Last month, after the LPA approved Estero Island Beach Club’s new building proposal, the Town Council denied it. The reason, not enough public benefit to warrant a 10-story building. The denial was done ‘with prejudice’ which means EIBC would have to sit out the process for a year.
According to town code if an application is denied ‘with prejudice’ that applicant cannot come back to the town with a new application for 12 months. This is done to prevent the LPA and the Town Council having to look at an application over and over again, meeting after meeting. On Monday EIBC asked the Town Council to reconsider their denial ‘with prejudice’ and change it to a denial ‘without prejudice’ which they did by a vote of 5-0. That change means EIBC can go back to the drawing board and return to the town with a new proposal before October of 2025.
The EIBC team now plans to reconvene with their legal team, planners and board members to plan their next steps and what changes need to be made to their proposal in order to get it approved by the Town Council. Any new proposal would have to go back before the LPA according to the Town Attorney.
The EIBC team believed they were following the direction of the town staff when they proposed a 10-story building that created a view corridor from the beach from Estero Boulevard. Then the Town Council decided a view corridor wasn’t that big of a deal to them even though the town code makes reference to a view corridor as a public benefit.
EIBC was not asking for more density but the height of the new building certainly attracted some negative comments from residents on the island. 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 the 10-story building backed away from Estero and they eliminated two sidewalk cuts on Estero. The EIBC team believed they were responding to what town staff was asking them to do by adding a view corridor which is actually a public benefit listed in the town’s code. Apparently the LPA agreed and approved the project by a 5-2 vote back in September although they could not sell it to the Town Council where the plan failed to garner three votes.
Before Hurricane Ian EIBC was 2 buildings of about 2-3 stories. After Hurricane Ian EIBC has less land to build on thanks to the 1978 Coastal Construction Line. A portion of the north building lost 6 units and a portion of the south building lost 2 units. The property is owned by about 2,200 to 2,300 people and operates as a time-share. And, to put one rumor to rest there is nothing in the EIBC HOA documents that says every unit has to have a clear view of the Gulf of Mexico.
Why didn’t the town hire an independent developer/party to guide developers in rebuilding within the town codes and regulations ( with slight variations) instead of approving enormous structures. Without any negotiations? It is obvious there is great contention on both sides. I’m sure many residents incomes are involved in the vacation industry but as many or more are not. Decisions of this magnitude should be put to a special vote and let the chips fall as they will instead of another government entity making decisions for all with out consent of the majority.
Why do they have to give public benefit? They are not a “greedy developer.” They are a long time time-share trying to rebuild. Happy they get yet another chance. The TC let that one guy derail the whole meeting.
I do not own at EIBC, but I agree completely that rebuilding of that long-established, privately owned timeshare property should not have to offer or provide ANY “public benefit” at all. Just my opinion.
As a neighboring county resident I feel sorry for all the hoops you encounter, by I feel as the elected/appointed officials have created this uncertainty, time will tell
FMB needs to raise the maximum height limitations to accommodate the updated minimum height above sea level requirement, which would allow parking under the structures.
Make it clear the structures can’t be any hirer than Margaritaville. That simple
Exactly!
Excellent summary!
10 stories denied. 17 stories at Red Coconut approved. I guess a restaurant and a park is enough benefits for 17 stories. I think I see the land use attorneys lining up. Maybe if EIBC would propose a tiki hut and a restaurant it could be approved because of such massive public benefit.
Incorporating a restaurant (or any other commercial enterprise) into the rebuilding of EIBC’s private property timeshare would very likely be a complete non-starter for the many owners there and for their officially recorded CC&R’s (the governing legal documents recorded when EIBC was established).
Location matters. One is on the beach, the other is on the bay side. EBIC can build what they had without doubling the size of the units and increasing the units from 8 foot ceilings to 9.5 foot ceilings.
For accuracy purposes, both buildings were on the beach side of Estero.