One Naples Meeting March 1_ 2021EXTERNAL 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 Commissioner,
I would like to address a matter that is of great concern to myself and to the residents of Collier County: The proposed One Naples project by Stock Development.
In the case of Stock Development's application regarding One Naples, two related parts came before the Collier County Planning Commission. Part one was an amendment to the County's
GMP in which Stock asked for the addition of a new Sub-District encompassing the 5.42 acres of his development. The purpose of the addition was to change the current regulations that
limit the density allowed on his land. His request would double the density from sixteen dwelling units per acre, 87 units, to 32 dwelling units per acre,172 units. Without this change
to the GMP, the plans that he presented in his rezoning application (part two) in which he asked for two 208-foot high towers, inadequate setbacks, several midrise buildings, and other
considerations could not be approved.
I was very disappointed in the outcome of the Collier County Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, November 5, 2020. The deadlock does not provide the County Board of Commissioners
with any meaningful input. Hopefully, the County Commissioners have a “transcript” of the voting and discussions at the end of the meeting. The newer Planning Board members were not
instructed properly beforehand on how the deliberations and voting would happen. Instead, Commissioner Schmitt quickly made a motion and Commissioner Homiak quickly seconded it, ensuring
that a vote be taken and that no other motion could be made. The newer members thought there would be an opportunity to make a motion that would be more acceptable to the majority
but sadly found out after the voting on the first motion that that could not happen. The point that came across clearly from the meeting on Thursday, November 5, 2020 was that the
developer’s proposal is unacceptable.
The developer falsely claims that they can only build the original plan. If not allowed, they will have to deal with the current zoning and they claim that is worse for the residents.
This is not the case and is a poor attempt to get their plan approved. The developer can certainly build a scaled down version of their proposal. They can certainly bring the height
and density within the current regulations and still have the same type of project. Yes, the land will eventually be developed by someone. But the development should fall within rules
and regulations. We ask that Stock respect the existing zoning and his proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan should be denied. Stock bought the land fully understanding
the current zoning. He could have and should have asked for variances before he bought it. Stock is relying on previous situations that were voted to allow developers to run slipshod
over the wishes of your taxpaying constituents. Stock is apparently so used to getting its way, that it just assumed that it could run over everybody in North Naples. When Stock Development
incentivizes the Barefoot Pelican Condominium Association with nearly $550,000 in cash & services to subscribe to Stock’s position, suddenly there are no boundaries for developers.
If there is a resistance problem, they simply throw money <https://mcusercontent.com/8cd54a2739eee6a1e1ffc0f63/images/8ffb74e7-f892-4343-9ca2-5c799147e90c.jpeg> at it until it is
fixed to their satisfaction. The idea, apparently, is that everyone has a price. And we can expect more of the same with the Vanderbilt Palms Condo Association. Stock and other self-serving
developers can not be allowed to buy their way into our neighborhood and completely compromise our quality of life solely for their benefit. This must stop. An approval of Stock’s
plan would show that the Commissioners, at heart, have little regard for the will of the people, that they side with developers and endless unrestrained growth.
Traffic will be increased on a road that already has traffic issues. Beachwalk Gardens has asked for a traffic light at their entrance due to traffic congestion and has been turned
down. I have been told that the county states there are too many traffic lights already on Vanderbilt. So why are we considering increasing traffic and adding a traffic light for
the Developer? We should deal with the existing traffic congestion issue first. The developer’s traffic plans create an undeniable surge in traffic on residential roads which are already
dealing with traffic similar to Beachwalk Gardens’ where residents have to make a right in order to make a left. The drivers then have to turn around on Vanderbilt or drive through
a residential area and up 91st. The developer claims that C3 traffic would be worse than their proposed plan. However, a plan that sticks to the height and density rules and regulations
would drastically cut down on their proposed increased traffic.
Approval of any plan in excess of existing buildings already in the area sets a precedent for all future building. Any future developer can, and will, ask for exceptions based on this
case. The excessive height would become a new norm, or average, that would be used for comparison for future development. The developer’s height, set back, and density are double
what is allowed. No exception should be made to such extreme violation of existing rules and regulations. The rules and regulations are in place for a purpose and should be adhered
to. Changing the rules is effectively “spot zoning”. You will hear that spot zoning can only be brought up if a challenge is filed with the Circuit Court. That is the developer’s
way to try to get the rules changed now so that they can argue that the defense of spot zoning does not apply since the new rule incorporates their zoning changes and allows their plan.
Changing the rules so that spot zoning can’t be a future defense is unethical and should not be allowed. It is essentially spot zoning.
One Naples is certainly not in the best interests of the residents or the county. It affects all of our districts. We ask the County Board of Commissioners to take into consideration
the overwhelming opposition residents have to the proposed project as it stands now and vote against the amendment to the County’s Growth Management plan that Stock’s application seeks.
At the November 5th meeting, only one resident voiced support for the project, and he was a restaurant owner and spoke from a business perspective.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Maureen Gambocurta
619 Beachwalk Circle
Naples, FL 34108
f 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.
Save Vanderbilt Beach Inc has provided the County Planning Staff with its recommendations as to how One Naples might be redesigned to be neighborhood compatible. 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 request that the staff provide you with the Cover Letter and the Compatibility Standards document provided by Greg Stuart Associates, Planners to the
County planning staff.
Can I count on you to recommend denying his current design? Ask him to review the documents referred to above. You need not wait until the formal meeting. A call from you today indicating
that you can’t vote for today’s design, but that you would fully support a project more sensitive to neighborhood wishes and compatibility would go a long way to bringing Stock back
to the table It’s not too late.
Stock is asking the county to donate nearly .8 acres to him in the form of the vacation of various roadways that run throughout his property. What is he giving in return? A project
not in the public interest, adding density, traffic, safety concerns, and additional beach usage to an area already overburdened.
One more thing. 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.
This is not acceptable. Do the right thing, and recommend that the County Commissioners deny the project in its current form. Protect the public interest.
Thank you.
Ann Darwish
................................................................................................................................................
My Additional Signed Letter and agreement with the opposition letter below.
Dear Commssioner,
As a Collier County Commissioner, I hope you are listening to the growing level 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
楬牥䌠畯瑮⁹潇漯㵵硅档湡敧䄠浤湩獩牴瑡癩片畯⁰䘨䑙䉉䡏㉆匳䑐呌⼩湣刽捥灩敩瑮⽳湣㤽戴㜸昳ㄳ㑣㐵攷㥤㜶㉡㘲攷挴攱〷ⵣ潌慃