Planning Board - Regular Meeting

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

I'm here. Would everybody please rise and join me for the pledge of allegiance? to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Next item, approval of the agenda. Any comments, changes? I'd entertain a motion, if not.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Next item on our agenda is time certain. We'll come back to that in a few minutes board absences Meeting next Friday anybody Anticipate Busy month anyone anticipate an absence All right We're not doing approval the minutes will do that the next meeting is that correct Dan Mary yep, and then staff communications

Busy summer. All right. Any questions for staff? Do you want to get started with this? I mean, it's not quite 905 Do you want to read it into the record do the swearing do all that stuff and then maybe we put a pause on it Would that be okay?

Thank you. All right, so we're at 9.05. We'll just put a brief pause in it, if that's okay, and we'll go back to the citizen comment portion of the agenda. So this is the portion of the agenda where anyone who would like to speak about items not on today's agenda would have the opportunity to do so. You have five minutes, four minutes, apologies, and if you want to come up and state your name, you're welcome to do so. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to do that? All right, seeing nobody, we'll close that item and go back to this hearing before us. Dan?

Kind of going back to how we got here, you had talked about what the actual density limitations used to be and are now for the property and what the real density is on the site. I went back and looked at that 2015, I guess it was a renovation plan that was sort of submitted as a site development plan. At that time, would it be a correct statement to say the density was whether intended or not, it was increased.

I had a hard time reading through those application materials, finding other than in a very blurry, poorly scanned piece of paper in a parking matrix, tiny font, where it mentioned it went from I think it was 298 to 310, do you think it was a clear It was clearly presented at that time that they were increasing the density of the property? MR. No. MR. Yeah. That's a problem for me, because reading the application materials, I didn't get that either. And if we're already coming with, for lack of a better word, hands that aren't clean, and now we're asking for another doubling of density, that s

It said the Comprehensive Plan does not cap hotel and resort rooms in the residential – excuse me, in the resort residential land use category.

MR. That's what I thought. And it's not just the – You know, we've got that table in the comp plan. It's not just the table. It's your interpretation that it's actually a written policy item. Right. At one point, staff was doing a, or I think you had hired a consultant to sort of do a density review of the island. Have you received any findings specifically related to these land use categories as to where we might be with that?

That's very helpful. You mentioned, you talked about fractional density. It was a little unclear to me because I know we've, you know, there's been conversations about fractional density in the context of this project. There's been conversations about doing through ReZone. Is it your impression that the applicant is still incorporating fractional density into their proposal?

This might be a more appropriate question for the applicant, so I'll probably pose it to them as well, but why don't we have a comp plan amendment in front of us? To your point, that would seem, if we wanted to consider this, that would seem to be the correct avenue.

Okay. And then I guess my last question for now is we usually get from staff, you know, recommendations for approval with conditions or approval outright. I don't typically see recommendations for denial. I don't know if I've ever seen a recommendation just flat out denial on a rezone. Is that something that is commonly prescribed by city staff?

I guess I'd like to add one more. You know, one of the things I'm sure we're going to hear a lot about today, you know, maybe in public comment, and it was included as part of the applicant's narrative and evaluation criteria. There are a lot of what are characterized as public benefits, like roadway improvements and, you know, a lot of parking for environmental groups. And that's all well and good, but my understanding is our charge is to view does this meet the comprehensive plan of land development code. And we can't say, well, staff's saying it doesn't, but we're getting X number of dollar

Anyone else? So one of the points that you made, Hayden, was about the definitions of dwelling. And so we're talking about transient hotel room without being able to eat or have a kitchen in. So that I see as a conflict, and also a conflict in the definitions.

Right, but it implies density, the density cap.

So if we're talking about a transient... room with no eating facilities, that does not indicate that there should be a cap in density, correct? Is that what I'm?

Fractional density. that was brought forward once before a while back right and that it didn't go anywhere?

And then one thing that you said a minute ago I you may have misspoke but our

Well, sorry for Zach. I don't know if Zach, you have any closing comments. I don't want to cut you off prematurely.

Okay. I do want to dive into the density issue. But before I do that, I had some questions about the trip generation. And I don't know if, Norm, this is better for you or Zach. Staff had talked about this effectively doubling the trips to the hotel? Give me your take on that, because that does seem like it could be a problem.

So we are doubling peak hours? Yes, sir. Yes, nearly. Okay. Yes. You mentioned this did not impede or keep the level of service of the roadway beyond what is required. How close does it get, for lack of a better way of phrasing it?

That's all I had on the TIS. I appreciate that. Thank you. On this density thing, Zach, would you – the very first piece of paper you put up in the – on the screen there where it talked about 3.1.5, if you could display that again, I'd be grateful. So I'm not going to lie, this is an interesting case as to the fact that in the other categories that allow hotel uses, there is an explicit mention of the hotel density cap at the end of the paragraphs. The way I read 3.1.5 was that the density cap mentioned at the end was implicit to the use description of it. This provides residential dwellings a

Well, that leads into one of my other questions. You mentioned in your opening comments that what is on the ground as determined by past city council approvals is relevant which I think is what you're bringing up now. You acknowledged and I hope you would acknowledge that what was done in 2015 was at best unclear in the paperwork that was presented like that was not a clear situation even though I watched both planning board and council meetings in video like that did come up very briefly but a plain reading of the application materials does not give a good impression and not to put uses or ca

And I don't want to do too much on the record on this hearing about the Rosemarine entitlement process, but here— But you did file the conditional use because you realized you needed it, and that is something that should have been addressed at a prior council discussion that wasn't— The conditional use was not part of the 2014 approval.

So is it your contention that there is no cap, no density cap for hotels in this land use category.

Well, that's what I was just going to suggest is from that perspective, putting aside structural constraints of the property for a moment, I mean, you could – knock things down and put up a big parking lot, I guess. Is there any density limitation that would prevent, I don't know, A handful of years from now, we're getting a request, why not a third tower and X hundred number of new units? From a density standpoint, is it your contention that there is no restriction whatsoever on that happening?

the comprehensive plan that the resort residential where our hotels are largely concentrated is the only land use category on Marco Island with no upper limit on density?

I had other questions. Did you want to MR. I just wanted to add on to what you've said. So something I – when reading all of this information, Something I wanted to ask is basically to Hayden's point, if it's your contention that there are no density limits, why are you here requesting a reason? Why aren't you here requesting a site development plan amendment just saying there's no density limit, we want to add a second tower, and we want to put up 800 or 900 rooms, again, to your point, space constraints, stormwater, levels of service, all those things, why are we going down this road then if

in the context of other avenues to get at this. You had mentioned at the onset the reason and I don't want to put words in my mouth but my understanding was the reason you are not here for a comp plan amendment is principally because of some pretty significant live local considerations that that would create. Is that fair?

Okay. My question to you is It seems to be at least the implication for us, if we followed your reasoning for a moment, that there's at least a lack of clarity between the Land Development Code and the Comp Plan on all of this. And if a comp plan amendment could achieve that and achieve your project, isn't the live local objection really just a political consideration? Isn't it just a we know that would never happen because it would blow up the density for the island and we boxed into that for live local. So politically it's a less advantageous avenue for the applicant you're representing to a

But it's also because it would be politically untenable and I think that it would have additional ramifications. Yes The comp plan in other areas, I mean goal one talks about the city small-town charm as consistent with low density and intensity I know these are overarching goals, but how am I squaring a 60 density you know 60 unit per acre density allowance 150 foot tower as consistent with that goal of our comprehensive plan and the other you know vision elements that dan cited well i'm gonna well i pull up that one i want to address the vision piece the vision's not an enforceable document

While you're doing that, just to be clear, you think a 60-dwelling unit doubling and 150 foot to accommodate that is consistent with a low density and intensity?

Got it. I want to ask for a minute about, I have one more question and then one more comment, and then I'll shut up. On the question of the rezoning this to a PUD, It is staff's interpretation, as I understand it, that this does not qualify because it's not a mixed use property from your perspective. It would not qualify for PUD because it is not mixed use in your interpretation.

So, Zach, that's one thing I'm having a lot of trouble with here is the mixed use component. And I know, you know, talk about the Marriott, my understanding is they have a multifamily as part of that track of land. They do. Technically kind of makes that a different ball game. But if there are limitations with respect to how we would consider this as an excuse and the redevelopment point Dan just made, how would we overcome that?

Last thing I'm going to say is more of a comment. I love the Hilton. I've been there many times. I officiated my aunt and uncle's wedding there this past March. I've had staff fly in from my company there. And I'm sensitive to what you presented a very interesting slide, Zach, on the balance of sort of tourist demand with the – that was it. Which I thought was interesting. And you sort of made the case that because the city has been unable, for whatever reason, to regulate the vacation rental space appropriately, we've kind of got this matrix that's a little out of whack. And I understand what

And I, for one, just don't appreciate it being characterized in those terms as, well, this is, you know, we'll do it as a hotel and that will shift the balance away that's better for the residents. And then framing this as sort of this, it almost felt flippant in terms of, Yeah, the whole thing was just a gift, and it's really their home away from home. No, this has real implications for us. And I viewed that, I don't know, maybe it's just me.

Well, let me collect myself here. I'm going to segue into what you said. What's troubling to me, and I have been coming to Marco Island since the early 70s, and I have seen many changes. And this beautiful, charming island is not a secret anymore. And we have to be realistic about that. And I took the comments of the Olshan representative totally differently than you did. I took it as ownership and belief in this community. And for those reasons, I'm going to say a couple of out-of-the-box things. Could you put that slide back up about that? That one, yes, please. Would I be correct in saying

Is that correct? 22,000 dwellings and 10% would be Airbnb? Well, no, I'm just asking the question. I prefer he answer that question.

About 22,000, something like that. Well, anyway, it's troubling to me.

Yeah, maximum. OK, maximum. It's troubling to me. And if, in fact, increasing the number of hotel rooms mitigates the number of short-term rentals on this island, I find that to be a positive. Also, you say, the Alsham family and your clients say that they want to be partners, and I would like to also say that I believe that the product of the Hilton is different from the Marriott in this way. I am on that corner three times a day. their families and young families with children whom I see crossing the street. I don't see a lot of density in traffic. I see that people are contained in that res

Thank you. All right, so I'll chime in for a minute if I could. Where to start? Yeah, I mean, you know me. I'm just going to go all over the place, so I apologize. You know, when Marco Island Incorporated, we sort of inherited the comp plan and the land development code from the county. I did reach out to the county and I had a conversation with Mike Boese. You know, he said that most of the zoning districts there are 26 units per acre as far as hotel density. I'm assuming you'll have something to chime in on about that.

Yeah, so I'm talking about the Marriott. We've talked about the Marriott quite a bit. And so in the Marriott PUD, their PUD is 26 units per acre. And I know we can't get in the heads of those people when they approved it, but for whatever reason, they felt like 26 units per acre was the number. And I'm still struggling to figure out how we go beyond 26. And I understand that this property is beyond 26 now. But we get into this whole conversation about Bay County. We get into this conversation about the conflict between the table we have in our comp plan versus the language we have in our comp

And so this may be a question more for staff, but if the applicant is at 30 plus or minus an acre now, would the comp plan not allow them to develop to that

That would be a lower number, though, wouldn't it?

Okay. So in your PUD documents, one of the things that I thought was a little interesting was you guys – You refer to this 26 units per acre, and I'm kind of curious why that is.

All right. I hope it's okay with everybody. I've been asked if we could take a brief recess. Would we be able to take a recess for 10 minutes? I've got other things to say, but I mean, we'll just take a recess now and we can keep moving. So we're in recess until 1120, if that's okay?

questions there you are Zack did you have a question Joan I did I and I do you have a projection based on current revenues how much this project will increase the tax revenues for the city of Marco Island

The only other thing I had was Jackie had mentioned your conversation with Jeff. It sounds like there are some additional planned components of a development restaurant and such. So we could expect if this passes a site development plan coming before us. Absolutely. And that also would entail additional level of service considerations because we're looking at new demands for restaurant and all that fun stuff, right?

Actually, just one question. Since the trip generation analysis was obviously focused on the increase in the hotel rooms, if the plan is to add a restaurant and perhaps some other uses as well, have you considered that at this time, how that would affect the level of service?

All right, I have a few final questions, if that's okay, and a few final comments, I suppose. One place where I'm struggling, and I could probably use some input from city staff, if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying that the process that they're following now is not the correct process.

Okay. And to that end, I think you had some arguments you made or, you know, things you've put forward, reasons that they are not consistent with our comp plan. But some of those were tied to density units.

And so I guess my question would be if I am them and I say, okay, we're going to go down this road of a small-scale comp plan amendment, they come back with a small-scale comp plan amendment, and I know it's hard for you to say yes or no without seeing the language in their amendment, but in my mind I'm wondering how do they get to the point where staff would say, okay, they are consistent with the comp plan. If some of your concerns as staff center on the density issue of how do they get there? And you don't have to answer that question if you don't want to legally or whatever, but I'm curiou

Other question at city staff. You know, the comment that Zach made relative to changing density, so if they come forward hypothetically about, small-scale amendment they talk about a different density number again you may not be able to answer this but how does the city protect themselves or ensure that we don't have unintended consequences from a proposed live local project if if they come forward and say hey here's our small-scale comp plan amendment here's how we want to modify the density And again, you may not want to answer it for the benefit of the city. You may not be able to answer it

Thanks for that answer that helps me not at all.

How do they move forward? You know, there's a vote today. There's obviously another way that the staff is proposing to move forward. But if the staff's proposing a way for them to move forward that the staff would not approve with, it's not really a way. And that's where I'm getting hung up. I feel like from what you've said, a small-scale comp plan amendment might not be a way for them to move forward if staff's position is that The density is such that it's not consistent with our comp plan for a small, low density Am I missing something?

Horse is dead, noted. All right. So one comment, you know, Hayden mentioned that he paid attention to the 2015 planning board. meetings, council and all that. You know, one thing I noticed was that their process was a little bit different, right? I mean, they didn't talk about consistency with the comp plan. They didn't talk about any of that. You know, I'll add, though, in the documents, there wasn't really any mention in the scope. And not looking for comment, but, you know, there was no mention in the scope. There was no mention at the planning board hearing about additional units. Again, i

But could they not amend their PUD and just say, listen, those guys are doing it?

But Surf Club and Charter Club and all the other places that are in your district, I mean – Michael Dell or Jeff Bezos could come by him up and say, here we go, we're building a hotel, have a nice day. I know, it's hypothetical.

And then the last thing that I would ask relative to the proposed PUD document, there are listed uses in there, and it looks like many of those listed uses are sort of in line with our land development code, but is there any reason that the planning board couldn't impose restrictions on that?

The intended uses. If the planning board were to say, listen, we would like to recommend for approval to council, or council at their hearing could say, listen, we would recommend this for approval, but we don't want to allow for timeshares. We don't want to allow for healthcare facilities. We don't want to allow for this, that. Is that part of the purview? Is that within the planning board or the council's right to suggest those? whether or not the applicant would agree to them because by virtue of it becoming a PUD, there's a little more ability for the city to get involved and place additio

Okay. Yeah, I think some of my other stuff is just gibberish and probably worthless to talk about. So I'm probably done. Does anyone else have anything? So we are going to have citizen comment, but I'm curious if someone wants to make a motion at this point.

Well, if nobody's going to make a motion, then what?

No, I move that we accept the proposal presented by the applicant.

Okay So why don't we go ahead and move to citizen comment if that's okay? We do have a handful of registered speakers So I will call on them first and then if somebody else would like to speak after that Please don't hesitate to come up one at a time. So you'll have four minutes. You state your name miss Myers. I

Thank you. Those were the registered speakers. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak on this? Sure. Just state your name and confirm you've been sworn in. I have not been sworn in.

Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing nobody, we'll close the public comment.

But that doesn't necessarily apply to other properties that may be looking at what you're doing and treating no density cap as the correct interpretation. They could say, hey, we're going to go for bigger than that.

Anything else from the board? I had some comments. I don't want to drag it on too long. Not questions.

A couple things. I appreciate all the thoughtful deliberation up here and by the public and certainly by the applicant as well and staff. It's come up a few times this question of taxes and revenue. Again, I would just encourage my fellow board members to look at this from the perspective of our zoning, our land development code and our comp plan and consider that as the primary element. And listen, the applicant has made their case that this is consistent with that. I would have a difficult time applying weight to if a ballot amendment passes in Florida, this could be a great way to recoup so

Does anyone want to talk about Mr. Harris? Or no? I don't know that it's worth talking about, but...

Thank you. All right. Anything else from the board?

All right. So next on the agenda, new business, which we have none. Board communications, anything from the board? If not, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

Okay. Thank you, Dan. Motion to adjourn? All those in favor? Aye. All right. We're adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Have a good weekend.