##VIDEO ID:AZANUjVUuFw## e e e e a pledge of allegiance PL Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all oh our invocation this morning is to be grateful for seeing everyone here um we're back from the summer thank you for all of uh your good wishes and um let's have a great week amen amen amen uh could I have a vote from the LPA please to accept Don suth appearing from uh the uh Redwood forest of wherever he is is that a motion we need a motion to accept on on motion to accept Don on the zoom second there's a motion by Jane and a second by uh Jim is there any objection to that motion hearing none the motion carries unanimously welcome Don and where are you this morning Don good morning I'm in Arizona okay that's right Arizona um the next item on the agenda we don't have it here but we're going to ask for an approval of the agenda uh especially since we have one two three four five items four items that have requested a continuance and I have an a motion to approve the agenda um Madam chair yes ma'am may I just point out that um we would then be starting on um item e which is um a legislative policy type discussion uh and the remaining items are all quasi judicial um do you want to move e to the end or would you prefer let's move that that would be a great idea does anybody object to moving um the the legislative item needs to be before one of the variants request okay I apologize I'll move just a thought okay I'll move to accept the agenda with the um removal of do they they have to so that topic always comes up so let me clarify um basically they there has been no advertising yet for this for these items um there's been there's been not advertising in the newspaper to where we would have to have the public hearing and and continue it to a date certain okay um so for that reason it's being rescheduled rather than continued it's being resched okay so second James motion thank you Jim is there any discussion on the motion hearing none the motion carries unanimously uh first item on the agenda is an approval of the minutes for June 11th 2024 thank you Jim and there's so motion by Jim and second by John any discuss motion hearing none the motion carries unanimously next item is public comment does anybody have any public comment they wish to make none okay we'll close the public comment so items a b c and d which all pertain to the Outrigger Resort um London Bay properties are being um rescheduled to a date uncertain so our next item on the agenda is ordinance 2424 this has to do with building intensity measurement for detached single two family residences I'll read the title ordinance 2424 is an ordinance of the town of Fort Meers Beach Florida amending one table 34-3 titled dimensional regulations in conventional zoning districts in chapter 34 article 3 division four to create note 10 to provide that detached single family and family homes without a commercial use in any conventional zoning District where that use is allowed may be evaluated by bu building coverage rather than F two section 34675 c in chapter 34 article 3 division 5 to provide the building intensity of commercial and mixed use buildings shall be evaluated using poor area ratio F and detached single family and two family intensity shall be evaluated using building coverage not to exceed 40% in the downtown zoning District three section 34683 chapter 34 article 3 Lord division five related to the creation of neighborhood centers in the Santini zoning District to provide that detached single family and two Family Residence building coverage shall not exceed 40% for Section 34- 693 in the V District regulations to provide the commercial mixed res mixed use building intensity shall be evaluated using FL area ratio and detach single family and two family residents intensity shall be evaluated using building coverage and shall not exceed 40% Five Section 34705 in the CB Zone District to provide that for commercial and mixed use developments floor area ratios shall not exceed 1.0 and building coverage for detached single family and two family residences building coverage shall not exceed 40% providing for severability cific errors conflict of Law and providing for an effective date I was a good reader morning all right so we will um uh ask Sarah to begin this good morning Sarah fed with Community Development Sarah um what you have before you 2424 is um a change to the code that was discussed with Town Council excuse me previously where um currently in the the nonresidential zoning districts the predominantly nonresidential zoning districts F was the applicable way to measure buildings um whereas in the residential zones 40% coverage was the typical standard um as people are building they're finding that a lot of times it's difficult to meet the uh floor area ratio with a home because you can't have anything essentially on that first floor so most homes are going to be over the floor area ratio that's allowed in that zoning district for a commercial use so there was a request to change so that all single family uh residential and two family residential were allowed to meet the 40% building coverage rather than the floor area ratio no matter what zoning District it was so that is you see before you today it has to cover multiple sections in order to meet that criteria in each of the uh commercial um zoning districts I'm available for any questions thank you Sarah Jim questions Sarah the 40% number is that the industry standard something that typically works well for an island like ours we have a bunch of acceptions coming if we go to that versus the F an opinion on that um it's the standard that's been in place for uh I think since the island started its own code um it has worked in most instances we do have some instances where people request for a higher percentage um you'll have one before you today a variance where they're going to be requesting that higher percentage um but it is not covered by the comprehensive plan so that's that's one thing we do have a lot of flexibility within the Land Development code so if you were to find that many houses were coming and requesting more than 40% coverage and you thought that it was appropriate it could be changed within the Land Development thank you Doug you have questions uh yeah I just want to be clear absolutely clear I understand so when you say 40% coverage that means in residential the uh the building can cover 40% of a lot area that's correct uh they still won't be able to exceed the 67% building coverage for residential though so or build sorry impervious surface so they're allowed to cover 40% of the with a building and then they have 67% impervious limit so you ask I'm sorry how does that work when that doesn't add up to 100 that other percentage that's that remains above the 67% is your open space that's where your storm water goes open yeah so that's to ensure that people don't just cover their lot with concrete and then all their storm water runs onto their neighbors is that clear Doug yes thank okay Jan any other question Don how about you do have a question yeah just again same situ same question Doug head kind of uh with respect to 67 I'm just trying to figure out so if it's so it's covering it kind of from the aerial perspective right I mean so in other words if it's an elevated home with no concrete under it it's still considered coverage correct yes um so that would be the building coverage sort of that outer limits of the wall is considered the building coverage okay anything else Don no thank you this will just uh make it so that it's consistent through any of the residential zoning District uh whether it's single family or two family um and throughout the primarily commercial districts too so any place because um on the island there are no districts that don't allow residential uses so any place someone wants to build a residential structure they would still have that 40% coverage allowed anything else no joh I'm good thank you can you a follow up Qui yes absolutely so I'm thinking about somebody arguing for the exceptions to that and what criteria you would find compelling to say that that's inappropriate would one of those be if they did the proper setbacks on the lot and it went to 48 but met all other setback requirements would you consider that to be a legitimate request then against the 40% limit um not necessarily uh I mean because the the 40% still uh sort of serves the purpose for massing um they could request a variance and then it could be evaluated by the variance criteria so it would really depend on the other components probably right I don't have any questions I just had a hard time visualizing this yeah I really had a hard time visualizing it but um okay uh any other questions at all for Sarah I just want to request a clarification so so basically what we're saying is residential will be evaluated by the 40% coverage no matter what zoning district there well and and to be to be clear it's not the multif family residential it's just going to be single family single family um and two family single family and like duplex yes okay I had one more comment go ahead Don yeah just it concerns me that we have these um you know we have a setback Rule and if someone meets the setback rule but they don't meet the 40% rule they have to ask for a variance so it just it seems conflicting to me and it again it just seems like a roadblock to rebuilding or recovery so I think that's what Jim was saying exactly right yeah yeah so I think that the instances where that would apply um where that may be um an issue would be on very large Lots um so on the typical lot in the town if you have uh if you meet all your setbacks because most of the houses are building to the setbacks and they're not exceeding the 40% so if you had a very large lot that would be an instance where you may exceed that because you have a lot more internal space you're still going to have the 25 foot front setback 20 or 25 foot rear setback and then the maximum of 10 foot but if you had a 300t wide lot you're going to have a lot of space inside those 10 foot setbacks so so we have very few 300 foot wide Lots but we do have 100 plus foot wide Lots would it apply have we looked at that would it appli to 100 foot wide lot uh we haven't done any evaluation of those specifically yeah that'd be my concern I just I I think if you meet your setbacks it seems odd that I that you have to come in and get a VAR I agree no matter the lot size if you don't want to have a building cover requirement that is also an option is there a way to put a thing that says well no because then we don't have a a limit on the massing I mean really think about it like the floor area ratio I mean it's it's it's commensurate to that it's just a different way to measure it to allow houses to be you know as many as many stories as they're allowed to be um whereas uh in the commercial the floor area ratio counts each individual floor the building coverage just counts the block the block but I think but it's it's very similar to restrictive yes it's less restrictive that is correct less restrictive and consistent across the rest of the zones so it's to me it's just created consistency across the island how did this generate how did this come about um requests and then requests from Property Owners um and uh then bringing it up to council asking if if they felt that this was an issue because we it actually began I think maybe with the beach bar because they wanted to be counted by uh I think they wanted to be counted by building coverage originally and we were like no you're a mixed use that is not an option you're something different but we brought it to council to say do you agree how do you want this covered what do you think is appropriate and they basically said that they would like houses to be single family and two family to be measured the same way across the island and that would be the 40% coverage application so what happened with the beach bar the beach bar is requesting a CPD um to exceed their floor area ratio okay and it's mixed use yeah mix so is there a process Sarah since this was opening it up Council saying let's find a better way to um deal with some of these appropriate um requests that are banging against up against f is there a way that you can build an administrative approval that says if there are no other variances being asked for and all setbacks are being met that this type of request to exceed 40% could be administratively handled versus procedurally handled through the entire process I guess my question would be then why have it I mean what's what is the intent of having this if if our only concern is the setbacks and the height yep you know if if those are the boxes if those are your parameters do you need the other thing I think the intent was for it to cover I mean I I think that the intent when this was created was probably for those larger lots and Ure the massing issue which is you know we always talk about with all due respect Bita Beach Road I mean as you go through there it's like it's a canyon and that this was but this was intended to yeah it's sort of a back stop yes yes it's a back stop so I mean would be possible to do that I just would would question whether it's something that is actually needed if we're going to be handling it administratively um you know and and what would our criteria be for approving it okay thank you any other questions for Sarah okay let's open the public hearing would anybody care Albert as a Florida State fan I am gonna ask go Gators I so love you though good not to the end of November though Albert dver for the record architect Studio ad um I walked in a little late sorry about that um but I did catch the last few minutes of conversation um the reason this came about out was Patrick and I came at the M&P meeting back in June I believe or maybe May and we bought this up and it did start with the beach bar as we started analyzing it we knew we were going to be going to a CPD and you guys already went through that process with that to ask for that but unfolding this with other clients who have Gul front Lots we realize that in RM in downtown you have to use far for even a single family house and again the far means if you take that ratio 1.0 and it's like I Street and you only can count that lot area that you can build on not the land that goes all the way out to the gulf and you take that 1.0 Flay ratio that counts for all of the floors so that means someone's trying to sell a house or property on a multi-million dollar piece of property you only can build a two-story house meaning ground and then one more above using a floor using the lot coverage made sense on single family homes only as we do in RS zoning and RC zoning all right now you know like High viscus houses High Hercules houses any of your houses that people live on right now already have lot coverage of 40% we've been inherent to that I was a little concerned where when everyone was saying why do we even have that I'll let you know every jurisdiction has lot carbage now our house in city of Fort Meyers off McGregor we have 35% lot cages if depending on the Lots in City Naples City Naples has like I don't know 16 different residential zoning districts and all of them have different lot coverage ratios you have to adhere to so I don't think that's the direction you wanted to go so right now status quo rsrc we got to do 40% lot coverage you have the 67% impervious which is totally fine this again came about with the gulf front lots and more specifically the Gul front lots that don't land on a stero and go all the way through to the gulf it's the lots that are behind the house on a stero to go there when you do FL ratio I ran to a client who purchased a property on the south end and was given bad due diligence information from whoever they consulted with at first and they thought they can build one first of all was past the 78 you know 74 whatever um the other line like no that's the blade that comes down the other thing they realized was this is FL ratio and so Patrick and I are going through a variance with that but we may not need to if this is in the process of changing so that's fine that restricted their house to only a twostory house and it's not fair if you go one lot over and they're an RC they can do 40% lot coverage but to take this up a little further am I over does anybody mind if Albert continues for a minute I'm learning a lot okay to take this a little further I know you said it's hard to visualize maybe good again like I said okay I think it might also good to kind give you some scenarios graphically if you want to pursue this little further because it makes a difference on these Lots the 40% lot coverage is great if you're on land on the lands side of a stero but when you get to the golf side that 40% lot coverage in section 34- 634 you still can't count lot coverage past that EC line but it's consistent with your floor ratio which you can't count that line so for residential purposes there have been houses previously currently in 23 after the hurricane that are been used in 40% lot coverage in RSN RC zoning that have been able to count the lot area beyond that 78 line and use 40% of that it's very inconsistency what I'm seeing a lot of when I do searches for single family homes and see what going through and this was part of the research we started realizing and say how is this inconsistency happening so that 40% on some of these small cottage lotes also restricted so I guess the thing is if you leave the LDC Alone by definition is this lot coverage that someone bought up here are available to come up as a variance and say look 40% hurts us can we do 42% lot coverage and if that's a possibility then that takes care of it because then you could deal with it for just a small sections the small properties that have to come up for variances and I have no problem with that because some of these small Lots we have to come with variances anyway to reduce setbacks or show you what setbacks were there before it just be another thing we'd ask for I just didn't know that lot coverage would be something that we could ask for through our variance we're gonna find that out okay Albert thank you so much got very much thank you is there anyone else who has public comment coming up how are you today nervous why are you nervous oh for heav six it's just us go ahead down um I'm Penny Porter and I'm the owner of 51 Pearl Street now I know the variance hasn't come yet so I'm not going to talk about that I know I'm on the agenda I'm going to talk specifically about this um this change in umage lot coverage um I'm one of those just for an example I just want to uh piggyback on what the uh previous gentleman was talking about in that um I have a very large lot but the buildable area is very small and that presents a real issue when you're talking about lot coverage and if if if you could use lot coverage and consider the whole lot like for example my lot is um uh the impervious coverage of my application is under 20% but when I'm because the impervious coverage they use the whole lot but when it comes to lot coverage they're only using um they're only allowing us to use the buildable area which is behind the uh the CCL so that then becomes a real issue because now you've got a very small area you're calculating a lot coverage that just doesn't work so um you know if if you're considering changing the uh the rules um I might suggest that that you allow the whole lot to be considered as as a rate for the ratio of lot coverage and not just the uh small buildable area but that's that's all thank you Penny now that wasn't so bad was it no good hope to see you again she's next on the agenda um anyone else like to speak okay we'll close the public comment all right Sarah so let's start with um Can let's answer the question is a variance available to someone who does not meet theck cover your wishes to exceed the law coverage yes okay so that's a yes what about um including a 40% calculation beyond the EC um I did offer offer when we spoke about this at mnp I did offer that as a suggestion to the Town Council they did not feel that that was a good idea they didn't think that we should my suggestion was that you can off you can utilize a percentage of it um because the way you can use the EC zoning district for density uh is one dwelling unit per 20 acres so that's a a tiny percentage of it so there would be an option to use a small percentage of that uh larger EC area to allow um additional building coverage uh they did not think that that was an appropriate direction to go um especially considering that property owners did have the opportunity to come in and request a variance um and I do want to correct that the impervious surface does not count the EC it is the buildable area it has to be the area where they can build uh whatever allowed use that is okay okay and then the whole lot calculation just to address Penny's question um the whole lot calculation would be problematic because very problematic for beach front Lots yeah because you would be able to pretty much cover your entire parcel which means you wouldn't be meeting any of your setbacks I mean in in the instance uh is going to be coming before you she's asking for a reduction in the setbacks and she's asking for an increase in floor area or sorry building coverage um so you would also be getting variances for those setbacks um so I don't I don't think that it is necessarily an appropriate request uh or an appropriate way to utilize the EC so what do you all think about a percentage of the the EC as it is in other parts of the code being utilized even if it's a small percentage what are your thoughts on that Don nothing can you hear me Don sorry yeah I heard you sorry I was on mute that's all right yeah I I I think I can wor about that how about you Jim yes Doug um I think I'd rather ask for a variance if you need it you know like keep it like is or the thought we have but then yeah I could see you know I need 42% or something of the buildable I'd rather do that Jane I think the fact that you're allowed to have a variance on it um that gives the avenue to get to that so it's not just a given how about you I I would concur I think we need the percentage and there's a relief there that can for a variance John do you agree I agree completely and I'm I'm all for consistency across all of the buildable Lots okay so we'll just make that we'll include that as a recommendation to the council that they revisit that concept okay okay um all right um so now could we have a a motion to board or to recommend uh approval um and a finding of consistency with your comp plan yes and to to consider yes the additional use of a percentage of that EC would somebody like to make that that motion I would move that Madam chair okay second so there's a motion in a second to uh find this consistent with the comprehensive plan to move this forward with a recommendation to the council and to have them uh reconsider a percentage use consistent with other elements of the code of the uh environmentally critical areas there um this isn't a roll call this is just legislative this is just a freefor all right um is there any discussion on the motion yeah I'd like to thank the folks Albert and Penny I'd like to thank you very much for your comments it helped clarify things for me so thank you very much and uh any other discussion all those in favor say I all right anyone opposed so we go on thank you very much the motion carries unanimously the next item is pennies v202 410 this is 51 Pearl Street um before I begin may I ask for ex parte communication Don do you have any no okay Jim none Doug no Jane yes I did a site visit and spoke with the owner I also would like to comment that there was no um advertisement sign on the property and I don't think there was on the other one either okay I'll I'll let Nancy comment on that as soon as we go through the rest Jim any expar no uh John um I'm familiar with the property it's across from where I live now and U uh we received various letters as well okay uh I'll just State for the record but I looked at it on um Google Earth because I couldn't Orient everything carefully so I a Google Earth search uh but that's all I have uh Nancy could you address Jane's issue with the posting of notice um I'm going to defer to staff as far as the requirements and um if it was posted and um perhaps removed or or what the situation is I'm not aware of that would like to address that Jason SMY with your planning and zoning department uh so I I apologize I I wasn't aware that the sign was not put up on that site if you would let me know just which ones you didn't see them on this time I'll absolutely personally assure that they get put up for the Town Council one and I think 51 and Lagoon 51 and Lagoon yeah I think it's really important because if if we now have the power to if we get if everybody agrees and it doesn't have to go to council that it really needs to be advertised for the neighborhood and for those that are driving by to be able to see it right we obviously we do send out the postcards sure I know I know but I mean take point you know a lot of people it goes to their North address or whatever and if they're down here or you just don't see it they just doesn't attract attention I will I will take responsibility for that and I will ensure that going forward we have them up and for the town council meeting I'll personally assure they get put on those well and the other the other thing was I'm I'm looking at the property and there's no address on the building that's there and I'm trying to figure out is this building already built is this you know what is this and then fortunately the owner was out in the lot and I was able to speak to her but you know I didn't know there was no address so and there's no street so of course Absol absolutely relevant I will again I apologize for that and I will personally ensure it gets thank you appreciate it thank you Jason question for a second yes go ahead director the attorney while you're still here so are there any procedural violations we have was that's what I was going to inquire um often times the posting on the property is um as a courtesy um the requirement is generally um the mailing um when you get to the Town Council level then there are advertising requirements in the newspaper for rezonings um and complant amendments but so we're okay to deal with it today as advertised I believe so I just wanted staff I mean your your common practice that is just as a courtesy uh to post it yes absolutely that is true but we do take LPA members opinion on this and we will make sure that that is posted in the future thank you so much and the rationale for that is that the mailing ensures that those within the radius of the property receive it hopefully but with signage um sometimes in in inclement weather it can be removed or mischief you know occurring on the street so misch Mischief yes Mischief um m M chair if I may could we go back I'd like to make a few comments about we haven't finished the yes we have we did about your agenda the the remaining items you have three of them and these are all quasi judicial um in nature and I just want to get say a few words about quasi judicial um proceedings and these type of proceedings require our public um hearings to comply with uh procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in Our Land Development code so these quasi judicial proceedings they're less formal than proceedings before a circuit court but they're more formal than the remainder of our meeting and the basic standards of due process requiring that notice be um afforded to the property owner that we correct that we apply the correct standards and sections of our code and that your decisions in these matters are made on competent and substantial evidence that can be be presented to you either verbally or in written form once you receive the testimony you're going to evaluate it for each of these three items and then you're going to draw a conclusion regarding whether the criteria that is in the Land Development code or in state law has been satisfied you your decision should not be based on pure speculation or opinion because the courts have considered this not those type of statements to not be comp competent substantial evidence um testimony by individuals who are qualified to be experts in a particular area um of law or uh expertise have been recognized by Florida courts as providing competent substantial evidence also testimony by neighbors and residents who have fact-based information such as minutes surveys engineering reports or testimony that has been based on their personal information their knowledge um things that they have ver uh visually observed um has has been viewed as competent substantial evidence by the courts so those of you in the audience if you intend to speak please keep these matters in mind as well and when you come forward we would be asking that you state your name clearly for the record and whether or not you have been sworn in I also want to add that you have a couple variance items on your agenda today and a unanimous decision by eligible voting members of the LPA to approve those variances constitutes final agency a action um subject to a request by anyone for an additional hearing or review of the matter by the Town Council if that request for the additional hearing is received by the town clerk within 10 days so for purposes of efficiency and because this is quasa judici in nature um we'd like to go ahead and and dispose of a few matters the first item applicable to all three hearings as you've already um discussed regarding the first item um is whether they have been properly noticed U for today's hearing so I defer to staff and the clerk yes they have been noticed okay and also the next um housekeeping item we have is to ask if any of you have a conflict of interest that would prohibit you from uh voting on any of these three items if you do please disclose it at this time the nature of the conflict um so we know that we have a quorum available to make the decision does anyone have a conflict no one Nan okay so again because these proceedings are a little bit more formal than our typical meetings um we do ask that anyone wishing to give testimony today or presenting testim testimony that they be sworn in at this time so anyone um that would like to do that please stand U members of the audience raise your right hand and the clerk will administer an oath do you solemnly swear and affirm that the to testimony that you are about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth all parties have been sworn okay Madam chair I think at this point we're ready for um our first quasi judicial item um I'll go ahead and read the title if you like sure okay this is variance 2024 10051 Pearl Street this is uh for your consideration LPA resolution 20244 a resolution of the fort Meers Beach local planning agency approving with conditions variance 2024 0100 requesting variances from LDC table 3 4-3 of 13 ft from the street setback for a front setback of 12T a variance of 3 feet from the West Side setback for a side setback of 4 6 in for the mechanical equipment and balcony and another variance of 15.11% from the building coverage for a building coverage of 55.1% to build a new single family structure in the RM zoning district for the property located at 51 Pearl Street Fort Meers Beach Florida and providing for an effective date thank you Nancy um you would want to qualify anyone um who wishes to give testimony as an expert at this time uh well Jennifer has already been qualified by the town why do I call you Jennifer you kind of look like a Jennifer and I hate to tell you this but as soon as you will as you will hear as soon as I say somebody's name wrong it just sticks so if I call you Jennifer again I apologize if you're looking at me I'll assume you mean me I will mean you Judith okay um uh you've already been qualified as an expert being here with the town correct this is my first time in a public time here okay well then let's qualify you would you give us your um your qualifications yes um uh I am a member of the American Institute of certified planners um and a member of the American Planning Association I have a master's degree in urban planning um and a undergraduate degree in geography um and have worked in urban planning for many years 15 15 plus at this point um so thank you Judith I appreciate that uh could I have a motion please to accept Judith as a uh as an expert in her field I'll move there's a motion is there a second second okay there's a motion in a second is there any any um uh objection to that motion hearing none the motion carries unanimously is there anyone else who is going to appear as an expert in this case he's representing yourself no okay go ahead thank you Judith um Madam chair we do want to verify that the uh property owner who I believe is present today that she's received a copy of the materials that have been presented to you all penny have you received a copy of the materials that we have reviewed for your case here come on come on up for a second was a staff report there was no attaching like there was no other materials attached to just a okay so what we can do is um if one of our staff members can just share with her the materials that the LPA has receiv so she's aware of those as well um and then we could start with the presentation if you like um Amy are you going to something Judi okay so we just want to make sure that everything that the LPA has that they have read about your property that you were aware of what they have read so if they read something wrong you'll be able to correct it did you by chance review the agenda online I I did not I got an email saying that here's the staff report I did not realize that there was the the staff report is pretty much what is in the agenda so we just want to make sure to have a Level Playing Field okay I think Judith will um announce first right yes okay thank you Penny okay we'll call you back up in a minute um I just like to add I received an email from Roger Hamilton and from somebody else that I cannot remember but Amy you have those I'm assuming they were they were distributed to all the LPA members correct yes correct they were just to put that on the right there's one from Roger Hamilton and one from Aon Courier yes that's right absolutely there was just the two though yes just the two do you have copies to share with our property owner I can them to okay okay Judi good morning um this application is a variance for 51 Pearl Street um there are three areas in which the applicant is asking to vary from the um Land Development code um the first is the minimum Street setback of 25 ft um in this case as you've already discovered if you've been to the property it's not a true pled Street fronting the property but the code is clear that it says Street or easement that you have to have that front setback um so in in this case the the um that code section will apply to this property even though it's an easement and not a true platted street so they're asking for a variance from The Front Street setback which should be 25 ft um and a reduction of that to 12 ft from the front setb um uh the second place is a Varan from the side setback requirement which should be 7 and A2 ft the applicant is asking for um that side setback to be um 4 and a half feet um and the overall size of the house um exceeds the maximum lot coverage if that the lot coverage um uh ordinance that you just spoke about if that becomes approved by Town Council limiting to 40% this property as presented um is a 5511 percentage lot coverage so it's um about 15% over the maximum um it does also exceed the um the f as it stands now um the subject property as you know is a beachfront lot it's adjacent to Pearl Street even though the address is Pearl Street it's a little bit off of Pearl Street um and accessible through that easement um the um staff member um who worked with the applicant on this is unfortunately ill at the moment um which is why I'm presenting on his behalf um but he worked with the applicant on this um application and the um development of plans for the house you can see um the house itself plus there's a covered deck and the way the code um requires that lock coverage we're including that covered deck um at the rear of the property as part of that overall uh lock coverage because it is um attached to the the property um and include it there um the applicant as you know is is here and can it better explain to you exactly what's what um the reason for their their variance um the side setback I will point out um relates to um uh AC mechanical equipment which is attached to the the side of the house but is also then being covered by a balcony um so I'm available for any questions thank you Jud uh don do you have any questions no questions thank you thank you how about you Jim no Doug no ma'am Jane I um I was wondering um with the street not being a street and being an easement that if that doesn't change anything at all as far as the setback because go go ahead no the code is clear in this case because it says Street or easen that the front set back is to the street or the easen okay other questions at the moment Jane I just um on my property it doesn't seem to to be that but I mean as far as the the easement that we have with the three properties that are involved but um so I I just didn't understand it to be like that okay Jim this uh proposed structure is larger than the house that was there before Ian correct um I'm not familiar with the previous jure but I believe so I know that um the Eli um let the homeowner know about the option the the build back option and they chose not to go that route John that was going to be my question as I understood it was a cottage and was the cottage Bill back going to be something that would be forwarded to the applicant is not I mean they can answer that question but I I believe that to be the the case um um but for financial you know the cost of of building they they wanted the larger home sure Jane so was the pre do you know if the previous house did sit forward of the uh the setback line that um I I don't know that um maybe the applicant knows that um but in choosing not to go with the the build back then you're held to the current um regulation okay Judith thank you very much we'll ask the applicant Penny just you know what do the hokey pokei or take a deep breath or just don't worry I would never do public speaking in school just any most people hate it yeah well thank you very much move the microphone over there you go thank you very much my name is Penny as previously mentioned um I bought the cottage it was a cottage uh 51 pearls for is one of the original Cottages built in 1942 um it was my going to be my retirement Homestead and uh of course like Ian changed everybody's lives it changed my my plans as well um if it was built today that same Cottage it would not meet the requirements of the setback it would be forward by 8 ft into the uh into the closer to the um the front property line um the um the road is mentioned and I'll just reiterate it's it's um not actually a public Street it comes off of Pearl Street turn it's a easement driveway so the front edge is actually on an easement driveway not not a public Street um the lot is fairly large it is a large lot but the buildable area is really small and not only is it small but it's irregular it's uh the one of the lot lines is on an angle and I have I have a um I have this if I may give that to you um just give it to give them all to Amy and she thank you so this actually is the old this actually is the old survey and I've just drawn a red line where the buildable area is uh just to highlight that um as and as you can see the cottage was well a lot closer to the um eement property line or what they're calling the front property line then uh the red line the red line then the uh I don't see a red line oh there's one red it's this you all see this I so because of the shape of the lot and it being so irregular and the one side only being 58 ft it has presented uh an enormous challenge to uh design a house that would actually fit on the lot um within those setbacks and within the lot coverage and as I um was talking about earlier is that the lot coverage the impervious coverage on this application is under 20% I believe it's 18% and how the uh planning department um advised my um designer to calculate that was going to be the all the the structure coverage and any any pavement or any driveway surface um as a percentage of the entire lot not just the buildable area so that differs from the lot calc lot coverage calculation and that the lot coverage calculation is just using that red outline that I've shown you um so um essentially um in order to have come up with a design that uh is financially feasible to build that you know um part of my retirement plan was going to be that I had uh paid off the mortgage on the cottage I was going to move down here and live here and now that's not feasible and the insurance I got from the cottage was just negligible you know they only Ure the structure so it's just so negligible but um um I am going to have to build something that is um financially Fe feasible in the sense that I will be able to hopefully do a little bit of rental on it so that I can again because I have now you know I'm starting from scratch starting over right and that's it took me a long time to just figure out if that if I could do it if I could actually do it and uh and and I think I can so but uh with with challenges um I'm not sure what else I can say other than this it's a large lot but the buildable area is quite small and unique in its shape um it's located on an easement and not a public Street um and it is in a regular lot um it's at between the song condominium and then there's a house 41 Pearl then then my vacant now vacant lot and then the um Diamond Head um and the easement that I'm looking for on the with the air conditioner is to put it's not for the whole yeah house it's just for the air conditioning the small balcony to help protect the air conditioners is on the surf song parking lot side so there's no neighbor there there's no it's a parking lot so that there'd be no and I and I did that to save my other and I didn't want to put it on the other side because obviously I have a neighbor that that side so having said all that um would like to speak a little bit about the uh emails that I were just given and um I know that um I I I know that many people are going to be upset when I build and I and I feel very badly about it and and I I I truly do I I wish I wish I didn't have to build up if I can build that Cottage on the grade on the ground it was before or very close to the ground I I would but the building requires you to now go up we all know that right we know the reasons for it and I you know obviously there very good reasons for all that um so when you talk about Liona site from the surf zone building all those units are on the side of the building they're not actually on the front of the building so just by the fact of building there I'm going to block a lot of people's views whether it's 12 feet this way or 12 feet that way it's really immaterial all those views are going to be blocked and I have another exhibit if I may may share that with with uh the members um and and I understand that and and you know it's unfortunate but it can't be helped I'm not the one making the rules as far as how high you have to build you know and uh the people had had you know good good views over my little cottage yeah so um now that that's going to change and uh anyway um and you know I I can just not help but it's the only other option is not to build and I don't want to be defeated that way I want to carry on and and not uh have a deist attitude so that's really my my presentation and if there's uh any questions I'd be happy to try and answer those on okay give us a second to look at this and uh um all right questions for Penny Jim you have question thank you how about you Don no questions Doug um no I don't have any questions Jane I I do but not for you okay uh Jim I think we all know that there's water flooding drainage issues on the beach and and the request that you have on the lot coverage did you give any consideration to making up some of that difference between the 40% and the 50 some perc underground storage or anything to try and help with uh storm water compensation well the um I I did not um because the the storm water um impervious calculation came out at under 20% so so um that was a very good number you're allowed up to 67% so I did not give any consideration to that um the house was designed but you're that's including the property on the other side of the coaster control line that's right which we heard earlier today you can't use right you can for that calculation you can you for that calculation but you can't for yeah for storm water run off that's you are allowed to use that apparently so Penny do you get the notion of this coverage of the lock coverage concept it it is impart for storm water for covering the covering the area so even though you get it's kind of conflicting isn't it that that imper so even though you get to use your entire lot for the impervious calculation so your number is little uh that calculation can't you can't use a whole lot for your lot coverage calculation but it's still the same impact do you follow me yes so so what Jim's asking you is did you give any consideration or any uh thought to how you could minimize the impact of your lot coverage request well when we designed the house we took the original footprint of 35 by 35 and then the second floor we added square footage and had the deck below it so the original Cottage was just slightly under well if you take the interior wall space it was approximately 900 and some square feet and the uh first floor of that without the deck is very similar in size so that's uh that's how the designer went about it um it wasn't until um we realized that we were um after the design was done that we realized that we weren not going to be able to f on a lot my designer that I had did not realize that the setback would be 25 ft I don't know why he didn't but he he did not so we looked at it and he said we'll apply for a variant so so your your footprint is the same with your new house as it was for the old house without the deck yes yes very close very close but there's building above it the second floor but I got the second floor that's right that's right so when you look straight down on it the second story has a much larger footprint it includes the deck that's right that's right that's right yeah um did you consider the cottage build back as being a route to go I wasn't aware of that Cott I this is the first I heard of it was um yesterday I think Jan mentioned the uh Cottage build back I had no no knowledge of it um we never I never talked about it with the gentleman that I was dealing with with Eli with Eli now now he might have mentioned it months and months ago um and you might not have understood it yeah but it it never was raised as a an item that should be considered Penny hold on a second did you have something to say Sir um yes when when I spoke with Eli about this we did talk about the cottage code so I know that he did mention it at some point but when he when I asked him about it what he said is that it wouldn't allow you to build your second story and that you wanted your second story I did want my second story yes but I was not explained what it actually was so but but yeah I apologize so in my I have a question why would that be any different from the cottage lots that we are allowing on the North End that they can come in and get a variance if they do their the the cottage lot and they can get a variance to put a second floor on why is the same this this is essentially the same thing so why would it not allow her to have a second floor no the cottage build back is a not variance option so if you're if you're doing the cottage build back you're using the same square footage as you previously had right above flood but only a single story so that was the agreed upon for without a variance but you could get a variance yeah which is essentially the the path that she's taking here so so Sarah while we have you all the items that are um non-conforming with this request are triggered only by the addition of that second floor the setbacks all the stuff that she would get with a cottage build back doesn't count now if she puts on the second floor she got to ask for all those variances or just the second floor I believe the cottage code requires that you have a minimum of a five foot setback um I let me look at the cottage code real quick again and refresh myself but um I I don't know that it is because is at the end of the day it won't allow her to have the Second Story which is the square footage she's indicating that she does need and again I can I just think common common sense conversation is around we're talking about the height to the building now as being the variable everything else without that second thing she could rebuild back up to the right over flood plane levels so we're talking about a structure that's a little taller of story taller and I don't know about the 5 foot you'll have to check on that but that's singularly variance and therefore all the rest of the variance requests are triggered by that additional square footage it changes my mind about how I see this request I'm just going through that process is there a place that you could put the air conditioner underneath the building and still have it elevated and meet the setbacks or the code for the air conditioner yes I could change that location so that could eliminate the one 4 and A2 foot set back for the mechanical so then what we are just talking about is that and it's not just the second floor it's the second floor and the deck y that that deck triggers triggers an expansion also can that be done as an accessory and it's covered by the second floor it is oh that's true okay okay it's under the footprint of the the second floor is I see B right right right right right so one of the um one of the other items that we uh I discussed with with Eli was that the um as far as the the front yard setback goes um if I were not asking for this variance and if I designed it so the deck was at the front of the house then I would not require variance because apparently you're allowed to do a 10- foot deck at the front of the house and your front is Street and my front is street so at the end of the day it's just kind of the same thing but oh reverse but it's but it's not yeah it's not it's covered by the second floor that's the difference yes that is the difference um also whoever is presenting um I would like uh from the page 326 um the diagram that is there on the lot next door can you tell me if that garage is going to be uh built on on that property next door it looks like it's very forward of whatever her building is going to be not yet no not yet you you you'll have your chance though did not need a VAR okay but there is a gage on the plan that is for completely forward of this building towards the easement that looks like it's got a a 4 foot separation to the easement the house that's beside me is not a new build it's just a renovation it's been existing there for many years I think what what you're seeing on the the former so that garage is not going to be built no it's not there it's not there was the U was the original 35t by 35 foot house did it also have like the 12T setback that you're showing now was that wall in the same place it was not exactly no it was um it was uh 17 feet 17 from that front line but it was uh 5et back off the CCL that's where the difference is of the construction control line okay do we have any other questions for penny at the moment we can bring her back up but we could hear some public comment one more question can you build directly to the CCL line yes uh apparently so I'm not an expert but I've been told that you can um you just can't go over the CC line so um the the way that that's been plotted on the the tentative plot plan was we allowed a one foot um a one foot uh Grace for lack of better word you know to allow so that's only one foot there on the left hand side of well the right hand side as you're looking at the gulf there only one foot there yes it looks like there's more room to move back it just seems with the building next door being able to be so much more forward it surprises me that the deck is such a conflict because you know it's clearly totally blocking your view to the um South that it just I don't know Henny we're gonna why don't you just sit in that front seat right there don't don't scoot all the way to the back we'll call you back up okay I'm going to open public comment is there anybody who'd like to comment yes sir you would state your name for the record and whether or not you've been sworn in yes William myel I live at song I'm the president of the HOA there a couple things um and it's not the height that we're worried about it's the setback coming closer to our property because it's our easement that she is on that allows her to get into her place moving that back will block a whole lot more views and and and access on that um but I want to get to one thing first she talked about you're talking about 55 feet in the drainage I've got a picture of it with nothing on there this was the rain the other day what our property looks like without 55 foot on there and I don't have so if you want to pass that around that's the way it is today I'd also like to see the information that she provided you guys because we were not priv to that just she's handed that out am I allowed to see that sure sure yeah can I can look we can look at mine yeah because I'm not sure what she handed you and I just kind of like to before we testify but yeah the biggest thing is is that that setback Y and again you can look at the drainage so if you're GNA if you're going to put 55% on that you got a real problem there and I don't think there was anything that I saw in the plans designed to help us out on that you said earlier about Bonita Road exactly what this is going to be you got 55 foot out there or 55% blockage on that you know supposed to be for us owners people on Aero whatever to see the the golf you've totally blocked that out we are not going to be able to see that but you can see on on the drainage here um she also said that there all the houses are on the side there that's not true we have of units on on the very front so yeah so that that was an incorrect statement on that but that's the biggest thing is currently they they use our parking lot already because they don't have enough room with with that so they're they're impeding on our parking lot and if they close it down to 12 foot or whatever then that's going to be a problem on our property so I I don't for that alone and bringing it back away from the um onto our easement or close to our easement will just U um reduce the the the the visual on it we know through stories we know when we bought those that that's a possibility so that has nothing to do with it but again putting it back our CD and E Stacks they'll lose their View and that that's one of the big things on that thank you very much for your comments appreciate you being here my turn I'm I'm Nick dunde I'm wearing scarlet and gray sorry that's fine uh Nick dund on the appointed officer registered agent so I got two of the postcards um the agenda packet that had the site plan or I guess I should say the survey yes sir was 18 years old so it I mean that's why that's why I wanted to comment because you can't tell what the house on 41 Pearl Street is and it's okay you know but I am as registered agent I'm going to comment like Bill we are totally opposed just to really just to that front set back the the rules are 25 foot and we put our fence in by our pool and we were told we wanted to go 20 and we were told no the rules are 25 doesn't matter if it's a private road which Pearl Street is a private road it was aband or whatever it's not abandoned vacated vacated vacated many years ago so we have to maintain that the pavement that easement is the same thing the rules don't say that it matters if it is a private public road we want we want pen to play by the rules just like we did and you're going to build a beautiful house and it's going to look great it just our big objection is that 25 foot because it's going to screw up our view corridors for C deck it's going to be a parking nightmare it's going to be a flooding issue and like Bill have the pictures and just just play by the way just do the the side set back for the air conditioning equipment we thought that's a great consideration for for J house that I mean you want to do that if you can break that out as a variance we can live with that the 55% rule if she goes back with the going back to 25 foot instead of 12 foot should probably meet that the back to the 40 some percent and but yeah our big issue is the front set back thank you and and staff apparently recommends denial thank you very much sir can I bring you right back up um can you clarify for the record you're the appointed officer in agent what or Ser on Condo Association thank you sorry and I bill and I are two out of the three residents that lived their year round so there's not many that live there year round thank you very much okay is there anybody else who has public comment hearing n we'll close the oh albertt I didn't stand up earlier I was just listening I'm just going make a couple comments um similar to other project sure Albert Ambrose Studio ad architect um I am not her AG were you sworn in I didn't I was just listening she can swear you in real quick if I find my script I just swear choose your words carefully November I will if you'll raise your right hand do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth full truth and nothing but the truth yes I do all right um just a couple of comments as well too I know it's sply challenging to build houses and people are used to things that were there before and things have have to change and evolve uh so couple things I've listening into and just to clarify I'm not her architect and not her agent just listening into this these are similar things that we're hearing from other clients these are similar things we're going to be coming to you as well for other projects so a lot of similarities um building obviously the D bottom beam is 19. 333 feet existing grade is about roughly four or five in that area can vary so the bottom of the beam of any brand new home is already going to be 14t off the ground the beam and the floor thickness add 2 feet to that Ser 16 feet the amount of stairs you need to get to that first elevated floor sucks up a lot of real state so by looking at her floor plans and you go to a 25t setback you take anra 12 more feet off of that house you can visualize what happens to the house F on second and third floor you need 26 risers to get to that elevation um you know obviously this is an RM zoning District so your height doesn't start to the bottom of the beam from FEMA and you're a 35 foot height restriction that's a very tall housing we built next to that obviously the house next door is getting repaired right now directly to the um east of hers that's um an older home but it's new er compared to older homes on a beach um I think putting the AC equipment on the North side makes sense because I think the intent a lot of jurisdictions that have these restrictions for air conditioning systems not going to set back all came out of noise and visibility well you're facing Diamond Head it's an open area as well too so I think they're doing a perfect job is not putting on the neighbor side so it doesn't balance between the buildings but it has to be elevated I know the comment came up earlier can we put into the building you cannot okay you have to be at that 19.3 3 Fe any mechanical equipment generator air condition meters can go down low that's different but mechanic has to be that there so there's no choice to put that underneath the building okay thanks um the other thing is storm water although you're allowed to use a whole lot area that goes again past this line here towards the golf you got to understand that all that sand when it rains it's goes right through okay no stone water design is going to be approved in her building permit process unless it's designed to contain what your regulations say within the buildable area no storm water system can go into that EC zoning there's lots of engineering ways that can be done I don't think that should be a subject to be bought up right now cuz again when she goes through permitting her storm water engineer have to design something we do this on like in commercial buildings um I'm not sure what the whales doing for storm water but a lot of buildings have zero lot coverage or zero areas of pervious they do underground Chambers there's ways to control that war so it doesn't flood your neighbor to assume that you it can't be done plus you never get Co if it doesn't work that we all have these Burns we all are doing right now you can't dump your storm water into your Jason properties at all other jurisdiction let you do that you guys do not which is good because of you're a barer island um I feel the front set back that's something you guys can discuss in itself but it does detrimentally hurt that floor plan if you look at that you take another 12T out of that footprint stairs suck up a lot of real estate as well too these days thanks so much thank you very much anybody else okay hearing n we close public comment um any hold on Penny any other questions for staff maybe we'll have another one penny you have followup comment any other questions for Penny also go ahead Penny I just wanted to comment on the picture that was presented on the telephone today that was a picture of the current uh condition of the lot um a lot of the s the building was Swept Away um it took a lot of the sand with it as well and there is quite a deep hole in the lot and that is what where the puddle is right now that's not typical of that lot and that will be of course remedied when we do the new build so I just I just wanted to comment on that the other thing I wanted to comment on the driveway easement I've been uh I've been there for 10 years and never have I ever parked on the drive easement nor encroached on their property whatsoever except for War the one time when uh we were doing the cleanup after the hurricane um I did put my pile of debris onto Pearl Street for pickup with the um for for the town to pick it up um it's mostly contractors um that are doing the work next door that are parking in their parking lot and parking on the easement but Penny can I ask you a question about that easement um it was referred to as surf song's easement is it an easement that I mean it seems to me thatas probably belongs to all these properties or is it simply an easement for surfo it's not simply an easement for surf song The legality of ownership I'm not aware of I don't know so I can't speak to that but I do know that my lawyer said I have every right to use the easement the easement is there to access these properties okay okay anything else you'd like to add no thank you any any further questions for Penny okay thank you very much we appreciate it um need com comment I'm sorry oh Don can I make a comment yeah go ahead yeah just I I'm I have the you know Liberty of sitting at my computer and looking and I'm looking at you know a Google Earth image and um I'm just I'm a little confused because I can see in the in the Google Earth image you know it looks like the outline or Foundation or wall of this Cottage it looks like and then you know when I look at the drawing I'm just I'm puzzled because the it looks like if that's the pool that's on a sterile Boulevard that is surf songs yeah it looks like a lot farther back so is that another lot there or a parking lot back off of the it's a parking lot okay okay CU it it's not a parking lot I don't think so it looks like sand to me like there's asphalt to the South the pool is directly on a stair I should just share my screen share your screen and you have to sit down you can't answer are you g to show us what you're looking at Don I'm trying to try I don't use zoom very often I use team St trying to figure out it is sorry oh here we go yeah if you look at the picture that she gave us with the red triangle on it or whatever um that has a pretty good visual above for Google that one yes can anyone see that yet yep okay see the see the U pool here MH sto this this is this doesn't look like parking lot this looks like I don't know what just sand I don't know if it's vacant space or what but if in zoom in you can kind of see the footprint I believe this is the footprint of her Cottage mhm yes so if we're going if we're you know if we're talking about 25 ft I can't imagine that's much past where my see my CER is past the RV there I I'm just trying to figure out why trying to figure out what the concern is it looks like this this is like someone I think Jane said this is this house here is sticking out and is existing is to the south of course you've got gowing parking lot bu to the north not gowing it's um Diamond Diamond Head not going sorry Diamond Head yeah so anyway I don't know if that helps anyone but for me I I kind of didn't see it from the drawing but with the pool way up here on a stero it seems like there I don't know what that is but I've got that's got to be 100 maybe 100 maybe not quite that much 75 ft or so they're saying 41 ft no 41l that's oh 41l proper that's not our property oh 51 Pearl is the address we're looking at right correct okay so I I just put in 51 Pearl Street Fort Meers Beach and I think this is it right here correct that's correct yeah okay yeah so if you look from the the front of that found where that Foundation was to their pool and just again I mean I would have expected there was a house there before or something but it just looks like a bunch of open space I just trying to figure out why there was a a view concern because this is probably going to be is taller taller this looks like a ray structure here the one next door exactly can I can I make a clarification yes sure um there is a piece of property behind the pool um from a stero there's the pool and then there's a property behind it that is owned by a separate entity uh then there is the surf song um it what appears to be a parking place or a parking lot area that's uh about 61 you know when I measure on um GIS it appears to be about 61 feet from that property to the 51 Pearl and 41 is that a buildable site no that's uh that's an area where it looks like parking is available and that's part of the eement okay Don what I heard from the condo association was not specific to the height it was moving the building towards a stero and therefore creating a new blocked cord or regardless of the height so that's a distinction that I heard I thought I heard the owners indicate agree with that yeah okay but um I would just want to comment that um we're only talking about a 5 foot difference from what to build back in right from what she had before from what she can you enlarge that a little bit more Don where her place is yeah um Madam chair you also want to give the um property owner the opportunity to comment on that right she has anything to add that appears to be where the structure used to be the footprint so you can see that it is forward of that other building yeah that building Isen do you have a comment on this picture yes that used to be my lovely little cottage that you see there on the just with the uh the pylons still there um where you can see the the the trailer where the trailers parked and the truck that's actually on the eement um surf song did initially allow me to park my trailer there while I got the lot cleaned up and then now the trailer's been moved on to my lot but to to comment on um behind the pool behind the pool there's another lot um it used to be the jewelbox cottage and um that that is a lot that is buildable and that they are likely going to be coming to you um I I don't know but if you can go further out not that pool that's a surf song pool but the um the the sorry that was the Diamond Head B the surf song pool that's on is sterile um right beside that is um another lot and then there's the parking lot then the easement and then my property um we do have some really good pictures really good pictures yeah okay uh let let's let's rain this back in with pictures and and everything else and actually look at the request before us okay thank you Penny um Madam chair um during the presentation I don't know that we emphasized what the criteria was when staff was giving their recommendation um as I mentioned you know your decision is going to be based on is there evidence to satisfy the criteria that's in your code so um if we could have staff re those the the criteria uh Judith would you like to State the criteria yes it doesn't seem like put super close there you go so as I said there there are five criteria um the first there are SL are not exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances that are inherent to the property in question or that the request is slash is not for Di minous variance under circumstances or conditions where rigid compliance is not essential to protect public property um uh staff felt that the choices made here are design choices not necessarily particular to this um lot um and do not represent the DI Minimus VAR variance um that would be possible to to create a home on this lot um B um that the conditions justifying the variants RR not the result of actions the applicant has taken after the adoption of the regulation in question um the conditions justifying the variance are the result of the applicants design choices um so again that is part of the um criteria that led staff to recommend denial of the variance um C that the variance granted is SL is not the minimum variance that will relieve the applicant of an unreasonable burden caused by the application of the regulation in question um again the design of the home could be smaller and so we did not feel this represented the DI Minimus um uh options available uh D that the granting of the variants will SL will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental detrimental to the public welfare um in this case staff did not believe that detrimental I don't know if this is going in and out that um the granting this variance is not necessarily detrimental um as the applicant stated the mechanical equipment is placed on the side of the home that is AB budding um The Diamond Head Resort and not the immediate um single family um neighbor um but you have heard from members of the public regarding views and and such um uh further down indeed that the granting of the varian's will SL will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare um the proposed location of the single family residents being 12T from the front property line will be closer to the easement than the neighboring property to the East and the plane of the home uh plane of the homes would not match along that easement and potentially views could be negatively impacted um the the previous home being one story from grade even if it was set forward would not have had the same impacts as a three-story larger structure set in the same location um that the granting of the variant will SL will not can I read that already injures to the neighborhood um otherwise detrimental um the increase in building coverage would cause the home to have more square footage under roof um which would create more massing of the structure however the site would not exceed the maximum 67% impervious um as required by the code uh moving on to E that the conditions or circumstances on the specific piece of property for which the variance is sought r/r not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make it more reasonable and practical to amend the regulation in question uh the conditions or circumstances on this specific property for which a variance is sought are not General in nature and do not warrant a code change um so due to those considerations staff recommended denial thank you Judah very much is there any discussion on this further and if not may I have a motion please I have uh a little bit of discussion if I may please um I think um I agree with the staff recommendation uh I think the owner should consider the uh Cottage build back policy for this piece of property which is is small and difficult and it had a cottage on it and with the cottage build back policy we have relaxed you know or to allow people to build back a cottage but this applicant is asking to build back a four-bedroom house not a cottage and uh I don't think I can uh I have to agree with the staff recommendation is is that um regarding I just have a question for clarification um I think staff had several of the criteria that they found were not present however I think what compatibility with the neighbors did you agree with all of staff's recommendations uh regarding the criteria or is there a specific one uh I agreed with all of them I actually agreed that it's probably not a hardship on the neighbors but I just um I think it's I think the cottage build back is a more appropriate Avenue for the owner on this piece of property is there any other discussion yes if if they do do a cottage build back can they get the same footprint forward of where they were so so that they can I mean 900 squ ft on the base level of house even though it is elevated is not a large house even though you're going to have a second floor um can they get the um same space so that they could have a porch on the back now um so the cottage code um it says that the modifications will be the minimum required to allow a home with a footprint of the same square footage as was previously legally constructed on that property and two stories in height above flood elevation with no enclosure below base flood elevation so this no I I apologize one story one story over uh flood elevation and the modified setbacks may not be less than 5T um and that the modified setbacks may not be encroached by mechanical equipment um so your specific question was regarding if they could build back um it it looks I mean so if they had a 33 by 30 structure plus deck I mean so they'd get the same interior square footage that's 990 square feet that is the total total interior area because the bottom floor cannot be enclosed they can only have one story above flood um and and but this is a buite allowance is the cottage you know so and um so they would only be allowed to build a single story they could do a VAR that's what they're here for I know but they could do a variance to the uh build back but she could ask for variance to do a two-story but you know what I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna stop this because it's not what's before us and I you know so my apologies to the audience too and people who are watching us at home our's desire is so strong to help property owners that we end up involved in this conversation and it's not what's before us what's before us is this particular request and it's and and in this particular instance um penny is going to have the option to go before the Town Council if it's denied here she can go before the town counc Council and plead her case there but we can't continue to redesign her project for her my I I I'll just go back to the fact that I do feel that it is an unusual lot and it is um a small lot with small buildable area so I think it is a it does meet the criteria for um the variance in the fact that um it is not a standard lot to build on and um the Ang goals make it very difficult I don't think it's uh I don't think you could go much less than 900 ft to have a a reasonable house to start with even if you had that is your only floor um so I do feel that there is reason to consider and um you know because once again 26 steps going up to that house has to go somewhere and that takes up an awful lot of land space and the fact that the house was forward of the 25 foot setback previously um gives me cause to consider that it's a um not not necessarily something that she created but that's what she had before so those are my views on that okay is there any other discussion yeah I I agree with the staff report um I think think that the um the mechanical equipment is actually a smart decision and is beneficial to the project I think the concern is just moving it back and extending it from 35 ft to an additional 15 ft on the footprint that is I think the real Crux of the matter um and to my view well the staff's recommendations are are correct it's a design choice to build a larger footprint than that was previously there would you like to make a motion John yeah I would like to move to deny the variance request and would that be for the reasons as set forth in the staff report for the reasons as set forth in the staff report correct we second that yes there's a motion there's a second is there Sarah for clarification is that's three different variances it's all inclusive all inclusive y uh is there any further discussion hearing none your vote John hi Jim hi Don hi Doug hi Jane I'm GNA go for it with nay Jim hi hi Penny I'm sorry you're going to go on to the Town Council and plead your case there okay thank you very much the motion the variance is denied oh you know I am can I request a break yes absolutely we're going to take a five minut so who jinx e e e e e e e e e e e e how about you Doug uh no man Jan side only uh Jim none John uh I also o visited and spoke with the owners I visited and spoke with the owners it was very nice uh don did you have any expar if you're there no expar okay thank you very much U I'll go ahead and read the title Mrs LPA resolution 202 24-5 a resolution of the fort Meers Beach local planning agency approving approving with conditions or denying variance V 202 4159 to allow a side street setback variance of 3 feet and 9 in from the required 15ot side set Street setback for a pool enclosure for the pool located at 8180 Lagoon Road and providing for an effective Jason good morning LPA members staff good morning good morning my name is Jason smoy I'm with your planning and zoning department you sound your you sound like a game show host that's that's my mid career midlife career change okay uh so as uh as you had mentioned this is a request for 8180 Lagoon this is to allow for a side street variance to allow them to develop their screen cage over the footprint of an existing pool on that property uh as was mentioned they are requesting a a variance of 3 9 in from the required side street setback of 15 ft so they will be providing a setback of 11 feet 3 in which is generally what the house and the previously Varian pool are set back to now so again this the footprint of the proposed cage it would be covering what they've already approved and what has been built already uh so again this this was uh a pool originally that was approved uh with a set with a setback variance uh the uh previous LPA and Town Council had approved that setback variance to Tarpon Street which is uh you're not aware this is a corner lot so they have two Road frontages excuse me um I would note that the setback requirements at the time that they got the variance are different than they are now so if you see any discrepancy right as right as it I apologize it changed right as this one went in so the the EST is for is to get is to reduce the 15 foot setback uh staff has recommended Denial on this one simply because um as you can see in the uh staff report in findings and conclusions of B uh the request is to do a or the request is uh something that they wanted this is an expansion of a pool deck that had existed before and so staff's assessment of the request is that they could have kept what they have they've come in and get variances as they are today so the uh screen cage is again a something they would like to have and it is not a requirement to make the house work and it's a design Choice ultimately uh what they're asking for the staff is here for any questions or concerns that you may have and the applicant is here as well Jason can I just ask you a question did it influence you at all that there were already variances granted on this house and that this doesn't change the foot anything of those variances um so if I remember correctly staff uh didn't give full-throated approval to the original ask it was approved so we have what we have uh but the assessment here uh in B really just relates to the screen cage itself now is a screen cage something nice to have down here during the summer or during bug season some people would say that's an absolute necessity my wife for instance uh but what they are asking for is not a necessity for the the use of the home or the use of the pool at this point and it really is a a preference that they want to also get a variance to cover their entire pool deck okay uh questions for follow up to your question sure Madam chair so did you recommend denying the pool variance a staff uh I have to go back to it but it it was probably set up as a conditional yes if anything but I I apologize I don't have 2320 right in front of me I didn't you said we didn't give it a full throat it I wasn't sure if you meant that you had proved it with conditions or recommended deny like you are here um I apologize I don't have that answer right in front of me no problem either way thank you okay any other questions for Jason Don anything what I I see I swear we looked at this like one of the first LPA meetings I was at with Jason Green and discussed this is this one is this backup or something did we I don't remember it being well was there some other variants that came in right around you know I guess two years ago after the storm that is yeah uh actually Sarah's got the information um so so this was heard uh by the Town Council March 6th 2023 it was for um it was a to allow a pool setback of one foot from the required 15ot side street setback so when they came in they originally were asking for a larger setback um but that was when the 25 foot Street setback from all streets was required this was the same time we were doing the corner lot setback change um so when it came down to it they only had to ask for a one foot variance for what they wanted for the pool at the time uh they did not want the um uh pool enclosure that wasn't part of the proposed information that we received um so that was not discussed as part of this um I'm looking at I'm looking for the staff recommendation I'm finding the rest we discussed the pool deck right we disc LPA deck that's correct and the requests relative to footprint and structure is identical to the pool right right the only thing has changed is the required our rules changed okay got it thank you Sarah 354 the page number 34 um so we did recommend denial uh last year also um okay yeah I remember discussing this and having some some good memory done disagreement with Jason green on it yep because the house sits there okay the house sits there exactly any other questions for staff I I'm still a little confused about the finding b about a variance being larger square footage which was approved um maybe I'm just not understanding it correctly but it's the same it's the same setback as was previously not recommended by staff previously but it but granted by Council correct I I think what's trying to be said there is that the original pool that was there the request that they asked for was an increase in the square footage which which necessitated having to get the variant the point the point I think we were trying to say is just they had a uh it was usable they decided that they need they needed to do this and thus necessitating the design and the required uh variances to make that design work okay that help that helps me but there's no there's no material change for what was put in there not at all the pool has stayed the same the pool deck is in the same position as appr as approv cage on top of that's exactly right exactly exactly any other questions for staff okay thank you very much Jason uh the applicant is that you Janelle FY she is the jinxer for the meeting time uh go keep that in mind sorry before she starts can I ask um did you receive a copy of all the materials no no you didn't get a copy of the staff report no okay but I read it online okay so you did have a look at it okay and there were a number of emails that I think have been um circulating regarding this have you been had an opportunity to look at those um they were all in support they were neighb the neighbor okay yes all right very good yes yeah there was a more than a handful there was quite a few yeah okay yes I mean all we want to do is build a pool cage around our modified or our new pool um we just wanted to go out to the edge of the house we've talked to every neighbor behind us side of us kitty corner down the street and everybody wrote letters of support um it is a nice pool and it's beautiful we only have we're a corner lot so we can only have a four foot fence I mean I think this for a safety aspect at least that the pool cage will give us a second layer of somebody not jumping the fence to jump into the pool so make is a cool I promise and he's going to start on Monday no he shouldn't okay just kidding just just hold up okay um any questions for the applicant nope thank you Janelle thank you thank you for your hospitality yesterday uh okay is there any public comment on this case nope close public comment can I make a motion please I move approval LPA resolution 20245 I'll second and are you finding it consistent with the comprehensive plan yes yes yes oh yes sorry I didn't know You' recognize me sorry I uh is there any discussion on the motion hearing none your vote Jim hi and duck hi Don hi Jane hi Jim hi John I uh and I vote I congratulations and thank you very much for being here today so now you can start on Monday now you can start on Monday I know let me just say that the go ahead nanc um so when the local planning agency um unanimously approves a request for a variance as they just have um any individual May request an additional hearing be uh conducted before the Town Council um if the request for the additional hearing is received within 10 business days by the town clerk so there is a small 10day appeal period um yeah so members of the public and whoever's U watching our meeting today um just be aware of the 10day period okay thank you thank you all for being here thank you madam chair thank you Nancy uh the next uh item on our agenda is ordinance 24-20 DCI 202 0130 Margaritaville CPD Amendment 251 Crescent Street I is there any exp parte Don no uh Jim none here Doug no ma'am Jan none uh Jim none none and I have none so um I'll go ahead and read the title ordinance 24-2 an ordinance of the town of Fort Meers Beach Florida amending town of Fort Meers Beach ordinance number 241 and approving deviations for the commercial plan development Zoning for the property located at 1170 1180 uh 1192 1204 to 1206 Estero Boulevard 251 prestent Street 1150 fth Street and unaddressed Parcels Parcels generally identified as oh no oh boy as strap numbers 24-4 6-23 dw3 z205 point7 Master concept plan parcel number three 24-4 6-23 dw3 z0000 6.00 Master concept plan number one 24- 4623 w3206 0060 Master concept plan number one 24- 4623 w3009 z0000 Master concept Parcels two and number five 94624 W4 0494 2609 Master concept plan parcel number two 24-4 6-23 W3 00205 70070 94624 w4u 491261 Master concept plan parcel number two 94624 w414 b0070 Master concept Parcels 2 and 5 94624 W4 0496 2608 Master concept parcel uh number two and 94624 W4 0498 2607 master concept Parcels 2 and six for Meers Beach providing for other clarifications as necessary providing for conflicts of law Grier error severability and providing for an effective date up Tom's asleep I need need a drink I'm fine thank you okay Jason uh thank you for going through that Jason SMY with your planning and zon Department uh hold on one second for future reference it could I just say um as as written in our agenda or is it really necessary that we read the entire title it's necessary it's published it is absolutely necessary by the uh Town Council um the point of a of a title of an ordinance is to let the public know what's being decided when you have all these trap numbers there's no question that these are the specific properties read them as we go on this will just keep doing the same thing preferable yes go ahead Jason excellent so the request before you today is a an amendment of an existing CPD ordinance the request today uh is in reference to two signs that exist uh on the multiple Parcels that Anita has has spelled out there um as as a general orientation for anybody at home uh the areas we're talking about here are the corner of Aero Boulevard and Crescent Street uh on the main margarit Ville site and then the Aquatic Center site uh on the beach side of Aero where Margarita ville's pool is there's an entrance way there and the monument sign that's on that's in question today is located there um I guess I should mention that the one on the corner of crescent and U Estero that is the quote unquote poll sign that is being requested in um in this deviation uh before you today are going to be five individual deviation requests um four General requests so I hope that's not confusing there's there's four requests of code uh two signs both each need uh the same request so there's five total deviations at um involved in this case today so going going through the the requests um the poll sign on the corner of crescent and Estero uh poll signs are not allowed by the sign code so the first request is to allow for a poll type sign there uh the second request is also uh to allow for the poll sign to be tall ER than is generally allowed for signs so they are requesting to deviate from the maximum height of 5T to allow for the existing 9 foot high pole sign the third ask is uh also relevant to both of the signs and this is to allow for both of the signs to be less than the absolute minimum Allowed by code or required by code of three feet behind a RightWay or um sidewalk uh if you've if you've seen the signs they they're roughly about 6 in off the back of the existing sidewalks on both properties and so that's one of one of the asks is to reduce that 3 foot minimum now down to 6 in uh the fourth allowance is in reference to the monument sign again this is a variance or excuse me a deviation request to allow a sign to be taller than the 5 foot maximum as Allowed by code uh they're requesting for 7 and 1/2t Tall so that's a deviation request of 2 and 1/2 ft additional height lastly the fifth deviation would allow for Monument signs again to be set back six inches from the sidewalk uh the the recommendation from staff on this one uh now that the signs are in there we haven't been privy to any incidents that have come up from them being there uh we are recommending approval with conditions uh the it should also be mentioned that there are some outstanding uh light and signage issues that the town is working with with uh FD and and Fish and Wildlife uh that will be uh staff requests that or recommends that it may be a condition of approval to require that that issue with the lighting not on these signs but other Lighting on the site be addressed um as part of the approval to ensure are you asking for that to be number three as a condition I I think so we we were just notified uh this morning and late yesterday evening that there are still some outstanding questions about other signs not these signs in question today but other Margaritaville signs with lighting and they are working with Chad our environmental manager uh to get those issues resolved but it it may be prudent to just ensure that that is a requirement of approval here is that that that uh process be finished and completed but the sign that's not part of their request no but it is there is a Nexis of relevance between the sign that the sign deviations that they're asking for and other sign issues such as the lighting issue if you don't feel that there's a Nexus or you don't feel that they're relevant by all means leave it off of a condition of approval we just wanted to make sure that every everything was on the table because whatever they have to end up doing other signs they got to do with these anyway they're captur by the decision on the pre-existing signs already once that's determined I'm sorry I don't think I understand the question signs that are under review or lighting right any decision made on those would be required that all signs on the property comply with that same agreement one would think so uh I will make a point that the ground signs lighting has already been uh reviewed by Chad and that is not in question these are just other signs that are still outstanding on the site so the signs before you today ostensibly are in compliance for lighting thank you Jason Sarah and to note that this is amending ordinance 241 so this is an existing ordinance about the whole site that's being amended thank you any other questions for staff thank you very much applicant uh Tom terson uh 301 plal Circle um I don't know what I should add uh Jason were you sworn in sir yes I was thank um there's a lot of technical stuff there um with U I just kind of looked at some this is some kind of post construction cleanup uh with um these two signs uh um one um the one on a stero and Crescent um we got a uh what do you call it a development order with Lee County do to widen a sterile Boulevard extend the left turn on Crescent from the corner or extend it down to the corner uh when you come off of the bridge to have a longer left leftand turn lane and also to widen the sidewalk on the on the Bay Side there and uh the well I guess Rob faen was really the one that managed the the oversight of our construction of the sto Boulevard and uh the sidewalk there and um the signs were in the master concept plan as um as as approved originally and uh Rob failen one day just said you know this sign needs to move you know and that's what triggered the Crescent Nero Boulevard sign request now the other sign request over at the beach club side the the seaward side of a sterile Boulevard was um um Pico gas related um we were going to put it exactly where it was shown on the the master concept plan that was approved by the town but uh I think it needed to move maybe six inches Jason or something something like that to to be out of the way of a a too gas line because they had to relocate their gas lines uh because right away changed um in that that area there and they had to bore under a sterile Boulevard and in the process of doing it they have to the process of boring you have to overshoot your mark and uh they they couldn't accomplish the the boring without the sign moving so that was at the request of of Tio gas so um when we went to get her certificate of occupancy Town inspections noted that signs were not exactly in the places that they were approved to be on the master concept plan and so from a late person's perspective that's that's the reason why we're here today uh lee do moved one sign or told us to move a sign and too told us to move the other sign you know the reference um um Jason to U other signs and lighting um to my knowledge we have no issues outstanding with the town of Fort Myers Beach with our certificate of occupancy we do not have a a a permanent certificate of occupancy yet by the way we're still operating under a temporary and and the only issues outstanding are as you referenc Jason with f FWC and D it it's all turtle lighting related 100% and uh um fwcd did an inspection of the property um in preparation for our final Co and uh they did that I think it was in April or May um they spent two days and nights on the property and and most most of their work was was done at nighttime and and we received two two months later an 87 page report now granted in our process because we're um forward of the triple CL line um a good portion of our development is that U we had to obtain um I forget what it's called but we had to get stamp plans approved by FWC and D um we had to hire you know a third party consultant to Turtle lighting person to to work with FWC and we did that for a year and we finally got stamped plans we built the property in regards to Turtle Lighting in accordance with the stamp plans but then when they do their inspection they hold the right to to re-evaluate after you build according to their stamp plans oh my gosh and the 87 page report is related to that the findings that they they came up with and and uh we just uh finally got our response back back to them because you can't peace Mill response to them they required it to be all encompassing of all 87 pages and uh with uh um our acts of you know what we're recommending for correction with with all the specifications everything has to be designed then they'll review it all together comprehensively at once and so they've had that now for a period of time and we have no idea when we'll get that back but uh those are that's what's outstanding um with with with our certificate of occupancy that Jason's uh referencing otherwise we're clear with fire we're clear with the town of for Myers Beach we're we're totally um the only thing we're outstanding with is is Turtle lighting okay and I will add a little narrative I think we're being made an example of of uh how strict um the state um D is going to be on Fort Myers Beach with Turtle lighting um it's uh um it's egregious it's it's really egregious it's it's unbelievable and uh um they you know they have the power of God there's there's there's no way to challenge them um we've actually hired our third consultant um to help work and negotiate with um D and FWC to um get through this process and and uh get our you know final sign off for our certificate of uency I'm telling you it's a it's an amazing process probably going to cost us another half a million dollars by the time we're done it's it's the some of the things that have been required and you know they had our plans and and everything is showing on our plans and they didn't review our they're basically not holding themselves accountable for Effective review of our plans and just saying well I'm sorry but this is the way it is so I didn't intend to vent like that up here today but it's it's really a painful painful painful process let me tell you and uh um we we will be the standard for turtle Lighting on Fort Myers Beach in every regard both sides of a stero Boulevard we've got TVs bag they're up on second floor of of the Bayside property because we can't operate those um this time of year and they're they're you can't even see them from the beach just to give a couple of examples that's crazy it's it's pretty bizarre okay do we have any questions for the applicant for Mr terson do you uh concur or object to staff's recommendation to add the lighting element to the ordinance to I have no concern about it we're going to satisfy FW C and DP okay any other questions thank you Tom thank you any further questions for the staff is there any public comment no uh close public comment um Nancy I'll ask you a question would you like uh a comprehensive motion would you like a motion on each deviation I believe a a comprehensive motion would be sufficient um it is the uh approval or recommendation for the ordinance as drafted that contains the various deviations thank you very much um we do we do have an amended ordinance we do yes we do so yeah um 24xx so maybe Jason wants to just say what you have received what is what is the amendment or what are the amendments here I I apologize for not getting into that earlier no problem no problem I'm glad Jim brought it up so what you have before you for anybody watching or listening at home is a revised version of the uh ordinance that is being proposed to Town Council uh the changes between what was online and what the LPA members have in front of them is that the version that was put online included the uh conditions of approval as opposed to the deviations uh it's also includes the most recent uh amended CPD excuse me master concept plan for the CPD and that references uh exhibit a which is the full list of deviations the existing ones that were in 241 and then the new deviations that are being proposed under this process uh the text in the in the ordinance itself is minor editing changes there's no substantive changes in there other than the addition of the deviation list so exhibit a is the uh it's the big deal yeah exactly that's where all of their requests are located thank you Jason uh if there's no further discussion would someone like to make a motion yeah I'll certainly move uh what's the ordinance number we should be using this councelor 2401 is it not uh no it had it had not been assigned at the time of distribution um a 2420 make a motion to approve on ordinance number 2420 second as being consistent with plan with the addition of the uh lighting exactly right okay so there is a motion to approve ordinance 2420 second uh it's already been second with the addition of uh of remedying any outstanding issues with lighting with FWC and D on the property uh there's motion there's a second is there any discussion hearing none I'll call for your vote uh Jim hi John hi Jim hi uh Jan Jane hi uh Doug hi Don I and I vote I it passes unanimously thank you very much thank you staff thank you to the applicant thank you appreciate it all right the next uh we're now in the administrative agenda so the um any administrative issues need to be raised none no uh next item is LPA members items and reports Jim yeah I've one um I don't know if this is the beginning of a longer discussion or just point of view in perspective but I want to talk a little bit about the conversation that's going on in the atmosphere around the jell topic of public benefit it's a incredibly important component clearly by the conversations that are being happen on the island and and certainly with the official bodies on what the definition is of public benefit how broadly it is interpreted and most importantly by whom um I guess the perspective I would personally offer as as an LPM member and how I feel about this personally is that the um representation and the description and the compelling argument for what a public benefit is as seen by the individuals offering it they have the case they have the responsibility make that case to our community that here's why we're doing what we're doing we're doing it in addition to the things that are required and as a result of that it will look like this as a public benefit as an entire package clearly whether it's official legal or or just practice the tradeoffs on these public benefits with some of the variances and deviations that are being asked for are completely being comingled and that may be perfectly fine but then it says how do you raise the importance of the tech technical application that they're violating or not and the more personal opinion application of what a public benefit is and I would suggest that and this came to my mind obviously with the ones we're going to be looking at going forward here as I'm reading the staff reports they're including an opinion on the value of that public benefit or is it itself a public benefit or not I don't think that's a charge responsibility the staff should be put in that situation to determine because I think the applicants have as I indic before the role responsibility to tell us what the public benefit is and how it impacts and then we um through our responsibilities as LPA members and timland Council should adjudicate the measure of how impactful that is how big it is and I think more importantly the relevancy of it because it will change in in many ways some of those changes will be the geographies we're talking about a restaurant on the south end of this island is compelling public benefit right now um compared to the north side and therefore those of us that would sit and say I'd really like to see these items included um as an offering from a developer that would that would be important for me individually here being to live down there I also accumulated over the last two years watching particularly vice mayor adhal um Champion the cause for some of these developments allowing space for Barbers and dentists and spas and whatever they happen to be under the offices I believe he was representing it as a form of public benefit because we need those disciplines and those professional capabilities on the island so I just wanted to start a conversation because I think this is going to have to have some definition around it in one way shape or form that I I'm not sure staff can apply what we could apply to the recommendations of whether or not something is or isn't a public benefit and I'm not sure it belongs in a report and the last thing I'll say and close this up part of that is because these writings for the um individuals that don't get to spend the count of time that we spend with these processes they take those for the words they are so they they gain a life and a momentum and an influence all of their own just because they're in a staff report and I think that's hard to undo and the conversations I have now casually are what you saw in the staff report that that isn't a public benefit so want to raise that as a topic know where our Authority begins and ends to influence the outcome but think matters to me that we start to have this conversation so if I could just chime in on that uh was interesting because Jim asked me before the meeting started is there an opportunity for me to raise this issue and I showed him my notes and I said look I've got it on my items because last night I was talking with Jim aderhold also and uh Jim and I don't NE you know I love him dearly but we don't necessarily agree on on some things and and yet last night I uh all of a sudden I had this uh like thought that maybe public benefit if we are to describe it or Define it maybe it's somehow attached to the different future land use categories that we have on the island because as this gym just said what might be important for the south end of the Island beach access uh a restaurant some sort of services are not necessarily the same as what they would be to somebody who's developing in Time Square where parking would be a a a definite you know public benefit or again beach access or something like that and so I thought well could we begin to at least Define what the public sees as a benefit uh and and Define you know Jim and I Jim was saying well do we really need to Define it and I think because there's so much talk about it uh it it would at least warrant a conversation at a minimum and does I mean you know I happen to agree with staff is a restaurant a public benefit no however I understand Jim's point of view and now yours that at the South End of the island Perhaps it is even though um would it have been five years ago maybe not because there were restaurants there so it's the changing Dynamic and nature of the community that's also generating that conversation um anyhow I I think it's an important conversation for us to have I think it's an important conversation for the Town Council to say to have because otherwise it just lies flat with what do you think and what do I think and if it comes down to zoning a zoning decision will we or won't we permit this based on some public benefit there should be some something concrete or or not just a desire of particular group that we want this and so we're making the public benefit or we like it uh I think it needs to be something more I agree with Jim and and and at a minimum it needs to be a conversation we have and maybe something comes out of it so my thought last night what I told the other gym I was going to do today was say hey instead of getting into this now uh how about each of us come to the table let's plan on talking about it at at a meeting and each of us come to the table with what we think is public benefit you have an enormous amount of experience maybe something you know leads us to that description or that definition for whatever reason last night I thought maybe it's attached to those categories for you know through just to make it I don't know somewhat formal or or descriptive in nature um anyhow I I agree it needs it needs to to be discussed and I think that there really should be some sort of criteria attached to it I think uh I'd like to add I think that's a it's a very good point uh but I think you could establish criteria that would def generally Define a public benefit you would have to meet this check box and this check box you know something like that like uh provide a service that's not that's not locally available or provide a you know Public Access like to a beach or something but you could I think you could think it through and come up with a pretty good gu categories yeah exactly at least come up with some categories yeah is there a list already on some Community books that have come up with creating we had this meeting several times we're gonna have it again Tuesday so so just and we spoke about it so we spoke about it during the comprehensive plan I remember um um did not get consensus and nobody wanted it so we dropped it I brought it back the last M andp and said talk about public benefits at a public meeting so I want to do this as part of the Land Development code update and come up with criteria that the community supports so we're going to be doing two meetings and one online meeting or online versions of the same meeting and surveys are going to be available for residents who aren't here so they can you know give input and we can take it all in and we'll bring it back so I mean the um we have to get the comprehensive plan adopted and then the next step is I get to move on to the Land Development code so that is the goal um a year from now does it does it do any It was supposed to be adopted earlier this week we're going to have it coming back um in two weeks so because we really need this now the developments that are coming are hanging a lot of the influence on these and I I think those of us that sit in these roles and represent the entire Community um are the ones that auto adjudicate um the impact it has and I mean this in the most respectful way as soon as it's on a piece of paper um through another report or something it's it's now two conversations versus the one we would have dynamically or extemporaneously with the client while they're here or with the developer or with the applicant so maybe it's a little bit of process mixing versus category creating but the process does matter both integrity and repeatability if the preference would be that staff not touch public benefit we don't have to we don't love long staff reports if you don't want them we don't do them um okay this I I'll add two comments first an amenity is not necessarily I called it last night was an amenity did you hear that ader hold amenity and second in my mind the public benefit is in perpetuity a beach access a view that's going to be there forever but a restaurant it could go out of business matter fact 75 80% of them go out of business in the first three years so to give a credit for something that isn't going to always be there but the zoning is forever doesn't seem like a fair tradeoff to me to the town what do you think about that um if you're incorporating the operation of a restaurant as part of a dynamic experience you're offering for the entire development it's much less likely to go out of business um and therefore diminish the attracti ability competitively or otherwise to that Resort so I think that's more sustainable than to Standalone completely agree with you if somebody came in just wanted to start a restaurant we asking for a bunch of variances and said this is a public benefit Right Down the Line with you Jim but I think comprehensively as part of something it's gonna be really hard to pull that out of the of the overall picture well there's a big difference between a white tablecloth restaurant and a and a fast food restaurant and they would both qualify as a restaurant well I love the white table um John you have any comment you don't have to I no I I have thoughts about this right I I tend to be on the side of a commercial Enterprise is not generally a public benefit it's a private Enterprise um personally I do though subscribe to the fact that public access to as an example a restaurant in a resort is is a benefit to the neighbors that that are around there um so I struggle with this when I when we have looked at previous things that have come in where you know it public access can be a very large portion versus something that is Walled off right so even though it is a commercial Enterprise if the public has access there's a benefit to that you know that's those are my thoughts I so if we were to use Margaritaville as an examp example which we always tend to bring it up uh that entire property and even during the course of the hearings uh the applicant uh they said this will this is a public place you want to come and just sit down you can go and just sit down now of course the pool is its own separate gig but but it is public you can buy a pass you can buy a pass and go in as as a member of the public so it's public but that hasn't been discussed in many of the other things that we've heard we've heard you can go to the restaurant you can so I I think that public that public element imp perpetuity is a good statement to use is extremely important extremely important because otherwise okay so can can you all think about this some more and let's let's actually put it on an agenda and talk about it and maybe if it's on an agenda we'll have some public that will come in maybe some public would do us the favor of sending us emails which you can just send directly to Amy Baker at Amy fnb.com and she forward them to us it's the easiest way to send to the Town Council or to or to the LPA and uh and let's let's talk about this because I think it's extremely important otherwise otherwise you know ultimately public interest you know the public interest of Jim aderholt who's made his thoughts very clear and I understand why he's saying what he's saying but his idea of public interest and uh Karen's I Karen hasn't really opined on that what are they I mean you you end up with five different people whose idea of that benefit could be totally different and then where do you end up and I would only add that I also believe the topic is dynamic that when a need is met there's another one either additional or contingent that needs to be considered uh whether it connects to that supplied need by someone else or otherwise and we all learned two years ago that um um there's changes that happen on such a scale that these needs need to change and I love the fact that we have some folks come in and talk about it the public in particular and I'll bet we get a collage of recommendations that we could categorized without overly defining and therefore having people ask for something just for this versus making it better than it could have been asked for more all inclusive and more comprehensive with with the other needs of the town so I think keeping it as a dynamic uh concept would be important too and and ultimately with the idea of helping the Community Helping the folks who are developing properties helping the Town Council make their ultimate decisions um that would be the goal so public Chim in uh okay anything else Jim no thank you how about you Don any any LPA item no no LPA item do uh I have a I guess it's like a plug maybe it's a we're uh I'm on the church Council for St Peter Lutheran Church um and we're uh rebuilding we're like probably I think we're the only church on the island that's actually was able to meet the 50% Rule and uh in the process of doing it we're we got the same kind of philosophy we've talked about here of just doing things better and one thing that occurred to us is our we had a huge lawn it was pretty unattractive uh and it's right there on a sterile Boulevard by St pieter drive and so we've got a goal to Rel to landscape all that all that grass with uh native plants and so forth and uh I just want to put out a plug that any anybody that wants to help us think that through or support us on that we'd appreciate it you know you know who loves that is Ronda Beach do you know her yeah oh yeah I know Randa yeah she is she is uh and who is um um Miss Patton that lives in Bay Beach she is also a big um well you've talked to the Garden Club I'm guessing yeah okay got that in mindo so anyway good it's our a goal to add to the public benefit in the sense of beautifying our property that's a public benefit absolutely Jane anything yes um I'm having a little bit of a problem with the idea that um packages are being presented as at the same time more Parcels are being added and if they're going to be called the same thing um so like for example if Margaritaville were not Margaritaville here and they had the the B basey property and the golf front property and they only were going to bring in their package on the Bayside property and not the golf front property and they're still going to be called Margaritaville I think the whole package has to be presented whether it's going to be done in stages or whatever but to have something and say oh we have this property over here and we don't know what we're going to do with it I'm sorry but I don't believe you bought it with the idea of I don't have a clue and I think it's important for us to be able to look at the entire package as opposed to peace meal and then have some other large thing come in and and you know just have to look at it separately so I think if it it's going to be called the same thing I think we should have the whole package presented at the same time I'm just wondering how other people feel be called the same thing or if it's the same developer no if it's if it's called the same thing I think it needs to be I mean if it it could be a totally different project next door and that would be called something else but if this is then it would look be looked at separately but if you're adding acreage to the to a parcel I think we need to know what the parcel is going to be under the same name okay what what are your thoughts on that I mean are you okay with the mystery lot next door are you talking about something particular no yeah you talking no I think there's several properties there are several properties yeah there are several properties and I'm I'm I'm having and I'm having a problem with not knowing I I think that it's uh kind of scary not to have if it's part of the same project I think the whole project and it can be phased out you know because I ask people when they're going to build and they all have different answers but I think that you have to have the whole project to to determine the project I guess my initial reaction would be going along the lines that Anita drug us back in when we were looking at the Pearl Street property we started to build a house there and get into a lot of recommendations about how we would do if it was us the developers uh typically had those Parcels separated off by llc's for exactly the reason we're talking about they don't in my mind have an idea neither do we how the isi going to develop at what speed and what's going to be around and what's going to be needed necessary so I think if you're suggesting that whatever they're putting under that LLC should be seen in its entirety Fair request and something that they ought to be able to provide I think you'll find quickly um these Parcels are independent in the way that they buy them protect them from liability and develop them so I don't think it will get a lot of traction but there's no harm in saying if it's going to be under one name and and structure then we ought to be able to see what you're planning all right I think I I I'm just thinking of a case that might have been here but isn't uh that people have concerns I I don't think that you can ask that developer or say okay we've got your CPD here but what we really want to know is what you're going to do over here I don't think you can use that to judge this because this is what's in front of you and it is like the lady's house like Penny's house so would it be ideal for somebody to paint you the big picture absolutely I mean there's other there's another parcel where I'd like to know what the big picture is but if they don't tell us we have to judge what's in front of us Doug do you have any uh comment on that um yeah I would tend to agree with you Anita I think I understand what you're both saying Jane uh but um and I understand what Jim saying but I think uh I think we have to take our projects at fa value like Adida said hey this is what's in front of us and you know if you want to enhance your story by telling us what you're going to do with the other piece of property that might be in your interest to do that but we can't make you do that that's kind of what I'm you know if if margarita would have presented Margaritaville would have presented as just the Bayside property I don't think it would have gotten as far without the component of the public benefit for having it be open to the public and having it be a view corridor their whole CPD was all of it yeah that's why I'm saying I would like to see a whole CPD but you're you're saying we can't request that okay well because it either is or it isn't they can change their mind minute they walk out of the room amingo yeah you guys have anything to order to order would you like to order anything lunch minute eloquently stated during the meeting we can only deal with what's what's front petition okay okay um how about you sir I have nothing else uh John I'm glad of the discussion we've had and I welcome as much Community input as we can get great great uh and I asked on okay so Nancy do you have anything um nothing I think you had a good meeting today thank you oh thank you uh Sarah Judith anything can you give us a preview of what's coming up right there agenda the thir there's silence there is is that because it's scary September 3rd right September 3D correct yes September 3rd you sent me the whole list I'm good to go and then September 10th again I I'd like to ask another procedural question if if London Bay has uh requested to be rescheduled are they out of line now so like or do they get to sort of hold their place by that I mean you know I know there are other people who are waiting to come forward or who want to come forward how does that work um that's internal mechanism you don't need to tell us I like mystery it was not continued to a Time certain they have not sa the spot okay thank you Judith we'll have to they pres presumably they they continued because they're going to do some work on their application and then we'll have to review that so okay take theary thank you thank you very much so your next hearing is September 3D and then the one after that is September 10th do you have October's because I got some travel there I just want to confirm October is the the 12th or something I think it's the 10th I think November is the 12th October should be o oober 8 does that appear to be yes I won't be here I'm sorry I hooked it wrong okay October 8th and then November 12th what Don said correct how did I do that well it's still out there could could be changed so go ahead Sarah what's on the for the third so for um for September 3D what we have um what we believe we will be having is um CPD to CPD resoning for the fire station um a variance for a house at 319 Estero Boulevard vacation of an easement for the uh Fort Meers beat Art Association uh potentially a special exception yes that one should be on a special exception for uh lonni Kai's um consumption on premises outdoor seating area um potentially oh no yeah this one is Estero Island Beach Club CPD um and then updates to the CB zoning District okay oh we're also moving the private here special exception to that spend the night we've got a lot going on the 10th right thir that's the third yeah that's the third and about and then the 10th we tentatively have um a that's an admin Amendment um tentatively have the Red Coconut development agreement salty crab the salty crab no no salty crabs not going to be going okay um Neptune Neptune on the 10 yep um Neptune and Red Coconut you just wait arches also on the 10th no um so I mean so that's the CPA and the CPD I mean here's the problem everybody's trying I mean everybody submitted around the same time and they all want to get before before the election yes I understand and so we were also going to have in the not very distant future uh Pink Shell also um it doesn't appear I don't know timing of about worker so we're just going to leave that one alone but we're going to have pink shell arches Neptune and Red Coconut on the 10th not on the 10th but very soon if if there's a way or interest in having an additional meeting in September that would give us three LPA hearings and I'm not sure timing wise how staff will accommodate that or if we can even accommodate that I me this goes to your father's advice Anita oh exactly so how long can you you want to know what my father ADV I'm GNA just tell you this your brain can only assimilate what your boom can tolerate so and say that with a good Spanish why I wanted to get that on the record Madam chair it is it I mean you know what quite honestly for the applicant right to think about oh I'm GNA be in front Jan do you remember when you did your pool thing when you lived in Madison Jane came in with a pool very this is this very beginning of the town and she went on and on and it was simple obviously the council was going to give it and she kept going on and on and on and I finally said James stop you know you you're you're you're on Overkill but for an applicant to think that oh I'm going to come before the LPA or the Town Council in our eight yeah we're gonna be even even context with the type of request if you've got something simple and somebody's listening to a several hour uh professional developer presentation and just F trying to feel relevant and have that thing heard in the right the right manner it's um we had to bust them up I think I I about a second in October well they want to get the to council exactly they want to get to the vote well I feel sorry for the Town Council I mean so let's say that we hear all those on the 10th so then they go to the council what on the 16th no they can't go on the 16th because they can't make the thing they go to the Council on the 7th of October yeah or the 21st of October they are yeah and then there's also a meeting on the 4th of November if they want to you know and and we've let people know that that could be an option but I mean the hard part really is they have to have the two Town Council meetings and that's right they have to have two Town Council meetings uh but not for Seagate I'm in favor additional meeting Madam chair uh I believe we can make that work Seagate does have to have two two Town Council hearings yes for the development order yes okay the code says it is to a um CPD okay so um if there's going to be is there going to be a second meeting in October or a third meeting in September November 4th is not the right date but let's let's talk about September and October so uh what's will the group follow either either one or how about you I will yeah I will not be available the 10th already okay um I will be catching a flight on the third so I will be uh remote but not be available for very many hours and then the SE the week of the 16th I'm also traveling so I would just say you won't have me on the 10th or that following or SE September basically okay and what do it you went out to the 20 something you'd be okay okay what does this look like for staff this is what ask we need to make sure that it's far up in advance of the the meeting that we get and we we could notice prior to the LPA hearing I mean that's an option the problem is if there are changes at the LPA hearing to the title I mean the title is all that has to be advertised um so as long as we get the title right that may be fine um but if there are changes to the conditions things like that that won't show up necessarily in the agenda if the time's too short because the agenda will be closed for the town council meeting by the time you have the LPA hearing so um timing wise it might be tricky to make sure that all the information you've provided regarding it actually gets to the Town Council um in their agenda pack oh can I just say something on behalf of Staff um so basically if we have long meeting like today well okay imagine if we but but but I guess my point is that even though there's a week where perhaps there isn't a meeting staff is working very hard to get the agenda ready for the meeting the following week we recognize those yeah and so I I want to just U apologize or make a comment I mean we this last agenda we really worked hard on it and we apologize for getting it to you late but we were really scrambling because we had had Town Council um like right before so perhaps there needs to be a different level of expectations on from the applicants I mean okay I know you want to get in right now but if you can't do it I I mean if we can't read it quite honestly to receive a packet of 400 plus Pages three days before a hearing was brutal I mean I jumped and cheered but we didn't have to you know go through London Bay not that I was sorry for them I mean not that it was you know yay I don't have to listen to them but it was just the sheer workload um okay so so what's what's the decision here we have two meetings right now in September the 3 and the 10th and you're telling us the 10th it would be arches Seagate Neptune plus plus plus I think that's too much I really do why got can we see if that's possible to um it doesn't necessarily have to be on a Tuesday what if we went to what if we went to the first week of October or I you know what how about this how about you all talk to the applicants and look at your schedules in town hall and whatever else and then send out an email to us to say hey what day works but we're willing to have an additional meeting the point I believe is what I'm hearing to make sure we CAD these and and arches all at once is it it makes me crazy thinking about it I and I don't even know I mean I I have an idea about Seagate I don't know what the Arches is now and I don't know what Neptune is so that'd be good I like your suggestion okay so you you all let us know and the development agreement for R coconut will be the first time we exactly exactly exactly yeah okay um anything else from anyone if not may have motion to moved thank you we're adjourned at 11:54 a.m. for our short meeting ym