Planning Board - Regular Meeting

option having a Florida driver's license, which we need to carry on you, is to take basic driver improvement course and that will usually eliminate any points that may be assessed by the state, okay? I'm gonna give you a warning for not having your driver's license on you. Florida law says you have to have it. God forbid something happened to you, we don't know who you are. We don't know how to identify you, how to contact your family members and whatnot, so just carry that on you from now on, all right? All right, man. Drive safe. afternoon how you doing today ma'am good officer perky mark on police department traffic unit reason for the traffic stops feeling coming over the jolly bridge is 35 okay posted both on the north side and the south side i got you at 51. okay you have your license registration insurance While you're looking for that, I'll be right with you. Do you have the insurance?

Okay. Okay.

I'm going to give you a warning for the speed. Okay.

Okay? I'm going to give you a warning for not having proof of insurance upon request, which you're required to have. Okay? Happy birthday.

Thank you. That's so nice of you. Thank you. Drive safe.

Welcome to Marco Island. Welcome to another episode of Wednesdays with...

All right, ready?

You're much more, I'm still on a learning curve on this. I learn well, but I'm on a learning curve.

Morning, everybody. Happy Friday. Morning. Call the planning board meeting to order, please. Daisy, would you call the roll? member Finkel member Hogan member Ferringer vice chair DeFlois member Henson member Jensen chair Bailey I'm here would everyone please rise and join me for the pledge 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 is approval of the agenda. Anyone have any comments, changes? Mary, did you guys want to modify something on this?

Thank you, yes. I would suggest that we move new business before the two old business items so that they can be on their way.

Anyone have any thoughts on that? Your call. Can we get a show of hands who's here for some of the new business items? And old business? I'm assuming there are more. OK, not a lot of hands. Well, I mean, I would entertain a motion from anyone on the board who wants to make any changes. Or a motion at all. No motions for the agenda? I'll make a motion. We can approve it as suggested by staff. We can move the new business in front of the old business.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right. Next item is a time-certain item. We'll come back to that in a few minutes. Mary, next meeting date.

October 2nd. And the only items we have will be a variance petition and a boat dock extension, which has been moved from meeting to meeting, not by us, but by the applicant. So right now, that's all we have.

All right. I will not be here for that meeting. I have a wedding to attend out of country, or out of the state, rather. I believe Hayden will be here for that meeting. All right. Approval of the minutes? Anyone have any comments? Changes on either one? I just have one nitpick on the July 31st minutes. There was a comment in there talking about an August 1st meeting, and it should just be changed to August 7th. I believe. And I would entertain a motion from anybody who wants to make one.

So moved.

Second?

I second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right. And was, okay. That was for the July 31st minutes. Correct. Yeah. And so you want another motion for the August 7th minutes? Anyone have any comments, changes? If not, I'd entertain a motion.

Motion approved.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right. Staff communications, I know you touched on what's scheduled for the next meeting. Mary, did you have anything else to add? No, sir. OK. Anyone on the board have any questions for staff at the time? OK. We have one minute, so I don't know if you want to move on to new business and at least read something into the record. And then we can pause and go back to citizen comment.

Good morning, Planning Board.

Thank you, Chair Bailey.

I will read the resolution by title only into the record. This is a resolution of the City of Marco Island, Florida, approving the vacation of a utility and drainage easement, LV26-000019, along the common lot line between 531 and 541 South Collier Boulevard, Marco Island, Florida, providing for findings of conditions. Sorry.

I didn't hear a motion to move the new business in front of the old business. I heard the motion.

Yeah, there was an awkward silence. I made a motion. There was a second.

So that motion was to move the new business ahead of the old business. Okay, that was unclear. So thank you, at least to me. Sorry.

Thank you.

Providing for findings and conditions of approval and providing for an effective date.

Thank you. So can we put a pause in this for one moment, and we'll go back to the time-certain item of the agenda. So this is public comment. Any items that are not on today's agenda, members of the public could get up and speak on anything that is not on today's agenda. And is there anybody in the audience who would like to do so? All right. Seeing no one, we will close that item and back to our business.

Mr. Chair David tolls assistant city attorney as this is a quasi judicial item. We're dealing with an even vacation Recommendation I would just ask if there's anybody here is going to be testifying this matter that they Stand raise the right hand to be sworn in at this time Do you swear from the testimony give be the truth all truth and nothing but the truth so be good thank you very much Ex parte site visit no communication site visit and communication

Site visit, no communication. Site visit, no communication.

Site visit, no communication.

Good morning, Mary Holden, your planning manager. Martin, if you would go ahead and pull up. At least I remembered it this time. This is a utility easement vacation request. It's not uncommon. This is the property at Zone C3, and there's the aerial of the property. And that is the easement that they are proposing to vacate. And they'll do a unity of title. And this is to allow for them to construct on both lots. The request has been reviewed by all the utility companies, including our own public water and sewer. There are no comments. They all signed off with no conditions. And so the standard typical condition put in by our utility department, the 10-foot square, is not there. They don't need this easement. As a result staff is recommending the Planning Board forward on your recommendation of approval to the City Council and I'm happy to answer any questions and The applicant is here. Also. Should you have questions of them?

Thank you, Mary Anyone on the board have any questions?

The LCEC letter, is that still current?

Yes.

Because it looks like it expired. It may be more than a year old.

I can let the applicant's agent address that, Mr. Lombardo.

Okay. Next question would be, and I've read Mr. Lombardo's application, there seems to be some debate whether we even need to do this.

that is correct explain that well they this is an old these two parcels are old um and there is some question as to whether there were utility easements or not typical plat notes are there are utility easements along both sides of lot lines so they want it to be on the safe side and go ahead and vacate even if they're not there they want to be safe so that when they start building there is no issue and there are no utilities

That's all I have for now.

OK. Thank you. Anything else from the board? Do we want to hear from the applicant?

As to the necessity we're asking for this out of an abundance of caution it was a request from staff that we go ahead and do the vacation so we're here doing it I previously put on the record that I disagree with a substantial amount of the interpretations about these easements and yet we have done the city has done probably 10 to 20 of these in the past five or six years so I don't At this point, we're submitting this request. It's been approved before, and I'm not going to argue that now. It's been done. I would argue the PLAT moves the easements with the development. However, there's been some concern about whether that's the case because maybe the easements are already maybe there's something already in the ground if that's what you're worried about I think you can just ask for utility views and then you can approve it administratively however that's not been the decision that staff or anyone has taken and again 10 or more of these have already been done As to the LCEC letter, I do see that. I guess it's September 3rd right now, and it expired seven days ago. I would ask if that's a concern that I get an updated letter before council. I think that that's fair. I will point out, we filed this application a considerably long time ago, all things considered. I believe we filed this... Back in January. This isn't a very complicated application. And the one thing I'll note about these letters of no objection, these take a really long time to get from the utility providers. I have confidence I'll be able to get the LCEC letter updated. But to go back to my earlier point, to the extent planning board or anyone listening on council, interested in reviewing this I don't think this is the appropriate process and I think that it would be a lot easier to go another route because it takes several months to get the letters and then we've been pending for nine months to get into this room and we have one more month to go to get to City Council so this has been what I would call a year process to vacate an easement that your staff said you don't need at all so I appreciate you pointing that out as the LC EC letter and I would request that as a condition of Planning Board recommendation I get an updated letter before City Council which I will be able to do

Could I follow up, Jason, with a quick question? Absolutely. I agree with you. I don't think you need to be here. That's just my opinion in reviewing your application. This must cost a lot of money to do this. It's not cheap, I'm sure. The only other question I would have is there's a summit issue that recognized three certain, I don't know, three easements versus two. Is that an issue with you, Zach, or not?

No. There are easements around. The reason why the utility department didn't need the retained easement is because there remains easements all the way around the exterior. Right. And so there's not a – everyone's going to be able to provide full service to this site. And part of the reason we can be very sure about this is this is vacant. So when we go in to develop whatever's going to come here – We're going to be moving easements at that time anyway privately with the various utility providers. So we have no concerns with any of the utility letters other than the LCEC, which I agree with, as you pointed out, and I would ask that that be conditioned.

I don't think that's a big deal. I think you can get that. My concern is I wish you could just put on the record you know just in layman's terms so everybody can clearly understand what you're saying I know the board does as to why you don't believe you need to be here in the first place you know this cost the applicant a lot of money to be here for this issue that may not have even been necessary under the code and I'd like to know just if you could just put on the record in layman's terms so we can understand it if my PowerPoint slide 7 could be put on the screen

I'll get there thank you very much this is the language that creates the easement that we're interested in here there's a subsequent document that's recorded that assigns these easements to the city but and that's noted in the title opinion for the record What is stated here is that there's a six-foot wide easement on each side of the property line for drainage and utilities, and then there's exceptions. One of the exceptions is that when more than one lot, this is two platted lots, and indeed all of these that have come before you have been two platted lots, are intended as a building site, the outside boundaries carry the easements so essentially the easements move and I think I again I argue I've argued this a lot before there was an earlier planning board meeting where I put this on the record but I just didn't at a certain point it became a problem of delaying that the project so we kept moving forward by filing these applications but the common-sense simple way to say this is The plat dictates that these easements sit at all the lines except when the lines get built across and then the easements move to the outside edges. I actually had one that I filed, I think maybe the prior planning board. I can go find it and I'll pass it around because in that one, There had been previous construction across the lot line, and this process had not been followed. Later that house got demolished, and then we were forced into this process again, even though the operation of the moving of the easements seems to have been working. And I think if you were to do a quick review, conveniently the city maintains all of its resolutions, text searchable very conveniently on its website, and you'll notice that these things, you won't find resolutions doing this in the early 2000s. And you won't find them in Collier County's records either. And I would suggest that's because the plat moves the easements. I think the protective measure the city could take here is in the administrative process that vacates these, require the applicant submit a utility locate just to confirm that there are, in fact, no utilities in the easement itself. I think that's a practical way to address the real concern here. But other than that, I don't think this is necessary. I will further note that the code section contemplates that when it's platted lots, There isn't a need to do this. However, that section doesn't seem to be applied and we end up in these hearings. And so to answer your question, there's a city filing fee and there's two hearings. The filing fee, I'm not, I think it's, well, I have it right here.

David, did you want to chime in while he's looking for that?

Yeah, thank you. My only comment would be that because there is an interest in property that is possessed by the city with respect to these easements and that, yes, it may be written on a plat as far as the dedication in order to properly document and record where these easements are being vacated and making sure that the city or other utilities have those replacement easements. This is the process that the city has implemented consistently since I've been working here for the last five years. But certainly, when we're dealing with property issues, it's ultimately the city council that's responsible for making sure that the city has properly decided whether or not to vacate or abandon or grant or accept any type of property interest. So that's why we go through this process. But I'm just the attorney, and if it's counsel's desire to change the process, that's something that we can look into.

I can't find the filing fee in the application form, but I think it's – I don't want to guess. But what I do want to say about that point is the way the plat operates, if we build across the lot line, it moves. If you demolish and then go back to single-family homes, it moves back. When we vacate these, that doesn't happen.

Now, I guess you could, as long as we're paying attention, when we – This is a resolution of the City of Marco Island Planning Board approving a site development plan for a 45-unit condo hotel – and a 4545 slip marina submitted by Maritime Acquisitions LLC, SDP-24-00082, for the property located at 3200 San Marco Road, Marco Island, Florida, making findings, approving the site development plan, providing 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. Thank you.

Once again, Mr. Chair, if I might, if anybody is going to be speaking on this item, as it is a quasi-judicial item, I would request that you stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in at this time. Even if you're not sure if you're going to speak, it's relatively painless, and it saves us some time. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony gave me the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so be God. Thank you very much. You may be seated. Back to you, Mr. Chair, and the Board for ex parte disclosures.

SITE VISIT, NO COMMUNICATION. SITE VISIT, NO COMMUNICATION.

SITE VISIT, BRIEF PHONE CALL WITH SOMEONE ON THE APPLICANT'S TEAM. SITE VISIT, NO COMMUNICATION.

SITE VISIT, NO COMMUNICATION.

OFF YOU GO, MARY.

OH, YES, OFF I GO. GOOD MORNING, MARY HOLDEN, YOUR PLANNING MANAGER. MARTIN, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE, THANK YOU. This is a site development plan approval. And before you, it's at 3200 San Marco Road, known as Walker's Cay. Here's an aerial of the site. This is the zoning. It's Seaforth Special District. This is the site plan. They are proposing 45 condo hotel units with a 45-slip dock. The application and everything are attached in the packet and we're available. wanted to bring up a couple of facts about this site it is unique in the fact that it is called out specifically in our comprehensive plan this this is where it is called out it's in our future land use map policy three point two point eight where it allows for commercial density in the comprehensive plan and again this is unusual because this is typical this is roughly a the only site called out in our comprehensive plan. When the proposal initially came to staff back in 22 or 23, the request was for a condo hotel. Staff made the interpretation that condo hotels were a residential use. And as you see, item number A in our policy states that no residential uses are allowed. It has to be a commercial use.

The applicant's

appealed staff's interpretation, and they did bring it to City Council, and City Council was presented with the appeal, with our interpretation, with the applicant's appeal process on February 21st in 2023. There was a lot of discussion at that meeting, and ultimately the City Council decided in a 5-2 vote to allow for condo hotel. And it was conditioned upon no residential use, meaning it has to be short-term, no long-term. Therefore, it's not a residential use. Commercial hotel rooms are classified as a unit. And condo hotels, they decided, were also a commercial hotel. So as a result, The applicant has submitted for 45 condo hotel units. They're allowed roughly up to 50. They're only asking for 45. So I wanted to clarify the density outlined in our comp plan and clarify the decision made by city council in a 5-2 vote that condo hotels aren't allowed commercial use on this site. With that being said, going back to the conditions, Number B has been satisfied in that the conservation easement was recorded some time ago, and they were allowed to transfer density from that conservation site, so to speak, in that small area over to the main site. And so they are in compliance with A, B, and C. They provided an updated traffic impact statement. It did provide for some recommendations on extending the turn lane, which they have done that. This will not exceed the level of service identified. It will not exceed the level of service for water and sewer. The height, let me go back. This is the building height. 75 feet is the maximum. And just so you know, our definition of building height, we take it from the base flood elevation, not the design elevation, which design is plus one. So this site meets the 75-foot height requirements. They meet the setbacks. They meet... landscaping etc so as a result oh and the various review departments have also reviewed and signed off there's a few conditions in here that are really geared to building permit items that are dealing with um permits needed typically the construction phase we don't require this at the land development code stage because we deal with land use setbacks dimensional standards etc building code is separate however a lot of these comments are addressing what will be required at the building permit phase or prior to the building permit phase we have added couple of conditions that are specific to the land development code and that is no residential use and during the February 21st 2023 City Council meeting the applicant offered up that the city can review the condo docks to ensure that there will be no long term that it will remain a commercial venture and not a residential we bet Pardon me, we've added that as a condition of approval. And then our standard Army Corps DEP, there's grease traps, et cetera. So staff is recommending that the planning board approve this. And keep in mind, this is it. There's no variances. There's no conditional use permits. There's no boat dock extensions. There's nothing. Your approval is final, and so this does not go to city council. So staff is recommending that the planning board approve this with the conditions outlined in the staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions, and the applicant has their various experts here should you have questions. John?

So you've provided for grease traps. Is there a restaurant?

Yes, there is a restaurant.

OK. And are there limitations for the amount of time? How should I say this? Is there a limit? to how long someone can stay in one of these units written into this so that it would not be considered to be a residence.

That will be addressed in the review of the condominium declarations, which we city, well, our legal team, will review for that specific requirement. But I believe 30 days is what's classified as short term.

Okay.

But that will be in the condo docs. We don't have those. Those will be developed. If this gets approved, then they'll go into the condominium declarations and drafting those.

So if we approve this and it's not specifically stated, somebody could theoretically, once we approve it, stay for three months?

No. The way our condition reads is condition number two, Condominium documentation shall be reviewed and approved by city staff and a copy of the recorded document be provided to the city staff before a building permit is issued Condition number one is pursuant to City Council's approval The use of the property may not include residential. So those two conditions of approval will prevent long-term rental of these units

But it's not specific.

Yeah, it says.

Okay. What I guess I'm saying is there has to be a measurement specifically. Does anybody else see what I'm saying?

I would jump in there. I agree with Joan. I would like to see what the condo restrictions are, what they're going to be. I mean, this is a common thing. So you own a unit, right? You own it outright. And do the owners have a right to use their own condo hotel unit, right? And how long can they use it for? The other question I would have following on that is we're a seasonal community. so do they get to use their 30 days in season right or do they use it out of season so i'm a little concerned with the residential aspect of it to me a short term at a hotel 30 days a long time i think i've stayed 10 days in the marriott and that's about all i can handle but 30 days at a hotel is quite a quite a stretch so i'm a little concerned with that i'd like to see do we have have we seen any kind of condo documents today to review them

The city has never delved into ownership, and condominiums is an ownership type. So we don't do that. We basically, because that's not what we have ever done, and so it's land use.

If I might, so the state of Florida has preempted the city's ability to regulate short-term rentals, as we all know, based upon our experience over the last couple years. So I would rely on the applicant. Let them explain to you how they intend to operate this facility. We will certainly review the condo documents. But the city cannot necessarily say you can only reside there for 30 days. We can't regulate. There shouldn't be any residing. Well, residing or staying. I'll use the word stay. All right? I think we need to hear from the applicant as far as how they intend to operate it. But the city is preempted from regulating short-term rentals.

David, are you saying that if we approve this as presented, even though the board will say it's not to be used as a residential facility, it's supposed to be a hotel, that they can in fact do what they want to do, even though we have

They will have to operate it as a commercial venture. It cannot be residential. City Council has interpreted that this use is allowed as a commercial use. There can't be any quote unquote residential use. So we need to, I think you need to hear from the applicant as far as how they intend to operate it. We will certainly review the condo documents. I don't think they want to spend the money or time unless they know they're getting approved before they generate those documents. Much like HOA documents or anything like that, we do typically review those prior to the issuance of any building permits. But I understand the conundrum. I hear what you're saying. But unfortunately, from the city's position, we are preempted from regulating short-term rentals.

My concern is, and I certainly echo what Joan was saying, you know, there's a lot of smart lawyers out there, right? So we give this approval. There's a million ways you can run around who's in the building. I mean, there's so many different ways that a condo owner can say it's rented to, you know, A, B, C, D, X, Y. You never catch that.

You never catch that. And the city's not in a position to do that either. Got it. Okay? But what I will say is from a... From a tax roll perspective, from an assessment perspective, they will not be able to classify this property as residential. They should not be able to apply for any type of homestead exemption. So whatever assessments are made, whatever taxes are paid will be based at a commercial use and not as a residential use. That's the best thing.

Yeah. Yeah, I didn't see that one coming. I want to go on the record. First off, I think this is a fantastic project for that part of our community. It's a great asset having that down there, being a guy who's out of water all the time. I'm uncomfortable. I'm just looking at this as a hotel, a motel, whatever you want to call it. And it's the best of my ability. I don't think we have limited the Marriott, the Hilton, the Beach House, Old Marco Inn, any of these other places If this is a business and somebody wants to bring their boat down and pay the cost of staying in this place for two months to fish and season and enjoy that fantastic backwater area, I just am very uncomfortable telling a commercial enterprise that, no, you can't let somebody rent a room for 60 days. I didn't see it coming. I just don't agree with it myself. That's it.

Yeah, I mean, residential use isn't consistent with our comp plan, right?

I mean, that's... That's what it states. It is not residential use.

And we as a city don't really have a measure. I mean, you opined 30 days, but we don't have a measure on what constitutes residential versus non-residential. You know, at the city council meeting, right, back in 23, you know, Mr. Walker got up and he said, hey, and... I'm probably going to get it wrong, but something along the lines of, hey, listen, if a family lives here on Marco, they own one of these units, they use it for an investment, and their family comes down for Christmas and they want to put them up there for two weeks, is that residential? And I'm not asking for an answer, but it's sort of the concept, right? If they come down for one week, is that residential? If they come down for 30 days, is that residential? If they come down for 90 days, where do you draw the line between residential and non-residential use as it pertains to what's in our comp plan again like you said this is we have one parcel in our comp plan that's called out this is it which is really unusual so i don't know if there's an answer in there somewhere but i mean it's it's something i've thought about um

Well, the applicant has a presentation if you'd like to hear from them.

Yeah. But I was asking you, and I guess we're talking to you and David as far as our side of things before we hear from them.

I understand the concerns. I can't argue with anything that's been said. But this is what we have to work with.

Right. I mean, I'll echo what Jeff said. I mean, just from looking at it, I mean, it certainly looks like a nice development. I can see that, you know, people would use it.

It does contain a restaurant and a salon.

Right. Could I ask a question? And this might be a David question, and then the applicant might chime in as well. But, you know, so if I understood the process correctly, there was a request for an official interpretation of a code. It went to Dan. Dan made the interpretation. The applicant didn't agree with that interpretation, so there was an appeal. The appeal went to council. The 5-2 vote happened. Some of the provisions of our code have expiration dates, like variances, conditional uses, things like that. Is there an expiration date for this ruling, or is it just it lasts forever?

To my knowledge, and David, correct me if I'm wrong, This appeal and their decision is final. I don't believe there is an expiration date because now I think you're getting into vested rights and property rights.

Yeah. It's not like if they don't start constructing something within a certain period of time, they would have lost it. This is an interpretation of the city's code. And the action by the council is binding and official.

Hypothetically, they get an approval. They get entitlements for this. There's nothing that prevents them from selling it. And that entitlement, I guess you'd call it, it runs with the land at this point, is what you're saying? Correct. OK. OK. Did you have another question for Mary?

I just have one other question. Within the application, they talk about

charter uses with the other slips they have one boat right that will seat 30 and they have parking for it okay so are we actually approving that particular charter use with this sdp it's a marina so it is part of an allowed use anyway

That's not the question. I'm asking a direct question. Are we approving the specific charter use of that vessel? I don't know how long it's been. It could have been there for 20, 30 years. I don't know. But that specific charter use, is that a part of this approval in this SDP?

Yes.

Okay. All right. Well, is it? I'm asking.

You're not approving that, aren't we?

You're approving a site development plan that includes the hotel condominium and the docks. Whatever uses are operated there need to be consistent with our code. They're not necessarily asking you at this hearing to approve any specific uses at that marina.

And the reason I ask that question is because the parking, you know, when they talk about parking and they talk, they brought that in, that they're going to have a certain thing, a certain use, and it requires certain parking. So I was just trying to make sure that if that's a part of it, if that's a part of what we're doing and we're saying that that specific charter use is permitted along with this SDP, because it's certainly been used to calculate the parking. So how many slips are we actually approving? I guess that's my question. Maybe they know. I don't think so. I think there's more than that.

I think it would be 46 because they are including one boat that is a charter, and they have parked for it. They have parked 45 boat slips. Again, as far as what is approved, as David has said, They would have to comply with the marina use. They would have to comply with our commercial land use verification where they would have to get a license for like our CLU from us which would then we would look at parking and that's when we would then turn around and say okay you don't have enough parking or you've got to provide parking or you can't do it because there's no parking. This site development plan shows 45 slips and one boat for charter. So, again, I go back to what David said. We're approving the site development plan and what's presented in the docs and everything else needs to comply with our codes.

Okay. So if they needed a hypothetical, if they needed a conditional use to operate a sightseeing tour or whatever it would be, they would have to come back and do that as a conditional use, David?

No.

Why not?

Because it's not a conditional use. It's an allowed use within the marina.

Okay. Well, I'm going to have an issue with that.

Well, and I guess maybe it's just semantics, but I mean, right, when you say if they have a use, a conditional use that they want to operate, then they would come back in front of us. They would come back. If there's a use that's allowed by right, they would not have to come back in front of us, right?

Right. So it's staff's position that whatever they're doing with the sightseeing tours or whatever is a – permitted use accessory to a marina.

Is that where you're going with that? I mean, that 30-passenger boat, that could be a shelling boat. They run you out to Kais Island, or they run you down to Cape Romano, and you walk around and pick up shells for the day, and you come back to the hotel. I mean, that's conceptually, hypothetically, right?

My question would simply be, and staff can answer this, and this is where it gets a little confusing for me. What are the parking requirements for those uses? So you have those type of uses going on, what's the parking requirement? Somebody gotta park somewhere to get on the boat, they gotta come back, so they're not going to another destination where there's not gonna be an issue, they gotta come back. So my question is, and if you look at the zones, by the time you get to C4, and frankly, these things are all conditional uses. This particular sightseeing tour, that's a conditional use in C1, C2, C3. But when it gets to C4, marinas are specifically permitted. And the conditional uses, David, I think, carry over into C4 unless they're specifically permitted. And that's where I have my problem, where I've delved into the weeds a little bit here. In C4, sightseeing, tours, charters are not specifically listed. in that section under C4. The only thing that's listed is marina. And then you get into the definition of what is a marina and what's accessory to a marina. And when you do that analysis, incidental or accessory to the main use, then you get into, in my view, you start getting into the intensity of the use. There's no doubt that some of these types of ventures with boats and cars and so on and so forth, the parking requirement can be more substantial than that for the marina. And that's where it becomes, to me, not incidental or accessory. So I'm throwing this out there. I'd like staff to address that concern that I have. Because if we get down into the code, and this is not really an accessory use to the marina because it's more intensive, then why wasn't a cup done? And we might be going down the wrong road here. Listen, I want to say, Jeff, also, I agree with you. This is a beautiful project. I think it's fantastic. It's beautiful. And I think it's going to be something that really could improve the area. That's not my concern. My concern is are we going from A to Z the correct way?

We are going from A to Z the correct way. We have never classified sightseeing tours based out of a marina as a conditional use permit. They are an allowed use. They did actually provide parking. They call it out on the parking matrix on the site plan, a charter boat, 30 passengers, for three parking spaces per passenger they're providing ten parking spaces on site to accommodate this uh... we don't know you know what their plan is it could be what cheer cheer cheer bailey said where it is guests of the hotel but they have provided it a marina has A marina is allowed to have sightseeing, fishing, shelling, et cetera. It's no different than Walker's Marina, Rose Marina, the Yacht Club. It's no different than anything else on this island. We do not require a conditional use permit for that.

Mary, I don't have in front of me, what is the total number of parking spaces that in this development. Do you have a number?

They are providing 125 parking spaces.

So if we've got 45 rooms, let's say one car per room, and then employees and staff, the boats, there's no boats being stored there, right? Correct. So there wouldn't be any.

No boat storage.

I mean, you can't really say if someone had a, and I think the shelling thing is a great idea, you know, white horse key and panther key and all that. So if someone had a shelling boat there, we would assume a lot of it would be for the people who've rented rooms as, you know, Hotel rooms, but if you had a dozen people show up to get on a boat, it sounds like there's sufficient spaces.

They provided for parking. They provided for parking for the boat docks, for the hotel rooms, for the restaurants.

As Brent brings up, I mean, it's a good point. Obviously, you have people parking on the right-of-way up and down. But it sounds like with that number of spaces, they should.

They provided for parking for all the uses. Thank you.

So this was once Moran's, and it was once a Marina, and it's just now going to be a newer version and bigger and better. So it's something that was there before.

Okay.

You did not know this?

No. I knew that there was many years ago, and I believe one of the hurricanes damaged it substantially. I know that they, during some time before I started here, which was eight years ago, the docks were redone.

It was known as Moran's Barge Marina. And it had a restaurant and boat slips. And I actually was there at the restaurant, because I've been here for a really long time. And I believe that, according to what I discovered, that the gas and diesel fuel tanks were removed in 2005. And then it was marketed for sale in 2016 to 2018. So this is something that was there previously.

I remember, Joan, with the sunken boats out in the back roads. That place was a disaster. It was.

It went to decay. And it's great that this is happening. I'm delighted to see that it's happening, too.

All right. Applicant? You want to hear from the applicant?

Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhare with Bowman. I'm not sure where to start. Kevin has a presentation. He's the civil engineer. This is a review of a site plan. I assume the responsibility of the planning board is to ensure that the site plan meets the requirements of the land development code. I don't think the planning commission is charged with interpreting the code. The city council has already done that. I submitted the appeal. I also did the original comp plan amendment in 2003 and 2004. I remember when an actual barge was on the site, and that was the bar, hence the name the barge. You know, we meet, oh, by the way, if you look in the C4 district, It does say that the sightseeing tours, et cetera, et cetera, or it may be even more general in the introductory portion of it where it says conditionally uses C1, C2, C3. It also says... That would continue except if it is a permitted use by right. This is a permitted use by right. The marina, the hotel, and an ancillary restaurant to the hotel, they're all permitted uses by right. So there is no requirement that a conditional use could be required for any portion of it. If there is a requirement for something we're asking for, we're required to come in for that public hearing. As far as the city's responsibility, the applicant has agreed to operate this facility as a hotel. And that means that he's going to have short term use available in the condo documents. There are at least two other or were at least two other condo hotels on Marco that I'm aware of. One is the Old Marco Inn, and the other one is, oh my God.

Marco Beach Hotel.

Marco Beach Hotel, yeah. I don't believe either one of those at the time of approval were required to make a commitment to no residential. I don't know what their condo documents read or look like. I know that in this case, we did commit to no residential. And we have a condition in the resolution approving this, if it gets approved, that says no residential use is allowed. And unless I'm wrong, any violation of that would fall on code enforcement. We're not going to violate it. We're going to operate as a hotel. We'll certainly provide those... condo documents, but the attorney is right. My client did not want to spend the money, which is significant. until he was sure that he could go forward. But we can't get a building permit approved unless we provide them. So you have no fear, no worry. We can't build the building unless we provide them, unless staff reviews them and that those are deemed to be appropriate. So, you know, without an approval here, Since, in my opinion, we meet all of the requirements of the Land Development Code, we're not asking for any variances, we're not asking for anything that isn't already allowed, I hate to think what my client's next steps will be. We're happy to do the presentation if that's helpful.

Good morning, members of the planning board. My name is Kevin Dowdy. I'm the civil engineer project manager for Bowman Consulting Group. With me today, I'm representing the applicant, Jim Walker. We also have Todd Lawler as the client representative. Bob Mulher, who you just heard from. We have Brian Sperger, the architect. Laura Pattison, the landscape architect. Muriel, the environmentalist with Terrell Hall and Associates. And Norm Chabotcock did our transportation. This is the rendering of the front of the building. As you've heard, it's a 45-unit hotel with 45 boat docks lit. We've gone over this. The site's located near Goodland on the north side, just at the foot of the Goodland Bridge. We've got two parcels that we'll be developing. Total is 1.93 acres. You've heard a brief history about the site. Most of you are pretty familiar with the site. As Mary pointed out we have a special C4 zoning district that requires an environmental assessment which has been done on the site. This is an image from your comp plan specifically calling it out. The red star represents the location of the site. These are a couple more renderings. The architect is here to answer any questions you may have about the building, but we've got the front view in the top left, got a couple side views, and then in the bottom right is the rear view with the marina. This is a more zoomed-in version of the side view of the building height, just to show you how we are complying with the 75-foot height, starting from flood zone AE11 at the 11-foot elevation, going up to the roof at height 86. Some more elevation views. This is the front of the building. And the rear of the building, again, we are open to any questions you may have about those. From the site, we have two entrances to the site. Main entrance would be off of San Marco Road over on the left. We also have a secondary entrance under the Goodland Bridge. This will allow for fire truck access to go through directly without the need of a turnaround internal to the site. We've got our parking provided at the ground level and also with two floors of parking in the garage. And then there are five floors above the garage level. This is a more close-up view of our data tables that we've been talking about this morning. Here on the left, you see our parking table. Total of 125 spots are provided. 122 is required. We also have our land use table and our zoning and setback table. This is our utility and drainage site. water and fire service will be provided under the bridge from their existing connection off of I believe that's Goodland Road. We will be replacing those water mains and extending them up through the site where they will cross over, head to the left and enter a utility pump room which will then energize those pipes so that way they can reach the top floor on the seventh for the top units. We've got grease traps that we'll collect from the restaurant. They will then feed into the repurposed sanitary sewer line. We're taking out the old sewer, putting in new. That will then lead into the existing lift station that's on site. A study has been done by AECOM to confirm that the existing lift station does have the capacity to serve this proposed use. Drainage will be handled. We've got some underground storage chambers. Those are the thick black rectangles that you see kind of under some parking spaces directly in front of the building. Those are just large underground concrete vaults. They'll collect the storm water. It will then feed on the right. the image is our detention area which is underneath the ramp to get you up to the second floor parking garage that's where we have our water control structure and to meet the updated water quality standards that DEP has put forth starting late last year we've added a water clarifier to help clean that water to meet the current standards before entering into the bay Here are some close-up views of the parking layouts and the two levels. This is our landscape plan. We've gone above code minimum. As you can tell from our renderings, this is a high-end resort, so we're looking to really make that first impression when guests enter the site. This is our other side of our landscape view. And with that, I will turn that over to Marielle to talk about the environmental assessment.

Hi. I'm Marielle for the record, Terrell Holland Associates.

Did you just get a little closer to the mic, please? Thanks.

Oh, I'm sorry. Marielle for the record, Terrell Hall and Associates. This site's pretty straightforward from an environmental standpoint. It's historically cleared and filled and used for commercial purposes. we've already established our company actually did the early 90s i think we've been permitting this site since 1992 our firm so it's we don't we have zero wetland impacts associated with this project The entire footprint is on cleared and filled land. There will be some lateral mangrove trimming, which has already been coordinated and permitted with the state. They determined that the tree originated on state lands, so it's not even on our property. So it's lateral trimming. We have permits for that. So this is really pretty straightforward, but I'm happy to entertain any questions you guys might have.

Not at this time. Thank you.

Kevin Dowdy again for the record.

We had a couple more slides here that, again, in case you have any questions on the flux map or the restoration that's being planned. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Norm Chabilcock for transportation.

Thank you, Kevin. Good morning. My name is Norman Trebillcock. I'm a professional engineer, certified planner, professional traffic operations engineer, and have over 36 years of local experience in transportation. I don't remember, I wasn't here, but you date back quite a while, Planning Board Member Jensen. there was a long time ago the woodland bridge was a wooden bridge so i don't remember that uh when that had been i saw remnants of it over the years but uh it was scary yeah so so it goes way back in this area but uh at any rate um we we prepared the traffic impact statement uh for the project We did do an update just to make sure everything aligns due to your astute chairman Noticing that that things needed to align and so in the hotel we did we do cover the hotel Use the restaurant use the marina and also the charter boat service as well And so it's pretty conservative in terms of looking at those as all independent uses we do look at the Let me see here, okay. And then we use the ITE trip generation analysis. We do look at some internal capture between the uses, and then what we call pass-by uses, too, where somebody may be going somewhere else, they stop by a restaurant to eat and things like that on the way to another destination. So we did look at the external trip generation from the project as a result, looked at AM and PM peak hours for all those uses. And we did the analysis. When we did the analysis, we did use the city's latest collected data that was collected this year. And conservatively there wasn't data that was collected On San Marco east of Barfield. Okay, it was the West so it typically would be higher trips there than what you're gonna expect as people go off island isn't nobody wants to leave the island so you're not getting quite the trips, but conservatively we use that data for this as well and But it's good to use that newer data as well and And as a result, though, in the analysis, there is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the project. As was mentioned, too, we did look at the need for any external improvements, and we do see the need to extend that turn lane, that left turn lane coming into the site. we've gone ahead and prepared initial design plans or rather design plans that that actually exceed the minimum requirements that we're looking at there the 210 foot minimum and we did go to the South Florida Water Management District and they did issue an exemption permit for the turn lane that we've sized and designed for the project as well so the final step will be to secure the right-of-way permit from the city for that but I believe we have the basis covered it would be my point to you and then part of the mitigation is paying the impact fees for the project as I mentioned the right-of-way design plan we preparing and working with your staff and so with that we're available for any questions you may have on transportation and other areas thank you

Just real quick, explain the parking requirement for the charter tour. Do you have that in there as 44 evening trips? Am I reading that wrong? 44 peak hour trips for the charter operation, is that correct or am I looking at that wrong?

For the charter, the p.m. peak hour would be 44 peak hour trips. In other words, 10, 11 entering and 33 exiting, using that as a pretty conservative approach.

What is it for the entire marina, just the marina? Is it nine?

Correct. It's much lower, exactly.

P.M. peak hour.

Remember, P.M. peak hour from an ITE transportation standpoint is 4 to 6 p.m. And then for a.m., it's 7 to 9 a.m. But your P.M. peak tends to be the thing we look at because that's when your network starts.

So in your, just for your opinion, the use of the charter, is that more intensive than the marina at 9 versus 44?

Right, yes.

It is more intensive than the marina itself?

Correct, from a traffic standpoint. Okay.

From a traffic standpoint. The other questions I have, and I'm sure you have answers for these, When we get into restaurants, we have a restaurant there, right? We have a salon. We have other uses within the building, correct? You accounted for all that?

Yeah, those would be the salon type thing would be incidental to actually the hotel use. Typically, Zoe would look at that, some of those ancillary commercials. Even typically, a lot of times your marina would be, but we did conservatively bring that outside of it.

And the bar, you did that as well, correct?

Correct, yeah. It's part of the restaurant, yes.

When you did that analysis, did you limit that just to hotel patrons or people that were staying at the facility, or did you use that as something open to the public that they could go and enjoy the restaurant or the salons? How did you capture that?

Okay, so good point. So in the case of the restaurant, it's its own separate use, but then we do some internal capture, and that's what the internal capture is there for, assuming a certain percentage of people We'll use that. It's not really a high amount. In the PMP tower, we're subtracting four trips of internal capture. That's pretty low. um you know we would it's fairly normal to set say a restaurant would be incidental to a hotel especially a larger hotel or something like that given the size of this hotel it's 45 rooms 100 seats conservatively if we keep it separate you know i believe we're showing a higher generation because of what we did there. And, you know, and again, we do have some internal capture, but it's not really aggressive, I don't believe, there. So we did keep those separate. The salon type use, that really would be incidental to the hotel. That's the way we treated that.

No outside trips for the salon.

We didn't, in terms of our traffic analysis, no. Because, again, I believe we're so conservative and high by separating the restaurant, which I think is appropriate for us to do, that we just made that other more incidental.

And the last question I have is, is the bar seats and the hotel seats within that $100,000?

Yeah, again, the restaurant, we just looked at 100 seats there. Does that include the bar? Let me just confirm that. Yes, yes, it does include the bar. All right.

That's all I have for now. Thank you, James.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else have questions for the applicant? Yeah, thanks, Norm, for using the current data. That was one of my questions about whether or not we were using current data. So thank you for doing that. Gosh, no one else has questions, huh? So this is probably just sort of me blabbing into the universe. But we talked about... Marco Beach Ocean Resort and Old Marco Inn. And again, going back to the fact that this property is called out in our comp plan, those parcels per our comp plan allow either residential or commercial, correct? We've got village commercial. We've got resort residential. And so those allow, per our comp plan, either residential or commercial capture of density, right? So when Mr. Mulhare was saying, listen, he wasn't sure why we were going through this process and doing the condo docks and all that, the way I felt about it was those properties are, although they have a similar concept, a condo hotel concept, this property again is different in the respect that it does not permit residential use and so i can see why at least my perspective is that we need to have additional conditions on that additional checks and balances things along those lines i mean that's that's where my head was i think uh...

This is, when you refer, Old Marco Inn is different in and of itself. I can't, I'm, with Marco, what is it? Marco Beach Ocean Resort. That is in the resort tourist district, and it does allow for residential or hotels, but residential is lower than the hotel. So that's the distinguishing factor.

Absolutely, but it does allow both, whereas this parcel specifically does not allow residential.

That is correct. I'm sorry, for the record, Bob Mulhair, that was just going to be my comment. When the applicants in those two cases chose to go with a hotel, they received higher density. The density allowed is higher. So there is a reason in those cases to ensure that those operated as a hotel Because you would otherwise be giving up considerably more units. And it's the same reason, I think, why you're concerned with this one. If it's not functioning as a hotel, if it's functioning as residential, there are potentially more impacts than transient lodging. My client is committed to operating as a hotel. Again, I appreciate it.

Yeah, and I think... You know, bad contractors give good contractors a bad name, right? You've got developers in the past who have approved something. So you look at realtors that have listed some of these units for sale, Marco Beach Ocean Resort, Old Marco Inn and Suites, and in the listing it talks about, you know, you can rent it, you can live in it. And so that concept, right, to your point, perhaps, and I don't know all the specifics, but perhaps these were given entitlements to higher density by virtue of being a hotel. They've now sort of morphed into this weird... Both. Mixed. Right. Mixed. And so there is certainly some concern, at least that I have. And the concern is legitimate.

The concern is absolutely legitimate. The other example is Anglos Cove, which is zone C5, I think.

Purely, as far as I know, that- And that was a hotel at some point, wasn't it?

And they got 26 units an acre. Right. But it functions purely as residential. So I understand. I mean, I understand the reason to have some teeth, some claws, you know, in the commitment. And I think what we're proposing, it clearly states in the resolution no residential, and any violation of that would be a code enforcement. We have no intention of violating that, but I'm just putting that on the record. Thank you.

This may be a question for the city. This may be a question for you, Bob. Sorry, I know you keep sitting down, but... You'll get your steps in. So my understanding of condo law, and you might know this better too, Brad, but to amend your condo docs would take a two-thirds majority, I believe, in the state of Florida. And so the reason I bring that up, if it's correct, is not that I'm so much concerned about the developer, Mr. Walker. He builds this, has every intent to honor the commitments to the city. How do... How does Mr. Walker or the hotel MANAGEMENT GROUP, OWNERSHIP GROUP, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, BY VIRTUE OF SELLING OFF THESE PIECES, HOW DO THEY MAIN CONTROL IN SUCH A WAY THAT THOSE CONDO DOCS COULD NEVER BE AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR A RESIDENTIAL USE, WHICH WE STILL REALLY HAVEN'T ESTABLISHED WHAT THAT RESIDENTIAL USE LOOKS LIKE. BUT, YOU KNOW, HYPOTHETICALLY, IF I WERE A DEVELOPER, I BUILT THIS, I SELL IT ALL OFF, I GO ON MY MERRY WAY, AND THEN THAT ASSOCIATION IS GOVERNED BY A BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND THAT BOARD OF DIRECTORS COULD THEN SAY, WELL, WE DON'T REALLY LIKE THAT CLAUSE, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT. They could.

There would still be a violation, though, because you have this condition that says no residential use, plus it's not permitted in the C4 district. So it would be a violation of the zoning code. The condo docs are typically not really a civil matter. But I don't know the answer, if it's 75%, to answer your question. I don't know if that's typical. I don't really know. Maybe somebody else knows the answer to that question, a realtor or something. But it's the old story of, how do I prevent somebody from committing a crime in the future? I mean, we can only answer to what we're here for today.

I'll just give you my input. With respect to the condominiums, it's going to say in the kind of documents what's going to be required as far as how many votes are required to have an amendment. But certainly, when we review condo documents which will be a condition that we will make sure that there are necessary guardrails in there that provide and give notice to everybody who is buying into that kind of medium that this is a commercial operation it is not supposed to be a residential operation the city of Marco Island will treat it as such and unless there's any amendment to the city's comprehensive plan or to the land development code that those use restrictions shall remain Okay, well that's- And I think that's, and the city will, to the extent it can, enforce those restrictions. And a lot of that is going to come down to, with respect to residential use, is the individual's going to have to recognize the fact that they're not going to be entitled to any type of homestead exemptions on any ownership interest that they have in the property. that there may be other elements with respect to utilities and garbage and sewer and how they're treated with respect to commercial versus residential as well. So the city will treat it as a commercial use.

And they'll be paying tourist development taxes too.

Brad? Just real quick, David, and maybe you can answer this. So you're going to be operating as a hotel. That's what you've said, right? Yes. Okay. So I want to stay there. I call some 800 number, and I get a receptionist, and I said, you have a room available. They tell me. They tell me the rate. I book it, right? Yes. There you go. I got to hear this. It's an old habit of mine. So are you going to have ability for an owner of the condo unit to rent it outside the scope of the hotel?

Well, to my knowledge, no.

Would you have a problem, would the applicant have a problem saying that any kind of rentals that, you know, it's like a hotel. You call the Marriott. You want to stay in even in one of their units. You know, you get to stay in that. It all goes through them. They don't get to do it individually.

The units go into a rental pool. They're required. The condo documents will require them to put the units into a rental pool. There will be an exception for the use, as we've discussed here, for an owner to use it for some period of time. Maybe it's two weeks. I don't know what it is. And so that – obviously, they won't go through that rental process under that circumstance, but everybody else will. All the units will be in a pool. I don't know if anybody else has a comment related to – I understand your question. I just want to make sure nobody else – He's one of the owners.

There we go.

I don't want to say something that I don't have the expertise on.

Were you sworn in, Todd? I wasn't.

Thank you. Do you swear from the testimony give me the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth said we got Thank you.

Just state your name for the record Todd Lawler Hello board. So with this building it's going we have an in-house hotel management group that Owners of a unit cannot Airbnb it they cannot rent it out It has to go through the group inside the unit the hotel development group that's running it if that makes sense

I appreciate that answer. And the only other question I have is let's say the unit's not rented, right? I don't think that's going to happen in season. But let's say the unit's not rented. Can the owner use it?

Can the owner use it if it's not rented? Yes, to my knowledge. But, again, that's going to be all in the condo docs.

Okay.

That's all I have. Anything else? All right.

I'm not sitting down.

It's all right. It's pretty cold in here. I keep thinking I should get up and do laps.

I have a jacket on, and I'm cold. I got one.

Yes, sir.

Jeff. I just want to make a comment on this, Bob. I fully believe in what you're saying about being a hotel. Because my thought process is, financially, it's a much better investment to have it as a hotel year round. But we've been beating this horse for quite a while. And I'm amazed that the city didn't let this be a condo development back in the early 2000s. A mile down the road, you have Stevens Landing, which, with the exception of a restaurant, is a condominium complex with docks. I fully believe this is going to be a hotel complex, but I don't know what the negative problem would be if this was actually a condominium complex. So it just amazes me that it wasn't done in the first place. That's all. But I see the benefit of it.

Yeah, I mean, the internet is great and horrible. So on the internet, you guys have a wonderful website. And I'm assuming you've seen the website, right? I'm almost never on the internet. I have not seen it. Well, then you're smarter than me. There are several places on the website. It talks about this exclusive curated collection of just, in one place it says 42, in another place it says 45, residences. And so I'm trying to make it as politely clear as I can that there's a couple things that give me personally some heartburn about this. I think if this were a timeshare, if this were a hotel, it complies with the comp plan. It complies, as far as I can tell, with all the aspects of the code. The condo form of ownership has been established as a legal form of ownership. where I have some heartburn, is do these turn into residential units? And we don't even have a firm measure of what residential use looks like. Again, is it a week? Is it two weeks? Is it a month?

Typically, I agree with Mary, it's typically 30 days. In other jurisdictions, it's defined. I know in Cuyahoga County, it's not an absolute, but it says that typically, under the definition of multifamily, it says that... typically units that are rented for shorter periods of time, typically seven days or less, are considered transient uses. But I don't think you have that in your code. It might be something worth considering. And I think that our condo docs will clarify that.

I don't know that we could put that in our code at this point, could we?

So what? In the future you could, yeah. Two things. One, you know, the use of the term residence, R-E-S-I-D-E-N-C-E, residence is a place where somebody resides. That's different from what our comprehensive plan says with respect to it's going to be a commercial use. And then I would also caution with respect to board members considering testimony evidence presented at the hearing here today. I recognize your question, but we still, and I'm not arguing the case on behalf of the applicant, just saying we have our comp plan that says it has to be a commercial use. People can say whatever it is, but at the end of the day, we're going to be looking to make sure that it maintains its commercial use and that nobody is utilizing it for a residential use which would entitle them to any type of homestead exemption.

I know. Well, you know sometimes I don't listen to you and Mary. I know, and that's fine.

That's fine. My wife doesn't listen to me, so that's okay.

I got on the internet. It's my fault.

Joan?

Joan?

I think what we're all concerned with is that usually we're the advisor and we send something off to the council, and we are the decider in this issue, and so thus I think we're being pretty careful on these questions that we're asking. Understood. You all agree with that? That's why we're in the weeds.

Now we're back.

Yeah, I mean, we could just sit here in silence for a few minutes. You know, why don't we take citizen comment before we do a motion? Is there anyone? I know we do have a registered speaker. If there are other speakers that would like to speak after that gentleman, you're welcome to do so. If you come up to state your name, you'll have four minutes. But, Mr. Woodworth, you have the opportunity to speak. Yep. Yes, sir.

Good morning, everyone.

I'm Rick Woodworth, Marco Island resident. I hate that I have to rush through this in four minutes, but I'll try to be quick. And I'm gonna go backwards from my original presentation. First of all, I think this is a great looking development. I'd be in favor of it happening however it has to happen, but I did have a couple clarifying questions that I asked the city about and I didn't really get an answer is I used to be a real estate developer and on every development we ever did, we had a table of the unit mix the size the square footages and i couldn't find that in the application and the city told me they didn't have to ask for that information but i found that in ordinance twenty one dash ten section thirty dash six seventy four it does require that that information be available I didn't see it, and I'm not being critical here, but I think everybody ought to know what's being built because typically a luxury hotel room is about 400 square feet. And you can see on the left there what a 45-room, 400-square-foot hotel would look like. But the one on the right looks a lot more similar to what the applicant has proposed, which I think probably contains much bigger two- and three-bedroom, 1,500-square-foot units. And not to be a smartass, excuse me, but... There's a big difference between a hotel and a hotel room and what's really a condominium building that's being marketed as a hotel. And I have no objection to it. I think it's a great plan. but I just think that everybody ought to know what the unit mix is and how big those units are because it's pretty hard to read on the presentation and from what I could see there looked like multiple unit Condos that are going to be marketed as hotel rooms and again. I don't have an objection to it I just don't think the publican and the body here had a clear understanding of how big those units were and And I hate to rush, but my other question was Do we have water and sewer service available to get out to this location and and Do we require new mains lift stations? utility extensions and If we do who's gonna pay for them as Marco pay for them as a developer pay for them. Are they already there and And if they're not there, what are the impact fee is going to be to help bring them out there? so I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. As I said, I love the plan. I think it's great. If you could run it as a hotel, that's fine. But I think everybody ought to look at the individual unit mix and size of the units, because I think these look more like condos than a 400-square-foot hotel room. So thank you.

Thank you. Well, let's go through public comment first, if we could. Is there anybody else in the public who would like to comment on this? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Foster.

Mr. Tulsis, I wasn't sworn.

Thank you. Do you swear or affirm? Let me just ask, is there anybody else who wants to speak that hasn't been sworn in? Right. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God?

I do.

Thank you very much.

Hi. Lisa Foster, Marco resident, perpetual squeaky wheel. We've heard it a million times. We're a build out. We're there. It's not necessarily about available space. It's about our ability to provide services to all the buildings that are coming. It looks beautiful. Great, shiny new thing. I wondered about if Mary could give clarification. The density chart in our comp plan, I believe it was identified in 2022 that there were errors in it, and specifically just even some basic math errors. I was told that we hired a consultant to come and fix that for us. In fact, it was the same person who initially made it, so now the money has been spent and well spent. So twice and I'm wondering if that chart has been corrected if it has been submitted to the state for approval or review and if it will be released to the public and

This is time for your comment. It folds in. So I would just continue with your comments and then get to the board to ask those questions.

As a curiosity because there is some work being done in the community that we're actually past our density and we don't know it. So I think that it's kind of an important point for us to understand that because we're kind of in a tsunami of approvals right now and a lot of it looks like density that we can't control. In this particular one, to Rick's point, we're saying rooms. It's two and three bedroom units. So it's not just a room. It's a dwelling unit. And I think we've got this kind of slippery baby that they've found a great way to package something. And what it is is something that we can't control. It's, you know, putting this on code enforcement to try and track this use I think is beyond ridiculous. We can't track our signs in the swales. The other historical point that was brought up was Anklers Cove and that was initially I believe a hotel condo and got their maximum density units and which then morphed into a full condominium unit kind of like magic. And I don't see why that wouldn't happen. Also, in 2004, Moran's Barge, there was a big lawsuit that was, I believe, pushed by the Goodland Civic Association. And it was to prevent this kind of residential use and may have been what led to that carve-out in our comp plan. And I think we're into semantics again. It's residential to me. If someone stays there and eats there and uses the bathroom there, it's residential use. And for us to be in this position to have to parse it out, I think it's a big deal. And we're going to keep seeing this because it's a good angle for the developers. And if these are going to continue to pass here and not go to council, then I think you're going to start to see a lot of appeals and questions about this board's ability to actually get a good hearing and get feedback from the public. It's the slowest time of the year, and this room should be packed with this level of engagement. I think it's a beautiful plan, but I would still like to see that you know We're following the LoS which we haven't had any on potable water sewer or storm water in 12 years. We have no idea About our ability to provide services for any new developments, and I think it really needs to be addressed and That's all thanks for your time.

Thank you Is there anybody else in the public who'd like to comment All right, seeing nobody, we'll close public comment.

I just want to put a couple things on the record. Kevin, when he presented, he was a little soft-spoken, not like me. And maybe folks didn't hear it, but there was an independent analysis of the lift station by AECOM? and was found to have capacity. There is capacity for water, sewer. No of the levels of service are being impacted beyond what the levels of service can provide. So even roads, there's capacity. So just to clarify for the record. And there are suite hotels. And there are hotels these days with much larger rooms. People want to bring their families. So that's the idea here. Thank you.

To the point that there might be some improvements required, I did talk with Jeff Poteet, and I was led to believe that there might be some Waterline sewer lines something they have to go to that property and if that's the case those costs would be borne by the developer In full is that correct?

Yeah, Kevin Doughty again for the record Yeah, so Collier County has so they own the water and Marco owns the sewer. So we've gotten letters of service availability from both of them and the improvements made are Again, so there's existing sewer mains and sewer manholes on site. We're ripping all those out and putting in fresh. The utility lines, we're ripping out the old utility lines for water and fire. They're undersized. So we're connecting to, in the right-of-way, going back to the site plan that I had, we're connecting to the lines off of Goodland Road, right by the treatment plant. And we're extending those into the site. Yes, at the developer's cost. And as Bob mentioned, the AECOM study, if this development exceeded the capacity of that lift station, then it would have been on the developer to improve the lift station, because it also serves all of Goodland. But the study that AECOM did showed that that lift station has the capacity to handle the additional demand from this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Mulhare, one other question I had, and I just don't recall this, but I know at the council appeal and then earlier today you did reference You know, you've got a long history here in the area. You were part of the comp plan. You said, if I heard you correctly, you were part of the, when this language, this carve-out language was put into the Marco Island comprehensive plan? Yes, I was the consultant, yep. And so do you have any context on why this, I mean, we've got one parcel that has a special call-out in our comprehensive plan?

I think a portion of it was already zoned C4, and a portion of it was zoned C4. maybe conservation. And so we went in and rezoned. First we did a comp plan amendment and then we did the rezone because we couldn't have done the rezone. We couldn't have rezoned the whole piece to commercial without doing the comp plan. So we created a small-scale sub-district. I'm trying to think. I think Rich Ivanovich was either the city attorney, I can't remember, or he was part of the team. I don't remember which. But we agreed as part of that process to still retain the lands that were designated conservation and make whatever environmental improvements we had to do. That was the reason for it. The landowner wanted to have the benefit of of using the land that was maybe designated commercial in the comp plan to be able to, you know, count it towards either whatever commercial use he was going to go forward. And that was a long time ago. I don't even remember who the client was at this point. Okay.

Thank you.

Subsequently, it got bought by Irish cop, retired cop, I can't think of his last name, who then opened up the restaurant in the marina.

Moran. Yeah, maybe.

I know he called it Moran's, but I don't think that was his name, but I can't remember. Sorry.

Yeah.

So a couple more questions for staff, Mary, if it's okay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in this packet, we have some things that I'm not really accustomed to seeing as far as the notes from the plans examiner, the building code issues, things like that. We don't generally get that far into the weeds with this stuff?

No, we don't. There have been some newer reviewers doing our land development code site development plan reviews. So these were added as conditions of approval. So to honor and respect their wishes or conditions, I've gone ahead and added them in. In addition, it also gives the applicant and the developer a heads up of what they will be looking for at the building permit phase.

And so if someone were to make a motion, You're looking for someone to make a motion with all of the findings and conditions as well as including the building code issues?

Yes, sir. I have that in the resolution.

Okay. And it's possible I missed it. I apologize. But a lot of our findings and conditions, we include consistency with the comprehensive plan, and I didn't see that in here. I mean, is that something that would be added if someone were making a motion?

We can do that. This is a site development plan. It complies with all the land development codes themselves. So in essence, it does comply with the comprehensive plan. But you can add that in if you would like.

Yeah, I just think from a process standpoint, it's something that we do pretty commonly though, isn't it?

Usually with conditional use variances, things of that nature. But we can do that. That's not a problem.

OK. One other question I had, I apologize, Bob. I'll just keep you going all morning. The boat slips, are those going to be for sale? Will they be available for sale? Will any of them be available for sale?

I don't think we know that. The presumption, I think, is that some would be purchased by a condo unit owner, but they'll all... Oh, Todd's got the answer.

Yeah.

Would they be part of the condo association? And this is where I don't really have the legal understanding to sort of figure this out. But would those be members of the board if they own condominium slips versus members of the board or the association, I apologize, who own suites? So you might have suite owners, slip owners.

Todd Lawler, for the record, no, the slips are not going to be for sale. They are going to be retained by my developer, Mr. Walker, and the boat slips are going to be used for people that buy units if they want to rent a slip. There will not be another association or HOA for the marina.

So will some of them be transient slips then?

No. No. They will not be transient slips.

So if somebody wanted to bring a boat in there to go to your restaurant?

Yes, you can bring a boat in and go to the restaurant, correct. OK.

Yes. Yeah, the submerged land lease didn't allow for liveaboards. Yes.

Can I ask a quick question? You bet. So while you're up here, what's your definition of charter boat service? That's what I want to know. What do you mean by that in your application? I mean, I'm not trying to trick you. You mean boat rental or captain-operated vessel carrying, paying passengers for fishing, sightseeing, excursions, similar trips?

Yes. Yeah, that's it. And that's why we parked it, just in case there was that. It's sort of an amenity for the hotel, but we put enough parking so that people could come in and park and go, whatever it is, shelling or sightseeing.

Again, I like the application. It's beautiful. It's going to be a beautiful place. I'm struggling with the part about how the Marcos code is really quite a spider web of this section to that section to this section. Since you were involved in it, I'm happy you're here. When I look at C1, C2, and C3, and if it's a conditional use in these, it goes into four, and a marina's in four. But what I don't see specifically listed in four as a permitted use, Are those sightseeing tours that are conditional uses in those prior zones? They are spelled out. And if you could just put on the record, because you know this, and explain to me more carefully, and I don't know about the board, they probably know it, but NAICS classifications are And this one is 48721, which is a – and it doesn't really tell anybody what they are in the code, or maybe they've been taken out. I don't know if we've amended them out of there, but they're not specifically set forth as to what they mean. You would agree with that?

Yeah. Could you explain that? It's kind of complicated.

If I could – so that's a specific separate use, right? What we have here is the marina, which includes those types of operations.

I appreciate that, David, but I'd prefer to have the witness answer the question.

Well, I was giving you an interpretation from the city attorney's perspective of what the city code provides for. Okay. So, thank you.

So, yes, I, you know, I was the planning director for Collier County many moons ago. And then when the city incorporated, they adopted the county land development code, basically verbatim and operated. But over the years, that's changed, and it should change. You know, it's a... its own municipality, and it should change. And so it has changed. So the county used it, I don't know, I think a 1982 SIC code, not NAI, SIC code. And they still use that. You can't even get the books. You have to order them online. The city updated that nomenclature to be the North American Standard Industrial Code. It's got a few more numbers, and I'm sure a few other things have changed. Those are used to... identify a use or range of uses. So you have to go to that and it shows you a range of uses that would be permitted through that number within a district. And sometimes there isn't an NIS code number because they really don't have a number. I don't remember if a marina has such a code or not. But by definition, when you look up the definition of a marina, it includes those ancillary uses. So it includes a retail shop, it includes rental boats as allowable under the permitted use and I think that's what the city attorney was referring to. And so when you go to the C4 district and it says, you know, all uses are in C1, C2, C3 are allowed except conditional uses. But it specifically states that certain uses become, it says unless they're permitted uses by right. So if you go to C4 and the use is permitted by right, it's no longer a conditional use. And the marina use, which includes these other ancillary uses, is permitted. That's an ancillary.

That would be your argument. It is.

Yeah. That's what the code considers ancillary.

That's what city staff is saying. Yeah. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I understand. Thank you for explaining that.

Well, I mean, you have to park it. The biggest issue would be parking, right? And so we've done that. So I understand what you're saying. Hey, well, I don't find this use anywhere in C4. Not there. No, you have to dig. You have to go under marina. It's an allowed part of a marina, which is a permitted use. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. What's next? And I'm sort of asking this question just to put it on the record. Board makes a motion, and there's a vote for this or against this, the two paths that this could go. What does that look like for the applicant and for residents?

So if this resolution is adopted by this board, that's final action, there is the ability for affected parties to appeal that to the city council. If there's no appeal filed, then it's final. If it is not approved by this board, there's the ability of the applicant to appeal to the city council as well.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

All right. Anyone feel like making a motion?

My only concern, we could discuss it a little bit. I love the whole project. It's fantastic. My only concern is in terms of what they're doing with the charter boat. The hotel is beautiful. It's wonderful. I have no problem with it except how the residents, how we're gonna deal with that residential transient issue, that's gonna be a real problem. My concern is more to the charter aspect of it. And the reason I raised that is because I don't necessarily agree with staff's interpretation or city council's interpretation or the expert out here that said it. When I read through the code, it's specific. It listed specific criteria and conditions by that reference that we just put on the record. And if you look up those numbers, it'll specifically tell you what they're talking about. Those are incorporated all the way down into C4. And it says specifically If the conditional use, it has to be listed in C4 as a permitted use. And those uses are not specifically listed, either by reference, incorporated by number, or specifically dialed out in that C4 section. So the argument becomes, is that incidental or accessory to the marina? And that's the problem I'm having, because the uses with some of those things require more parking than the marina itself. And that, to me, from just a legal standpoint, can't be incidental or accessory. So I'm struggling with that. I want to approve it. I was wondering if there's a way we could just approve this condo thing if we're going to get there and just say, let's be careful here. Because if that ultimately is interpreted, that they needed to do that as a conditional use, they would have had to provide proper notice. They would have had to come to us for a CUP. And then they'd have to go to council, which they may get it anyway. I'm not saying they wouldn't get it. But it's just bothering me a little bit. I don't know how to get there. Because I really do want to support what they're doing. I think it's a beautiful, beautiful facility. My issue is more of a legal one and a tight one in terms of .

So let me speak to that. Do you mind if I speak to that real quick? So I think your question becomes more of a process question. And if I'm sitting in your chair asking your question, What's next? So you disagree with that assessment that there are uses that are allowed by code. If this were to get approved as an SDP, one of the conditions in here is that it must comply with all of the codes within Chapter 30. So then they do a plan, it goes to the city, the city's going to review it, and they're going to review it based on their interpretation. So that's where I'm getting hung up. How do we have a conversation that assuages some of your concerns? And I'm asking for suggestions, right? I mean, is there a condition that could get put into a motion that would satisfy that specific concern you have?

I mean, the interpretation, obviously, at least from my view, and David can correct me if I'm wrong, when we get into reviewing an application, And this is an SDP. And Joan made a very good point. This is the final deal here. There's no review by the city councilors sitting out there. They're not going to review this unless someone appeals it to them. So my real concern is not so much with the condo hotel. I think it's beautiful. I mean, I really do. I can't wait, hopefully, to Augustville. My concern is more with the process and that cup. And I'm trying to figure a way. I mean, maybe we could approve it, but subject to the city attorney. diving into this a little deeper and looking at those C1, C2, C3 references and incorporation because you can't really, unless the city attorney gives an opinion, I don't know how you have an incidental or accessory use that's more intensive than the primary. I have a suggestion. I don't know how to do that.

I have a suggestion real quick if it's okay. Sure. I know you want to talk, but what if as a condition of their application process they have to submit all of the NAICS codes? Because then there's a method for you to say, here's what they're proposing, here's where it is in the code, or here's where it's not.

I like that. I like that, too. I think that's a good idea.

As we've experienced previously, we've dealt with similar types of issues. And the city has its process for... having property owners come in and submit their certificates requests to make sure that whatever uses that they have at the marina meet parking requirements. And my goal is to maintain consistency with the code and consistency with decisions. And so as I see this as a site development plan request, which includes a marina, which includes different types of uses, which are subject to our parking requirements. And I don't necessarily want the board to go outside of its lane, so to speak, and providing a condition which isn't necessarily required by our code and which is covered by other methods and processes that we have in place and that we have utilized in the past.

Mary?

Okay. As I am reading our land development code, section 30-244, conditional uses, the paragraph introducing conditional uses, the last phrase of that is unless listed as a permitted use in the C4 district. Agreed. So marinas are a permitted use. They're, from a staff standpoint... There is no confusion about sightseeing, shelling, fishing as far as it being an allowed use in a marina. I understand that. So for what it's worth, that is the way staff has procedurally and interpreted for years.

And I understand what you're saying. I anticipated she would say that. That interpretation basically makes the listing of those items as conditional uses specifically by the code and by those definitions meaningless if you're going to have a marina. Doesn't mean anything. It's wiped out. And in the law, that can sometimes not make much sense. So I'm going to defer. I'm going to defer. David, I've already heard what you said. I have no problem with that.

If somebody wanted to come and set up a dock somewhere and have a sightseeing type of use you know and have a building and have the parking that use would require conditional use approval but what we have here is we have a marina use which includes as ms holden said all those other ancillary types of uses and i i agree we can disagree but that's how i would interpret the code is that That specific type of use, if it's established on its own, would be required to get conditional use approval. But because it is included as part of a, may be included, as part of a marina, and marina is a permitted use, that as long as they're going to meet all the other requirements of our code related to parking, you know, related to docks and water and sewer and traffic, then, you know, they have the right to do that.

And to me, maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but to me this seems like it's not a big ask. I don't know. So let me put it on you. I mean, if the planning board made a motion, motion was seconded, and one of the conditions was such that when the applicant comes forward with their permit application, they just further specify and NAICS uses to ensure.

I just looked that up. Rental pleasure boats isn't allowed use under that SIC code. We're happy to do that.

Excellent.

Again, it's kind of like this morning we talked about the variance, right? Or the easement, right? We might be adding one sentence that is totally useless, but if it assuages somebody's concerns and it adds a little bit of accountability, I don't know. It's not the worst thing in the world. I have no issue with that.

Thank you. They don't like it. They don't like it. Am I out?

Yes, sir. OK. I am going to make a motion. And Brad, I may be misunderstanding where you're going with the Marina thing, because I don't have your legal background. I respect you for that. My views when I see these things come in front of me is one of the questions I ask myself is, what is the value to the community in general? And when I get into this conversation about the use of the marina for charter boats and tour boats and this and that, Goodland, in the 30-some years I've been here, I've seen some good developments down there. But in essence, there's a really nice county boat ramp and a private Marina. The residents of Goodland, they come in and season with the grandkids, whatever. They don't have any type of tour, pleasure activities, dolphin tours, shelling tours. There's nothing there, as far as I know. So if they're going to do this hotel and have that type of facilities for the community, I think it's a tremendous asset, frankly. So my original motion was going to be to ask us to improve the site development plan, which includes those 13 conditions of approval the city wants. I'm assuming I need to fine tune that, David, or something. in some way at this point.

So I'll help you if you can get a second that we can go through the amendments.

And you don't have any desire to add the NAICS?

We'll get to that after you get the motion.

Well, what I'm seeing is the city, to me, from what I've heard from David and Mary, has a lot of guardrails in place already with this thing, and I just don't see the need to do that. So at this point, my...

It may help you get a majority vote if you're trying to go in a certain direction. Not that anyone can guarantee that, but...

David, what was going to be your add-on?

My suggestion was to make the motion, have it seconded, and we can work on any amendments to it.

All right. So at this point, let's do that. I'll make a motion we improve the site development plan with the 13 conditions that the city's requesting. I will second.

Go for it, David.

So just for the record, so what we would do in light of the chairman's comments regarding the comp plan, in Section 2, we will say that the site development plan meets the requirements or is consistent with the City of Marco Island comprehensive plan and meets the requirements of the Marco Island Land Development Code. So that would be in Section 2. we include that, we would include a reference and this is where I need help with the language regarding the codes. How would you want it to read?

The applicant has volunteered to agree to that, so go ahead, sir, place it on the record, because you know what my concern is.

Yes, I do. Go ahead. So we would provide a list of the specific NA, North American Standard Industrial Code, numbers. NAICS, isn't it? NAICS, yeah, numbers. And the paragraph that identifies the sub-use is that the code doesn't. Correct. So that there would be no question that that's an allowed use under MARINA, even though somebody could raise the question.

It's belt and suspenders.

I'm trying to do. Yeah. Thank you. That's the fine tuning that I was looking for there that I couldn't put together.

We don't have any objection to that.

So that would be added as condition number 14 would be that the applicant would provide the list of NAICS codes. and the sub uses prior to the issuance of any building permits for the development of the property.

And were you also including the building code issues as part of the findings as whatever recommendation?

Yeah, they're all that list. It's in the resolution, yes.

Okay. Sorry, I did not print the resolution. That's okay. I got the staff report, so I'm trying to save my paper.

So it's now the 14 conditions in Section 3, and there's the reference to the comp plan in Section 2. So I would just ask Mr. Ferringer if he is agreeing to the amended motion.

Right. 13, right? 13 plus 1. Right. Yeah.

Okay.

Yes. There you go. And so you would agree to that?

Yes. Joan? I agree. All right.

So now you have the amended resolution, amended motion before you.

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

Member Ferringer?

Yes.

Member Hogan?

Yes.

Member Jensen? Yes. Member Henson? Yes. Chair Bailey?

I am going to vote no, but the item passes. Thank you, everyone. All right. We're going to party real quick.

Sorry, guys, trying to turn it off.

Do we want to take a five-minute break for everyone, please? Okay, so let's recess for five minutes, please. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Next item on our agenda, just a discussion item, is that correct? Mary? Yes. Sherry? OK. And so where do you want to start off with this?

Well.

Some context? Some history?

Yeah. City Council asked for information. It was provided initially. The Planning Board requested additional information that Mr. Lombardo has provided. We don't have anything to add. We can't disagree with increasing the square footage required for parking from, we've got what, one, it depends on the office, but upping it. So I'm going to let Mr. Lombardo take over from here because staff really, you had asked for the information that's been provided.

Thank you, Mary. For the record, Zach Lombardo. A group of property owners retained me to look at the parking requirements, primarily for commercial properties. We initially came before you with a request to eliminate parking requirements for certain pre-incorporation buildings. There was significant pushback in that conversation. We talked it through. We listened to the feedback. But in that conversation, we talked about focusing in on office and doing some research into our office uses really necessary oh sorry is it necessary for office uses to have the parking requirements that you have now because what came out in the last conversation was that your parking requirements for offices were set in the 1970s and the way offices get used and the intervening time has changed uh we we what i provided it was in the packet i think it's the first item in legistar is information and links to what we were able to find both in actual studies and in planning reports. All of the planning reports seem to be pointing to a study from Castle. Castle is an office key fob company that tracks office attendance across the country. And so they have pretty good live data. In fact, they have a dashboard that you can go look any single day what percentage occupancy do they have in these buildings. And so what they were reporting and what planning sources around the country were looking at was Since the pandemic, and I'm focused broader than that because our parking minimums weren't set in 2018. They were set in 1970. But since the pandemic, they were showing a consistent 50% reduction in office attendance across the buildings they manage, which is a substantial number of buildings. It's 41,000 businesses across 47 states. So it's a substantial data set that other planners are using and looking at. And so what I did on page one of this is suggest that for all of your office uses, which it shows up in a couple of places, obviously the office use, but it's also a part of catering shop, contractor office, printing established, research laboratory, which I'm curious how many of those are on the island. a storage facility they all have a subset of office and what we're proposing for you to consider to propose to council is to reduce the office parking requirement from 1 to 300 to 1 to 600 this is a more focused approach than coming in and saying all pre incorporation buildings just have no requirements and a lot of the pre incorporation buildings that we were talking about We're built as office buildings. And so this addresses a lot of the concerns that the various entities that are working with me have. And I think it's much more targeted. It has better support data. And I don't want to speak for Mary and certainly not Dan since he's not here. But I think Mary said in the beginning, you're not in disagreement that the reducing this parking requirement is not out of the question.

No, we're not disagreeing.

So I'm available to answer any questions, but what we're asking, obviously this is just a discussion item, but we're asking ideally that a land development code amendment be prepared to put these edits into the code. I think there are other places, I just couldn't find readily available data, like for example banks, a lot of people use mobile deposit, the bank attendance goes down, I was having a really hard time finding real data to bring to you, and so the only data I could find that had serious quantitative value was the CASEL systems data as to the office attendance. But I'd love to answer questions or hear that you think we should amend the Land Development Code amendment.

Questions, anybody?

Mary, from a process standpoint, are we still following the right process with this? We're still driving down the road. We're not off-roading or going the wrong way or anything?

Well, this was directed prior to our discussion on off-roading, so we are following the right process. We can draft an ordinance, schedule it for public hearing before the planning board, and then we can... bring the Planning Board's recommendation forward to the City Council with public hearing at the second hearing because ordinances require two hearings before City Council so okay we're not in disagreement remember we did make a suggestion to eliminate parking codes completely yeah sometimes I think about that

So the list of buildings that you gave us, that was for reference purposes only. That was not going to be part of a

No, this would apply to all across the island. This would not be specific to those.

Yeah, as a part of the initial discussion, the focus was on these pre-incorporation buildings, and so those were identified in that list. But part of the pushback from you all and I think from staff was that this isn't really a pre-incorporation building issue. This is a bigger issue of is the parking appropriately adjusted based on the usage on the island.

Okay, yeah, so that list will not be a part of anything. Perfect. Where I lost a little bit of sleep about this was we make this change, or we suggest this change, and let's take a building that does not involve me picking on Joey, because I pick on Joey all the time, right? Let's look at the old Marco building. 1093 bald eagle if i'm correct right that's where zaza's restaurant is okay so we make a change in the land development code per your request council approves it office space parking goes down what does that do to the ability of the restaurant to add seats if it if it creates additional free parking which it would it would allow for the addition of additional seats

That was I don't think this should be something that causes anyone to lose sleep because again the I lose sleep over a lot of and and that's I get it but the The restaurant, you have your restaurant standards, and it's going to have to park it. So unless you're saying that your restaurant standards are wrong, this shouldn't be a concern because, again, the office is what is not needing this parking. I think you can see this in some of the pure office buildings, so I'm going to use a different building. On North Collier, there's the Morgan Stanley building. This is a pure office building. The only things in there are office uses.

The old Caldwell Banker building.

The old Caldwell Banker building. If you look at that building, by your code, it really needs something like 25, 30 spaces. But I think if you've driven by that building in peak season, I don't know that you see a packed parking lot. I mean, it's... not something that is fully staffed out that way and so yes this would make available other uses in the building but I don't think that should be concerning because all those uses have parking requirements and so it's only concerning if you're saying I don't think the other uses are parked appropriately but that's something that can also be addressed as it stands right now

the other uses should be parked appropriately. Yes. Right? The city has the parking matrix. They have the Calusas and all that stuff. I know. Yes, you are correct. He's in my head, so it's fine. So if it changes, right, then that's my concern. The Caldwell Banker building, I don't know that I – conceptually have an issue with that, but again, you look at Zaza's, you look at South Seas Plaza, you look at Sand Dollar Plaza, you know, there's a lot of these, the Chamber of Commerce Plaza, where there is a restaurant component, and so I wonder what that does when you... Yeah, I mean, to be very clear, that's what it does.

It frees up available parking from a regulatory standpoint.

And so I don't know that I have a suggestion, but I'm putting out a concern that I may be the only person who has, but I don't know.

I think it's fair to note, I think the point, though, is if it's correct that the offices are over-parked, then this is the only way to resolve that issue. And to say that we're not going to correct the office issue because we're worried that the restaurants are going to expand is really an unrelated question. because what I'm hearing is there may be a concern that the restaurants are not parked in a regulatory standpoint the way that you agree with but does that mean we should not solve the office problem is all I can say to that but I I don't disagree with you that's what would happen yeah okay is there any way not to do that we could do a much more complicated amendment I'm sure which basically would hypothetically you could create sort of a parking exception process if the building didn't have a restaurant in it you could do something along those lines it'd be much more intensive drafting exercise you could do that you could say basically if the building has no existing restaurants then the offices are one to six hundred if the building has restaurants it's one to three hundred that's possible I don't I have to talk to my people as to whether that's something that they're comfortable with but that would be a way to resolve that point It would be your most complicated parking regulation that you have, but that gets me pretty excited, so I think this could be good.

Yes, Mary.

Following along those lines, and not to... muddy the waters is so you could have an office building that's parked at one per 600 have an office go out and a restaurant come in so let's let's just look at it both ways again I agree we can't we can't factor in all the unintended consequences of what this could potentially do if we did we would have a code a land development code that would be 2,000 pages and take 20 people to interpret and enforce.

If I can make a suggestion, I don't know that if the restaurant is the major concern, which when we were looking at this, I think there's ways to think through a lot of the other uses like, like I said, banks, certain retail uses as declining in parking needs. But the restaurant one certainly is not declining. It's a service approach. And so if that's the primary concern, I think that the amendment could be Still be greenlit to be draft with maybe that like alternative options so that we can review that in the public hearing itself to decide what the right approach is because I don't know that Those that have brought this forward. We're sitting here trying to get restaurant seats. I think they were trying to solve old office building.

Absolutely I understand some of the context with you know clients who are trying to sell properties who can't because of parking issues and other places, you know give or take 25% of these buildings have a food or a restaurant component. So if there's an easy way to solve the problem for the 75% that don't, and I understand Mary's point that a restaurant could come in down the road and... We don't want to throw the alligator out with the bathwater. That's a great phrase.

I'm trying to work on it. Brad's inspired me to be more colloquial and I just... I'm not there yet. I'll workshop it.

I mean, does the board have any comments?

Can we have Mary draw up the ordinances and then move forward from there?

We can draw up the ordinance. If you would like to review it one more time before it's issued for public hearing, we can do that.

And then?

And then you can make a decision and change it, and then we can draft it for public hearing. Right. Okay.

Sure. Just one more thing. Zach, citywide, the whole impact of this thing, is there any analysis been done by you or staff

No, but we could certainly find out well We certainly could find out the number of commercial. This is a commercial zoning district point, right? So we could figure out the scope of the commercial zoning district We could try to figure out how many issued CL use you are but that public records request is going to be a lot to work through I Can we can I can try to look into that?

We're headed with this ultimately, you know, what the impact could be and overall throughout the community. So that's really my only issue.

And just so I understand the question, it's how many buildings presently? The hard part about that question is any commercially zoned property can have an office built on it, right? Right. So if you're talking about how many current office buildings there are, that's an answerable question.

Yeah. Okay. That's all I would have for that. And I like the suggestion of maybe cut the restaurants out.

Do we have any citizens who want to comment on this?

Hi. Lisa Foster again. The alligator in the room, the small alligator in the room is we do have a number of these mixed use buildings that have already been given permission to expand into other uses such as residential uses. that if you now vacate the necessity for parking for those units and they are already have the ability to come in with a greater intensity we've kind of created a our own problem for ourselves so I would urge you to be looking at what Mary rightfully addressed as the unintended consequences because there are a lot of them and as we know parking on this island is our barrier to intensity and in high season we're above it it's it's getting pretty serious so Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

I agree.

All right. So it sounds like we might have a consensus from the board to give you some direction, right? I'm taking those as stated. Okay.

All right. We don't need a motion.

No, it's just a discussion item. We don't need a motion or anything. We've got consensus.

Okay.

Okay. Okay, so moving on then. Board communications, anything from the board? Okay, if not, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn. Second.

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

Especially since you just got new insurance. Okay? You might want to look into that. Instructions are on the back. Alright? Drive safe for us, please. OK, all right, good. I'm Officer Frigge, Marco Island Police Department. The reason that we're talking right now is because you were coming over the bridge at 57 miles an hour.