Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort Myers Beach council approves downtown parking variance with safety conditions
Summary
After hours of debate over public safety and downtown walkability, the council approved a variance allowing the removal of on‑site parking at 1161/1165 Estero Boulevard with conditions including permanent landscape/planter barriers within 30 days and limits on building footprint and height; vote passed 4–0 with Vice Mayor Safford abstaining.
Council approved Resolution 26‑094 on June 1, 2026, granting a variance to reduce on‑site parking requirements to 0% for an existing mixed‑use property at 1161 and 1165 Estero Boulevard — provided the applicant meets new conditions the council attached to address safety and future land‑use concerns.
The property owner and attorney argued the building sits inside the newly adopted Times Square district and that shared off‑site parking and the town’s 2025 comprehensive plan support adaptive reuse and pedestrian‑oriented frontage. Cara Stewart, attorney for the applicant, said the building (constructed 1967) historically served retail and rentals and that removing the front parking would enable outdoor seating or retail display aligned with the downtown vision.
Staff, represented by Senior Planner Jason Smallley, recommended denial, saying the record did not support a finding that the requested zero multiplier is the minimum variance necessary. Staff also flagged public‑safety concerns about vehicles backing onto Estero Boulevard and argued the existing split parking arrangement currently meets minimum code requirements.
Council members weighed those perspectives. Supporters said the variance would promote a walkable streetscape consistent with the Times Square overlay and noted the owner’s willingness to keep the existing building footprint and height unchanged. Opponents emphasized the safety risk of removing on‑site parking and requiring customers to use off‑site lots, and some expressed concerns about liquor or intensified uses drawing new pedestrian‑vehicle conflicts.
After extended exchange, council members amended staff’s recommended conditions to require: (1) permanent, non‑movable physical delineation of the former parking area (planters or equivalent — not movable cones) installed within 30 days; (2) elimination of on‑site parking with backing movements into Estero and Crescent Boulevards; and (3) a condition preserving the existing building’s footprint and height (no expansion) while allowing uses permitted in the Times Square district. The motion passed 4–0 with Vice Mayor Safford abstaining following an earlier recusal.
What this means: The property owner may proceed under the variance only after installing the agreed physical barrier and complying with the other conditions; any future intensification or structural expansion would require new approvals.
Who said what: “This is to allow for a future tenant … outdoor seating or outdoor display,” attorney Cara Stewart argued in support. Staff’s Jason Smallley cautioned council that “while the building seems to work with what exists, staff recommended denial” because the minimum‑necessary test was not satisfied.
Vote: Approved as amended 4–0 (Vice Mayor Safford abstained).
