Loading...
1. One Naples Sept-Oct 2020 Letters1 SaboJames From:Anita Wilcheck <info@savevanderbiltbeach.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 29, 2020 10:39 AM To:SaboJames Subject:Vanderbilt neighborhood EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Mr. Sabo, Thank you so much for the work that you are doing to protect the interests of Collier County’s citizens as you work your way through Stock Development’s application for the rezone of the corner of Gulfshore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. I know that it’s always a difficult task, but to do it without all the information you really require makes it doubly difficult. I have been following with keen interest Stock’s filings and your responses. Some of the things that are being asked for are simply unbelievable. A 700-foot long 35-foot high wall 15-feet off his property line and a mere 35-feet from edge of the pavement along the length of Gulfshore and VBR, no matter what the planting in front of it, is not in the public interest. It will be a monstrosity for decades to come. And the towers, two 208-foot high structures as close as 25 feet to the property line will dominate the landscape, dwarfing the surrounding buildings. Lack of data is also an issue. How will a marina of up to 95 slips, for the use “primarily for residents and guests” impact traffic? How many guests? What of the charter boats that can operate out of three slips? How about the ship’s store? No data has been provided in the traffic studies provided. And here’s another one. At the Neighborhood Information Meeting and elsewhere, Stock has always stated that if the zoning is not approved, Stock would market the property to a commercial developer who could build a Costco or a gas station there. That’s just not a real possibility. No such business would desire to be at that location. Stock recognizes that as well but thinks that a hotelier might have an interest. Remember, hotels are not approved in the existing C-3 zoning. To protect his investment, however, and to give himself more flexibility, Stock is asking that a hotel use be part of his new zoning. Not only that, but Stock has not qualified that request in any way. There have been no site plans showing a hotel. There are no elevation drawings of a hotel. There is no way to know if the ballroom will hold 200 or 700, or even if there will be one. There is no mention of restaurants serving large Sunday brunches. Nothing. Only that it can have up to 172 rooms. How can that be acceptable? Save Vanderbilt Beach Inc has provided you with its recommendations as to how One Naples might be redesigned to be neighborhood compatible. As you know, these recommendations address building height, density of residential units, setbacks, open space and more. Latitude is provided to Stock, giving the development flexibility vis-à-vis the existing C-3 zoning restrictions. I encourage you to consider the ideas presented therein, and to include them in your report to members of the Planning Commission. Please use your authority to recommend to the Planning Commission that they ask the County Commissioners to deny this project in its current format. Thank You! 2 Anita C Wilcheck __________________________ ---------------------- 1 SaboJames From:Marsha O <naplesmarsha9@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 29, 2020 8:54 AM To:SaboJames; SchmidtCorby Subject:One Naples Petitions---Written Comments for Planning Commission EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Mr Sabo and Mr Schmidts Thank you for all the work you and your staff have done on this project. Please include these as written comments for the public hearing. As the applicant has revised the project from the original plan, several objectionable attributes have been partially mitigated. However, the applicant continues to request an amendment to the Growth Management Plan and rezoning from C-3 to a MPUD because the density, height, and setback requirements for C-3 can't enable the number of residences the applicant wishes to offer. The applicant has discussed the attractiveness of this plan primarily in terms of the decreased impact on traffic compared with commercial development and the beautiful landscaping those walking by the project will enjoy. The current proposed Growth Management Plan amendment includes language that the MPUD will provide a traffic cap. The corresponding proposed MPUD lists this cap as 148 two-way PM peak hour trips. However, it is concerning that the traffic cap is not part of the visible ordinance and is only included in the supporting materials. This is a concern. Certainly, the commitments by the development to implement useful changes to traffic control in the area are laudable. The Justification and Supplemental Information dated May 29, 2020 does not provide justification for the need to double the residential density from 16 to 31.7 units per acre. The petition is an ask without justification. The doubled density plans then creates the need to be outside the current C-3 limits for building height and setbacks. Again, these asks without justification. Finally, the conversion of the property from C-3 to the MPUD zoning eliminates the public from benefiting from this property as it restricts the commercial space to 10,000 square feet. This means that the public will permanently have fewer commercial amenities available to it than it has now. (Current: Beach Box, Beach Store, real estate offices; Planned: coffee shop, real estate offices). This project as written will benefit the residents of 172 units and Stock Development, but it will eliminate the possibility of developing this property for commercial uses that benefits all county residents and tourists. Please note that the Justification and Supplemental Information dated May 29, 2020 document indicates that the proposed project would generate 70% fewer trips than would 100,000 square feet of commercial use However the methodology used to create these figures is not present in any documents provided to the county. This figure has been repeatedly used to justify why the proposed project is better for the community than commercial development of the same property. 2 In summary, this project could be built within the current C-3 zoning except that the doubled density, taller than standard buildings, and smaller setbacks are requested by the petitioner, likely to meet financial goals which are the goals of the developer, not the goals of the county and the residents and tourists it served. I strongly urge the Collier County Planning Commission to require the petitioner to refine the plan so that the density, building heights, and setbacks are more compatible C-3 standards. Additionally I urge that additional street level commercial amenities be included in an updated plan that county residents and tourists can utilize. Sincerely, - Marsha Oenick 705 99th Ave N Naples, FL 34108 1 SaboJames From:Ann Darwish <anndarwish@me.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 29, 2020 5:58 PM To:SaboJames Subject:Opposition to Naples One EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Mr. Sabo I think we are headed in the wrong direction. If we give waiver after waiver then we really only have no standards!! I strongly oppose Naples One and continued exceptions for developers. Thank you so much for the work that you are doing to protect the interests of Collier County’s citizens as you work your way through Stock Development’s application for the rezone of the corner of Gulfshore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. I know that it’s always a difficult task, but to do it without all the information you really require makes it doubly difficult. I have been following with keen interest Stock’s filings and your responses. Some of the things that are being asked for are simply unbelievable. A 700-foot long 35-foot high wall 15-feet off his property line and a mere 35-feet from edge of the pavement along the length of Gulfshore and VBR, no matter what the planting in front of it, is not in the public interest. It will be a monstrosity for decades to come. And the towers, two 208-foot high structures as close as 25 feet to the property line will dominate the landscape, dwarfing the surrounding buildings. Lack of data is also an issue. How will a marina of up to 95 slips, for the use “primarily for residents and guests” impact traffic? How many guests? What of the charter boats that can operate out of three slips? How about the ship’s store? No data has been provided in the traffic studies provided. And here’s another one. At the Neighborhood Information Meeting and elsewhere, Stock has always stated that if the zoning is not approved, Stock would market the property to a commercial developer who could build a Costco or a gas station there. That’s just not a real possibility. No such business would desire to be at that location. Stock recognizes that as well but thinks that a hotelier might have an interest. Remember, hotels are not approved in the existing C-3 zoning. To protect his investment, however, and to give himself more flexibility, Stock is asking that a hotel use be part of his new zoning. Not only that, but Stock has not qualified that request in any way. There have been no site plans showing a hotel. There are no elevation drawings of a hotel. There is no way to know if the ballroom will hold 200 or 700, or even if there will be one. There is no mention of restaurants serving large Sunday brunches. Nothing. Only that it can have up to 172 rooms. How can that be acceptable? Save Vanderbilt Beach Inc has provided you with its recommendations as to how One Naples might be redesigned to be neighborhood compatible. As you know, these recommendations address building height, density of residential units, setbacks, open space and more. Latitude is provided to Stock, giving the development flexibility vis-à-vis the existing C-3 zoning restrictions. I encourage you to consider the ideas presented therein, and to include them in your report to members of the Planning Commission. 2 Please use your authority to recommend to the Planning Commission that they ask the County Commissioners to deny this project in its current format. Thank You! Ann Darwish 1 SaboJames From:Holly Ehrens <info@savevanderbiltbeach.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 29, 2020 9:20 AM To:SaboJames Subject:Vanderbilt neighborhood EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Mr. Sabo, Thank you so much for the work that you are doing to protect the interests of Collier County’s citizens as you work your way through Stock Development’s application for the rezone of the corner of Gulfshore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. I know that it’s always a difficult task, but to do it without all the information you really require makes it doubly difficult. I have been following with keen interest Stock’s filings and your responses. Some of the things that are being asked for are simply unbelievable. A 700-foot long 35-foot high wall 15-feet off his property line and a mere 35-feet from edge of the pavement along the length of Gulfshore and VBR, no matter what the planting in front of it, is not in the public interest. It will be a monstrosity for decades to come. And the towers, two 208-foot high structures as close as 25 feet to the property line will dominate the landscape, dwarfing the surrounding buildings. Lack of data is also an issue. How will a marina of up to 95 slips, for the use “primarily for residents and guests” impact traffic? How many guests? What of the charter boats that can operate out of three slips? How about the ship’s store? No data has been provided in the traffic studies provided. And here’s another one. At the Neighborhood Information Meeting and elsewhere, Stock has always stated that if the zoning is not approved, Stock would market the property to a commercial developer who could build a Costco or a gas station there. That’s just not a real possibility. No such business would desire to be at that location. Stock recognizes that as well but thinks that a hotelier might have an interest. Remember, hotels are not approved in the existing C-3 zoning. To protect his investment, however, and to give himself more flexibility, Stock is asking that a hotel use be part of his new zoning. Not only that, but Stock has not qualified that request in any way. There have been no site plans showing a hotel. There are no elevation drawings of a hotel. There is no way to know if the ballroom will hold 200 or 700, or even if there will be one. There is no mention of restaurants serving large Sunday brunches. Nothing. Only that it can have up to 172 rooms. How can that be acceptable? Save Vanderbilt Beach Inc has provided you with its recommendations as to how One Naples might be redesigned to be neighborhood compatible. As you know, these recommendations address building height, density of residential units, setbacks, open space and more. Latitude is provided to Stock, giving the development flexibility vis-à-vis the existing C-3 zoning restrictions. I encourage you to consider the ideas presented therein, and to include them in your report to members of the Planning Commission. Please use your authority to recommend to the Planning Commission that they ask the County Commissioners to deny this project in its current format. Thank You! 2 __________________________ ---------------------- 1 SaboJames From:Ann Darwish <anndarwish@me.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 11:28 AM To:SaboJames Subject:Opposition to One Naples - Planning for smart growth: “Highest and best use” should not equate to maximum profits and high density EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Mr. Sabo, First I want to thank you for your work on behalf of the citizens of Collier County. I am in opposition to One Naples. I believe Collier County is headed in the wrong direction. If we give waiver after waiver to developers, then we really have no standards! I oppose the One Naples development, even with Stock’s latest revisions and wanted to share are my thoughts: I strongly oppose Stock’s One Naples and continued exceptions for developers. Setbacks and other zoning regulations have been relaxed lately and I don’t like the results. This project is another on the list of “letting it slide” and lack of enforcement of current long time zoning regulations. For first time in 20 years of living here I am thinking I may not stay in Naples when I retire. Naples is trending in a BAD direction. I am not alone in that opinion. Just because current zoning allows it does not make it in keeping with what has been built in the area. In my mind, there is a distinction between a project that is allowed and one that would be appropriate. We can make choices that affect population density and the overall feel of our community. “Highest and best use” should not equate to maximum profits and high density for the rest of us who live in Naples. I support growth that is in keeping with our goal as a community. If growth means we become a Mini- Boca, is that what we want to be? If we resign ourselves to MONEY RULES then eventually the even “the rich” end up on the wrong side of the equation! One thing Naples teaches us: no matter how rich you are, there is always someone who has more than you. Commissioner, what happens when it comes to your neighborhood??? As the saying goes “be careful what you wish for.” Again, I strongly oppose One Naples and continued exceptions for developers. I will rely on the words of others who can express the details of the issue better than me. Please consider voting against continued waivers to our building and development codes. Be mindful of the precedent you set and the underlying message it sends to the rest of the community. 2 Respectfully, Ann Darwish REALTOR®, GRI, RSPS, SFR®, BPOR, ABR® Naples resident since 2000 .............. PLEASE SEE My Additional Signed Letter and agreement with the opposition letter below. As a Collier County Commissioner, I hope you are listening to the growing l evel of concern among North Naples residents opposed to the One Naples project, as proposed. What is the value of planning when you can arbitrarily change zoning and request variances that conflict with safety, rights and common sense? The hundreds of walkers from Naples Park, Beachwalk, Pavilion, etc. with chairs on their backs will wonder what happened, when people, not previously zoned, can simply cross the street to take their place at Vanderbilt Beach. One Naples will add more than 500 vehicles that will be forced to use local streets not built for traffic. Vanderbilt Beach Road east of 41 is being widened to six lanes and is being extended further east to the proposed 360,000 vehicle Rural Lands Service Area (RLSA) while west of 41 the two lanes can’t be widened. Please note that Emergency Services must pass through Vanderbilt Beach Road from Hammock Oak Drive. Furthermore, the county has built an expensive four-mile bike path, including bridges, north of Bluebill Avenue to Bonita Springs and you must use Vanderbilt Drive to access. Please consider these facts before deciding. Thank you. Ann Darwish Naples, FL 1 SaboJames From:Dennis Deeb <info@savevanderbiltbeach.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 3:00 PM To:SaboJames Subject:Vanderbilt neighborhood EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Mr. Sabo, My permanent residence is on Vanderbilt Beach and find the proposed development to be grossly oversized and will devastate the community! Thank you so much for the work that you are doing to protect the interests of Collier County’s citizens as you work your way through Stock Development’s application for the rezone of the corner of Gulfshore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. I know that it’s always a difficult task, but to do it without all the information you really require makes it doubly difficult. I have been following with keen interest Stock’s filings and your responses. Some of the things that are being asked for are simply unbelievable. A 700-foot long 35-foot high wall 15-feet off his property line and a mere 35-feet from edge of the pavement along the length of Gulfshore and VBR, no matter what the planting in front of it, is not in the public interest. It will be a monstrosity for decades to come. And the towers, two 208-foot high structures as close as 25 feet to the property line will dominate the landscape, dwarfing the surrounding buildings. Lack of data is also an issue. How will a marina of up to 95 slips, for the use “primarily for residents and guests” impact traffic? How many guests? What of the charter boats that can operate out of three slips? How about the ship’s store? No data has been provided in the traffic studies provided. And here’s another one. At the Neighborhood Information Meeting and elsewhere, Stock has always stated that if the zoning is not approved, Stock would market the property to a commercial developer who could build a Costco or a gas station there. That’s just not a real possibility. No such business would desire to be at that location. Stock recognizes that as well but thinks that a hotelier might have an interest. Remember, hotels are not approved in the existing C-3 zoning. To protect his investment, however, and to give himself more flexibility, Stock is asking that a hotel use be part of his new zoning. Not only that, but Stock has not qualified that request in any way. There have been no site plans showing a hotel. There are no elevation drawings of a hotel. There is no way to know if the ballroom will hold 200 or 700, or even if there will be one. There is no mention of restaurants serving large Sunday brunches. Nothing. Only that it can have up to 172 rooms. How can that be acceptable? Save Vanderbilt Beach Inc has provided you with its recommendations as to how One Naples might be redesigned to be neighborhood compatible. As you know, these recommendations address building height, density of residential units, setbacks, open space and more. Latitude is provided to Stock, giving the development flexibility vis-à-vis the existing C-3 zoning restrictions. I encourage you to consider the ideas presented therein, and to include them in your report to members of the Planning Commission. 2 Please use your authority to recommend to the Planning Commission that they ask the County Commissioners to deny this project in its current format. Thank You! __________________________ ---------------------- 1 SaboJames From:John OBrien <info@savevanderbiltbeach.com> Sent:Thursday, October 1, 2020 10:46 AM To:SaboJames Subject:Vanderbilt neighborhood EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Mr. Sabo, Thank you so much for the work that you are doing to protect the interests of Collier County’s citizens as you work your way through Stock Development’s application for the rezone of the corner of Gulfshore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. I know that it’s always a difficult task, but to do it without all the information you really require makes it doubly difficult. I have been following with keen interest Stock’s filings and your responses. Some of the things that are being asked for are simply unbelievable. A 700-foot long 35-foot high wall 15-feet off his property line and a mere 35-feet from edge of the pavement along the length of Gulfshore and VBR, no matter what the planting in front of it, is not in the public interest. It will be a monstrosity for decades to come. And the towers, two 208-foot high structures as close as 25 feet to the property line will dominate the landscape, dwarfing the surrounding buildings. Lack of data is also an issue. How will a marina of up to 95 slips, for the use “primarily for residents and guests” impact traffic? How many guests? What of the charter boats that can operate out of three slips? How about the ship’s store? No data has been provided in the traffic studies provided. And here’s another one. At the Neighborhood Information Meeting and elsewhere, Stock has always stated that if the zoning is not approved, Stock would market the property to a commercial developer who could build a Costco or a gas station there. That’s just not a real possibility. No such business would desire to be at that location. Stock recognizes that as well but thinks that a hotelier might have an interest. Remember, hotels are not approved in the existing C-3 zoning. To protect his investment, however, and to give himself more flexibility, Stock is asking that a hotel use be part of his new zoning. Not only that, but Stock has not qualified that request in any way. There have been no site plans showing a hotel. There are no elevation drawings of a hotel. There is no way to know if the ballroom will hold 200 or 700, or even if there will be one. There is no mention of restaurants serving large Sunday brunches. Nothing. Only that it can have up to 172 rooms. How can that be acceptable? Save Vanderbilt Beach Inc has provided you with its recommendations as to how One Naples might be redesigned to be neighborhood compatible. As you know, these recommendations address building height, density of residential units, setbacks, open space and more. Latitude is provided to Stock, giving the development flexibility vis-à-vis the existing C-3 zoning restrictions. I encourage you to consider the ideas presented therein, and to include them in your report to members of the Planning Commission. Frankly, this project is overreaching and not inline with what our we want at our beach. It should have been immediately rejected and raises questions that the County has the publics best interest in mind. It is upsetting to all the residents of North Naples that we have to go thru the process of bringing objection to a project that frankly, is gross. This is not 2 Miami...we don't want it to be Miami. If you really want to develop something that is needed in this area it should a modest commercial interest with additional public parking, anything other that is a money grab for a greedy developer. Please use your authority to recommend to the Planning Commission that they ask the County Commissioners to deny this project in its current format. Thank You! John OBrien ---------------------- 1 SaboJames From:Lori OBrien <info@savevanderbiltbeach.com> Sent:Thursday, October 1, 2020 11:22 AM To:SaboJames Subject:Vanderbilt neighborhood EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Mr. Sabo, Thank you so much for the work that you are doing to protect the interests of Collier County’s citizens as you work your way through Stock Development’s application for the rezone of the corner of Gulfshore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. I know that it’s always a difficult task, but to do it without all the information you really require makes it doubly difficult. I have been following with keen interest Stock’s filings and your responses. Some of the things that are being asked for are simply unbelievable. A 700-foot long 35-foot high wall 15-feet off his property line and a mere 35-feet from edge of the pavement along the length of Gulfshore and VBR, no matter what the planting in front of it, is not in the public interest. It will be a monstrosity for decades to come. And the towers, two 208-foot high structures as close as 25 feet to the property line will dominate the landscape, dwarfing the surrounding buildings. Lack of data is also an issue. How will a marina of up to 95 slips, for the use “primarily for residents and guests” impact traffic? How many guests? What of the charter boats that can operate out of three slips? How about the ship’s store? No data has been provided in the traffic studies provided. And here’s another one. At the Neighborhood Information Meeting and elsewhere, Stock has always stated that if the zoning is not approved, Stock would market the property to a commercial developer who could build a Costco or a gas station there. That’s just not a real possibility. No such business would desire to be at that location. Stock recognizes that as well but thinks that a hotelier might have an interest. Remember, hotels are not approved in the existing C-3 zoning. To protect his investment, however, and to give himself more flexibility, Stock is asking that a hotel use be part of his new zoning. Not only that, but Stock has not qualified that request in any way. There have been no site plans showing a hotel. There are no elevation drawings of a hotel. There is no way to know if the ballroom will hold 200 or 700, or even if there will be one. There is no mention of restaurants serving large Sunday brunches. Nothing. Only that it can have up to 172 rooms. How can that be acceptable? Save Vanderbilt Beach Inc has provided you with its recommendations as to how One Naples might be redesigned to be neighborhood compatible. As you know, these recommendations address building height, density of residential units, setbacks, open space and more. Latitude is provided to Stock, giving the development flexibility vis-à-vis the existing C-3 zoning restrictions. I encourage you to consider the ideas presented therein, and to include them in your report to members of the Planning Commission. Frankly, this project is overreaching and not inline with what our we want at our beach. It should have been immediately rejected and raises questions that the County has the publics best interest in mind. It is upsetting to all the residents of North Naples that we have to go thru the process of bringing objection to a project that frankly, is gross. This is not 2 Miami...we don't want it to be Miami. If you really want to develop something that is needed in this area it should a modest commercial interest with additional public parking, anything other that is a money grab for a greedy developer. Please use your authority to recommend to the Planning Commission that they ask the County Commissioners to deny this project in its current format. Thank You! Lori OBrien ---------------------- 1 SaboJames From:Frank Navarro <info@savevanderbiltbeach.com> Sent:Thursday, October 1, 2020 10:37 PM To:SaboJames Subject:Vanderbilt neighborhood EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Mr. Sabo, Thank you so much for the work that you are doing to protect the interests of Collier County’s citizens as you work your way through Stock Development’s application for the rezone of the corner of Gulfshore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. I know that it’s always a difficult task, but to do it without all the information you really require makes it doubly difficult. I have been following with keen interest Stock’s filings and your responses. Some of the things that are being asked for are simply unbelievable. A 700-foot long 35-foot high wall 15-feet off his property line and a mere 35-feet from edge of the pavement along the length of Gulfshore and VBR, no matter what the planting in front of it, is not in the public interest. It will be a monstrosity for decades to come. And the towers, two 208-foot high structures as close as 25 feet to the property line will dominate the landscape, dwarfing the surrounding buildings. Lack of data is also an issue. How will a marina of up to 95 slips, for the use “primarily for residents and guests” impact traffic? How many guests? What of the charter boats that can operate out of three slips? How about the ship’s store? No data has been provided in the traffic studies provided. And here’s another one. At the Neighborhood Information Meeting and elsewhere, Stock has always stated that if the zoning is not approved, Stock would market the property to a commercial developer who could build a Costco or a gas station there. That’s just not a real possibility. No such business would desire to be at that location. Stock recognizes that as well but thinks that a hotelier might have an interest. Remember, hotels are not approved in the existing C-3 zoning. To protect his investment, however, and to give himself more flexibility, Stock is asking that a hotel use be part of his new zoning. Not only that, but Stock has not qualified that request in any way. There have been no site plans showing a hotel. There are no elevation drawings of a hotel. There is no way to know if the ballroom will hold 200 or 700, or even if there will be one. There is no mention of restaurants serving large Sunday brunches. Nothing. Only that it can have up to 172 rooms. How can that be acceptable? Save Vanderbilt Beach Inc has provided you with its recommendations as to how One Naples might be redesigned to be neighborhood compatible. As you know, these recommendations address building height, density of residential units, setbacks, open space and more. Latitude is provided to Stock, giving the development flexibility vis-à-vis the existing C-3 zoning restrictions. I encourage you to consider the ideas presented therein, and to include them in your report to members of the Planning Commission. Please use your authority to recommend to the Planning Commission that they ask the County Commissioners to deny this project in its current format. Thank You! 2 __________________________ ---------------------- 1 SaboJames From:Guy Kellam <gkellam@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, October 3, 2020 12:46 AM To:SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; HomiakKaren; cvernon@vernonlitigation.com; Karl.Fry@colliergov.net; FryerEdwin; SchmittJoseph; Eastmath@colliergov.net; SaboJames; SchmidtCorby; Craig.Brown@colliertcountyfl.gov; michael-sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov; ShawinskyPeter Cc:R. Kellam Subject:Why One Naples saddens me and we need to do better. EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Commissioners and Planners, As far our background, my wife and I have owned 745 99th Ave N since 7/3/2001, having bought the property from my wife's parents, who loved the region and had the foresight to invest in the community as far back as 3/27/1997. Even back in the day, Naples Park was one of the few places in Naples where 'regular' folk like us could actua lly buy a little part of paradise, after a lifetime of hard work. We still proudly refer to Naples Park as 'Pelican Droppings', based on our nearby Pelican Marsh and Pelican Bay neighbors. The insidious plan here, is that Stock cobbled together the property around Vanderbilt beach, with grandiose plans well beyond the current longstanding C-3 zoning, with the expectation that they could bulldoze their legacy on that little corner. Properties there could have been raised/renovated in place, like most of Naples Park. Stock claims to want the best for Naples, but their overreaching plan is certainly not in the best interests of Collier County, including Naples Park and Vanderbilt beach, which we have been a part of for over 20 years. Stock does impeccable work, if you can afford it. Trying to shoe horn this project into a 5.4 acre site is a nightmare for neighbors like us, including increased density (44 units vs 16 per acre), building height (235 ft vs 70), restricted marina access, strained public parking, increased traffic, crippled emergency response, ever more crowded beaches, questionable environmental impact, unacceptable set backs, coastal high hazards, traffic bypassing, all simply at the expense of others. I keep hearing talking points from Stock regarding traffic and building top notch stuff. In the end, it isn't really about what is best for North Naples, but simply an attempt at maximizing profit at the expense of others. For some perspective, here is what is happening already: https://www.berryhometeam.com/communities/vanderbilt-beach-one-naples http://www.janetberry.net/one-naples/ Some other things to consider:  As it stands, during season the parking garage is already full and even if folks are lucky enough to get a space, they need to squeeze themselves in to the ever restricted Vanderbilt beach public areas (thanks to neighbors like the Ritz). Where are these folks going to park/go? Trying to spread out folks along the beach or providing 'water taxis' or shuttles has been problematic for years, even before this proposed project.  What restrictions are going to be put into place to make sure this isn't going to be another Ritz ala AirBnb, which is already contentious issue in the area?  Pandemics like Covid-19 and the ever increasing hurricane threats make this even more problematic, putting even more people in harms way.  Simply walk down Gulf Shore Drive and take a peek from the start of Vanderbilt Beach road from the parking lot like we do and simply envision looking up. What do you see? 2 All we have are commissioners and planners *like you* who are willing to do the right thing, to protect folks like us who have worked their whole life to experience something as wondrous as this (and to pass on to our children). To this end, I simply ask that you enforce the current zoning or make a *significant* case that changing it would benefit the larger community and not someone else's pocket/legacy. In a nutshell, Collier County simply needs to "Support Responsible Development". Building something like a mini-mercato would still be preferred (even over 'heavier traffic') over yet another gated community that further restricts access to this cherished area. Small businesses like the Beach Box Cafe are what still make Naples unique and wonderful. If you haven't been there, might be worth a trip. In the end, just a simple thing to consider, who does this benefit? If you lived in Naples Park or were a regular visitor to Vanderbilt beach, would you support this given that you weren't a resident of One Naples (at a considerable expense)? Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Guy Kellam mwe.com Michael Austin Attorney at Law maustin@mwe.com +1 305 347 6517 333 SE 2nd Avenue Suite 4500 Miami FL 33131-4336 Tel +1 305 358 3500 Fax +1 305 347 6500 US practice conducted through McDermott Will & Emery LLP. October 12, 2020 VIA EMAIL james.sabo@colliercountyfl.gov; michael-sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov; corby.schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov; peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov; paul.shea@colliercountyfl.gov; karl.fry@colliercountyfl.gov; edwinfryer@colliergov.net; jschmitt@comcast.net; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; karenhomiak@colliergov.net; eastmath@collierschools.com; donna.fiala@colliercountyfl.gov; andy.solis@colliercountyfl.gov; burt.saunders@colliercountyfl.gov; penny.taylor@colliercountyfl.gov; bill.mcdaniel@colliercountyfl.gov; Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov; thomas.clarke@colliercountyfl.gov; Chris.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov; ray.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov; Robert.klucik@colliercountyfl.gov; Christopher.vernon@colliercountyfl.gov Re: Opposition to One Naples Rezoning Application Dear Members of the Collier County Planning Commission and Legal and Zoning Staff, and Collier County Commissioners: I represent Mr. Kenneth Melkus, the owner of a Unit in the Trieste, 8787 Bay Colony Drive, Naples, Florida, in connection with his opposition to Stock Development’s proposed One Naples Project. I have reviewed, among other materials, (1) Florida law, both statutory and case law, concerning the law of Spot Zoning, (2) the Collier County Staff Report provided to the Collier County Planning Commission (“CCPC”) in advance of the October 1, 2020 Hearing concerning Stock’s application to rezone property from C-3 Commercial Intermediate Zoning District to Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) identified by Stock as One Naples, and (3) two email letters dated July 18, 2020 and September 2, 2020, authored by my former partner (currently Senior Counsel) at McDermott Will & Emery LLP, William P. Schuman, who is also an owner at the Trieste. Based on the materials I have reviewed, Stock’s proposed development constitutes unlawful Spot Zoning. Florida law prohibits Spot Zoning. Spot Zoning is the name given to the piecemeal rezoning of small parcels of land to a greater density, leading to disharmony with the surrounding area. Spot Zoning gives preferential treatment to one parcel at the expense of the zoning scheme as a whole. See Southwest Ranches Homeowners Assoc. v. Broward County, 502 So.2d 931, 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Unlawful Spot Zoning creates a small island of property with restrictions on its use that are different from that of surrounding properties, solely for the benefit of a particular property owner and to the detriment of the community or without a substantial public purpose. Allapattah Community Ass’n Inc. of Florida v. City of Miami, 379 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); City Commissioner of the City of Miami v. Woodlawn Park Cemetery Co., 553 So.2d 1227, 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The determination of Spot Zoning involves an examination of (1) the size of the spot; (2) the Members of the Collier County Planning Commission and Legal and Zoning Staff, and Collier County Commissioners October 12, 2020 Page 2 compatibility with the surrounding area; (3) the benefit to the owner and (4) the detriment to the immediate neighborhood. Parking Facilities, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 88 So.2d 141 (Fla. 1956); Dade County v. Inversiones Rafamar S.A., 360 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The Florida Supreme Court held in 1956: “spot zoning [is] a practice which we and all other courts have universally condemned.” Parking Facilities vs. City of Miami Beach, 88 So. 2d 141 (1956). The Florida legislature in 1985 essentially codified the prohibition on Spot Zoning in the Florida Statutes, at Section 163.3194(3)(a) (2019). The statute requires the densities and intensities of a proposed development to be consistent and compatible with the densities and intensities in the comprehensive plan. Similarly, Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) requires that a new development “shall be compatible with, and complementary to the surrounding land uses. . .” The net of this law is that, to avoid the prohibition of Spot Zoning, a proposed development must be consistent, compatible, in conformity, in harmony, and complementary with the densities and intensities of the Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, pursuant to Section 163, the developer must show with evidence that the requested amendment is necessary in order to develop the property. The GMP Amendment Pre-Application Meeting Standard Comments also require this showing. Nor can Stock rely on nearby buildings in neighboring zones such as Bay Colony. A use that is prohibited in one zone cannot be permitted just because the use is permitted in the neighboring zone. Allowing that comparison would make Florida zoning laws and the law of Spot Zoning meaningless. Indeed, building mass and size in a neighborhood would inevitably grow, merely by comparing the proposed project to the next zone over. That is why Florida appellate courts prohibit comparison to other zones. “A comprehensive land use plan legislatively sets a zoning norm for each zone.” Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So. 2d 629 (3d Dist.1987). One of the reasons for this requirement is “to avoid spot zoning.” Id. As the Court held in Machado, “If the [proposal] deviates or departs in any direction or degree from the parameters of the norm, the [proposal] is not consistent with the norm.” Bay Colony is a particularly poor comparison here, as it is a gated community with a totally different environment. Moreover, if this matter ends up in Court on the issue of Spot Zoning, the Commissioners’ decision is tested under a standard of strict scrutiny. No deference is given by a court to a County Commission decision where Spot Zoning is in issue. City Commission of the City of Miami, supra, at 1240. See also Board of County Commissioner of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993); Florida Bar Journal, Vol. 84, No. 1, January, 2010. Among the key, impermissible metrics requested by Stock are the following: 1. Double the permitted density: 16 units vs. 31.7 units per acre. 2. Almost triple the permitted building height: 76 ft. vs. 208 ft. Members of the Collier County Planning Commission and Legal and Zoning Staff, and Collier County Commissioners October 12, 2020 Page 3 3. Setbacks that are dramatically reduced from what is required: 25 ft. vs. 10 ft. 4. Open Space that is less than half of what is required. Plainly, Stock is asking the Planning Commission, and ultimately the County Commissioners, to allow a development that the Law of Florida prohibits. The Collier County Staff Report agrees that Stock’s proposal is unlawful Spot Zoning, because the proposed project is fatally inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. The Report so states in 20 places: 1. P. 5: GMP Consistency: “Due to the request for increased density from the maximum allowed density of 16 DU/A to 31.7 DU/A, the petition is not consistent with the [adopted] GMP.” 2. P. 10: Under Section 163.3164(9), “Compatibility means . . . no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition.” 3. P. 10: “The height of the proposed tower buildings at 208-feet . . . are not directly compatible with the adjacent neighboring buildings. The current allowable maximum height in the C-3 zone district is +76 feet. The Planning Commission may wish to request the applicant to reduce the height . . . to the C-3 zoning Section 4.02.01 LDC standards. . . At a reduced height the buildings may be more compatible in height to the . . . surrounding buildings in the Vanderbilt Beach neighborhood.” 4. P. 10: “The proposed . . . setback[s] . . . are not directly compatible to the 25-foot setback required in the C-3 zone district.” 5. P. 11: “The Planning Commission may wish to request the applicant to increase the setback[s] . . . for all three street frontages.” 6. P. 11: “The removal of long standing pedestrian commercial uses” at street level makes Stock’s proposal not compatible with existing conditions. 7. P. 11: “The tower 1 and 2 scale and massing are not directly compatible with the adjacent buildings . . .” 8. P. 12: Summary Findings MU Tracts 3 and 4 Buildings: “The height of the proposed buildings at 87 feet is not directly compatible with the neighboring buildings. The proposed height exceeds the C-3 zone district provisions of Section 4.02.01 of the LDC.” 9. P. 12: “The proposed 10-foot setback for MU Tract 3 and 4 buildings is not directly compatible with the 25-foot setback [rules] and exceeds the C-3 zone district provisions Members of the Collier County Planning Commission and Legal and Zoning Staff, and Collier County Commissioners October 12, 2020 Page 4 of Section 4.02.01 of the LDC.” “The Planning Commission may wish to request the applicant to increase the setback . . . to 25 feet.” 10. P. 12: Summary Findings MU Tract 2: “The height of the proposed buildings for Tract 2 at 77 feet is not directly compatible with the surrounding buildings.” PC “may wish . . . to reduce the height. . .” 11. P. 13: “The proposed 10-foot setback along Center Street . . . is not directly compatible with the +25 foot setback” of nearby buildings. Staff suggests increase in the setback. 12. P. 13: Same with the setback on Vanderbilt Beach Road. 13. P. 16: PUD Findings: Proposed development’s elimination of long-standing “street level” commercial uses is not compatible with the Vanderbilt Beach neighborhood. 14. P. 16: “The proposed development standards for MU Tracts 1 through 4 are not directly compatible with the C-3 zone district standards of Section 4.02.01 of the LDC.” 15. P. 18: Rezone Finding 5: Stock’s “proposed change is not necessary . . . the property could be developed under the C-3 zone district.” 16. P. 19: “The light and air to adjacent areas will be affected.” 17. P. 19: “The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning. The applicant has not provided any evidence that the property cannot be used in accordance with C-3 zoning.” 18. P. 20: “The Zoning Division staff finds that the proposed change exceeds the existing C- 3 zone district and Section 4.02.01 LDC standards for maximum height, setbacks, scale and massing.” 19. P. 23: Recommendation: Approval, subject to: “1. Maximum building height for all Tracts is 76 feet zoned, except Tract 1 can be increased to +125 feet zoned height if step back architecture is used for the upper floors . . .” “2. Minimum building setbacks for all Tracts is 25 feet, except . . . Tract 1 can be reduced to 15 feet if street level pedestrian commercial uses are within a building . . .” 20. Consistency Review Memo (p. 4): “Due to the request for increased density from the maximum allowed density of 16 DU/A to 31.7 DU/A, the petition is not consistent with the [adopted] GMP. . .” Members of the Collier County Planning Commission and Legal and Zoning Staff, and Collier County Commissioners October 12, 2020 Page 5 Stock’s proposal is entirely incompatible and inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the current zoning rules, and the surrounding neighborhoods. It is not in conformity with, in harmony with, or complementary to the relevant area. It would result in great harm to, and create no benefit for, the community. The sole benefit would inure to the developer. Stock’s proposal is, irrefutably, unlawful Spot Zoning. Stock is asking the members of the Planning Commission to permit Stock to break the law. Under Florida law, Stock’s request must be rejected. Regards, /s/ Michael G. Austin Michael G. Austin, P.A.