Public gets first look at Marco Island Marriott expansion plans

An artist's rendering of addition to the Marco Island Marriott. Submitted

An artist's rendering of addition to the Marco Island Marriott. Submitted

After months of speculation and sneak previews for city officials, The Marco Island Marriott Beach Resort made public its proposal for expansion of the hotel facilities before the Marco Island Planning Board Friday morning.

General Manager Rick Medwedeff laid out plans for expanded meeting space and additional parking before a full crowd in city council chambers, including a majority of Marco’s city council.

The potential additions, which Medwedeff made clear are not definite pending commitment of up to $150 million in funding from Mass Mutual, the resort’s owner, consisted primarily of two components — increased meeting space and a larger, open parking deck to accommodate the added guests. An enhanced water feature at the hotel’s entrance, spanning both sides of Collier Boulevard, was also part of the proposal.

Medwedeff characterized the expansion as a business necessity, vital for the Marriott to remain competitive in attracting group business. The plan, which he said was “a totally new concept” from the last time the hotel presented a proposal for more meeting space almost three years ago, includes removing about 45,000-square-feet of existing meeting space and replacing it with roughly 75,000-square-feet, bringing the resort’s total to more than 87,000-square-feet of meeting facilities. The addition of 93 additional guest rooms would bring the Marriott’s total number of guest rooms to 810. A rooftop pool and restaurant, open to the Gulf of Mexico, are also included in the plan.

Much of the controversy surrounding the projected expansion has focused on additional parking facilities, particularly the specter of a multi-storey parking garage east of Collier Boulevard. Medwedeff and architect Malcolm Berg presented a one-storey parking deck plan as a compromise for the hotel and its neighbors. Altogether, parking spaces would be increased by about one third, although no specific figure was provided. Tennis courts currently located across the street from the hotel will be relocated off site, with guests shuttled back and forth as they are for golf, and the hotel will move to 100 percent valet parking, they said.

But not everyone saw it as a compromise. Stephen Wahl, who described himself as owning “the property most intimately connected” to the area of expanded parking, spoke against the proposal.

“They can’t block my view. There’s going to be a legal battle, I guarantee it,” he said.

Richard Schulte advocated putting additional parking below grade, but Berg said the cost was prohibitive.

The greatest impact to the island would come, said Medwedeff, not in the high season, when the Marriott averages 92 percent occupancy, but in the shoulder and off-season months, when increased business would be most welcome on Marco Island, particularly among the business community.

“Our goal is to fill up hotel rooms,” he said, and the meeting facilities are a draw to meet that goal. The Marco Marriott contributes an economic impact to Collier County of approximately $152 million annually, said Medwedeff. He claimed the new facilities would increase that by some $46 million per year, with the bulk of the money being spent on Marco Island.

Many more steps will have to occur before a guest sips the first cocktail in the new facilities. Assuming the hotel gets the go-ahead from its ownership to spend the $150 million, they will have to come back to the board with a specific application, obtain variances, pass ordinances and then win approval from the Marco Island City Council for the project.

© 2013 marconews.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 38

WMissow writes:

This could say it all.

That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

Joni Mitchell (1970) "Big Yellow Taxi"

ajm3s writes:

Marriott: "Our goal is to fill up hotel rooms”

Now it is time for residents of Marco Island to clearly respond and express their collective goal. As a suggestion, may I recommend we simply enjoy the atmosphere afforded by maintaining a small tropical town ambiance.... not a convention center with a goal to fill vacancies during off season.

Why did we build 8-10 wide sidewalks, when the Marriott wishes to expand parking with multilevel garage. In fact, the Marriott will relocate the tennis court off site and provide a shuttle service.

Hey, Planning Department of Marco Island, why not have Marriott build a parking garage in the Midtown District and offer shuttle services for the expanded convention center. I think we may have a win-win. For some reason, I do not believe this will be accepted with glee.

Oh well, I tried.

So what can we expect:

"Many more steps will have to occur before a guest sips the first cocktail in the new facilities. Assuming the hotel gets the go-ahead from its ownership to spend the $150 million, they will have to come back to the board with a specific application, obtain variances, pass ordinances and then win approval from the Marco Island City Council for the project."

http://www.marconews.com/news/2013/au...

ajm3s writes:

It is NOT allowed per PUD!

"Medwedeff and architect Malcolm Berg presented a one-storey parking deck plan as a compromise for the hotel and its neighbors"

I believe a one story parking deck is a raised structure, as is a one story home. Given this structure request, there would need to be an amendment to the existing PUD (ordinance 01-14).

Of importance is a requirement NOT to build any raised structures on the east side of Collier Blvd, as stated in ordinance 01-14 (page 15):

"In no case, however, shall above grade buildings or elevated structures, including parking structures be permitted on the east side of Collier Boulevard, other than elevated tennis courts as provided in Section 4.1 (B)1 of this PUD."

This is very clear!

WMissow writes:

in response to Hascle:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Wrong again!

OldMarcoMan writes:

I wonder if they will have Mini Golf , for Off Season Hotel Guests? I suppose we will find out when MICA has their Public Hearing.

Oh has the Concert Schedule been printed for the Esplanade Band Shell yet ?

ajm3s writes:

"Medwedeff characterized the expansion..... The plan, which he said was “a totally new concept” from the last time the hotel presented a proposal for more meeting space almost three years ago......"

History has shown, since the 2001 agreement not to build any elevated structures on the east side of Collier, the Marriott was never going to stick to that restriction. Just review all the attempts to amend the agreement with presentations before previous council and planning boards.

I guess the goal of the Marriott is akin to Chinese water torture as means to gain acceptance of a marketing campaign to expand regardless of the agreement they signed in 2001 with the city. Keep coming back......drip drip drip.

I guess they have High Hopes

"Just what makes that silly ol' ant
Think he'll move that rubber tree plant...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOOTF8...

ajm3s writes:

in response to ajm3s:

"Medwedeff characterized the expansion..... The plan, which he said was “a totally new concept” from the last time the hotel presented a proposal for more meeting space almost three years ago......"

History has shown, since the 2001 agreement not to build any elevated structures on the east side of Collier, the Marriott was never going to stick to that restriction. Just review all the attempts to amend the agreement with presentations before previous council and planning boards.

I guess the goal of the Marriott is akin to Chinese water torture as means to gain acceptance of a marketing campaign to expand regardless of the agreement they signed in 2001 with the city. Keep coming back......drip drip drip.

I guess they have High Hopes

"Just what makes that silly ol' ant
Think he'll move that rubber tree plant...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOOTF8...

Hey, wasn't that the same approach for the creation of a city as a governing body in 1997. How many times did it take before passage?

And what do we have now......a city with NO vision that is clearly stated in the Planning Board's mission statement.

ajm3s writes:

in response to Hascle:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Now that comment is more in keeping with the pressure exerted by revenue, but I do not mean to quibble, but I need to explore your comment: "Marco needs the income from the taxes"......"

Consider the incapacity of Marco Island as a city to manage a major yet simple infrastructure project as exemplified with Smokehouse Bridge.

You are on to something, when you state the city of "Marco needs the income from taxes...." However, the city's capacity to manage reminds, me of the old story of companies that cannot make money so they try to solve the problem by making it up with more volume.

Now I understand, government is not a private/profit concern but the flows of cash are the same except government has taxing power as a means to readjust or accomodate for inefficiencies or expansions that require more services than anticipated.

How many vacant commercial lots do you have to see year after year to reconfirm my assessment that this island is NOT improving its quality, but simply changing the character by screwing around with density.

But if you want more money and the city is willing to amend ordinances and increase density in areas that are already developed then, the quality of this island will suffer. And eventually, the more exclusive islands will see private residences gain in value at a higher rate than communities that seek increase commercialization and density/intensity modification as a means to promote growth in an area like Marco Island that I consider primarily a residential community.

Konfuzius writes:

Konfuzius says:

If the government is not sure what the people will, ask the People. That is what you call

R-E-F-E-R-E-N-D-U-M!!!!

ProfZed writes:

in response to ajm3s:

Marriott: "Our goal is to fill up hotel rooms”

Now it is time for residents of Marco Island to clearly respond and express their collective goal. As a suggestion, may I recommend we simply enjoy the atmosphere afforded by maintaining a small tropical town ambiance.... not a convention center with a goal to fill vacancies during off season.

Why did we build 8-10 wide sidewalks, when the Marriott wishes to expand parking with multilevel garage. In fact, the Marriott will relocate the tennis court off site and provide a shuttle service.

Hey, Planning Department of Marco Island, why not have Marriott build a parking garage in the Midtown District and offer shuttle services for the expanded convention center. I think we may have a win-win. For some reason, I do not believe this will be accepted with glee.

Oh well, I tried.

So what can we expect:

"Many more steps will have to occur before a guest sips the first cocktail in the new facilities. Assuming the hotel gets the go-ahead from its ownership to spend the $150 million, they will have to come back to the board with a specific application, obtain variances, pass ordinances and then win approval from the Marco Island City Council for the project."

http://www.marconews.com/news/2013/au...

ajm3s, I had the same thought. If they're going to shuttle guests to new tennis courts as they presently do with golf, then why not build a parking garage off-site and shuttle guests there? They could still offer valet service too, guests would just have to give half an hours notice that they want their car.

I can understand living in Chicago and looking out your back door and seeing a parking garage. I cannot fathom how awful it would be to own a home on beautiful Marco Island and have to look out your back door and see a parking garage. And as I mentioned elsewhere on this site, a one-story parking garage can easily be added on to and become a two-story/three-story garage.

Marriot could even donate the land of the present parking garage to the city on the condition that it be forever used as park land. Marriot should consider how appreciated they would be by Marco Islanders if they did that!

WMissow writes:

When is a Convention Center not a Convention Center?

Answer: When Rick Medwedeff calls it something else!

They wish to pave over Paradise and put up a Parking Lot. The should live up to their promises in the first place and "forget about it".

ss0rdot writes:

Is there anyone out there that actually supports this "Mariott Plan" ??? i would be curious to hear why....

ajm3s writes:

in response to ss0rdot:

Is there anyone out there that actually supports this "Mariott Plan" ??? i would be curious to hear why....

They are out there, probably reconvening and perhaps to gather support from the Chamber of Commerce and civic leaders and eventually to make another private pitch to Councillors. And then perhaps we will be told again, by Mr. Medwedeff, that the public is "misinformed" as in his opening statement to the Planning Board last Friday.

My response to Mr. Medwedeff: How can the public be misinformed, when we were NOT even informed. There was no presentation material supplied by the Marriott on the city website as a means to inform the folks with reading material who could not attend or off island. Nor was there any response to questions posed by the press prior to the presentation. So again, the Marriott representative begins by telling the Planning Board we are "misinformed"' God we were NOT even informed prior to the presentation. So to be fair and accurate, the folks were not misinformed as of Friday, but simply NOT informed.

God this is the same crap to attempt to marginalize and quiet the rumblings of the public, but it actually may result in galvanizing those who have another vision for this island going forward.

I hope MICA, MITA, and MIPO inform the folks to the facts, because the presentation is still not to be found on the city website as of this morning to those of us who are looking for the facts.

One thing I am sick of, is the constant issuance variances to businesses seeking expansion on existing properties that were originally intended to support a smaller customer base. My recommendation to the Planning Board, when businesses seek to expand beyond the capacity/size of the property, perhaps they could move to a larger lot (i.e vacant lot) or buy adjacent property in an open market.

Was that not the pathway to address growth on this island? Or do we just file variances to put more stuff on the same footprint?

Is this so difficult to manage? Or is it difficult to say no when we want more stuff in the same size lot?

Finally, to your question: "Is there anyone out there that actually supports this "Mariott Plan?"

Answer: The City of Marco Island

WMissow writes:

Ajm,

??Last sentence?? Did you mean City Hall or the citizens, all or neither?

ajm3s writes:

In an attempt to be informed let me provide a brief historical perspective. I post these articles because they are related to parking, the Marriott and beach access, I begin with the widening of sidewalks:

Nov 24, 2003: This story is enlightening, pay attention to the comments of Mr. Dictor, general manager of the Marriott, speaking as a citizen with regard his dissent to the widening of the sidewalks on Collier, "We're not building any more hotels. We're at the saturation point"

http://www.marconews.com/news/2003/no...

August 10, 2006: Marriott/Madeira Condominium agree to beach access with no provision for restrooms or parking

http://www.marconews.com/news/2006/au...

March 27, 2007: LTE with an interesting proposal for beach parking from Sam and Pam Shniper of Marco Island for property owned by Marriott

http://www.marconews.com/news/2007/ma...

July 1, 2010: "138,000 square-foot convention facility on the site of its current parking lot in an effort to become more competitive in attracting lucrative convention business"

http://www.marconews.com/news/2010/ju...

July 15, 2010: the outcry from citizens to the proposal

http://www.marconews.com/news/2010/ju...

September 27, 2012: An interesting LTE to remind candidates of the last council elections as to the issues.

http://www.marconews.com/news/2012/se...

There will be an incessant push for corporations to maximize the performance of assets, especially those on the beach. With this I still see vacant lots on Collier Blvd, but the Marriott will pursue to increase density on its parcel.

Is this in the interest of residents?

ajm3s writes:

in response to WMissow:

Ajm,

??Last sentence?? Did you mean City Hall or the citizens, all or neither?

City Hall

ajm3s writes:

in response to ProfZed:

ajm3s, I had the same thought. If they're going to shuttle guests to new tennis courts as they presently do with golf, then why not build a parking garage off-site and shuttle guests there? They could still offer valet service too, guests would just have to give half an hours notice that they want their car.

I can understand living in Chicago and looking out your back door and seeing a parking garage. I cannot fathom how awful it would be to own a home on beautiful Marco Island and have to look out your back door and see a parking garage. And as I mentioned elsewhere on this site, a one-story parking garage can easily be added on to and become a two-story/three-story garage.

Marriot could even donate the land of the present parking garage to the city on the condition that it be forever used as park land. Marriot should consider how appreciated they would be by Marco Islanders if they did that!

I get concerned when corporations especially large corporations who play a dominant role in a local market, provide offerings to city via donations of land, time or monies to support programs. I tend to like arms length transactions.

Consider the relationship between the Marriott and Marco Island Academy. I understand the benefit of private support of public services and/or facilities, but we should always consider the impact whether intentional or not, of influence to sway votes and public opinion with "free stuff" or monetary support, or as I propose a degradation of curricula.

For example, the Marriott provides donations in support of Marco Island Academy and coincidentally, the Academy has a Hospitality and Tourism Program for 2012-2013 school year. Well, in my limited world of education, I would have expected a school during its infancy would focus on a basic core curriculum, not hospitality offerings.

http://www.marcoislandacademy.com/Hos...

Now I read the Academy received a sub-par grade in its second year as reviewed by the Florida Department of Education.

"In its second year of existence, Marco Island Academy saw its rating drop from “C” to “D."

http://www.marcoislandflorida.com/art...

Are they related? Who knows, but it may be diluting the curricula and is the Marriott influencing such choices?

We, as residents need to begin to understand why we live here. Yes, the operative word is live.

I, for one did not envision a commercialized Collier Boulevard with vacant lots remain dormant while existing developments are making requests to intensify their properties.

Now is the time to begin to question the past relationships as and impact on the community and as well as granting variances to intensity operations. Consider the increase height restrictions granted to Marriott Chrystal Shores near South Beach and public access. Did this help to resolving parking issues and beach access?

Mr. Irv Pavlow, of the Planning Board, several year ago, was right on when he questioned the deal after the fact. He concluded the agreement carved out with the Marriott Chrystal Shores may have not been in the residents best interest by not considering public parking. Today, the Planning Board is made up of individuals experienced enough to consider the consequences.

Just passing thoughts, but appreciate your comments.

WMissow writes:

When promises made by any organization are broken in such a way that they feel that they have to play with the "terminology" used in order to describe their new intentions. Not a convention center? Then what else when the increased space is going to nothing more than provide large area visuals to a screen or stage?

How blind or naïve does the Marriott think the citizens of Marco are?

Why does this issue come before the residents in off season?

Yes, the Marriott is a beautiful Hotel but please do not make your desire to increase your income built on broken promises, and the backs of homeowners on the eastern side of your property.

Ajm and ProfZ, you have the support of everyone I have spoken to regarding this issue.

City Hall don't fall for the song and dance of a group who are "really" only interested in lining their and their shareholder's pockets.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!

ajm3s writes:

in response to Hascle:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Then there is no big deal? If they forgo the raised structure to create a "covered" parking structure on the east side of Collier no amendments are required or variances. Is that the case, since the presentation is still not available on the website, so I will have to wait.

Bill McMullan, offers a perspective on Eye On Marco, perhaps he can offer more information, because this "informational" only presentation has still not made it to off-island residents. As to his reference the "Marriott Resort was NOT the three (3) headed Dragon that many rumors had made them out to be!"

Bill McMullan recommends a win-win. I recommend the Marriott simply follow the zoning rules in place. Is that too much to ask?

But the article seems to indicate that variances etc are in the works? Or is this just another rumor? I for one never heard the three dragon headed dragon rumor but will challenge why the big presentation if the only challenge to existing code and amendment is the "covered" parking stucture.

For me, its a no brainer, forgo the covered structure, if in fact this is the only item requiring amendment/variance to come before the Planning Board and Council.

However, this is how this article ended:

"Many more steps will have to occur before a guest sips the first cocktail in the new facilities. Assuming the hotel gets the go-ahead from its ownership to spend the $150 million, they will have to come back to the board with a specific application, obtain variances, pass ordinances and then win approval from the Marco Island City Council for the project."

No rumor here, just trying to get the facts, but your point is right on, the pressure to allow the Marriott to move forward will be tremendous. I just do not understand why the big presentation, if they do not need the city for variances or amendments.

WMissow writes:

in response to Hascle:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Hascle,

$500,000 is a great deal of money, but when it actually is related to say 20,000 taxpaying resident owners that is only $25 in taxes per resident owner. Could be a bit more or less, depending on the actual count and the person's tax bracket.

Putting a parking lot up near properties that were promised that no multi tier lot would go up could add up to TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS or more LOSS in value of the homes abutting that property.

How many fewer people would wish to buy their homes when more of the view is lost, never mind the additional annoyances that speedy parking attendants cause racing around in order to get more done in a short period of time?

Put this in perspective of those people who were basically lied to.

lauralbi1 writes:

I suggest we all drive this stretch of Collier Blvd, as I will do ,today, and examine the impact of this plan to the Homeowners. Then we can all make comments here as to how we feel about it.
I am VERY curious to see for myself the impact of this proposal on the "VIEWS" of these homeowners.
I will post tomorrow with my personal drive and results.
Even with a 2 story home, I cannot imagine much of a view, but I need to see for myself.
Ed Issler

2themoon writes:

in response to lauralbi1:

I suggest we all drive this stretch of Collier Blvd, as I will do ,today, and examine the impact of this plan to the Homeowners. Then we can all make comments here as to how we feel about it.
I am VERY curious to see for myself the impact of this proposal on the "VIEWS" of these homeowners.
I will post tomorrow with my personal drive and results.
Even with a 2 story home, I cannot imagine much of a view, but I need to see for myself.
Ed Issler

Eddi, you cant post to this site until you provide your asbestos tests results from 5 years ago.

WMissow writes:

I hope that if it comes to it they have an excellent lawyer. We know that the Marriott have plenty of their own on staff.

Konfuzius writes:

in response to 2themoon:

Eddi, you cant post to this site until you provide your asbestos tests results from 5 years ago.

Sorry Sir,

Eddi is excused. Terminated. To bad.

WMissow writes:

I would bet they could buy all of the houses adjoining or find other houses for those people if they so desired.

But a reasonable offer, to each of those homeowners affected, by Mass Mutual might also work to alleviate the loss in value.

The other hurdle, though, is it has to pass City Council and whatever agreements which have been made in the past, first.

ajm3s writes:

in response to Hascle:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

How about buying all the adjoining lots and homes. I did not hear that proposal on the table, and highly doubt it will be proposed for I believe it was not part of the presentation.

But interestingly, a two level parking garage, will be quite a feat if the Marriott can pull it off.

Because in the scheme of things, it is what we in business call a "nudge". That innocuous proposal to change by making an incrementally small request to the community in exchange for increase revenue.

Well this request to build a deck with cars on the 2nd level, will allow the additional rooms on the west side to meet existing codes for parking requirements.

Parking is the Achilles heel, and obviously, the Marriott does not want to expand parking on the west side, only the east side. This small request by the Marriott has major consequences, because they are encroaching where they agreed NOT to do.

May I recommend the Marriott simply build a parking garage on the west side, and be a good neighbor.

Or do we "nudge" the folks into believing this compromise of a two level, yes two level parking garage, is really a win-win for adjoining neighbors or the residents at large.

Am I the only one who sees this attack, as an affront to the neighborhood, who have clearly made their position known in the past?

In fact, I say the Marriott has balls to even suggest a two level parking garage on the east side. But then again, it was for information only.

I can see this game going into extra innings, because in the end, the final score will not reflect a win-win.

I just don't understand why the Marriott did not present building additional parking on the west side, as an option. Isn't that what the condominiums on the west side of Collier Blvd provide to accommodate their guests and residents.

Oh well! For me it is about fairness and honoring your agreements with your neighbors. But I guess some neighbors need more.

ajm3s writes:

Finally, got to hear the proposal.

Let me begin with the nuance of parking garage vs parking deck.

This is so nutty, it is scary. So we begin with a statement that the folks are misinformed by Rick Medwedeff to a revised parking is a parking deck NOT a parking garage.

God help us! We are now engaged in verbiage.

ajm3s writes:

As I continue to review the parking "deck", the proposed parking area has been moved and concentrated towards the residential homes in the back and to which a deck has been added. All this to allow for more lush greenery and larger entrance access on Collier Blvd to the benefit of the Marriott.

As a designer, I think the homeowners just got more parking closer to the them to the benefit of the Marriott having a more lush and grandiose entrance on Collier.

Interesting! And this is to the benefit of the adjoining homeowner?

ajm3s writes:

Go to 1:57:00 of meeting. Mr. Shulte (?) during public comment said it all as it relates to parking. (But the Marriott is trying for the low cost solution, so it wants to change the agreement!)

http://view.liveindexer.com/ViewIndex...

However, the Marriott also wants to amend the height restrictions, but it does NOT want to change the Lanai section (low height annex built earlier) so as to not change the character.

My response to the Marriott: guess what we do not want height restriction amendments so as to not change the character of Marco Island.

Folks! And not all luxury hotels have to expand to claim luxury! Interestingly, the design architect is from Coral Gables where there is a vintage Biltmore Hotel in a community that understands character. Where there is a residential community that has maintained a certain character and has not succumbed to the new expansion of the day!

http://www.hotels.com/ho148417/biltmo...

lauralbi1 writes:

Mr. Wahl: I drove this section of Collier Blvd last night and it is impossible for you to have lost any view as no view exists from any home that faces the Marriott property. If, in fact, somehow you have a view, please stay seriously involved and do something about it. But I am going to look again. Facts are one thing, emotion is another.
I wonder if there is any way to get any Beach Parking out of this proposal m??
Ed Issler

gladesgator writes:

in response to lauralbi1:

Mr. Wahl: I drove this section of Collier Blvd last night and it is impossible for you to have lost any view as no view exists from any home that faces the Marriott property. If, in fact, somehow you have a view, please stay seriously involved and do something about it. But I am going to look again. Facts are one thing, emotion is another.
I wonder if there is any way to get any Beach Parking out of this proposal m??
Ed Issler

This could make an interesting court argument. It seems that with a 150 million dollar budget there would be a little room to offer fair market value to any people immediately impacted by the project.

Konfuzius writes:

in response to lauralbi1:

Mr. Wahl: I drove this section of Collier Blvd last night and it is impossible for you to have lost any view as no view exists from any home that faces the Marriott property. If, in fact, somehow you have a view, please stay seriously involved and do something about it. But I am going to look again. Facts are one thing, emotion is another.
I wonder if there is any way to get any Beach Parking out of this proposal m??
Ed Issler

Eddi,

what did you see? Nothing? You are wrong. You see a wide open sky - blue - and freedom. Next year you will see a parking lot build with concrete, no blue sky and a terrible smell.
I understand the people. You do not. To bad that you are still the spokesman of yesterday people like to change Marco Island to a resort destination.

Konfuzius says:

One must grapple with both the positive and negative sides of life, and may not permanently withdraw oneself from society.

Eddi - that is for you!

lauralbi1 writes:

Anyone can drive this stretch of Collier Blvd. There seems to be a fear or just plain stubbornness being expressed above. Right now what the homeowners see are trees and a wall. I have not seen the specifics, but that is what they will see after the project is done, if it is done. A single story parking lot is hardly a condemnation of the property behind it.
Everyone complaining about this needs to realize that nobody has yet expressed the fact that when these property owners bought in that location they had every expectation of having a high rise, like San Marco Residences, built in front of them, consistent with zoning and Deed Restrictions. The PUD, and height agreement, for the condos built by Mass Mutual came very recently.
So to speak of compensation of loss of views is ridiculous. Buyer beware and owners stop BSing !!!! What the City is considering is far, far better that what could have been when these owners bought their properties.
We all agree that a PUD agreement is in place. We do not know how applicable it is to a one story parking deck. But let's call a spade a spade and consider what could have been built on that property when all of the owners bought there !!!
Ed Issler

ajm3s writes:

in response to lauralbi1:

Anyone can drive this stretch of Collier Blvd. There seems to be a fear or just plain stubbornness being expressed above. Right now what the homeowners see are trees and a wall. I have not seen the specifics, but that is what they will see after the project is done, if it is done. A single story parking lot is hardly a condemnation of the property behind it.
Everyone complaining about this needs to realize that nobody has yet expressed the fact that when these property owners bought in that location they had every expectation of having a high rise, like San Marco Residences, built in front of them, consistent with zoning and Deed Restrictions. The PUD, and height agreement, for the condos built by Mass Mutual came very recently.
So to speak of compensation of loss of views is ridiculous. Buyer beware and owners stop BSing !!!! What the City is considering is far, far better that what could have been when these owners bought their properties.
We all agree that a PUD agreement is in place. We do not know how applicable it is to a one story parking deck. But let's call a spade a spade and consider what could have been built on that property when all of the owners bought there !!!
Ed Issler

" What the City is considering is far, far better that what could have been when these owners bought their properties."

From the homeowners perspective, here is what will change:

1. automobiles will now be on an upper deck as well as ground level
2. the parking area will now be concentrated towards the back of the lot nearest the private homes.
3. the traffic of all parking will now be concentrated towards the back nearest the private homes
4. the lighting will now be reflecting on an upper deck vs the ground given the same height of lighting fixures
5. the total amount of cars will increase by an additional 300-400 cars so expect more noise.
6. this represents a low cost approach to parking for the Marriott vs a parking garage on the west side.

I shall stop here, but please it is more than the view or lack there of.

WMissow writes:

in response to lauralbi1:

Anyone can drive this stretch of Collier Blvd. There seems to be a fear or just plain stubbornness being expressed above. Right now what the homeowners see are trees and a wall. I have not seen the specifics, but that is what they will see after the project is done, if it is done. A single story parking lot is hardly a condemnation of the property behind it.
Everyone complaining about this needs to realize that nobody has yet expressed the fact that when these property owners bought in that location they had every expectation of having a high rise, like San Marco Residences, built in front of them, consistent with zoning and Deed Restrictions. The PUD, and height agreement, for the condos built by Mass Mutual came very recently.
So to speak of compensation of loss of views is ridiculous. Buyer beware and owners stop BSing !!!! What the City is considering is far, far better that what could have been when these owners bought their properties.
We all agree that a PUD agreement is in place. We do not know how applicable it is to a one story parking deck. But let's call a spade a spade and consider what could have been built on that property when all of the owners bought there !!!
Ed Issler

Ed,

When the shoe was on the different foot did you not want a school built in your backyard?

Why is it if it happens to somebody else it should have been considered beforehand?

We should be considerate of other's needs before it happens to you and nobody else cares!

lauralbi1 writes:

WMissow: If you know anything, you know that there is nothing more that I enjoy than a rational factual discussion on topics in these blogs. And I will respond to your comments.
You are absolutely correct in your statement. The Temporary School could have been placed on the New Life Community Church property had it NOT been for Deed Restrictions that were in place on this property. Our entire neighborhood contributed $300 per household and we hired an attorney and were able to legally stop MIA from entertaining this site for their school.
But I will even go one step further into history. Before Veteran's Park, there was a proposed Hotel (Embassy Suites) and a 35,000 square foot Commercial Development proposed for that property. With the help of lawyers, MICA and the Planning Commission, we were able to get the Developer to relocate the proposed Hotel to the back side of the property (off of the water).
So, yes, I am not short of experience in these matters and I do sympathize with these homeowners. But again, I believe in this case, what is being proposed is better than what is existing. And if it is not, we can make it so it is better. I would hope that the City could also get some Beach parking out of this.
Thanks for the discussion !!!
Ed Issler

WMissow writes:

Ed,

I hope that everyone benefits adequately and fairly with whatever the outcome of this is.

My concern is that the neighboring residents do not get the short end of the deal.

There are alternatives to the build up of the parking lot which looks to have been discussed, but the cost factor by Marriott was the reason for not going in that direction, at least for now.

A build up parking structure is just plain ugly no matter how pretty the concrete is decorated or carved.

Maybe if Mass Mutual is really concerned about being "good neighbors" and not just giving lip service then alternative ideas should be decided upon and not just considered and written off.

Yes, beach access parking should be part of the deal, which would benefit residents and visitors alike.

WMissow writes:

An additional thought. By construction an underground parking area the Marriott would take care of several problem that has definitely become a sore spot with the residents.

1. No need for the additional structure that would interfere with neighboring residents, quite, pleasurable, enjoyment of their property.

2. The need for a bridge over Collier would not exist if access to the underground lot was allowed thru a tunnel from the west side of the property.

3. This tunnel would eliminate traffic interference of parking attendants having to run across Collier Blvd. the same as a bridge would.

4. The character of Collier Blvd would not be interfered by the appearance of a parking garage.

5. The Marriott and Mass Mutual would not be going back on their agreement as to not build a structure on the east side of their property.

6. The Marriott and Mass Mutual would maintain a "good neighbor relationship" with the people of Marco Island.

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