Today the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency will consider a proposal to rebuild the commercial building at 1901 Estero Boulevard that was home to Hoosier’s restaurant and other retail businesses.
Planner and Civil Engineer James Ink will make the presentation to the LPA on behalf of the property owner YEAA, LLC. The Architect on the project is Albert Dambrose at Studio AD.
The building, located at the corner of Estero Boulevard and Ohio street, was hammered by Hurricane Ian. Most of the structure was eventually demolished, however, the portion still standing was deemed to be structurally sound and can be used as part of the rebuild.
The new building is 7,895 square feet, 366 square feet less than the original building (see below).
Ink will be asking the LPA to grant the owner 5 variances.
1. Request to change the minimum front street setback from the required 5–10-foot build to line to 25 feet for the existing structure.
2. Request to change the minimum rear setback from the required 25 feet to 20 feet.
3. Request a change in the residential/commercial buffer requirements.
4. Request a change to allow parking along Estero Blvd and Ohio Ave instead of the required off street parking.
5. Request a change in required parking spaces that require 22 parking spaces to 9 spaces.
Town staff is recommending denial.
The building at 1901 was constructed before the town became a town in the mid 90’s. It was built under the rules of Lee County. When the town became a town and adopted a Land development Code, 1901 became a non-conforming property under the town’s new rules. It was grandfathered in until Ian came through town.
New developments have to follow the current LDC which is why Ink will be asking for the deviations. “The variance requests are the minimal and reasonably necessary to restore the facility to a similar but less intense development. The reconstruction of the existing building and proposed new replacement building will be constructed using current codes and regulations to create a more resilient and sustainable building for continued use providing desired services to the town’s residents and visitors.”
When Ink teased the new building at a previous LPA meeting, members seemed to like what they saw. The LPA does not have to follow staff recommendations and can approve a project with certain conditions. Town staff submits their recommendations based on strict interpretation of the town’s land Development Code.
On this project, staff included 4 conditions for the LPA to consider if they do choose to approve the project:
1) Approval of these variances does not give the Applicant an undeniable right to permit approval. Development of the Property must comply with all applicable requirements of the Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan and LDC in effect at the time of permit approval, except as specifically modified herein.
2) Property owner must ensure that they adhere to the maximum FAR for the Pedestrian Commercial FLU.
3) Property owner must have complete visual screening that enclose all mechanical equipment to obscure from the public right-of-way and from the immediate neighbor’s property to help mitigate noise.
4) Property owner must ensure that the parking space dimensions adhere to 34- 2016
The LPA can also choose to approve the project as presented without approving any recommendations from the staff.
Beach Talk Radio will carry the meeting live today on Facebook and YouTube.
Local journalism is hard work. If you appreciate the most in-depth reporting on Fort Myers Beach, please support what we do HERE by Venmo, Zell or PayPal. Thank you.
Holly 0
You are the queen of insults and caustic tongue. If you re-read all your post realization may set in. The truth hurt you as evidence of your response but I’m sure you are smiling to yourself ready to go again!
Well, good luck because the LPA Chair just made a large donation to Islanders FMB legal fund to litigate against the Town for the Seagate development, which indicates she doesn’t believe in the process. Once that occurs with the people in power, there is no fair process.
1) Approval of these variances does not give the Applicant an undeniable right to permit approval. Development of the Property must comply with all applicable requirements of the Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan and LDC in effect at the time of permit approval, except as specifically modified herein.
Why is this difficult to understand?
Very nice but not very coastal!
Looking for Floridian vibe on new builds
I love the plan!!
We need our smaller business spaces back. This building housed a tiny magic shop for years, then a dog grooming business, a few small shops and art salons, etc. It would be nice to be able to keep some of the bones of the old town, some of our old buildings… this incorporates whats left of the old structure where available and I’m a fan of that. Even with the variances requested… I think it should be permitted. I miss our old town, even if not every building had ample parking…
What I’m confused about is why TC is saying this plan needs to follow the Comp Plan, but they approved Seagate, Neptune, Myerside and Pink Shell which clearly do not follow the Comp Plan. TC is not clear at all in this article as to what they are opposed to. This plan is clearly a no brainer for approval compared to so many of the large developments being proposed and approved.
Huh??
Town council hasn’t said anything about this project.
The project has only been through staff review and has yet to be heard by the LPA or TC. If you want to know why staff recommended denial, read the staff report.
First, in the middle of this article is a one line paragraph that reads: Town staff is recommending denial. Second, there is nothing in this article indicating we should read a staff report.
Yes, it says “town staff is recommending denial.” Town staff is just that: STAFF. They are town employees, not the elected officials on Town Council.
And LOL: so the article didn’t tell you to read the staff report?! Do you need to be told everything? Since you wondered why denial was recommended, you can learn why by reading the staff report. The report specifies each variance being sought, what the LDC says, and staff’s reasoning on approving or denying each variance.
It might be good first to learn the difference between town staff and Town Council.
So, know it all with few friends, why would the town be more interested in the staff opinion over the residents?
Dean, you’re a riot.
Doesn’t appear you understand the process a project goes through – and your ignorance seems to make you defensive, as evidenced by your juvenile attempt at insults.
Because they did follow the comp plan. Please educate yourself
I knew of a Tom that had the arrogance to build his dock and lift out into a marked navigation channel. That was part of his plan but he had to move it. Ever hear that story?
Or not. The neighbors reported the markers went missing in 2013. Torgerson bought the house in 2014. Here is the part you’re missing:
The Army Corp Of Engineers, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the City of Ft Myers Beach took months to review and ultimately approve an application for a permit to build dock, they made a mistake.
When the City obtained permission to have a mooring field in the bay, there was a requirement to establish a marked channel. That channel was established and pilings with markers were installed, way back when. For whatever reason, a couple of things happened. 1) the channel marker/pilings disappeared two or three prior to the dock application, and 2) the documentation of the channel apparently was not properly filed by the City/Agencies for the record. Technically we have a legal position to defend but we chose to settle peacefully.
Thank you Mari for “the rest of the story”. It’s good to know the truth and my sincere apologies to you and Tom
Thank you.
Just curious: do we know what businesses will be housed in this future building? The rendering shows a very attractive and smaller building. Parking can be found around the island – although the fewer cars everywhere the better – so requiring MORE ( 34? and probably smaller ones) than the recommended 22 seems odd. Unless I’m misunderstanding #4??? Vehicles are larger, people are larger, too requiring more, but smaller spots seems misguided.