No. In fact, it may do the opposite.

Approving the Land Use Amendment (LUA) would permanently change the rules for the site without any historic protections in place for the building. Once those rules are changed, the highest and best use of the property would likely shift away from preserving a 100-year-old, damaged, functionally obsolete structure towards demolition and redevelopment under the new entitlements. Even if the current owner intends to preserve the building today, future owners would not be bound by that intent once the Comprehensive Plan is changed.

Key point:

The LUA does not protect the building — it increases redevelopment pressure on it.

That outcome is highly uncertain and risky.

Converting a 100-year-old, damaged, functionally obsolete building into a hotel — without adequate structured parking and with significant zoning and FEMA nonconformities — would place the building under greater operational and financial stress, not less.

Hotel use requires:

 Higher life-safety and code upgrades

 Extensive structural and systems retrofits

 Ongoing commercial operational costs

 Adequate parking, access, and service circulation

If the project underperforms as a modern day hotel — which is a real risk — the building could end up more distressed than it is today, making demolition more likely, not less.

Because there is no proven hotel market on Davis Islands.

 There are no successful hotel operations on the Islands, nor has there ever been

 The original hotel use of the Mirasol failed historically (see Mirasol Hotel era)

 The building was successfully converted to apartments over 60 years ago — and has

functioned that way ever since

A hotel conversion of a 100-year-old building in this location is not a proven or a low-risk strategy. It is speculative.

Yes — unequivocally. The Mirasol has operated successfully as residential apartments for more than six decades.

Residential use:

 Fits the neighborhood

 Matches market demand

 Requires less intensive parking and traffic (as compared to their proposed expansion

plan)

 Is consistent with surrounding uses

 Has already demonstrated long-term feasibility

Residential use is not theoretical here — it is proven.

Because once land use and intensity are increased, the land becomes more valuable without the existing Mirasol building.

A 100-year-old structure with:

 Structural and water damage

 FEMA flood issues

 Nonconforming conditions

 No historic designation or protection

…becomes an obstacle to maximizing value under the new rules.

That is exactly when demolition becomes the financially rational choice.

That is an important question, that remains unanswered. Historic designation or binding preservation protections would:

 Limit demolition

 Require preservation standards

 Align incentives with saving the building

To date, no such protections have been secured, even as a permanent land-use change is being requested.

The City is being asked to approve entitlement.

The Land Use Amendment rewrites the Comprehensive Plan.

The rezoning approves a specific redevelopment concept.

Neither vote:

 Guarantees preservation

 Requires long-term maintenance

 Prevents future demolition

 Ensures project feasibility

Yes — and that is a critical point.

If the LUA passes:

 The land use rules are permanently changed

 The site becomes eligible for higher intensity uses

Even if the PD is denied later, the increased redevelopment pressure remains, and future proposals could be more aggressive.

That is the core question neighbors should ask.

For over 60 years:

 Residential use has worked

 The building has remained occupied

 The neighborhood has remained stable

By contrast, the proposed hotel/commercial conversion:

 Is unproven

 Is capital-intensive

 Faces parking, access, and operational constraints

 Has a high risk of failure

Changing the building’s use introduces risk where none is necessary.

Yes. Preservation, repair, reinvestment, and even thoughtful residential modernization are all possible under existing rules.

The Land Use Amendment is not a prerequisite for preservation.

Because the City is being asked to approve two different legal actions:

 Change the long-range plan (LUA)

 Approve a specific redevelopment plan (PD)

Absolutely, in fact that is exactly what the Mirasol’s immediate neighborhood is supporting! A reasonable position is: Preserve the Mirasol—keep it residential.