Density credits, fertilizer regulations and seawalls among Marco Island City Council topics

— Seawalls, density credits and more stringent fertilizer regulations were three of the items debated by City Council members at their regular meeting on Monday night.

In effort to spur development, council members gave final approval to a plan to transfer waterfront commercial density credits to any commercial property within the city’s Midtown District. A maximum of 200 credits could be transferred from one waterfront area to another area within the Midtown District to allow for one to two limited-use hotels with no more than 150 rooms. Planning officials reason that new hotels could stimulate re-development in the district and create a pedestrian friendly environment while ensuring that any development plans gain council approval before being built.

Chuck Kiester, one of two council members who opposed the plan, cited concerns about how additional competition will impact existing businesses. He also doesn’t believe that taking a chance on inspiring investors is worth what he called a “zone it and they will come” gamble.

Council chairman Jerry Gibson was adamant that transferring density credits is not the same as re-zoning and that the move is a “baby step” towards expanding density credits.

Bud Balsom, a broker for Peak Realty, which represents a local development group that has spent two years researching the possibility of building a limited service hotel in the Midtown District, welcomed the 5-2 vote. Balsom claims that Marco lacks this type of hotel, which could cater to not only tourists, but families of seasonal residents who cannot afford the cost of staying in a large, chain hotel.

Meanwhile, Bill Waichulis, senior vice president of operations for Boykin Management Company, which owned the Radisson Hotel on the Island before selling it to Marriott told council members that large hotels chains cannot get funding to build the kind of hotels that the city hopes to attract, and predicted that the ordinance will actually discourage development.

During the public comment, a representative of the Marco Island Civic Association also told councilors that its query of residents found that 80 percent opposed density transfers.

Increased fertilizer regulations voted down

A plan to urge the Collier Board of County Commissioners to adopt a fertilizer ordinance more stringent than the current minimum requirements set by state law did not get the support of council members, which failed to pass the regulation by a 4-3 vote.

More forceful requirements suggested included a four-month fertilizer use black out period, regulating chemical use to within three feet of water when there is no shield to keep the chemicals from leaching into waterways and even regulating the point-of-sale of fertilizers.

“I think its important for us to send a message that this is important to use,” said Councilor William Trotter.

Chairman Jerry Trotter added that the ordinance passed would be more of a symbolic gesture than anything else.

“It’s incumbent upon us to protect the water,” he said.

But council member Frank Recker testily told his fellow councilors that they should wait for Collier County to make a decision before attempting to enact a stiffer ordinance.

“This is a perfect example of government intrusion,” Recker stated, added in his mind the regulation is nothing more than “feel good, hug-a-tree (legislation).”

Seawall amendment passes first reading

An ordinance to amend the building code regarding seawalls passed its first hurdle. Councilmen unanimously approved the first reading of a plan to allow for new seawalls to be placed in front of old ones where whalers are retained as part of the design renovation.

The change comes from an appeal regarding Tropical Isle Condominiums, which prohibited a design that included seawall in front of a seawall because the outside face of the new structure would exceed 12 inches. However, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has extended its regulation from 12 inches to 18 inches, making the new structure compliant.

In addition to updating the code to comply with what has been set by DEP, the ordinance puts the burden on a property owner’s engineer if a seawall fails or collapses. If and when that happens, an owner will have 60 days to contract a licensed marine contractor to get a permit and make repairs. A design professional will certify the design and inspect the structure, which is current practice. Then, a final inspection would be performed by the Building Department.

The ordinance will receive a second hearing and vote at an upcoming council meeting before being enacted.

© 2011 marconews.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Topics

Comments » 3

RayPray writes:

in response to islandeye1#236971:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

"the Councils [sick]s----- decision!!! This Council needs a wake up call!"

>>> The insular-Ignoramus has spoken.

>>> How can our Council now not stop screechingly in its tracks and take heed?

ajm3s writes:

Why would you want to transfer density credits from a waterfront to an inland location? The value of waterfront developed to its density potential has much more value than those same density credits transferred to an inland lot.

Even a developed waterfront lot, with unused credits, like Winn-Dixie does not portend to be always a storefront years or decades from now. And can then be developed to its potential in terms of the city's property tax revenue.

I understand the flexibility it provides for city planners, but the island is reducing its overall tax revenue potential on future waterfront developments, if these credits are transferred inland.

Am I missing something, or is this just a revision of land code to accommodate a business request to move to a specific site or make inland property more attractive by increasing revenue potential for the business owner/developer.

Does this density transfer issue actually diminish the concept of a CRA recently promoted by the city last year? The CRA was to promote the development of "blighted" areas, not with density transfer credits. By transferring density credit, the city behaving as a shark and now consuming its young.

Why?

EdFoster writes:

Ah! The truth is out! I read it in the Marco Island Eagle! Jerry Trotter is Bill Trotter's long lost son! What great copy editing!

Seriously Frank, way back when ... when the likes of John Arceri et. al. accused septic systems of being the source of nitrogen buildup in Marco waterways which would lead to deadly algae blooms and smelly fish kills, Dr. Shirley of Rookery Bay said the evidence showed that the source of nitrogen was fertilizer runoff, not leaking septic tanks. You guys really oughta consider limiting the amount of fertilizer that's used on the island but that must stomp on someone's toes. Installing an unneeded STRP to the tune of about $300,000,000 ... thereby saddling most single-family homeowners with ungodly assessments and ever increasing utility bills ... was a far simpler decision. Wow!

Ed Foster
Former Marco Resident

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features