[{"_1":2,"_86":-5,"_87":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6340570,"mediaKeyId","2259226-844d5da5d434700a5f8f0ed1689ee762","parentId",2259226,"title","LPA hearing on proposed mobile‑vendor park at 2525 Estero Boulevard draws interventions, experts and requests for traffic, valuation analysis","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",1869000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2259226-844d5da5d434700a5f8f0ed1689ee762&start=1869&end=1869","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2259226-844d5da5d434700a5f8f0ed1689ee762/thumbnail_1869000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6340570/Fort-Myers-Beach/Lee-County/Florida/LPA-hearing-on-proposed-mobilevendor-park-at-2525-Estero-Boulevard-draws-interventions-experts-and-requests-for-traffic-valuation-analysis","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340570-0a2a54b5ea010c2b9565a5909d309278/orig.mp4?Expires=1777279477&Signature=c-ZpPQl~-fbnw1-s4jFTQWzcvrHo4gesecsx5C~fbRMOonFx4IQa-NyY9XVjhvQmTv1np7OEwJrdTf4v7b910X9WWP2ldsgf8SSedsZU10cXI9U9nf9nV9DujX55UamCDZdhYy-kmyFgLPUI~uJPiySqd~7Lfcdi6Wwe0t0kkQUamVXx3mV~438fnIO66LDzh2js2DTLwTBCkjf79GADQAOH~KLw7motBWjeL3fmlT-A0GD3ieAlsLAZ1w9hidm~17lhYxd-WTg-ryok8IMX8KlrMKLLBaItKVS2-ECLctiPBFJc2TNMJcXlXC8in8ohk8-XSgTdYyRfJ5iEcvtzYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town Council of For Myers Beach, FL","date","2025-02-11T13:26:57Z","article","The Local Planning Agency on Feb. 11 conducted an extended, contested hearing on a proposed CPD amendment that would allow a mobile‑vendor (food‑truck) park with a permanent support structure and shared parking on properties at 2525 and 2518 Estero Boulevard and 2543 Cottage Avenue. The hearing included applicant presentations, intervener requests, expert qualifications, the admission of submitted documents, and testimony from interveners and neighbors; the hearing was recessed at noon and remains open.

Why it matters: The application requests a Commercial Planned Development (CPD) amendment and several deviations from the town’s land‑development code to enable a family‑oriented food‑truck park, a two‑story 2,500‑square‑foot permanent support building (including a proposed walk‑up ice‑cream/retail tenant), a separate comfort station for public use, and a shared parking lot. Experts and neighbors said the proposal could increase noise, smells and pedestrian/vehicle activity immediately adjacent to existing residences, raising questions about compatibility, traffic impacts on Estero Boulevard and nearby streets, and potential effects on nearby property values.

Staff overview and changes since January: Judith Frankel, principal planner, told the LPA the applicant revised its master concept plan and conditions since the prior hearing to relocate and enlarge the permanent support structure (from about 1,500 to 2,500 square feet), move a vending pad up toward Estero Boulevard, enlarge the buffer adjacent to Pelican Watch from 5 to 7.5 feet, and change the comfort‑station location. Frankel summarized staff’s recommendation material and noted staff’s list of extensive conditions intended to reduce nuisance impacts; she reminded the LPA that mobile‑vendor parks are not a defined use in the town code and that the applicant relied on nearby jurisdictions’ code language to estimate parking demand.

Intervener status, expert qualifications and evidentiary admissions: The LPA voted to grant intervener status to representatives of Pelican Watch Condominium Association and neighboring property owners and limited each intervener to five minutes of speaking time (per party). The LPA qualified several expert witnesses for the interveners and applicant, including a traffic consultant (Mohsen Salahi), an urban planner (Max Forgy), and a real‑estate valuation expert (Matt Simmons). The LPA also voted to accept documents that had been submitted with the agenda into the record and later agreed to admit an updated map and a set of additional opposition letters provided by the applicant that were not received by the original agenda deadline.

Key testimony in the hearing (selected):
- Traffic: Mohsen Salahi, testifying for interveners, explained that Estero Boulevard is functionally constrained in the segment that includes the project area and recommended a traffic‑impact study. He said the corridor already experiences high delays and that additional demand from a concentrated destination could exacerbate queuing and spillover onto adjacent neighborhood streets. “Without a traffic impact study that shows full impact of this development…you don’t know what you’re dealing with,” he told the LPA.
- Property values: Appraiser Matt Simmons testified the project was likely to have a negative influence on nearby residential property values, estimating an aggregate decline he characterized at about 8–10% for the Pelican Watch building and a larger influence on immediately adjacent single‑family parcels — potentially in excess of 10% and, in some scenarios, higher. Simmons cited an academic 2017 Portland study of food‑truck parks and said direct adjacency and live entertainment could increase negative effects.
- Applicant presentation: The applicant team (represented by Noel Davies and planner Ken Galander) said the proposed CPD is less intense than the property’s by‑right entitlements, emphasized public benefits including a publicly available comfort station, and described multiple revisions to address neighbor concerns (fewer mobile pads, relocation of one pad, added buffering, a raised two‑story support building and limits on hours and outdoor entertainment). “What we’re proposing is less intense than those by‑right entitlements,” Davies told the LPA, and the applicant emphasized its willingness to work with neighbors on conditions.
- Neighbors and interveners: Pelican Watch president Randy Bryce and nearby owners Thomas and Deborah Danford contested compatibility, noise, parking spillover and property‑value effects. Deb Danford said, “I have yet to hear one benefit to us and our families as neighbors…we live here,” and the interveners submitted expert reports and drafted mitigations.

Procedural rulings and minutes: The LPA took several procedural steps — admitting agenda materials into the record, qualifying multiple experts, granting intervener status (limited to five minutes per party) and accepting additional maps and letters. The applicant and interveners agreed on an order of presentation that would allow the LPA to hear expert testimony first and then short intervener remarks; the hearing was paused for lunch and reconvened later in the day (the transcript shows the hearing open and not concluded at the time of recess).

Next steps and outstanding items: Several LPA members and interveners requested a traffic‑impact study be prepared to quantify roadway and parking impacts; interveners urged the creation of townwide rules for food‑truck parks so future proposals had predictable standards. The LPA did not take a final vote on the CPD amendment at the February 11 session; the hearing remained open and will resume after the recess to hear remaining testimony and deliberation. Staff indicated it will return to discuss the CPD criteria and provide a written recommendation after the full hearing record is complete.

The hearing record includes expert reports, staff conditions and written opposition letters; the LPA admitted updated maps and letters into the record during the meeting. The meeting was recessed at 12:21 p.m. with the hearing left open for reconvening.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Local Planning Agency, February 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A contested commercial plan development amendment to allow a food‑truck park and shared parking at Estero Boulevard drew interveners, expert testimony on traffic and property‑value impacts, and a set of provisional procedural rulings; the hearing was recessed for lunch and remains open.","taxTitle","Fort Myers Beach, Lee County, Florida","taxId",66110,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6340576,"LPA unanimously approves larger storefront signs for Santini Plaza at Estero Boulevard",1282,575000,1857000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2259226-844d5da5d434700a5f8f0ed1689ee762&start=575&end=1857","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2259226-844d5da5d434700a5f8f0ed1689ee762/thumbnail_575000.jpg","/articles/6340576/Fort-Myers-Beach/Lee-County/Florida/LPA-unanimously-approves-larger-storefront-signs-for-Santini-Plaza-at-Estero-Boulevard","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340576-4b033c6dae5da5af89c87dc6570c89d7/orig.mp4?Expires=1777279477&Signature=moyrIE8oyaAGOxS4L0NMwpSnp-KpYTL7ftVTMsmjKGr9xIxIOeslW28LkfJD76D8PvEd5xKJzqFaG3Vka4kA4ySiPnlngh8OFLH1RFDG~CKapQzlWhq7Npmd8XpX-fFbpo61PAVhouoEPCNydlNWZOuDK-iCWi~kRRD9~A6CXTbbbRNNfPXi2cOWGhkklN7x9YW07JYr4qj7p6ognwiZnzBpo9gXtpBZSp2PZxQnB4rwoBRXH4aVEy~xD7MqW8ypx39uLxxvwtcMPrf0Jbz4aMT7cz9YWtIugQWRCcvYeJ21hYMPrMkzAZSZAjwluG02jjK6vzY6-2D7ZRjhep16UA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency on Feb. 11 unanimously approved a variance allowing larger signage at Santini Plaza, a multi‑unit complex on Estero Boulevard.

The decision allows each tenant unit at 7205 Estero Boulevard to display up to 32 square feet of signage instead of the 16 square feet now allowed for multi‑unit complexes, and preserves a 32‑square‑foot ground sign for the complex name and branding.

The variance matters because Santini Plaza’s buildings sit far back from Estero Boulevard — staff said between about 98 and 270 feet — and owners argued larger signs are necessary for visibility. Jason Smalling, planning staff, told the LPA, “the variance before you today is a request to expand that, for each unit to allow for each unit to have a 32 square foot sign.” He also noted staff’s recommended condition to cap total signage per unit so the entire building façade would not become a continuous sign if units are later split.

Applicant representative Kara Stewart said the owner wants flexibility to respond to changing tenant needs and asked the LPA to raise staff’s suggested square‑footage cap from 750 to 800 to allow for potential future unit splits. “We are actually looking for 800 square feet,” Stewart said, explaining the request would help accommodate tenants and potential future reconfigurations.

Neighbors and tenants spoke in favor. Carrie Smith, owner of the long‑running Leoni’s restaurant in Santini Plaza, told the LPA she supported the change and said the larger signs could improve wayfinding for visitors. “Leoni’s has been there since 1977… Full support,” Smith said.

After discussion about uniformity, lighting standards and whether multiple signs per tenant would be allowed (the code allows a tenant to split its allocated square footage into multiple signs), an LPA member moved to approve the variance with three conditions and to change condition 3 from the staff‑proposed 750 square feet to 800 square feet. The motion carried unanimously by the eligible voting members. The chair reminded the public that a unanimous approval by eligible voting members constitutes final agency action subject to a request to the town clerk for further review within 10 days.

The vote and conditions: the LPA approved the variance with three staff‑recommended conditions (the text of the conditions appears in the staff report) and with condition 3 amended to set the aggregate cap at 800 square feet as requested by the applicant. The conditions include measures to limit sign size per unit, ensure compliance with sight‑triangle and safety requirements for any ground sign, and to hold illuminated signs to the town’s photometric standards.

The action affects current tenants and future leasing at Santini Plaza; staff said the change is intended to respond to the plaza’s older development pattern and significant setbacks from Estero Boulevard.

No appeals or requests for rehearing were filed at the meeting; the chair noted the 10‑day window during which any interested party may request the matter be placed before the Town Council for additional review.","The Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approved a variance allowing individual units at Santini Plaza to use up to 32-square-foot signs and permitted a 32-square-foot ground sign; approval included three conditions and a change to a staffing-recommended cap.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

LPA hearing on proposed mobile‑vendor park at 2525 Estero Boulevard draws interventions, experts and requests for traffic, valuation analysis

LPA unanimously approves larger storefront signs for Santini Plaza at Estero Boulevard