Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. This is a regularly scheduled meeting of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency. It is 9.01 AM. Six of us are present and Don Sudduth is there on the Zoom. Good morning, Don. And good morning. If you would please stand 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.

So the invocation this morning is just to wish everybody here and everybody watching a happy summer. I hope you all are safe during your travels or have a good time here at home. Amen. May I have a motion, please, for the approval of the final agenda? So moved.

Second. Madam Chair?

Yes, ma'am.

Could we ask that there be a motion to accept on? Yes.

Yes.

Reluctantly, I'll make that motion.

Thank you, Jim. Is there a second?

I'll reluctantly.

Oh, you're going to be in trouble today, Don. Oh, there's a motion and a second to accept Don remotely. Is there any objection to that motion? Motion carries unanimously. Don, where in the world are you? Arizona. Arizona. Well, it's nice to see you. Okay. So now may we had a motion for the approval of the final agenda by the two Jims. Is there any discussion on that motion or if not, any objection to the motion?

Madam Chair, just as a reminder, there was a request made for intervener status, and that should be heard before the item D on your agenda?

As an item before item D or in the process of item D? In the process, but towards the beginning of it. Okay, but we don't need to amend the final agenda for that? Correct okay any objection to the motion to approve the final agenda hearing none that carries unanimously. Approval of the minutes for May 8th of 2026 and the 12th unless there are any corrections or objections to the minutes.

for the May 8th and May 12th meeting.

I'll second that. Thank you. Any discussion on that? Any objection to the motion? And that carries unanimously. The first item on our agenda is public comment, and it's public comment on agenda items, but if you're here for a hearing, you should wait and speak during the hearing so you're part of the record of that hearing unless you just don't have time to stay, in which case you're welcome to speak now. Anybody want to speak at this moment? OK, seeing none, we'll move on to our first hearing, which is a variance. This is VAR. Nancy, do you want to do your spiel first? Yes. Thank you, Mayor.

I'm sorry. Chair. Chair and Mayor. They're very close, OK? So today on your agenda, you have three variances and one development agreement. And these quasi judicial these land use decisions are quasi judicial in nature. And this requires that your public hearing comply with some procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in our land development code. So these quasi-judicial proceedings will be less formal than proceedings before a circuit court. However, they will be more formal than the remainder of your meeting. And we must follow basic standards of due process that require certain notices, the application of the correct standards, of law and that your decisions be made on competent substantial evidence presented to you today either in written documents or through oral testimony. Your responsibility today is to evaluate that testimony and information for each of these agenda items and draw a conclusion regarding whether the criteria in the land development code or in state law as may be applicable, have been satisfied. So speculation or opinion that is not based on competent facts should not be considered by you in evaluating an agenda item. Testimony by professionals who are qualified as experts in a particular area has been considered competent evidence by Florida courts, as well as testimony by neighbors and residents who have fact-based information such as minutes, surveys, engineering report, or if their testimony is based on their personal knowledge and information. So members of the public who are present, if you intend to speak, please keep my comments in mind. And when you come forward, state your name clearly for the record and whether or not you have been sworn in. Today we have three variances before you. I want to remind you that A unanimous decision by eligible voting members of the LPA to approve a variance constitutes final agency action subject to request by anyone for an additional hearing or review of the matter by the town council. If the request for the additional hearing is received by the town clerk within 10 days. So for purposes of efficiency, before we begin these public hearings, I would like to go ahead and dispose of a few matters related to quasi judicial agenda items. The first is I'm going to ask the town clerk whether or not these agenda items have been properly noticed pursuant to our land development code and Florida law.

Yes, they have.

Thank you. Also, at this time, if there is any LPA member who has a conflict of interest that would prohibit them from voting on any of these items, this would be an appropriate time to go ahead and make that disclosure so that we can make sure that we have a quorum present for the review of that item.

Thank you, Nancy. Don, do you have any conflicts on any of the cases? No comment. Thank you. How about you, Ed?

None.

Jim?

None.

Jane? None. Don? Doug?

No, ma'am. Jim?

None.

I have none as well. Thank you. So at this time, we would like to go ahead and ask if anyone who is present intends to provide any testimony, if you would please stand and raise your right hand.

This is anybody who's going to give testimony in any of the cases today. And that includes public comment? And that's public comment. So anybody who wants to speak today should stand up and be sworn in.

Perfect. If you'll raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Okay. Thank you very much. And Madam Chair, we will take the qualification of experts within the context of each of the public hearings. Thank you, Nancy. And so I think at this point, you can read the title to the first item.

I'm going to read the title and then ask if there's any ex parte. So this is a variance request, BAR 202. 60070 for 5520 Estero Boulevard. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving, approving with conditions or denying variance 202 60070. Requesting a variance from land development code table 34-3 to reduce the required side setback to allow a balcony to extend two feet into the required six and a half foot side setback for a single family residence in the RM zoning district for the property located at 5520 Estero Boulevard. Generally referred to as strap number 334624W1002050170 in Fort Myers Beach. and providing for other clarifications is necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scrivener's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. Jim, do you have any ex parte for this case? Do not. How about you, Doug? No, ma'am. Jane? No. Jim? None. Ed?

No.

Don? No. I have none as well. So we'll begin with the staff. Jason?

Good morning. My name is Jason Smalling. I'm the senior planner here with the town. So before you today is the request for 5520 Estero Boulevard. The request before you is to allow for an additional two feet of protrusion on a proposed side yard balcony. So this is a balcony within their property boundaries on the north side or right hand side if you're standing in the front yard. The request would allow the deck or the balcony to extend at four and a half feet of setback as opposed to the six and a half feet of setback that is generally required for lots that are less than 50 feet wide. The original home that existed there, which was approximately 1,300 square feet, was heavily damaged and ultimately demolished following the storm. So what's going on today is the rebuild of a larger structure And they're attempting to do it all within the codes, but we did recognize during their DEP review that this was extending into the side setback and then they chose to request a variance. The applicant is here for any questions that you may have. Staff is here for any questions or concerns that you may have as well.

Thank you, Jason. Do we have any questions for Jason?

Oh, I apologize. Also, the recommendation from staff is for a conditional approval, the conditions in there are fairly boilerplate.

Jason, how many platted lots are there along that area right there?

A lot of those lots have been sliced and diced since the Platts were created. So when we look at the Platts, the Platts are much larger. The structures as they exist today, there's quite a few of them. If you'll give me just a moment, I can do a quick count within the general area there.

I'm just talking about on either side of the blue house.

So are you talking about the neighbor to the left of them?

Yeah, empty lot on the left and then there looks like there's possible two lots on the right.

I believe, and I'll defer to the owner, but I believe what I understand is that the owner owns one of the adjacent lots as well and that a third party owner owns the other side of the lot. But I don't exactly remember which of those lots that the applicant owns as well. Okay.

Any other questions for Jason at the moment? Thank you. Is the applicant here or the representative? Come on up. You guys come on up.

Madam Chair, could we go ahead and, for purposes of the record, identify who has provided expert testimony and who will be providing expert testimony on this item?

Sir, you need to come to the microphone. Sorry about that. And are you providing expert testimony?

No, my name's Jose Musa. I'm Eliana Musa's brother. And I'm just here representing her because she's out of town.

OK. Is there anything you want to say about the case?

No, I just said that I think they referred to the owner that were here. I didn't know.

So you pretty much agree with what staff's representation has been?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, I don't know if there's any clarification that needs to be answered for the question that you had on the properties.

Do you have knowledge of it?

Yes, absolutely. Okay, go ahead. So if you're standing on a stairwell looking at the property, to the left was the Sandpiper Hotel, which is completely gone, there's nothing there. there isn't a lot between no there's no lot in between okay so the property line of the property shares you know with okay what was the sandpiper okay and then to the right of that there are two properties that are being shared one is already built already which is the blue house that you're referring to which is our neighbor she was already notified and she is in accordance and doesn't have any issues okay and the other lot also belongs to my sister that also got completely destroyed in the store okay and it's an empty lot now okay yeah any questions for the applicant don do you have any questions for the applicant

No, no question.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Was there anybody else who was going to say? I have a question. Oh, go ahead.

I just want to make sure I understand. From looking at the drawing that's in the package, there's like a four-foot wide balcony on the second floor that runs the entire length of the structure on the northwest side.

Yes.

Okay. I just want to confirm.

Anything else for the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Moussa. Thank you. We'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here who'd like to testify in this case? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Any further questions from the LPA members or the staff or the applicant?

Madam Chair, has the agenda materials been accepted into the record?

I'm sorry?

Is there a vote to accept the agenda materials into the record?

That's new. OK. Would somebody make a motion?

I'll make that motion to accept into the record. Thank you.

I'll second.

Any discussion on that?

Yeah, I just have one. Could you give us some context, Nancy?

Oftentimes, sometimes in the event of an appeal, there is an issue as to whether or not the materials that are either in staff's records or in the agenda have been accepted to you before you buy you as part of your record in the deliberation of this meeting. It's just to basically keep the record pretty clear.

Nancy, doesn't that happen when we accept the final make a motion to approve the final agenda?

That would be the order. And not within each specific item. So there's no additional when you make that motion, it's my understanding that you're accepting the items that are identified as agenda items, but not necessarily the agenda backup for each of the items. so should our deliberations begin with accepting the materials so we can adequately use those for legitimate deliberations at the beginning of every variance yes it's just kind of a housekeeping thing that i would like to have in the record for this item as well as every item so amy could you change the agenda from here on out because i if

I don't want to go to each item and say, could we have a motion to accept all the materials? Right. If we're approving the final agenda, we can approve also the materials held within. We could do that. Yeah. Okay. That'd be great.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Do we have the motion? Yeah. Yeah. And was there a second? Did we vote? Yep. Okay. That threw me for a loop. I never heard that. Where the heck did you get that, Nancy? It's in our script. Okay. We can discuss that for the meeting. All right. All right. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. Motion carries unanimously. So now, are there any further questions for the staff or the applicant on this variance request? And if not, may I have a motion, please?

I move that we approve variance number 202600705520 Estero Boulevard, including the three conditions recommended by staff, and finding that the requirements for the variance have been found. Support.

Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? Your vote, Jim? Aye. Jim? Aye. Doug? Aye. Jane? Aye. Ed?

Aye.

Don? Aye. And I'm an aye. The motion carries unanimously. Congratulations, Mr. Moussa.

Madam Chair, could you go over quickly the 10-day period? Again, I know Nancy covered all that, but when you have new applicants, this one's important because it's unanimous.

So when the LPA has a unanimous vote on a variance, it can be the final decision, unless somebody were to oppose the decision within 10 days, in which case then you would have to go to the town council. So this could be your final step with any luck, but there is a possibility that somebody could say, oh, no, we don't like this decision, and they would question it or appeal it, in which case then you would have to go to the town council. That's for all variance requests in front of the LPA. get notified you would get notified yes sir yeah okay thank you very much for being here all right our next variance is for is var20250260 for a 101.02 baymar drive this is a resolution of the fort myers beach local planning agency approving approving with conditions or denying variance 20250260 requesting a variance from land development code section 34 table 34-3 for the property located at 100-102 Baymar Drive, generally referred to as strap number 294624W2001551010 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 law, Scribner's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. Don, any ex parte in this case? No. How about you, Ed?

No.

Jim? No. Jane? None. Doug? No, ma'am. Jim? No. And I have none. So we'll start with the staff report.

Good morning again. My name is Jason Smalley, senior planner with the town. Before you is a request today for variance to reduce a rear enclosed set of stairs. This is a double stair. The request is to reduce the setback by 7.9 feet and to allow for a minimum setback on the rear stairs to be 12.1 where 20 feet would normally be required. So staff has recognized that this lot is not clean cut. It's not an interior rectangular lot. This lot does look similar to many of the other what I'll call end cap lots on the ends of some of the more residential neighborhoods. But quite honestly, it's an oblong shape, and it's a little off from what we would expect normal interior lots to be. So the recommendation of approval with conditions, or excuse me, of denial, sorry, It takes into account the understanding that the lot may look a little bit odd, but they're beginning from a blank slate here today. And that staff believe that they could move the stairs around to accomplish what they're trying to do by utilizing the additional 10 foot protrusion into the front setback. The applicant has chosen to go ahead and utilize this on the rear of the home, which is not afforded that additional 10 foot. And that's what necessitated the request for the variance today. Staff recognizes that the rest of the build seems to be within compliance of the code. So what they're asking for is just the reduction of the 20 foot setback by 7.9 feet. I believe the applicant is here today. If you have any questions and staff is here for any questions or concerns that you may have.

Does anyone have questions for staff?

I do. So the last property that we looked at compared to this property, are they both starting from a new slate?

So they are both starting from a fresh site. I would just point out that the previous lot was very much impinged on the sides. This one does have larger setbacks. So for instance, it does have to provide a 20-foot side street setback. in addition to the normal 25-foot front setback there. But they have a lot more space to sort of move around the structure in this case. They could have reduced the size of it. They could have taken advantage of the front setback. which was an original recommendation. We're not stepping in to say that the staff is telling them how to design this. We just told them that there were some options to perhaps accomplish their goals while not necessitating the variance. They've chosen to go ahead and do the variance, and that is their right to do it. But I would defer to them as far as is that a necessary design to accomplish what they need, or is this a choice?

When you have a corner lot and have two 25-foot setbacks, shouldn't that give you the right to have two side setbacks that are for the back and for the other side? To me, it's unreasonable to have to have 25, 25, and 20.

So in this case it would be a 25 on the front, a 25 on the side street. They have a 10-foot side, and then they have a rear. So one side, one rear, and then two street setbacks. So we recognize that the additional setbacks on this site do sort of force the structure into the middle here. What we're saying is that staff, when we reviewed it initially, just looked at it and said, we believe that the stairs and the entryway could be accomplished with a little bit of compromise on the front. but I recognize that it would probably have reduced the depth of the set of stairs that they're proposing here if they did try and fit it into that additional 10-foot setback they're allowed for on the front. To your point, though, you can utilize that additional setback in both the street setback or the front Asteros setback in this case. That's a choice that corner lots can make, and that's a little bit more flexibility for them. But again, what they're requesting is to go ahead and put it into the rear.

They can do that without a variance request on the 25s?

Yes, so that is a buy right carve out that's allowed for in the code. They don't have to ask for anything additional.

Good question. Thank you.

Is there any feedback from the property owner on the northeast side that the setbacks abuts against?

I'll defer to the applicant if we've heard anything on that one. I am not seeing anything from the neighbors on the submitted package as of right now. But I will defer to them if we've heard anything else.

I apologize Just one more follow-up on my question because I'm just learning this piece in part How much is the buy right?

infringement on the 25 setback when you have a lot like this you would be up Excuse me, you would be allowed to have a 10-foot depth or 10-foot additional protrusion so you would be giving a minimum of 15 foot setback in this case and

And that's specifically for accessory structures, stairs, et cetera? Not the home itself?

Exactly. Stoops, porches, and balconies is what the code specifically allows for.

Thank you, Jason.

Anything else for the staff? Okay, we'll ask the applicant to come up or their representative. Is somebody here for this case? Yes.

Madam Chair, again, a housekeeping matter.

This was Kara Stewart's.

Is that right? Has there been expert testimony, and are you accepting into the record the agenda materials?

Oh, yes.

So moved to accept the materials into the agenda.

Second. Any objection to that? Jason Smalling has been accepted as an expert in the past.

He has been.

And do we have to go through that every time, too, now? No, but if you could just state it within the record, that would be fine.

Okay.

All right. All right.

This is not Kara's. Okay, there's a gentleman who had, Jason Smalley has been accepted into the record. And sir, you've never testified before us. I have not.

I'm here the first time.

So are you testifying? Can you tell us a little bit? Are you an expert?

So my name is William Marengo. So I'm representing Atlas in design and engineering. Yes, sir. So I'm here to just represent the drawings that were submitted, and on behalf of the applicant. I thought the applicant was going to be here, but if you have any questions regarding that, I have the plans here, and that's why I'm here.

Do we need to accept him as an expert, or...?

Can we get your name again?

William, and last name Orengo, O-R-E-N-G-O.

Thank you. So you could accept him. I don't know what his title is.

Do you do this for a living? Yes. We do, yes. OK, great. Yes, you do.

OK. Could we have a motion to accept Mr. Orengo?

Trying to nail that down, so I'm asking weekend drawers.

Mr. Orengo as an expert in his field, please. I'll make the motion to accept Mr. Arango as an expert in this field. Thank you, Jim. Is there any objection to that motion? That carries unanimously. Any questions for Mr. Arango on this? Jane, did you want to ask him a question about the stairs?

I was just asking for... from Jason about whether that is acceptable because I think we've done that on several properties that were corner lots and we could use the side setbacks on different areas. So I really don't have a question for him.

Anybody have any questions for the gentleman? I do.

Ed? If you were to move the stairs to the front of the house, would that affect the curb appeal of the house from the street?

I think that was the big, from what I'm looking at the plans, that's what's driving us to put that at the rear. Because if we put them on the front, which originally they were on the front, when you're driving on Astero Boulevard, it might not look as appealing as it would hidden on the other side of the property.

Is access to the stairwell, is that from the parking area under the building? How do you get to the stairwell, the enclosed staircase?

So access would be through the ground floor level, so you can have access through that to go up to the first and second.

Yeah, from underneath the building or from the side ladder?

Correct, from the ground level, because the ground level has the garages.

I guess my question is the adjacent property owner, because we're kind of enroaching on the setback. I don't know if that affects them or not. It'd be nice to know that they're okay with it.

Well, it doesn't look like anybody's here, but we'll see. Any other questions for the gentleman? Don, did you have any questions?

No, not quite.

Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate you being here. Is there any, we'll open the public hearing. Anyone here to speak on this hearing? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Any further questions for the staff or the applicant? If not, may I have a motion? Unless you want some time to think about it.

So Jason, the reason that you denied it is because it doesn't meet the setbacks.

I think the general umbrella here is that, yes, it doesn't mean setbacks, but that's the reason that they're here today. Mostly the denial is just because, again, staff could see a method to accomplish this while staying within the allowances and taking advantage of the additional protrusion. We don't want to speak on the curb appeal of it. That's a private matter with them, and that may have caused them to come here and ask for that, but that's not part of my review for the variance.

But that would have been the option, Jason, right?

That is absolutely correct. They either had to bring it into conformity or request a variance here today, so they've taken that option.

but the option would have been to put the stairs on a stairwell boulevard.

I believe that could have accomplished what they were attempting to do, particularly if it's mainly aesthetic in nature.

Well, they also could have, the stairwell could be internal in the building, too. It doesn't have to be on the outside.

Yeah, again, the staff didn't want to get involved with trying to redesign it for them. We did point out that there were other options.

Sure, sure. Okay. Any other questions? Anyone want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve variance 20250. 260100 102 Baymar Drive subject to the four conditions that staff is recommending. And find that the conditions for the variance are met. I'll second.

Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Ed. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, your vote, Jim? Yes. Ed? Yes. Don? Yes. Jane? Yes. Doug?

No, because of the adjacent property owner.

Okay.

If I heard from them, it'd be different.

Okay. Jim. Yes. I'm a yes. So the motion is six to one, which will require you to go to the town council. So that'll be your next step.

Might make a suggestion that you get a hold of the neighbor or let them know to get a hold of the neighbor and have them send a letter in if they're in support or whatever. Thank you, Jane.

Thank you for making the effort to be here today. Could have somebody on the property.

So, Nancy, could I just ask for a motion right now to accept all the material held within our agenda packet?

Yes. I'll move that. Again, I just want to reiterate that sometimes when matters become controversial and there's an appeal, without those little words in the record,

we just missed the training that's all so moved thank you no you don't have to apologize okay the motion is made by Jim Dunlap seconded by Jim Bowen to accept uh as part of the record all the material contained within our agenda packet um any uh any discussion on the motion uh all those in favor aye aye anyone opposed okay That's disposed of. Next, variance, VAR 202-60056, 21531 Widgen Terrace. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency, approving with conditions or denying variance 202-60056, which is requesting a variance from land development section 34-638D3C.3 three, three Iowa, whatever the heck that is. To reduce the required 25 foot water body setback by 8.97 feet and allow a 16.03 foot water body setback for a non-roofed swimming pool for an existing single family residence in the residential conservation zoning district. for the property located at 21, five 31, which in terrace generally referred to as strap number three, four, four, six, two, four w one zero zero zero zero one dot zero zero one B in Fort Myers beach and providing further clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of loss, scrivener's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. Um, ex parte, Don, Ed,

No, none.

Jim? None. Jane? None. Doug? No, ma'am. Jim? None. I have none as well. Jason's.

Good morning again. Jason Smalley, senior planner with the town. Before you today is a request for a variance to reduce the setbacks for a in-ground pool. This would be proposed to be an uncovered in-ground pool. This lot is particularly unique in that it sits on the bay and many of the bay lots do not have seawalls. In fact, new seawalls are generally prohibited by code on both the bay and the gulf side. So before you today is a request for an existing lot with a non-sea walled rear lot, which causes them to set setbacks not from an established seawall, but from the meandering mean high water line in that rear portion of the lot. So the code generally would require 25-foot setback from this meandering line, whereas a seawalled lot would have much more reduced setbacks for an in-ground pool. So the request today is to fit it onto this non-seawalled existing lot. And what they're requesting is to reduce the 25-foot water body setback by 8.97 feet and provide a new setback of 16.03 feet to accommodate the design of the pool that the customer wishes. I believe that the applicant's representative is here today, but staff is here for any questions or concerns you may have. Staff, by the way, is recommending an approval with conditions based largely on the fact that it's non-sea walled, a meandering line, and a relatively small lot that's been carved out in that area.

Thank you, Jason. Questions for Jason?

I've got one. Go ahead. So if they had a seawall, what is our setback in town if they had a seawall?

So it could be reduced down to a minimum of five feet from the seawall if this were a fully seawalled in-ground pool. But simply because they have no seawall back there, the measurements have to be made from the mean high water line, which meanders across the property, not in a straight line. so you may have areas of the lot that have seemingly enough depth to put a pool of a regular size in there but as you go down the property line those depths fluctuate quite quite a lot depending on how far the mean high water line was mapped into their property line because you have to provide 25 foot setback from all points along that mean high water line once it's determined

Jason, we've had this before. Is the difference between the seawall and mean high water line a town code issue or is it a state issue?

I can't speak to state statutes on that, but I can speak to the town's codes. The town's codes specifically say that you must measure from a delineated mean high water line.

And you determine the mean high water line from what source?

So it's based on a survey, a stamp survey that we have received from the applicant, and they, using standard state measurements, will go ahead and establish that mean high water line for that.

Thanks, Jason.

Other questions for Sam? Don, anything?

No.

Okay. Thank you, Jason. Is the applicant here? Thank you for being here today.

Good morning.

Good morning. Tell us your name.

My name is Ron Walsh. I'm actually here to represent Kara Stewart, who was taking care of everything. She had knee surgery.

She had knee surgery.

She wasn't able to make it, so I'm here in her place.

Okay. What would you like to tell us? Anything about this?

No, ma'am.

Okay. All right. That was quick. Any questions? Any questions for the gentleman? Just a couple follow-ups. Anybody have anything, but thank you very much for being here, sir. And we wish Kara speedy recovery. Um, we'll open the public comment. Is anybody here to speak on this case? Okay. Seeing none. Uh, we'll close the public comment. Uh, any further questions, concerns, thoughts?

I just think that it should be acknowledged that this is a homeowner's association and they have different rules and regulations than the rest of the island because they are a...

I don't think it is, Jen. What? It's outside the gate.

Say it again?

It's outside the gate. I don't think it's outside the gate.

Oh, it's outside the gate. Oh, I'm sorry. I will rephrase that then.

It's outside the gate.

I have one point. Can we turn Don up?

For once, we want Don to be louder.

I'm pretty loud.

Yeah, well, we know, honey.

While we're working on that, the last speaker, I understand he's a contractor. Is that correct? OK, so you're knowledgeable of the project. So you have expertise on the project. Thank you.

Do you want us to accept him as witness, as an expert?

I would like to qualify individuals who are experts. Sir, could you come back up? And let me go ahead and add the basis for that is because expert testimony is considered competent and substantial evidence. However, lay testimony, testimony by members of the public, has qualifications to it. They must have personal knowledge of the information itself. or they must have the other criteria. Their testimony must be based on fact-based information. So it's a different analysis in the event of an appeal. So I'm just trying to dot some I's and cross some T's. Thank you, Nancy.

So, sir, can you tell us what you do for a living?

I own a company. I'm a Southwest Tropical Design. We're a pool contractor.

You're a pool contractor. How long have you been doing that?

About half my life.

And how many years would that be, 12?

I wish.

For a good amount of time. Yes, ma'am. Okay. And would you consider yourself an expert pool contractor?

Yes, ma'am.

You would. Okay. May we have a motion, please, to accept the gentleman as an expert pool contractor? There's a motion by Jane. Is there a second? I'll make a second. So we have a motion and a second. Any objection to that? You're officially accepted as an expert in your field here for the LPA. Thank you, Madam. Thank you, sir. It was nice to have you here. We won't bother you again. Well, maybe. I don't know. Okay. So no other business there? Oh, back to Don. Have you got? Yeah. Let's see.

Can you guys hear me better? No.

No? No, no. Okay, but just go ahead, because we can hear. How about now? Is that any better? No. No. Well, the view is.

I literally stood up to the microphone. Guys, just one thing I was wanting to make sure. There's no removal of any mangroves or...

Okay, let's just ask the pool contractor that. Sir, could you come back up? See, I told you. You never know what's going to happen here. Is there, Mr. Sunneth is asking, he wants to be assured there's been no removal of any mangroves or riprap, anything like that. No, ma'am. None at all. The expert testifies that there has been no removal. Do you want to make that a condition, Don?

Yeah, I think we should.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.

Stay tuned. Don, you're familiar with that bay and the, I guess this is discussion. Is that okay to have? Yeah. that bay and how the water is back there and how many people in the association do have pools that are closer to and things like that. So I'm just curious if you have any concerns about that being outside of the association.

I don't, only because the only concern I would have is erosion, but I know there's been no erosion in all the years I've been around there. In fact, I think there's more accretion. If you go back there in a boat, it's much, much more shallow now than it was before Ian. And so I think, you know, it's probably pretty good. It's a little close to the rip rap to me. But again, I think as long as as long as it's a natural to me, the natural shoreline is almost better. So yeah, I have no concern.

Thank you, Don. OK, hearing that, would someone like to make a motion and include? I'll make a motion. I asked for public comment. I think I did. Would anybody like to say anything about this case? OK, closed. Go ahead, Doug.

I make a motion to approve with conditions, the three conditions established by staff, plus the fourth condition that Don Sudduth has recommended, no removal of mangroves if they're there or adjustments to the riprap of variance 20260056. Approval with the four conditions I just described.

Thank you, Doug. Actually, it'd be five now that you've added one.

If I may, I apologize. There's one clarification in there, though. These mangrove areas do fall within their boundaries, and so my understanding is that they could apply for trimming and maintenance of those. I just want to make sure we're not putting in anything that is across the board. They can't remove any of that, perhaps condition it with state permitting.

Right. Okay, amend what I'm calling condition four. It's proposed by Don.

We have four conditions.

Fifth condition, sorry. I didn't scroll down far. Fifth condition, no destruction of mangroves or removal of mangroves or destruction and removal of riprap.

At any rate, I'll second that.

OK, there's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, your vote, Doug?

Aye.

Ed?

Aye.

Don? Aye. Jim?

Aye.

Jane? Aye. Jim?

Aye.

And I'm an aye. That motion carries unanimously. So Mr. Expert Pool Contractor, that means that you're good to go unless somebody challenges this decision within the next 10 days, in which case you'll have to go before the town council. All right? Thank you, sir, for being here. OK. Anybody want to take a break? Yeah. Did you say yes? Yes. Yes, we would. We're going to take a five minute break before we move on to the next case.

you

Thank you. Don, you're there. All right. Thank you all for your patience there. Our next item is a development agreement. This is Ordinance 2602, DA20250277 for 6890 Estero Boulevard. This is the old Wyndham Hotel. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving or denying home rule development agreement for a property located at 6890 Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, Florida. Strap numbers 034724W100030010, owned by FMBH LLC as authorized by section 2100 of the town's land development code. And in compliance with the procedures for application and approval of development agreements with two phases and seven deviations for the purpose of redevelopment of the property to allow a restaurant, entertainment, commercial parking, and recreational area. 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. So, we'll ask for ex parte first. Don?

I met with the neighborhood company, Pat, and .

Your sound is better, Don. Thank you. How about you, Ed?

I also met with the neighborhood company and received many emails, including a bunch this morning.

Thank you, Ed. Ed? Jim?

My expertise is similar to Ed's. I met with the neighborhood company, and we've had numerous emails, both in opposition and in support of.

Thank you. Jane? I can ditto his comments. OK, thank you, Doug.

Yes, I met with Pat Vanessa and their attorney here where he gave me an overview of the project and the variances they're requesting. Also, as the others received quite a bit of email. Through. Amy and. I think about half in favor and half opposed.

Thank you. Doug? Jim?

It's similar to what's been said to this point. The only additional one I had is several residence interactions. I know this was coming up today. Those are more extemporaneous. But the conversations revolve specifically around the temporary nature of what they believe the application of the structure is about. That may have been a carryover from before, but it's still a concern that was expressed in the last couple of days.

Other than that, that's it? Mm-hmm. So on top of what everyone else has said, because we've all received the emails, I had several conversations, most recently on Friday the 12th, with Craig and Kathy Luce at Cresciente, and their concerns were traffic and parking and noise. The Sharon at Santini Plaza, who's the property manager, is very concerned about overflow parking into the Santini Plaza. And I did meet with Pat Van Ness and John on the 10th, as well as previously at Badass Coffee on April 3rd, who gave me an overview of everything, so. Madam Chair. And lots of people in my store who I don't know just telling me what they think about all of this.

So Madam Chair, for this particular item, it appears that there has been significant or more ex parte conversations rather than in our typical land use application. So I think it would be appropriate to go ahead and ask the applicant if they wanted to ask any questions regarding the disclosures that have been made. And also, I'd like to assure that you have received a copy of the emails that have been referenced.

Yes, Megan Strayhorn for the record, attorney for the applicant. I have no follow up questions based on the disclosures, and we have been receiving emails from the town clerk, from the public.

As late as this morning, Megan. I'm having trouble hearing.

Yes, ma'am. We did receive a few this morning as well, Madam Chair.

Don, what did you say?

I'm having trouble hearing, but she may just not have been in front of the mic. I'm sure I'll hear back.

I can speak louder.

If I may jump in with regards to ex parte. Just want to make sure that everybody received the two letters from the adjacent condo associations, SanDRAC. We have a copy of that letter if you didn't get it. It's in our PowerPoint.

Is that from Mr. Greer?

It comes from the association president. It's on letterhead. uh there are 180 units in that property so just keep that in mind you may receive a bunch of individual emails but this one letter is an official letter from 100 units 180 units on average about two people per unit and right across the street estero cove also you received an email from the president in his email he also says coincidentally that they represent 180 units again Probably two people per unit. That's 360 units that fully support this project.

Thank you, Pat. Okay. We also have today, so Pat, do you have any experts that are going to testify today, or Megan, any experts that are going to testify today that have not already been qualified by us? No, you're not. Okay. We have been asked to give intervener status to a group. We need to vote to accept that or not accept that and allocate time. Max, did you want to come up?

Max Forgy, Forgy Planning Services on behalf of Larry Gillian. We requested 30 minutes. I'm sure that Larry and I can cover what we have to say in 15 minutes at this time.

So in lieu of 30, you're requesting 15 minutes?

Yeah, we want to reserve the 30 for the town council when that time is necessary, but 15 minutes will be fine for us.

Well, that's a separate hearing. So unless do they need to ask for the same thing here as they do for the town council? No, they can request whatever they choose.

However, could you state for the record the basis for claiming intervener status?

In the letter which we sent you, Mr. Galeen and two of his neighbors who live right next to where this will take place, they are more affected than other parties would be, as the statute requires.

So could we have a motion, please, to accept this request for intervener status? Megan, you're standing up. Are you objecting to this?

I just need to put a few comments on the record. Yes, again, Megan Strayhorn for the applicant. I just want to point out that in reviewing the letter for intervener status, it is citing the Florida statute section 163.3215. Apologies.

Is there any way we can get the microphone?

Can you? How about that? Is that better? Thank you. My apologies, everyone. It is citing to Florida statute section 1633215. And under that statute, that is really more pertinent for claiming standing in circuit court. And it also limits the scope of the items which are relevant. That is, items which materially alter the use, density, intensity, which would be inconsistent with a comprehensive plan. Number one, for purpose of the record, we would be objecting to the intervener status. We would be requesting a limitation of time in the event that you all grant it. We would be asking to make sure that it is limited in scope to those matters set forth in Florida statute section 163, 3215.

Nancy, do you want to comment on that?

Well, I believe the statute does state that. Megan, could you quickly repeat the four areas that you would like the testimony limited to?

Yes, ma'am, and let me pull out the statute. It is materially alters, and this is section, I did not bring extras, but Nancy, I do have it in front of me if you would like for me to hand it to you.

Yeah, no, if you could just for the record restate it.

Absolutely. That materially alters the use or density or intensity of use on a particular piece of property, rendering it not consistent with a comprehensive plan.

Okay, and then one of the requirements for the development agreement itself is to make sure that it is consistent with the comp plan, right? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So, I mean, she set forth some statutory sections. I don't necessarily disagree. However, Mr. Flority has provided testimony in response to those. Do you want to add anything? Forgy. Forgy, I'm sorry. Would you like to add anything to those comments that were made?

No, thank you.

Okay. Okay. Ms. Strayhorn did not indicate if she was objecting to the 15 minutes that they're asking for.

I think 15 minutes is much more reasonable for this request than 30. I will defer it to you all.

Megan, out of curiosity, how long is your presentation?

I'll defer to Pat on that one. How quickly can you?

Good luck. How long do you think it is, Pat?

It's going to be a good 30 minutes, if not more. Obviously, with an intervener, we have to set a really good record because as far as we know, this could go.

Sure. Yes, exactly. Okay. Okay. May I have a motion, please, to accept Mr. Forhee and his clients as given intervener status with a time limit for their presentation here today of 15 minutes? So moved. May I ask one follow-up clarifying question? Wait. Hold on, Megan. We're in the middle of a motion. My apologies. Yes, Madam Chair.

Second.

There's a motion and a second. I'll let you say something now during this discussion. Does it have something to do with the intervener status? It does.

I just wanted to clarify the individuals that he was representing, if it is the same that was contained in the June 12th letter or if there were additional. That's all. I think he mentioned it was just the individuals in the letter.

Correct. That is what you mentioned, Mr. Voorhees. Okay. Very good. So there is a motion and a second. And is there any objection to this motion? Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously and you're granted intervener status with 15 minutes of time. So thank you. Okay. So we'll start this now with just a brief introduction by Jason and then we'll move on to the applicant.

Me first, huh?

Well, just an intro.

Do I get 30 minutes?

Do I get 30 minutes? It's an intro, Jason, an intro.

It's not about you, Jason.

I don't want 30 minutes. I do not want 30 minutes. Yes, I'll just do a brief intro so we can get to the fun. The application before you is for a development agreement on the property commonly known as the old Wyndham property. There's a couple phases that are in your packet, as was mentioned in the introduction by the chair. The phase one, well, there's an open restaurant and entertainment venue with recreational uses. In order to expedite the opening of this venue, temporary mobile vending trailers will be utilized to comply with FEMA and Florida building code flood regulations per the applicant. their request includes a phase two and there's two site plans including your packet that show those two differences between those two phases on the phase two will require design permitting and construction of a wave dissipation wall combined with flood map revisions to change the property's flood zone from ve to ae map the map change would allow for construction of permanent dry flood proof structures and replace and eliminate the use of temporary trailers. Additionally, the applicant requested the recreation uses will be then expanded to include pool and lazy river. And obviously, we can go into some details of those two phases. The application also includes, and they're noted on the site plans and as part of the request, that there's additional uses that are allowed currently under the commercial resort CR zoning district. which is what the property currently is designated as. As I forgot to mention, it's also where to go here. So the application also includes an area for COP, which does expanding across into the EC zoning district, a small portion. There's a notes page after each of your site plans. If you're looking at those that have descriptions of square footages in areas and buildings and that sort, there's a little bit there's a maximum of some of those. So that tells me that The structure will probably be anywhere between, say, 3,000 and 5,000. They don't know exactly yet because it hasn't been designed. The opt-in has also included a list of deviations. Some of those deviations are applicable to phase one. Some of them are requested and applicable to phase two. We have included a condition, recommended a condition to you that phase one deviations go away specifically. And part of that is because there may be something that in the temporary nature of phase one is appropriate, but may not be appropriate for more permanent use later on. The way that this is structured in the application, the applicant is, and he can speak more to this obviously, but their attempt to preserve some uses that are part of the CR. We do have the two site plans for the two phases. There could be additional phases in the future or revisions to those phases. All of those would have to come back through the process to do that. But it is this process that would also, just like if we do a PUD or PD zoning district, sometimes they ask for uses that are not on the site plan. It's a very similar component. In the staff report, there's a section of consistency with the comprehensive plan. That does include the applicant's responses and their opinions of consistency with many of these goals, objectives, and policies that they've presented.

Jason, just an introduction. And then you'll have another opportunity for the argument.

There are some staff sections that are not a response, and part of that is due to the nature of the DA and our role in the DA versus the difference with a PD as an example. Good. So that's, yeah. So if you have any questions about the deviations or anything else, I'd be happy to. Yeah.

We'll come back to you.

Okay.

Okay. Megan or Patrick, whichever one. Good morning, everyone. Good morning.

Let's see. How do I work this slideshow?

Eric?

There we go.

There you go. There we go.

OK. OK. I'll take it. Take the mic off.

Oh, I get to walk around. This is going to be very dangerous.

Don't get carried away, Megan. Yeah.

Again, for the record, I'm Megan Strayhorn, attorney for the applicant and property owner. We are here for a development agreement request for the property that is formally known as the Wyndham Holiday Inn. And I will go ahead and introduce the team.

Say next.

There we go, okay. Let me introduce the team. We have John Callis as owner representation. We have myself. There is Ted Trish with TR Transportation. However, he was unable to attend today, so he will be in attendance for the town council meetings, as well as Pat Van Esk, who has previously been sworn in as an expert witness. But if you would like for him to go through his curriculum vitae for you, I'm sure he would be happy to do so. Oh, we've heard about it. Please, many times. Many times. I'll get it soon. I think if you say next. Next? That might be the easier approach. My apologies. Again, this is a development agreement. Nancy always does a fabulous job of explaining in a home rule development agreement at that. Nancy always does a fabulous job of explaining quasi-judicial proceedings. So this is quasi-judicial in nature. This is not judicial, so you're not going to be seeing me standing up to objecting to any of the things that the interveners are saying. When we come back for a rebuttal, I will point out anything that I think is irrelevant or what is relevant for this matter. This is, again, a home rule development agreement. So when you're reviewing it, you're looking to see if it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, if it's consistent with the land development code. This application was submitted prior before the town adopted the new comprehensive plan. So when you're reviewing the backup, the material, you're going to see notices of both the old as well as the new comprehensive plan. However, it should be really evaluated under the 2045 town plan. This will maintain the underlying commercial resort zoning and this is a development agreement and historically the development agreements that you all have seen generally are a much larger scale than this. You will not be seeing a commercial resort being presented today. The purpose of this development agreement is really to make sure that this property can be used as soon as possible. Now, this process started, I'm going to say roughly about 10 months ago, with an attempt to do an emergency temporary permits to get a mobile restaurant on site. That process was diverted, so we're no longer doing the emergency temporary permits anymore, and now we've submitted for the development agreement, which is in two phases, which I will get into. This is a contractual agreement between the town and the property owner with certain conditions and uses and requirements. And again, all of the evidence that will be presented today will be providing the competent and substantial evidence that is required to find that the development agreement is consistent with the comprehensive plan as well as the land development code. Can we go next? That is much easier than trying to find the clicker. Again, this is a two-phased approach. And so there are a couple of things that I do want to point out before I let Pat get into the details of the agreement. This is a two-phased approach. I've seen several of the public comments in this term of an interim use. I want to make it clear that this development agreement could very well be permanent. That's not the ideal solution, of course, but the development agreement itself is not interim. Phase one is what I kind of call the permitting phase. That could be the interim phase. So the phase one is more of a temporary nature in the sense that there is up to six trailers providing for a mobile restaurant, one restaurant. contained in a pole barn or a tiki barn on site, as well as accessory parking. There will be bathrooms as well in the trailer. Once the wave, when phase one is operational, the property owner will be going in to obtain permits for a wave dissipation wall. Once that is obtained, once the map is revised, then phase two can be developed, which makes a permanent restaurant, a permanent tiki barn, very similar to what has been in existence there for many years, as well as the parking, which is accessory. There will be a recreational area, lazy river, a pool. And then in also phase two, there is an additional parking area, which I would like to also point out, which is a joint shared parking. It will be private. It will be gated. It will be locked. And it will only be through valet only use for the southern section. There are concerns that I've heard that this is going to be a public beach parking lot. That is not the case. This will be paid the same exact way that it has been as it was being operated by the Wyndham. You will pay to park. You can take your ticket to the bar to get validated. And that is the purpose of the primary parking for this project. And I think with that, I will turn it over to Pat to continue.

Good morning. For the record, my name is Patrick Van Ness. I'm a certified planner with the Neighborhood Company. And before we get started, I just want to say one thing. Don't do it. Don't do it. I want to say, wow, what a sports weekend did we get. We had the NBA Finals, we had the Stanley Cup, and we had a decisive win by the US men's soccer team at the World Cup. Amazing weekend. I could discuss it all day long, but I know we have two cases that we have to dispense with first. So we'll go through those, and then we can chat about sports afterwards.

So you're feeling happy today?

Yes. But if you can further indulge me, I do have something I want to share with you. And I want to tell you how I'm feeling today. And how I'm feeling today is cautiously optimistic. And the reason I'm optimistic is today I get to represent two great countries.

Consciously or cautiously? Cautiously. Cautiously.

I'm optimistic because I get to represent two great projects. I think these projects represent redevelopment that we need on this island. They are infill projects. They are in the right locations. They are reasonable requests at a scale that makes sense, that fits within the context, and fits within the fabric of Fort Myers Beach. Also, we have two applicants for each of those projects that are local with a proven track record and demonstrated record that they are good neighbors, good stewards of Fort Myers Beach, and have gotten along with their neighbors. So with that said, and on top of that, both of those parties are funded and ready to go. And as soon as they get their approvals, they are ready to break ground and move forward. And from what I'm hearing, that's what we want more than anything else now is we actually want to see shovels in the ground and projects moving forward. So with that said, I am going to jump into the Wyndham presentation. For those that have been on the beach as long as I have, we call it the former Wyndham, but the former Holiday Inn also. That property was first developed in 1969. It was a classic 1960s era beachfront motor coach inn, and it featured amenities like shuffleboard, tennis courts, and jet ski rentals. The applicant, the Pullman family represented by John Callis here today, they've owned that property for over 25 years. Bert, the senior of the family, was there on a regular basis, got to know all his neighbors, and was loved by many people on this island. So on-site, what you had there before was a 103-unit hotel. There was also a sit-down restaurant near the lobby, near the front of the hotel, and in the back there was a large tiki bar with food also serviced. That was more like the bar food in the back. That was close to the beach. In the middle of the property, we had a large pool. We had a pool deck. We had an entertainment area for live bands that were there throughout the season. And what's important to note also is the Wyndham and the Holiday Inn always embraced the locals, always embraced the residents. You could go there, you could use the pool, you could have some drinks at the bar, and they catered to both their hotel guests. and to their neighbors and local residents. And that created a very inviting family atmosphere. It was a fun hangout for a lot of residents, and especially a great hangout for surrounding property condo owners and people on the south end of the island. Some of the additional uses that were there included water sports, operators, vendors for jet skis, parasailing, and beach chair rentals. So what you'll see through this presentation is what we're trying to do is we're just trying to replace and reestablish those uses that already existed. and that were there and coexisted very well with their neighbors for decades. So we're asking for those uses except for the hotel use at this time. So if you could move to the next slide. What we have here is an aerial of the property pre-Ian. As you can see, three buildings surrounded by parking. I want to point out that there was a significant amount of parking for that property. There were 195 established parking spots. but if you look on the upper left corner, they used to be the former tennis courts, and in season when it was busy, they would valley that area, and they could easily fit more than 200 vehicles on this site. So I think at this point, I need to give you a little context of how we got here. Just a little correction of what Megan said is we started the process about 10, 12 months ago. We initially came in with a development agreement. And the development agreement that was submitted was different than what you have before you today. It has been modified. And the reason it's been modified is Because of the intent of trying to get this use and this restaurant entertainment venue open as soon as possible. So soon after the storm, John entered into an agreement with the town and various state agencies for renting the property for recovery measures. They got their affairs in order also, just like we did as residents. We had to figure out what we were going to do with our properties. They decided that they wanted to keep that property in the family. It was a great family asset. They did not want to let go of it. So John set out on the journey for two years where he tried to speak to every major hotel brand and every major hotel developer And the idea was to find a joint venture, an equity partner to build back the resort. Unfortunately, there was interest in the property. There were people that would have been interested in buying it. However, they did not want a partner. They wanted to buy it outright, and that did not go for the family. The family wanted to maintain ownership. So at that point, that's when John came to us. And the idea was, well, we know long term, probably the highest and best use is still a hotel. But we want to move forward with what we can. At this point, we want to bring back that vibe. We want to bring back those uses that people love. We know there's a need for a restaurant. We know there's a need for entertainment venues on the south end. And we want to do this as quickly as possible. So we first submitted a development agreement that did call for temporary uses. And did call for a parking lot that would be open to the public for beach access. We have since revised that. And the reason why things got revised is the wave dissipation wall came into play. It's something that John evaluated. It makes sense. He wants to put that investment in. And by having that wave dissipation wall and being able to change our FEMA flood zone from a V zone to an AE zone, That allows John to build at-grade permanent structures for long term into the future. So what you see in phase two is a large pool, lazy river, and the possibility of putting a 5,000 square foot restaurant under the existing pole barn that will be erected in phase one and that also allows the removal of all the trailers from the site. So we are clearly requesting a use that once approved is going to be approved in perpetuity. It is not temporary and it might be there for a very long time. If at some point they do want to develop a full resort, It is CR zoning and those uses, we want to retain the right to those uses. But just as Jason mentioned, like a PD, sometimes you have more uses than what your master concept plan allows. Your site plans and your packages is what we are committing to. That's what we would be allowed to develop on site. If ever we wanted the hotel component, we would have to amend the development agreement, come back to public hearing, or we would have to extinguish it and come back in with the CPD. So I hope that clarifies kind of how we got here and where we stand. So moving forward, next slide, please. Next slide. So just some basic property details. This is one of the largest properties on Fort Myers Beach at 11.2 acres. It stems from Estero all the way to the Gulf. And as you know, this is a very wide beach area. So we've got 11.2 acres of that 11.2, 3.8 acres is developable, meaning that it is landlord of the coastal construction setback line. As Megan mentioned, we submit it under the old comp plan. During the review period, the new comp plan was approved. We are now within the medium residential future land use category and the Santini Marina mixed use district. Our zoning was and remains CR, commercial resort, and the surrounding uses to the north of us we have the sand rack condominium, to the south we have sand caper, to the east we have the sterile cove, and to the west we have the gulf. Next slide please. And this is just an aerial depicting the property. What you see in yellow is the full extent of those 11.2 acres. Next slide please. And as mentioned, the development area is 3.8 acres and follows the 1978 CCCL. Okay, next slide please. So when it comes to what we are proposing, the uses, the location, again, we are asking to put back uses that already existed. Not only were they existing uses for decades, But in our comp plan, in the old comp plan, and reiterated and actually probably emphasized even more in the new comp plan, this is meant to be a mixed use center. This is where the mixed use centers on this island is where we allow for the tallest buildings for the greatest density and intensity. And also when we talk about the Santini Village Mixed Use District, It calls for a vision of, you know, providing a redevelopment opportunity with more entertainment, tourist, and neighborhood commercial uses. And that is exactly what we are providing. It also calls the Santini-Mexuse District the southern gateway to the island. As you know, while we are one unified island, we have different neighborhoods in my mind and different characteristics on the south end versus the north end. This is the the focal point of the south end. And what is being proposed is very complimentary to Santini, to CVS, and the other commercial uses in the marina that is close by. So when it comes to the uses and the location also, we are connecting to sidewalks. This is a highly pedestrian and bike-friendly area. We have thousands of condos in very close vicinity. People can easily walk to this venue, but there was always a pathway to get the beach. And as we move forward, we will maintain that pathway for the public. We will also be providing bathrooms that will be accessible to the public. The intent is still to draw as many possible people to this venue. We want people to park at the venue, visit the venue, spend dollars at the restaurant and tiki bar. However, we see it as a public benefit to maintain that beach access. Next two slides, please. Okay, there you go. So some of the questions are, you know, when you refer to a pole barn, not very sexy, we just wanted to be very clear into what is going to be built there. It's going to be a metal steel structure. That's what it was previously. So it looks like a tiki, it functions as a tiki, it could be decorated, the columns can be wrapped with bamboo, with wood, and you can give it a very beach, coastal vibe.

Patrick, can be or will be? It will be. Okay.

It will be. And this is what existed there, and as you can see, those were metal columns. Next slide, please. And those were wrapped, and they were made to look like a tiki hut. Next slide, please. So this is another picture of what existed there. Again, the idea is to bring back that vibe, bring back that atmosphere, and even if we use the words pole barn, it is going to look like a TV barn. Okay, next slide please. I think also for people to understand the concept, one of the closest examples that we have in Fort Myers is backyard social. So if some of you have got the backyard social, it's a large pole barn, heavily decorated. Obviously, it's not going to look like this. Ours is going to look like a tiki hut. But the size will be similar. And what they have over there is they have multiple food trucks. Again, we are not asking for multiple food trucks. This is one restaurant. It's just in the interim, in the first phase, it's going to happen to be run out of trailers just because we want to expedite the process. We want to get this project up and running for next season. And in the second phase, all those trailers go away and the restaurant is a permanent restaurant. So I've got a few pictures of what this looks like. So what I want to show is even though a pole barn, in the first phase, it'll be completely open, in the second phase, once the FEMA map provision occurs, we can enclose portions of it. So what you see here is you see one side of the pole barn which has been enclosed. And if we look at the next pictures on the next slide. It just shows you how these structures can be decorated. You can make them look any way you want, give them different themes. But you see how a portion of that pole barn has a wall and that's enclosed. So similarly, our restaurant would be enclosed, but all the seating and the bar area would be in the open portion of the pole barn. So next slide, just another view of what they've done over there at Backyard Social. It'll be a different theme, but it'll be very well decorated and appointed. So in this next slide, this is the site plan that is part of your development agreement. This is regulatory in nature. and shows you the various uses being asked the various sizes the various areas so what you have in orange is an area that will be all on pavers on decking type of pavers and you see the delineation for that rectangle box that is the tiki pole barn and The dimensions are 80 by 120. The little small rectangles are the various trailers that will be used. Again, I think if it was up to John, we would be using much bigger trailers, however FEMA tells us. We have to have smaller trailers that can be pulled by a light duty truck. That's why we have multiple trailers. We have one for the kitchen. We have one for the bar. We have two for the bathrooms. We have dry storage, freezer, cooler. But that will allow the restaurant to function and to be up and running this season. The area in yellow is the rec area. That's most likely going to be sand and landscaped. What this area is going to allow is recreational uses such as bocce ball, corn hole, outdoor seating areas you do have a little area that juts out past the coastal construction line that was if you recall there was a little area right by the beach that was roped off that existed previously they had obtained a special exception for that we are keeping the exact same dimensions 30 by 122 We are not asking for anything more than what was there previously. There's going to be no structure in there, just seating area, passive uses. It'll be completely cordoned off also.

Was that COP covered before?

Yes, that was covered by COP. I just want to point out also the total area for COP, it goes from about 31,000 in phase one to 33,000 in phase two. Prior to Ian, the COP for the Wyndham was 31,000 square feet. So we are asking for a COP and outdoor rec entertainment area very similar to what existed previously. Another important thing to point out is the parking that you see here is completely required by code. This is, if we look at the entire outdoor seating area and we apply code regulations, we have the required parking for that restaurant, we have an excess of about 19 spots. So this is accessory to the primary use, required by code. We have, as mentioned, The development agreement contains seven deviations. In phase one, six of those deviations apply. And in phase two, as we put in the more permanent structures, many of those go away and you're left with four deviations. I can walk through those one by one if you'd like, but if I get a nod to move forward a little quicker, I can do so. So would you like me to go through those deviations? They're in your packet. I think they're fully explained, justified in your packet.

Would anybody like Mr. Van Ness to go through the deviations one by one? Why don't you keep going?

If we have questions, we'll raise them. Just as a generalization, A lot of those deviations are associated with the first phase. And in the first phase, the parking lot, since it's going to get torn up and more improvements are going to come in in phase two, we are asking for deviations associated with landscape islands and some of the plantings. and how we delineate the parking spots. We are going to be using rope and bollard system where the ropes are painted white for every spot. And as phase two comes in, we are going to use the proper parking blocks and we are going to get more landscaping. So some of those deviations go away as part of phase two.

Are there any material issues, Patrick, if we make adjustments on phase one that would impede phase two?

Can you run that by me again? I didn't understand what you were saying.

If we make any substantial changes to an individual phase, particularly one, do you have to do anything different on phase two? Because it just looks like a holding pattern for phase one, for phase two. They're not interdependent of each other on structures, deviation approvals, et cetera.

Some of the site issues, I think there's flexibility. The Tiki Barn, the main structure, is going to go in as part of phase one. And, you know, in phase two, that's where we are contingent and dependent on the FEMA. Yeah, I understand that.

It's making sure the conversations we have about Juan I don't see anything that's overlapping into two. Had we made a change, two wouldn't be expedited and possible. I'll make sure we don't have an unintended consequence in making a change that does something for expediting the wave wall and the phase two development. A lot of my questions are going to be around timing today. Okay. And so make sure that you point out anything. If you're planting or putting something in that's more permanent on behalf of phase two and phase one, just let me know that if we touch on that. Okay. I have a question. Yes.

So in phase two, that will eliminate the trailers?

Yes.

Because I couldn't see a way for them to get out over the pool.

Yeah, well, the area where we've got the pavers will have mountable curves, so easy in, easy out. And when it comes to some of the landscaping that we are putting close to that orange area to shield the uses, anything that we put there by the trailers would be movable. and we're going to keep the permanent shrubbery away from those areas that they need to get in and out.

So what would be the time period if the restaurant would have to be shut down to do phase two?

So I... I think John has not completely worked out those issues. However, the pole barn will be there, and the pole barn is the main structure. Obviously, when you start building a lazy river and a pool and start putting in a permanent restaurant, there's going to have to be some times that they're shut down. I think, though, as much as possible and as much as feasible, He'll ask for ways to keep using the trailers and keep that restaurant use open. Obviously there might be some shutdown at some point or maybe the restaurant is in another part of the parking lot during that construction for Feastoon.

Okay.

With regards to deviations, staff has reviewed our deviations. I have seen no objections really from staff on those. Mr. Dunlap brought up the timing of the phases. Our development agreement provides a sequence and a commitment for when we start the permitting and once one phase is approved or one permit, we have a limited time frame to go for the next one. So we can't guarantee how quickly the agencies will review and provide approval, so we can't give you an exact timeframe for phase two, but we have a very clear delineation of what that sequence is with time limits. Staff has identified in their staff report what the code says when it comes to development orders and time frames, I think what they've got in there is actually more generous than what we were proposing. We were proposing a more expedited process. So we'll be happy to talk about that. What I'll do now is I will go on to the phase two site plan, which is three, four slides down the road.

Pat.

There you go.

You made comment in your discussion that you're trying to expedite things to be open for next season. Are you talking this fall or are you talking 2027? This fall and I think

They're going to have to work very quickly. The nice thing is they've done a bunch of work when it comes to the infrastructure on site. They have gone in there and camera'd all the utilities. They cleaned out so there's existing water, existing sewer. Everything is ready. As soon as they have approval, they can finalize the site, put up the pole barn, October, November timeframe should, ideally, fingers crossed, they can be up in business. So this is phase two. The biggest changes associated with phase two, as you can see, is the lazy river and the pool. This is a little conceptual. I apologize. This is more of an engineer's rendering of what this will look like. Most likely the lazy river will be a little sinuous and will not be as linear as it is. But again, we keep the same uses there. Restaurant under the pole barn, the area in orange is restaurant, bar area, entertainment area. All entertainment and live entertainment would be within the pole barn and any sound would be projected towards the Gulf, not the adjacent properties. And just as they've always done at the Wyndham and the Holiday Inn, they are self-imposing time limits. Nine o'clock, all music shuts down, people are ushered out by 9.30, All operations cease. If people want to keep having fun, they can go across the street and go to Santini and some of those venues. So again, we see it as complimentary, consistent with what was there before. The other big change other than the lazy river and pool is the parking area that you see there in gray. This is the area where we are asking for the ability to do joint parking. That area would be completely gated, separate, with separate gate to the area. It would be restricted. And that would be an area where Property owner can enter into joint parking agreements with other venues. Perfect example that comes to mind is we have Beach Theater not too far away. As part of their approval, they had to demonstrate that they would have a joint parking and off-site parking. For now, the Dolphin Inn property that they also own would be that off-site parking space. However, if they were to sell that, they need to find another spot. This would be a perfect example where they could enter into that agreement in the evenings. They could park there also for hotels that have obtained parking reductions. We would allow valet parking only, and we would allow overnight parking. Again, secure area. Those cars are not going to be driven by the owners. There's not going to be back and forth. It'll be valet only. We think this is a great idea. This provides a economic use of the property for the owner, but also it's a private sector entity providing a solution to some of the parking challenges we have on the island. There's been concern brought up with many other cases that we are granting parking reductions, deviations, but this is a perfect example. Here's a solution. Here's what can be done. You can have joint parking and the valets can go back and forth and utilize this space. So as mentioned, as we go into phase two, you'll see in the parking areas more landscape islands. We comply with most of the code. I do want to point out one of the deviations is instead of putting asphalt in that entire area, We want to ask for the ability to use crushed shell or rock. That creates a lot more pervious area. I think that's definitely a benefit. It doesn't create that heat island also from a big sea of asphalt. Staff also pointed out in the staff report that there was no water management on site previously. As you can see, we have water management identified there. And as far as this process, as we go through the development order process, the engineers are also going to have to go through the water management district and provide appropriate water management and maintain and control water on site. So just moving forward to the next slide.

Patrick, can I ask one more thing on the new parking under the community neighbor, good neighbor category?

Yep.

I assume that on occasion, should an if and when, an opportunity, the town or other nonprofit wants to hold sand sculpture down there, parades, or whatever it happens to be, that that parking lot could be made available for community uses on occasion with prior approval and all that?

They've always been a good neighbor. They've always done that. They love having sand sculptures over there. the rugby tournament also that used to happen annually, a bunch of different events. We know we've had comments from people concerned about traffic, but I've been here for 22 years. Even those peak days, like sand sculpture, And I worked at Santini for Little League, getting people in and out. We never had a traffic problem on Estero. It always sold very well. We had thousands of people attending those events. And nice thing is we do have a big parking lot at Estero. This will be a parking lot that can accommodate those events, and they'd be happy to keep that partnership with the town.

Yeah, I just wanted to get it on the record to meet good community citizens.

This would be a simple excess of 36 spots. This would be a simple excess of 36 spots that we're asking for. Those spots were always there. They were always adjacent to the budding condos. And they weren't controlled like this will be controlled. This will be controlled. This will not be back and forth. Anybody can park there and take their car, come and go. This will be for valet only. And we have also enhanced the buffering all around the property that did not exist previously. So if we move forward to the slide where we have the development standards, I just want to point out that In the CR district, the setbacks that are required are minimal, 20 feet from adjacent properties. And what we are committing to is, to the north of us, we are committing to a minimum 100 foot setback. To the south, a minimum of 200 feet. The gulf is a 50 foot setback. We have 650 feet to the gulf. And across the street, the sterile cove, we're going to have more than 200 feet. And we've got the sterile right-of-way on top of that that creates all that separation. We are not asking for density. We are not asking for height. Completely code standard. Moving to the next slide. This is the parking analysis. It's in your packet. I've already talked about it. If you look at phase one, the requirement is for 144 parking spots. We are providing 163. That's in excess of 19. But it's consistent with the requirement. And then in phase two, like I said, we are providing 237 parking spaces. The requirement is for 147. That's an excess of 90 spaces. And again, don't forget, compared to what was there before, we had 200 parking spaces on that site. So it's just an increase of 37 parking spaces.

Question? Yes. I know we're not talking about phase three here, but I think the ideal situation would be to have a hotel there. And by putting in the structure at the front, is there room to put a hotel that is

Yes, so right now, the real permanent structure is going to be the Tiki and the restaurant, and they are pushed close to the beach. So there is ample room on the rest of the site. I think if we are looking long term into the future, and if we are looking at a potential brand new commercial resort, hotel resort, we're looking at a very sizable investment. And I think even if there's permanent structures there, I think the whole site gets redesigned. Removing or relocating the restaurant and the pole barn in the big scheme of things is very feasible if that's what's desired. So right now, but keep in mind, yes, one day there might be another resort there, but right now we are not asking for that. If this gets approved, what we are asking for in those site plans are approved in perpetuity. Again, we'd have to come back in, we'd have to ask for an amendment, or we'd have to do a CPD at that time.

Are the existing entitlements allowable without the resort?

So what we're asking for is to maintain the CR uses. Right now, if you are purely using CR and not going through a development agreement or a CPD, the restaurant has to be accessory to the hotel. And that's one of the reasons we are asking for a development agreement. And also, when you ask for COP area, you have to go through a special exception process, or you have to go through a development agreement, or you have to go through a CPD. So by going through the development agreement process, it was a way we could address all those various issues and get the proper approvals to move forward with those uses. So if we look at the next slide. I want to point out that we are not asking for additional height. We are not asking for additional density. So technically, public benefit is not a requirement. But again, as mentioned, they've always been good neighbors. They want to provide that public benefit. So we are going to maintain a public beach access. It's going to be a 10-foot multi-use path. The area adjacent to the pathway is going to be stabilized subgrade. That's so emergency vehicles can use that to access the beach should anything happen on the beach side. We are going to provide public restrooms, comfort stations. In the first phase, it'll be the nicer trailers that you've seen at events. In the second phase, it will be permanent structures. Those rooms will probably be much bigger because we are going to have a pool with a lazy river, so it will be a changing room, bathroom situation. We are intentionally limiting our commercial uses. Again, as mentioned, the CR allows for a wider array of uses. What we are asking for is what is presented on your site plan. We are maintaining, and I'm careful with the words I'm using, view sheds slash view corridors, meaning that some areas might have structures on the ground, but above those structures, you can have open sky, great views, and we are limiting the structures going on that side. This will not be significant permanent structures that are kind of covering most of the property. We were asked by staff to look at our floor area ratio. So an open pole barn does not qualify as floor area because it is not enclosed. However, we calculated the entire pole barn structure and area that we would use the paved area. And I think we came up with a .07 FAR. And right now, the zoning allows for a 1.4. And in a mixed use district, we could be asking for up to 2.5. So we are significantly under what's allowed from an intensity standpoint. We are going to be using Florida-friendly landscaping. We are limiting our hours of operation and also limiting the hours for amplified sound. We will provide bike parking, golf cart parking. We'll improve our stormwater management system. We're going to provide emergency access to the beach. And in the event of any future storm, We have committed to allow emergency management to use the parking lot for staging and recovery. We are proposing uses that are in great demand and that we keep hearing about the south end needing restaurants, needing recreation and entertainment venues. We are providing that. We are bringing that back. And we believe this will have a real good positive impact for the town, for complementary to other businesses. And we are going to provide a wave dissipation wall. I think the wave dissipation wall is a big deal. I think the town is looking at the possibility of Possibly extending this along the entire beach. And this is one property owner doing his part, putting that significant investment to be more resilient, protect the properties. And it also protects the properties behind them. So those are all public benefits. Next slide, please. So without going any further, I just want to touch upon the findings and conclusions from staff. We've read their report. We agree with their findings. The only thing to point out is there was mention of maybe temporary or interim uses. I think we've clarified that. And we, they acknowledge that we are consistent with the comprehensive plan and the vision for the Santini Marina Mixed Use District and that the proposed uses are compatible and support comprehensive plan goals. They do have recommendations associated with the time frame, the timelines for the various improvements. As mentioned, I think what we have in the development agreement is a little more demanding, and we are okay keeping that. And they also mentioned that the proposed uses and public benefits align with the comp plan. So I've got slides that outline the proposed conditions and commitments. Again, happy to skip that. We can go back to those if needed. And then if we can forward the slideshow to the conclusion. So in my professional planning opinion, I believe that we are consistent with the old and with the new comp plan. We are consistent with the land development code and the criteria for evaluating a development agreement. And with that said, we respectfully request recommendation of approval from the LPA for the proposed development agreement that is in your packet. the deviations included, and the conditions included therein. So with that said, happy to answer questions, address concerns that you may have.

Thank you, Patrick. Jim, any questions? I'll pause for a minute. Doug, any questions for Patrick?

Could you expand on the deviations that kind of caught my eye are the reductions in the buffer zones? Can you expand on the reason for that?

Doug, I kind of missed that a little bit. Expand on what deviations exactly?

Minimizing the buffers. Two deviations related to buffers.

Okay. So the requirement For commercial uses, abutting the condo units, where parking is abutting parking, no buffer requirement. We are providing buffers, so we're going above and beyond. Also, the buffer, you have two options when you abut a commercial abutting the residential. We can do a 30 foot buffer with more vegetation. or we could do a 15 foot buffer that has less vegetation but contains a wall what we are proposing is marrying those two we are proposing a 20 foot buffer so again wider than the 15 a little less than the 30. we are providing all the additional um vegetation that would be in the 15 foot buffer we believe that vegetation is is what's going to create the the most attractive opaque buffering it's going to shield it's going to dampen any potential noise we do understand that the neighbors want a fence just in case that folks do not cross the properties and so instead of putting a wall because again we we believe the wall is going to be it's not really going to be appreciated. It's going to be behind that landscaping. We are providing a fence with the combination of the landscaping. So again, staff has looked at that and they agree that this is a good mix of those two options and providing for the intent of that buffer. Thank you.

Do you have an idea how high the fence will be?

The fence will be a regular fence, kind of security fence, but the buffers, the vegetation, we intend to keep kind of tall to create that shielding.

So basically a four foot fence?

Most likely a four to six foot fence. Four to six, okay. And then taller vegetation.

Okay.

But it's a chain link fence. Yes. So that doesn't help buffer any kind of sound or?

No, it would be the chain link fence would be incorporated within the vegetation. I think the idea is to not really see the fence, see the vegetation, but you provide that security measure where people can't cross.

Okay.

Any other questions, Doug?

No, ma'am.

Jane? You had mentioned FEMA earlier saying that you had to do the smaller trailers. So you believe that FEMA is going to approve six trailers on this property?

Yes, we've looked at the FEMA requirements and the town requirements. We are going to have an evacuation plan. All the trailers will meet the requirements. They will be plated. They will be towable by a light duty truck. And there's going to be a plan in place should there be the need to evacuate and remove those trailers.

So my question is, are we going to see the trailers as we drive into the property?

So there's going to be some buffering on the exterior. The trailers are going to be kind of far removed from the sterile. We are going to have some landscaping to beautify the area, to shield some of those. Again, we need to maintain a space where they get in and out. But John is already thinking about you know, movable planters, some of those walls that you can put vegetation on the walls and camouflage some of those trailers. And even from an aesthetic standpoint, those trailers, if you've seen Mojo's where they've got kind of the siding on top of the trailers, the idea is to make those attractive. John's got different projects. He just, he's got a kind of high-end luxury class a rv resort in fort myers where they put in a big tiki hut very similar concept to this it's been a great success and i think the packet included pictures very attractive and we've you know we've encouraged any of you to go out there and take a look at it but this will be an attractive site okay other questions at the moment jane no jim

I'll reserve my comments till after the intervener.

Okay. Any questions, Ed?

Yes. In regards to the parking lot, entering the parking lot off of a sterile.

Let me ask our tech person to go to the site plan, phase two site plan, please.

It's either phase one or phase two because of the parking lot.

Either way. So those two access points are the existing access points. The main access point is to the north. I think in slow periods, off season, there would probably just be that access point being used for ingress and egress. In phase one, there will be a booth and an attendant. In phase two, again, it might be a combination of booth, maybe some automated gates, but in phase two, they can use the second gate when things are busy, and that one would be an egress only. access point.

Okay, so still in regard to the entrance of the parking lot from Estero Boulevard, it looks like you have 20 feet between the boulevard and the parking lot, is that correct? It looks like there's a 20-foot buffer there.

There's a long, so what we have there is we have a 10-foot buffer followed by the water management And combined, we've got varying widths, but we've got probably 50 to 100 feet of separation and green space that'll be there with the dry detention areas.

So you talked about a booth with a parking attendant. How far off the road would the... What I'm concerned about is traffic backing up.

So what we've got... if you look at the main entrance to the north we have an island in between and then we allow for a turnaround so someone comes in either they don't want to pay the fee or they just turned in by mistake they can turn around before they get to the gate area the attendant There's going to be stacking for several cars. I don't think we've looked at that from an engineering design standpoint, but I would assume three to four cars right now the way it is from a stacking standpoint.

Okay.

Don? Don, can you hear me?

Yeah, I can hear you.

Do you have any questions for Patrick at the moment?

No, I don't think so.

Just a couple follow-up. Patrick, on the beach access. Yes. I know you're contemplating, as Jane was talking about, future uses for this property. Is it the intention, and are you being on the record, that that beach access will remain an opportunity for the community? Yes. Regardless of the development that would come subsequent? Though he's always being a dedicated beach access?

It's a benefit, so I'm just trying to lock it down. For the duration of the development agreement, definitely a yes. Beyond that, I think that's up to... New requests would have to come in and we'd deal with that at the time, but as it sits now, it's going to remain there for that. But I think as long as the development agreement is in force and active, that is a commitment and it will remain.

So are you aware of any wave disruption or mitigation walls that have been approved on the beach yet?

Yes. So my understanding is London Bay has designed their wave dissipation wall and that it has been approved. So from a timing standpoint, doing the design, obtaining initial approval for construction is something that's relatively understood and well defined. Probably anywhere from a eight to ten month time frame. It's once you've constructed your wall and you ask FEMA for a map revision, The timeframe, they do not have any guaranteed review periods.

Yeah, that's why I'm getting to the whole thing I told you we're going to talk about timing a little bit. There's a lot of conversation, and justifiably so inappropriately, to have these walls put on the island. There's a lot of speculation about a subsequent zoning map approval, which I don't know if any of those have been approved yet. But a lot of this is predicated on all those things happening, as many have come before we are. I know you're not in control of that, but it is a contingent to your timing on having that happen. And with the concerns that you're mitigating now through your presentation about the temporary nature and moving through these phases quickly, realistically you have no idea when phase two could be initiated, started, consummated, et cetera. Is that correct?

We can't guarantee a time frame. We estimate it most likely in the three to three and a half year period. When it comes to getting these map changes done, The engineer that the town has hired, Elizabeth Fountain, is an expert, an expert throughout Florida. There have been other map changes approved. And one perfect example is downtown Fort Myers with the new hotel in the basin. There was a FEMA map change approved to allow that to happen.

And you've looked at the cost of the mitigation wall and that's been factored into your desire to do it? Yes, the applicant has looked at that. And are you aware, just to finish up with this, are you aware of any issues with the neighbors when you have partial walls constructed versus the entire mitigated area?

So again, this is not my expertise. I'm just relaying conversations I've had with Elizabeth. My understanding is when they build these weight dissipation walls, again, these are not massive walls deflecting water. They're just a few feet. They can be exposed or they can actually even be covered with sand where you would just see a berm, essentially. So low-lying, what they do is They break the velocity, the momentum, and flooding still happens on the property. Water still goes there. So it's not pushed to all the other properties. Plus they can design it where those walls have breaks in the walls, again, to allow the flow. What it does is it dissipates the velocity, allows the water to flow through.

So Madam Chair, the only reason I'm bringing that up is obviously the timing of this is a critical part with what you've heard a lot about and we all have. and we've also heard it almost everyone now the wave mitigation walls become the new thing as part of the approval and criteria we just don't have a track record and therefore the public needs to know this is open for an extended period of time based on approvals construction schedules etc so what may be approved in phase one on behalf of phase two may sit there for a long time looking like that's all that's happening i just wanted to have that conversation publicly on the record

So I share some of Jim's concerns with relative to the mitigation wall because it is, you know, nobody likes to talk about what happens on either end of it. I know what it's intended to do, but I remember the first time I drove on the island, you could see where sea walls were. and the massive washout that occurred on the ends of those sea walls. And it was terribly destructive. So this is a bit of time away. That is a concern to me. John, I'm going to tell you something else that really concerns me about this. And I know you haven't gotten up there, but I'm going to tell you. So in the old Holiday Inn or Wyndham, I mean, to me, it was always the Holiday Inn, because that's what it was for me. All of the noise, all of the entertainment value was surrounded by buildings except on the front side of the beach and this isn't. And so that noise impact I think is going to be tremendous on the adjacent properties. It's a big concern for me. I think you've addressed the parking issue because that was one of the things that got raised quite a few times, at least to me personally and in some of the emails. It got raised about the parking, the increase in parking, how it will be managed, and what the impact will be to surrounding properties. But I'll leave the rest of my questions for later in the process.

To address the potential noise, go ahead.

John, you have to say that now at the microphone. Hi, I'm John Callis. How are you? Nice to see you. FMBH LLC. As far as the sound goes, I've dealt with this in other projects, and there are sound curtains you can put up. I've had dune for pickleball courts. I've had dune for bars. So there are ways to mitigate that. And at the old holiday inn, that sound bounced off those buildings like crazy. Just to let you know. Actually, it could have been worse. Oh, I know. So there are ways that you can mitigate that sound and that bass reflex with sound curtains. And again, if you go up to my project in Fort Myers, they're there now. And it's to mitigate that pickleball because it is crazy loud. So just to let you know.

There are products that can alleviate that.

Okay. Anything else, Patrick, for the moment? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So Jason, we'll come back to you. Do you want to add more than your introduction?

But just as short, right? Yeah, so I'll just cover a couple brief things. I had mentioned, I think Patrick actually mentioned it too, is the conditions are also some thought comments, maybe some of them more so than a fully fleshed out condition. And part of that is because of the way The code is written with regard to phasing, and all of that outcome and the verbiage for those conditions are 100% based on what ultimately your recommendation comes. So that's one thing. So there's an exhibit that was included in the packet, Exhibit E, Outstanding Issues, that also addresses and is trying to identify some of those things that just are not spelled out in the DA portion. revert you back to the code and yadda, yadda, yadda. So we'll have to address those. A couple responses to some of the things that I heard today, just now part of the presentation. The code actually requires the landscaping to be on the outside of a fence. so that it would be the landscaping and then a fencing. What type of fencing is up to you and your recommendation of what you want to require?

Which side's the outside?

The adjacent to residential or a neighbor. So it's at the edge of the property's landscaping and then any fencing would be interior to the applicant's land, not fencing on the outside and then landscaping inside. They can ask for that and you could approve that switch, but typically it's landscaping on the outside and then fencing on the inside.

Okay.

That does always I've seen it. You've probably driven up and down the road and seen master developments all over, Florida How do they get access to that landscaping that's outside the fence? That's something they'll have to figure out whether it's a gate or what have you to get appropriate access Obviously, they're not going to be able to get it from the neighbor to get to maintain that landscaping But that's just a operational thing The site, we are not necessarily accepting that the access gate or any future access gate complies with town codes. They're representative on the site plan. They would have to be consistent with the town regulations and also consistent with whatever Lee County requires since Estero Boulevard is theirs. One thing that, I'll take the fault for not noticing this, on the site plan, and you guys brought it up with the beach access, and this is a general statement, beach access being offered by an applicant needs to really be conditioned to go to the mean high water line. So most of the time your site plans are showing and being reflective of where development stops. or sometimes where a wave mitigation wall might be or what have you and we ran into this issue with a couple sites from a couple years ago without the actual access and right all the way to the mean high water line there's a there's a chance that legally somebody could argue you stop where the easement stops and you no longer have public access beyond that so it defeats the purpose And that's what you run into here. You would run into private land after the edge there. So I would say that's kind of a general statement for most developments to be thinking about that going all the way down to ensure that full public access. And then I think time is going to be a big thing. The music and the noise times are offered by the applicant. They are not conditioned. So we can make that a condition if those are the times that you're agreeable to. And that's all I have.

Okay. Thank you very much. Questions for Jason at the moment? All right. Sir, it's your turn. Don't say anything until you're at the microphone. That's okay. You want to make sure you're on the record.

Well, I'm not as polished as some of the people before. That's OK. My name's Larry Gilleen. I'm the president of Sand Caper Condominium Association at 6900 Estero Boulevard. We're immediately adjacent to the old Wyndham Hotel property where the proposed development is going to be put in. I represent the board of directors of the association and many, if not most of the owners on the property and many other owners in properties around us. We're supportive of the restaurant and bar facilities at the property and support the establishment of a permanent pedestrian beach access for the south end of the residence, as well as vehicular access for town and emergency vehicles. However, we do not believe that the proposed development at 6890 Estero, the former Wyndham Hotel, is in keeping with the FMB comprehensive development plan. And it does not adhere to the current zoning ordinances. That's why they're asking for some of these exceptions. We're specifically concerned with the size of the parking facilities. Numerous requested zoning variances and setbacks and buffer zones and coastal construction line. Also concerned about the construction of the wave barrier. I'm going to be turning over the presentation to Mr. Max Forgey for a discussion of our concerns with the comprehensive plan for land development. And then I have some comments after that. I've got these all written down. I'm going to probably just be reading them to stay within the time limit. And I know the legal challenge to maybe some of the statements I'm gonna make, they may not be perfectly within the comprehensive development plan. We had a week to present something. We didn't get a lawyer hired for this, so we may not be perfect on everything. Don't you worry about that. Okay. You're fine. I'm also not an expert.

You're fine.

Okay.

You're fine. Very good. Max? Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Larry. Ah, good. What do I do here? Next.

Just say the word next.

Next?

Ah, next.

There you go. It's magic.

I had no idea. Max Porgy, doing business as Porgy Planning, LLC. I have been sworn. My resume is on file. I have been recognized as an expert four or five times in the past in this jurisdiction, and I want to address seven items in your comprehensive plan which are inconsistent with the proposed development, in addition to a couple of other items which Larry is going to raise. Objective FLU 1A, small town character. Your comp plan says maintain the small town character of Fort Myers Beach and the pedestrian oriented public realm that allows people to move throughout the island without the need of cars even in the midst of peak season congestion. The proposed development would include plus or minus 237 parking spaces and 10 golf cart spaces per the application page 14. This does not promote small town character. It does not create a pedestrian-oriented public realm, and it does not diminish the need of cars in the vicinity. Next policy is FLU 1A2, encourage pedestrian-oriented public amenities. Quote, the town of Fort Myers Beach values its vibrant economy and walkable commercial areas. Through this plan, the town will ensure that new commercial activities when allowed will contribute to the pedestrian oriented public realm. To the extent that a public realm is created by the proposed development, it would not be pedestrian oriented. I want to say that one of the great things about the Fort Myers Beach comprehensive plan is it has very strong statements of what values the the previous town council was trying to inculcate This is an example the next two policies Next I've never encountered this before. We try to be original. I'm really excited about this. The next two policies are the strongest justifications for denial of this application. Policy FLU 1A5, parking. The town shall explore opportunities to provide innovative parking solutions on the island to meet future demands. The town shall maximize efficient use of land, minimize gaps in the urban landscape, and improve urban form by encouraging redevelopment of existing surface parking lots. discouraging creation of new surface lots, consolidating parking in strategically located parking structures, and managing parking as a system. The town's general policy is to discourage new surface parking lots to develop strategically located parking structures and to manage parking as a system. The proposed 237 spaces more or less would accomplish none of those directives. 237 spaces means a lot more than 237 people. Nobody drives to the beach by themselves. The number in the car is usually double that and sometimes much more. Unlike the persons who park their vehicles at a motel or a resort where vehicles typically remain parked all day, there will be plenty of churn. This is going to be a lot of activity. The second most important policy is policy FLU 1B, 2B, the definition of medium residential. Quote, designed for subdivisions with mixed housing types on smaller lots, newer high rise buildings and mobile homes and RV parks. This category will ensure that Fort Myers Beach retains a variety of neighborhoods and housing types. Commercial activities are appropriate primarily along Estero Boulevard and must be sensitive to nearby residential uses. I'll skip the rest of that one. This is the future land use map designation on the subject property. We agree that there is a public realm aspect to the proposal, but the Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan as the town's adopted vision of its land use future is medium residential, and residential uses should be assumed to be the central theme. The public realm must be developed in a manner that is harmonious with the existing residential uses, This can be achieved with the collaboration of the town council and the LPA to guarantee that the public generated activities, their lights, noise, odors, wind borne litter and other sites and activities do not clash with the use and enjoyment of the neighbors. And more specifically can be enforced and implemented with minimal response by residential neighbors. The remaining policies are policy FLU 1B3, which specifies that mixed use boulevard and pedestrian commercial future land use designations are where the comprehensive plan envisions the most commercial activity. Policy FLU 1B4, land use types defined. GIVES A DEFINITION OF WHAT RESIDENTIAL USE INCLUDES AND DOES NOT INCLUDE A PARKING LOT OF 237 SPACES. policy FLU 1C3 commercial locations. Going through this rather quickly. In the medium residential category, commercial uses are limited to lower impact uses. such as offices, motels, and public uses, and must be sensitive to nearby residential uses. And item five, when evaluating requests for new commercial uses, shopping and services that contribute to the pedestrian character of the town are strongly preferred over buildings designed primarily for vehicular access. Before I yield back to Mr. Gilleen, we believe that we have presented sufficient comprehensive plan-based evidence for denial of this application as proposed. Mr. Gilleen?

All right. So there are several items. Could we go to the next page please? Thank you. Several items I'd like to comment on. One of them is in zoning and related items like that. Commercial zoning for commercial resort. in the code says that the purpose of CR zoning is to designate certain suitable locations for motels, resorts, and related services, and that in the CR zoning district, allowable uses are defined in Table 34-2. And in 34-2, we look at the definition of a resort as a mixed-use facility that accommodates transient guests and vacationers as well as long-term residents. Resorts contain at least one hotel, motel with at least 50 units, which include combination of dwelling units, guest units, and may include timeshare units, and provide food service, outdoor recreational activities, and or conference facilities for their guests. So it doesn't meet the code to have this here where you have no primary structure and you have a series of accessory structures. Now, I know that's what the application is trying to do is to establish that you can have a bunch of accessory structures without a primary structure. But our preference is to have the old hotel there as it is. The setbacks and buffers, they're asking for variances to buffers developing on the property. They're asking for variances to fit more cars into the parking lot. We're in opposition of both of those things. There are not a lot of businesses there on the island in that area that need valet parking. And we can't see that, short of having another hotel there, that there is going to be much difficulty in using the parking they have without valet parking. Coastal construction line we're concerned about. They've shoved everything right up against the coastal construction line to make more room for parking. If they shove everything back 30 feet, they don't have to go over the coastal construction line. And so that ends up allowing them to do what they would like to do without as many parking spots, but without having to go over the coastal construction line. The wave barrier we're very concerned about. It's been mentioned already. You see the development that was done down at Leonardo Arms. And when Milton came in, the associations on both sides were heavily hit. And so we're concerned about the impact of that wave barrier upon our property, upon wildlife area that's there and upon the berm that we've spent so much money on to put up and down in front of the of that area in the comments that i've given to you there are comments about the beach and wildlife area hours and noise live amplified music from 10 a.m in the morning is not in keeping with residential areas we tell our people to use earbuds or earphones you know at the pool and on their lanais We liked having the music there in the evening, but it was buffered by the building. And we didn't hear it when we closed our doors. I can't believe that 10 in the morning is not going to be ending up with some difficulties for... for our properties. The rest of my comments are written out for you. Could I have an extension just to put a summary in, please?

You know what, Mr. Galin? You'll have another three minutes when I open the public hearing. Okay. I can wait. Just hold tight. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Thank you both very much. Okay. Let's open the public hearing.

Sure. Patrick? We can either rebut now or wait until after the public comment period.

Why don't you wait until after the public, see what else we have. So is there anybody here who'd like to speak in public hearing? Yes, sir. Come on up. When you get to the microphone, tell me if you were sworn in and what your name is.

Yes, I was sworn in.

And your name?

Ed Correa.

Nice to meet you.

As I always say, Ed, two Eds are better than one. I'm a butter, so I've got a copy of this to come here. And I'm very much in favor of Bert's Bar. I've been living on, well, I've owned on a condo. I've crossed the street from Hertzbach for the past 22 years, but I've lived full-time here for the last 14, although one of those years I was working remote because I was sick of the cold up in Boston. And I haven't regretted my move down here. The only problem we have is that there's no restaurants or bars on this side of the beach or the island. And the only one we have is Legno, which is a very good restaurant, but it's very good fresh pasta. But it's the only one around here. We really need to have food that we can get here easily. It was mentioned that 180 people from Sandorak and 100 people from Estero Cove are in favor of this. What we also found out was there was another 192 in the area that I'm in. I'm in one condo with five other condos for 192 people. And Kenny Figueroa had sent a note saying that. So there's more support than what I'm hearing here for this project. We really need to have Burt's Bar opened up. It's a big loss not having it. I see no big intrusion. What I saw before versus what is being proposed is very similar. I would suggest that we get going on this and do it very quickly because we have no other place here. Thank you.

Thank you, sir, very much. Would anybody else like to speak? Come on up.

I have not been sworn in.

I was going to say, I don't think you stood up. OK. All right. So whatever. That's OK. No problem.

No problem. If you'll raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? It is, yes. Thank you. OK.

So my name is Ina Bartolucci. And, well, we've owned for 27 years. We've come and gone. And now we're here basically, well, we've been here now a couple, 200 years. Basically, permanently. Anyway, I will make this short and sweet. With all due respect, this is as low key as it can get. The parking, I get. But again, I know whatever. But that parking lot has never, ever been absolutely full to capacity, even during the the sand sculptures. It's been full. It's been kind of whatever. But it's manageable. I've never seen it like an overflow with bad traffic on the boulevard, whatever. So given that, and there's always been music. So I don't see a difference. And I see it as something we need. That's about it.

Well, thank you very much. You did a good job. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Mr. Gilleen? Come on back up.

All right, I'll quickly get to the summary here. Visitor volume substantially different than the former Wyndham Hotel. Although limited public parking may have been available in the past, vast majority of the parking served the hotel guests who typically arrived once and remained at the hotel, parked for extended period of times. Public parking facilities generate repeated vehicle turnover. through the day, resulting in significantly greater traffic volumes and different visitor counts. So you have increased traffic, vehicle circulation through neighborhoods, increased pressure on nearby parking facilities, greater pedestrian activity, and increased demands for law enforcement, traffic control, parking enforcement, emergency vehicles, things like that. I did not mention this before, but we have concerns about dogs on the beach. They're running unleashed at this point. We've seen them running through the little estero wildlife area chasing the birds. And there's just not a lot of control at times on that. So we would appreciate it if this development had a no pet policy like they have at Bonita Beach. This is going to become the largest parking lot in the entire island. In summary, the current plan is not built for Fort Myers Beach residents. It's built to draw in outsiders from outside the area. It used to be people who would come for a week and stay there. Now it's going to be a significant number of people coming in. I think that they could move this back away from the coastal construction line. I'm concerned about the wave wall that could go in and could cause harm to our property in a hurricane. We've invested with the expectation that properties identified as medium density residential are going to remain so, according to the plan. We understand that the developers may argue that this enhances the public realm. That's one opinion to be argued. We believe it's to the detriment of the public realm and we're in opposition to it because it's in opposition to the FMV development plan to have transient parking at this volume. We also believe the plan is not legally in compliance with the zoning ordinances, and that's why the exception is being asked. But we do ask for a no vote on this. We think that it could be significantly changed. Again, we would like to have the food. We'd like to have the beverage. We'd like to cut down on the volume of parking that goes with that down to what's necessary for that, and then be able to have a better buffer zone between us and that. Thank you.

Would you all mind if I ask Mr. Galena a question? Sure. So you want a better buffer.

Yes.

You want less parking, but what you really want is parking for the facility only. Yes. So you don't want any public parking.

Would rather not.

Okay. And what was the third one?

Well, I don't know. I was just going off.

I just wanted to be clear.

The wave wall. The wave mitigation wall. Significantly, it's being put in there to expand the COP.

No, the wave mitigation, well, okay.

I mean, you can move that. If you're going to do a wave, why do you put it 30 feet out from the coastal construction line? Why not move everything back 30 feet? Well, because you don't have as much parking.

Okay. I just wanted to be clear on your points.

And I'd rather not have that wall go all the way out to our property line because of the destruction that we've seen on the edges of something like that, like at Leonardo Arms.

Yes, sir. Now I understand. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. Patrick, you have, or Megan, do you have clarifications?

Yes, we do have a rebuttal. We'd like to address a few issues. I'll touch upon the wave mitigation wall as the first item, just because we just finished with that. The wave dissipation wall. does not change the coastal construction line setback line it would be part of an entire armature system for the beach so we do have berms we've got dunes this is another layer of protection again the intent is to create a more resilient community be able to address impacts from major storms. This does not change the coastal construction line in any way. It doesn't bring us FURTHER TOWARDS THE WATER. ALSO, THE POINT WAS WHY ARE WE NOT PUTTING THE BUILDING CLOSER TO STERO. THE REASON IS THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A BEACH VENUE. PEOPLE WANT A BEACH VENUE. PEOPLE WANT TO BE CLOSE TO THE SAME. THAT IS WHY WE ARE LOCATING THE So with regards to the comprehensive plan policies that Mr. Forgey has identified, we have those same policies identified in our packet. And we have a very different interpretation than Mr. Forgey. And we demonstrate and justify how we meet all those requirements. So just to touch upon a few, again, it's in your packet. We go into a lot of detail. And staff has also supported that we are consistent with the comp plan. So professional planning opinion here, professional planning opinion there also. So from a small town, the small town policy that talks about pedestrian access and a pedestrian realm, I can see where someone would look at Estero and the Boulevard section in that area, and they would think that it was very much geared towards the automobile. What someone that is not a resident feels to understand is that we have so many condos and so many people visiting from out of state in those condos. And there is a ton of pedestrian activity in that area, going to Santini, bicycle activity. And those people will continue to walk to this venue just like they always have. We are providing a multi-use pathway. Again, promotes bike pad activity, promotes the pedestrian realm. We do have a bus stop right in front of the property. Again, promotes alternative modes. We are not, we as a property owner cannot change people's behaviors and driving patterns. What we can do is we can put certain things in place that will encourage bike pet activity. So again, we've got bike racks, we've got golf carts, we've got not only the multi-use path on the southern end, we have a sidewalk that crosses through the property. With regards to the assertion that we are in the medium residential category and that it's really focused on residential, What Mr. Forgey omitted to explain is the medium residential category, the new category, used to be our mixed residential. And I'm sure you guys remember the extent of that mixed residential on the beach. It's very pervasive, very large areas. What wasn't explained is that the mixed-use nodes, the mixed-use districts are a subset of that larger, broader category. And while we want residential in some of those areas, the mixed use nodes identify the need and the desire for a mix of uses, higher intensities, higher densities, and more intense commercial uses. So again, you have to look at the policies in context. We are in a proper district for this type of use. And again, something that is supported by staff. With regards to, again, the size of the facility, the amount of parking, as I explained at length, we are pretty much replacing what was existing. The COP area which encompasses the pool, the pool deck, the old Tiki was 31,000 feet plus or minus. We are asking for 32,000 square feet. So again, very consistent from the type of use and the amount, the intensity of use. Also with regards to the parking, we had plus or minus 200 spaces previously. We were asking for 237. AND KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST OF THE PARKING THAT WE ARE PROVIDING IS CODE REQUIRED. THE CODE REQUIRES THAT PARKING. SO THE ADDITIONAL PARKING THAT WE HAVE THAT IS ABOVE AND BEYOND CODE IS FOR JOINT USE PARKING. On many projects, as a town, as an advisory body and as a council, there's a lot of discussion about parking reductions that have been approved and how do we address parking and do we have a parking challenge. I'm not sure that we have all the answers and that we know exactly where we stand from a parking standpoint, but I think in a lot of people's minds, We need some solutions. This is a private sector property owner providing a solution, providing a spot for joint use parking. And this is not a public parking. This is not somewhere where people can park and go to the beach. This is going to be for entities that have joint parking agreements that can demonstrate those agreements and provide proof to the town that there's an agreement in place. And those areas would be valet only. So again, the area that is not valet is code required. The other area is valet only for joint parking only. There was also discussion that previously the parking was mostly for hotel guests. So again, I look at how many hotel units existed, 103. And I'm sure that that means that some people do not use a car when they come there. And we had 200 parking spaces. So there has always been additional parking for the residents, for guests, for visitors. So as mentioned, we are trying to replace existing uses that have been there for decades and coexisted harmoniously with the neighbors. And again, as explained, we have overwhelmingly PRESENTED THAT THE NEIGHBORS SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. AGAIN, OVER 360 UNITS ARE REPRESENTED IN THOSE LETTERS FROM THE ASSOCIATIONS AND THIS GENTLEMAN JUST SAID THAT PROBABLY AN ADDITIONAL 191 UNITS ARE ALSO IN SUPPORT. Barbara Puffer, that many of you know, did talk on behalf of her association, the 180 units at Estero Cove, but Estero Cove is in touch with all the condos back there. And every year they put a block party. They invite over 600 units to that block party. We were invited to go this year. We went this year. We got nothing but support. The association presented the old flag that used to be on the site that they salvaged after the storm. They presented it to Mr. Callis, and they told him that they can't wait for that flag to be back up there and for the business to be back in operation. So again, we understand that some people are going to be concerned. Again, we are putting back uses that coexisted that were there before.

So with that said, that kind of wraps it up for me.

I don't know if you've got anything else to touch upon.

I don't think that I have anything to follow up on. We appreciate everybody's time. We do ask to take the public comment into consideration, the weight, and identify that there is a much larger support than there is opposition. have their own concerns of which they're entitled to voice to you, but Patrick, as well as his staff, has exemplified why this development agreement is consistent with the land development co-regulations, why it's consistent with the comprehensive plan, both old as well as new, and there is vast, competent, substantial evidence to support this development agreement before you all.

Thank you, Megan. Okay. Don, do you have any questions?

No, I really don't.

Okay. Ed, questions for staff, for the applicant?

No questions.

Jim?

Yeah, I have a number of comments. I guess to start with, you know, these development agreements become something different than what we intended when we first discussed and asked Council to approve this. They were intended for, you know, the small mom and pops, but they've evolved into what they are. So I guess I'll just go through. On page 97, you know, I think that having some language attached to this bollard and rope on the COP area, something along the lines of no alcohol beyond this point or some kind of notice would be appropriate. On page 98, I think.

And that was 97? Jim, if you'd like, we have the entire thing in our PowerPoint. I don't know if it helps the public to pull up those pages and look at that exact language. Yes, please. It's really up to you. So if whoever is manning the PowerPoint.

Eric, page 97, can you pull that up please?

It would be in the supplemental slides in the back. And we may not have the right page. We just copied and pasted the whole thing into PowerPoint. But if you tell us what section, we could pull that up.

Oh, that would be difficult.

You want me to go through that if they can't follow it? Page 97, it would be...

If we could get the... I'm sorry to interrupt. If we can get the PowerPoint up, I have the page numbers here as well, so I can identify which section you're looking at.

But what Amy's saying is that Eric doesn't have the page numbers.

Oh, no, it's okay. We have, if you go...

Yes, but it's not okay for the public, Megan.

Now I'll revert back to the next. Okay, can we go next? Next. Next. It's 60. Next. Next. Next. Next. Okay, I believe that was the first one that you were referencing, and that is on page 97 of 189 in the packet, section 60.

And it would be item D. where I'm suggesting that some sort of notice or signage. The proposal is just some bollard and ropes and giving the public notice about what's not allowed beyond those areas. Next would be page 98, where we're talking about parking landscaping. In that area, we're talking about mulch and bushes in a parking lot. I think that There's the ability that cars and people and rain will wash away the bushes, drive over these things that perhaps including some larger containers or portable pots with some larger plants could bring not only definition to the parking areas, but also potentially some shade and some relief to the visual part of it.

Can we go to the next slide, please?

OK. Next to the last one. That's the parking internal landscaping.

Yeah.

Page 100. The discussion is, you know, the 237 cars and 10 golf carts, could have a significant impact on Estero as pointed out. There's gonna be turnover. Before any phase work would be done, I think we should have that a traffic study would be completed and any recommendations in that traffic study would be built before any phase two improvements would be occupiable.

I believe that's a staff recommendation as well. Can we go forward, please? Next. I think probably two or three slides. 7F.

Page 102, item 15. Governmental agencies that need permitting. I think County Highway Department needs to be added there in case the traffic study indicates that you need a deceleration lane or left turn only lanes. Page 102. and 103 was the list of what were perceived to be amenities or public improvements. We've had this discussion before under the new comp plan. Any code required Requirements such as landscaping sidewalk setbacks are not public improvements. Therefore, these lists should be segregated into their respective categories. Amenities should be separated from what is a public benefit.

And that section for members of the public, page 102, is section 16, which lists out all the conditions of approval.

Yeah, right. Page 104, deviation number one. The suggestion would be that there would be some sort of hard surface transition area where the ingresses are, or the egresses are, help alleviate gravel from being tracked down to Estero Boulevard.

That will be standard.

A couple other comments, I think that somewhere we should have language in here that sound mitigation needs to be included, not just limiting to decibels and hours of operation. And a comment that a letter from the association president is only representing one person, you know, unless it has taken board action on it, so these letters, I don't know if they represent one person, just the board, or the whole membership without a vote. It doesn't need rebuttal, Pat. It's just a comment. No problem. However, I do have two, I mean, to me they're important concerns, and that is in phase two. The overnight parking, there is no hotel, there is no restaurant looking for any overflow parking. If the applicant wants these conditions, to me it makes sense, let them come back in the future when they have a specific user. Overnight parking was eliminated in the final request when we approved access 26 food truck park. the statement that you want overnight parking and a valet seem at odds. Because if there's a hotel and is there going to be a valet available 24 hours a day? You can't say how a hotel is going to operate. And when we talked about it when I met with you, you said, well, there'll be a gate that can use a ticket. Well, if you have overnight parking and somebody... parks their car, and then they're at the hotel, what should prevent them from coming and going whenever they want, creating traffic and noise in the neighborhood? And my last comment is on page 106.

Jim, can I go back to the overnight? Do you have a problem with the shared parking agreements, or you don't like that? Do you not like that as well, or is it just the overnight parking?

No, if the overnight parking, I think it's premature until they have a user.

Okay.

Let me get to page 13. On 106 paragraph D, we have the language that the property owner and developer retains the right for commercial resort consistent with the LDC and the 2045 comprehensive plan and or building permit. But then the language without the need for a public hearing, I think is unacceptable. The public should always have the ability to comment on whether it's a variance, whether it's a CPD, to ask the town to eliminate the need for a public hearing without even knowing what's being requested, I find unacceptable.

I completely understand. Can I explain or should we move on?

Explain.

It would just be pursuant to a building permit. If somebody were to be coming in and saying we're going to be completely consistent with the land development code, not asking for any setbacks, buffers, the likelihood of that occurring is going to be slim to none. But it's just like any other property owner that says, I don't need a setback. I don't need a variance. I'm going to comply with everything that's contained in the land development code as is. If you prefer for that to be removed, we can discuss it, but it's not intended by any means to say we are trying to avoid public hearings or applications.

That's a good explanation. Initially, the site plans that are approved as part of this DA, limits what we can do. Anything additional, as I mentioned, we need to amend the development agreement through a public hearing process, but we have to extinguish the development agreement and come back in with a CPD or a straight zoning.

But without that language, If it's a building permit and it needs no public hearing, there's not one required. But if you have any other variants or any other portion of an application that does, I don't think it should be prevented. There should be a public hearing.

100%. We're not saying any different.

Then you wouldn't object to removing that language?

We can certainly modify it. I'll have to read it again. We can certainly modify it to make it clear that this is not an attempt to remove any public hearing. OK. And those are my comments.

Thank you, Jim. Jane, questions, comments?

One concern that I was thinking through was the restrooms. Would they be locked down at time of closing? Yes. OK. I think that's it for me right now.

Doug, questions?

No, I'm good.

No? How about you, Jim?

Jason?

It sounded like you're going to be in trouble, Jason.

Wait, which one? It's been represented that you and Patrick are in alignment on the comprehensive plan conditions being met. Can you comment on that so you're on the record for that?

Yeah, I think the staff report says there's portions of the application requests that are alignment such as uses with the comprehensive plan and the zoning districts essentially. I would go as far as say every detail is consistent with the comprehensive plan because again, some of it's depending on how you interpret a policy and then the conditions that go with that and the timing, those types of things.

Just wanted you to have a chance to put yourself on the record for that alignment with the neighborhood company.

Generally speaking, with the commercial nature of what was here and what's been designated in the future land use, I would go as far as to say that, yes. Very good.

Thank you. I added Jim's comments to my list here, but I am going to tell you what I'd like to see as conditions. I'd like there to be some sort of signage, something that indicates no beach parking. So, this is parking for this restaurant or bar. I agree with Mr. Galin. I don't think that the buffer between either sides of the residential multi-family condominiums should be minimized in any way. INCREASED IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. WHAT I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I COULDN'T VISUALIZE IT IS YOU GO FROM IT SAYS 15 AND THEN IT SAYS 30 AND YOU'VE TAKEN 20 TO GO THE WHOLE LENGTH, RIGHT? SO IS THAT, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT'S AN IMPROVEMENT OR IT DIMINISHES IT? I DON'T WANT TO DIMINISH ANY KIND OF BUFFER.

IT DEFINITELY ENHANCES IT. SO THERE'S A PORTION WHEN PARKING ABOUT PARKING THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE A BUFFER. RIGHT. WE ARE PROVIDING A BUFFER SO THAT'S AN ENHANCEMENT. And again, I think the 20-foot buffer is going to provide more vegetation. If it's not supported, we'll go to 15 feet, put a wall. But now you're going to have a situation where we have a wall and a fence, and we have less landscaping. We, again, the reason I was cautiously optimistic from the beginning, the cautious portion was it feels sometimes like no good deeds go unpunished. Or Patrick. I understand the comments. But we've worked very hard in trying to address these issues.

I believe you have. I'm just trying to address the concerns that have been raised to me and raised here today. So that was my question. I'm a visual person. Since I can't visualize this 20-foot type F buffer, I'm asking you to say for the record that it is a better, bigger buffer than you would normally be required. Yes. It is.

Okay. For the portion of budding parking to parking. Parking to parking, but not the portion. And for the rest of the portion, it can either be a 15-foot buffer, 15 wide with a wall with less landscaping, or it could be a 30-foot wide with no wall with more landscaping. We are proposing 20 feet with the enhanced landscaping, but instead of all the fence. So we think it's a better buffer.

Okay, do you all agree with him? Yeah, I do.

The problem or question with landscaping is you can put in a plant this big and you can put in a plant, you said, taller than the fence.

But what the code calls for is very clear amounts of shrubs and trees. It does. We need to meet that requirement.

I don't know what type F is. What is F? Can you tell me what F is?

When we say type F, I would have to pull it up in the land development code, but we won't meet the exact plan.

Does F have a height to it or just a type?

I mean, it sounds like a silly detail, but in the end, it's not a silly detail, you know? Okay, while Jason's looking for that, we've talked about the sound curtains, and I appreciate you bringing that up. John, I'd like it to be a condition. That you must put in sound curtains, not just we could put in sound curtains, that there must be some sort of sound curtains. Would you agree to that? You can just nod. Absolutely. He would say absolutely, okay. You said that the restrooms would be locked at night, and the attended parking, can you tell me, is the attended parking during all operating hours? Yes. The attended parking is during operating hours, okay? Every day that you're open.

Should he come up to the table?

Yeah, can you come up, John? Cuz you've said, you have said yes to the sound curtains. Yes. Yes, that the restrooms are locked at night. That there would be attended parking during all operating hours. That's correct. And that would you agree to the no beach parking somehow signage about that?

What I would like to do, I'm sorry to interrupt, is if we could get everybody's comments and proposed conditions.

Well, I'm the last one. Okay.

You've got them all, ma'am.

And I've written down what everybody else has said, so I could go over it with you. You want me to start at the top?