Planning Board - Regular Meeting

With a certain degree.

I'm I'm not that good. Alright.

Good morning, everybody. Happy Friday. Let's call the planning board meeting to order, please. Daisy, would you call the roll?

Member Finkel? Here. Member Hogan? Here. Member Ferringer?

Here.

Vice Chair Delois? Here. Member Henson?

Here.

Member Jensen? Here. Chair Bailey?

I am here. Would everybody please rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Alright. So things might be a hair out of order. I apologize. Approval of the agenda. Do I have anyone who wants to comment on that or change that?

So in light of some pretty serious parking issues that have been raised with respect to the roads, I think I'd like to add an agenda item about discussing reconsidering the site development plan vote that was taken at the last meeting. I'd also like to discuss and I don't know if it requires action, and we can discuss it all as one but it was brought to my attention, and I just discussed with staff, that the variance petition at the last meeting, public notice that was sent out to affected property owners within 300 feet had an incorrect code citation as well. So I don't know how that affects the decision we've already made and that's going to have to be reworn before counsel anyway. But I feel at the very least we should discuss it.

I don't disagree. And so we're trying to why don't we handle that now, at least to the item of the reconsideration? I'm doing that because we have some citizens who have signed up to speak. And depending on the outcome of that, they may want to speak during public comment. And this is sort of new territory for me.

So we'll just do the best we can. So to the point of the reconsideration, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, David. This is sort of a board decision, sort of ministerial in nature. Someone who voted for the site development plan is what you're referencing specifically, right? So someone who voted for approval of that would be able to make a motion. We'd have a second. We'd have discussion. There's not really public comment, but we could allow the applicant to speak because they're the ones who are directly affected by it. Is that correct?

Yes. Morning, board. David DAVID Tolstice, assistant city attorney. So if you want to make a motion for reconsideration, somebody who is on the prevailing side should make a motion. The motion should be seconded to have it placed on the agenda.

Then when you are discussing it, it's strictly a procedural item. We're not taking any testimony or evidence related to the application that might be reconsidered. But you can certainly advise the applicant as far as the purpose or the need or the basic justification that you feel the reconsideration is needed so that they can prepare for any reconsideration that might happen. If the motion passes, it would be heard at your next meeting, which would be in June. So at this time, if you want to see if there's a motion to approve the agenda with that amendment and place it in the agenda somewhere, then you have it there and then you can move forward with that vote.

If that's the way to

do it that would be my motion then. The motion to approve the agenda to include the reconsideration of the site development plan as an item on this agenda.

Correct. And we may also want to consider sequencing or order as that relates to the conditional use item that's up.

Yeah. And I mean, my tendency would be to say, like, we're going to approve the agenda with that modification. But that modification DELL: would almost be like, I would rather have it that discussion right now

That's fine.

Before citizen comment. Because again, if these get changed around, may be people in the public who want to speak about something.

Right. So right now, you're on item four, approval of the agenda. So

we have a motion to modify the agenda.

I'll second. Correct.

Okay. So the motion is to approve the agenda with the addition of the discussion related to reconsideration of the site development plan for the Rosemarina that would be placed as item 4A.

I think that's exactly what Hayden said. That sounds good.

David, how'd you get that so right?

I'm trying.

Thank you. So we have a motion. We have a second. Anything from the board on that item? All those in favor?

Aye. Opposed? David, was I supposed to vote on that since I voted no on the site plan?

This was just on the agenda.

Yes. You're all good. All

right. So that motion passed unanimously. So now you have a new item 4A on your agenda, which is the next item, which is the reconsideration of site development plan. So this is strictly, as the chair said, a procedural step discussed between the board and potentially advising the applicant as far as the justification or need for the reconsideration.

Can I ask two questions? David, can we question the applicant as part of

DAVID You can question them. But just remember, as I said, there's no testimony or evidence being given. So if there's information that you feel you need to have or that you didn't get or that was incorrectly presented, you can let the applicant know that, look, this is what you're looking for if this motion to reconsider passes and it comes back in the June meeting.

Okay. That Okay. Helps. Second is, as it relates to the time certain public comment item on non agenda items, how do we want to deal with that?

I think we can my optimistic thought is we can resolve this item within the next five minutes. Okay? Okay. That works?

So You're quite the optimist this morning, Jason.

Well,

that's how So it

does somebody I I mean, tend to agree with you as far as the reconsideration. But you don't want me to talk about it.

No, no. So now you're on that item. You would need a motion

Actually that

you could then discuss whether or not you want to do that. Okay.

I'll make the motion to do the reconsideration.

And do you want to have some reasons for the reconsideration? Yes. All right. Let me

Just make the motion, then you can discuss it afterwards.

So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second.

All right. And just for the record, the motion to reconsider is being made to reconsider the site development plan action that was taken at your April meeting regarding the Rosemarina.

Yep. Okay.

Thank you.

Put my lights on.

Go for it.

Thanks, Jason.

Remember, I said five minutes.

Okay. Yeah, I'll try to be quick.

I mean

Are we voting on that or no?

We're discussing it, and then

we're going to vote on it. Yeah.

So there's a couple things I would first of all, for the benefit of the public, we had a very long, as many of you know, robust discussion about this at the last meeting. And I think a lot of us up here came to the decision we did because while there were legitimate and serious concerns brought up by members of the public, we have to evaluate this based on our codes and what our land development code says. And I was having a hard time squaring some of those objections with what was in the code. Now it's different when there are deficiencies in the application itself, which clearly is the case as it relates to the parking issue. We have a letter that was attached from the applicant or the applicant's representative to our agenda today discussing about that.

But the gist of it is the certificate of land use that was granted for the Marco Island Princess in 2002, I think, indicates an operation of a 149 feet somewhere along or a 149 passengers, somewhere along lines that got dropped down to a 100, and then it got dropped down to 70, which is 75, which is how it was reflected on the latest application. I'm not I'm I'm very bothered by that, and I'm not comfortable with our, vote in light of that because I think it calls into question the parking situation for the application, potentially the trip generation report results, which might need to be relooked at, and, frankly, the credibility of the application in its entirety because we had no two noticing errors for counting the variance one and now a substantive parking error. And so what I would wanna hear from the applicant about at the next meeting is how this happened and how we got here because I think it's really important because the question I have is what else is waiting for us in terms of an I mean, is another ball gonna drop? Is someone gonna find something else? Are there other vendors where this could potentially be an issue?

And I think we need to walk through that and a reconciliation of what's in the certificate of land use for these vendors and what the actuality is represented on a parking matrix, how this may or may not impact the trip generation report. If there is a cap imposed, how it would, on capacity, how it would be policed. And I would also hope that the applicant would bear in mind all the ways that this could be remedied, whether that's a whether that's an increase in parking, a reduction in other vendor use, a reduction in intensity of the proposed restaurant. Another thing, and I I don't wanna drag on, but this came up and I rewatched the entire hearing late last night. There was a conversation between the Chair Bailey and Zach that struck me, and it was in relation to the Magnolia Waterway.

And I bring this up because it has some relevance. And and Chair Bailey said, quote, is there anything that prevents you from bringing a third 100 foot boat into the Magnolia Waterway? Zach responded, the answer is no. To which Chair Bailey said, is there any reason we couldn't impose a condition that the marina couldn't do that? And Zach responded, the marina will not agree to something like that because there's not a basis for something like that like this to be tied to something like that.

We fully met the level of service standards and the parking requirements. A reason to do that is if we didn't meet those standards. That would be a great reason to add that condition. And so I'm not asking for a mandate or anything, but I think in light of the insufficiency to meet the parking standards, something like that may personally audit, I would think, would be helpful to be at least considered by the applicant as they head into the June meeting. And that pretty much summarizes where I stand.

So without taking testimony, we don't want to do that. But that would sort of be the grounds, if I'm hearing Hayden correctly. Mean, that's what we would sort of get into the weeds on at the next hearing if the motion for reconsideration passes.

Right. So if I might, I think you have the basis stated by the maker of the motion for the purpose of the reconsideration. So you don't need to debate the merits of those issues. I think it's a procedural decision as far as whether or not the board wants to move forward with the motion.

Yeah. The only thing really up for debate is whether or not we agree with Hayden's assessment and the scope of what the board is looking for, right?

Correct.

Excuse me. And then the only thing that I might add to that is if there is a motion for reconsideration that's approved, do we also ask the applicant do we also suggest to continue the item that's on today's agenda so that we can have a single sort of cohesive conversation at the next hearing? And I would ask the board what their pleasure is on that. Yeah.

That would be a separate motion.

Okay. But we could make that after this motion, perhaps, just in the interests of Correct. Okay. So we've had some conversation. Is there anyone else on the board who has something to say that is different than what Hayden has said? Okay. So we have a motion and a second. I'm gonna allow the applicant to speak briefly. Would you like to, Zach or anyone on your team?

Good morning, Zach Lombardo. For the record, on behalf of Rosemarina, we we agree to this. So we have no comment or pushback. We agree to continue the conditional use as well. So as to that motion, you obviously need to make a motion, but we don't oppose it at all. And we will I took notes, and we will review the voluminous records we found in just the public sphere as to the comments. And I think we will be able to come back with a more detailed parking analysis. One thing I'll note is the parking matrix, it lumps everything into that one charter category as opposed to a boat by boat piece, but we can do a boat by boat piece. So I think we can address this. And we look forward to doing that. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Something else I need to do?

No.

Dan? No?

Well, when you do the continuation, it's time certain June 12. I just want to let you know. Okay.

Yeah. In June, your meeting is the second Friday.

Instead of the Instead first

of the Friday.

Yeah. Actually, unrelated, why is it the second Friday in June?

We had technical our IT person wasn't going to be able to Oh. Do the meeting?

Yes. Right? Martin gets a vacation once. He gets a vacation once Yeah. Every so Okay. I won't be here for that.

I won't be here either.

I won't be here? I won't.

Oh, well, that's problematic DELL: then.

If we have three people, possibly four saying they won't be here. I think this is something that six or seven people need to be here for.

You can find a date other than your regular meeting if you want to get it done before your meeting in July.

All in all works, Jeff.

Okay. So would the nineteenth be an option? Not for me.

No. I'm out of country till the twenty sixth. Except for the

I move on

the seventh, June 7, and then that's it.

I'm out. Mean, is it

Can we do a day besides a Friday and do it earlier And in the would Martin be here? That's the other question. So do we have Martin's schedule? Or could Martin chime in when he'll be here and when the room's available?

Yeah, but the Easter, like Monday or Wednesday, end of May?

Pardon? End of May.

End of May, Jason? Can we squeeze in any end of May? Wouldn't It's not out the country that So

what's the last date that everybody's here between now and June 12? I

mean, I'm not. But I would be here after like the May 20.

Yeah. I might have some work traveled prior to that, but I'll I should be here.

We talking May, Hayden? Yes. May.

There's a possibility of end of I could do that. What what if what if we tried to do something the end of May rather than the beginning of June?

I just strong armed Martin. He's willing to stay here for the fifth. So he's agreed he can move it that day.

Oh, goodness. Alright. Is is the city paying for his

I'll I'll get him a I'll get him a cupcake of some kind.

A cupcake?

I think he deserves more than a

cupcake. Right. That's the only thing I can

GREGORY Thank you, Martin. Okay. So what about the fifth then? You said the seventh. So would a majority of us be here on the June 5 if we were to move the meeting to the June 5? And so the second question is, do we need to have a conversation or a motion or something to move that meeting? Or is that something you guys can do without us chiming in?

Well, we'll take that up as part of your staff communications or after you deal with this. But if we announce now as part of the motion that the matter will be heard on June 5 here in the Markle Island Community Center at 9AM, that will be sufficient.

Okay. And your choices are probably June 5 or sometime in July.

Understood. I guess sort of a question for staff. We plan on providing additional material, and I don't want to be in a situation where we special set something and staff didn't have time to review the additional material. Like the additional parking documentation we're going to provide, if we're going to make some modifications to the site plan to address some of the comments.

I think if Martin's getting a cupcake, they're all getting cupcakes too.

Well, no. Think Well, are saying you want to move it to July?

I think I am saying that because I don't know how we Great. I want to make sure the staff has time to review.

I I won't be here for the July meeting. Yeah.

That'd be the tenth?

I I'm not I'm not able to be here. Yeah.

It's July 10, I believe.

Yeah. Yeah. The the meeting July is July 10.

Yeah. I I 90% unlikely that I'll be able to be here.

Well then, okay. That's why didn't know that. We can try to make June work. I just want to make sure we're going to be submitting additional documents.

I have every faith that you guys can make June work and I have every faith that the staff can make it work.

Thank you, sir.

All right. So for the record, if the motion passes, it'll be June 5 at 9AM.

Okay. So we have a motion. We have a second. Anything else from the board? Daisy, would you call the roll on that, please?

Vice Chair DeBlois?

Yes.

Member Hogan?

Yes.

Member Finkel? Yes. Member Ferringer?

Yes.

Member Henson?

Yes.

Member Jensen? Yes. Chair Bailey?

Yes.

So for the record, this is just on the site development plan?

Correct.

Item. Okay.

Do we now need a motion to continue the conditional use item?

Based upon the applicant's representations, I would make that recommendation.

I'd make that motion now. Yeah. I would say we do that now so we can allow people to speak if they want to speak. We've got a motion. Anyone want a second on that? Second. Okay. We've got a motion and a second. Anything else from the board? Daisy, would you call the roll on that, please?

Vice Chair DeLloyds?

Yes.

Member Finkel?

Yes.

Member Hogan?

Yes.

Member Ferringer?

Yes.

Member Henson?

Yes.

Member Jensen? Yes. Chair Bailey?

Yes.

And just for the record, that would have been item 9B of your agenda, conditional use permit to allow open rack boat storage for Marco River Marina. That item is being continued to the June 5 planning board meeting at 9AM here at the Marco Island Community Center. Thank you.

And just for benefit of the public, and I think Jason's strategy on this was smart, now folks during public comment can talk about this because it's off the agenda, correct? David?

DAVID Yeah. During public comment, they're welcome to talk about any business related to the planning board. Just know that anything that they state here today is not testimony or evidence that this board will consider when it comes back in June.

J. Yep. Perfect. Okay. All right. So apologies for the late time certain items.

Since we're on a roll, why don't we just do this now, to make a motion to establish the June 5 meeting date for the planning board as opposed to June 12?

So moved. Second. All

those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

All right. So for the record, the meeting previously set for June 12 will now be held on June 5 here in the Marco Island Community Center at 9AM. Thank you.

Okay. So why don't we get back to the time certain item now? Apologies for the delay on this. This is the section of the agenda where those people who would like to speak for any items not on the agenda would be allowed to do so. You'd have four minutes to do that. You can come up here, state your name for the record, please. And I'm to assume that perhaps the people who had signed up to speak for items on the agenda may want to speak. And so I don't know, Ms. Fitch, would you like to speak? Or would you like to just wait until the next we sort of we sort of did this whole circus because I wasn't sure if he would want to still speak after we did our whole thing. So and and and I know I'm not supposed to ask you questions. You're supposed to talk on the mic. And I'm breaking the rules, I apologize.

It's going to be short. Liz Fitch, Magnolia Court. Is the overhead working this time? Hold on.

If you put something there, it And should show

I'm only asking because this wasn't necessarily clarified. And that was some this was an item that I discussed the last time we were here about the improper notification. I live more than 300 feet from Rose Marina. But the 981 property is less than 300 feet from my house. So it was a notification that was never received.

But I only know what that was because I looked for it. I figured it out. I knew what it was. So my question then is and I know you can't answer it, but what you just removed, does that all come back up again so that variance is null and void? Or the approvals for everything that happened at the last meeting is null and void?

May I respond, Mr. Chair?

I'm certainly not going to.

All items that were recommended for approval by this board at the last meeting will move forward. The site development plan, which is a final action by this board, is now being reconsidered on

June 5.

All merits. Okay. Okay.

Just the site development plan, not the variances.

Okay. Well, the variance was clearly incorrect. And, you know, I'll say this. So this is I don't know if it's upside down. You know, this is a, you know, a basic Can

you speak into the microphone, please?

This is the basics of where that lot stands. And if you're looking for a variance on 981, that lot is the one that should be the one that's proposed from, not nine fifty one. And then my other concern with that particular variance is and I'm not reading what I brought today, but I have a small section in it that was one of my bigger another one of my bigger concerns in which it states let me find it. There's a letter dated December 18 between Mary Holden and Zach Lombardo, which confirms the intent to use a residential variance for riparian rights to facilitate a commercial dock extension, this represents a clear case of commercial encroachment. So the variance that was approved to allow the buffer is then going to extend, in my opinion, down the full length of the petitioner's property into the water and out to where the dock extension was.

Because there's no reason to have that particular language in that particular letter. So that, I mean, that's that's my question with that. So now because that variance that wasn't necessarily correctly noticed is going forward with another hidden agenda item. That's how I look at it. I could say more about the parking, but I think it's clear enough to know that there are a lot of discrepancies.

2014, Key West Express was at 185 and the Princess was at 100. Key West Express holds three seventy seven people. I see it in the mornings when I walk. I don't know where that came up with that, but it's there. But I see the amount of people that are waiting to get on that boat in the morning when it travels.

And that line is long. And I've always said, you have to get there early to get in on time. There's a lot of people parking in the parking lots. They're not there for one day, two days, three days, so it extends pretty far. So I mean, I think that I was clear, and it was nice to hear that you will separate the specific vessels because every single one of the matrixes that I have, the 2014, 'twenty two, and 'twenty six, all have different varied uses of what boats are.

And you can never carry them across appropriately. One says 30 slips of a certain boat. The other one says 61. I don't know where the other 31 boats It doesn't it there's no values for the rental boats, the jet skis, transient docks, all of that. So, I mean, I hope that when you do it, you do it in a manner that it's it's easy to read and understood, and it's not holding back any hidden or unknowns. There's a lot of boats there. If you go walk, there's boats that I don't see on the list that are just basically on the website. There's only 30 listed on the website. So I just hope due diligence is done and that it comes back to us with a good answer. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the public who would like to speak on items not on today's agenda? All right. Seeing nobody, we'll go ahead and close public comment.

Jason, I hate to be a bother of this meeting. Can we at least talk about the variance noticing issue and whether or not that creates an issue for us that we have to address?

Do you want to talk about that during board communications?

Whenever you'd like to do it. I mean, from my perspective, I was made aware of the issue this morning. I looked at the notice, I think the substance of the notice, the information that's provided by the city in the newspaper ad regarding what the requested variance is for was correct. I know we dealt with the issue with respect to the open racks and how the subject matter that was contained in that notice wasn't correct. So we went and we continued that and we did the re notice.

In this instance, there was a typo with respect to the section number. But the reference to what they were seeking as far as the variance for the dumpster and the landscaping were included and were correct. And that is only a recommendation to the board, the city council. So the city council has the right to take the final action, and notice is being provided for that hearing when that takes place. So I think that's a little different circumstance than what you dealt with the conditional use, which you've once again continued today.

What about the question because I don't know the answer to this about where it should be measured from, whether it's the Marina property or the residential lot they own just to the north of that?

Yeah. The distance that we measure is from the property that's getting the variance.

Which was the Marina property?

Marina property that's correct.

And also one clarification is there was just some discussion about whether or not we're hearing the variance again. We're just reconsidering the site plan, but it's all tied together, right? I mean, if the site plan fails or whatever, the variances also fail. So it's not there's some interdependencies there.

Yes. Because what the conditions that you imposed on the site development plan approval were that those associated variances and conditional uses would have to be approved. So if the variance doesn't get approved, if the conditional uses don't get approved, then the site development plan will not be able to move forward.

And obviously vice versa. Correct. You can have a variance for a site development plan that doesn't get approved.

Correct. Hope I answered your questions. You did. Thank you.

You want to chime in?

Yes. David, just so we're clear, the variances that were voted on by the board the last time, that will be on the table for the reconsideration, in reality, for the site plan at the next meeting. Is that correct?

Not not a specific vote on the variances.

Why not?

Because you didn't ask for it to be reconsidered. And I I that's why I made that comment when you voted on the motion for reconsideration, that it was only related to the site development plan.

So the board could, if they so if we get to that meeting and there's issues with the variances that the board members voted on, they wouldn't be in a position, at least from a notice standpoint, to actually reconsider those variances. Is that correct?

That's correct.

All right. So to remedy that, if that's what Hayden wanted to at least have on the table, the entire scope of the project, they may not reconsider them, but to at least notice that we could reconsider those approved variances. Would that be a legal process for the board to undertake, David?

As with any item that was on the agenda, if the board wants to provide a motion for reconsideration I'm looking at the minutes from the last meeting you had variance petition 20 six-twenty one regarding the minimum parking requirements. And then we have the variance regarding the solid waste disposal recycling and landscape requirements. So those would be the two items.

There were four variances.

Well, they were all included in one motion. So if you want to bring everything back, then I'll go through them and you can make a motion. How's that sound? If I might, Mr. Chairman.

I would recommend, Mr. Chairman, just so the voted board has

in favor?

Right. Whoever voted in favor needs to make the motion. So I'll just go through them. It's the easiest way. So variance petition VP2600021 regarding minimum parking requirements for property located 2870, no, that's the wrong item.

Sorry,

Okay. Don't come after me. No. Okay. Variance petition VP2500187, request regarding minimum landscape requirements, design regulations, and solid waste disposal and recycling for Marco River Marina for property located at 951 Bald Eagle Drive. So that motion passed six to one. If somebody wants to make a motion to reconsider that for your June 5 meeting.

Did that motion pass six to one?

That's what my minutes are showing.

It would be five to one. Five to one because I know I've got some comments on the minutes because they were incorrect because Joan had left before we started voting and some of the votes were incorrect.

Okay.

I know

this So is if there was somebody who was on the prevailing side of that motion wants to make a motion to reconsider?

I think that it makes sense to wait rather than it's like you're putting the cart before the horse to put all that out there where we have to approve the site development plan. We already have that for reconsideration, but that's just my comment.

Well, we wouldn't be able to wait. I think the way the rules work, if I understand correctly, is if we want to reconsider something, the motion would have to be made at today's meeting

I for that it's

the opposite, that when we did when we considered the site development plan, that after we made our decision on that, then we could consider.

No. Maybe you misunderstood. A motion for reconsideration can only be made at the same meeting where the action is taken or at the immediately subsequent meeting. So for those items that you approved at your last meeting related to Rosemarina, today's meeting would be the last opportunity to make a motion for reconsideration.

Not at at the time

Not at the time you're reconsidering the site development plan.

Because I wasn't here for the vote. I and I can't.

You can't make the motion?

I can't make the motion. But it makes good sense to me to continue all of these things and discuss them all at once rather than

piecemeal.

You've been making motions. You want to keep making

So hold on. David, I have a question. Are we going to have to we're going go through these one by one, decide whether to continue or reconsider each of them one by

one? Or

variance the packet of four in its entirety?

Yeah. That was item. All

Yeah.

I mean, I think there's merit to discussing all of this. So I will make the motion that we reconsider that as well at the June 5 meeting.

So just to clear, so you're asking to reconsider variance 20 five-one 187, correct?

Yeah. I mean, would basically be everything but the boat dock extension would be discussed on June 5.

Well, would be too, but not under the guise of reconsideration. Not

under the guise of reconsideration.

It just

ties in.

Right. So we have a motion. Anyone want to second that motion? She may not be able to second it, right? Only people who voted in favor of it can second or

The maker of the motion has to be on the prevailing side. Anybody can second the motion.

I'll second it. Okay. Well, so we've got motions. We've got seconds. Okay. Anything else from the board? Daisy, would you call the roll please?

Vice Chancellor Loews?

Yes.

Member Henson?

Yes.

Member Finkel?

Yes.

Member Hogan?

Yes.

Member Ferringer?

Yes.

Member Jensen? Yes. Chair Bailey?

Yes.

Alright, so for the record, variance petition VP 2087 related to the property at 951 Bald Eagle Drive in the various variance requests is being reconsidered and will be placed on the 06/05/2026 agenda. The next item that you voted on at the last meeting was the there was a boat dock extension. Request to allow for zero riparian setback and approval of the current dock facilities pursuant to Resolution three-thirteen for Marco River Marina for property located at 951 Bald Eagle Drive. Do you want to reconsider that one? You need a motion.

Jason, you keep looking at me. Can we discuss that as a board before a motion is made briefly?

We're out of sorts.

We kind of do whatever.

It's up to the chair.

Whatever. This is fine. This is my conflict with that one in particular is the issues that were brought up today and in between the last meeting and this meeting have been the nature of the variance, which we've kind of talked a little bit about today, and parking. And I think the variances in the site development plan are intertwined inherently. The boat dock extension request feels a little bit separate from the other things only to the extent of it I don't know.

It doesn't feel as intertwined to the nature of what the applicant is seeking to do with the site, whereas the variances in the site development plan are like this. If one doesn't work, the other can't. On the other hand, if we're reconsidering everything else, there might be merit. So I'd be anxious to hear from other board members to see what their preference is on that.

David, what was the vote on that one?

Five to one.

I don't see the connection.

Yeah. I mean, part of me wonders at the end of the day what the end result would be. I could see we're discussing the site development plan has merit. We get more information. It may lead to a different outcome. And I wonder what the outcome if the outcome would be substantially different on that. But I'm sort of here to go along to get along. If you guys want to reconsider it, we can reconsider it. I don't want this to end up being something where we keep saying this and that and this and that and moving the bar. Mean, you know We want to have a way to make a recommendation to counsel for the items that we recommend things to counsel. And we want to have a way to make a decision on the items that we make a decision And

David, the boat dock extension is also tied to the site development plan.

Correct. So if

the site development plan fails or whatever Correct. My inclination is we've continued the conditional use discussion. We're reconsidering both the site development plan and variance. It might not be necessary to reconsider the boat dock extension because as Jeff said, the connection there is less sturdy than the other items in relation to how they tie together. So

the pleasure of the board. Anybody want to make a motion to reconsider that item? Okay. So we can move on?

Yes, you can.

All right. So we'll move on to board absences. So we've changed the meeting to June 5. And so we believe that everybody's going to be here.

Jason, I will. I'll out on the fifth.

Okay. Anybody else? I mean, we we have six people. I feel like if we get less than that, I I mean, I I know it's still a quorum, but I'd I'd really rather have as close to majority as we can for this. Okay. So Mike may not be here. Okay. So the next item is approval of the minutes. And did anybody have comments or changes on that? Because if not, I did. There were some inconsistencies.

Oh, yeah.

That we we had the STP vote was five one. We had the variance for the landscape petition that was four two. And I think a couple of those were incorrect in the minutes. So if somebody on staff wants to review the minutes, if we want to make a motion to modify the minutes to reflect those changes, however you guys want to proceed is fine. Well, I voted against I think Brad and I both voted against the landscape item.

Order to make sure that they're correct and brought back to you in correct form, what I would recommend is you make a motion to continue the approval of the minutes to your next meeting. And that way, they can review the video, the audio, and bring them back.

So moved. Motion to continue everything and go home. I'll make that motion. Okay. So we've made a motion. We've got a second.

Yeah. I'll second Brad's motion to

continue the minutes. All right. Anything else from the board? Daisy, would you call the roll, please?

Sorry. Who did the motion?

Brad made the motion. I made the second.

Member Henson?

Yes.

Vice Chair DeBlois? Yes. Member Finkel?

Yes.

Member Hogan?

Yes.

Member Franger? Yes. Member Jensen? Yes. Chair Bailey?

Yes. And just for the record, the minutes are being moved are being continued to the June 5 meeting.

Okay. So next item, we'll get on to staff communications. Dan, is one of us in trouble or is this just general guidance for all boards and committees?

That's just for general guidance that

the

city clerk would like to let you know that 30% of the meetings, you're allowed to have up to 30% absences above and beyond that. You'll be asked to remove from the committee. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

And were made aware my officers were made aware from the city clerk through Member Henson that there is an inconsistency between the handbook and the code. So we're going to look at that and work with the clerk and the city council to make sure that we correct the inconsistency. So I'd like to thank Member Henson for bringing that to our attention.

If you look in the handbook this is one of my fellow board members. If you look in the handbook where it talks about vacancies, there's another section, three dash whatever, that says the planning board has to miss five meetings within a calendar year, January, December. So the other section above that says the 30 rolling number. But there are specific numbers in our handbook of 2014. So I did send an email to Joan to ask her what the authority was for the adoption of the 2014 handbook. And they're obviously still digging around for that. So thank you, David.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'd like to just say in the nine years I've been here, I've never had a problem with absences on the planning board. They've been really good, to be honest with you. It's really it's an honor to be working with this group.

Thank you. The next item, do you want to talk I mean, in light of what we've done in the last twenty

three I don't think I need to say anything else. I'm the one that brought it to your attention. I brought it to the applicant's attention. And I think we're moving forward in the right direction.

Okay. So we will move on to the old business.

Think you are.

Chair, you want to read that into the do we need to read into the record again because it was continued, David?

You don't have to because it was read into the record the last time. It's up to you if you want it to be, though.

That's really up to you. I just don't want to have any issues procedurally. People are paying attention. They know what it is, right?

Correct.

Morning. Mary MARY Holden, your planning manager.

MARY So let me just say for the record, since the matter was continued, everybody that was previously sworn, and you already gave your ex parte disclosures previously, that all carries forward to this hearing today. If for some reason there is somebody in the audience who is thinking of testifying or providing evidence in this matter, it'd be appreciated, as this is a quasi judicial item, to stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in. Seeing none, I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Chair.

Hi, Mary.

Hi, good morning. Before you, again, is the variance petition for the 989 Winterberry Court and the distance location for alcohol. The planning board, in a nutshell, had asked that the JCMI comment on it, or to at least reach out to them to see if they would comment. They have replied. It is in your packet. Also, there is a letter of objection from a resident. I believe it what is it? Eight sixty C Grape? And in addition, also, Mr. Kramer had provided a response, which somehow did not get included in the packet.

And we apologize. But that was sent to you last night. And a hard copy is placed at your desk or your Dias right now. Staff has not changed their recommendation. And Mr. Kramer is here, should you have some questions of the applicant.

Can I ask Marty a question? Indeed. In regards to the response letter from the Jewish community center, they talk about setting a precedent on this. Does the city have an opinion on, if this is possible, to set a precedent that all future requests would have to be granted?

No. Variances are just that, and it's based on site by site case. So if one is approved, or recommended for approval and eventually approved by city council, that does not automatically mean the next person can come in and there's a the doors are open and the gate is being flooded. No. It's case by case.

So we don't have to be concerned with that?

No. I unless our attorney agrees, no, we have no reason to be concerned about precedent. Thank you.

You have a question for Mary, Brad?

Yeah. Mary, and just so the record is clear, this variance is for basically a 94% reduction in what's required at 500 feet. Is that accurate?

If that is what it works

out to be.

Feet versus 500?

If that's what it works out to be. Okay. They're asking for, yes, basically that.

And as our expert planner, how does the 10 foot buffer and I guess you're using Marsupial Way there, is that how you

pronounce that road?

Muspa. Muspa, okay. How does that just for the record, how does that 10 foot buffer in that way actually take the way the need for the 500 foot requirement as set by city code? What does it do specifically with noise, light, outside drinking, whatever? How does it handle it? It?

First, there's a 10 foot landscape buffer in addition to the Musco Way. So, I mean, if we're going to really look at buffering, you've got a roughly 20 foot. As opposed to 500, I get that. Also, this is not a full liquor license. This is not hard liquor. This is not mixed drinks. This is not a bar. This is just beer and wine being served with dinner or lunch. I will let the applicant speak to the actual operation. But this is not a full liquor license, and this is not a sale to take off premise.

Yeah, he's going for a two COP instead of a four, from what I understand. And he'll talk to that in a minute, I'm sure. The other thing that's interesting about this particular restriction that you find is not in the land development code, it's in the alcohol code.

Correct.

And it has its own set of circumstances that we must, as a planning board, go through, which I'm sure David will tell us. But there's a whole list of things that we have consider noise, light, how it's going be served. And the other thing I was going to ask you, there is an exemption. This does not apply to a full blown restaurant. Is that correct?

That was our take. But the applicant wanted to come through for the variance anyway.

GREGORY DELL: Well, wouldn't the and I don't know if this is if I'm going down the right rabbit hole here, so to speak. But if they go for a full blown restaurant, a full blown restaurant our code, and they get the exemption, would the parking requirement change?

The parking if they I don't believe the parking requirements are different. Has

that been analyzed?

Well, no. We analyzed it at the site development plan, which was approved. That

Mary, can you just speak into the mic?

Parking is based on seating. And so whether it's a full blown restaurant or not, it's seating is what dictates the parking. So parking would not change if they go to a full blown restaurant. If they go to a full blown bar, then they would have to revise their liquor license and then come through for 500 foot.

Got it. Okay. All right, those are all the questions I have with staff. I may have some for Mr. Kramer.

Am I done? No questions yet.

Thank you, Mr. Kramer.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Can you all hear me? Okay. Great. Again, for the record, my name is Fred Kramer. I live at 960 Cape Marco Drive. I've been a resident of Marco Island, full time resident since 1977. I say that not to establish any type of, benefit for me. I wanna use that simply as a foundation for my testimony. I know things that possibly members of this board and the audience do not know. If I could then, with it, what we have is a simple issue, and it's purely the variance to allow the sale of beer and wine in a cafe, a small informal restaurant.

Now clearly, code then would allow the entire parcel to be developed as a restaurant with a 120 or more seats with a full bar, dance floor, everything else without this requirement for variance. Likewise, a liquor store could be built on property without the requirement for variance. The question became, why is this in the code? I'm not really sure why, but if I could, what I would suggest is if we go to the code itself, we start with the language of the purpose and intent in section four thirty one. The purpose of this article, is a requirement for the exemption of the variance rather, is to protect the community from potential adverse impacts related to establishments primarily engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption.

With that, you're probably not familiar with over the years though, the state of Florida has licenses for sale of alcohol. And for on premise consumption, there's a one o p license, which relates to beer, two c p o license relating to beer and wine, and also quota license, which allows full alcohol sales. Likewise, there's a license available for food establishment with a 120 or more seats with full liquor available. Alright? And that's what I want to before saying that basically this restaurant could be built with 120 seats or more and we would not even be in front of you.

Getting back then historically there were a lot of bars in Collier County Jack's Lookout was probably an example down in Old Marco where they just served beer and wine. And it really was a bar. We're talking about a cafe here, which as part of its menu is going to be serving beer and wine. With that then we have places on the island such as the Cafe Marquis, the Red Rooster, and others that are just Hoots for example as well. They have a basic menu.

You probably had the opportunity to be there. Beer and wine's on the menu is there. It's not a dance hall. It's not a bar facility, anything like that. With that then, the exemption's here or the requirement for the variances here simply because of the Jewish congregation being within 300 feet actually, 500 feet.

I'm sorry. For that, you raise a good point about the aerial distance between the two points. But if you look at the distance for pedestrian traffic, it's over 300 feet to go from the front door around into the other door. The provisions for the protection of the Jewish congregation, and the Jewish congregation has participated with the board and since they've communicated with it. If I might, we had an agreement as a landowner with the Jewish congregation.

And that's a private agreement, but if I might I apologize. There it is. This is the essence of the agreement we have with the congregation. And we fully appreciate and respect their services and their operation, and we have agreed to all of this. And this is what they've asked for.

The protection for the Jewish congregation or any house of worship is for the benefit of the party there and not the general public. I'm open for any questions you have. I'd like to answer them. I I could go on for a long time here, but I don't wanna take too much time from y'all. What are the questions?

I found I found it interesting that you have this agreement, and yet in the letter from the Jewish congregation, it specifically said that one of their concerns was on the Friday night service, that there would be noise during the Friday night service. And does that and everybody else remember reading that in the letter? So, if you have this agreement, why would that be a concern to them? Maybe the person that wrote the letter didn't know about this agreement.

No. They would have. Okay. I think all I I don't know if the congregation wanted to have this as part of public record, but it is the agreement we have. And, we're talking about the sale of beer and wine, not that the cafe itself would be closed after 06:30.

Do you know if each of those houses of worship existed prior to the restaurants that you list there in proximity to? Or if the restaurants existed before the place of worship was established?

K. With that, it's a mix. Okay. Were restaurants established in Town Center before or after the church was there? Some were, some were not. I think though it all goes back to the fact that these were probably all the licenses for the 120 plus seat restaurants, right, which would not acquire any or require any variance.

Right. No. But, like, for example, you list Winn Dixie in proximity to the Lutheran Church. I don't know who would frankly, don't know who was there first.

There would have been the Lutheran Church.

The Lutheran Church was there first.

Okay. So Winn Dixie would have needed. Okay. That's helpful.

Restaurant.

It's not a restaurant. But it's because they have a separate liquor store.

And I'm buying there.

Right. True. Yeah, right. You

never know.

One of my sticking points on this is still the neighboring RSF property behind where the cafe would be located. I've driven Moosebump many times. It is a glorified driveway, to be candid. I mean, it's a road, but there's not much there. The property owner directly behind the cafe has said, listen, I purchased this with the understanding that alcohol wouldn't be sold on the commercial property adjacent to me. And I think he there's an interesting point there as it relates

to But he might be incorrect. Isn't that the case? I mean, the code allows for that parcel to be developed, and you could put a full blown restaurant on that parcel. DELL:

It's a

service road. Right. Heavily troubled with service equipment and

GREGORY we all all have have a certain understanding sometimes that may not actually be accurate or based upon the code.

Yeah. Bought you bought next door in airport. Yep.

Okay. But also with that then again, the requirement for the variances for the protection of the congregation, not people in the residential neighborhood. Right. With that also, though, if you are familiar with Musper Way, if you go down the other end, you have all these commercial stores where there are garbage dumpsters, parking, and everything on Musper Way.

Sure.

This has a landscape buffer at least 30 feet of, again, mature trees. With that also though, if anybody would suggest that they read the land development code and thought or believe that this could not have any alcohol sales, that obviously be wrong. Because, again, the exemption to this requirement for the variance allows for any restaurant with over a 120 seats.

Got it.

Alright. And if I could, I think we all have this tendency when we come to Mark Roy Island, we find a place we really like. Right? We really enjoy it. And we have this tendency with it to wanna pull up the bridge afterwards. A lot of things I've seen take place over the years, I regret seeing. But again, the land will be developed.

Yep.

And our job is to do it the best we can.

Understood. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thanks for your patience, Annette.

Hayden answered or asked my question.

I'm sorry.

The letter is dated April 17, and it's kind of strange that the same day you have a document with an agreement.

Well, that's where you

It's problematic for me.

Okay.

And the second thing is, with your argument about the site, we approved that site development plan with no mention of ever serving any kind of alcohol there. So that for me is another problem. And the discrepancy in the number of feet is pretty dramatic. And it's nice that the neighbor is willing to come up with something that might possibly work, but it's still a problem for me.

Right. If I I'm not sure why what would happen with the dating of the agreement. I was working with the congregation, had an understanding earlier. They presented me with the possible letter of truth, the panel here, also with a proposal for me to execute as well. I executed that. The congregation went forward and submitted their letter to you. Alright? But that was all worked out. And, again, it had been discussions before that.

Well and for us, it was also problematic because we were led to believe at our last meeting that there already was sort of an agreement that it was no problem with the congregation. We asked for some communication from the congregation and got a letter from the president.

Yes.

And then you're telling us that on the very same day, the very same date of that letter that there was an agreement signed that we have not seen, but that you're testifying to to some specific stipulations that would be agreeable.

Apologize. I didn't wanna show this because I don't have the authority or the permission of the congregation. I'll show it to you now there. And if you look at this see the bottom, it is signed the seventeenth day of April. And that possibly was the date it was signed by the congregation after I had signed it. I'm not sure of the sequence.

Well, and if and if you look at the top, it's it's talking about a a clarification of a letter sent to JCMI on April 6. Mean, sounds like there's two neighbors negotiating back and forth.

Yeah. April 6, the attorney, and then position paper submitted April 17.

Which is the letter we received.

Right.

Thank you.

Alright.

But as I believe I testified to last time, okay, I had been in conversation with the congregation well before that. Right? Okay.

One second.

And my only comment regarding that from a legal perspective is that that's why the city doesn't get involved in private legal relationships between parties. And we don't necessarily have that as a condition under this section of the code regarding what should be evaluated.

But, David, we can add those conditions as a stipulation.

Yeah. If you find that those conditions, those hours or dates of operation can relate to the variance request, you can certainly include them.

David, could I, Mr. Chairman, I ask a question?

Do you mind, Mike?

We have people in

line. Sorry, Brett. I'll come back in a second. Mike, go ahead.

So I just want to Brad had mentioned about noise and lighting and everything. Hayden, you mentioned about the service road. It's a busy service road. I ride my bike back there all the time. There is food service trucks constantly. There's contractors that park behind there and walk through to go to seven Eleven. So there's a lot going on that road. The other thing is right down the street, Crystal Shores on the weekend is a boombox. I live down there. Boom, boom, boom, boom till 10:00 every night on the weekends.

All right?

The seven Eleven is a bustling busy place. They serve beer and wine. It's a busy place. It's lit up. There's a lot going on. Across the street, Cinco de Mayo's coming. That whole plaza is a nuthouse from 11:00 until 10:00 at night and later. St. Patty's Day. It's a nuthouse. So I don't think what Mr. Kramer is presenting here I actually think it's an improvement in the neighborhood. And my neighbors that all live right around there think it's a pretty good improvement here. I know he's going to be a good steward of the neighborhood. He's got the land there where he's proud of his landscaping.

He's got the golf and the garden. I think it's an improvement. And I think the Jewish Center and him have an agreement. And I think there'll be peace there. I think it'll be an improvement for what's going on in that busy corner, to be honest with you. There's a lot happening there. And I think this is going to be maybe a little bit of an escape from some of that stuff that's going on. And it might draw away from the seven Eleven nonsense that goes on there, people in and out of there. Freddie can provide a service that might help that, I think, that area, to be honest with you. So the noise and lighting thing, there's a lot going on down there that we're not bringing into this equation. I think his will be the least of what's going on. Just my thought of a neighbor that lives there.

Just to clarify, in regards to the owners of 608 Sea Creek Drive, in their letter, they say they made an assumption that we would not be subjected to an alcoholic establishment. Yeah, when I bought my house on Fairlawn, I didn't make an assumption the yacht club would be redone and be much more aggressive socially. But these things happen. But my question is disconcerning to me that last month, this information came up about the Jewish community center. There was no one here to represent them, so that showed me a lack of actual interest in this.

Mhmm. Then we got a letter, and the president, Keith Alter, is signed on that letter. He's signed your letter. So my question is, do we have anyone here this month from the Jewish Community Center that feels this is a significant enough problem that they want to address it? Thank

you. I mean, yeah, they sent a letter. That's sorry, Brad. Go for it.

No. I was just going to ask David, and this is following what Joan was saying just a minute ago. We could place reasonable restrictions or conditions in a resolution. And we could base that, I would assume, on the 94% variance we would be granting if we went down to 30 feet.

Yeah, as long as it's reasonably related to the request.

Which would be. Okay, thank you. Second, sir.

All right, well, everyone's chimed in. Anyone want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve with the findings and conditions of what we just talked about.

I second that.

And do you want to include the conditions that Mr. Kramer put on the projector? Yeah,

Mr. Kramer, can you just put them up? You mind? Do you want to give me a copy? Do you have an extra copy? And I'll just read them into the record just so that everybody thank you. So the additional conditions that will be included in the resolution All right. So this is a recommendation that will go to city council.

Hold on one second. Seems like everybody's having a conversation.

I just want to make sure it's clear. So your resolution that's being approved today is a recommendation to city council. And it would include the following conditions on the sale of alcohol for on premises consumption, that no sale of alcohol for on premises consumption shall occur on any of the following. After 06:30PM on Friday evening services, on the two days of the Rosh Hashanah holiday services, on the day of the Yom Kippur holiday services, after 4PM on the dates for the outdoor Hanukkah celebration.

You're okay with those, Mike? Okay.

I'll second that.

All right. So we have a motion. We have a second. Why don't we see if there's any citizens who want to comment? We've got one person who's registered to speak, Ms. Myers. Did you want to speak on this item?

Yes, I do. Oh my

god. You.

Good morning. Victoria Myers, Bluebonnet Court. I appreciate this is not going to be a five hour meeting today. I think this is a real simple no, and I don't see why you folks sitting up there don't agree. This is a community standard that is nationally recognized. Marco Island set apart set these areas for houses of worship. They put in ordinances and codes and codified that. This is an ordinance. He's asking for a variance. Why would we set this precedent?

It may not be a legal precedent, but it certainly is a moral one. This is really so simple. Let's think about a dear chairman we just lost, Eric Resnick. He knew the intricacies of how this government works. He knew the ordinances and how variances are approved.

I went to several city council meetings where he complained why did the planning board move something forward to him that did not meet all the qualifications. What's the hardship to this gentleman? That he can't sell alcohol? That's not a hardship. That's created by him himself. It does not meet those criteria. It should not even be sent to the city council. What else here? It's really interesting, this letter he didn't want to show. And I would ask, was there a benefit given to them in exchange for this, money or otherwise? And then

Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I just realized, were you sworn in?

Yeah, last time.

Last time.

Last time. Thank you. And then my other question is excuse me, I've lost my train of thought because I'm pretty upset by this. No hardship. These ordinances are well known. They're clear. They're not confusing. He did not ask for it up front, and now on the back end, he's pushing for it. I appreciate the attractiveness of his building and his landscaping, but this is something we shouldn't do as a community. Now if we wanna do this, we need need to go back and change our community standards.

We need to change our ordinance. We just don't offer variances because somebody wants to serve alcohol. These are community standards. They're nationally recognized. It's a simple no. And that's the way I feel. And I hope you do too. Thank you.

Thank you.

May I address?

Let's see if we have anyone else in the public who wants to speak first, if that's Okay. Is there anyone else in the public who wants to speak on this item? Okay. So we'll go ahead and close public comment. Mister Kramer?

Number one, the requirements of the variance is different or are different for this variance than what the speaker just spoke about. She apparently did not read the requirements of the statute. And that's section 4.36. There is no issue there about necessity. Number two, I find it offensive that she would come up in front of this in front of the city to speak her peace and suggest somehow there was some compensation paid for this between a religious organization and me.

Likewise, last time we were here, somebody who well spoken came in front and suggested somehow city staff and I conspired to schedule the last hearing during Passover. I wanna assure everybody in this audience that there's no conspiracies between staff and boards and public. We have a very good, safe community, very honest one. And I find it offensive that people would suggest these things for all of us. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. Any more from the board? Have one other Hayden, sorry, didn't even see you That's all right.

A couple of things. On what Mr. Kramer just said, think he makes a good point. It is important and two things. It's really important to understand the distinctions and variances. I see it said often, every variance requires hardship. We've talked about this. Brad even had an interesting idea probably about a year ago about maybe delineating in Section 30 for those variance requirements if it's x percent above the threshold that it has this trigger. If it's y percent above, it has a hardship trigger, maybe adding more clarity. But the variance, even in Section 30, doesn't necessarily require hardship.

And as Mr. Kramer rightly pointed out, this is not the same section as the section that even discusses or contemplates hardships. He's right. And I also am troubled by suggestions of compensation or anything of that nature. Agree.

One thing I am troubled by as well, though, is something that Ned mentioned, and we talked a little bit about the last hearing, which is the sequencing of all this. I just have a problem, and it might be perfectly permitted, for site development plan to be approved a year and a half ago. And then a year and a half later, we come back and we're hearing a variance or something that we didn't have any idea was being considered when the site development plan was presented before us and how that may have affected our decisions or our questioning at that time. I just don't like that. And I also worry about the precedent that sets for future potential development that, well, we don't have to tell the planning board our plans. And we can just go ahead and do it in a year

and a I mean, we looked at a cafe. And, know, silly me, I assumed like, hey, croissants and biscuits and tea and coffee and whatever. I mean, I did not assume beer and wine. And I think several of us on the board had that same assumption. Misguided it may have been. So I see you as a member of the public who's spending money trying to improve a property. And I'm going to use the term improve just as like there was dirt there. Now there's something different. I don't want to talk about the subjectiveness of is it better or worse for the neighborhood. But that's tough, the procedure that's occurring here.

That's tough for anybody. Mean, it's anyone in this audience whether or not they want it. I mean, if they spend a bunch of money to build something, and then at the ninth hour, you're like, oh, sorry. Like, you can't do quite what you wanted to do with it. Somebody would be frustrated about that. Right? And then I just do want to I want to bring up a couple of other things, if I could. I know you've chimed in, Jeff. But I've sort of been quiet for a bit. So I did look at some I don't have all encompassing information.

But La Tavala, which was I hate to say that I can't remember what it was the Bavarian Inn, right? I mean, ages and ages ago. And so that proximity that building and the Jewish community center were built about the same time, 1984, 1985. Three twenty seven feet lot to lot, four fifty two feet building to building. That does not comply with our codes.

The corner of the plaza over there where all the restaurants are building to building is 554 feet. So that complies with our codes, but it does not comply lot to lot. Wind Dixie to Lutheran Church, 152 feet lot to lot, 220 building to building. It does not comply with our codes. Publix and the Chevron gas station, proximity to Saint Mark's, 77 feet lot to lot.

229 feet from the Chevron to Saint Mark's, 337 feet from the liquor store to Saint Mark's, 780 feet from Patty Murphy's to Saint Mark's. So Patty Murphy's is the only one that complies with the code. I know we've got a 94%. And I'm not raising these issues to say, listen, we should vote for it or we should not vote for it. I'm just I'm sort of making a general statement. We have things in our code. And to missus Myers' point, she said, you know, Eric was really sharp about a lot of things. One of the things he said was, listen, if we have stuff in the code we're not going to follow, we should get rid of it. And I'm not saying we should get rid of 500 feet liquor store prohibitions or whatever. I'm blabbing out loud.

But if we have 90% of the places of worship on our island have less than 500 feet, then what's the conversation the board or the city or the citizens should have about that? I guess that's the question I'm asking.

But then, Jason, are we not saying then that those things set precedent that we should consider then when we're saying that this will not cause GREEN: precedent to be set? Vote for it?

No. I don't disagree with you. I'm bringing these up to illustrate a point, right? Like we're saying, well, we're not setting a precedent. I think we have over the last thirty or forty years. And we could sit down and dig into the code and say, when did this come up the code? Was it the code in Collier County? And we've migrated it over, we've just kept it and have it modified. And we've just sort of perpetuated this people could call it anything from an oversight to a wrongdoing or whatever else. But again, I'm not saying any of this in defense of what's going on. I'm not saying I'm going to vote for or against it based on that. I just it's on the record. And at some point, the citizens of MARCO or the council or somebody should have a conversation about this stuff. That's what I'm saying. That's

But is that our conversation, or is that the council's comment?

Well, it's not our conversation right now. And I would say that the staff is going to tell us it's not our conversation because it's not in the land development code. And I'm getting a nod, right? It's in chapter four, so we're not supposed to talk about it. So unless the council says, listen, we should talk about it, we shouldn't talk about it. But somebody should talk about it, right? We have several members of council here. I mean, they've come and gone, right? But there's we have counselors here. If it's something they want to talk about, then it should be talked about. So that's more of what I'm blabbing about, I guess. So I'll be quiet now. So Jeff?

Yeah. And just to be clear, in the atmosphere, I have no social relationship, no business relationship, and I have had no conversations with Mr. Kramer. I put my pool in my house in 2011, best used property. I realized that I didn't have a good design. Actually, it was a contractor on a job I subbed it out. I apologize. I went back to these my architect, I redesigned the back plans. And I went to the city and changed my property. So the fact that Mr. Kramers came to us at a later date and decided he had a better way to use the property, I don't find it to be an issue to me.

And that may not to interrupt you, that may not have been the case. He may have thought about it all along to sell liquor there. And we just didn't know about it.

Yeah. And my concerning thing and I have to repeat myself this whole thing, this is the second month we've been into this, it's like a tempest in a teapot. We have a couple of neighbors, and I appreciate their concerns. If I was in their shoes, I'd feel the same way. But it sounds like this project is going to have some kind of buffering to mitigate noises, etcetera. And again, we have a religious group that supposedly has an issue. I have no idea. Mean, no one here, no one cares. I don't see why this is such an issue when I'm not seeing any representation from anyone who claims it's an issue. It's just a little disconcerting to me, as I already said so. And I wish you'd stop putting pictures of an old guy up when I talk. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, the one thing I'm gonna say or a couple things I'm gonna say are I don't to Jeff's points, I hear what you're saying. I don't necessarily always judge the attendance by the seriousness of the matter. We've had one of the most frustrating meetings we had was when we were trying to solve parking in Old Marco, and we had zero people show up. Yet I bet if you surveyed every one of those neighbors, they'd say, this is an incredibly serious issue for me.

And so the fact that we don't have people here at the end of season, I don't know if I take that as a sign that well, it's not a serious concern. The second thing, on the point you made, Jeff, the comparison to your home, we had a little bit of dialogue at the last meeting. And I asked Mr. Kramer whether or not the intent was from the beginning for it to sell alcohol. And the response, almost verbatim I have to go back and listen to the transcript to the exact quote was Mr. Kramer said, well, when I think of a cafe, I think of beer and wine. And I said, that's not what I think of when I think of a cafe. And I would think that would be the reflection of many people. And so that at least led me to the impression that this was the intention from the beginning. This was not a, well, we got the site development plan.

We put shovels in the ground. And then at some later date, we decided, why don't we sell beer and wine here? It was at the beginning, which again begs the question, well then why wasn't the variance petition at the beginning? And so it's distinct then from, I think, the example with your home in that this was all contemplated at one time, but it certainly wasn't presented to us in that order. And when you combined the as Brad mentioned, the extent of the request and the delta in time between the site development plan and the variance petition being brought to us, it just gives me pause, especially if it was contemplated from the beginning that this was the intended use. And we just were left to be in the dark about it.

Sorry. May I address that point? Again, my understanding from the get go was simply site development plan is for the planning board to approve, right, based on certain aspects and requirements. This variance is not part of that. This variance is something for the city council to approve.

You're here, as I understand it, to again review what the planning staff has recommended and passes on to the city council approval. But they are two separate concepts and that's why it was presented differently. I also went back to the architect who did the site development plan presentation to you and I was very concerned about what was discussed. And I asked her, were there any questions as far as what the menu is going to be? And she said, absolutely not.

Now, again, I think in what you received, belatedly, what you received, there's a restaurant in market called the Cafe. It sells beer and wine. The next location I could find is called Cafes on the East Trail. It sells beer and wine. Actually, it doesn't sell beer, it only sells wine. But cafes traditionally, in my view, and I've seen, have alcohol sales. Thank you.

Can I say something to that? I don't think there were any questions at the menu at the time because I don't think it occurred to anyone on the board to ask those questions because it didn't enter our thought process that that that would be sold. And I would also say the use of the word cafe doesn't necessarily like Cafe de Marco, an old Marco, is not a cafe. It's a restaurant. It's a full service restaurant in many respects. I've gone there for dinner. It's not a cafe in the same way I don't know. Wake Up Marco is a coffee shop. That was certainly the impression I got. And none of this I understand it's a separate process.

It still doesn't explain for me the delta in time. I could understand you get the site development plan, and even a month later, fine. But we're almost at a year and a half point. That just seems peculiar to me from something that was admittedly contemplated from the very beginning.

Jason, three of us weren't here when you approved that site development plan. So what

you

are saying is clear to you, but not clear to Jeff and Brad because we weren't here for that.

Jeff was here, I think. Right?

No. Jeff and Brad and I came on not quite a

year ago.

I was. But again, I just assume it's a best used property. Again, someone's in the middle of a project and changes their mind and changes the entryway. We've had it with Joey Oliveira with his restaurants changing landscaping. I just didn't I don't see the significance in it myself. I I could be wrong.

One more kick at the horse?

Yeah, why not? When we talk about precedent, we're looking at precedent, right, in all the other places that have been allowed. I think we really need to at least from my point of view, before we go down this rabbit hole is to figure out how they came, why they came. For example, were they exempt? Were they exempt restaurants? Were they exempt facilities? They might have been. Were they grandfathered? Were they grandfathered in? I don't know the answer to that.

And also, how they were measured. And when they were approved, if they were approved under Chapter under Title IV, what conditions were placed on them, what kind of buffering, what kind of screening, what kind of lighting requirements and so on and so forth. So I don't have any of that other than just a comparison. Here are some places that have it with certain within certain distance. So we really don't have all of that in the record as to how they did it, how they got it and what were the conditions imposed upon it.

So I just wanted to bring that up. I really think that is talking about this, we really need to look at something in the code maybe. Maybe the code needs to be examined with this particular section under alcohol. Maybe the council needs to take that up and take it head on. It's a lot for the planning board to handle. So for now, the 94% just seems to me to be too great at this time. Although it sounds like a lovely idea and a nice cafe, maybe have a wine or a beer on a nice night, I certainly think that's a great idea. But it just may not be for me at this time to go that far.

All right. Anything else from the board?

I'll have

a question.

Daisy, would you call the roll, please?

Sorry. For the second motion, I heard Member Jensen and Member Ferringer.

No. I

seconded it. Mike Kobe.

I think Mike made the motion? Correct.

Yeah. Because I heard member Ferringer as well, too.

It doesn't matter. Yes.

It doesn't matter.

Okay. Member Hogan? Yes. Member Jensen?

Yes.

Member Finkel?

No.

Member Ferringer?

Yes.

Vice Chair Delois? No. Member Henson?

No for the reasons I've stated.

Chair Bailey?

No.

All right. So this resolution will be forwarded to the council with just a recommendation for denial.

All right. Right. Moving on. We have new business. Sherry, you want to read this one into the record, please?

Morning. Thank you, Chair Bailey. Sherry Kursh, City of Marco Island Growth Management. I will read the resolution by title only into the record. This is a resolution of the Planning Board of the City of Marco Island, Florida, denying a boat dock extension to allow for a 3.3 foot encroachment into the required 7.5 foot side yards repairing setback at the property of 384 South Heathwood Drive, Marco Island, Florida, making necessary findings and providing for an effective date.

Good morning.

You want to do anything, David?

Sorry, was just looking at some documents. Yes, so as this is a quasi judicial item, I would ask for the board members to make any disclosures regarding any ex parte communications at this time.

Nanette?

Enter report.

Site visit, no communication.

Site visit, no communication.

Drive by, talk to the owner, built the house. Yeah. That's about it.

That's it.

Nothing for me.

Nothing for me.

Nothing for me.

So at this time, if there's anybody who's going to be testifying on this matter, if you could stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? Thank you very much. You may be seated, Mr. Chair. Good

morning. Mary Holden, your planning manager. Martin, if you'd like to pull up the quick presentation. This is a boat dock extension, otherwise known as a variance to the riparian setback for 384 South Heathwood. This is the aerial of the lot. If you'll notice, their property line does extend into the water, just so you know. This is the plan that was approved. As you can see, let's see if I can do this. This is the area in question. It was approved at seven and a half feet.

It met all the required setbacks. And then this is the as built. This is just a close-up of the as built. And they built it a little too close. And so this is what remains right now.

It's 4.2. It should be seven and a half, and it's now 4.2 feet. The applicant has submitted the application with the responses to the criteria for the boat dock extension. And based on our review of it, staff can find no justification for the variance other than it just was not built correctly for whatever reason that is. And so staff is not recommending approval.

And basically, the last paragraph of our staff report sums up why, is that there was no justification to grant the variance. So that is staff's recommendation of denial. The applicant the owner's rep is here from Crocker Marine and can answer any questions. And I can answer any questions to the best of my ability.

Anyone have any questions for Mary? Hayden?

So since this was already built, is this if we're denied, is it a tear down and start over situation?

Either that or however they do it. They would have to correct it to bring it into seven and a half feet. Okay. I don't know if it would be a teardown. That would be a question for the marine contractor.

And you're Mary, the it looked like when we have the boat dock extension request, we have those, I think, 10, and they're in the staff report criteria in the code. It didn't seem to me like they were egregiously violating any one of those 10. So with that and the letter of no objection from the owner, just help me understand a little bit more staff's position on the recommendation of denial.

There's no honestly, there's no justification. It was just built wrong. It was approved at seven and a half feet. And so we're recommending denial. We've recommended denial for other boat dock extensions in the past because there's just no justification. It wasn't built according to plan.

Right. Okay. Thank you. David?

Yeah. There is a separate requirement in the section cited in 50 four-115b1 that states that they have to provide a justification in addition to meeting the findings. So even though they might have met the findings on a technical basis, what's the justification for it? In this case, because it was built already, that second prong isn't there.

Got it. Thank you, David.