Planning board orders reconsideration of Rosemarina site plan, asks applicant for detailed parking analysis and sets June 5 hearing

The Marco Island Planning Board voted on Friday to reconsider the site development plan for Rosemarina and to place related variance petitions on the board's June 5 agenda, after members and residents raised concerns about parking calculations and errors in public notice.

Assistant City Attorney David Toles told the board that a motion for reconsideration may be made by someone on the prevailing side of the prior vote and that the item could be discussed procedurally before returning to the board. Planning Board member Hayden, who made the motion, said he was "very bothered" by discrepancies he found in the project record: he cited an older certificate of land use that listed a 149-passenger capacity for the Marco Island Princess, which later appeared in internal materials as 100 and then 70 — a chain of numbers he said calls into question the project's parking matrix and trip-generation assumptions.

Hayden asked that the applicant explain how the discrepancy occurred, whether other errors might exist, and how the property owner would police any cap on vessel passenger counts. "We have a letter that was attached from the applicant... but the gist of it is the certificate of land use that was granted for the Marco Island Princess in 2002, I think, indicates an operation of 149," he said, adding that the board should get a reconciliation of what certificates say versus what the parking matrix reflects.

Zach Lombardo, speaking for Rosemarina, told the board the applicant does not oppose reconsideration and will provide additional materials, including a more detailed, boat-by-boat parking analysis. "We will... come back with a more detailed parking analysis," Lombardo said. He also agreed to the applicant's continuity of the conditional-use item, so the board can consider the matters together at the June hearing.

The board also clarified procedures for public comment during reconsideration: Toles said the procedural discussion is not the time for new testimony or evidence bearing on the merits, but the applicant may be asked to provide information so it can prepare for the full hearing. Board members debated whether variances previously approved could or should be reconsidered at the same time; Toles advised that variances can be reconsidered only if properly noticed, and several members moved to place the pertinent variance petitions (including VP25000187) on the June 5 agenda.

For the public, board member Hayden said he wanted the applicant to identify remedial options in advance of the next hearing, whether that would mean increased parking, reduced vendor uses, or an enforceable capacity cap for vessels. The hearing was set for June 5 at 9 a.m. at the Marco Island Community Center.