Planning Board - Regular Meeting

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

I am here. If everybody would please rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Next item, approval of the agenda. Any comments, changes? If not, I entertain a motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I'd like to expand on that, though, because I think people in the public might hear that and say that they're not getting all the information, right? My interpretation of the letter we received as well as the comments that were just made is that respectfully I think some of the comments are incorrect, right? I don't believe as part of our hearings we moved a property line. I don't believe that we moved the riparian lines. All that we did was we allowed a setback which is the distance between either the dock or the vessel the distance between the riparian line and that vessel we allowed that

Understood. Mr. Lombardo, you have four minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, a lot of... And I understand, Bob, you haven't been part of all the fun stuff we've been dealing with. You've been missing out. But it's been a lot of continuances, a lot of noticing errors, whether that's applicant or city issues, a lot of moving things, things getting stacked up, special meetings. And it's starting to get a little tiresome just up on this desk. I spent a considerable amount of time preparing for this item this week. I mean, last night I watched the entire city council hearing on this from three and a half years ago for the second time this week. I've spoken to counse

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

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

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

Mike. Site and site visit, no communication.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to wait for the applicant first. OK.

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

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

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

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

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

The question is how many units are currently on site?

Anyone who speaks should be sworn in. Okay.

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

No. The only other thing I was going to say is I think a lot of the comments up here have been well put by the board. I was a little sensitive to the sort of spot zoning thing and still am, but good points have been made. This area has had some decay and Brad makes a good point. My preference would be, if we look at the text of the code, if we just struck Marco Lakes, that's a cleaner way to do it in terms of, to Brad's point, making it more broadly applicable to the entire portion and not site-specific. But at the same time, I don't know if I'm inclined to deny this change on the basis that a

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

So for Zach and staff, and this kind of touches on what Brad was discussing early on, and I'm going to ask you this question and I will tell you why. One of the questions I wanted to ask was could we restrict use as part of this land development code? And the reason I'm asking that is it ties into Brad's conversation about the idea of this whole sub-district over there. If this whole sub-district gets redeveloped, we talk about heaviest, lightest, transitional, residential. And that's transitional, close to multi-family and single family. And if we approve this now, we don't necessarily get an

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

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

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

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

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

Just a couple things, I'll try to be quick. I think it's a good thing we don't have the opportunity for variances with respect to density. Otherwise, we could find ourselves being inundated with variance requests. And that would be not, I mean, a lot of folks have been concerned about the number of variance requests we've gotten over the last year or two that would open the floodgates. But to Brad's question, and I think it's a very serious one, what do we get here when we're kind of controlling this? I look at it a couple ways because I'm sensitive to the one thing that I struggle with a litt

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

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

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

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

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

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

And at the time, it said, and you'll see my proposed markups in red there, but city council hereby allows the participation in a public meeting via telephone, video conference, or CMT, which is communications media technology, I think, to the extent the city has the ability to establish and approve appearance by CMT by city council members or any appointed city board or advisory, excuse me, city board or committee member at all public meetings in the Marco Island City Council or at any of the city's appointed board or committee meetings. It says right now, due to the evidentiary nature of quas

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

The only thing I would add, and David, correct me if I'm wrong, the language in the charter that discusses physically present does not distinguish between a quasi-judicial. No, it doesn't. It just says members should be physically present. I have witnessed, and I'm sure many of you all have, many times in which counselors have been absent from meetings have zoomed in have been they have a vote on the dais should we allow so-and-so to participate I mean I've seen mounts counselors zoom in from cruise ships and they've been able to participate in that dialogue and engage in that meeting and ther

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

Maybe I can help land the plane here a little. Without us getting too far into the weeds, we again have a quorum of city council members here in attendance. Our objective here is to either ask city council to consider this or not ask city council to consider this by a majority of this board. I'm personally in support of it because, again, I think The more opportunities we have for board members, committee members, council members to participate, it allows us to have more thoughtful conversations. It allows more people to apply for this position possibly. We've had some important hearings in th

I think that's appropriate Hey, I like the idea and I think it's modern it's 2026. Yeah, right but I Carry two boards and committed to this city and I was in the audit committee, a lot of people don't know, I was on audit and planning at the same time. So I had done four plus years on audit, pre that whole mess that happened with audit, and I'm heading to 70 meetings here with you folks right now. I made a commitment to this, right? I think, and I like this idea that once in a while you have to, Lynette probably could have been on the call today, you probably could have been You know, we misse

Yeah. I appreciate that, Mike. The only two things I would offer would be, I think, part of your concern would be addressed by the cap of no more than two. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Someone wouldn't. The other thing is, and I would just add this, Being mindful that our meetings happen during a workday. I'll just say on a personal note, it's been very tough for me the last several weeks. And I travel a lot for D.C. And, you know, I'm sure to Jason's point, this could be potentially broadening the applicant pool if we allowed it. Exactly. And that would be my only point. And if there's not a majority, I totally respect that. I just wanted to raise the issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One very brief thing for Board Communications, which is during the last hearing on the Hilton, towards the end of the meeting when I was recapping and talking about the extent of the renovations that were done in 2015 versus the extent that were done then, I was making a comment about the size of my relative perception as to the extent of those renovations that were done. And I said it was a lot. Upon rewatching the video, it sounded very much like I said that was a lie when referring to what Zach was saying in him making a statement that the renovations were not as substantial. And I was like

I know everyone's itching to go. I have one other thing, so I apologize. You know, we've had some conversations lately. Dan, you've talked about comp plan amendments coming forward. And one thing that I would love to have a conversation about as part of that, whether or not it waits till then or it happens sooner, I don't know. But the possible discrepancy we have in our comp plan with the resort residential area. In the table, we have the 16 and the 26. In the text, we only have 16. So there was a position on the part of a previous applicant saying that there is no cap on hotels and motels in

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

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

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

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

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

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

If not, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. All those in favor? Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Have a great weekend.