London Bay CEO Mark Wilson was poised to make a case for his development on the old Outrigger property today in front of the LPA. However, after reading the feedback from the town planning staff, he yanked it until further notice.
London Bay had 4 items on the agenda for today, before asking for an indefinite continuance. LPA members received the 434 page agenda packet only several days ago, highlighting how much time it takes for these big projects to be submitted to the town and reviewed by staff. 278 of the 434 page agenda packet had to do with London Bay’s proposal.
London Bay was asking for a Comp Plan Amendment, a Future Land Use Text Amendment, a rezoning of a portion of the property, and a special exception for alcohol consumption in the environmentally critical zoning district. All four of London Bay’s requests were recommended for denial by Community Development Director Sarah Probst who’s job is to go through all of these development applications, apply them to the town’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, and make recommendations based on what those town documents say. Once the staff review and recommendation is complete, the LPA then hears the pitch from the applicant. LPA members can then decide to accept the staff recommendation, accept the applicant’s proposal as is or accept an applicant’s proposal with conditions.
Tuesday afternoon, 30 minutes before a group of residents mostly in opposition to the development were about to meet, London Bay CEO Mark Wilson circulated this statement: “London Bay has requested an indefinite continuance to their application for 6200 Estero Boulevard, the former location of the Outrigger Beach Resort. This decision allows the team adequate time to address comments in the staff report.”
Probst recommended the LPA deny all 4 requests from London Bay.
THE DENIALS
On the request to amend the Future Land Use Map to change the 3.55 acres of Medium Residential FLU to Outrigger Resort Mixed-Use FLU, Probst said the request was not clearly in the public interest. “Development of a resort use in this location is not problematic, however, this request exceeds the density and intensity that the town has recently reaffirmed in the updated Comprehensive plan. Additionally, the scale of the request is not appropriate for the smaller scale adjacent residential properties. A height buffer, to limit building heights adjacent to the smaller-scale residences, may be appropriate to allow the taller development interior to the project.”
On London Bay’s request for a Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Text Amendment, Probst wrote the request “does not meet the requirements set forth in sec. 34-92 and Comprehensive Plan Policy FLU-1- C-11. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL of CPA20240067, a request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to create the Outrigger Resort Mixed-Use FLU. Developing language that reduces the height impacts on the smaller-scale residential may improve the comprehensive plan amendment request. A reduction in FAR or density may also be appropriate to bring it into scale with nearby development.”
She also wrote, “The proposed maximum height is tall for the neighborhood. The adjacent properties contain buildings with much lower heights and these buildings will likely feel very large in comparison. Staff is concerned that a 15 story and 13 story building within 20 feet of single-family residences will have a negative impact.”
One of the biggest complaints from the vocal opposition has been the height of the buildings. And, traffic of course.
Even through a staff recommendation is just that, and the LPA has approved projects staff recommends denying, it appeared the denial language was just too strong for London Bay to proceed.
THE PROJECT
London Bay is proposing a hotel that is 10 floors over 2 floors of parking for a total of 12 floors. The hotel would have 100 hotel rooms and 50 condo units they would sell in that same building. London Bay is also proposing a 15 story condo building over 2 levels of parking, for a total of 17 stories. There would be 46 condo units for sale in the second building. The proposal also includes 24,000 square feet of commercial space. The maximum height of the tallest building would be about 200 feet above base flood elevation.
Before the storm, The Outrigger was 3-4 stories high, with a Tiki Bar on the beach, and 144 hotel rooms. The building was a total of about 35-40 feet high. It was approved in 1995 before the town incorporated.
When might the project come back before the LPA and will it change in any way? We reached out to London Bay with those questions. CEO Mark Wilson: “London Bay Development Group’s design and engineering team is carefully reviewing the staff report and will coordinate with staff and LPA to confirm the meeting schedule once the review is complete.”
The LPA may go through the formality of mentioning the London Bay agenda items today, but then continuing them until a future date when London Bay is ready to return.
*** An earlier version of this story said the London Bay release came out hours before the community meeting. It was actually 30 minutes. We have corrected the timing of the release in this story.
Dependable, Accurate, Investigative Journalism take time. To support our work, become a BTR Monthly Member HERE.
We live on Curlew, our home was gutted down to studs and concrete walls. We have been rebuilding for the past two years with our heart and soul and a lot of sweat and not just us drive down Curlew and see all the construction, drive down both streets We have had to deal with the town and changing their rules for permits We have dealt with insurance companies and had to get a lawyer to get what was deserve We have dealt with contractors some ending up not so great.
While all along just moving forward. Never complaining outloud just moving forward. And now London Bay is going to use the canal behind our home to transport partying people up and down our canal
Is this how the town rewards residents who comply to their changing rules due to staying FEMA compliant
We will have no enjoyment in our back yard. We will not be able to boat and use the canal. After all of this, we will need to sell and find another home and we love our home. We will stay in Fort Myers Beach and if this happens I will remind residents for several years who the council members are to make sure their term ends one by one
Council members remember who votes you in not the developers the residents
please be considerate of your residents we have done what you have asked to stay FEMA compliant please remember the reaidents ans the rebuilding when voting and vote your conscience and lets continue to make FMB the place we all love
Water taxis are one way to mitigate traffic. if the canal was used as a waterway public use taxi stop, would that be acceptable?
Sure if it going down every canal. And where are they parking cars
The width is not that much both sides can use up to 25% of the canal for boat docks
Even though it is allowable it is not really feasible. What about boats coming from both directions
Having taxis down every canal doesn’t address the problem, that’s just NIMBY. The town has leverage now with LB, make parking and a dock contigent on the approval. or park at the new town hall, they’ll have a lot of parking. Like any waterway, there are right of ways for boaters, they have to be respected.
I don’t think this is NIMBY at ALL
If we have water taxis going down all the canals this will help travelers going to all different type of restaurants, bars and stores.
Also the more canals the more I would feel comfortable that town rules and regulations would be adhered too.
It is not a public water taxi it is specifically for Ritz Carlton Residences a 500 acre , 1000 residences not at all a public benefit and only helping their Estero property owners.
The question to Brenda was IF the canal was used for a public purpose is that OK.
Gotcha and no. That’s what marinas are for.
Brenda as much as I agree with how you “feel” about the boat traffic, London Bay has every right to travel on a navigable body of water. What the town permits LB’s land usage and dockage could be different story.
The width is not that much both sides can use up to 25% of the canal for boat docks
Even though it is allowable it is not really feasible. What about boats coming from both directions
That is true however they are asking for massive variances or changes to comp plan. This can be negotiated away. And it should be. There is zero public benefit this is for ritz Carlton residents in Estero to have a beach club.
London Bays proposal is outrageous! That area was basically a 3 story unit area to allow condos on the North Side of Estero to have some view! That project ruins the BEACH FEEL with 2 story parking garages! That’s a minimal Hotel area. Of course in today’s market everyone wants to be a Multi Billionaire Overnight with price gouging and over building…at the expense of everyone else! I applaud Probst for her review!
London Bay is not good for FMB.
THAT’S FOR SURE! I hope the TC remembers the residents of this town voted them in and that they work for us, not the big developers!
My math shows the old 144 rooms and the new at 146 with both buildings. The difference is the additional space that houses condo people at minimum 30-50% increase in density from before. Condos would certainly have more density than hotel rooms.
Correction I see they are two building housing more than I originally thought bring the totals to 196 certainly way over the density from before probably 75-100% increase. WOW ! London bay is ambitious.
196 – 144 at Outrigger is a 27% increase. Remove 2 floors from the 17 and 6 or so condo’s will be eliminated. LB condo’s are probably very large, they’d never fit 104 units in 13 floors like Estero Beach and Tennis.
It is very unfortunate that Mr. WIlson is not honest and transparent person. He seems to think everyone who lives on FMB is a stupid rube.
Mr. Wilson said “London Bay Development Group has made no decision nor has submitted any development application plans for the former Charley’s site, or for the use of the associated canals.” Mr. Wilson must be a narcissist because he was the one who said at a previous meeting that London Bay was going to use the canal between Bahia Via and Curlew to transport patron from London Bays other projects to their new project at the Outrigger. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson insinuated that he didn’t care about how the residents feel and London Bay can do whatever it wants. Mr. Wilson please be honest about what you have said in the past and engage in a process with local residents to come up with a solution that works for everyone.
The lack of honesty and transparency is beyond disgusting – London Bay project doesn’t fit now and won’t ever fit – putting mutliple towers -150 ft+ tall buildings in a single family neighborhood -wtf
Put something similar to outrigger / Margaritaville and move on-
This isn’t that complicated if you take this SHADY developer out of mix .
Nothing taller than 54 feet on that sight
Lots of talk about water taxis. Reality is where will they park, how will they go anywhere, u talking about cars, bikes golf carts? Just seems like a way to ignore added traffic with added density. Where will the pickup and parking be?
This is usually a ploy to wait until the public becomes complacent and stops going to meetings. Then they come in quietly, get approval and everyone wonders how it happened. I’ve seen it before.
It’s absurd to think the residents of FMB would “become complacent and stop going to meetings,” and unlikely a proposal such as this would be approved by the LPA and TC.
But they built a pretty building at Grandview that has to count for something
I would not be surprised to see the current Town Council approve it
London Bay is slowly tarnishing their name by the potential of being a bad neighbor. The neighborhood has spoken. The writing is on the wall. Now it’s up to LB to take that knowledge and do the right thing. Maybe take a page out of TPI’s book, and follow Tom Torgersons footsteps. Ask him for some guidance. It appears that it’s needed.
…and what has worked out for our beach that TPI brought? More traffic, a light that slows traffic because the tourists won’t use the walk over, a monstrous hotel that can’t keep employees, and now a “well if he can do it, why can’t we” attitude from builders and huge corporations? Nice. Forget TPI, the town needs to make things clearer to these people that we don’t want to be another Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and now even Hollywood, FL.
London Bay will be using the canal for transport, they just haven’t owned up to it. They have the right to do so. Why would they transport their people to Santini plaza when they can drop off right at their restaurant at the Outrigger location? It’s all about making money. Our only leverage is keeping them at the height restrictions. If they want a deviation from the height restriction they must give up the canal traffic. Pure and simple.
I feel that’s playing into their hand! That’s exactly what they want. They’ll back off the boat taxi if they’re given the moon over at the Outrigger.
I think it’s all a ploy. It doesn’t benefit them monetarily to offer their Estero peeps a water taxi. They’ve never had one in the past, and have been selling property there just fine. They dump them off at Charley’s, then what? There’s not a huge amount to do on the south (residential) end. There’s going to be a limited amount of things to do at the new Outrigger….and possibly 1,000 Estero people unloaded there?!
It just doesn’t (lucratively) add up.
No to the water taxi.
Stick. With. The. Height. Restriction!!
Do not let them hold you hostage with a water taxi hoax. (IMO)
Sarah is the town’s first line of protection against overkill and dismissal of it’s comp plan.
In this instance the professionalism is exactly what you want in a public employee.
The question now is, will the LPA and council trust her warnings and steel to their promises or kneel and offer generous concessions that betray those promises.
Meanwhile, for the developers, a wild card has entered the play – candidate Scasny. The table has changed. That’s why you have seen the industry’s generous flow of money going to Mr. Safford, for them a possible friendly vote in concessions agreements.
Mr. Scasny should be appreciated for his dedication to the public trust by letting everyone know he will avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest by not accepting donations from the developers seeking favors from this council.
Good for him.
Safford is the co-owner of the Sea Gypsy Inn with his wife Jacki Liszak, president of the Fort Myers Beach Chamber of Commerce. The Sea Gypsy Inn was destroyed by Hurricane Ian. Safford also runs Sea Gypsy Vacation Rentals, managing about 30 properties. Before Hurricane Ian, Safford managed about 130 properties, he said.
“I am pleased and look forward to doing what I can to serve,” Safford said. Safford’s term will run through November, at which time an election will take place for a new four-year term for the seat.
Mayor Dan Allers and Vice Mayor Jim Atterholt will also be up for election in November for four-year terms.
Safford said he hadn’t made up his mind yet whether he will run again though he is leaning against it. “My goal was to do the best I can for the next 10 months,” he said.
“I don’t think I can commit to four years,” Safford said. “You have to be fully committed to the council.”- Nathan Mayberg
I believe there is a conflict of interest between Safford and the Chamber of Commerce…
It’s a shame that all current council memebers have sold out to developers over Constituents-
The conflict of interests are STAGGERING- the Mayor and Safford should not participate in any of this hotel or development business as their entire livelihoods are directly tied to developing island.
Anyone who lies and takes a position temporarily then tries to use that appointment to stay in power doesn’t belong in said position-
Dont give up on the mayor, only one to vote against Myerside,a 60% increase in density
I live near the Outrigger and loved being able to get a drink while sitting on our Flamingo Access beach and would love to have something similar BUT not at the expense of that kind of height and density and definitely NOT if they think they are using Charlie’s and that canal as a method to traffic their Estero people over every hour or less or more. We live on a different canal and enjoy the privacy we have with our friendly neighbors. I have to support the curlew and Bahia via canals.
I think hours before the meeting is a stretch after all the statement was released as people were arriving for the community meeting. Considering the fact, London Bay released a statement earlier in the day doubling down on not having plans for Charley’s property but has publicly admitted several times they plan to use the canal to transport from their off island property. LB you have a plan at minimum to develop docks on this property so disclose them. We have also spoken to the contractor that has been out surveying and measuring the canal/property several times over the last 6 month. Come on London Bay be honest with the residents, property owners, and public. The deflection tactic is making you look disrespectful of the community especially when you are asking for such a huge change to you by right building options.
“Withdraws hours before” is an inaccurate stament. Hours before our meeting LB released a statement doubling down and saying they had not decided how they would use the canal. I told reporters who were investigating to watch BTR Jan 31 LB reveal at 1 hour 10 minutes where Mark absolutely said he plans to use the canal for transport. They withdrew 15 minutes before our meeting. They can say whatever reason they want for withdraw but you have to report the facts.
Thank-you for the detailed article showing how complex and time consuming it is to be an LPA member and that Sarah Probst is worth her weight in gold and deserves a raise, right Andy?