Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

morning everybody happy Friday can we call the board meeting to order please Daisy would you call the roll please member Finkel remember Hogan remember Ferringer present I shared the boys yep here remember Henson here

Member Jensen? Here. Chair Bailey?

I am here. If everybody would 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. Next item, approval of the agenda. Any comments, changes? If not, I entertain a motion.

So moved. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Next item on the agenda is a time-certain item. We'll come back to that one in a few minutes. Board absences, Dan, Mary, our next meeting?

September 4th.

Fantastic.

That next week.

We're going to start having dinner together at some point.

I will likely be unable to attend that one in all likelihood.

Okay.

And I'm sorry, what did you think you had on that agenda?

I was going to say that communication, but if we get a continuance of the Walker Cay Marina, then that would be on that agenda. And also I have a boat dock extension for 167 Columbus Way. Okay.

Okay, so Hayden might not be here. All right. Next item is approval of the minutes. Did anybody have any comments or changes on this item? I had only one comment. I know we had gone back and forth on a couple things and it looked like everything was fixed, but one thing relative to the conditional use permit, there's no mention anywhere that I could see about the fence height, and the landscaping and all that in the resolution. And it's possible I missed something.

In the resolution?

Not in the minutes, in the resolution. That was added. I just want to make sure that it's captured correctly. That's all.

I think he's asking you.

David Tolstice, Citizen City Attorney. So you're saying under that item in the minutes it doesn't reflect?

I think it actually reflects staff's suggestion that there be a 16-foot screening in the resolution, which is not what the board recommended. The board recommended eight foot. Right.

With appropriate landscaping. Right. Yeah. So if you want to make a motion to approve the minutes with that amendment to that item, you can do that, or you can ask that they be brought back to your next meeting.

I mean, we could just approve it now, as you suggested, if that's okay. Does anyone want to make that motion?

I'll motion. I'll second that, yeah.

So the motion is to approve the minutes for the July 23rd meeting as amended.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

All right. I don't have the resolution in front of me, but we will triple check.

Perfect. Thank you. And I know I jumped the gun a little bit with staff communications, Dan, but was there anything else that you wanted to talk about for staff communications?

Mary did.

Oh, boy, I get that big microphone. Mary Holden, your planning manager. One thing I wanted to let you guys know that we've implemented a policy. That will help out staff greatly, and that is we will not accept any revised plans three weeks prior to the planning board. If they have to revise the plans within that three-week time frame, they're going to have to go to the next meeting. And if any of you should ever receive an email with revised plans being sent to you, before that three weeks, know that it is not approved, or during that three weeks, it will not be reviewed, it will not be approved by staff because our process is, We have to, when we get revised plans, we have to send it back out to all the reviewers. And that's fire, that's utilities, and that's water, sewer, storm water, it's public works, it's building, the whole bit. Even if it's a minor change, they have to see it. Because if there is a change on the site plan, it can impact stormwater or it could impact fire so we've implemented this that we will not take plans if it's three weeks before the planning board meeting so I just want to clarify that that will help staff and that will minimize a lot so I just wanted to let the planning board know that fantastic thank you

Any questions for staff? If not, we can move on. We'll go back to the time-certain item on our agenda. This is public comment. This is for items that are not on today's agenda. Anyone in the public would be welcome to speak. You'd have four minutes. You state your name. And is there anybody? I do have one registered speaker. Ms. Norma?

I have little Elle Woods with me today. I'm back, a little bit more prepared than last time. I saw you guys on Good Friday. Oh, sorry, Jill Norman. Thank you. So we just wanted to revisit the Rosemarina issue and request to have a vote of reconsideration and respectfully request that the planning board issue an immediate stay of proceedings. until the material inconsistencies in the public record and the potential violations of procedural due process are fully investigated and addressed. I think as we saw this process, there's been a lot of checks and balances and going back and forth, and I don't know that we ever covered everything. So this request is grounded in conflicting testimony presented to the city, Ms. Representative, misrepresentations regarding the riparian rights and the setbacks and the resulting direct adverse impact on the neighboring residential property owners, but also the water. canal ways during the public hearing on July 23. And I believe we talked about this on Good Friday meetings, Good Friday's meetings also, that Mr. Lombardo under oath said that the riparian lines do not move. But contradicting this oral representation, the official city resolution approving the dock extension explicitly grants a zero-foot setback along the northern property boundary. In conflict with the oral testimony, the applicant's official response letter dated December 18, 2025, acknowledges and justifies the total elimination of the setback. Assuring the board and the public on the record that riparian lines do not move would occur while simultaneously requesting and securing a zero-foot riparian setback deprived the board and the public of accurate and evidentiary basis when weighing the criteria. Public notices and hearing testimony led the neighboring residential property owners to believe the riparian access and traditional setbacks were remaining intact. The discrepancy between the oral representations and the final adopted resolution impaired the public's ability to meaningfully object during the quasi-judicial proceeding. In addition to addressing the inconsistencies regarding the riparian lines, the planning board should require a comprehensive environmental review that goes beyond the minimum in what has been provided by Rosmarina. Decision makers should demand independent analysis of increased vessel traffic, wildlife disturbance, water quality, stormwater impacts, lighting, noise, and accumulative environmental effects. The effects of this liquor license and the operating hours of the restaurant and the noise disturbance that the bands, the music, the people, the pollution of the restaurant also, I feel, needs to be taken in consideration, too.

Do you have anything else?

OK. All right. Thank you so much for taking the time to listen. We hope you'll reconsider. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll probably come back to that in a minute, but is there anybody else in the public who would like to speak? If not, we'll... Mr. Lombardo. Is this appropriate? Are you going to speak on that matter specifically?

I actually signed up to speak on something else, but I would like an opportunity to address that.

Well, David Toles, Assistant City Attorney, I would just say that this board does not have the authority to make a motion to reconsider that item. Motions for reconsideration need to be made at the meeting at which action is taken or at the next meeting. Your last meeting last week would have been the date for any motions for reconsideration to be made. So you do not have the, for lack of a better term, jurisdiction to consider that. The next opportunity for the public to be heard regarding this item will be when it is presented to the city council.

So I'd like to expand on that, though, because I think people in the public might hear that and say that they're not getting all the information, right? My interpretation of the letter we received as well as the comments that were just made is that respectfully I think some of the comments are incorrect, right? I don't believe as part of our hearings we moved a property line. I don't believe that we moved the riparian lines. All that we did was we allowed a setback which is the distance between either the dock or the vessel the distance between the riparian line and that vessel we allowed that to get to zero rather than x number of feet that's provided under the code so the statements that are being made where property lines either moved or riparian lines moved i believe respectfully those are incorrect and if you want to chime in on that i don't know if that's taking away from what you wanted to say but

I don't want to rehash everything. All I'll say is that for the members of the public that want information related to this item, they are all online. You can certainly make a public records request to the city for any and all documents related to it, as well as the documents that will be presented to city council, rather than this board rehashing something that it no longer has jurisdiction over. Thank you.

Understood. Mr. Lombardo, you have four minutes.

Thank you. I won't use them. First, I appreciate Ms. Holden's comment about the submittal deadlines, and what I would request for consideration is that this be somehow formalized into some kind of procedure, some kind of written procedure, because I think that if the staff just simply says today at today's planning board meeting to you all that there's a three-week lead-up, that's helpful for those of us that are in the room today but I think there needs to be an official set of procedures I have no comment or objection or concern with whatever procedures you all want to come up with but I think it should be done in some kind of formalized manner to better in orderly get through this process I understand and obviously was very involved in several recent applications where this came up and I think it would have benefited from more guidance but I would just suggest that this come through some kind of procedural manual Collier County has one for example that could be referred to you And written down and put on the website so all of the applicants understand what the rules of the game are and then there's less Concern so that's my only comment is that that actually be formalized and then since this is public Comment for it's not on the agenda and since this is not on the agenda cannot be on the agenda I do want to address those comments and very briefly What I said on the record I stand by now no riparian lines were moved nor could they have been moved no property lines were moved in the Rosemarine application and And certainly since the boat dock extension is going to City Council we can address that there again in the appropriate forum But I just want to put on the record since it's been put on the record here that I there was no misstatement We're not moving our period lines. Thank you very much.

Thank you Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on this? Seeing none we'll close public comment Old business we have none new business Did you want to read this into the record or are we going to do something different? We're going to read it into the record, is that correct or no? Even if there's going to be a continuance, it still has to be read into the record in motion.

Okay, let us read the title of the resolution. Yes, please.

Good morning, Planning Board. Thank you, Chair Bailey, Sherry Kirsch, City of Marco Island Growth Management. I will read the title of the resolution into record. This is a resolution of the City of Marco Island Planning Board approving a site development plan submitted by Maritime Acquisitions, LLC, for the property located at 3200 San Marco Road, Marco Island, Florida, consisting of Marco Beach Unit 17, east 300 feet of track C, and unplatted lands 13, 52, 26, parcel description in order 32 pages 209 through 212, and or 46, page 443, less.par in or 575, page 692, making findings, approving the site development plan, providing for conditions of approval, providing for failure to comply with approval, providing for failure to obtain other permits, and providing for an effective date. Thank you.

Do you want to do swearing and ex parte before we have any discussions, David?

No. It's my understanding that the applicant has a request to make at this time. So rather than formally opening the hearing, I think we just consider their request at this time.

Okay.

Thank you for the record, Bob Mulhair with Bowman Consulting Group. It came to my attention fairly late yesterday, like around 5 o'clock, that some questions were raised regarding the traffic analysis done by Norm Trebelcock and Associates, not with respect to the quality of what was submitted, but with respect to the fact that it hadn't been updated, that the original traffic report was submitted in 23, that's three and a half years ago. And so I think it's a concern, and we'd rather have the opportunity to update that traffic analysis. The parking analysis was updated, not the traffic analysis. So we'd rather take the time. I'd respectfully request a continuance until the September meeting, September 4th, and I will call Norm and make sure he gets that in within the next week so we meet the three-week requirement.

Thank you. Okay, so do we need to make a motion and second and all that fun stuff? Correct. Anyone want to make a motion to continue this?

I move that we continue the said resolution until the September 4th meeting.

I'll second that.

Any comment from the board? I might just say, this has been a weird year. A lot of...

I'll say.

I mean, a lot of... And I understand, Bob, you haven't been part of all the fun stuff we've been dealing with. You've been missing out. But it's been a lot of continuances, a lot of noticing errors, whether that's applicant or city issues, a lot of moving things, things getting stacked up, special meetings. And it's starting to get a little tiresome just up on this desk. I spent a considerable amount of time preparing for this item this week. I mean, last night I watched the entire city council hearing on this from three and a half years ago for the second time this week. I've spoken to counselors, residents, and was prepared to address this today. As someone who's got a full-time job and a half, getting very frustrating, that we're just dealing with things getting kicked down the road and then stacked up. And then we have hearings that go five and a half hours because multiple things have stacked or controversial things have been pushed to happen at the same time. And if we don't have a traffic analysis that's updated, I don't think we can proceed. But I just note as an observation, it's getting frustrating.

If I could just say two things. One, I mean, technically I think we probably could have gone forward because the criteria Mary and I discussed, you know, doesn't necessarily require that, but I don't think it makes sense. It's not good practice. And it's 100% on us, not on the staff. Thank you.

I appreciate that. Oh, and to some degree it's my fault. I was asking some questions about the traffic studies that they weren't really prepared to answer. Yeah, I'm glad you did. And I thought it would be best to have that information rather than not have that information. So we have a motion and a second. Anything else from the board?

It's for the whole application, not just the resolution, right? The whole application, the whole hearing will be carried out. The whole site development plan. That's right.

Right. Daisy, would you call the roll, please?

Member Jensen?

Yes.

Member Ferringer? Yes. Member Hogan?

Yes. Vice Chair DeVluis?

Yes. Member Henson? Yes. Chair Bailey?

Yes. And just for the record, the site development plan amendment SDP 24-000082 for Walker's K for the property located 3200 San Marco Road is being continued to September 4th planning board meeting at 9 a.m.

Yes, sir. All right. Next item on our agenda, we've got a land development code amendment.

good morning planning board once again sherry curse city of marco island i will read the ordinance by title only into the record this is an ordinance of the city of marco island florida amending chapter 30 land development code article 2 zoning division 10 general commercial c4 district section 30-245 dimensional standards subsection 30-2458 maximum density of the city of marco island code of ordinances by removing lots two and three block one plath of marco highlands recorded in plat book three page 91 located at 155 and 151 first avenue marco island florida 34145 the subject property from the limitation of only 16 1 6 units per acre for hotels motels and timeshare facilities and to provide for a limitation of 26, 26 units per acre for hotels, motels, and timeshare facilities on the subject property as contained in application number LDCA-25-000195, providing that approval does not create a vested right, providing for failure to comply with this ordinance, providing for interpretation and severability, and providing for an effective date.

Thank you.

Thank you.

David. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In light of the fact this land development code amendment affects a discreet parcel, it's considered to be a quasi-judicial item. So I would ask that anybody who's going to be offering testimony to the planning board this morning regarding this item stand, raise your right hand so you can be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony give you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? I do. Thank you very much. You may be seated. Back to you, Mr. Chair, for any communications and disclosures.

Mike. Site and site visit, no communication.

Site visit, no communication.

Site visit, just some emails back and forth with staff. Site visit, no communication.

Site visit, brief conversation with applicant's counsel.

Site visit, no communication.

Daniel Smith, Director of Community Affairs. This is a change to the Land Development Code regarding Marco Lake in a C4 district. Martin, do you want to put the... This is the area in question. This is an area of... This is the main building right here. This parcel right now, currently it's a 19-unit hotel and restaurant. The restaurant I don't think has ever been open since I've been here, and I've been here nine years. So that's pretty much been vacant. It also includes this parcel right here that's also part of the hotel area. Down here is the portion of that parcel. We kind of look at this as a redevelopment area. The old Marco is one of the oldest areas on Marco Island.

Marco Lakes.

I'm sorry, what did I say, Marco Island?

You said old Marco.

Old Marco, yeah, true. Marco Lakes. Comprehensive plan says this is in policy 3.2.4, that up to 26 units per acre is allowed. This is in the community commercial future land use carriers tended to provide a range of commercial uses at arterial and collector intersections and nodes were Within the city outside of the town center mixed-use district these areas will be comprised of retail office and mixed uses Standard densities are limited 12 units per acre hotel motel 26 units per acre Again, this is the area in question question right here this is currently here's the zoning it is currently zone c4 you have our mf6 to the north to the east you have single-family residential and if this is owned single-family residential right now it's a big retention pond. For anybody who was interested, this pond could actually be filled in and be used for what you're allowed for CMF for. I've actually had three or four projects that have been proposed but never have gone through in the nine years I've been here. Again, this is the plat showing the properties right here about the Marco Highlands and then that was changed to the Marco Highlands addition. The current language is under the C4 district, under dimensional standards, and I'll point down here. This was a special kind of specific for Marco 8. It says 16 units per acre for hotel, motels, and timeshare facilities when located within the Marco Lake and Village commercial old Marco districts. 26 units per acre for hotel, motel timeshares located are 16 units when located outside the Marco Lake Village commercial, 16 units per acre. The proposed language is to eliminate these lots, which I'm not going to read this whole thing, but it's really eliminating those lots to allow for the use for the hotel to go up to 26 units per acre. Currently, the lots combined are 1.07 acres, which would translate into 28 units. The applicant, based on the 40-foot height and setbacks, is only proposing 26 units. Traffic study was done exactly in parking. With a change to allow for this, if it is converted to a hotel, it would reduce the parking requirements because the hotel is less than a restaurant, and traffic would be reduced due to less traffic for a hotel than it is for restaurants. So in our case, from planning's point of view, redevelopment is needed in this area. This would allow a redevelopment to something that would be in our opinion less intense use and it and it would give a good the applicant a good effort to redevelop that whole area this amendment is consistent with the future land use element comprehensive plan based on the following policies the city policy 1.1.3 the city will update and maintain LDC regulations that implement the community vision set forth in the plan, including development regulations and standards to address aesthetic and design requirements, manage of type, location, quality of design, density, and intensity. City of Markle Island Future Land Use Element, page 1-4. City of Markle Island Concert Plan, page 10-11. of 119 of new development and redevelopment, enhanced standards for land uses that have the potential to impact the community character and establish residential neighborhoods. Policy 1.2.1, the city will evaluate the growth management strategy and policies of the future land use element through visioning and evaluation of land use allocations for residents and non-residential development to optimize the use of infrastructure and services and ensure a balanced mix of land uses. Policy 3.2.4, the community commercial future land use category is intended to provide a range of commercial uses of arterial and collector intersections and nodes within the city outside of the town center mixed use. Future land use category, these areas will be compromised of retail, office, and mixed uses. Standard densities are limited to 12 units per acre. Hotel motel densities are limited to 26 units per acre. And policy 4.11, development will be permitted only where they are consistent with the future land use map and the goals of the access policies

and the standards of this plan, which in our humble opinion, it does.

So staff's recommendation is that the planning board forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for the proposed amendments outlined in this staff report. The amendments would allow a maximum of 26 units per acre on the combined lots of two, three, four of Marco Island Highlands and Marco Island Highlands addition plants. Staff finds that the proposed density is appropriate given the site's Development constraints the reduction in parking demand and the traffic impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment staff finds the proposed amendments are consistent with the following provisions of cities comprehensive plan future land use element objective 3.2 Policy one point one three one point two two three point two four and four point one one We believe this would This is kind of where we're moving toward redevelopment. This would give the applicant or the owner the ability to redevelop the site, which we think is needed. So I'm here for any questions. The applicant is here for any questions too.

Joan? I have a question. So you're eliminating the restaurant and therefore it reduces the need for parking. So because of that, you can have more Hotel rooms. Correct. Will that preclude the applicant from ever opening a restaurant again? No.

I would say no. I mean, this is just another allowed use. Right. It doesn't necessarily preclude the restaurant.

It doesn't prevent them from coming back again and saying that they want to open a restaurant. That's correct. Okay.

Hayden? follow-up to Joan's question. If they did that, of course, would they have to come back for a site development plan?

Everything would, most in cases, any kind of a change, a site development plan would be required. In our opinion, this change of a use would trigger us to re-evaluate the site development plan.

Okay. The one thing that's strange for me on this is I don't and there might be other instances but do we have occasions where we in the land development code make exceptions for specific parcels of land that says this shall be the standard except for this plot here it's going to be different. It just seems a little unusual.

Well, I think it's unusual because here's some of the older areas. The old Marco is part of this, too. These were carved out to allow for whatever reason, the leadership at that particular time. If you know that old Marco, in particular, along with his 40-foot heights, those are a lot... The height restrictions are much more stringent in those particular areas. They may be a restriction that was due to the leadership and the The community coming forward and having an issue at that particular time, in our opinion, we don't see that now. These are areas for redevelopment, and usually for redevelopment, and we've had many of them come forward, are pickleball across the street. our Racket Center, to do any kind of redevelopment, a lot of those site development were allowed during that time to redevelop. It's really hard to redevelop to meet the new standards. So variances, changes are needed to go through that redevelopment process.

And this is a scenario where the density restrictions in the land development code and the comp plan are kind of not eye-to-eye, and this would make them

Well they are ITAC because the comprehensive plan is really your major policy that says in the future these are going to be allowed. At this particular time our land development code says no, but they're asking to come forward to go to 26 units per acre which is consistent with our master plan. It is consistent with it, it's just you have to ask. And you have to decide, is that something that you want? Do you want the additional density? Would you rather, and it's really an opinion of the planning board, would they rather have a restaurant that has not been opened for who knows how long and this is an opportunity to redevelop?

But be clear, when we say additional density, this is technically under density for what is... Oh, yes, definitely. It's not... We're not adding density relative to what the comp plan says.

That's correct. You're consistent. You're not adding.

Yeah. If anything, it's under density.

It's under density, correct.

Okay.

That's it.

Brad? Thank you. Dan... There's no site plan before us, right? This is just a straight LDC code change, correct?

That's correct. That would be coming forward. If there was going to be any change, that would be the next step.

Well, I hope so. And just want to be clear, we're not approving a site development plan. We can't require they remove the restaurant. None of that is on the table now, correct?

That's correct.

All right.

So that's a little bit of my concern. I like the project. I drove it. It certainly needs some help back there, that's for sure. It's not a great-looking area, but the hotel, I have to say, it's not bad. I even took my wife with me and we said, that looks pretty nice, that little hotel. there but I was thinking about it and I sort of agree with Hayden now in Florida it's different but in New Jersey we call this spot zoning it's a big no-no when you can carve out a special exception for one property owner in a zone that's just not looked as a proper planning method maybe so in Florida I generally don't like that what I discussed with you earlier and I've even talked to Zach about it that place is that area really needs some help I really believe that. And while I can support the concept of what they want to do, you know, to add some rooms and get some investment back there, I would hope that the council would consider, because this is already set up as a special C4 zone in and of itself.

It's C4, Old Marco.

But it's got special things. That's correct. Those things don't apply to other C4 areas.

That's correct.

Okay, so that's actually good, so I don't have to mess with that. But really give the same incentive to everyone in that little area, that little road. Not just one person that cobbles some lots together for one acre, but give the same benefit to everybody back there so they could maybe cobble some things together, some architectural standards. Maybe they could paint things similar, make it look really nice and wonderful back there. This kind of approach for me, you've done a great job, and I'm glad that somebody wants to do something back there to make it better. It may be something that council could consider, a conditional use type of criteria so that other owners can get lots together and sort of have a night where it looks fun to drive back there is what I'm trying to say, that they'll incentivize them to get a little more density, but they make it look nicer, they make it look better, and they make it so you want to turn down that road and go back there. So that's just my idea. I've done this before. And certainly, you want to encourage developers to go back there. And it may be a benefit to the people that own the hotel to have that in place. I know you haven't had time to consider a special conditional use part of this process I understand that but I think it's a good idea to at least let the council say you know we have other options we can do this they can they can change the code for this applicant whatever they want to do but I think long term they should really try to help the whole area and that's and this is my opinion what do you think about well if I can reply I think I mentioned this at the previous planning board meeting that in 2028 we're gonna be due for a comprehensive plan change and

And as you know, the previous leadership in the 2021 comprehensive plan was to reduce density. That was their major intent. And you've probably heard me say quite a few times at the planning board meetings in the last couple weeks is if you're going to make a policy change on Adding additional density in that this is kind of what would be going, that would probably be something that has to be decided by the city council ahead of time. And then they just give us direction to move with it. We're open for redevelopment. I did redevelop in Detroit and Chicago. These are the normal things you do when you have properties that have been on books for 40 years plus. They're antiquated. You want to bring developers in there to fix them up. By keeping with your current standards, all you're looking at is decay. And if you look back there, you're kind of seeing that. So it means this is a start to something that may be getting better.

I appreciate that. And if I could just follow up, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. And I think that's something that we should certainly look at instead of, you know, I mean, they're not tearing this building down. They're just going to remove the restaurant and put units in, I think. possibly down the road, you give them incentives to do that. It's an old building. There are old buildings back there. And you give them an incentive to redo and revitalize that area. And it could literally look pretty nice down the road. I know that's not before us right now. It hasn't been requested. I get that.

Just so you know, what you're talking about, we had a consultant come in about three, four years ago regarding the old Marco area. We had brought a consultant in. That area could use some help. He is somebody known nationally on redevelopment, and there's proposals out there to how we can maybe help that old Marco area doing some horse trading with height, with adding additional space, open space, some trade-offs, but that just never took traction. But that's still, we still have that information, and those are the things.

I would like to see that and discuss that with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's really all I have. Thank you.

Mike? Hey, Dan, how long has the property been in existence, the structure?

Oh, I'd have to talk to the applicant. I don't have that with me.

Okay. Because I noticed the NIM was sparsely attended. I think it was very small. And I think we only had one or two. And, Brad, I agree with what you're saying, by the way. I think it's a good idea. You know, one person was concerned about noise from the restaurant and the bands and everything. you know, the hotel. The other person who's been here 40 years I think is clapping his hands because it's going to clean the place up. So I think this is a great start. You know, and we have to remember, like you just mentioned Pickleball, You know, that neighborhood probably built up around that little hotel a long time ago.

That's correct.

And that's why it was set up the way it was, just like Old Marco. At that time, that's where the population was. So everything was in those little corridors because that's where everybody was living. So it built up around that. So I think, you know, I just want to make sure the neighbors recognize that I think this is heading in the right direction, that this is going to clean up and these folks are going to do a good job, and it will probably encourage others to do the same thing.

We agree.

I don't have anything right now.

No, you got to give me something.

I want to wait for the applicant first. OK.

Good morning Planning Board Zach Lombardo here on behalf of Marco Lakeside in LLC if we could switch to my PowerPoint I have with me our planner Charlie Thomas and before I bring him up here I want to just kind of briefly catch some of these concepts before we go through the full thing and I'm going to start with a really administrative point While the notice was corrected and while the notice is correct, the title to the ordinance is wrong. And so I want to flag that now. I didn't see that until it was read into the record here. It does not use the complete legal description. The code section in the ordinance is correct. The notice was corrected. And I do want to note the notice was corrected. It ran incorrect and then it ran correct. That day it ran corrected, it was past the deadline. F9 the section we're in says legal description or address and the mistake is in the legal description and it had legal Description and the address so I have no substantive concerns about the notice I'm flagging it so it's in the dialogue The ordinance is going to be separately advertised pursuant to statute as long as that can be corrected in any motion if this is moving forward I appreciate that and I can flag that when we get to that section I want to briefly before I hand this off to the planner address this spot zoning question because I think to understand the spot zoning question we have to understand how we got here in the first place which is right here so prior to 1995 there was no overlay district in this zone this was c4 zoning the county in 1995 this top section here was enacted and this is the description of where the district is and when you read that what you'll see is the only thing put in the district the first time or the businesses to the right of Marco Lakeside Drive it did not include the hotel It also did not include the area on the other side. In 1997, if you come down to the next one, it gets expanded and it brings in the hotel and it brings in the houses on the west side. And interestingly, in the rest of this ordinance, which I have a full copy of and your staff has, The important question is what are the rest of the regulations in this ordinance? Not present in the 97 ordinance is a density cap. So what we're doing is we're removing ourselves from an ordinance that didn't have this requirement. When it got put into the city's code... This 16 cap was added to this district at large, but when you look at this ordinance, what you see is this was an ordinance focused actually on redevelopment. They were worried about the parking constraints, which can be very visually seen in the overlay of the area, because most of the properties here are over here. where there's serious parking issues. And so a lot of the ordinance text is focused on, well, can you park over here in the right of way? Can you park over here in the right of way? How are we going to serve these businesses? There were some height limits thrown on. And then this section got added. But notably, the hotel has what I would call a more traditional parking lot layout with landscape islands. It's able to meet the standards that you expect. And so I don't view this, and I want to make sure since that was said that way, spot zoning is not a New Jersey thing. Spot zoning is also a Florida thing. But I don't view this as spot zoning. What we're doing is we're reshaping a boundary, and we're honoring the existing prior regulation. I found no explanation. I don't believe your staff had any explanation for why when the city codified this, they added a density limitation. to the area but we'll get through this as we get through the actual application but I just wanted to touch that and so we're not in spot zoning I think the concern is that you've created like a doughnut hole here we're more like sort of shaving off the icing to define the outside area of where this is because again this whole thing was in a way creation of a district So with that said, let's see, make sure. And then just to confirm, this requires an SDP. At the SDP stage, it will have to show you all of the parking tables. And I want to kind of address that sort of outline concern about, well, could they do a restaurant anyway the point here is with the parking requirements that you have I would imagine not and also from a space requirement and to further demonstrate this we did not say remove us from the district entirely because if we said that we wouldn't have no height limit We would not have the 40-foot height limit. We would have the C4 height limit. And then I think we could do a restaurant, this many hotel rooms, and sort of intensify the site. The client was very focused on they have the existing shell. They want to redevelop and add these rooms. They met with your staff a while back. Staff flagged this. And then we dug into it and said, why is this here? We could find no... Explanation for it that made sense and so we've asked to be removed from that section and again, I don't forget spot zoning I'm gonna call up Charlie Thomas. He's our expert land planner on this matter. He's gonna walk through The current zoning gave his opinion on all of this I don't believe that there's a we don't have a substantial difference with staff You'll notice there's no conditions and staffs approval and staff found this consistent. So I would adopt staffs Opinion, but we have Charlie as well who can provide additional information and then we'll take questions and we appreciate your time Thank you

Good morning. My name is Charles Thomas. I'm a city planner, urban planner, community planner. I have been for approximately 60 years in professional practice for about 55. I'm quite familiar with Marco Island. I've been involved in the past. a significant number of projects in Marco Island ranging from the first iteration of redevelopment of the yacht club as you come over the bridge and then numerous other projects after that. Not so much recently. I've been more active in Naples and Collier County recently and other things. I could go through my resume if you'd like with, you know, other things I've worked on, but I've worked on projects in New England, throughout the Southwest, and in mainland China. So I'm happy to discuss my experience, but it's probably not a particularly good use of time. Most of what I would say I think has been well covered by staff and by Zach, but I'll run through it and be prepared to answer any questions you might have. You've seen the, obviously it's been up for a little while, location of the property. One thing I would mention that was touched on is that the proposed new units would be located within the existing building. So the footprint that you see on this plan remains intact. That has some pertinence when we talk about the potential for reuse in the future. I'll touch on that. Good. Okay. This sort of sets back and gives us a locus setting. Obviously, it's named the Marco Lakeside Inn because it's lakeside, although that technically is probably not a lake, as it was pointed out. I think it's probably an old excavation for – water management purposes, may not even serve those any longer. The other thing I'll touch on quickly, because you did get to it, the History of the zoning is even a little bit more complex than staff pointed out or Zach pointed out in its origin. The origin was that the properties that are on the left side or northwest side of Marco Lake Drive were not able to provide their own parking on site if any redevelopment took place. This is many years ago. And so the county adopted the first iteration, Marco Lake Drive Business District, to permit off-site, on-street parking on the lakeside of Marco Lake Drive to be counted as parking for development on the landside of Marco Lake Drive. Those actions in creating that district became the basis for what we're in now, which is the overlay district three within the architectural design standards of the C4 district. Where should I be aiming? There we go. OK, here's another depiction of that. And as you can see, the red is the C4 district. The dashed red lines are the outline of overlay district 3, which is within the C4 district. The limitation on density to 16 versus 26 units per acre is not a C4 provision, but it occurs in the C4 district where it refers to the overlay districts. It's very fine-grained. It refers to the area that's outlined here in red and does not apply to the remainder of the C4 district. It's got to be a sweet spot here I'm missing. Here we go. OK, future land use, as was pointed out in the comprehensive plan, future land use here is called community commercial. So it's a commercial district, but it's a specific commercial district that has limited applications within the city. In this particular case, it then is in addition to Well, it's a community commercial in the COPLAN. I'm skipping ahead. That density is 26 units per acre. So the proposed amendment does not increase COPLAN density because that density is already accounted for in the COPLAN. This just recaps what I think was pretty much read before, which is the purpose and intent of the General Commercial District. General Commercial District refers to avoiding strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, create commercial centers, and to encourage that they be so shall we say, more organized, more cogent, more coherent, and have better spatial relationships in their design than exists simply by virtue of being future land use commercial, then refers to the intent which is to, of this section, which is to ensure compatibility within the C4 districts on Marco Island, and to that end, the maximum height for C4 properties in the Marco Lake Subdistrict and the village commercial area of Old Marco shall be 40 feet. This is one of the two places where the provisions that apply to this property, by virtue of being in the, what's referred to here, the Marco Lake Subdistrict, Previously, it was referred to as the Marco Lake Drive Business District. So the intent at the time was to allow commercial development in accordance with C4, but in this instance and in the instance of density, to impose a more restrictive requirement, 40 feet here in height and In this section, the dimensional standards, where it establishes maximum density, where it does establish a 16-unit-per-acre hotel density only in the Marco Lake and Village commercial districts. So in the remainder of C4 and in the comp plan, the density would be 26 units per acre, which is what we're requesting. This summarizes the text amendment that Zach mentioned. It's written so that it's very specific that it applies only to the subject property. So at this point in time, based on our proposed amendment, the remainder of the sub-district would still be subject to the 16 unit per acre limitation. either get too few or too many. You've already, I think, heard the comp plan amendment, so I won't go back through them unless you have questions later. As was noted, the staff has recommended approval. and found that the proposed amendments are consistent with the following provisions of the city's comprehensive future land use element. Objective 3.2, which is accommodate orderly and well-planned commercial and mixed-use development at appropriate locations to serve the residents' businesses and those they serve. The other policies were outlined on a previous slide, and we can go back and look at them if you wish. That's what Zach covered in terms of the evolution of the district. Am I not? It's not going consecutively.

Here it goes.

This is a comparison of the current development to the proposed development. We come up with 20 units, but I think the staff report refers to 19 and 2,600 square feet. Within the existing building, which is not used at this time, that's the former restaurant space, our proposal uses that 26 unit, 2,600 square feet of open space. Under the amendment, it could accommodate as many as 28 units. We're looking at 26 units in our proposal. As was mentioned previously, but I'll just go through the slides. Traffic analysis indicates a significant reduction in peak hour trips if this is implemented. In other words, if you take the existing 20-room restaurant and 2,600 square feet of Commercial space, your p.m. peak, which is generally referred to as the critical peak hour from a traffic perspective, it's 33.53 trips in an hour. If it's 28 hotel rooms, it's 16.8. So there's this substantial reduction in traffic. In parking... And just a footnote, the same type of reduction occurs in the AMP color as occurs in the PMP color. And this is a tabular representation of the parking requirements that reduce in the proposed use from the current use with restaurant. I pointed that out, maybe a little emphasis on that, because of the concern about reuse going back to commercial use, which would be permitted the way the current code would be, or the proposed code would be written, it would be limited by the fact that if a restaurant were reintroduced, It would increase the parking requirement. That would impose a limit on how much restaurant could be imposed and trigger the site development plan and other requirements that apply within the district. So the conclusion in our part and the staff conclusion, and I'll turn it back to you, is that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the intent of the C4 district with this one caveat, which I don't know that anybody can trace back explicitly to why 26 units an acre were applied to these two districts. Also as a footnote just from a planner perspective the old Marco district and the Marco Lake Drive business district are two totally different places and What might be appropriate to change there Would be different and we are proposing to change might not be appropriate there

Thank you Charlie. In conclusion, I appreciated the comments about a global look at the whole area and while I imagine but do not know that my clients would support that, we for the research that we've done here and for the reasons we've provided believe it's appropriate to address this one issue. The intent section doesn't talk about density, it does talk about height and we're not asking to be removed from height so we're trying to Make this match the historical record as we understand it and believe that we have done so appropriately in a way that Appropriately addresses the planning concerns of the island. Are there any specific questions that I can address?

First I agree with Mike and Brad on your comments. I've seen this area for over 30 years stay relatively the same. Business and restaurants have come and gone. Marco Polo was a great restaurant. It's gone. But the area, just like the lot at the corner of El Cam and Bald Eagle, which was an eyesore for years, we're finally seeing modern development there. This whole area needs to be addressed. I'm in favor of this project. I do have one question relative to the restaurant question. It's my understanding that this room addition is going to be under the same shell of the building. So can I be safe to say that where the restaurant currently is is where the new rooms will now be going?

That's correct as to what we're proposing, but I just want to be clear. This is a land development code amendment and not the site plan, so I don't want to. As far as decision-making purposes, I think you have to assume that we could scrape the site. And so the only thing I can offer there is that we're not going out of the height limit, but the actual intent of the client, which they can confirm, is there is currently a white box shell behind the lobby that was the restaurant, and that's where the rooms will be, and then there will be no physical space left in the building for anything else once those rooms go in. but that will be demonstrated to you in the site development plan. So I just don't want to, that can't be the basis for this decision.

So my thought is, my question is, if that's the case, for them to remove that and put in the rooms, and now if they were to go back to a restaurant, they incurred the expense of putting all those rooms and they'd have to tear all those rooms back out to put a restaurant back in there?

Presumably. They would have to do that or they could tear down the building and try again. But at the end of the day, the restaurant is allowed in this whole district. It's C4 zoning anywhere. But the big challenge in this district has always been parking. And what caused us to head down this path was just conceptually the reason it didn't make sense because it is C4. And so a comp plan amendment didn't make sense because the comp plan doesn't even reference 16 Unisnaker. And so this was the only way we could figure out how to address this one without going into a bigger question. Because if we came before you as one property owner in the corner and proposed to remove this for the whole business district, first of all, I don't know that all properties are similarly situated in this business district. And that's our major point here and why I don't think there's a spot zoning issue here is This property is very different than the rest of the district because we're not on those two main drives that have no parking. And I think if we came before you, and presumably with the support of the rest of the district, and said we want to remove this cap on the left side of Marco Lake Drive, you may have some different concerns. that don't apply on this side of the road. So that's just a little bit of how the decision tree led to this particular application, because I would acknowledge this application is particularly unique. And I do want to, just based on a comment made at a prior planning board meeting, if I could get staff to confirm, I discussed this with them before, You do have that limitation on land development code amendments per year. This year you've enacted zero. But I'd like staff to confirm that. Correct. You're good. So there's no cap that we're bumping up against here. I just want to make sure that's clear. Thanks.

And just to answer your question, one of the units was our buildings were built in 1960. The other one was, I believe, 68. So it's old.

Yeah, there's houses in there that were built in the 50s in that area.

Historically, this is not part of the Deltona development. This is part of the Marco Highlands area, which is not subject to the de-districtions and visually different than the rest of the island, even just in lot size.

Thanks, Zach. You must really enjoy punishment being here three weeks in a row. Or you must really love us, one of the two. Unless you decide. Just out of curiosity, what is the code limit per year, the number of times we can change that? Four. Four, OK. Thanks for the presentation, Zach and Charlie. Zach, when was the last restaurant operational here? Do you know?

It was before my clients took ownership. I'm getting some general.

Yeah, I was going to say.

No, it wasn't that long ago. It wasn't that long ago. It was that Italian restaurant. OK. Probably about 10, I think, maybe.

I was going to say 12.

It's been a significant amount of time. Longer than Dan, longer than me, longer than my clients.

It's been a while. Just so I understand what you were saying, when you presented the background information on the collier county documents from the 90s there was no density limitation at that time correct there is a there's a residential density cap but not for hotels okay and then for some reason that we don't really know when it got moved in to the comp plan this was carved out

There's a couple strange things that happen on the conversion. So one is most of these, this is not the only one, there's also obviously Old Marco, but there's even more than that. Essentially all of your architectural districts have some route in a Collier County district. And what's odd about this one, and I don't know that it's hyper-relevant for this point, but it's odd, this one came in as an architectural district but it also came in if you look in your code there's a whole section on the Marco Lake Drive business district in your code which is different from the architectural district and so I do think there's call for heavy look at how does all of this do we do what is that section doing at all because I'll note in your current land development code you have a typo in your legal description for the Marco Lake business district that totally irreconcilable with the Platts and so it's but but the things that are in that district don't don't seem to do very much in my observation so I don't know that it's ever had a reason to come up but if you're asking yourselves why aren't property owners doing things in this area this area is somewhat complicated to operate in yeah I would imagine is it a fair would it be a fair characterization to say

If we go forward with this – and I know we're not dealing with an SDP or an STPA at the moment – but if we went forward with this, the density limits, you'd not only be within them, you'd be under what the comp plan limits are. And technically, if – considering the operational constraints that would probably exist on being able to operate a restaurant, it would be a reduction in intensity as well.

With the advance disclaimer that obviously that's not a part of this decision Yes, that it is is we listed 28 because that's the technical math possible I believe the client is under the impression. That's me more like 26 and then there would be Not a square foot left to do anything else other than the hotel and it's 19 now, right? I Thought If the staff said 19, I think we said 20 I

I thought it was 16 per acre, but 19 I think was the number of rooms. Oh, number of rooms.

I believe that's correct, yes.

Okay.

I guess I need to, I don't know if you want me to swear on my client because he wasn't sworn. Yeah, actually, that's probably a good idea. Could you stand up real quick and just be, swear in.

Sorry.

Raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testament to give you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so be good. Thank you.

So he's been sworn in and he had confirmed that there were 19 rooms.

Okay. What's his name?

Zach, why don't you have him come up and just introduce himself and answer the question. Sorry. Because technically you don't provide the evidence.

I understand.

Sir, 18 or 19? Just state your name for the record. Ashish Patel, sorry. All right. So go ahead and answer the question. There's the eight plex, and then I think there's 10 units in the two-story building. Yeah, yeah. But we can't, yeah, I don't think, I know.

Let me just, for the record, so what is the question that somebody would like to ask?

The question is how many units are currently on site?

Can you answer that question? I believe it's 18.

Anyone who speaks should be sworn in. Okay.

Let me ask, who is the person who has the most knowledge with respect to this property that can answer questions related to the history of the property? All right. So let's try it again. Mr. How many units are currently on site? 18.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Is that all?

Anything else?

No. The only other thing I was going to say is I think a lot of the comments up here have been well put by the board. I was a little sensitive to the sort of spot zoning thing and still am, but good points have been made. This area has had some decay and Brad makes a good point. My preference would be, if we look at the text of the code, if we just struck Marco Lakes, that's a cleaner way to do it in terms of, to Brad's point, making it more broadly applicable to the entire portion and not site-specific. But at the same time, I don't know if I'm inclined to deny this change on the basis that another one would be more preferable, another approach could be more preferable, but this one still makes sense to me. If we were going over density or some massive intensity use was still on the table here, which I just think the practical considerations of the site would prevent that, it may be a different discussion. But I don't want to let the perfect be the enemy of good, I guess would be my point. That's all I have.

Thank you. I obviously agree with the comments made by my fellow board members today. Just so we're clear, Zach, the idea of converting the restaurant to units, that's not before us. We're not ruling on that. That's not a condition. We can't make it a condition because we have no site plan. Correct. So I would like the Mr. Patel, could you come back over the mic real quick? I just want to ask you, generally, what's your intent? If you know, we recommend this to city council, they approve it and they change the LDC. What's your intent with the property?

to add units inside the old restaurant space so just a little history if I may my dad immigrated from India 1969 went to engineering school in California moved to Florida in 79 I've pretty much grown up in the hotel hospitality business and in in the early 90s my dad built a Hampton Inn on Daniels Park when on 1994 building Hampton on Daniels Parkway in Fort Myers we've built a dual branded Hilton Hotel at the Pompano Beach Pier hospitality hotel tourism is really our background we share a very similar thought process as far as when you come down Marco Lake Drive compared to the rest of Marco is just really not up to where we would like to see the area. I think the previous ownership was based out of Maryland and they were trying to manage remotely and it was just really kind of a mess when we first got there. So we only bought the property just about three years ago. And we just don't like the whole, yeah, it just feels gross. I mean, I don't know, lack of better words. Borderline hoodish, you know, if that's even a, so, yeah. We would really like to up the area. I wish we had access to the internet because the hotel we built in Pompano Beach is right at the Pompano Beach Pier. It's part of like six acres that the city owns and beautiful landscaping. The architect that we're utilizing for this particular property, he's designed over 500 Hilton's and Marriott's. So this is a pretty simple project because it's an independent hotel that we would really like to kind of improve the aesthetic and you know to be able to have additional units really helps us from a cash flow perspective we would love to have more units but I don't think based on how the architect laid out the 2,600 square feet in the old restaurant space would allow us to even go for the additional eight units, maybe seven. But I just don't think, because the rooms would just become too compressed. And then we don't want to have a negative guest experience, right? So I don't want to just talk as the greedy hotel guy that wants to just cram as many units as possible. But we do need units just to make it a little more economically viable because we still have front desk staffing, maintenance, housekeeping, all the other expenses that go along with it. But if we had the additional units, it would really help us bring more dollars to that little area to really improve not only the interior but the exterior piece that really sucks right now you know like in that whole area so that that's that's our our you know yeah i'm sorry if i'm like killing myself but like it's pretty obvious you know if you don't we drive down you know it's a little hoodish so we're trying to like improve the area but um we've only been there a few years and so we're pretty excited with what we can do um so uh we really appreciate all of your guys's help and guidance and Sorry, I'm not really an expert in speaking up. All we know is how to manage and renovate hotels.

You've answered my question. I don't know if I'd have used those words, but they certainly are colorful, and they drive the point home. So it looks like you're committed to obviously putting these rooms in. You're not going to tear it down and build something brand new. That's not the deal. No, sir. Okay, and I just wanted to hear you say that, quite frankly, and nice to meet you, Mr. Patel.

Yeah, thank you so much. Likewise.

I just want to thank you because this is our third week in a row of having meetings, and it's the first time we've laughed. So thanks very much for what you had to say. It was delightful. And I commend you for what you're doing. I've been on this island for 52 years, and I have seen that area and watched the restaurants come and go, and I commend you for what you're trying to do as an independent hotelier. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

So for Zach and staff, and this kind of touches on what Brad was discussing early on, and I'm going to ask you this question and I will tell you why. One of the questions I wanted to ask was could we restrict use as part of this land development code? And the reason I'm asking that is it ties into Brad's conversation about the idea of this whole sub-district over there. If this whole sub-district gets redeveloped, we talk about heaviest, lightest, transitional, residential. And that's transitional, close to multi-family and single family. And if we approve this now, we don't necessarily get an opportunity, right, to change this later. And do we suggest on this parcel that if you can't have your cake and eat it too, do we suggest that, listen, if we're going to amend the code to be consistent with our comp plan and give you the 26 units, that you don't have a restaurant or a bar on that property. Again, it's sort of thinking about that whole area in general. And I would almost say down the road, like where the small engine repair place and the storage units and all those, anything that's proximate to single family or multi-family residential, that those uses should be lighter in nature. So whether or not it's allowed, whether or not there's an appetite for the board for that, that was something that was on my mind.

One observation, so this district doesn't, and I wish I had the whole code here, it doesn't change any of the current uses. So the current use list in C4 isn't modified by this. The only thing that gets modified by this is some dimensional standards, and it's more than just density, which I have on the screen. It's also height. and so there's not a current I guess instance of that and so you would be I'm not sure if you're asking could you do this across the whole district could you do it just to this one there's not really a mechanism to do it inside of this one as proposed but I don't want that to sound obtuse I mean in some sense you can do whatever you want but I don't think that that's appropriate in this particular one because no one else in this district has that kind of use limitation

But no one in this district has the right currently to have 26 units per acre density, right?

I think that's why we wanted to emphasize the on the ground layout here because also no one else in this district has the ability to meet your normal site planning requirements when it comes to things like parking. If we're focusing on the lion's share of the district is here. And in this zone things are very different and there's very real Constraints and and the spirit of the district in 95 was not one of limitation. It was one of exception They came in and said as to these properties here just these ones We can't park these so they gave them a parking exception That was all the 95 code did and then I'm not sure politically would happen, but I assume these property owners So wait a second. Why aren't we getting the parking exception? So in 97, the county expanded this, and I wish, I don't think, see Mr. Mulhare here, he was at the county and authored this code at the time. I could call him as a witness, we could get to the bottom of this right now. But they added this section in, and all of what shows up in the code sections are exceptions and helping these properties develop, which isn't kind of in line with what we're talking. It's the city that shows up in the early 2000s and codifies this and puts limitations on it. And then it hasn't redeveloped and so I don't we certainly are not going to agree to any use illustrations at this time I think that the But I do think that the city should look at the whole zone and I would suggest not just this is this is Marco Lake Drive but if you if I could move that map if you go north is the really the rest of the Highlands District and The whole zone, I think, could use a look at. That's my personal opinion, but I don't think that that's within the scope of what we're going over here today.

What you have here today is a very specific application and request to amend this specific provision of the code. With respect to any other items related to this district, I think that's a different matter that you'd need to analyze separately from this request. And I think it's important to note, as Member Henson said and as Mr. Lombardo said, I mean, this is not the site development plan stage. This is a request for a land development code amendment. And does that request meet the standards as far as compatibility and other aspects with respect to whether or not that this change is appropriate for that location?

Right, but if this contemplated change is made, there are no government bodies that have an opportunity to have any input on this. If this is a yes today and a yes at council, there are no opportunities to have any more discussions. I would disagree with that.

We're coming back with a site plan amendment.

At that time, you couldn't say no to a restaurant by virtue because it's a use by right. If you meet parking criteria, stormwater, traffic studies, if you meet all the criteria, it is then a use by right. So there is really no opportunity to say, well, we don't like that. No.

It's a use by right now, and it's a use by right then. And so I think the significance of why we provided that data to show the traffic and intensity difference is essentially to say a restaurant's allowed now, and if we let this other thing happen, it would be less impactful than a restaurant of similar size. And so I don't think that that then gets to the conclusion of, well, we should down-restrict this property for restaurant use, because the point is, 26,000 sorry 2,600 square feet of restaurant versus that amount of hotel rooms The hotel rooms are less and so even if we somehow figured out how to do both Which are you my client provided testimony this although I cannot that cannot be relied on we're coming on the site plan But you're looking at the site now There's not we have parking requirements. We have to fill all of that to hit that particular code section, so We would oppose any

In response to your, you and the council have the ability to review the site development plan. With respect to what is being requested here, it's up to 26 units, so that doesn't mean that that's what's ultimately going to get approved. Any other future uses, designs, proposals still need to meet parking, landscaping, setbacks, all those other aspects. you will certainly have the ability to have input with respect to what happens on that property. This is only a question as to whether or not this amendment is appropriate.

But I guess to deal with this, I'll try to be more direct. We could scrape the whole site now. No Land Development Code amendment. And we could come up with a series of the most intense uses that are already allowed under C4 and fit them. Because this is an acre or so. So we could put something pretty serious here now that would be, I would suggest, the world you're talking about. And so to downregulate, just because we used the restaurant as the example. And maybe we shouldn't have used the restaurant as an example. We used it because it was there and it shows the traffic equivalency and it helps conceptualize that these additional rooms don't do anything worse than what could be done by right. But another thing that could be done by right, like I said, is we could do these little auto body shops kind of coming around the corner. We could do something to fit into this zone, right? Zoning, or C4 zoning. Like, there's something we can do here that's fairly intense as compared to that. And so the... At the end of the day, I do think there's a reason, and I wholeheartedly agree, for council to look at this whole section, understand why it's here, why is this necessary, is this what you want in this zone, and I would go north, too. But I will point out that when your council did this for Old Marco and the consultant made a suggestion about incentivizing redevelopment, council said no.

Yeah, I'm not going to die on my sword for this. It was a question that I thought was a good question to ask.

That's OK. I'm going to die on my sword for it. So we'll see how it goes.

Joan?

Oh, no. I'm sorry. I didn't have anything.

Oh, nothing. Brad? I see what you're saying, Jason. I know you're not going to die on the sword for it. But I understand exactly what you're saying. And it is a concern. When you don't, you know, it's the carrot and the stick kind of thing. You know, the stick for us is the density. We control it right now at 16. They want 20, what is it, Zach? Six. Right, they want more. So that's the stick. And the question that I have is, what are we getting for that? What are we getting for that right now? If we give it to him today in an LDC amendment, what do we gain? What does the city gain? Another way to look at this, and I want him to do it, believe me. Mr. Patel, I believe you. I trust, verify, I believe you're going to do these things. But there's no guarantee for that. So once we give that up, They can come in and do whatever they want. Like Zach said, they could tear it down. They could do pretty much anything they can do in the LDC. That's my concern. The way I look at this and the way I've looked at it, anybody that's really smart and knows how to answer questions, one plus one is two, and that's a process to get there. Is one plus one for us the right path? to get to two what Zach wants or is it four minus two or is it some complex algebraic equation that gets to the same answer but it also protects the interests of the city that's that's my best easiest way to explain it so I do agree with you uh that is a concern I'm trying to find a way to say City Council consider this uh Mr Patel is going to do this but there's no guarantee here and that does bother me. I think he's being honest. He's going to do it. He's going to put the units in. That's wonderful, but that's the risk we're running here. The other thing I would ask, David, other than an LDC amendment, couldn't they file an application here before the board for a site plan with variances from density, or is that not allowed? Can't do that?

It's consistent with the comp plan.

Right. I'm just asking for other avenues, other equations to get to two other than an LDC amendment. I hate to put you on the spot, David.

No, I know. No, you don't. I need to look at that section related to it. I'm not aware of previously considered variance for density.

I'll withdraw that for now. You can think about that. Can I respond to that?

You have a section on types of variance authorized.

Density is not one of them.

It's dimensional development standards.

Typically I don't think we would give a variance for density just because it is such a holy grail for lack of a better term.

And that's what concerns me. See, going back to what the chairman said, that's what concerns me. It is the Holy Grail, and we don't have an opportunity to consider it as a variance in connection with an SDP. And I may be wrong about this, but this is what I think. And, Zach, you may correct me or David correct me, but when we do a site development plan and we sign off on one, that's a final decision, is it not?

Yeah.

I mean, it's... That's not a recommendation to council. That's a final decision only appealable to council, correct?

Right. But, you know, subject to, you know, like we have other developments subject to any variances or conditional uses. I mean, if the site development plan meets all the code requirements, it comes to you, and you approve it, you approve it.

We're fine. It's final, then?

Yes.

Okay. So... We're not doing that today. No. So I just wanted to make those comments. Mr. Chairman, this is obviously your show, your seat. I just wanted to make those comments in support of what you're saying and find a way to maybe move this to council in a positive way so that there can be some resolution for the applicant and the city at the same time. That would be the best equation we could come up with.

Sure. And if I could just briefly. whenever you approve any land development application, you never have a guarantee that the developer's gonna actually build the project. And I think you've seen this in some recent examples. And so there's nothing, there is no, guarantee of any of that. The basis here that we've put forward, the justification, is that this is not a significant change to the traditional, if anything, it's a reduction to the traditional planning metrics, the traffic and intensity metrics. And then the justification more broadly, as provided in some of the testimony here, is encouraging redevelopment in the space. And so the point is even if it were scraped and configured differently because it still has to meet all of your other Standards and we're operating on a dead-end road. That is not a commercial typical standard There's all kinds of things that could come into play here but as far as looking for a a Reason that's sort of like a hammer clause here. I just don't see the need to do that because I can't Importantly because I don't understand why this was put in here in the first place There is no clear trail So we're kind of these comments are somewhat assuming that there was a good reason that we're here And I don't know that there is a good reason that we're here the variances section does not specifically allow density variances We are c4. There's no rezone the we aren't objecting to most of the other requirements in this section the height the architectural standards so we're not asking to be pulled out of this district as a whole which maybe could be conceptualized to some sort of a reason even though but that's not really clear would you rezone out of an architectural district I don't think that so all you can do is amend the boundaries of the architectural district and So I appreciate the concern, but I think that it's based in an assumption that isn't there, which is that this density restriction came from some kind of reasoned statement or basis, that your comp plan doesn't reference it at all. And this would have been in place before your comp plan showed up. So it's not new information, right? This showed up in 01 or 02 when you guys codified this section. So it's not I went through that whereas causes I don't see anything that explains that I don't think your videos go that far back and City Council and I doubt it would have been picked up anyway because in those original ordinances you were doing massive codifications of the land development code and I doubt there would have been an explicit discussion on this but I don't I don't know that what I know is that This area suffers from a redevelopment issue. One of the obvious things about this area is it has restrictive and somewhat complicated entitlement problems. This clears away some of that without overreaching, without saying, get me out of the height limit, get me out of the architectural district, get me out of all those things. I think if we came in and said, pull us out of the height district, We got a lot more to talk about. And there's a reason why we didn't do that. And it's not like a concession. We never filed that way. We always filed in as narrow as possible to help give credibility to the statements that you heard from Mr. Patel that this is what they intend to do. But at the end of the day, any application that comes before you, you can never guarantee that the developer is actually going to do it. And so I hear you, but what are you doing about all the other applications on that point?

David, you want to reply to that?

I just wanted to make one statement with respect to the site development plan approvals by you. There is a right for affected parties to appeal those actions to city council.

Just a couple things, I'll try to be quick. I think it's a good thing we don't have the opportunity for variances with respect to density. Otherwise, we could find ourselves being inundated with variance requests. And that would be not, I mean, a lot of folks have been concerned about the number of variance requests we've gotten over the last year or two that would open the floodgates. But to Brad's question, and I think it's a very serious one, what do we get here when we're kind of controlling this? I look at it a couple ways because I'm sensitive to the one thing that I struggle with a little bit still is my preference, as I said, which is take out Marco Lakes, right, make it easy, and do it more broadly, strike that word in the code as the current restriction. But still, what we get is We get redevelopment of something that is in need of it. And I think everyone up on the board has talked about that. We get what is ostensibly a less intense use, not only from what the current site plan or the plans as it exists would allow, but as Zach illustrated, relative to what they could do today, by right, it would be less intense what they're talking about here. a giant restaurant by right, you know, limited only by parking considerations and the traffic nightmare that would create for neighboring residential areas would be a much more serious thing I think we'd be discussing. Now there's no guarantee on any of this, but I think the practical layout and considerations of the site do impose restrictions on their ability to do some of the things I think were that have been expressed as a concern up here. If they move forward with the hotel units, I don't think they're going to have the room for the restaurant. It's just not going to be there. Or, as Jeff kind of alluded to, are they going to put them in and then say, well, crap, let's tear down the whole building and start over again? I just don't see it playing out. And then the last thing I would say is the comp plan is, in my view, kind of our North Star on this. And it has contemplated this at 26 without reference to these restrictions that are in our code. And my preference is always to err on the side of that in this instance. And so I think you put all of that in a blender, I'm having trouble coming with a conclusion and saying, this is unreasonable. It seems relatively mild compared to what might otherwise be done, even without the restrictions that have been contemplated, which are thoughtful considerations. I'll just leave it there.

Jeff?

Yeah. In regards to the question, what do we get out of this? I know this is going to sound simplistic and probably a little silly. It's been a few years, but my family from Pennsylvania, who aren't quite as well off as people in the Rockefeller tax bracket, have stayed on the island. We've got a couple of hotels that are quite expensive, a place in Old Marcos, same way. This is a good economical area for the normal person to visit our island. I see it as more of an economical area. I think it's Well served, long overdue. I frankly commend the Patel family. I'm glad you're part of our community. And I think the benefit is just that people in general have a more economical place to stay.

All right. Well, anyone want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion. Second.

Just the motion for what? I'm reading the tea leaves. It's a motion to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to city council as presented.

What about with the title change?

Oh, yeah, that's a given.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Do we have anybody in the public who would like to comment on this item? All right, seeing nobody. Anything else from the board? Daisy, would you call the roll, please?

Member Hogan?

Yes.

Member Jensen? Yes. Member Ferringer?

Yes.

Vice Chair DeVluis?

Yes.

Member Henson?

I'm going to vote yes, but I would hope the council would consider the Overlay area the redevelopment encourage redevelopment the entire area and I'd make this yes vote because I trust mr Patel is going to do exactly what he said he was going to do And therefore I'll support it, but I hope the City Council will take a broader look at this entire area.

Thank you Chair Bailey yes Recommendation to council moves forward Thank you next item on our agenda board communications I Anybody have something they want to talk about? If not, I've got something I'd like to discuss briefly.

I do. And I don't want to prolong our meetings much. But you may recall a few weeks ago, I had mentioned that council had sort of given us a green light to talk about the possibility of remote participation in quasi-digital hearings. And I'd asked the board if everyone was OK with us discussing that at the August meeting. I had in the interim period the opportunity to speak with Alan Gabriel and David, and we had a good conversation. And so if the board's okay with that, I'd like to take a few minutes and talk a little bit about that. Again, I don't want to detain us here.

I can't hear you. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Okay. That better.

I have a bad habit.

I was just saying, Dan, a couple meetings ago, we had, as a board, kind of given consideration to the green light we got from council with respect to remote participation in quasi-judicial hearings, having a discussion about that. And in the interim, I had a conversation with Alan Gabriel and with David, and I was hoping the board would just entertain letting me talk about the outcome of that conversation a little bit and what next steps could look like, if that would be okay. So I had a talk with Alan and David. If it's possible, could I use the overhead projector? Because I have some stuff I put up. Okay. Thank you. It feels weird being on this side.

Will you swear a man, David? Change your name. All right.

Okay.

Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa. Oh, that's a no. So this was an ordinance that was adopted, or excuse me, a resolution that was adopted during COVID that facilitated, at that time, remote participation in meetings. And this is just the whereas information. The backside, it's a pretty short ordinance, is

really the meat and potatoes.

And at the time, it said, and you'll see my proposed markups in red there, but city council hereby allows the participation in a public meeting via telephone, video conference, or CMT, which is communications media technology, I think, to the extent the city has the ability to establish and approve appearance by CMT by city council members or any appointed city board or advisory, excuse me, city board or committee member at all public meetings in the Marco Island City Council or at any of the city's appointed board or committee meetings. It says right now, due to the evidentiary nature of quasi-judicial hearings, and then you go down to the struck out part in my draft, city declared quasi-judicial matters shall not be held through the use of CMT. What I've conceptualized here is what's in red, which is due to the evidentiary nature of quasi-judicial hearings. A physical quorum of the council slash border committee shall be present at any meeting where any counselor slash border committee member requests to appear by CMT. No counselor slash border committee meeting member, excuse me, shall be allowed to participate in more than two quasi-judicial hearings via the use of CMT in a 12-month period. This is that latter part of it would be to get at the issue that I think Nanette had brought up of we don't want to – there's benefit to being here in person, and we don't want to abuse that with unlimited – you can just zoom in to quasi-judicial hearings any time. So this is a contemplation of it. I discussed it with Alan and David to try to best represent that conversation. I think they had some concerns. My – and I don't want to put words in David's mouth, so I'll let him articulate those. issue is other localities in Florida do this. Collier County does this, both at their – they do it with the MPO, they do it with the Board of Commissioners, they do it with their planning board. They do it in a variety of mechanisms. Naples does this in a limited fashion. There are other municipalities across the state that have done this. The concerns I had that I think were expressed to me was – the biggest one was the ability of an applicant to claim that a remote member participating might not have heard evidence in a fashion uh... that was sufficient if there was a power outage or if there was some sort of disruption in communications they could claim they did not get a fair or impartial hearing my sort of counter to that would be we've actually had power issues in the past and we always stop the meeting pretty quickly and we wait until everything's been reconnected re-established and uh... move forward i also did ask mr gabriel A, is he aware of how Collier County and others can do this and we can't? And his response, just to paraphrase it, was, you know, hasn't spoken to them, is not, you know, required to speak to them on how they do and why they do the things that they do, which is fair. And I asked if he was aware of any litigation. With respect to this where an applicant said I didn't get a fair shake because of someone zooming in or whatever other use of CMT and he said he was not he had not looked into that and wasn't concerned with that in terms of Something he had not researched So I I don't think our city attorney would likely recommend this but which was the impression I walked away with, but I still want to put it forth before the board because I think it's not an unreasonable request, and I think we're constraining ourselves to we've got to be present, and the people present have to authorize it, which is said later on in the existing language, and it's capped at just two. I don't think that is an unreasonable request, and obviously this is for council to... make final call on. But that's it. I don't know the next steps on this. If anyone wants to ask me anything or ask David anything or if David wants to opine or if I should just sit back up there.

I understand and I absolutely sympathize with your request. But in the last several weeks that we've been meeting, I have listened to comments from people who have not been in the room, who have a totally different perception of conversations that have occurred in our meetings. And so it concerns me because we're doing transformative things here. We're making decisions that are really important. And I think being in the room is really crucial. And while I absolutely sympathize with your doing a job and a half away and wanting to so responsible and be able to listen to meetings. I just think that being in the room is really important. So that's my take on it.

Noted. Understood.

Sorry, I just turned it back on.

I sort of like the idea, Hayden. It is problematic. It can be problematic. But during COVID and hearing cases during COVID over the internet, which we all had to learn rapidly, how to sign documents, how to take testimony, how to mark documents from one spot to another. Zach will probably know this. You had to have documents to everybody delivered wherever they were appearing remotely. It was a challenge, but it was doable. The big question was, how can a judge determine character, demeanor? Is the person looking around the room? Those kind of things were always something that came into play. Florida, and David will correct this, I think Florida does allow us to do this, David, if we want to, with certain limits. Isn't that true?

David Tolstoy, Assistant City Attorney. And thank you, Hayden, for bringing this up. So I would say that Florida legally does not allow this. And we're not sure how Collier County, if it is the county itself or if it's another agency or board, is able to do it. We have specific provisions in our charter that talk about being present and voting on items. Historically, the Florida Attorney General opined that The only way that you could appear, and this is going back before Zoom, before CMT, was that if you had like a medical emergency, if you were a city commissioner or somebody who had to attend a public meeting and you were in the hospital, some extraordinary circumstance, then the board could authorize that. But that was how it historically was. COVID changed everything. Everybody became very used to appearing remotely, appearing by Zoom, and we had to get the okay from the governor in executive order to allow to hold those meetings remotely without a physical quorum present during COVID. So we were able to proceed in many locations to have those remote meetings and use Zoom without a physical quorum present. Once that emergency or executive order expired, we were back to having regular meetings with physical quorums present. And the only thing that's changed, I think, is that people became used to appearing remotely. So that extraordinary circumstance of being absent from a meeting has now been relaxed a bit, I think, by a lot of boards. And we are still of the opinion that, especially for quasi-judicial proceedings, which typically affect property rights, that the individuals who are making those decisions need to be present in the room. And that's consistent with the city charter. I think that's consistent with what the Attorney General has opined in the past. And we think that is good governance. And we welcome further discussion with you, the city council, to see what, you know, if any changes want to be made, we can certainly provide our input.

And just to follow up, and I'm not making Hayden's argument here, but I like it. So for the quorum part, I have no problem with that. You can't establish a quorum over the camera. No way, no how. But once you have a quorum and somebody wants to appear by video at that point in time, is that a direct prohibition by the AG or case law?

I would say that under our charter, the city charter, it talks about being present and voting. And the only other thing I would say is that sometimes during these quadraditional hearings, and I don't know how our technology works, but there are documents that may be presented during the hearing that may be put up on the screen. And I don't know if the individual who would be appearing remotely, doesn't happen all the time, but would they have the same access to that? I don't know. So that's, you know, they're just, it's a concern. You know, I'm not saying the conversation isn't worthy of pursuing, but, you know, I think, and I don't want to put words in Alan Gabriel's mouth either, but I think he is pretty steadfast in his opinion that quasi-judicial hearings should be held in person, and those who are not able to be here would not be able to participate.

The only thing I would add, and David, correct me if I'm wrong, the language in the charter that discusses physically present does not distinguish between a quasi-judicial. No, it doesn't. It just says members should be physically present. I have witnessed, and I'm sure many of you all have, many times in which counselors have been absent from meetings have zoomed in have been they have a vote on the dais should we allow so-and-so to participate I mean I've seen mounts counselors zoom in from cruise ships and they've been able to participate in that dialogue and engage in that meeting and there have been documents presented on the overhead and so in my mind The question I would have to David is, if in our charter it says physically present, and if the interpretation is we can't move forward with this because it's not physically present, then how have those many instances that have occurred been consistent with that verbiage?

Yeah, I'd have to look at the instances. I don't know if they were quasi-judicial hearings necessarily or not.

But again, the Charter doesn't mention quasi-judicial.

It just says meetings. But because the quasi-judicial hearings are held under certain standards with respect to disclosures, with respect to communications, with respect to swearing in witnesses, while it's not a judicial proceeding, it's quasi-judicial, and they're typically affecting property rights, whether they are the applicants or neighboring property owners. We believe that the best result that either the planning board or advisory board or the council can provide is through those individuals who are present in the room at the time.

Maybe I can help land the plane here a little. Without us getting too far into the weeds, we again have a quorum of city council members here in attendance. Our objective here is to either ask city council to consider this or not ask city council to consider this by a majority of this board. I'm personally in support of it because, again, I think The more opportunities we have for board members, committee members, council members to participate, it allows us to have more thoughtful conversations. It allows more people to apply for this position possibly. We've had some important hearings in the last month, and what if we had another board member or two other board members allowed to participate? Just in those specific instances alone, how would those conversations have gone? So I'm supportive of it and I would just say we could say by a show of hands Is there consensus among the members of this board? To ask counsel to have a conversation about it.

I think that's appropriate Hey, I like the idea and I think it's modern it's 2026. Yeah, right but I Carry two boards and committed to this city and I was in the audit committee, a lot of people don't know, I was on audit and planning at the same time. So I had done four plus years on audit, pre that whole mess that happened with audit, and I'm heading to 70 meetings here with you folks right now. I made a commitment to this, right? I think, and I like this idea that once in a while you have to, Lynette probably could have been on the call today, you probably could have been You know, we missed a few the other day. And we've had important meetings, as Jason has said. But we've also made a commitment to this, right? And I get the whole two taking a shot. But the town, the last couple of months, is wrestling over a committee member that has missed. And they brought him in. That's true. And it was like, wait a minute. You know, we're getting rid of him. But no, he's got to come in because we need him. And I agree, Jason. It could open the skill set. But... It's like coming in, you know, you open up the can of worms for a variance. You made the comment today, everybody's going to come in for the variance. Does this say, does this just open the door to, I'm just going to remote it this month or the next couple months type of thing? I just feel, and I'm not against this, I like the idea, but I just, I made a commitment, and I get my fanny here the last six, seven years, but I'm the island eight, and I've committed over six plus years to the city. I've got my fanny here, so...

Yeah. I appreciate that, Mike. The only two things I would offer would be, I think, part of your concern would be addressed by the cap of no more than two. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Someone wouldn't.

No question.

The other thing is, and I would just add this, Being mindful that our meetings happen during a workday. I'll just say on a personal note, it's been very tough for me the last several weeks. And I travel a lot for D.C. And, you know, I'm sure to Jason's point, this could be potentially broadening the applicant pool if we allowed it.

This comes from a retired guy.

Exactly. And that would be my only point. And if there's not a majority, I totally respect that. I just wanted to raise the issue.

I don't think it'll hurt. It's tough for me, too. Absolutely.

Yeah, yeah. And it's only twice a year. So if somebody does get called away twice a year, I think that's reasonable. And a show of hands.

Yeah, I mean, we could just do a show of hands. Who thinks council should have a conversation about this? If it's a yes, raise your hand. Conversation, absolutely.

Conversation.

Absolutely.

Well, the only thing I would add is I think, and I don't want to speak for the council of the room, they asked us to have a conversation. And so I would hate to go back with them and say, we think you guys should have a conversation. I think they were looking for us to come up with something.

That's correct. They wanted a recommendation.

Well, I could take it a step further and say, who thinks that council should have a conversation about Hayden's proposed changes?

I would agree with that. And I would say, Hayden, I think you did a good job laying it out. They should have that conversation. I think the two, and I would go further, I would say the two that you can miss would be any reason, whatever the reason is. You got called away for a death in the family, whatever the issue is, you can use it. And then the board should also have the right, should have the board, not the applicant, not the person wanting to zoom in, should also have the additional right to say, that we're going to allow this person to zoom in because of X, Y, and Z. So I wouldn't cap it at two. I'd say two absolute strikes. You get to pick it, whatever the reason. But then I would say beyond that. You lost me there. Well, in other words, if you got two, you can remote in two times a year, right, for any reason. I have no problem with that. Whatever you are. You're on a cruise ship. We've seen counselors on cruise ships wherever they are. I have no problem with that. But if you do use those two, and this board says we need somebody here, we want somebody to remote in, we want to hear what they have to say, the board could make that decision. It may be no, but at least you'd have the option. You wouldn't be sitting there, well, Mr. Chairman, you probably won't. chair would at least have an opportunity to say, yeah, I'd like to see if we can get that individual to participate. It's a valuable member and we'd like to have them all. So that's just a little bit of a thought.

So when Eric was in the hospital, I believe he was allowed to participate remotely but was not allowed to vote. Is that correct? Am I correct on that, David?

I wasn't at those meetings, but I would think that, yeah, I don't know. I'm hearing that he did vote.

Is there a consensus that would want to send the language that Hayden has crafted forward to council for discussion in its current form? Yes. By show of hands.

Right. So let the record reflect that there's a consensus to forward Mr. DuBois' proposal.

And I'll get this to, first of all, thank you. And I will get this to staff and everything. And thank you, everyone. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thanks, Hayden. I did have one other very brief question.

One very brief thing for Board Communications, which is during the last hearing on the Hilton, towards the end of the meeting when I was recapping and talking about the extent of the renovations that were done in 2015 versus the extent that were done then, I was making a comment about the size of my relative perception as to the extent of those renovations that were done. And I said it was a lot. Upon rewatching the video, it sounded very much like I said that was a lie when referring to what Zach was saying in him making a statement that the renovations were not as substantial. And I was like, well, that's not what I said, but it sounds awfully like a lie. And Zach had mentioned something in his comments. So I just wanted to clarify on the record for the moment. I did not say that, but it sounded awful, and I apologize to you, Zach, for it sounding like that. And I – Zach and I have spoken off the record, and I've made that clear to him as well, that I wouldn't – would not call him a liar and did not intend for it to come across that way in any fashion. So I just wanted to say that on the record. MR. Thank you.

I know everyone's itching to go. I have one other thing, so I apologize. You know, we've had some conversations lately. Dan, you've talked about comp plan amendments coming forward. And one thing that I would love to have a conversation about as part of that, whether or not it waits till then or it happens sooner, I don't know. But the possible discrepancy we have in our comp plan with the resort residential area. In the table, we have the 16 and the 26. In the text, we only have 16. So there was a position on the part of a previous applicant saying that there is no cap on hotels and motels in that area. I think that's problematic. And I would say as part of our conversations for our comp plan amendment, that should be pretty high up on the list of things we talk about. And, again, I don't know if it's something we should talk about sooner rather than later. I certainly don't want to catastrophize, but, you know, a surf club or somebody else could come in and say, hey, we want to do 200 units an acre.

If that's something the direction this planning board would like to go, that's fine. I don't necessarily agree with that analysis, but we can sure discuss that. The – Complan was amended in 2021. It was a clear direction that the leadership at that particular time wanted to go. We can certainly discuss that because we're going to be talking about it moving forward. We also have a density study that we should be getting some clarity on some of that stuff, too. So there's a lot of stuff that's in there. But we can sure talk about it, but it would be a direction, I think, if the rest of this board I would bring that forward to the City Council if they want to maybe start early on a comp plan change instead of going through this whole thing and then in 2028 doing the exact same thing there's nothing that requires that we can do it early it just requires we have to address it every seven years

Well, and to your point, Dan, whether or not it's the pleasure of the board or council, whoever, if it's 16 units an acre for residential and 16 units an acre for hotel, motel, if it's 16 and 26, whatever it is, the argument was made that there's ambiguity and absence of language to the contrary means it's unlimited. So my suggestion, whatever you're choosing, would be to add another line in there that says hotel, motel density is... and put that in the comp plan so that at that point it is no longer ambiguous or unlimited as to the argument of some applicant or other private property owners. know if the planning board wants to talk about that. I don't know. I'm just bringing it up and putting it out into the universe.

I'd be open to it. And I would also just ask, when do we expect that density study? Because maybe it could be part of that dialogue. I don't know if that would be appropriate. I'd be open to it. But I'm also curious as to when we might expect that.

Well, we had questions on the unit count for certain areas. And so they have gone back and they're going over those areas that we had identified. So we're waiting to hear back.

Thank you.

Well, we could have that conversation at a later date, but it's something I think the city should definitely be talking about.

I'd like to bring something. Are you finished? I've got to bring something up. Okay. There's a couple things. The planning board wished to change fence heights. For residential, we had a discussion on that. I plan on bringing that forward. I just haven't had time because we've had multiple planning board meetings. In October, I'm not going to be here for the September meeting. I'll be in California. Those amendments, I plan on bringing forward. Unfortunately, how we've advertised, that's on me. These corrections that we've had to make that we've had to have multiple meetings. That's all on me I plan on making changes to it one of them was when we have our Dates for when submissions to our planning board and City Council is one of them secondly I want to go over our advertising advertising requirements The state does not mandate the things that we do. And you have to understand, there's a lot of things that have changed over the course of 10, 15 years where people weren't getting notices. I think it's... there's too much information we're getting out there and it's what it what it is is instead of us having a great meeting it's stopping our meetings it's doing just the opposite of what it should be doing because i think we've added so many things in our advertisement requirements that we can start cutting back on that and uh... those are some changes that i plan on bringing forward because are really just really disturbing that we have everybody here for a meeting and it stops And I believe that the applicant, the residents know there is a meeting, why the meeting is there, but it's for technicalities. And I'd like to stop that and dummy it down a little bit to actually what the state requires. So those are things that I'm going to bring forward.

And I just want to be clear. I hope my comments were not intended at a... No, I didn't mean it that way. I think you guys have been doing great. And I know, like today's, I think the applicant missed the TIS and updating that. Like that's kind of on them. but I appreciate that.

No, we did a change when we did the assisted living facility across the street. We required a neighborhood information meeting because of that, and we also required certified mail because of that. And if you think about, that was just an additional layer of advertising, and now we've changed our tone a little bit and got rid of certified mail. Things have changed in the last... nine or 10 years since we've started advertising. And I think with social media, with electronic notices, the county is now getting involved in how we do notices. We may not need to have those kind of notice requirements, and it's really stifling us from actually having meetings.

We don't normally have citizen comment at the end, but I see two members of council standing up, and so I'm wondering if either one of those council members wants to make comments. If they do, we would allow it.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for permitting me to make some comments.

The agenda normally... You have to state your name, sir.

Oh, Stephen Gray, Markle Island City Council. The agenda normally has a line item for council communication, which wasn't on here. It had board communication, so... I wasn't sure how to move forward with that. My comments are quick because I know I'm between you and adjourning, so I apologize for that. Vice Chairman Du Bois, thank you for your great work ethic, and thank you all for the effort you do. This was actually a wonderful conversation this morning. I'm here just to reference... State Statute 163.3174, Local Planning Agency. Just some comments on roles and responsibilities. It's including but not limited to the following comments. I'm sure you've all memorized this. statute in its entirety, so I apologize for boring you, particularly when we're trying to exit. But I will read a couple of comments. The local planning agency shall have the general responsibility for the conduct of the comprehensive planning program. Be the agency's responsibility or responsible for the preparation of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment and shall make recommendations to the governing body regarding the adoption or amendment of such plan. Monitor and oversee the effectiveness and status of the comprehensive plan and recommend to the governing body such changes in the comprehensive plan as may from time to time be required. Review proposed land development regulations, land development codes, or amendments thereto, and make recommendations to the governing body as to the consistency of the proposal with the adopted. I just thought I'd remind you of all your wonderful responsibilities, and I'm grateful for all you do for us. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning, Bonita Schwan, City Councilor. Chair Bailey, I respectfully want to bring something up in regards to the discussion that you just had about the units, et cetera. So I know you've come before City Council and made it clear that you don't want the planning board to go off in directions without city council's direction to do so and with your discussion of that you just made of that and having the board directly go and discuss this without it being directed by city council i'd respectfully ask you to come to council and ask for that direction that you have always done before too so that's finally comment and thank you all for your service thank you anything else from the board if

If not, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

Yep.

I'll second it.

All those in favor? Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Have a great weekend.