Council moves Arches Bayfront Resort rezoning, comp‑plan amendment to second reading after heavy public comment

Fort Myers Beach — The Town Council on Monday voted unanimously to send a developer‑backed rezoning and a companion small‑scale comprehensive plan amendment for the Arches Bayfront Resort to a second reading, but the council and residents alike left the hearing with a long list of outstanding issues to resolve including drainage, traffic routing and details of promised public benefits.

The project, brought by Freeland Bridal Holdings, would combine ten parcels near Old San Carlos Boulevard and Third Street into a single Commercial Planned Development and change seven parcels’ future land use from Marina and Mixed Residential to Pedestrian Commercial. The developer’s master plan calls for mixed uses, a waterfront promenade, a ferry terminal, roughly 263 lodging units (by equivalency), restaurants, retail and an expanded recreational marina with shore‑side public access.

The case: The Local Planning Agency unanimously recommended approval on April 8, but staff’s written recommendation urged denial of the comprehensive plan amendment, saying the map change “is not clearly in the public interest” and warned it could erode the buffer between intense commercial and adjacent single‑family neighborhoods. The applicant, represented by attorney Megan Strayhorn and planner Patrick Venas, argued the full package — the rezoning conditions, design limitations and listed public benefits — made the project consistent with the town’s core downtown vision.

“My professional planning opinion is the proposed CPD is consistent with the comprehensive plan as we are requesting to be amended,” Venas told council. The developer emphasized a suite of public benefits — a publicly accessible bayfront promenade and linear park, an open‑air market with local vendors, a ferry terminal and slips for day docking, expanded marina amenities, and a plan to reduce vehicular trips via shuttle service and an employee transit program.

Public reaction: The public record included more than a dozen residents who live next to the site. Dozens of written comments were also submitted. Concerns focused on stormwater and neighborhood flooding, increased traffic and intrusion of construction and operational parking into nearby residential streets, nighttime noise and the heights of buildings facing canals and homes.

“I just ask that the amplified music on the rooftop that is next door to my house be limited to ambient levels and end by 9 p.m.,” resident Marilyn Anderson said. Multiple residents called for gates or other ways to prevent resort traffic from using narrow residential streets as cut‑throughs, and several cited recurring backyard flooding tied to historic drainage pathways that run over the marina property.

Council action and conditions: Despite staff reservations, the council voted to advance both measures to the second reading and final adoption hearing set for June 2, 2025. The council’s motions included the staff‑recommended conditions and additional direction to the applicant to return with more defined operational agreements as part of the final package. Councilors repeatedly asked the applicant and staff to return with: a clearer drainage and outfall plan tied to the town’s stormwater system, a parking and shared‑parking study to validate any reduction requested by the applicant, limits on amplified/live music on terraces that face residential areas, and specifics about how the proposed ferry terminal and ferry service would operate and be funded.

The applicant’s attorney said the project team will work on the requested details, and confirmed the developer is prepared to put a ferry terminal in place and to commit to at least seasonal ferry service with a minimum set of stops, subject to operational feasibility and agreements with neighboring marinas.

What’s next: On June 2 the council will hear final adoption on the CPD (Ord. 25‑04) and the small‑scale comprehensive plan amendment (Ord. 25‑05). Staff, the applicant and councilors said they expect additional written conditions and one or more separate agreements (for example, a public‑benefit agreement or a declaration of covenants) to be drafted before final action.

Ending: The June 2 hearing will decide whether the council approves the full rezoning and the map change in light of the supplemental materials and the more detailed commitments the developer agreed to provide.