The Estero Island Beach Club on Estero Boulevard, which was totally destroyed by Hurricane Ian nearly two years ago, was approved by the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency Tuesday by a vote of 5-2. It’s now on to the Town Council.
Several minor conditions were attached to the LPA’s approval such as a more clearly defined landscaping plan, signs on Palm Avenue to help with the safety of pedestrians and bikers, and assurances that what was shown to the LPA in pictures will actually be the final product constructed.
Estero Island Beach Club was built in 1981. It’s a time-share building with 75 units with approximately 2,200 to 2,300 owners, some having multiple weeks of ownership in the building. Being a timeshare with thousands of owners means 75 units have to be built back or the property would have to be sold off. Prior to Ian, EIBC was 2 buildings. One building was 2 stories, the other was 3 stories. However, 10 units in one of the buildings were built over the 1978 Coastal Construction Control Line which means EIBC has less buildable property than they had before September 28, 2022. They also have to rebuild more spacious units to comply with ADA requirements. EIBC is not asking for more density.
During their first visit to the LPA, the EIBC team presented an unflattering looking building that LPA members felt was too close to Estero Boulevard. They were sent back to the drawing board and came forward with a 10-story building backed away from Estero and eliminated two sidewalk cuts on Estero. EIBC requested 5 deviations, the biggest one being going from 40 feet, which is what the Land Development Code allows, to 102 feet in height. The new building is 10 stories, 9 over parking. If EIBC presented two smaller buildings, they would have used up much more of the property and eliminated the view corridor the LPA and Town Council always seems to want as public benefit.
The new EIBC building is expected to cost an estimated $34 million to build. Insurance will not come close to covering the cost so owners are expected to be hit with assessments if the building is approved.
LPA Chair Anita Cereceda and LPA member Doug Eckmann voted against the project. Cerecda said, “I don’t feel like we have truly vetted this concept of going 10 stories. These concepts need to be more fully vetted. Everyone is going to come in now and request this height deviation” Eckmann said, “The public is not ready for these higher buildings just yet.”
The project now moves on to the Town Council where it will have to go through two public hearings. The first is expected to be at the September 23rd meeting following the budget hearing at 5PM.
Dependable, Accurate, Investigative Journalism take time. To support our work, become a BTR Monthly Member HERE.
Not ten stories…too tall!
Once they let one fox in, the rest will follow
Totally agree – making the lobbyists
Public !!!
Would totally make things CRYSTAL CLEAR !!!!
This LPA, like this council, promised last fall there would be no changes to comp plan or heights.
Anybody hear them stutter?
So, what’s changed?
Private lobbying, that’s what.
Time for the town to do what the county has done for decades – require each council member to submit lobbying disclosures every quarter.
The form includes the day, time, names of lobbyists and who they represent, and project or issue they discussed.
Include the LPA members in this. File them with the clerk’s office, open to the public.
Pure transparency.
Just so everyone knows where the decision making process began.
I thought the state required it, the reason Veach resigned wasn’t it?
Proposed units are going to have 9 1/2 foot ceilings, instead of 8 foot ceilings. The units are also larger, citing ADA requirements. However, they could make other areas smaller to fit within the same size units they had. The view corridor is a fallacy. There’s no way walking down the sidewalk you are going to be able to see the beach over the hedges, trees and parked cars. Unfortunately, all of these large developments are trying to get in before the election to take advantage of John King, Karen Woodson, Scott, Safford, and Jim Aderholt voting in favor of large developments.
First: Why do we have an ordinance on restricting height if it’s not going to be adhered to? It seems Sanibel & Captiva are successful controlling large builds what’s the problem with Ft. Myers Beach. Second: The old charm of the Island will be lost with the allowed increase in density, more traffic, cars, people etc. Third: Why does the island need to be a little Miami, who is going to benefit from that? Wake up elected leaders before it’s too late and the damage can’t be undone.
It’s seems the traffic will never change with or without new buildings. Post Ian the traffic was insane and will remain that way. Even without full occupancy. Traffic backed up for miles and miles in both directions. sad truth.
It will add beauty to the beach and allow for amazing sunset views from the top deck. I’m a life long ft myers beach resident and commend them on the design.
You have great input ! Where on Estero Blvd can you see the beach walking or driving it’s just another wrench in the process! We’ve been owners for over 20yrs at EIBC we really miss the island
More units towards the beach, more lights, I’m concerned about turtle nesting season. I haven’t been there since Covid, but our stay was twice a year. Why does the island need to be a little Miami. I do understand that being a vacation destination, vacationers bring in revue. But you must conceder the full time residents.
And this association in this article have part time resident/owners… ALL owners need a path back to rebuilding what they lost. This isn’t a hotel/motel where it is being built for transient vacationers. It’s a condominium timeshare with people who have owned for decades. Some multi generational owners. And the code for building this will include the code requirements to protect the Turtles.
If read correctly .. Units will be larger –
Why ? Figure out a way to stay WITHIN the heights and density.
Why is it NO one wants to abide by whats’ on the books !
If they would, developments would be approved, properties would be built, things would move along ——
Instead of this constant back and forth!
Island is small people – remember that!
Like it’s stated above, “ They also have to rebuild more spacious units to comply with ADA requirements. EIBC is not asking for more density.”
EIBC has to follow code there just trying to make it work
I am compassionate to all that lost in the hurricane of IAN and as one of them I to spent much more than expected to rebuild and get back on the island BUT having the buildings go from 40 feet the over 100 is not the best plan for the island. Can we not understand the impact this will cause to the density and multiply it by 25-50 more buildings and we then need to eliminate cars all together so maybe Lee county transit or cycling is all we can have to get around. The time has past to capture more road space to move traffic so now try to hold down adding more people.
Stick to height restrictions
Have you seen the height of Diamond Head next door ????
As long as the corridor can never be built on in the future. Even if the property is split into different parcels. Public access as well.
There are 75 owners and 52 weeks. Let the owners rework their weeks, not us rework our requirements. Possibly some owners could buy out other owners. Or sell to someone who will build according to code.
100% agree! HOA rules can be changed and they should make concessions just like they want the town to do! At this point they seem to be hiding behind their HOA rules and getting away with it!!
It’s clear they are going to take as much as they can if the council allows it. Did you notice the mention of 10 foot ceilings in the units? Dropping them to 9’ would take 10’ off the overall height. To me this is a prime example of their insincerity when they say “we just want to rebuild what we had”!
Not 75 owners, 75 units with approximately 2,200 to 2,300 owners.
Thank you for correction
Not sure where the need is for “larger units” and the height changes. Might be good to look at what is proposed in size versus what was the original size of the units. ADA Baths only add a bit more size. A wish for bigger is just a wish. Protecting the previous density is a good goal if it all fits and does not blow the comp plan out of the park. Not sure being next to Diamond Head is a good comparison or justification for the height- this height and density was exactly why the town was created when the county ignored the residents wishes.
There is a reason why there is a height rule……stick to it !
The building is gorgeous and will add an esthetic value to FMB. Taxes are already so high let these buildings be built to help the community. Only a few neigh sayers want the beach like 1950s! LOl wake up or leave the beach.
Please go to BTR FB page and read all the comments posted to “Agree or Disagree” from 2 hours ago. You’re in the 1% of people that want development, 99% of people want the 1950’s. Yes, the 1950’s are gone, but that doesn’t mean the island has to turn into Miami Beach. Maybe you should wake up or leave the beach?
Go buy the lot and build sand castles there. Since you don’t have the money to fork. Stop this non- sense no build. Prosperity is coming.
Not until the residents so so. Our voice is louder than yours.
Now why should he leave the beach? Because he doesn’t agree with 99%? Seriously?
Great job by EIBC redesigning something more aesthetically pleasing and providing a larger view corridor. Shame on those who said EIBC should have been forced to rebuild with fewer residences than they had previously, leaving many owners without a property…after everything they have been through. That level of entitlement and lack of compassion is heartless. Those types of self-centered people cannot be allowed to win in the longterm vision and development of FMB, or any other Town in Florida for that matter. We may have lost most of the buildings and large parts of the strategic plan after Ian, but losing the neighborliness and vibe is what should concern most people now because that is what made the Town great, not its height or density.
No one said Fewer units. We said no to the height.
May be more esthetic app r along to drive by and a 3 second glimpse of the beach but not please to the neighbors that have to look at it every single day.
Have not lost the compassion, just want the “vibe” to include the full time resident’s wants and feelings too.
Nope, some people, even on this post, are saying that it’s up to the owners to reduce the number of units, which would either leave some owners without a unit or everyone with less ownership (weeks). Easy to say when it’s not you being financially affected.
My understanding is that the issue is that “everyone needs the same view” per their HOA agreement. Perhaps they can find a way around that with less height and without reducing units. (Maybe odd/even year distinction??)
Agreed.They also need to consider all neighborhoods behind these projects and take into consideration what the residents feel and want.
This should be a hard no. The door is now open for more more more!