CITY OF MARCO ISLAND CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

FEBRUARY 1, 2021 MEETING

TO: MARCO ISLAND PLANNING BOARD

FROM: DANIEL J. SMITH, AICP, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

SUBJECT: REZONE FROM COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL (C-1) TO PLANNED UNIT

DEVELOPMENT (PUD) 40 S. HEATHWOOD

DATE: JANUARY 21, 2021

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Mr. Patrick Vanasse of RWA, has submitted for approval of a rezoning request from Commercial
Professional C-1 to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for an assisted living and memory
care facility (Group 623) excluding Independent Care consisting of 86 units and not to exceed 92
beds. The rezoning will also allow for in-patient hospitals (Group 622), excluding psychiatric and
substance abuse hospitals. In addition, the applicant is proposing to build a new Urgent Care facility
in place of the existing and remodel the other medical office facility.

Finally, the applicant is proposing to deed a portion of the required opens space to the City as a park
(1.87 acres).

PLANNING BOARD

The Planning Board heard this item at the December 4, 2020 meeting. The Planning Board
discussed the impacts with the neighboring residential. There was also discussion regarding the
park and the building of a new Urgent Care facility. The Planning Board voted 6-0 in favor of
recommending approval to the City Council with the following conditions:
1. The 1.87-acre open space be maintained by the PUD ownership. The open space
is already required by the LDC.

1
 2. Exclude Psychiatric and Substance abuse services from Nursing and Residential
Care uses. Add language prohibiting Independent Living as a use.
3. Revise the open space PUD plan to reflect the open space requirements of Section
30-387 instead of Section 30-1020.

APPLICANT:

San Marco Senior Living, LLC Marco Island Hospital, Inc.

C/O Walk Chancey PO Box 413029
1228 East 7th Ave. Naples, FL 34101
Tampa, FL 33605

OWNER:

Marco Island Hospital, Inc.

PO Box 413029
Naples, FL 34101

CONTRACT PURCHASER

Marco Island Senior Living LLC

Title Member: Walt Chancey
1228 East 7th Ave.
Tampa, FL 33605

AGENT:

Patrick Vanasse, AICP, RWA, Inc.

6610 Willow Park Drive #200, Naples, 34109

PROJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION:

Property ID: 57540040007

Acreage: 10.02 acres
Location: Intersection of S. Heathwood Drive and San Marco Drive
Zoning: C-1

2
Aerial of the Site:

3
Zoning Map:

Property to the North – Multi-Family Residential Property Zoned Residential Multi-Family

(RMF-12) and C-1(Marco Island Board of Realtors)
Comprehensive Plan allows for up to six units per acre for RMF-12).

Property to the East – Heathwood Drive, Bald Eagle Drive and Residential Property Zoned
Residential Single-Family – 4 Units Per Acre (RSF-4) and Government
Facilities Zoned
C-1. Comprehensive Plan allows for four units per acre for RMF-4.

Property to the South – San Marco Road and Residential Property Zoned RSF-4
Comprehensive Plan allows for up to four units per acre for RMF-4.

Property to the West – Water Body and across the Water Body Residential Property Zoned RMF-4.
Comprehensive Plan allows for four units per acre for RMF-4.

4
APPLICANT’S REZONING NARRATIVE

5
6
 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The subject property has a designation by the Future Land Use Element Map of Community
Commercial allowing a maximum of 12 unit per acre for residential development.

7
PROPOSED PUD

This is an application to rezone an existing +/- 10.02 C-1 zoned property to Planned Unit
Development (PUD). The Land Development Code (LDC) requires a minimum of 10 acre to rezone
to a PUD. Having met that condition, the applicant wishes to allow for the following density, uses,
and development standards:

8
9
 1

10
11
12
The applicant is also requesting deviations from code with their justifications:

13
14
OPEN SPACE PLAN
 STAFF ANALYSIS

While having the option for a hospital use in the proposed zoning request in Tract A, the proposal
for Tract A is two buildings on 5.09 acres. One for Urgent Care (Building 1 – page 9) and one for
medical administrative offices (Building 2 - page 9). The Urgent Care will be a new building while
the medical office building will be renovated. The proposal for Tract B is an 86-unit Assisted
Living Facility (ALF) on 3.4 acres. Tract C is proposed to have open space or a city park on 1.87
acres.

It is clear the applicant listened to many of the concerns of the residents of Marco Island including
City Council, Planning Board, and Staff. This application is a scaled down version of a PUD
rezoning application proposed over a year ago in approximately the same location with less
acreage.

Staff evaluated the uses allowed in the proposed PUD and believes the proposed uses are
equivalent in intensity to a hospital, which is an allowed use as a conditional use in the
Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning district. Also a use that seemed to be the desire of the
Marco Island residents during the previous PUD application.

According to the City’s LDC’s, the “Purpose and Intent” of the current C-1 zoning districts are
to:

permit those uses which minimize pedestrian and vehicular traffic and is designed
to be compatible with all residential uses, as well as residential uses located along
arterials.

16
The LDC explains further that:

The maximum density permissible in the commercial professional district and the
commercial professional/transitional district shall not exceed the density rating
system contained in the future land use element of the comprehensive plan.

Staff can only conclude that these transitional areas may someday have a residential component
and would need to follow the density rating system outlined in the Comprehensive Plan at 12
units per acre. As such, the PUD would have a maximum density of 120 units (10 acres x 12
units per acre). The applicant only proposes a maximum of 86 units for an elderly care use closely
resembling memory or any other disabilities requiring assistance to live.

The open space plan and table (Tract C) shows 2.46 acres of active/passive open area and .67
acres of sidewalk, pathway, and plaza. Under Division 13 -Planned Unit Development of the
LDC, Section 30-387 states:

(a) Minimums. As a requirement for approval, all PUDs shall provide open space
consistent with the following minimums:
(1) Within PUD districts composed entirely of residential dwelling units and
accessory uses, at least 50 percent of the gross area shall be devoted to usable
open space.
(2) Within PUD districts containing both commercial and residential uses, at
least 30 percent of the gross area shall be devoted to usable open space.

With 3.64 acres of passive and active usable open space with adjoining dry detention, staff
can conclude that the PUD meets the 30 percent requirement for open space. The open space
plan must be revised with the correct PUD requirements of Section 30-387. This section
also goes on to state that:
Usable open space shall include active and passive recreation areas. Open water
areas beyond the perimeter of the site and internal street rights-of-way,
driveways, shall not be counted in determining usable open space.
(b) Dedication of usable open space. An appropriate percentage of the gross project
area shall be required to be dedicated to public use as usable open space for all
development after a determination by the city council that a public need exists for
such public facilities and that the amount of area dedicated is directly related to
the impacts or needs created by the proposed development.

The applicant has stated in their application that they wish to dedicate 1.87 acres (Tract C) of
their required open space to the city as a park. The applicant has also proposed that they dedicate
$462,500 in improvements and will be maintaining the property for five (5) years. Staff has yet
to determine a need for this open area, especially since open space is already required within the

17
PUD per the LDC. Staff did receive an estimate from the City’s landscape contractor. They
estimated a yearly maintenance cost of $6,300.

Access to the site is via two (2) on S. Heathwood and two (2) on San Marco Road. A potential
access is proposed to the vacant commercial property to the north of Tract A. No left in turning
movement will be allowed on one of the S. Heathwood accesses. The Trip Generation provided
by the transportation consultant shows a total external trip reduction if the proposed PUD were
approved compared to the potential C-1 use buildout.

18
The Fire Department has reviewed the PUD application and has concluded that the uses will not have a
negative impact on their emergency response services. They have also reviewed the draft emergency
evauation plan documents and will seek additional information during the permitting phase.

19
The architectural plans rendering’s submitted show buildings that meet the LDC with metal roofs
and Bermuda shutters.

Memory Care

Urgent Care

Comprehensive Plan and Planned Unit Development

20
Sec. 30-382 a. of the LDC states: All applications for PUDs shall be in full compliance with the
future land use element and the goals, objectives, and policies of all elements of the comprehensive
plan. All development regulations and other applicable provisions of all the city land development
code, as may be amended, shall apply unless specifically modified by the approved PUD document
and PUD master plan.

After a detailed review of the documents submitted by the applicant, Staff has concluded that this
application is sufficient and consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 1.1.1
regarding density standards for residential development. The applicant has proposed 86 assisted
living/memory care units not to exceed 92 beds. Density allowed is determined by the most
restricted allowed between the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC. The Comprehensive Plan
currently is the most restrictive. Community Commercial, which this property is designated, allows
for 12 units per acre. The proposal is for 8.6 units per acre.

The applicant wishes to rezone +/-10.02 acres of C-1 property to PUD. Planned Unit
Developments are allowed pursuant to the LDC, specifically the below criteria:

(1) The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation
to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage,
sewer, water, and other utilities.

Staff comment: The proposed use of assisted living/memory care, medical offices, urgent care
and open space are in keeping with the surrounding development pattern. The medical offices
and urgent care are existing today. Across the street is the City of Marco Island government
campus containing City Hall, Fire Department, and the Police Department. Adding the low
density assisted living/memory care will be in keeping with the existing and future development
patterns.

(2) Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they
may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and
maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at
public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after
consultation with the city attorney.

Staff Comment: There is adequate evidence of unified control.

(3) Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, and policies of the growth
management plan.

Staff Comment: The proposed PUD is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use element.

(4) The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and
screening requirements.

21
Staff Comment: The PUD plan submitted is both internally and externally compatible with
each other and surrounding developments. The Fire Department is proposing a new station and
the architecture of both will be compatible.

(5) The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.

Staff Comment: The proposed PUD shows 1.87 acres as a passive park or it will remain open
space in perpetuity required by the LDC and PUD. There is adequate, usable open space for this
project.

(6) The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.

Staff Comments: At the time of this review, all City departments have reviewed the proposed
uses and have no objections.

(7) The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.

Staff Comment: The subject site of the proposed assisted living/memory car is vacant. This
site can accommodate the proposed development while meeting setbacks.

(8) Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations

in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.

Staff Comment: The proposed project is in conformity with the PUD regulations and the
Comprehensive Plan.

Unified control. All land included for purposes of development within the PUD district shall be
owned or under the control of the applicant for such zoning designation, whether that applicant
be an individual, partnership or corporation, or a group of individuals, partnerships or
corporations. The applicant shall present competent substantial evidence of the unified control
of the entire area within the proposed PUD district.
Staff concurs that this requirement has been met.

Minimum area: The minimum area required for a PUD shall be ten contiguous acres except when
located within the town center overlay where a five-acre minimum requirement must be met.

Staff concurs that this requirement has been met.

Development Uniqueness: The development employs techniques featuring amenities and

excellence in the form of variations in siting, mixed land uses and/or varied dwelling types, as

22
well as adaptation to and conservation of the topography and other natural characteristics of the
land involved.
Staff concurs this has been met. The site has been laid out in a logical fashion. One could
argue the uniqueness is the assisted living/memory care use since there are no such facilities
on Marco Island. Clustering density of the ALF units in, providing for open space is also
unique from most other development patterns in the City of Marco Island.
Development Creativity: A more creative approach may be taken to the development of
contiguous tracts of land and to encourage development of infill parcels of contiguous tracts of
land in certain circumstances. A more desirable environment may be accomplished than would
be possible through strict application of the minimum requirements of this zoning code.
Staff concurs that this requirement has been met. The lay out of the site good, integrating
the uses that are compatible with each other. The unified control allows for the shared
landscape buffer, creating connecting paths throughout the site and providing a passive
park. Under conventional zoning, the passive park parcel would not have been developed.
Usable open space requirements: Within the PUD districts containing both commercial and
residential uses, at least 30 percent of the gross area shall be devoted to usable open space. Usable
open space shall include active and passive recreation areas.
Staff concurs this requirement has been met. The passive park is just shy of 2 acres and the
remaining landscape areas around the rest of the PUD provide the minimum 30% usable
open space.

Development Standards: Dimensional standards within any tract or increment of the proposed
PUD shall conform to the minimum dimensional and other standards of the zoning district to which
it most closely resembles in type, density, and intensity of use. Where there is uncertainty, the
more restrictive standards shall apply. Variation from these minimum dimensional standards may
be approved if the PUD demonstrates unique or innovative design. For purpose of this section,
examples of unique and innovative design may include, but are not limited to:

Providing usable common open space within individual tracts or increments to offset and
compensate for decreases in typical lot sizes or yard requirements.

Staff concurs that this requirement has been met. The requirement for usable open space
has been demonstrated with the passive park.

Providing for public access to open space areas beyond the boundaries of the property.
Staff concurs that this has been met by proposing open space at the water’s edge and
automobile access so the public can park. The trail systems also provide pedestrian
movement to and from the site.
The use(s) occurring within the PUD are such that compatibility with surrounding uses can be
assured by applying different requirements than would be applicable under another zoning
district.

23
Staff concurs the PUD uses are compatible with surrounding uses. Maximum height of
buildings will be consistent with adjacent commercial and residential structures. There will
be adequate open space between uses and adjacent properties. The uses proposed are
equivalent to the existing C-1 zone.

Providing places for public assembly such as parks and plazas which are linked together and
centrally located to ensure accessibility. Staff concurs that this has been met.

Siting buildings and dwelling units to provide optimum access to open space areas.
Staff concurs that this has been met.
Providing for the integration and preservation of natural resources with development, through
conservation of natural resources such as streams, lakes, floodplains, groundwater, wooded areas
and areas of unusual beauty or importance to the natural ecosystem.
Staff concurs that this has been met by providing usable open space.
Submission of schematic architectural drawings, site plans, floor plans, elevations, and
perspectives which shall graphically demonstrate the proposed reduction in dimensional
standards for all proposed land use types and their accessory uses within the PUD shall also be
required to provide support documentation for reduction in the minimum standards of the zoning
code.
Staff concurs this has been met since they are not asking for dimensional deviations.
Rezoning Requirements and Findings
Rezoning; nature of requirements of planning board report. When pertaining to the rezoning of
land, the report and recommendations of the planning board to city council required below shall
show that the planning board has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the
following, when applicable:
Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies, future
land use map, and the elements of the comprehensive plan.
Staff comment: The Comprehensive Plan allows for up to 12 units per acre of residential
density. The proposed PUD density is within this threshold. The Comprehensive Plan also
encourages elderly care in residential neighborhoods. The proposed PUD will provide for
that need.
The existing land use pattern.
Staff comment: The existing land use patterns and the propose PUD are consistent. The
C-1 provides for a transitional area and that may include density for residential uses. The
propose PUD uses are consistent to existing C-1 uses.
The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.

24
Staff comment: The proposed PUD can be considered both low intensity residential and
commercial uses. This is not unrelated by adjacent districts nearby.
Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on
the real property proposed for change.
Staff comment: District boundaries are logically drawn.
Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
appropriate.
Staff comment: The changing conditions are for the needs of the elderly. A large and
growing population on the Island.
Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood.
Staff comment: Staff does not concur. The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) shows external
traffic decreasing with the proposed uses. The proposed use also provides for additional
open space.
Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak hour volumes
or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development, or otherwise affect public safety.
Staff comment: Staff does not concur. The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) shows external
traffic decreasing with the proposed uses.
Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
Staff comment: All site developments must meet current codes for drainage.
Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
Staff comment: The PUD is creating additional open space.
Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area.
Staff comment: The PUD is creating additional open space. The Traffic Impact Study
(TIS) shows external traffic decreasing with the proposed uses.
Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
Staff comment: Staff does not believe the proposed PUD negative impact to adjacent
property.
Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of a special privilege to an individual real
property owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
Staff comment: No. The proposed PUD meets the requirements set forth in the Land
Development Code, compatible with surrounding uses.

25
Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning.
Staff comment: The property can be developed under existing zoning regulations.
Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the city.
Staff comment: The PUD is creating additional open space. The Traffic Impact Study
(TIS) shows external traffic decreasing with the proposed uses. There is also a perceived
need for elderly care as the City has a large elderly population.
Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the city for the proposed use in districts
already permitting such use.
Staff comment: This is one of the last large parcels on the island. It may be difficult to
develop ALF’s on smaller sites.
The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be
required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed
zoning classification.
Staff comment: The property can be developed under existing zoning regulations. There
are no limitations to the site for development as zoned.
The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the city comprehensive plan and as defined and
implemented through the city's adequate public facilities ordinance, as amended.
Staff comment: This application was reviewed by all departments. Staff had no objections
to the uses proposed.
Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the city council shall deem important in the
protection of the public health, safety, aesthetics, and welfare.
Staff comment: Planning staff has concerns with emergency evacuation. The applicant has
provided City’s emergency manager with an evacuation plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

26
Based on the above review, Staff recommends the Planning Board forward a recommendation of
approval based on the following findings and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan:
Findings:
1. The proposed uses are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies, future land use map,
and the elements of the comprehensive plan.

2. The proposed uses are consistent with existing land use patterns.

3. The proposed use does not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent nearby districts.

4. The district boundaries are logically drawn in relation to existing conditions.

5. The change of uses and conditions are appropriate.

6. The proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood.

7. The proposed change will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of
traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak hour volumes or
projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development, or otherwise affect public safety.

8. The proposed change will not create a drainage problem.

9. The proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.

10. The proposed change will not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area.

11. The proposed change will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent
property in accordance with existing regulations.

12. The proposed change will not constitute a grant of a special privilege to an individual real
property owner as contrasted with the public welfare.

13. There are no substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing
zoning.

14. The change suggested is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the city.

15. It may be impossible to find other adequate sites in the city for the proposed use in districts
already permitting such use.

16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be
required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed
zoning classification are adequate.

17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services are
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the city comprehensive plan and as defined and
implemented through the city's adequate public facilities ordinance, as amended.

Conditions:

27
1. The 1.87-acre open space be maintained by the PUD ownership. The open space
is already required by the LDC.
2. Exclude Psychiatric and Substance abuse services from Nursing and Residential
Care uses. Add a note that Independent Living is also excluded as a use.
3. Revise the open space PUD plan to reflect the open space requirements of
Section 30-387 instead of Section 30-1020.

28