this? None. Okay, we'll hear from the applicant.

Good morning. Good morning. Tell us your name. Uh Edward Morelli and my wife Andrea. Nice to meet you. Thank you. Uh could you tell us a little bit about your project? Uh it's pretty unique. It's uh the house sits on an angle of the lot. That's why we're asking for this this variance because it's we don't want to block the back view looking out at the canal or all of our bushes and trees. There's tons of bushes and trees on the lot and that's why we bought the lot. You do a lovely job of maintaining your property.

Thank you. And this structure would not interfere with any of the trees. So, we don't plan on cutting any of the stuff down. And um our neighbor uh on Washington Court likes the idea of doing this because actually they won't even see it with all the trees and stuff that we got. And it would sort of uh uh protect the sound from going onto their onto their where their pool. They have a pool also. So, it's just uh the angle of the lot sort of restricts the way we can build this this this structure. And we have our grandkids down here every year and um several times

our daughter-in-law is worried about, you know, the sun and stuff. So, this is actually like a covered patio that that's going to uh where we can sit and watch the kids in the pool. Okay. If we get a pool. Okay. Um questions for the gentlemen? Anybody? Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, Doug, did you have a question? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I guess I was just going to ask if it looks like this is attached to the existing just kind of a extension of the existing structure. Yes, it is. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much.

Yeah, we love it down here. We've been here for seven years and we really are. Your your your yard is just I I tell you he lives right on the corner around from my my street and he is just you just are meticulous. It looks looks beautiful. It's a nice It's nice to walk by it. Um okay. Uh any other questions for staff or for the applicant? Let me see if there's any public that would like to say anything. Council member Link joined us here. I guess she's not going to say anything though today. Um, okay. So, the public comment is closed. Um, any further questions for Jason?

If not, does somebody want to make a motion? I'll make a motion that uh variance 2026 26340 Washington Court uh be approved having found that the conditions in the staff report um uh are supportive of the uh variance. I'll second the motion. So there's a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion hearing? None. Your vote. Jim I. I'm an I. Ed I. Jane. I. Doug. I. Congratulations. Yes.

You're very welcome. You're very welcome, Madam Chair. For the prior um hearing that we had, could you clarify for the record there was no public comment? There was no public comment. There was no public in attendance. And also uh the denial that was without prejudice because the LPA indicated you would be willing to rehear it. That's exactly within a 12-month period. Correct. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Nancy. Okay. Uh we'll move on to the administrative agenda, LPA items and reports. Doug, do you have anything? Uh no, ma'am. Uh Jane, anything? Nothing. Jim,

at the last meeting, uh, you asked that, uh, we have a meeting consider to consider a definition for public benefits, right? And I wondered if there is any update status.

Not yet, but well, I'll well, let me just talk about it. I I I would like to initiate that because I mean I'd like the LPA to initiate it. Um I' I'd like there to be some discussion of it uh perhaps at our next meeting. I don't know Nancy if you can begin. You know, both this gym and the other gym, we when we last talked about all the public benefit criteria, we laid it out, I thought, pretty clearly. and um if that could somehow make its way to a draft ordinance that we could discuss and refer on to the council or what is the process for that?

Um yes, we can uh I can work with staff and we can move forward if there's any other ideas out there. Um we could incorporate those. Um I really would like to speak with the uh the town manager and his staff and kind of see where they are. Um my bigger concern is really your schedule. Um because that is a very big policy question and unfortunately things get really crazy towards uh as we get closer to summer and uh the fact that council is not does not meet during July. Um you already have some extra meetings um because of um a large project that's coming through. So, if you can give me a little bit of feedback on that, I'm happy to take that to the town manager so he can coordinate with her sta his staff and then bring it back to you.

Well, for discussion, I have no idea other than the London Bay coming back for their continued um their continued hearing on the 8th. Um do we only have one meeting scheduled in June? Currently, yes. Good. Okay. So, uh is that meeting a hefty meeting or is it something where we could discuss this in June potentially and then maybe it could go to the council in August?

Well, clearly clearly you can have the discussion. Um but we would like to get maybe some inkling as to what dates um because the June calendar is filling up. Um the town council has their regular meetings plus they are we the town manager advised that there would be two additional meetings of special meetings because of the large project coming through. So that's already five meetings. Okay. So

for council so it's just going to be very this room is going to be used heavily. So, all I'm suggesting is depending on what our workload is for our June meeting, perhaps the LPA could discuss this in June and then if we get somewhere with it, it could move on to the council for discussion in August. That that is very reasonable, very doable. Um, could we come back to you at your meeting on May the 8th or the 12th because you have two meetings coming up in May. Yes.

Um, with more firm dates of of when we would be able to accommodate that. The reason I brought it up was simply because it's it's this lingering, you know, nebulous thing that nobody wants to define. And I think I think it's um I mean maybe the um the horse is already out of the barn or whatever that expression is, but it's something that we need to we need to work on. So

I I I agree with you. Um I mean it has been an issue in the the past year really whenever um any development agreement projects or uh planned development projects come through it it does raise its head. Um, but I just I'm looking more at the devil in the details as far as when can we bring this to you and just giving staff and myself adequate time just to be ready to do that. Will you let us know in May? And in the meantime, could you um Amy maybe send Ed the information that we worked on previously that both Jim and Jim provided? Yes.

Okay, that'd be great. Dunlap had a pretty good nice definition. Yeah. And and and so did so did so did this Jim. And Madame Chair, if I'm not mistaken, I believe there was already a joint meeting with the town council to discuss public benefit.

We did. And so perhaps the link um to that meeting as well would be good. It's just never been it's never been memorialized in part because I think um not having it firmed up has allowed the door to swing whichever direction that it's wanted to swing and well let's let's let's just move on from here. Okay. Thanks for bringing that up, Jim. Anything else? No.

How about you, Ed? Anything? I do have something I was going to say last meeting, but we were here long enough, so I decided to wait till this time. But um yeah, so jumping on this committee or actually agency was was a kind of a heavy lift at first, especially with my first meeting, but Nancy and Amy were there to help me um every every step of the way, and I just really wanted to publicly thank them and tell them how much I appreciated that. That's so nice. Thank you. We appreciate that. It was nice. I I I had several people say, "Wow, Ed jumped in fe first." He was He was And you you did a very good job. Yeah, it's nice to have you here.

Anita, I have something I forgot to mention. Um and I know you at the last meeting I had to leave early and you decided to do May 8th. Everybody looked at their schedule. I will not be available on May 8th. So, I was hoping I know May 7th looked like a date that everybody seemed like they could do when I watched the meeting if that could be considered. I'm I'm available to consider any date. And just since we're on this, I I just wanted to clear up something for the public. Special meetings are not favors to somebody.

Uh they're not uh accommodations. They are in fact accommodations to the process of government. And the fact that our meeting was bless you, our meeting was continued um wasn't because Doug left. Uh it was continued because we were trying to make a lot of changes to what was presented to us. and it really was turning into a big pot of soup and it wasn't in the town's best interest at all. Uh nor was it in the developers interest to continue at that moment. It needed to be clear clarified and settle for a moment. And so it was a in my opinion a smart move for the developer to ask for the continuence and a smart move for the town the LPA to say yes. That wasn't a um it's as simple as that. Let me just say it's as simple as that. You can take that or leave it however you like, but that's what it was. Um and when the town council or the LPA schedules additional meetings, which we have done in the past, uh it isn't because we're trying to do somebody a favor. It's because we're trying to do the business of operating a government simply. And sometimes that means like Doug just now saying he's not available on the eth the 7th. Uh you know maybe there will be a scramble and we'll redo that meeting and put it on the 7th. I don't know. But I just you know there's been at at work the other day there was lots of people saying why are you doing that for them? And it's not a matter of doing that for them. It's doing it for this entity. For this entity the town of Fort Myers Beach. Period. So there there's my little spiel. Um, thank you Doug for giving me that soap box. I appreciate it. I appreciate it so much.

So Amy, Nancy, I don't know where the schedule stands at this point. I have no idea. So it would certainly be nice to have a full contingent of the LPA here for that, but no idea. So currently on May 7th is a council meeting and then magistrate hearing in the afternoon. So 7th is not available. Um, Doug, can you make the 12th? Are you going to be here on the 12th? Because, um, the LPA has two meetings in May, and it may be possible if if that's what you want, the 12th, uh, that we would have our regularly scheduled, unless there's been advertising. I don't know. Um, as far as the regular LPA agenda,

that's a possibility if we could do those regular items that move forward on the 8th and then do um the larger project um on the 12th. I would appreciate that if that's possible. If if that's it's absolutely okay with me. Do we know what's on our May agenda for LPA? Sorry. No, no problem. And we will have to um confirm that the applicant would be available on the 12th as well. That's true. And that Don and Jim will be here on the 12th.

Correct. But they didn't ask for an excuse. Um and also we continued the matter to the date certain of Yes, we did. of May the 8th. What were you going to say? I was just going to say it was a date certain. It was a date certain. It was a date certain to May the 8th and then on May the 8th we would have to do another continuence. We would have to open the hearing continue it to the 12th which we could do that and that wouldn't affect notification that's already being sent out for the larger project for the May 8th meeting.

Well, I mean we're we're having the hearing. We continued it to a date certain. That date certain has arrived. we open the hearings and then we continue it again. Well, I just mean any notifications that were sent out with the May 8th date or are still valid. Um, they can still show up to that meeting. It's just it will be continued on that meeting again. Okay. Yes. Again, it's a second continuance to a date certain of the 12th, but that would be if we're able to do the swap, um, it would be contingent on what do you all have planned for the 12th currently? Does he have to send out notice for the 12th? I believe so.

So, how does he do that between the 8th and the 12th and give people? It's going to be a very busy meeting. We've got six in the hopper right now. So even if one or two fell off, it could go from busy to normal. Okay. Have you guys sent out notice yet? No. Are they variances or what are they? We don't. No, we don't. RPD and a text amendment. So four variances, an RPD, and the last one is a text amendment. Yeah, that's Yeah.

Okay. What's the opport What's the chance that you could zoom on the 8th? Um, I'll be traveling to State College, Pennsylvania for my grandson's college graduation. So, are you telling me there's no Wi-Fi at in the car or at the commencement? I think I'll be on an airplane. Okay, that's So, um, you know what? This is this is a real schedule shuffle. So, I think that um we shouldn't try to settle it here because there's too many unknown variables, but Amy, that's your job. So, you let us know. Thank you. Okay. Appreciate it. You all juggle whatever and let us know where we need to be and when. So, we will be meeting on the ETH because

we're going to be Yeah, correct. We will be here on the ETH. Um and it's a question of what action will we take on the ETH u as far as possible a second continuence. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. Uh, anything else from LPA members? Uh, Nancy, any items for you? Yes. Um, I just wanted to let you know that I have been working with staff and, um, working on some of your agenda items in the title of these items. Um, I have really asked and emphasized the importance of putting, for instance, if they're asking a variance, they're asking for a variance of five feet from a required 10T.

Sure. As opposed to just saying a variance of five feet. Yes. Because by having that from it gives you a better understanding of the magnitude of the variance as opposed to um just saying it's it's 5T you know but it's 5 feet when six feet are is required which is you know almost 100% as opposed to five feet from maybe 50 feet. Yep. So hopefully you'll see more of that and I think we we did a lot of that in this past um agenda for you. Um and we're always trying to do better.

It was very helpful and I think it's very helpful for the folks who are listening or watching the meeting. I think it's very helpful for them because they can visualize it then. Yeah, very very helpful. Thank you. That's it. Okay. Um community development items. anything from you fine folks? Okay. Um items for next month's agenda. We are kind of clear on that. It's it's a lot. We just don't have a lot of details yet. Okay. We'll stand by for that. Um it is 10:33 a.m. May I have a motion for adjournment, please? Motion. Thank you, Jane. Second.

And thank you, Doug and Jim. Ed and Ed. And we're out at 10:33. Thank you all very much. Appreciate you.