Laura Layden Naples Daily News Published 9:54 a.m. ET October 16, 2020
Planning Commission delays vote on One Naples again
The Collier County Planning Commission has once again delayed its vote on the controversial One Naples project in North Naples.
Meeting for a second time to review the mostly residential resort-style project, the commission decided it needed more time to hear all the arguments on all sides before coming up with a recommendation.
The advisory board will take the proposed project up again at its next meeting Nov. 5, when it expects to take action.
After an hours-long hearing Oct. 1, the commission tabled the discussion — and vote — to this week’s meeting.
Once again the hearing lasted for hours, necessitating yet another one.
The opposition, who didn’t get a chance to speak at the first hearing, took hours to put on and defend its own case Thursday, through its own cadre of experts. It’s not done arguing its points or airing its many concerns yet.
The opponents’ testimony — and the pointed cross-examination of their experts by the developer’s attorney — will continue at the next hearing.
Hundreds have signed an online petition generated by Save Vanderbilt Beach, one of the most vocal and active groups against One Naples. The project also faces objections by multiple homeowner groups, representing nearby communities such as Pelican Bay and the Regatta.
At this week’s hearing, the opponents’ experts picked apart Stock Development’s plans with one common argument — the project on a nearly six-acre site one block from the beach isn’t the right fit for the neighborhood because it’s neither compatible nor complementary and it’s inconsistent with the county’s growth management plan.
Stock Development wants to put two 14-story condominium towers over two floors of parking on the prime piece of waterfront property at a height of 208 feet and three smaller five-story residential mid-rises at 77 to 87 feet — with up to 10,000 square feet of commercial uses.
Doing it “right”
The developer has argued his vision is “to do the property right” — and he has promised what he has come up with will be something everyone can be proud of in the neighborhood, community and county when built.
While Stock has already purchased the property at an estimated cost of more than $25 million, the project requires both a rezoning and growth plan amendment to carry out his ambitious vision.
Stock seeks far more flexible zoning to build a highly amenitized destination development with resort-style pools, fitness centers, fire pits, cabanas and its own private marina.
Neighbors have objected in force to the density and intensity of the project, which they argue will only benefit the developer and One Naples residents. They’ve complained that it would ruin their lives and “slice of paradise,” crowding their neighborhoods, overrunning their streets and beaches and blocking their prized views of the Gulf of Mexico and sunsets.
Vote goes forward:One Naples heads toward first vote before Planning Commission with polar views
In his presentation Thursday, Greg Stuart, a planner and owner of Stuart and Associates in Fort Myers and one of the opposition’s hired experts, emphasized that neighborhood concerns go far beyond traffic.
In actuality, he said, one of the biggest worries is the project will become a springboard that turns the already bustling area into a “Miami Beach/Collins Avenue-like neighborhood,” with other developers swiftly following in Stock’s footsteps with similarly intense projects.
While Brian Stock, the CEO of Stock Development, has argued that he’s made big compromises already by changing his design to calm neighborhood concerns after meeting with opponents dozens of times, Stuart suggested he “came in high” with his initial plans, then “settled” for what he really wanted to do all along.
Stuart proposed an alternative plan that he said his clients, including Save Vanderbitl Beach, could settle for — if the project moves ahead over their objections. That plan would:
- Restrict residential development to 18 units per acre, instead of allowing more than 37 as requested
- Mandate larger road setbacks from all sides, rather than granting smaller ones
- Lower the parking garage to 25 feet from 35 feet
- Reduce the height of all residential buildings, with the tallest tower at 12 stories topping out at 135 feet
- Require 25% of the project to be left as open space, instead of having little to none of it
Not only should the residential buildings be shorter if the project advances, but the developer should stair-step them downward on the site, going from 12 stories to five, Stuart argued.
Without the many changes he suggested, the experienced planner said the project wasn’t approvable under the county’s own development standards — and would set a bad precedent.
“What my clients want is to have this thing designed for human scale, neighborhood scale,” Stuart said.
He argued if the county greenlights Stock’s development plans it would result in “spot zoning.”
“You should deny this project on that basis alone,” Stuart said.
“Parade of Horribles”
Stuart labeled Stock’s alternative plan to build up to 100,000 square feet of strictly commercial uses on the site a “parade of horribles,” suggesting that it’s meant as a scare tactic to make the One Naples project appear more attractive to those who are against it.
“It will never happen,” Stuart said of the back-up plan.
He suggested the market and the site restrictions would only allow for about 40,000 square feet of commercial development — or less than half of what Stock has proposed if it’s forced to go with its substitute plan.
If Stock gets everything he wants for his One Naples project, Stuart said it would result in $8.1 million in special and unique economic benefits to the developer. That includes the value of the .8 acres of roads and alleyways the developer has asked the county to vacate, or give up, which in effect gives him more land to develop, he said.
Many neighbors actually think a commercial-only project might be much better than the multi-use project Stock has proposed, serving the community’s needs for goods and services, Stuart said.
Planning commissioners questioned some of Stuart’s arguments, statements and suggestions, including his criticisms of the traffic analysis done by Stock’s independent expert, which wasn’t challenged by county staff.
Not in my backyard:One Naples project near beach draws ire at neighborhood meeting
The analysis shows the project will improve traffic flow on Vanderbilt Beach Road and in the surrounding neighborhood and won’t lead to failing roads or demand for new road capacity.
While questioning Stuart about some of his arguments, planning commissioner Joe Schmitt said the strictly commercial project Stock has floated as an alternative would be “disastrous for that area of the county.”
“Be careful what you ask for,” he said in a warning tone to the opposition. “You might get it.”
With the current commercial zoning of C-3 on the site, county planner James Sabo told the planning commission Stock could potentially put up to 160,000 square feet of individual commercial uses on the property by right, without the need for a rezoning or special exception. That means it would require no public hearings — or concessions by the developer, like the ones he’s offered with One Naples.
A balancing act
Planning commissioner Robert Klucik said he didn’t understand why the opposition suggested the county cap the height of One Naples at 12 stories when so many nearby buildings are taller, including the Ritz-Carlton across the street.
In answer, Stuart pointed out the developer is asking for a 232% increase in the allowable density in a coastal high hazard zone, from 74 units to 172 units, which raises health and safety concerns.
He argued the project fails to “balance population risk and evacuation capacity,” which is important in an area that sees so many hurricanes and has such woefully long evacuation times already.
Stock has agreed to provide the county with 174 emergency cots and a 16-foot enclosed trailer to help minimize the impacts One Naples and its residents might have on emergency evacuation efforts or service demands after an emergency, such as a major hurricane, passes.
However, Stuart argued that kind of mitigation is hardly enough to make a difference.
Klucik questioned why the developers should be required to stair-step his residential buildings to make them more compatible with the neighborhood, when other developers in the area haven’t done the same, leading to a seesaw of heights between projects that already exists today.
“I don’t’ think we as a board should have to give much credence to it,” Klucik said. “It’s something we can factor in.”
Planning commissioner David Fry asked how previous zoning decisions in the area should factor into this one.
County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow offered up his advice, saying there is “no precedent.”
“You evaluate each and every one of these petitions on its own merits,” he said. “Compatibility is in the eyes of the beholder.”
“It’s fine for experts to have different opinions,” he added, pointing out that the experts testifying on the opponents’ behalf are paid consultants doing their job.
Questioning opponents
In cross-examination, Naples land use attorney Rich Yovanovich, who represents Stock, asked pointed questions of the opponents’ experts too, including Stuart.
He questioned Stuart about how he came up with his conclusions and recommendations for the project — and most especially his belief that Stock’s alternative plan for 100,000 square feet of commercial uses isn’t doable.
Stuart said he stood by his professional recommendations. He said the burden of proof is on the developer, not him, to demonstrate how big of a commercial project it can reasonably build on the site — and it has yet to do so.
Yovanovich pointed out that C-3 uses, which are already allowed on the site, generally attract a lot more cars.
In response, Stuart said those uses can also take cars off the road when they’re built close enough to residents because more people can ride their bikes or walk to get there, whether it’s to a grocery store, restaurant or specialty shop.
Yovanovich asked how Stuart came up with his estimates of the monetary gain the developer would get from the county’s approval of One Naples as proposed, arguing the planner didn’t seem to give Stock any credit for the $1.75 million in community investments it has volunteered to make, including upgrades to streets, parking, landscaping, lighting, utilities and drainage for the benefit of the Vanderbilt Beach neighborhood.
Stuart suggested Stock may have overstated the benefits the county and the community will see from the developer’s planned improvements, especially when it comes to traffic.
Bill Olliver, a Tampa-based traffic engineer hired by the opponents, listed several traffic-related issues with the project, including a failure to look at and deal with the longer-term impacts of such an intense residential development beyond a five-year window.
He claimed Stock has presented a “rosy picture” of its proposed traffic solutions and not told the “whole story.”
After reviewing the developer’s traffic solutions, Olliver said he still had big concerns about congestion and safety, including back-ups at the county’s nearby garage for beach parking, which he suggested could actually worsen with the changes Stock has proposed to the entrance.
Stock has missed some “key opportunities” for needed improvements, Olliver said, including considering a roundabout at South Bay Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road to slow traffic in the neighborhood, making the area safer for drivers, bikers and walkers alike.
A compromise
While opponents continue to raise concerns about the project, county staff has recommended approval. But not without conditions.
County planners found the high-rises and other residential buildings — at their proposed heights — “not compatible with the adjacent neighboring buildings,” some of which are clearly much shorter and would be “unduly negatively impacted.”
To make the project more compatible, James Sabo, a lead planner on the county’s One Naples review team, suggested some radical changes at the first hearing before the planning commission, which the developer didn’t support.
Sabo backed down on one of his recommended changes at Thursday’s hearing, which could have hindered the project.
Initially, he suggested the developer only be allowed to reduce the required setbacks for One Naples if it agreed to “activate the street” by putting retail at the ground floor, or street level.
After Yovanovich — and higher-ups with the Collier County Growth Management Division — testified that building retail at the ground floor would not be impossible, but highly impractical and cost-prohibitive, Sabo agreed to modify his recommendation.
Sabo agreed the developer could meet his demands by building commercial uses on the first floor, as it planned, and not at street level, and by adding more uses, similar to what’s on the site today — namely a beach store.
“If that works out to be a middle ground I’m comfortable with that,” he said.
Sabo’s recommendation to require the developer to substantially reduce the project’s height hasn’t changed, however.
The next hearing will include a rebuttal from the developer’s attorney to the other side’s arguments against the project Stock has proposed, which has been years in the making.
Ultimately, the decision about what gets built will be made by county commissioners — who will review and consider the planning commission’s and county staff’s recommendations as part of their vote on One Naples.
While the county commission’s deciding vote hasn’t been scheduled yet, it’s expected to happen before the end of the year, possibly in November.
1 Comment
victor · October 21, 2020 at 6:43 pm
It just seems that no matter how many of us don’t want a new development – the developer always wins. I think the county only thinks of the money end instead of the aesthetic one. Welcome to the new Collins Boulevard – like it or not.
Comments are closed.