Hilton Plans to Head to Council

Planning Board Advances Controversial Hilton Rezoning

In a divided decision following hours of testimony and public opposition, the Marco Island Planning Board voted Friday to recommend approval of a rezoning that could allow the Hilton Marco Island Beach Resort and Spa to nearly double its number of guest rooms.

The proposal would increase the hotel from 310 to as many as 626 rooms and allow construction of a second tower reaching 150 feet, a parking garage, another restaurant and additional resort amenities on the approximately 10.4-acre property at 560 S. Collier Blvd.

The board voted 3-2 to forward the proposal to the Marco Island City Council with a recommendation for approval. Joan Janssen, Mike Hogan and Geoff Fahringer voted in favor. Vice Chair Hayden Dublois and Chair Jason Bailey voted against it. Brad Henson and Nanette Finkle were absent.

The vote represented an unusual rejection of a strongly worded staff recommendation for denial. Community Affairs Director Dan Smith told the board that staff generally attempts to recommend approval, either outright or with conditions, rather than oppose a project entirely.

Smith said the application was missing a necessary step: an amendment to the city’s comprehensive plan. He said the Hilton was advised during its preapplication meeting that a comprehensive plan amendment was the appropriate process. Under Marco Island law, an amendment involving land use or density would require five affirmative City Council votes, while the proposed PUD rezoning would require only four.

City Staff Says PUD Rezoning Is Not Appropriate

The property is zoned residential tourist. The Hilton is seeking to rezone it as a planned unit development, or PUD. The applicant contends that the resort residential future land use category has no specific density limit for hotel rooms under the comprehensive plan.

The central dispute was whether the comprehensive plan limits hotel density. Smith said it permits 16 dwelling units per acre in the resort residential category, and the land development code counts each hotel room as a dwelling unit for density purposes.

Under that interpretation, the proposal would equal about 60 units per acre, nearly four times the permitted density. Smith said the existing 310 rooms are protected, but the hotel cannot more than double that number through a PUD without first amending the comprehensive plan.

Opponents also warned that accepting the applicant’s interpretation could establish a precedent extending beyond the Hilton. If hotel density can be increased through a PUD without a comprehensive plan amendment, they argued, other property owners could seek similar rezonings to avoid existing density limits.

Planning Manager Mary Holden said staff did not consider the property appropriate for PUD treatment because it could be redeveloped under its existing zoning.

Holden also said the zoning change conflicted with the future land use map. “Going from resort tourist, or RT, to a PUD is in violation of our land use map itself,” she said. “This area is not designated as PUD.”

Hilton attorney Zach Lombardo disagreed, arguing that a property does not have to be in the PUD future land use category to receive PUD zoning. He cited the Marco Island Senior Center PUD, which is in the community commercial category.

Staff also found that the proposal did not meet the purpose of a PUD because it involved a single hotel use rather than an innovative mix of uses. Staff raised additional concerns about traffic, pedestrian safety, parking, density and small-town character and formally recommended denial.

Applicant Disputes Density Limit

Lombardo argued that the comprehensive plan distinguishes between residential units and transient hotel rooms. He said other land use categories specifically cap hotel rooms, while the resort residential category does not.

“No one lives in a hotel,” Lombardo said, maintaining that the 16-unit limit applies only to residential dwellings.

He also argued that adding hotel rooms could shift some visitors away from short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods and into an established resort area. Lombardo said conditions placed on the PUD could help manage the project’s potential adverse impacts.

The Hilton’s traffic consultant acknowledged that peak-hour trips would nearly double but said the surrounding road network would remain within required service standards. The developer also proposed signal and turn-lane modifications, improvements along Winterberry Drive, landscaping and dune enhancements.

Smith responded that those proposed benefits and improvements could not override the requirements of the comprehensive plan or land development code.

Residents Voice Strong Opposition

Many residents spoke against the rezoning, citing density, traffic, infrastructure demands, beach impacts and the city’s commitment to protecting Marco Island’s small-town character.

Rick Woodworth read from the city’s Marco Island 2034 vision statement, which describes Marco Island as a residential community with small-town charm. He said increasing the hotel from 310 to 626 rooms would bring hundreds of additional vehicles and workers to an already busy section of South Collier Boulevard.

Woodworth said the project did not provide the mixed uses and design innovation generally expected from a PUD. “The proposal offers neither,” he said. “It’s an expansion dressed up as a PUD to escape density limits that would otherwise apply.”

Lisa Foster questioned whether the board had enough current information about the city’s infrastructure and public facilities to determine whether the island could accommodate the project. She described the proposed PUD as a “literal blank check” for increased density in the absence of an approved site development plan.

Foster said the proposal had brought her to a “tipping point.”

“If approved, I would be wanting to open up a conversation with my neighbors about filing suit against the city because it’s so far out of alignment with our comprehensive plan,” she said.

Teri Sommerfeld questioned the public benefit for residents and rejected claims that more hotel rooms would reduce short-term rentals or solve an employment need. “We don’t have an unemployment problem on the island,” Sommerfeld said. “We have a problem with finding people to come here to work. We bus people in.”

She also questioned whether additional tax revenue would offset the project’s effects on roads, bridges and other infrastructure. “Where is the public benefit? Where is the benefit for the residents who live on this island?” she asked. “We are putting ourselves in a position where we are burdening our residents to the point that they will leave.”

Former City Councilor Rich Blonna was among the few speakers supporting the project. He described the Hilton as an important employer and community partner and said its expansion could create jobs, support the offseason economy and generate additional tax revenue.

Board Divided Over City’s Interpretation

Dublois expressed concern that the expansion could create the same traffic and quality-of-life pressures residents associate with short-term rentals. He said he could not support the proposal because, in his view, the city’s planning staff and legal counsel had concluded it was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and its commitment to preserving Marco Island’s small-town character.

“I have a really hard time when our city attorney and planning staff are making a very clear-cut determination that this does not meet our comprehensive plan,” Dublois said.

Fahringer acknowledged the “serious and impressive counterpoints” raised by staff and residents but said he believed the proposal deserved consideration by the City Council.

“At the end of the day, this is a request to rezone to the PUD, and I believe it should go forward to City Council for their review,” Fahringer said before voting yes.

Janssen and Hogan also voted in favor. Dublois and Bailey voted no, producing the 3-2 recommendation for approval.

The Planning Board’s decision is advisory. The rezoning ordinance will next be considered by the City Council, which will make the final decision following another public hearing.