BCC Minutes 03/01/2021 SMarch 1, 2021
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, March 1, 2021
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples,
Florida, with the following members present:
Chairman: Penny Taylor
William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Rick LoCastro
Burt L. Saunders
Andy Solis
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Daniel Rodriguez, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
Special Meeting
One Naples
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
March 01, 2021
9:00 AM
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 – Chair – CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5; - Vice Chair - CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Rick LoCastro, District 1
Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2
Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3
NOTICE: All persons wishing to speak on Agenda items must register prior to presentation of the Agenda
item to be addressed. All registered speakers will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the time is
adjusted by the chairman.
Requests to petition the Board on subjects which are not on this agenda must be submitted in writing with
explanation to the County Manager at least 13 days prior to the date of the meeting and will be heard under
“Public Petitions.” Public petitions are limited to the presenter, with a maximum time of ten minutes.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceeding pertaining
thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record
includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
Collier County Ordinance No. 2003-53 as amended by ordinance 2004-05 and 2007-24, requires that all
lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including but not limited to, addressing the
Board of County Commissioners), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records
Department.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to pa rticipate in this proceeding,
you are entitled, at no cost to you, the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County
Facilities Management Division located at 3335 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 1, Naples, Florida, 34112 -5356,
(239) 252-8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Facilities
Management Division.
Lunch Recess scheduled for 12:00 Noon to 1:00 P.M
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. Recommendation to disclaim, renounce and
vacate the County and the public interest in Gulf Shore Court, the 20-foot alley in
Block “D” and a portion of Center Street, all part of the plat of Vanderbilt Beach
Center, Plat Book 3, Page 16 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, as
part of the application for the One Naples project. The subject Right-of-Ways are
located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and
Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida. (PL20200000368) (This is a companion to items 2B and 2C,
PL20190000696 and PL20190000697). (District 2)
2.B. Recommendation to approve by Ordinance the Vanderbilt Beach Road Mixed-Use
Subdistrict - Amending Ordinance no. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County
Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida,
specifically amending the future land use element and future land use map and map
series by amending the urban mixed-use district, residential subdistrict to add the
Vanderbilt Beach Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict to allow construction of up to 172
multi-family dwelling units and/or hotel rooms/suites, but no less than 40 residential
units, and 10,000 square feet of C-3, commercial intermediate commercial uses, and
a marina and a ship store. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of
the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road in section 32,
township 48 south, range 25 east, consisting of 5.42 acres; and furthermore,
recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective
date. (Adoption Hearing) (PL20190000696/CPSS-2019-10) ( This is a Companion to
item 2C, PL20190000697) (All Districts)
2.C. This item requires ex-parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members.
Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the
Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive
zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by
amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning
classification of the herein described real property from a Commercial Intermediate
district (C-3) zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)
zoning district for the project to be known as One Naples MPUD, to allow
construction of up to 172 multi-family dwelling units and/or hotel rooms/suites, but
no less than 40 residential units, up to 208 feet in height including a parking deck,
and 10,000 square feet of C-3, commercial intermediate commercial uses, and a
marina and a ship store. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of
the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 32,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 5.42 ± acres: and by providing an
effective date. (PL20190000697) (This is a companion to Items 2B, PL20190000696
and Item 3A). (District 2)
3. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
3.A. Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a Collier County
Landscape Maintenance Agreement (“Agreement”) between Collier County and
Vanderbilt Naples Holdings, LLC for developer funded improvements to landscape,
irrigation, lighting, brick pavers, and other site furnishing improvements within the
rights-of-way abutting the One Naples project. (This is a companion to items 2B and
2C, PL20190000696, and PL20190000697). (District 2)
4. ADJOURN
Inquiries concerning changes to the Board’s Agenda should be made to the County Manager’s Office at
252-8383.
March 1, 2021
Page 2
MR. OCHS: You have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
We are here today on a special meeting to discuss One Naples.
It is my intention to evaluate where we are about 3:00. If we have
tens of tens of speakers at that point, I intend to stop the meeting at
that point and continue it Tuesday morning.
It's my understanding that we do have leadership from different
neighborhoods. They are going to be entitled to a 15-minute
presentation. I do have a list of one neighborhood, but I don't have
them all. So I would ask that you identify yourself with my
assistant, Sherry Greco, so that she can provide the list to all of us.
This is a very important meeting. We are going to have a court
reporter break at 10:30 and another one at 2:30. We are going to be
very strict about that. We are also going to be having a lunch. Our
lunch will be from 12:00 to 1:00 or 12:15 to 1:00, but no later than
that.
It is my intention that we conduct ourselves like ladies and
gentlemen talking to ladies and gentlemen.
I appreciate the passion. I appreciate the enthusiasm. I
appreciate the anger on both sides, but we're here to have a record
that is open and is clean as it possibly can be and with that, I would
ask your cooperation.
Thank you very much.
So on that --
MR. OCHS: Start with the pledge, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Let's stand and have the Pledge
of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a
single-item agenda today. You have four related items. Three of
those are advertised public hearings; one is a staff item.
March 1, 2021
Page 3
I'll go ahead and assume that we're going to hear these all
together, Mr. Klatzkow.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Point of order. We're hearing them
all together, but we are voting on them separately; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: The will of the Board at the time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that the intention of this board to
vote on these separately? We were going to hear them all together,
but we're going to vote on them separately.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I -- we're going to hear
them together. I think we can make the executive decision as to
whether or not we need to vote on them independently but it,
certainly on precept, is a good idea to vote on them in aggregate as
well.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. The only difference being some of
them require three votes, some require four votes but, at the end of
the day, you have to approve all of these items; otherwise, it doesn't
work.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's correct.
At this point we are going to be voting on them separately,
understanding that some of these items require three votes, some
require four.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, with your permission, I'll go ahead
and read the titles on the four items, and then I think at that point it
would be appropriate for ex parte disclosure and swearing in all of
the participants.
So let me begin with Item 2A. This is a recommendation to
vacate the county and public interest in Gulf Shore Court, 20-foot
alley in Block D, and a portion of Center Street, all part of the plat of
March 1, 2021
Page 4
Vanderbilt Beach Center as part of the application for the One Naples
project.
Item 2B is a recommendation to approve by ordinance the
Vanderbilt Beach Road mixed-use subdistrict, amending the Future
Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and map series by
amending the urban mixed-use district residential subdistrict to add
the Vanderbilt Beach Road mixed-use subdistrict to allow
construction of up to 172 multifamily dwelling units but no less than
40 residential units and 10,000 square feet of C-3 commercial
intermediate commercial uses and a marina and a ship store. The
subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection
of Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Item 2B requires ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members, and all participants are required to be sworn in. This is a
proposed amendment to the Collier County Land Development Code
that changes the zoning classification of the herein described real
property from a commercial intermediate district, C-3 zoning district,
to a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development zoning district for the
project to be known as One Naples MPUD.
And, finally, Item 3A is a recommendation to authorize the
chairman to sign a Collier County landscape maintenance agreement
between Collier County and Vanderbilt Naples Holding, LLC, for
developer funded improvements to landscape, irrigation, lighting,
brick pavers, and other site furnishing improvements within the
rights-of-way abutting the One Naples project.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Let's -- we
should start our ex parte.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. On 2A and 2C I have -- I
think it goes back to 2016 -- meetings, enumerable emails with
constituents and the developer's representatives. Too many to list
March 1, 2021
Page 5
individually.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And I believe I have the
same, pretty much everything across the board since the day I took
this seat. So meetings, correspondence, emails, calls, enumerable
amounts across the board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And maybe your conversation with
protesters this morning.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, yeah. That, too.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, I've had meetings as
well as phone calls, correspondence both with proponents of the
project and with folks that are opposed to the project.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Good morning. And I
as well, all the way across the board, meetings, correspondence,
emails, and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I, too, have had meetings,
correspondence, emails, calls, I visited the site, we had meetings last
week with the developer and developer's attorney as well as the
opponents on the same day. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: It's appropriate to swear in all the participants at
this point, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Other than --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me ask a question before
you do that. Don't we need to advise the folks that are online
remotely that they're being sworn in at the same time?
MR. MILLER: Sir, on the registration form, they check a box
affirming that they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Thank you.
March 1, 2021
Page 6
MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want my consultant -- I'm sorry.
Madam Chair, do you want our consultants to come in and swear
now, or do you want to swear them individually when they come in
later?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think for timing it would be helpful
if they came in.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That would be great. If you'll give
them a second. Hopefully they're listening. There they are.
(The speakers present in the boardroom were duly sworn and
indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich.
Troy, the last time I operated this thing, I broke it. So can you
help me pull it up, please.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. I got you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
Yes. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on
behalf of the applicant in this matter. I will -- our outline of how
we're going to present today is to -- I'll do a brief overview of the
project and where we're going from here. Bob Mulhere will testify
as to the planning aspects, Jim Banks will testify as to the
transportation-related impacts, Brian Stock will speak about the
project, and then I'll do a wrap-up. But I want to introduce the entire
team because they're here if you have any specific questions.
Brian Stock, with Stock Development, is basically the main
speaker for our team; Keith Gelder with Stock Development; and
Chris Johnson and Claudine Wetzel is also with our team. Bob Hall
is our architecture; he's here. Chris Mitchell is our engineer; he's
here to answer any questions you may have. Jim Banks is here to
answer transportation questions; Mr. Mulhere is here to answer any
March 1, 2021
Page 7
planning questions; and we have Hunter Booth here to answer any
landscape-related questions you may have regarding the project. But
this is our entire team that is available to answer any questions that
you may have.
As the County Manager has gone over, we have four petitions
before you. We have a Growth Management Plan amendment,
which is a legislative decision, and your county staff is
recommending approval of that Growth Management Plan
amendment, which is basically allowing for 172 dwelling units and
10,000 square feet of commercial on the property.
We have a PUD rezone, which is a quasi-judicial decision. You
have staff recommendation of approval from your transportation,
environmental, and utilities staff, and you have a recommendation of
approval from your zoning staff with certain conditions.
The next petition is a right-of-way vacation which your staff is
recommending approval and, finally, the landscape maintenance
agreement, which your staff is also recommending approval.
At the end of the day, we have two options when you finally
deliberate and make your decision. It's to either approve the four
petitions, or the property remains C-3 zoning, and the property will
be developed with the existing development rights on this property.
That's -- people have always perceived that as a threat. It's just
a fact. The fact is the property is zoned C-3, and those are the
entitlements that are on that property.
The current zoning, as I mentioned, is C-3. In the purple and
blue is the boundaries of the PUD, and in the green is the DaRuMa
parcel.
The burden is on us to persuade the County Commission to
change its Comprehensive Plan and change its zoning on the
property. We are going to go and take a little bit of different
approach in our presentation today. We all read the papers. We all
March 1, 2021
Page 8
know that there are some concerns about the project as it's currently
proposed, which is 12 stories over two of parking. I could do a
two-hour presentation on 12-over-two knowing that I don't think I'll
be successful with the 12-over-two presentation. I don't want to
waste your time with that 12-over-two presentation, so we're going to
go to what we believe is the bottom line that we can accept, or we
have to stay with the C-3 zoning.
So that's going to be the different approach. We're going to cut
to the chase with our presentation, and we're going to explain those
differences. But before we get to the bottom line, I think it's
important that we go over the history of the project, how we got to
where we are, and we also go over what information has been
provided to the general public because there's, frankly, a lot of
misinformation out there about what this project really is, what it's
really going to look like, and how it's really going to impact the
community versus the existing C-3 zoning on the property.
We're going to present the facts because, in our opinion, the
truth matters, and the truth has not been told, and we're going to tell
the truth.
The zoning is C3. It's on the -- it's on your -- it's on your
screen. Under C-3 zoning, that is not a small neighborhood-related
project. It is a commercial project that can be an attractor. This is a
waterfront piece of property, and it is an attractor.
There's been a lot of information about how people don't really
come to this site as it currently exists and they won't come to this site
as it's redeveloped for commercial. The bottom line is, people do
come to this site from all over the place, all parts of Collier County,
and even some from Lee County, and the fact is that we have two
experts in Collier County commercial, David Stevens and Dan
O'Berski, who believe available to answer any questions you may
have regarding the potential development of this site as commercial.
March 1, 2021
Page 9
There are some other facts that you will hear mainly from Jim
Banks, our transportation consultant. But this project that we're
proposing, One Naples, will add 45 p.m. peak-hour trips to the road
above what currently exists with the existing development already on
the property. You have existing development on the property today.
You have the Beach Box, you have a real estate office, you have a
convenience store, and you have DaRuMa's. At the end of the day,
when we develop this property with One Naples, we will add 45 p.m.
peak-hour trips.
If the C-3 is developed, it will add 404 p.m. peak-hour trips over
what's already there today. So the commercial option adds nine
times the amount of traffic than what we're proposing. And what we
have heard from the community is, they're concerned about traffic.
If they're concerned about traffic, the residential option is clearly the
better choice.
Now, let's put that in 24 hour -- 24-hour p.m. peak hour --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't mean to interrupt you,
but would you say the traffic on the C-3 zoning again; how many
trips?
MR. YOVANOVICH: If we were to develop C-3, knock down
everything that's there today and develop 100,000 square feet, 404
p.m. peak-hour trips.
So let's talk about a 24-hour period. Over a 24-hour
period -- the residential option will add 828 trips in a 24-hour period
above what's there today. The C-3 option will add 4,625 trips, daily
trips, over what's there today. I can't do that in my head, but that's
about five times.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can you repeat that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I can. The residential option is
828 daily trips above what's generated from the site today. The
commercial option is 4,625 24-hour trips from what's already there
March 1, 2021
Page 10
today. So that's about a five-times multiplier.
Those are important facts that have never been shared with the
residents in the area during the information that has been provided
over these many months. Now, I will tell you that the planner for
the opponents testified in front of the Planning Commission that in
his opinion commercial's never going to happen. Candidly, he's
wrong. You will -- we know commercial will happen if the property
is not rezoned as we're proposing.
When Brian initially acquired the property, this is what the area
looked like. You can see DaRuMa's with the blue roof. You can
see -- I'm going to try to be Bob Mulhere here for a second. This is
DaRuMa's right here. This building right here was a residential
building. You could reach out from Barefoot Pelican and touch that
building. That building has been removed already. This is another
residential building. That one's gone. These buildings right here
are gone. This building is gone, and this building is scheduled to go
in May. So we've already done a lot to clean up the site from what
was there originally.
I think we can all agree it's not the prettiest piece of property in
North Naples, and it will become, in my opinion, one of the prettiest
properties in North Naples if the One Naples project is approved as
we're going to modify it.
A little bit about the history of acquiring the property. Initially,
when Brian bought property -- and he'll go into this in a little bit
greater detail -- it was the red area with a lot of holes in the doughnut,
if you will. He's assembled all of the property, as you can see it
here, including most recently he has gotten DaRuMa's under contract.
So you can see that this property, now that it's been fully
assembled, is a perfect location for either the residential alternative or
the commercial alternative. And we will show you a commercial
alternative that does not rely upon the vacation of any of these roads.
March 1, 2021
Page 11
So commercial will be successful whether the vacation petition
is approved or not approved later on today, and it will be a
destination commercial location with restaurants and other attractors
to the beach. And we have a plan that will include 575 parking
spaces for a commercial development that includes six restaurants
that requires 508 spaces. So we can easily accommodate the
required parking for a very nice entertainment type of use on this
property to attract people to the water and to the beach as amenities
for that commercial development.
These are some existing photos of what exists today on the site.
I'm sure many of you can recognize where the Beach Box is, where
the convenience store is, and the other uses that currently exist on the
property.
I want to go over a couple of the nearby neighbors and the
density associated with each of those projects. Barefoot Pelican are
these two buildings right there; their density is 45.8 units per acre.
The Vanderbilt Palms is right there; that density is 52.83 units per
acre. Vanderbilt Hideaway is right there; its density is 53.6 units per
acre. Beachmoor is right here; it is a 10-story over two-story
building; its density is 18.53 units per acre. And Regatta are all of
those buildings right there, and Regatta is approved at 23.44 units per
acre. The overall average density for all of those projects is 38.84
units per acre.
This is where we believe the misinformation -- there was a lot of
misinformation presented by Save Vanderbilt Beach regarding the
project, and we need to -- we need to clarify that information so the
Planning Commission [sic] truly understands what we're proposing
versus what has been represented to the community of what we're
proposing.
As you can see from the rendering on the left, that's Save
Vanderbilt Beach's rendering. They had an 18-story building with
March 1, 2021
Page 12
no landscaping, no water even in the pool. It was -- it
was -- candidly, I would have voted no based on the representation of
the information by Save Vanderbilt Beach.
It was 18 stories over two of parking. Our actually -- I'm sorry,
it was 18 stories. Our actual initial request was 16 stories, not 18,
and we provided these renderings prior to their preparing their own
renderings. And how do I know that? Their planner testified under
oath at the Planning Commission that he had our renderings when he
prepared his renderings for the information that was provided to the
neighborhood.
Their traffic consultant and their planner never analyzed the
commercial option that could be on that property. They never
presented that information to the community. They went forward
with -- and I'll show you a few of the renderings, and then we'll go
into -- we even have their most recent TV ad to show you that they're
still not providing accurate representation of our project.
You can see they don't even show the water feature that's going
to be on the road and the public art that's going to be on the road, the
landscaping that is going to be in front of the parking podium. They
don't even -- you know, it's clearly not a true and accurate
representation of what we're proposing.
This is the view that they presented to the community as you're
looking towards the water. Theirs is on the left. The real picture is
on the right. They chose to tell people the picture on the left is
what's going to happen.
Now, they were clever, because they're going to say, well, theirs
are really -- theirs are just massing representations. Now, we all
know that landscaping and other improvements impact the visual
impact and massing of a structure. So they tried to cover the fact
that they didn't do an accurate representation by saying it's really only
intended to show massing.
March 1, 2021
Page 13
Most recently they went out with a survey. I think what they
really did was a push-pull. They wanted a result, and they generated
questions to get a result.
You can see what I've highlighted. They say developers, in
order to increase their profits, are consistently asking County
Commissioners to amend the GMP to allow for greater density, more
intrusive and less neighborhood-compatible projects and designs that
run roughshod over requirements for limited heights, setbacks, open
space, and other community protections. That is quite a lead-in to
the questions that they want you to positively answer.
They also, in the red, include inaccurate statements about what
the current zoning actually allows. They say zoning requires 50 feet
in maximum building height, and then they set forth the numbers that
they claim we're going to build. The 50 feet they're referring to is
zoned height. That is not the actual height that's in the C-3 zoning
district because, remember, zoned height starts at the minimum flood
elevation that you have to get to. So, basically, the first 21 feet
doesn't count, because we've got to get to 21 feet to be the minimum
flood elevation. You put the 50 feet on top of that, and then you
have your roof.
So the bottom line is for the mid-rises, the existing zoning for
C-3 is 50 feet. We've asked for 55 feet. We asked for a five-foot
increase over what could exist today, and that's based upon ceiling
heights for current residential units. But if you were to read the
statements, you would think that we are well over what the C-3
zoning allows.
Then they go and they tell you that the zoning for the setbacks is
50 percent of the building height. They, again, misuse what the
setbacks are. Setbacks are based upon the zoned building height, not
actual building height. So a 50-foot-tall building would require a
setback of 25 feet. They have totally different numbers there based
March 1, 2021
Page 14
upon actual height. Incorrect information being provided by the
person seeking an answer on the poll.
Then they say zoning requires 30 percent open space, and the
developer's open-space fulfillment is misleading because it includes
the exclusive resident amenities such as a swimming pool and
cabanas. One, we're not asking for any deviations from the
measurement of open space in your Land Development Code. We
are doing it correctly for the residential option. But what they don't
tell you is, if it was developed as C-3, because the project will be
under five acres, the open-space requirement is zero. They don't tell
the neighbors any of that information. They don't provide any
information about the existing C-3 development potential at all. So,
not surprisingly, they have a survey that says people -- you should
not approve this project based upon incorrect information.
Now, we took the survey, and we answered all the questions,
and we strongly agree that quality of life in Collier County is
important. We agree that smart growth in Collier County is
important. We believe beach availability is important. We believe
every one of these answers is very important, and we strongly agree
with every one of those statements, except for we don't agree that the
developers should be able to amend the Growth Management Plan for
their benefits in all situations. We think it depends, and it depends
on the project.
And we believe at the end, when you look at what we're
proposing to do to change this Comp Plan designation and the
zoning, that the One Naples project is the best option for the nearby
residents in this area. So we're going to take the survey again at the
end when you hear all of the facts.
Now -- well, this is where I seem to be stuck. It's not moving,
Troy.
MR. MILLER: Hold on a minute, Rich.
March 1, 2021
Page 15
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. This is the ad that is being
run.
MR. MILLER: Rich, I don't think the audio's on. Let me take
over, Rich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You've got it. Please drive.
(A video was played as follows:)
"Development threatens to destroy what we love most about our
community. You have a chance to stop it.
"Commissioners have repeatedly voted to allow developers to
build too tall, too dense, too big, just too much. Don't let
commissioners make us into a Miami West.
"We're fighting the One Naples development at Vanderbilt
Beach. Thousands of our neighbors have voiced their opposition.
Now we need thousands more throughout the county to do the same,
or your neighborhood may be next.
"Let's work together. We are SaveVanderbiltBeach.com."
MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, these ads have been running over
the last several days, and they still have a misrepresentation of the
actual project as we're proposing it.
Troy, can I --
MR. MILLER: Yeah, you should be good.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Thanks.
So what's our bottom line? What can we -- what can we agree
to? Well, the Miralia PUD, which is Regatta, which I showed you
Regatta, which is immediately to our east, was approved in 1996, and
we think that a project similar to Regatta is appropriate for this piece
of property.
Now, just from a history standpoint, the Miralia PUD was also
C-3. We are C-3 property. And when you look at the C-3
development -- or the Regatta PUD, you will see that the Board made
the finding that the development standards in this -- in the Regatta
March 1, 2021
Page 16
project are far superior than the existing C-3.
So we were approved at a density of 210 multifamily dwelling
units for an average density -- or for a density of 23.44. We're
proposing 140 multifamily dwelling units at 22.58 dwelling units per
acre.
Regatta was approved with a 25-foot setback from Vanderbilt
Beach. Now, that was 25 feet straight up, not stair-stepping back the
building; 25 feet straight up in the Regatta PUD. We're proposing
25 feet to the parking deck, which is 30 feet with a clear railing above
that, and then stair back the buildings to be no closer than 35 feet
from Vanderbilt Drive and Gulf Shore because, if you'll recall, we
actually curved the buildings. The nearest point is 35 feet. It gets
further away when you look at what's on the podium.
They have been approved at a height of 10 residential floors
over two of parking. We are requesting 10 residential floors over
two of parking.
Their zoned height is 120 feet four inches. We're asking for
129 feet. The differences in the height pertain to -- we were
requested to provide retail -- retail services to the community. In
order to build that retail, our first level of parking has to get to the
minimum flood elevation, so the retail could be at our second-level
parking deck, so that adds four or five feet to the building height, and
it also adds -- we're looking at more current ceiling-height standards
for the units. So that gets us to 129 feet of actual zoned height.
And then from an actual height standpoint, Regatta, their towers were
constructed at 148 feet, and we're asking for 165 feet.
As I said earlier, we have -- we now have the DaRuMa property
under contract. It's about .78 acres. So the overall project size goes
from 5.42 to 6.2. Is that the right math? Yes. So it's 6.2, and that
density number I gave you is based upon the .78 acres of DaRuMa,
because we've agreed on the DaRuMa piece there will be no
March 1, 2021
Page 17
commercial development, and there will be no residential
development as part of the approval of this project.
We've also agreed -- and I'll show you the condition if the
project doesn't go forward, if we don't buy DaRuMa. So we have to
buy DaRuMa, and we have to put DaRuMa into basically an amenity
of limited uses on the property before we can even go vertical, and
we have no project without buying DaRuMa.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One quick question.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The density that you
represented is on the original acreage, not including the DaRuMa's?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I want to make that clear. It does
include -- since we're putting the .78 acres of DaRuMa and
prohibiting any development, that's how I come to the 22.5 --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's what I wanted. Thank
you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- units per acre. I want to make sure
that that's clear.
What we've also agreed to, as I just previously said, we will
have a 25-foot setback for the parking structure. We will have a
minimum of 35 feet for the closest point on the buildings, and that's
to this point right here and this point right here.
Those difference -- those distances change. That's 97 feet right
there, and 54 feet to right there. So it's not a wall of a 35-foot
building fronting on Vanderbilt Drive or Gulf Shore.
Now, we've also included what is the real distance from the
travel lane, because people forget that the setback or property line
isn't the same thing as the road. So when you look -- you look at
those numbers, the numbers change to 50-foot setback from the travel
lane on that portion of the property and 44 feet from the travel lane
along Gulf Shore Drive.
March 1, 2021
Page 18
We've agreed, for this mid-rise building also, to bring it back to
the 25-foot setback. So you will have a 25-foot setback from Gulf
Shore and Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Now, I'm kind of a visual person. So what we
see -- you-all -- this is a shot from our property. But you have the
Ritz in the background, and you have the county's parking garage in
the front. We will do a better job of landscaping than what the
county's parking garage shows, but you can see that even with the
county's landscaping there, you don't see the county's parking garage,
and you will not see our parking structure, because it will be densely
landscaped, and there will be -- the walls will be green with vines so
that, if for some reason there's a small space in the trees and the
cover, you will see green as part of our proposed development.
I wanted to put on here -- I spoke to this earlier about the
Regatta. This is the Regatta height exhibit. They're 10 residential
floors over two of parking. There are 140 units in those two
buildings. We are 10 stories over two of parking. We have put, as
you can see in the -- it looks purple to me. That's where the -- our
commercial uses that are going to be open to the public are going to
be there. They're going to be on that second level of the parking,
and that's why we had to go -- that's why our height differences are
slightly different than Regatta, because we have to get the business
uses above flood elevation. So we're 10 over two, just like Regatta,
and our building heights are more in keeping with what high-end
luxury condominiums are expecting in today's market.
So I want to take you through where we started and what
I've -- what our bottom line is. And we've done this from the five
different angles that we showed at the Planning Commission. So
bear with me. You're obviously looking north to south. This is the
16 stories over two of parking, that's the 14 over two that the
Planning Commission initially heard, this is the 12 over two that the
March 1, 2021
Page 19
Planning Commission tied on, and that's the 10 over two that's
proposed for you today.
Now, going from the water looking to northeast, that's the 16
over two, 14 over two, 12 over two, 10 over two from that angle.
Looking at it from the water south. I guess it would be
southeast. Sixteen over two, 14 over two; 12 over two, 10 over two.
From Pelican Bay north to west, 16 over two, 14 over two, 12
over two, 10 over two.
Finally, looking west over the Trieste, which is the building
closest to us and Regatta, is the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road,
16 over two, 14 over two, 12 over two, 10 over two.
So from all angles you can see that our proposed project fits in
nicely with the community in scale of height and massing for what's
already around us.
I want to take you through some of the proposed landscaping
photographs to see what's there today versus what we're proposing to
do. This is -- this is on South Bay facing west, so you're near
Barefoot Pelican. This is on Vanderbilt Beach Road facing the
beach. This is Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore. Beach Box
on the existing. What we're proposing.
This is the -- this is the commercial corner, if you will, of our
project. That's where the real estate office will be. That's what's
there today versus what we're proposing.
And this is South Bay Drive and Gulf Shore Court facing west.
And that's the corner. What's there today on the left. What we're
proposing on the right for development on that corner.
This is -- this is just an envelope to show you what commercial
can occur on the site. This varies in height from two to three stories.
The center. This would be our parking garage. Surface parking,
surface parking, surface parking, and then we would have our
commercial buildings as part of the project, and that includes retail,
March 1, 2021
Page 20
office, and restaurant space. The required parking is 508 parking
spaces, and we are providing 575 parking spaces.
We kept it at 100,000 square feet, even though we can fit more,
because that's what we represented at the Planning Commission, and
we wanted to keep up with those numbers that have already been
calculated.
Both Dan O'Berski, who's been around for a while doing
commercial development in Collier County, and David Stevens,
who's been around for an even longer time in Collier County doing
commercial development, have both looked at this project, and we
said, give us an honest opinion. Can you find either a developer or
can you lease it up, and they both said they could find developers and
that they could both lease it up based upon many of their existing
clients already.
I've asked them to come back. They're having coffee at
Starbucks. If you want to talk to them, let me know, we'll bring
them over. But they both have significant experience in Collier
County and stand by the conclusion that commercial development is,
in fact, a viable option on this property.
With that, I want to turn it over to Bob Mulhere to take you
through the planning aspects of our project. He'll be followed by
Jim Banks and then Brian, and I'll come up and give a brief
conclusion. I don't know how you want to do questions and
answers. Do you want us to finish our entire presentation? Or I'm
happy to answer questions now. I leave it to the discretion of the
Board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I think we've shown that we
will ask questions when we need to, so...
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can you go back to the -- where
March 1, 2021
Page 21
you showed the parking garage for the commercial option. What's
the -- what would the setback be between that and the existing
condominium building there? What's the --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that says 25 feet. You mean
from the property line, Commissioner, right there?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. That's about 25 feet. Right?
Yes, 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, I failed to mention, and I'll
mention it again later, that you've gotten several letters of support
recently, and that includes Vanderbilt Palms, Barefoot Pelican, and I
want to -- I keep -- Buzz's, not -- the other Buzz's -- Buzz's
Lighthouse. So I'll show you an exhibit a little bit later. But we
have support from our immediate neighbors for the residential option
versus the commercial option.
Any other questions before I turn it over to Bob?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: While that's going on, one more
question in relation to what I asked before.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I don't know if Bob Mulhere
can answer that or not. About the 25-foot setback that was depicted
there is based upon what?
MR. MULHERE: That would be based on building height and
C-3 requirements.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Building height and C-3
requirements.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, because -- yeah, as Rich indicated, the
March 1, 2021
Page 22
zoned height being 50 feet, you're required to do 50 percent of the
building height -- zoned building height, so 25 feet.
For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here this
morning on behalf of the applicant. I'll try to follow Jim Mudd's
immortal words and be brief, because I'm really here to speak to the
issue of compatibility, which was a very significant issue discussed
quite a bit at the Planning Commission.
As you -- as you have previously seen, you know the subject
property is zoned C-3 and -- excuse me. So this whole portion here
is all zoned C-3.
This is what Policy 5.6 says. It's a relatively short sentence, so
I'd like to read it. New developments shall be compatible with and
complementary to the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land
Development Code. So two words used, "compatible with" and
"complementary to."
You have a definition of compatibility in your LDC. That
reads: A condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in
relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that
no use or condition unduly negatively impacts directly or indirectly
or is impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition.
Again, very, very clear.
You do not have a definition of complementary specifically in
your LDC; however, looking at Merriam-Webster, complementary is
generally defined as going well together or working well together, at
least in the context of the meaning in your policy. Compatible is
defined as capable of existing together in harmony. That's very,
very close to what it says in your policy, 5.6. Able to exist together
without trouble or conflict.
Let's just briefly go back to that. Your definition of
compatibility, a condition which land uses or conditions can coexist
in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such
March 1, 2021
Page 23
that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or
indirectly by another use or condition.
So if we look just at the density and intensity as it relates to the
surrounding properties, we are proposing 140 units on 6.2 acres at
22.58 units per acre, and you can see that the other uses around us are
all of greater intensity, some of them significantly greater intensity.
But the Regatta is at 25.44. It's also 10 over two.
So if you look at that -- and Beachmoor is 10 over two; a little
bit less density. If you look at that, those are all residential uses.
How do you start this, Rich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Troy? Hit the space bar.
MR. MULHERE: Space. Okay. I'll let you start it, Troy.
This is just a brief video showing the surrounding -- you can see the
Ritz and the county parking garage. And as we move in a circular,
360-degree movement, you see the Regatta, DaRuMa, our adjacent
condominiums, and now we're swinging back to ultimately look west,
Beachmoor, and back to the subject property.
So a picture being worth a thousand words, it's obvious that the
proposed use is very compatible with everything that's surrounding
our parcel.
Rich showed this site plan for commercial. And, again, we're
talking about being able to park, meet all setbacks, ask for no
vacations, and provide 100,000 square feet. As you know, these
parcels are on the water and would lend themselves to waterfront
dining.
This would be retail, office, and commercial as well as right
here, and the heights vary two to three stories. The buildings will be
in the neighborhood of 71 feet tall from the existing street level.
So looking at this perspective which shows the project at the
proposed 10 over two -- and it's clear. You can see. Look for
yourself. Is that not compatible? In my opinion, it is very
March 1, 2021
Page 24
compatible and much less impacting on the other option on the
neighborhood. You just have to look for yourself. You can see
what the neighborhood looks like.
And, finally, this is a colorized site plan that shows the DaRuMa
parcel, which is now under contract, which would be limited to
amenity-type uses, passive recreation, green space, and which, per an
agreement that we are willing to enter into, will never be residential
or commercial.
So in conclusion, in my professional opinion as a certified
planner, the residential option is far more compatible with the
neighborhood: Less traffic, less intrusion, less noise, less odors. It
seems obvious to me. Thank you.
MR. BANKS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Jim Banks.
My firm prepared the Traffic Impact Statement for One Naples.
The Traffic Impact Statement was prepared pursuant to the criteria
set forth by Collier County Government as well as the methodologies
that were established with your staff and the county's third-party
transportation consultant, Jacobs Engineering. Both your staff and
Jacobs Engineering reviewed the Traffic Impact study, and they
agreed with the findings and conclusions of that report as well as the
recommendations regarding transportation improvements that we
propose to be implemented down there to improve traffic flow along
Vanderbilt Beach Road.
The scope of the traffic study included a link-specific
concurrency review, also a corridor operational -- I'm sorry. The
link-specific concurrency review was both Vanderbilt Beach Road
and Gulf Shore Drive.
We also included a corridor operational analysis of Vanderbilt
Beach Road, which is a more detailed analysis of the operation of the
corridor, and we also evaluated the operations of the beach parking
March 1, 2021
Page 25
structure.
Now, the first task at hand is always to quantify the amount of
traffic the project is going to generate, and in this case One Naples is
predominantly a residential product, which will generate
predominantly residential traffic. Now, that traffic will be
compatible and consistent with the type of traffic that's generated by
the nearby residential areas.
Now, if the site is developed with 100,000 square feet of
commercial, which would include restaurants and retail shops, then
that will be bringing traffic into the area from outside of the
Vanderbilt Beach corridor; in other words, it will attract trips east of
41 into that area. So it would be bringing traffic into the area.
Now, as a good example of a situation where you have these
restaurants and specialty shops grouped together is a Shops at
Venetian Bay. I'm sure everyone in this room has been there before
and understand how they attract traffic from areas outside that
immediate area.
And so -- and also the -- Tin City is another good example of a
situation where you have this cluster of restaurants and retail shops.
They take a life of their own. They become an entertainment
destination location. And in this situation we're going to have
commercial and restaurants on the bay and within walking distance of
the beach. So that will play off those amenities and in itself will
become an attractive center for entertainment. We've been to these
locations. We know how the tourists and the visitors from up north
and even the residents enjoy going to these type of commercial
centers that are on the water.
Now, we did analyze the -- or estimate the volume of traffic that
will be generated by the One Naples. And as Rich Yovanovich
mentioned, One Naples will generate 45 net new trips from this site.
So what you're going to realize is there's only going to be an increase
March 1, 2021
Page 26
of 45 net new trips on Vanderbilt Beach Road because we're going to
remove the amount of traffic that's generated by DaRuMa's, we're
going to remove the amount of traffic that's generated by Beach Box
and some of the other uses that exist there today.
Now, if we develop the site with the commercial uses, the net
new volume of trips will be -- if we develop 100,000 square feet of
restaurants and specialty shops, will generate 404 net new trips on
Vanderbilt Beach Road. That is nine times the volume of traffic that
would be generated by the One Naples project. That means its
impacts are going to be nine times greater than the One Naples
project. Plus, it's traffic that's being brought into the area from east
of 41.
Now, this gives you -- this graphic gives you an example of, if
we didn't -- if we don't -- if the site's not developed with 100,000
square feet and we only 75,000 square feet, it will still generate 299
net new trips, which is still substantially greater than the One Naples
product. If 50,000 square feet's developed, it will generate four
times the amount of traffic that One Naples will generate.
This exhibit shows you the intersections that we analyzed as part
of the operational evaluation of Vanderbilt Beach Road, which we'll
get into in just a minute.
The corridor operation evaluation, it was actually conducted at
the direction of your staff and your third-party transportation
consultant, Jacobs Engineering. We met with your staff. They
outlined the scope of work. They wanted us to collect data for seven
days during peak season conditions, which we did, and they also
made it clear that -- for us to identify what inefficiencies exist there
today that cause congestion, and then develop improvements;
reasonable, practical, feasible improvements that can be implemented
to help remedy the situation down there.
And there were -- all options were on the table. We were told
March 1, 2021
Page 27
to consider roundabouts, pedestrian walkovers, pedestrian mid
blocks, look at improving sidewalks, bike lanes. Anything that we
could identify that could be feasibly achievable, what could we
implement down there that would improve the overall situation at the
corridor.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Banks, excuse me. Just a
question. What do you mean by feasibly attainable? What are the
parameters?
MR. BANKS: We're not going to do an interchange, we know
that, so that's not feasible. Something that would require
right-of-way from other folks, that may not be obtainable. In other
words, where you'd have to condemn property and rights of other
people; that's not feasible. So traffic signals, roundabouts. Even a
roundabout would require some right-of-way acquisition. Pedestrian
walkovers, mid blocks, that's all feasible, achievable improvements.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BANKS: In addition to that, they also asked us to look at
the operational conditions of the beach parking structure and try and
identify what improvements could be made there as well to help with
the congestion. And so what we found -- well, let me back up.
So we did seven days of traffic data collection. We did this by
videotaping the corridor, and we collected the volume of traffic
generated, volume of pedestrians, and the volume of bicycles, plus
we performed several days of field observations during the month of
January and February, and I also met with -- actually sat at the
parking structure and worked with the attendants and seen how that
operates.
And so what we did, after we collected all the data and the field
observations, we identified what are the two leading causes of
congestion down there that occurs during peak season and most often
on the weekends. And, surprisingly, it's not the volume of traffic.
March 1, 2021
Page 28
It's the volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic that is walking across
the intersection at Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road.
In a one-hour period, there were over 400 people or bicyclists
that crossed that intersection. So these pedestrians and these
bicyclists are consuming the vast majority of this intersection's
capacity and causing delay to traffic. And these people aren't -- the
pedestrians aren't crossing in groups of five and 10 at a time.
They're one and two and groups of three. They're carrying coolers
and beach chairs and umbrellas, and they're not crossing the
intersection in an efficient manner. And at times there will be one
person that will -- as they're exiting the crosswalk, the next person
steps on the crosswalk. And so the traffic must stay stopped until
those people clear. And at times -- there's periods of over minutes at
a time where there's just pedestrians that are going through this
intersection, and so the traffic starts to queue up, and it backs up all
the way past Vanderbilt Drive.
And then the second leading cause of the congestion down there
is the way that the parking structure operates. Currently, it's a
pay-as-you-enter system. So that means people -- I've sat down
there and watched with the attendants. They pull up. Some of them
ask how much it is to get in the garage, and then they start digging
around in their pockets or their purses or whatever trying to find the
correct amount of change. They ask what the temperature of the
water is and if it's good for swimming that day and various other
things.
And so this inefficiency about getting people into the parking
structure and paying to park is causing traffic to back out on
Vanderbilt Beach Road. And at times that traffic extends -- there is
an existing left-turn lane that goes into the parking structure. But at
times as traffic backs up, it extends past that left-turn lane, and at
times it extends all the way back to Vanderbilt Beach Drive [sic], and
March 1, 2021
Page 29
that occurs -- when the parking structure reaches capacity, there's no
more available parking spaces, the attendants close the parking
structure, and they wait until 30 spaces become available or 30
minutes has elapsed, whichever occurs first; that's when they open
the parking structure again.
And so there's times when the parking structure is closed for 30
minutes, and the people will -- motorists will sit in their cars in the
road waiting for the parking structure to open back up, and that queue
extends well past Vanderbilt Drive.
So, you know, those are the two leading causes, pedestrian
volume at that intersection and the way the beach structure operates.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Jim, just one quick question.
MR. BANKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What is the queue for
stacking into the parking garage currently?
MR. BANKS: Four to five vehicles.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
MR. BANKS: So what we did is once we had all this data and
this information, we went back to your staff and Jacobs Engineering,
laid all the cards out on the table, we did some -- we did some
pre-analysis before we met back with your staff. I just want you to
know we didn't go off into a dark room and work for six months and
come back and tell your staff, "this is it." We worked with your staff
hand in hand. They would give us a lot of feedback on the direction
they wanted us to proceed, and we discounted -- roundabouts won't
work. I'm not going to get into why, but they won't. The pedestrian
crossings, the mid block, we basically eliminated various options, and
then we were -- then we concluded that by installing a traffic signal at
that intersection at Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt, you're going to -- what
you accomplish by doing that is you're queuing up the pedestrians
just like you queue up vehicles. And this is common practice in
March 1, 2021
Page 30
traffic engineering where you have high-volume intersections is to
install traffic signals.
For one thing it makes it a lot safer for the pedestrians, because
then they get their own dedicated phase. There's not this question of
whether or not I'm getting ready to step in the crosswalk, is this guy
going to stop for me or not? You know, you get that little situation
sometimes where you're not sure if the guy understands, in the state
of Florida, you put your foot in the crosswalk, you're supposed to
stop.
So it gives the pedestrians their own cycle, their own green light
to cross the intersection, and then we stop the pedestrians and start
queuing them up, and then we run the cycles for the motorists. And
so by doing so, you're dedicating a lot more of that intersection's time
to accommodating the motorist, which is not the case today, and we
are queuing up the pedestrians and having them cross in groups.
So that -- that, along with we're going to install a westbound to
right northbound right-turn lane there. With that -- by implementing
those improvements along with sidewalks and bike lanes, we reduce
the delay on Vanderbilt Beach Road by 76 percent.
The backup queue is 76 percent reduced by simply putting that
traffic signal and that right turn and those other improvements I just
mentioned. The delay on Gulf Shore Drive is reduced by 60 percent.
And I'm going to show you a simulation here in just a minute that
gives you the visual of that condition.
Also, as far as the parking structure, we're going to extend that
left-turn lane. We're going to double its queuing capacity.
Hopefully we'll be able to store up to eight to 10 vehicles by
extending that left-turn lane.
We met with your staff on the parking garage. We proposed to
install an automated -- or at least fund the installation of an
automation system for the parking that informs motorists about the
March 1, 2021
Page 31
available parking spots or not, also do a park-and-then-pay situation
or a park-as-you-leave so we don't have this situation where people
are pulling up and we're queuing them out in the road simply because
they can't get in the garage. We're going to get them off the street,
get them in the garage, and then have them pay, either after they park
or as they leave. So that alone is going to make a huge difference.
And then we're also proposing to install variable message signs
along Vanderbilt Beach Road prior to getting to the structure so
people know there's 20 available spaces or there's no available
spaces. That way they can make the decision to go to a different
beach or different parking area.
Real quickly -- I know I'm over my time, but --
MR. YOVANOVICH: You're not.
MR. BANKS: Okay. Currently there's four points of conflict
or four intersections on Vanderbilt Beach Road between Gulf Shore
Drive and South Bay Drive. There's four points of conflict. So
we're going to eliminate some of those access points and realign the
main entrance into One Naples. We're going to line that up with the
parking structure. So we're going to go from four points of conflict
on that short segment of road down to one point of conflict. Now,
that's just good access-management planning.
And we met with your staff. We proposed that to your staff.
They agreed that's the preferred design to minimize the number of
access points to Vanderbilt Beach Road and to be aligned with the
parking structure versus having an offset intersection and have two
points of conflict.
Now, with that said, I do want you to realize that the One Naples
project and the residents that live along South Bay will have three
points of access onto the adjacent road network. So there's not -- it's
not a single point of access onto Vanderbilt or Gulf Shore. There are
options for these residents to choose what access is most convenient
March 1, 2021
Page 32
for them.
In summary, and then we'll do the visual presentation real quick.
Again, both your staff and Jacobs Engineering, very involved in this
entire process we went through, agree with the reports, findings, and
conclusions, and they agreed with the recommended improvements,
and by approving this application, One Naples will generate
substantially fewer trips than what would be generated by the
commercial use. As we spoke, the commercial will generate nine
times the amount of traffic, and it will bring traffic into the area east
of 41.
We also satisfy your adopted criteria on the link-specific
concurrency evaluation. We determined that both Vanderbilt Beach
Road and Gulf Shore Drive will operate at acceptable levels of
service based upon your AUIR report's criteria.
Also, by approving this project, we will be installing the traffic
signal in the right-turn lane, as well as augmenting the sidewalks and
the pedestrian -- the sidewalks and the bike lanes along Vanderbilt
Beach Road as well as along South Bay, and we will realize a
76 percent improvement in traffic flow along Vanderbilt Beach Road
and, based on our modeling, it went from an average
six-mile-per-hour speed, the travel speed along Vanderbilt Beach
Road, to a 15-mile per hour average travel speed. So a substantial
improvement.
And, actually, we really don't want people driving much faster
than 15 miles per hour when we have a lot of pedestrians and
bicyclists in that area. So I think that's the sweet spot we really want
to be at. People feel like they're making progress and they're moving
a fairly decent rate of speed along a corridor that they share with
pedestrians and bicyclists.
And by implementing the beach parking improvements, we
know we're going to gain some real efficiencies there and reduce the
March 1, 2021
Page 33
amount of recurring congestion that's caused by that parking
structure.
This is -- I'm getting ready to show you a simulation of the -- of
the way the corridor looks today and what it's going to be like in the
future. Ted Treesh is here with me today. He's out in the hall. His
firm specializes in running these traffic flow models. His firm runs
them for -- conducts these type of models for governmental agencies
so they can improve their signal times and that type of thing.
I don't know what all that noise is from. But I guess to animate,
we've got the noise of the cars. But anyhow -- now, this is not
traveling at real speed. It's a little faster than what real speed -- real
speed is out there. But as you can see, this model reflects that
volume of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing at Gulf Shore and
Vanderbilt Beach Road, and that's why those vehicles are stopping
there to make that right turn. That is their primary point of conflict
on making that right turn are the peds, not traffic volumes. And so
they'll begin to queue up, and it compounds over time, and eventually
the queue extends past Vanderbilt Drive simply just to make that
right turn.
Now, I'm going to -- I do want to make one thing noted on the
record. Because the way the beach -- the parking structure operates
where they close it, it's a -- it's intermittent, we never know when
they're going to close it and when it's going to be reopened, we
weren't really able to model how the parking structure causes
congestion out on the road. So this simulation does not show those
periods of when the beach parking is closed and vehicles are actually
stopped on Vanderbilt Beach Road. So I do want to make that clear.
This simply shows the congestion caused by the pedestrians crossing
at Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt Beach Road. And, again, you can see
the queue is quite significant.
This is the same traffic that we -- the model that -- the
March 1, 2021
Page 34
simulation I showed before was based on that seven days' collection,
and we were actually modeling the worst hour of the day. By simply
installing the traffic signal at Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt and queuing
up those pedestrians and treating them like traffic versus the
three-way stop situation where they have the ultimate right-of-way no
matter what, you can see what happens is occasionally you queue up
a few vehicles, but then they get their own green light, we stop the
pedestrians, and then they're able to make that right turn. And so
you don't have that domino effect that keeps adding to itself
throughout the day and keeps building and building and building.
We're constantly processing that westbound-to-northbound right turn
movement.
So that concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any
questions if you have any.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I have a question.
MR. BANKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So the traffic numbers that
you have, you kept -- I just want to get some clarification here.
You've said multiple times, and so did Mr. Yovanovich, the
difference between residential and commercial. But in reality, if
One Naples was built, it's really mixed use. It's residential, it's
commercial, it's restaurants, it's all that. So do the numbers take into
account that, okay, they don't just count the 172 units, correct?
MR. BANKS: Right. It's the commercial, which we're only
talking about 10,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right.
MR. BANKS: DaRuMa's and Beach Box, they're offsetting our
commercial numbers, clearly, but -- and our predominant amount of
traffic that is generated from the site is residential in nature.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right.
MR. BANKS: But there is some commercial traffic.
March 1, 2021
Page 35
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But it includes those six
restaurants and all that? Yeah, okay.
When you talked about the intersection at Gulf Shore at
Vanderbilt and the, you know, motion traffic that you just showed
here, so are you proposing to put a light at that intersection --
MR. BANKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- to control them?
MR. BANKS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Had you ever talked to -- and
this isn't directive at all. I'm just, you know -- I'm just spit-balling
here a little bit. Was there ever any talk of some overpass or a
bridge or anything? There was? And the light was the thing that
you settled on as being, you know, more -- a more positive --
MR. BANKS: We looked at everything at that location; the
overpass, the mid-block pedestrian signals, we looked at
roundabouts, we looked at all of them, and for various reasons, they
don't work. The most efficient way to accommodate the traffic at
this location is with the traffic signal, and that is the information that
we presented to your staff, and they agreed with that.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a couple quick questions
in terms of the actual construction if this is approved. How would
construction traffic be handled, and what kind of an impact would
that have on the overall traffic patterns there --
MR. BANKS: Well, construction --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and for how long?
MR. BANKS: Yeah, construction traffic is construction traffic.
It's temporary in nature, and I think we're talking four- to five-year
window, something to that effect. But, yes, we're going to have
construction traffic and --
March 1, 2021
Page 36
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Will there be a designated
construction entrance, and how will that be controlled?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, commissioner, I'm assuming we'll
have to look at either doing something temporary on our property to
keep -- we have to look at South Bay and all that. But we anticipate
that we'll stage -- I know you can't see my finger. We own
these -- we'll own all of this. So we'll stage here first before we do
the corner, but we will work through what's the appropriate
construction traffic to not impact our neighbors, being Barefoot
Pelican and Vanderbilt Palms. But we've got a staging area for us to
be able to put all of our workers there, and if not we'll put them off
site and we'll bring them in. Was that your question, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. I just wanted to make
sure that -- I wanted to have an understanding of how traffic would
be handled with the -- during the construction period.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And maybe -- I don't
know if you can -- this might be --
MR. BANKS: My traffic assistant is here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Well, I just need
specific -- one of the issues that comes along wherever there's an
adjustment -- and this project isn't approved or not -- but a major
issue is the traffic. When -- if you were approved, when will the
light be installed?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We require -- I've got to look back. I
think it's before that. Commissioner, let me -- if you'll give me a
minute, I need to -- I don't want to misspeak. Give me a second. I
have that in my presentation.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Did you say that earlier or --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't. I didn't get to the final, but it's
before we go vertical. It's before we even start going vertical.
March 1, 2021
Page 37
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's all I needed to hear.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. BANKS: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can ask your indulgence. I know
you want to stop at 10:30. So if you don't mind, can we stop now so
Brian doesn't get interrupted in his presentation, and then we can
hopefully finish Brian and myself right after your break and then be
up for questions.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One quick question before we
break.
Going back to the commercial site plan that you showed, can
you clarify for me again what the -- what the setbacks were from both
Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to your -- the required
setback for Vanderbilt and Gulf Shore under the C-3 option would be
25 feet or one-half the sum of the building height, zoned height,
whichever is greater. So since 50 feet is the maximum zoned height,
it will be 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's based --
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not the actual building height,
but that's based upon the zoned building height --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Building height.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and that's the current C-3.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what's allowed?
MR. YOVANOVICH: By right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I do -- I don't know if staff in their
presentation is going to show them their traffic consultant's model,
March 1, 2021
Page 38
but they did actually put on -- at the Planning Commission, they had
their own traffic consultant do a trip generation model as well. I
don't mean to steal their thunder, but it was basically exactly like
Mr. Banks' traffic model. So I don't know if they're showing it or
not. I haven't talked to them about their presentation, but I just
wanted to note that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are we -- Mr. Yovanovich, are we
okay?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we're fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So I think now we'll take a
break. We'll make it, Terri, what do you need, 10 minutes?
THE COURT REPORTER: Ten.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ten minutes. We'll be back at
10:30, thank you.
(A brief recess was had from 10:20 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.)
MR. MILLER: You have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. And -- well,
it was a little faster than most folks expect. We're waiting for
Mr. Yovanovich to come back in.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Going the wrong way. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, that's quite all right.
Mr. Stock, I think you have the floor.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I'm trying to -- Troy, am I going
too fast?
MR. MILLER: No.
MR. STOCK: Hello, Commissioners. Brian Stock from Stock
Development, for the record.
I would like to discuss our company's vision of the property
from the beginning. When the property went for sale for a request
for proposal, we had immediate interest. This request for proposal
meant that the property that had sat there for a long, long time was
March 1, 2021
Page 39
about to be sold and soon be developed.
I felt that from the beginning it was a perfect opportunity for our
company to take the property and make it substantially more
aesthetically appealing than it was in its existing condition.
Now that the piece is about to be developed, I felt that as a local
Naples-based developer, we wanted the opportunity to develop this
highly visible corner that's in our backyard and make it a quality
development that would be beautified with lush landscaping, water
features, and art.
Our vision and commitment has always been to make the
property the best it could be and make it publicly accessible and
appealing.
In evaluating the property, we felt the property was
irreplaceable. Geographically, the property is definitely an A
location. Multiple acres in North Naples west of 71 [sic] with
proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and internal water rarely exist.
We knew the property with the existing C-3 zoning on it could
be successfully developed. It is public record what we paid for it.
We would have never purchased the property if we did not believe
the property could be successfully developed with the C-3
commercial zoning.
As we continue to study the property, we felt great about the
location and having it with the existing zoning; however, we had to
ask ourself if this was the best use of the property for our neighbors
and the community. We asked ourself the same first two questions
we do on any property. One, what is the property surrounded by?
And, two, how does traffic affect the surrounding neighbors and the
community?
The answer to one is that the property is surrounded
predominantly by residential property. We also knew the answer to
two is that commercial property always generates more traffic than
March 1, 2021
Page 40
residential property. Traffic is always the number-one concern by
far and away of any project, and this project is no different. It was
clear early on that this property was more compatible as residential
development than the existing C-3 zoning. Since the acquisition,
there were several buildings on the site that were not the most
aesthetically pleasing. We have removed six buildings on the site
that were not in the best condition. We have one more to remove
that will come down shortly.
Land acquisition. It was clear early on, as much as we felt good
about the site, it was not an easy site to develop at time of closing.
There were many pieces missing that bifurcated the site that made it
noncontiguous. We knew that as many parcels as we could acquire
would only make the property more contiguous and easier to develop
under either residential or commercial use. The seven acquisitions
happened within the first two years after acquiring the main portion
of the property.
We had tried to acquire DaRuMa for years. We offered to build
them a restaurant in our project with covered parking at the end cap
coming down Vanderbilt with the appropriate signage. They ended
up not being interested. A purchase was also explored, however, did
not work out at that time. So we then proceeded with our site plan
around the DaRuMa site.
Neighborhood outreach. Our initial public presentation
unveiling of our residential plan was on May 17th, 2017, at the Ritz.
The project at that time considered [sic] of 18 floors of residential
over 3 floors of parking, 300 units, and a portion of commercial. We
were looking both north and south of the site at a much larger area
geographically for compatibility. There are currently a multitude of
buildings south and east of the Ritz comprising of 19 to 22 stories.
Clearly, hearing the community's concerns, we adjusted our plans in
our zoning application to the county with 16 floors of residential over
March 1, 2021
Page 41
two floors of parking, 240 units, and 25,000 square feet of
commercial.
Keith Gelder from Stock Development and myself then engaged
in an extensive neighborhood outreach program. From our time of
acquisition, between phone calls, individual meetings, group
meetings, and mandatory NIM, we have well over a hundred lines of
communication with the community.
This slide shows almost 50 scheduled meetings typically lasting
between an hour and an hour and a half with 11 different groups
addressing their concerns.
After these meetings, it was time for planning and zoning. We
adjusted our plan to 14 floors over two floors of parking, 172 units,
and 10,000 square feet of commercial. The vote at Planning and
Zoning was split. However, it was clear, five of the six
commissioners voiced their opinion that residential was a better use
than commercial. Although we felt we had satisfied setbacks with
staff at planning and zoning, we were still hearing concerns from the
community.
DaRuMa concept. We reengaged with DaRuMa to purchase
their property recently, even though we felt that we already had a
compatible plan. After many rounds of discussions, we were able to
put DaRuMa under contract. Although we are paying a substantial
over-market value, the acquisition gives us flexibility in our plan to
make adjustments that will be beneficial to the property and the
community regardless of the residential or commercial use.
Here's a summary of the neighborhood outreach. Density.
We've reduced the density of the project three times from the initial
300 to what we presented today at 140 residential units. It was 172
at planning and zoning.
In comparison to the adjacent properties, One Naples has the
lowest density at 22.58 acres versus Barefoot Pelican at 25.8,
March 1, 2021
Page 42
Vanderbilt Palms at 52.8, and Regatta at 23.44.
Height was reduced on the towers four times from the original
concept of 21 to the current proposal of 10 stories over two stories of
parking. In addition, we have reduced the zoned heights of the
mid-rise buildings from 65 to 55. Existing zoning allows for 50.
Massing of the buildings. We altered the design of One Naples
from the initial concept which featured one large building to the new
concept which features two smaller buildings. The new design
breaks up the building massing and provides a minimum of 50 feet
between the structures for improved exchange of air, sunlight, and
view corridors.
Compatibility. There's a total of nine towers of 20-plus stories
within a half-a-mile radius of the project. The height of One Naples
is less than that of the Ritz-Carlton across the street, which measures
215 feet.
Traffic. The 100,000 square feet of C-3 commercial zoning
alternative produces nine times the amount of net new p.m. peak-hour
trips versus the One Naples residential project; 404 net p.m.
peak-hour trips based on 100,000 square feet versus 45 p.m.
peak-hour trips based on 140 residences and 10,000 square feet.
All of the parking for the One Naples residents would be
accommodated on site. The existing number of parallel parking
spaces along Vanderbilt would remain the same. The neighborhood
parking experience will be improved through technology upgrades of
the county parking garage and additional parking garage signage.
Community improvement. We will add enhanced landscape
along Vanderbilt Beach, Gulf Shore Drive, South Bay Drive,
including offsite properties, with new sidewalks to complete
connectivity from the corner, new street lighting for public safety,
and attractive public art. There will also be a new coffee shop/deli
which will be open for the public to enjoy.
March 1, 2021
Page 43
Transportation upgrades. As been mentioned, installation of
the traffic signal at Vanderbilt and Gulf Shore, including a dedicated
right-hand turn onto Gulf Shore Drive along with pedestrian crossing
indicators.
Extension of the left-turn lane into the county garage, also
enhancing technology and signage upgrades to notify the public of
parking availability.
Sidewalks along the east side of Gulf Shore Drive adjacent to
One Naples. An 8-foot-wide multi-use pathway along the north side
of Vanderbilt Beach Road from the terminus from the existing path
of Gulf Shore Drive.
The addition of 10-foot travel lanes, 4-foot bike lanes, and
5-foot sidewalks on both sides of South Bay Drive. The road and
pathways will be open to the public.
Existing drainage. We will be installing a new underground
drainage system including offsite areas to serve the project and the
surrounding communities to better drain the water on South Bay
Drive.
Setbacks. We've increased the numerous setbacks from zero to
10 feet on South Bay Drive. Barefoot Pelican is 27-and-a-half feet
versus the existing building nearby that we had tore down was right
next door. This is half of the mid-rise zoned height. Vanderbilt
Beach Road setback from the residents and Gulf Shore Drive has
gone now from 15 to 25 feet. Building setbacks along both Gulf
Shore and Vanderbilt Beach are now 35 feet, and Center Street
building is from zero to 10.
The marina -- the number of slips with One Naples project
would be reduced under residential use to 75 slips. The C-3
commercial alternative will seek to permit up to 99 slips. The slips
would be sold or leased under One Naples residents.
I'll just walk you through the slides. At time, as far as the
March 1, 2021
Page 44
visuals, just to show the landscape plan and understanding the
concerns of the community with setbacks and landscaping and the
visuals. We've already showed you from five different angles just
the scope and scale and size and how our project fits in with the
neighbors. This will give you a ground-floor view of what the
project would look like positioned in on the piece of property with
the surrounding landscaping.
This is what the visual would be for the majority that are driving
by, walking, or bicycle around the project.
So this is the intersection at Vanderbilt Beach Road and South
Bay facing north. This is at the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach and
South Bay facing west towards the beach. Intersection of Vanderbilt
and South Bay Drive, again, facing west. Project entrance on
Vanderbilt Beach Road. Again, entrance on Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Project entrance at Vanderbilt Beach Road facing west. You
can see all the dense landscaping that would be there in front of -- the
parking garage would be vined and vegetated along with a multitude
of layering of vegetation in front of it so you cannot see the parking
structure.
Here again, this is looking at the parking structure. It
is -- again, the parking structure's vined, and then there's multi-layers
of vegetation in front of it. This is the corner looking back at where
the Beach Box is and looking north of Gulf Shore Drive. Here,
again, same view north. Looking north. This is facing south
coming back to the project. You can see the Ritz and the Remington
in the background.
This is internally on South Bay Drive facing east towards
Barefoot Pelican. This would be the north entrance of the property
coming south on Gulf Shore Court. There would be the entrance
going into the project internally to the two 12-story buildings. South
Bay and Gulf Shore Court face west looking back towards the beach.
March 1, 2021
Page 45
South Bay Drive facing west. This is coming around the corner by
Barefoot Pelican and Vanderbilt Palms facing back towards the Ritz.
And then this is our project looking down. You can
see -- based on the corner from the aerial, you can see what the
buildings look like. The parking structures are hidden, and where
the Beach Box is, is essentially we have a water feature and art on the
corner.
This is the final scale and scope of our project as proposed. As
a company we have always prided ourself with doing the right thing
and being a responsible developer and builder. From the beginning,
we have heard the concerns that there was already too much traffic, it
was too tall, too much mass, not enough setbacks, more beachgoers
to an already overcrowded beach, more boat traffic and water quality,
not enough open space, and not compatible to our neighbors.
We always are extremely sensitive to our neighbors and the
community's concerns. Through the process, I believe you can ask
any of our opposition groups, and they will say that we have always
been accessible, straightforward, and transparent.
Traffic has been, like all projects, by far and away the biggest
concern. It was the main focus on all the early calls with the 11
groups. Clearly, traffic dominated the conversation at all the
voluntary and mandatory neighborhood information meetings. As
the calls progressed and the density and commercial intensity was
reduced and the C-3 zoning was understood, traffic was no longer the
topic of conversation. The calls and meetings then switched to
height, setbacks, open space, and compatibility. We committed to
address the community's concerns. We modified height and density
down multiple times, increased setbacks, made two smaller buildings
instead of one larger building to address massing.
Our project will abide by the Manatee Protection Plan and
regulated by federal and local governments to assure water quality.
March 1, 2021
Page 46
Our boat slips will be reduced to 75 under the residential plan from
99 under the commercial plan.
We would create a destination location of residential users that
would enjoy concierge services that would create an environment to
keep them off the beach versus the commercial development.
We would have full connectivity to the neighborhood with
sidewalks and bike paths that were well lit and densely planted with
lush landscaping to make fit aesthetically please -- to make it
aesthetically pleasing, not to mention the improved drainage.
In addition to the reduced density and commercial square
footage, bike paths and sidewalks would be open to the public. The
traffic signalization and signalized pedestrian of the crossing, the
left- and right-hand turn lanes, parking garage technology upgrades
and signage will significantly improve the flow of traffic. The
transportation model clearly shows our project, as stated, that the
traffic flow would be significantly better after our project is complete
with all the traffic improvements versus the existing conditions there
today.
Open space and the possibility for further development around
our project was satisfied with the DaRuMa acquisition. We feel we
spent a significant amount of time listening and making adjustments
to our project to make it more compatible. This project has been in
the public eye and has brought controversy from the opposition.
We have been extremely transparent about the facts, and you see
exactly what we intend to build: A high quality, luxury residential
community that is highly amenitized resort-like destination
located -- that is lushly landscaped and integrated into the
neighborhood.
Unfortunately, I do not think the opposition has been as
transparent with the facts with its supporters. We never intended to
expose the parking garage wall with no landscaping as it is
March 1, 2021
Page 47
continually depicted in the opposition's renderings. We also show
renderings of our project at the appropriate height from all angles of
the community.
Their renderings with height, landscaping, and at selected angles
do not give a fair representation of what our project would look like
when built. Their scaled model has not represented a good portion
of the largest buildings in Regatta or the buildings south of
Vanderbilt.
I distinctly remember on a call with the opposition stating that
we had satisfied their traffic concerns and that if we could go to a
total of 12 stories, they would support us, as a precedent was already
set around us. At that time, I did not think we could go there. Well,
we are there now.
I was surprised to hear at planning and zoning that the
opposition now supported commercial alternative. For a group that
has been so vocally against traffic to now state they support an
alternative commercial plan that generates nine times the amount of
net p.m. peak-hour traffic is surprising. We were accused of
so-called bribing our neighbors at Vanderbilt Palm and Barefoot
Pelican. I was offended to hear that. As they approach us to ask
that we work with them, as the directly adjacent neighbors, and asked
us to integrate their communities to make them feel like they were a
part of our project. We never considered approaching them with
improvements to their properties in trade for their vote.
They came to us with a list to consider for us to work with them
to be neighborly and to protect and improve their properties. We
settled on a portion of the list that we felt was reasonable, as they are
directly impacted adjacent to our site. We did not get accused of
that by others not so directly impacted when we were asked by them
to reduce the density and the height, increase setbacks and
landscaping, increase open space, and improve traffic.
March 1, 2021
Page 48
I have been disappointed by the amount of people showing
opposition to this project; however, when I see the information they
are presented, then I understand.
I appreciate all of the feedback that the community has given. I
want you to know that we sincerely listened and care about the
concerns. Although I realize many of the property -- many want the
property to stay in the existing condition and never be developed, the
reality is that it's going to be developed, and there are two options. I
can assure you that either way it will be a quality development.
Has any of the opposition supporters asked their leadership why
they now support an alternative commercial use that generates nine
times the amount of traffic? The traffic is smaller in scope and scale
than I initially envisioned; however, I feel really good that we had
worked with the community and ended where we did.
Our original vision of a primarily residential community that
complements and is -- and compatible with the community is clearer
now than ever. If you want to protect -- if you want a project with
less traffic and noise, protects property values, and integrates into the
neighborhood, vote the proposed One Naples.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Mr. Stock, I just have a
question for you, if I could, if you'd come back to the podium.
I've been out to that site a lot, even well before this was talked
about, before I was sitting in this seat. And one of the big
chokepoints -- and you briefly mentioned it, but I really want you to
go on record, and I want to hear the details. But one of the big
chokepoints I think is the county parking garage. I mean, a lot of
cars get queued back there. And you talked about some upgrades.
You know, I read them and whatnot, but I think just for the sake
of the record, if you could go over what you are -- what you have
March 1, 2021
Page 49
promised to do, what the timeline would be and those things. And I
realize this isn't the biggest heavy-lifting piece. But if traffic is the
biggest thing, our own parking garage creates quite a bit of traffic.
So could you summarize what you intend to do and when that would
start?
MR. STOCK: Yeah. When we analyzed that and our traffic
consultants looked at that, we got three different proposals, because
there was stacking at the parking garage, and by putting a left-hand
turn lane in there and internally stacking versus, like Jim had
mentioned, stacking outside and the rotation of the bottleneck that's
there, just by automated internally, we suggested by three different
consultants, and we gave the recommendation or proposals to the
county that -- on our dime that we would pay for it, because it would
significantly, as Jim mentioned, improve the traffic flow. So we're
prepared. Whatever option that the county deems the best solution
for that -- and there was three of them -- to internalize the parking
and the traffic in the ticketing inside to take the traffic out of the road.
It's our obligation, as you see further in this presentation, that we'll
pay for it, and we'll install it, just like the traffic light, before we go
vertical on the project.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Much like the light, it would
be -- if all this got approved, would be sooner -- it would be towards
the beginning --
MR. STOCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- not afterwards? Okay.
MR. STOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So would it be similar to
what we see on Fifth Avenue and those parking garages there, the
counting and the numbers? And I know it's more than that because,
I mean, I read everything. But if you would just summarize for
maybe the people that are watching that, you know, don't have all the
March 1, 2021
Page 50
detail, what would it be?
MR. STOCK: Yeah, just the same thing. And I'm not
familiar -- that familiar with the parking structure there, but I know
we analyzed other sites that successfully put the automation inside
the parking structure, and it significantly, as Jim reflected in his
presentation, improved the flow, because you're, again, stacking
internally and you're paying as you go, paying when leave, not
stacking and paying and waiting for people based on timing of
getting into the parking ramp.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. A couple -- well, a couple of
questions, Mr. Stock, whether it's you or Mr. Yovanovich, either
way. I just have a couple things, because you mentioned that on the
commercial option, you'd be looking for 99 slips, and it would be a
commercial marina open to the public.
MR. STOCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And so would there be a -- and I
had heard some reference to a ship store.
MR. STOCK: Yeah. There's a small ship store proposed and,
as you mentioned, yes, it's just a small square footage that could be
available for people coming up to the project, because even with the
One Naples, the intent was to privatize all of those slips and be
available for the residents that live as a residential use; however,
there are a couple transient slips as far as in our plan, and we're
keeping the public gas tanks that are currently there, and they would
remain.
However, we believe -- you know, we would be building the
docks, and we feel the demand we could -- we could reduce the
amount of total slips under the residential use. However, developed
as an entertainment district with restaurants and retail and shops, we
March 1, 2021
Page 51
feel there will be substantially more demand that people, the public
would want to come in, and so then we would build it to the full 99
slips, because that would be a way of accessibility for people by boat
to come up to the public accessibility entertainment district.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And so there are -- and I'm
not familiar with the ship store because I've never had a boat, but --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good for you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Apparently, I have one now. That
the ship store on the residential side or option, would that be open to
the public as well?
MR. STOCK: It would be.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It would be.
MR. STOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But it would be -- and there's
already gas tanks there?
MR. STOCK: Yes, there's a fueling station.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And people can purchase gasoline?
MR. STOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is it open right now?
MR. STOCK: It's being refurbished. I guess there was some
issues with Irma with it, but it was --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All right. But there's a ship store
there now?
MR. STOCK: There is not a ship store. It would be part -- it's
just a small little, like, 1,500 -- 1,000, 1,500 square foot just open to
the public where there's just miscellaneous clothing and things for the
marina and for boaters.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And the 75 slips on the
residential option would be dedicated and leased or sold or whatever
you would do with them to -- specifically only to residents?
MR. STOCK: Yes, with the exception, I think -- what is there?
March 1, 2021
Page 52
I believe there's three transient slips --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. STOCK: -- for the public to come up and fuel their boats
there.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. STOCK: But the majority of the docks all would be for
private use for residents of One Naples project.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That's all I have. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I don't really want
to put you on the spot if you don't know the answer, because a lot of
what has been represented screams of lack of infrastructure to me for
the quality of life for the people that are already here. And maybe
it's later in your presentation. But what is the cost of the extension
of the left-turn lane, the automation of the parking lot, and the
parking traffic signal?
MR. STOCK: We have the detail of that, and Rich in his
presentation, when he comes up, will -- the total's a million 750, and
the details of that for public use, Rich will go through the line-item
details of what that is.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
MR. STOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, one of the things I neglected
to say in my opening comments is under your Growth Management
Plan, this property is not supposed to be commercial. When the
Growth Management Plan was adopted in 1989, this was not
identified as a commercial parcel. It was allowed to remain as a
commercial parcel under your consistent-by-policy determination
because there was existing commercial on it.
March 1, 2021
Page 53
Your hope was by adopting a 16-unit-per-acre residential
conversion that the property would convert from commercial to a
residential option.
Now, I'm sure you're aware that most projects in Collier County
that had existing commercial have not taken advantage of that
16-unit-per-acre conversion because it did not make economic sense
at 16 units per acre to give up the commercial option.
So one of the important things to remember is when the
neighbors are saying they want commercial, that really is inconsistent
with the intent of what this parcel is supposed to be, and that's
because most of the uses around us are, in fact, residential uses.
So you've heard a lot of -- you've heard a lot of commitments
through our presentation, and I want to just summarize those. We
are going to reduce our density to 140 residential dwelling units,
which reduces the trip cap to 132 two-way p.m. peak-hour trips. We
will design and install the traffic signal and a separate westbound
right-turn lane. We will design and install a left-turn lane into the
Collier County parking garage. We will design and install enhanced
technology, whatever the county decides they want that technology to
be, including signage that lets people know as they're getting closer
to the garage that it's either already full or there's 12 spaces left.
That's at our expense.
We will design and install improvements to South Bay, which
includes removal of roadside swale and installing an enclosed
drainage system. We're -- construction of 10-foot travel lanes,
4-foot bike lanes, and 5-foot sidewalks. We'll design and install a
sidewalk along the east side of Gulf Shore adjacent to the project.
We'll design and install an 8-foot-wide multiuse pathway along the
north side of Vanderbilt. We'll design and install and maintain
enhanced landscaping, which we've shown you. We will design and
install and maintain enhanced landscaping in adjacent rights-of-ways.
March 1, 2021
Page 54
That's all part of your landscape maintenance agreement.
There will be no vertical construction to the Mixed-Use Trac1 1,
which is where the two towers are. I'm sorry?
MR. GELDER: Go to the next slide.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I'm reading and -- sorry.
We will not -- there will be no vertical construction on that tract
until -- there's going to be -- there's some easements -- utility
easements that there need to be some relocates, and we've agreed that
we can't go vertical until we relocate the utilities and give the county
the appropriate easements. We are going to locate Gulf Shore Court
so it now lines up with your parking garage instead of where it is.
And with the DaRuMa parcel, we have basically -- I'm just
going to read it into the record. It says, the development of One
Naples -- of the One Naples project is conditioned upon the existing
DaRuMa restaurant being demolished prior to the commencement of
vertical construction of the One Naples project.
Upon demolition of the existing DaRuMa restaurant, the
DaRuMa parcel, as legally described in Exhibit H -- we've provided
this to your staff -- will initially be used for construction, staging, or
parking. After completion of the One Naples development, the
DaRuMa parcel shall be utilized as an open-space amenity for One
Naples.
The following uses will be permitted on the DaRuMa parcel:
Hardscape and landscape areas, restrooms, shade structures, fire pits,
grills, bocce ball courts, putting green, fountains, and gazebos,
utilities, stormwater, sidewalks, ingress and egress and infrastructure
facilities as may be required to support One Naples, and low-level
lighting fixtures are permitted.
The following uses are prohibited: Clubhouses, tennis courts,
pickleball courts, swimming pools, residential or commercial
development.
March 1, 2021
Page 55
It's intended to be a parklike amenity for One Naples. We think
that benefits the overall community because they will now drive by
and see this parklike area. It's additional open space above and
beyond what's required under the Land Development Code, and we
think it's a tremendous enhancement to the overall project.
I went through, under the existing zoning, the traffic
signalization doesn't occur, the parking garage technology doesn't
occur, the South Bay landscaping doesn't occur, the sidewalks don't
occur in South Bay, the drainage improvements don't occur, the street
lighting off site don't occur, and the bike lines off site don't occur.
As Brain mentioned, the improvements -- the cost of those
improvements are estimated on this slide. The traffic signal's about
a half a million dollars. The garage technology is about another
$250,000. Landscape upgrades, utility upgrades. All of that totals a
million 750. So the road vacation petition is not a free -- a freebie to
Mr. Stock. He is incurring a million $750,000 in expenses.
We've looked at what's the ad valorem tax value of the property
under the commercial alternative or the residential alternative.
Using the Venetian Village as a comp, it's about $300,000 annually in
ad valorem taxes under the commercial option.
Based upon 140 residential dwelling units, the overall ad
valorem tax generated from the residential alternative is a little over
$3.6 million. So there's an annual difference in tax revenue of
almost $3.3 million between the two different options.
We have support from our neighbors. Judy Dugan, who I think
is going to speak, that's Buzz's Lighthouse. She's been there for over
50 years. She's supporting our project. Barefoot Pelican
Condominium Association voted to support our project. That
doesn't mean there aren't individual unit owners. We understand
that. But the overall vote of the community was to support the
project. Likewise, Vanderbilt Palms voted to support the project.
March 1, 2021
Page 56
So when you look -- you look at what's around us, you see our
project and our closest neighbors, and they're supporting the project.
They recognize that that's the best alternative based upon the facts as
they're truthfully portrayed.
Troy, I'm going to need your help. Can you play -- this is the
real project.
(A video was played as follows:)
"Presenting One Naples, a brilliant residential vision that doesn't
reinvent a neighborhood but complements its legacy. Located at the
corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive, this
first-class community is envisioned by Stock, a trusted local
family-owned developer.
"One Naples, better than the commercial alternative, better for
traffic, better for Naples, and the responsible choice by the
award-winning Stock Development.
"Learn more at OneNaples.com."
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, that's Brian's vision for
this project. As I started the presentation, you have options:
Commercial, which is the existing zoning. That's by right. Don't
ever see us again. We'll just go forward with a Site Development
Plan; never see us again on this piece of property. I didn't want to
encourage you to --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was going to say, that's a bonus.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But we'll go forward -- we'll go forward
on the commercial alternative or the site plan that includes DaRuMa's
and improves the overall community.
The benefits of the project are residential uses are compatible
and complementary. Bob took you through that, in his expert
opinion. There's plenty of documentation in the backup materials.
But when you look at what are -- what's the density around us,
we are clearly consistent with the density around us and, frankly,
March 1, 2021
Page 57
we're on the lower end of the density around us.
And I want to point out, your staff, both zoning and Growth
Management Plan staff, are supporting a density of 172 units per
acre. They have determined that that's compatible and
complementary. We're at 140, so we've further reduced the number.
As I mentioned, the Growth Management Plan does not really
want commercial to be here. There's no question that One Naples
will enhance the area. Those differences in traffic, I think, are
staggering. It's nine times the amount of traffic if you do the
commercial option in the peak hour. And I -- and I miscalculated
the number. Jim had it at 600 net trips on a 24-hour basis versus I
had said something a little over 800. It's really eight times more
traffic in a 24-hour period if you go with that option.
Our traffic improvements are a million 750. The ad valorem
taxes is a very big difference. And I think, most importantly, Brian
here -- been here 20 years. He's been here 20 years developing in
Collier County. He cares about his reputation, and he is committed
to this being a first-class development.
So let's go back to the survey. Compare One Naples to the C-3
option. Quality of life in Collier County is important to me. Brian
agrees, strongly agrees. The One Naples option is the best option for
quality of life.
Smart growth. One Naples is the better growth option for the
property.
Adequate infrastructure. There's no question that Brian's
project is better from an infrastructure standpoint than the C-3 option.
Beach availability. There's going to be far less bodies on that
beach with a residential option than if you had a commercial
attractor, because the beach is a great amenity. Go to the beach,
come enjoy the restaurants, go back to the beach.
Clean beaches. I think that's the same choice. It's a much
March 1, 2021
Page 58
better option under the One Naples.
This one confused me: Red tide and erosion control is
important to me. Well, I think it's important to everybody, but we
think that, clearly, the One Naples project has nothing to do with red
tide and has nothing to do with erosion control and is the better
option.
Green space in Collier County is important to me. There is no
green space requirement under the C-3 option. What we've shown
you is a much better open-space option for the residents.
Manatee and environmental protection. We've always been
committed to following the Manatee Protection Plan. We have to
follow the Manatee Protection Plan. We're willing -- we qualify for
99 units under the Manatee Protection Plan. We're willing to
commit to 75.
Neighborhood consistency. It's residential all around us.
There are towers all around us. We are consistent with that.
Hurricane evacuation. We have provided what Dan Summers
says is the adequate hurricane mitigation for this piece of property.
Dan Summers knows hurricanes in Collier County far better than any
expert they may put up there to talk about hurricane evacuation.
Traffic management. They have that a couple of times.
Traffic is important to us, and we think our improvements clearly
address that traffic concern.
Developer should be able to amend the Comp Plan for their
benefit. I started at the beginning; it was it depends. For the right
project, we should be allowed to amend the Comprehensive Plan, and
we're convinced that we have the right project to amend the
Comprehensive Plan that we're proposing.
And we agree that commissioners always vote for residents' best
interest. That's what you're here to do, to look at what's the best
option.
March 1, 2021
Page 59
I started with the truth matters, and we still believe the truth
matters. When you look at all the real facts, we believe that the One
Naples project is the right project for this area, fits in with the
community, is what the community really wants to see happen on this
property.
And with that, we thank you for your time, and we are available
to answer any questions you may have that you haven't already
asked, or we'll continue. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. A couple of questions that
have been posed to me by residents in -- within the Vanderbilt area
and otherwise.
At 140 units, how many parking spaces are going to be in the
garage? There's -- and I'll tell you why I'm asking that question.
There is a concern that there won't be enough parking -- and maybe
this is a better question for staff as well. I was going to ask staff this
question.
But the parking calculation is based upon the number of units.
I've never heard of us approving a condominium development where
people had to park on the street because there wasn't enough parking
within a condominium development. But I just want to get on the
record, how many parking spaces are we going to have in the garage?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you know the number?
MR. MULHERE: Don't know the exact number.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Then the answer is, all of our parking is
going to be within our parking lot.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to ask my architect during the
break, how many parking spaces do you anticipate to be under the
building -- the buildings to meet parking, but we're not using the
streets.
March 1, 2021
Page 60
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's all on site.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's all on site; good.
The other issue that's come up -- and I believe Mr. Pires is here.
Stock has committed to two buildings, correct? There's going to be
two buildings, not one building?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. This. Yes,
this is the option. You have a -- I'm getting coached. Yes, you can
see on the visualizer there are two buildings. They are a minimum
of 50 feet apart and, as we've said, we have the setbacks that's the
minimum at the closest point for both of those buildings at 35 feet.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. The Regatta has two
buildings, correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: They do. And --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: How far apart are the Regatta
buildings? Does anyone know?
MR. YOVANOVICH: They are 15 feet apart for their -- their
10-over-two towers. You can see it. You can see that there's
not -- there's not much space between their multifamily buildings.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If I can, I'd like staff to confirm
that for me when staff presents.
MR. YOVANOVICH: When they present?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Let me just make sure that
I've got all my questions answered here. Oh, going back to the
commercial option, the structures on Vanderbilt and Gulf Shore, they
would be varying heights? There would be more than -- there would
be one-story, two-story, three-story?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be between two and three
stories on those --
March 1, 2021
Page 61
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Three stories. The three stories
would be how high as of right under C-3?
MR. YOVANOVICH: They're C-3. The minimum --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The zoned height?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The zoned height is 50 feet. And I'm
starting at about 21 feet. So I'm at 70-plus feet under -- before I put
the roof on it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And the top of the parking
garage structures on the residential proposal is how high?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 30 feet with a clear balcony -- I'm
sorry -- railing, if you looked at that. So it would be 30 feet with a
setback of 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And the first floor of the
parking, because it's parking is at --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's below -- it's at --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. We're not talking about 35
plus the FEMA --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 30 feet actual. It's an actual --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It starts at road level?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Nothing else for now.
Thanks.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, ma'am. Let me -- I need to clarify
something I said. They were -- the Regatta was approved at a
15-foot separation but was constructed at a 30-foot separation.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thirty, okay. And the
commitment here is two buildings, 50 feet apart?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Minimum of 50 feet apart.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Minimum of 50 feet apart.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Sir, the 1.75 million that
March 1, 2021
Page 62
you've committed to for the light and the upgrades to the county's
parking garage, is that regardless of what gets approved today, if it's
commercial or residential? That's only tied if it's residential?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The -- if I didn't say it clearly enough,
that's only a residential improvement. There's no -- interestingly
enough, we meet the traffic concurrency standards for the 100,000
square feet without doing any of those related traffic improvements.
So none of the traffic improvements will be -- will be constructed as
part of the commercial option.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So if the commercial option
generates nine times the amount of traffic, why wouldn't we be doing,
like, way more aggressive things to attack the traffic? What am I
missing?
MR. YOVANOVICH: You're missing because we meet the
level-of-service standard with the additional traffic and don't have to
do any of those improvements as part of a commercial option.
We've elected, as part of our residential option, to do all of those
improvements because we've committed to addressing transportation
concerns as part of the residential option. So we're above and
beyond what would be required under the traffic review, so...
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But if commercial got
approved and traffic was nine times worse, then you wouldn't be
attacking any of that increased problem. It would be something that
probably falls back on the county, because we couldn't ignore it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the county would have to decide
whether it wants to make those improvements or not make those
improvements.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, we'd have to do
something, because that's a pretty huge jump, I would think. And
right now there's traffic problems there at times, but -- okay. No,
you've clarified it. Thank you.
March 1, 2021
Page 63
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just to Commissioner Solis,
which was more a point of clarification. You said multiple times
two buildings. I think there's more than two buildings. There's two
towers.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sorry, two towers.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's no sorries. I just -- I
wanted to make sure your question that I was understanding has to do
with the 10-over-two towers, not the total amount of buildings.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. No, no. There was a
concern -- and I think Mr. Pires is here -- that there could be just one
big tower instead of two towers, and I see two towers on the --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- on the exhibits, so I just wanted
to make sure that that's abundantly clear in the record that it is two
towers 50 feet apart minimum.
MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no question, and it's in our
Development Standards Table for the PUD that they have to have
two towers and they have to be separated by two -- but we have a
total of five residential buildings, but --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for the towers there's a requirement
that it be 50 feet apart.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No more questions. I believe -- have
you finished, Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I believe staff has a -- some
questions for you, sir, if you'd --
MR. YOVANOVICH: For me?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- remain at the podium.
March 1, 2021
Page 64
MS. JENKINS: For Bob.
Good morning, Commissioners, Anita Jenkins, Zoning Director,
for the record.
And I just have a couple of questions for Mr. Mulhere, actually.
Bob, just to clarify, from the time that we saw this application
from the Planning Commission, do you recall the date that you
resubmitted this application to staff?
MR. MULHERE: You mean after the Planning Commission?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir.
MR. MULHERE: I don't think there was a re-submittal after
the Planning Commission. I don't think so. I think the one -- 1/6 is
what I believe was the last.
MS. JENKINS: Okay. I have a date of January 5th. Would
you trust me if I told you that?
MR. MULHERE: That's the one.
MS. JENKINS: Great. So in that re-submittal do you recall
what the height of the towers were at that time?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I don't have it in front of me, but I
trust you have it in front of you.
MS. JENKINS: Would you trust me if I told you it was 186?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, that sounds exactly right.
MS. JENKINS: Okay. And since that time, have you
submitted anything to staff that you're presenting to the Board this
morning on the heights and the setbacks?
MR. MULHERE: No.
MS. JENKINS: So staff has not reviewed any of the
information? We're getting it all new with the Board today --
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
MS. JENKINS: -- is that correct?
MR. MULHERE: Correct. That's the reduction from 12 over
two to 10 over two, yes.
March 1, 2021
Page 65
MS. JENKINS: Okay. And it sounded also like you made
some changes to setbacks --
MR. MULHERE: Density.
MS. JENKINS: -- and other development standards that staff
has not reviewed?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
MS. JENKINS: Is that accurate?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
MS. JENKINS: Thank you. Also at the Planning Commission
on November 5th, on Page 111, you made a commitment or an
agreement at that time to remove a condition that you had in there or,
rather, a deviation for a DR process; do you recall the DR process?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes.
MS. JENKINS: And when staff reviewed the PUD that you
resubmitted, that condition was still in there. Would you agree to
remove that?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
MS. JENKINS: Also, you agreed at that time to a Type B
buffer along the waterfront if you do not build a building.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
MS. JENKINS: And that is still in there.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
MS. JENKINS: Would you agree today to remove that?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
MS. JENKINS: Okay. Also, Mr. Mulhere, is DaRuMa in the
PUD ordinance that is before the Board today?
MR. MULHERE: It is not.
MS. JENKINS: And how do we calculate density in a PUD?
MR. MULHERE: We calculate density based on the gross
acreage.
MS. JENKINS: And so based on the gross acreage of the PUD,
March 1, 2021
Page 66
what is the gross acreage of the PUD?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We didn't calculate it.
MS. JENKINS: 5.42. And so based on that, how we calculate
density in a PUD, what would the density be?
MR. MULHERE: I've got to do the math. I don't have --
MS. JENKINS: Would you trust if it's 25.8?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
MS. JENKINS: Not 22.5 that you've represented today?
MR. MULHERE: That lower number clearly includes
DaRuMa, which we stated when we stated the number.
MS. JENKINS: Okay. Just for the record, Commissioners, we
do not calculate density based on property that's outside of a PUD
that's in front of you today. So the density that they're presenting
today would be based on that PUD, would be 25.8 with 140 units.
And that's all the questions I have.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask Ms. Jenkins a couple
questions since she asked questions?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course.
MS. JENKINS: I don't think that's the order today. I think the
order today is staff gets to ask questions of the applicant, and then
they can ask afterwards.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. That's fine.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm happy to wait.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so now we have staff's
presentation, I believe.
MS. JENKINS: Troy, it doesn't look like -- it's minimized.
Troy, I don't see the staff's presentation minimized down here.
MR. MILLER: It was not in the folder on the I drive.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Jenkins, did you find it?
MR. MILLER: You found it?
MS. JENKINS: I thought you were driving.
March 1, 2021
Page 67
MR. MILLER: I was driving. Oh, there you go. Is that the
one you want?
MS. JENKINS: That's it, yeah. We're Growth Management
Department. Thank you.
Again, Commissioners, Anita Jenkins, for the record. I'm going
to just begin this on behalf of staff. We have lots of experts here as
well.
But, again, today we're talking about a right-of-way vacation, a
Growth Management Plan amendment, a rezone, and a landscape
maintenance agreement. The right-of-way vacation, you did set the
hearing for today but a resolution earlier in January. So that date is
set for today in accordance with state statutes.
So as I just mentioned, we have not seen what was just
presented to you, so our presentation is going to be very confusing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Ms. Jenkins, I think it's
untoward that as of Friday no one has seen the presentation of the
applicant. I find it extraordinary that staff has not had time to review
it, and I feel that there needs to be a continuation of this issue until
you've had such time because, as you just spoke, this is confusing.
It's very confusing to me. I'm going through this thinking -- and you
asked the questions I was going to ask.
So I'd like to see if there's support among my colleagues to
continue this until such time that Ms. Jenkins has an opportunity and
her staff to review the changed PUD, the changed dimensions. It's
critical.
How can we deliberate? How can we depend on staff when
they first just saw it? I saw Mr. Sabo looking and copying down
back there as this was being presented.
So I'm here to -- here to see what the wish of my colleagues are
based on the confusing representation as admitted by staff for this
issue.
March 1, 2021
Page 68
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Ms. Jenkins, did you -- did I
see that there was an approval of this project as was previously
presented?
MS. JENKINS: We are recommending approval, and the
zoning was based on conditions, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As previously presented?
MS. JENKINS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, again, given the fact
that you haven't had an opportunity to review with specificity the
adjustments, could I -- would I be incorrect that the adjustments are
nothing other than a benefit to what has already been approved by
staff?
MS. JENKINS: So it appears that they're coming closer in the
height.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Closer to what?
MS. JENKINS: Closer to the staff's recommendation in height.
We began at 208, what was resubmitted was 186, and I believe
they're at 165 now. So staff's recommendation was 125. So we can
see that they are responding and reducing the height.
There was a lot of information on different setbacks that -- I
didn't catch all of those. So, you know, we're not responding to the
setbacks. Although we will recognize that that setback along Gulf
Shore and Vanderbilt at 25 feet, they have made that adjustment.
So I don't know what other changes are made. We would want
a commitment in the PUD to these changes to perhaps come back on
consent agenda for review. Also, we would want commitments to
two towers in the PUD.
All of these commitments that I'm hearing today we have not
reviewed. And as we recognized recently, that sometimes we hear
commitments made before you at the Board or ideas made to you
March 1, 2021
Page 69
before the Board, but if it's not in the PUD, then staff can't go back to
look at minutes and records of what commitments were made. So
unless it's in the PUD document, we can't say that it is a commitment.
So we need to see it in the ordinance itself to evaluate that as a whole.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: In the ordinance itself or
within the PUD doc?
MS. JENKINS: It's one and the same.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, Anita, you just said that the
staff -- based upon the prior submittal, staff was in agreement
with -- or recommending 125?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And at that submittal, the submittal
was, I think you said, 165.
MS. JENKINS: Eighty-six.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A hundred and eighty-six?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And now we're being told that the
commitment is 129?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: One sixty-five.
MS. JENKINS: One sixty-five.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well --
MS. JENKINS: Actual.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. I mean --
MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer -- remember, there's two
measurements. There's the zoning height measurement where --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: He asked me. He asked me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. I think the question is being
directed to staff.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, but I would like to hear his
March 1, 2021
Page 70
response, because I want to make sure that we're clear on -- I mean,
this whole issue is about let's make clear on the record what's being
agreed to and what's being suggested. So I would like to hear --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Have you finished with your
questions for Ms. Jenkins right now?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- on that question. I have other
questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Could you just ask her? I
think we need to keep some kind of order here. I think Ms. Jenkins
has had great patience with this presentation, and I think she deserves
to be respected in her response.
Ms. Jenkins.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So I just heard you refer to
and recognize that they have agreed to a further setback to 25 feet.
MS. JENKINS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that was what was the staff's
recommendation as it was previously proposed?
MS. JENKINS: Correct, on Gulf Shore --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Twenty-five.
MS. JENKINS: -- and Vanderbilt.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It was 25?
MS. JENKINS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So they've essentially
agreed to what staff was recommending?
MS. JENKINS: Yeah. That one was a little bit different,
Commissioner, in that we had the commercial issue that I'll go over
with you. But, yes, they are setting that back to 25 feet, which
would be what would be required with C-3 today.
So we have no concerns about that.
March 1, 2021
Page 71
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MS. JENKINS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: In terms of the traffic analysis that
was presented, have you reviewed the traffic analysis that was
presented today?
MS. JENKINS: I have not, but I don't know that --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Staff?
MS. JENKINS: -- our staff has as well, and I would let our
other transportation staff speak to traffic issues.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Okay. Can you explain
how the parking calculation is done for determining how much
parking a development -- a condominium development -- how that's
calculated? I just want there to be an explanation on the record of
how parking calculations are done, because I've heard several
residents suggest that there wouldn't be enough parking somehow
within the structure for the people that live there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, that's a great
question, but I think right now we're dealing with the question of
whether staff is even going to continue presentation today.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So with all due respect, I'm sure
you'll be able to answer it later, but I think the question at hand is for
staff on what they said is --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, she's already just said that
they haven't seen it, so I'm -- I either get to ask my questions or I
don't. I mean, I'd like to ask my questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. You will be able to, sir, but
perhaps this isn't the appropriate time.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: This is staff's presentation, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. It's a question of whether we're
going to continue this or not.
March 1, 2021
Page 72
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Did you make a motion,
Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me. Excuse me. I allowed
some discussion at this point, sir, and this is what this discussion is.
I want to keep focus on this discussion, and then at some -- when we
talk about -- you had questions for staff. I have three other
commissioners lined up to speak, and then I will make a motion.
But, specifically, it is your concern, which I assumed was going
to be, that staff feels confident -- I'm sure they do, but that there is
enough confusion to say that perhaps it would be better to continue
this. And I think I'd like to keep that laser focused for this
discussion right now. And if there isn't the support to continue this,
then staff will present, and we'll all be able to ask questions.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Then -- okay. So my
understanding was that staff was going to make their presentation.
You've raised the issue of whether or not it should be continued.
Why don't you make a motion, and then we'll decide whether or not
it's going to be continued.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I'll take that into concern.
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I am going to laser focus
your question.
We're all here to do the right thing. I think that to have staff to
be able to do their due diligence is important and to do a complete
review but, by your own admission, the -- and you don't want say the
small changes, but there are some new additional things. But it's not
the heavy-lifting piece -- still important. We want 100 percent
review. So if you've reviewed whatever the percentage is, 90, and
we have 10 percent, it's critical. I'll say that's important. But by
your own admission, you said the new things that have come
in -- and, yeah, you're wagging -- you know, you're just saying off the
March 1, 2021
Page 73
top of your head, Stock's come closer to -- you know, so we didn't
hear new worse things but, still, that doesn't mean you're going to sit
there from the podium and make a -- you know, an assessment or
whatnot.
But I think there's no reason to stall anything. I mean, you've
got a lot of people out here that haven't been heard yet. So if the
staff needs to -- you know, like you said, Madam Chair, if you need
to make a motion or something, that's another thing. But just for
open conversation here, I think the small pieces that you need to take
a look at are only going to improve the Stock Development side. I
don't know what it's going to do to the other side. But I don't think
we've -- and I don't know if this is what you're implying, that we stall
everything here; we don't even get to hear the other side of
the -- what the citizens' concerns are until staff comes back at a later
date having, you know, analyzed the small pieces that are new.
Even if they are, you know, critical, they seem like they're leaning
more towards the positive.
But, you know, if you're just asking for, like you said, a laser
focus, I would just say, there's enough here to continue, and if the
staff needs to look over some things at lunch or we need to come
back for that little piece, that will be a motion. But I would disagree
to stall anything. I think we've got enough meat on the bone, and
we're making great progress here. I think we continue. And if in
the end we don't think we've got everything, you know, then we make
that determination. That's what I would -- that would be my
position.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a quick question, and I'll
comment on the continuance as well. The staff recommendation was
for approval with the exception that the building height be no more
March 1, 2021
Page 74
than 125 feet. So the original petition was acceptable to staff except
for the height issue.
MS. JENKINS: And some setbacks.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And some setbacks. So the
petitioner has solved the setback issue, I believe; is that correct?
MS. JENKINS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So we're left with,
from your perspective, a problem with the height. That's still an
issue.
So the issue of the DaRuMa parcel being included, it seems to
me that that's easy to work out in terms of the documentation. It
seems to me that all of this actually enhances the project better than
what you had already recommended for approval with the exception
of the height. And in reference to the height issue, that's something,
obviously, we can deal with when and if the vote on the project
comes up.
Am I missing something here? We're still talking about the
height issue.
MS. JENKINS: Yes. And the confusion, when I say there's
confusion, there's going to be confusion in staff's presentation
because staff's presentation is based on what was submitted. So I
don't want to confuse --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Understood.
MS. JENKINS: -- the public that this is what is presented by
the applicant now, what we have on our slide, because it was
submitted earlier.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. So the confusion that
you're having is just melding into your presentation or at least
reacting to what has been improvements to the application?
MS. JENKINS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Based on that, I don't see any
March 1, 2021
Page 75
reason to continue this as well. We've got hundreds of people that
are ready to proceed, and we have one -- it seems to me we have one
issue for staff to continue to discuss, and that's the height issue. So I
would oppose any continuance.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Forgive me earlier. I just
was -- we'd gone off on a different track when I started asking
questions, and your laser focus on the discussion of continuance or
not went down a different path, so -- and I might have led that charge,
so forgive me.
I have a question for Anita, if I may, with regard to the height.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And in -- and, again, as a
point of clarification, staff's representation of 125 feet, is that zoned
or actual?
MS. JENKINS: Actual.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. So that's a --
MS. JENKINS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I think at this point there's no
support for continuance.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so I think that with your
indulgence, Commissioner Solis, we'll ask staff to present, and then
we'll be open for questions. And, Commissioner Solis, you will be
the first one to ask the questions.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome.
MS. JENKINS: So if it would be appropriate, we could break
for lunch now. Staff would be happy to review the information that
has been presented, and then -- with the applicant, and then come
back, if you would like that, and finish our presentation.
March 1, 2021
Page 76
I'm not sure that we're going to have time to amend all these
slides to what's presented to you today, but we can certainly talk with
them and look more closely at all of the changes they've made so we
can react in a more appropriate way to that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: May I?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, you may.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We have a strikethrough and underline
to show everything we just talked about, to show the reduction in
density, the reduction in height. We can provide that to staff so they
can look at that during lunch so there's no confusion as to what we're
asking for.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's no sense -- there's no
question, sir, that you're prepared. The question is that it was not
given to staff in advance of this meeting.
But thank you. I think it's a good suggestion that we'll break for
lunch. We'll be back here at a quarter to 1:00.
Thank you very much.
(A luncheon recess was had from 11:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m.)
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Welcome back,
everyone.
I think we're -- the staff is about to present, and I trust you had
the hour and you used it wisely, so --
MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- thank you very much.
MS. JENKINS: Thank you.
Thank you, Troy.
Again, Anita Jenkins, for the record.
And, Madam Chair, the full county staff has not been sworn in.
They were in the conference room this morning, not in -- crowded in
here, so we'll need to swear in the county staff, and I would like to do
March 1, 2021
Page 77
that before I begin, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Why don't we do that.
THE COURT REPORTER: That's all?
MS. JENKINS: That's all.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. JENKINS: Thank you. So just to pick up back where I
was -- oh.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mind you, this is transportation right
now. These guys talk about p.m. and a.m. and all those good things.
Okay. Go ahead.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. JENKINS: Thank you.
So during the lunch hour, we did have an opportunity to review
the revised commitments that were made, and James Sabo will
address those after I cover a few things.
We're going to flip through these slides. We did not change the
slides. I don't want the public or anyone to be confused on this. So
we're not going to use those as much with the exception of the
Comprehensive Planning slides.
But I did want to hit on a point here that you did receive a letter
from Mr. Greg Stuart that had some concerns about staff's changes,
and I did want to put on the record for you where those changes came
from, and they came from the Planning Commission when we were
there.
We had substantial evidence submitted on elevation and how the
commercial at the ground floor was not possible. And so at that time
and through those discussions and the testimony provided, the
applicant agreed to provide the commercial accessible to the public
where they could build it, and that agreement was stated three times
on the record. And if you'd like me to go through that record, I will
March 1, 2021
Page 78
go through it, but it ended with the chairman of the Planning
Commission noting that we have made progress when we can have
an agreement on the record between the applicant and staff.
So I just wanted to put that on the record. There was no
secrecy. There was no back meetings. It was all done in the public.
And at the same time, the wedding architecture that the staff had
talked about, those thoughts were coming through that review process
prior to the time that we had an opportunity to see the architectural
renderings and then also hear the testimony from the applicant's
architect at the time.
That architect testified that -- the same concerns that staff had
about light, air, and massing were addressed at the Planning
Commission. So with that testimony and that expertise from an
architect, we were able to be satisfied with that recommendation as
well. So that's where the changes came from on the record during
the Planning Commission.
So from the county today you're going to hear from planning,
landscape architecture, or actually not landscape architecture. We're
going to skip that one because you heard the applicant agree to that
commitment earlier today when I asked them that question. So that's
what that slide was about, and that was agreed to, so we don't have to
review that. Environmental review. We'll talk a little bit about the
marina, and then we'll hear about infrastructure from utilities and
transportation. Then the last two petitions today are the right-of-way
and the land-use maintenance agreement that you'll hear about.
So, again, just to begin with the existing land use and zoning. It
is urban mixed-use district, and you heard a little bit this morning that
your Comprehensive Plan at the time when it was created designated
this area as mixed-use residential. And this parcel is consistent by
policy, and what that means is there was existing commercial uses on
that property when your Comprehensive Plan was adopted. So to
March 1, 2021
Page 79
address these different types of uses, there is consistent-by-policy
language that I'm going to go through with you in just a minute.
But it does -- your Comprehensive Plan was
incentivizing -- those smaller commercial areas that were outside of
your activity centers for the Comp Plan was trying to concentrate
commercial activity in activity centers.
So you provide an incentive to those smaller commercial areas
with higher residential density, and it was 16 units per acre at that
time.
The current zoning at C-3, staff has contemplated up to 164,000
square feet for commercial uses as a potential to understand the
magnitude of that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Are we allowed to ask
questions now or wait, while she's on that slide just --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think it -- given the
technologically -- your presentation is complex. There's a lot of
numbers rolling around. I think I'm going to bow to you, ma'am.
Would you prefer to be -- to go to the end, or are you okay with
questions being asked?
MS. JENKINS: I'm okay with questions. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Especially from me. Back
to the last slide, please.
Last one, C-3, under about 164,000 now. This is a combined
use, I would assume, a mixed use. Is that aggregate commercial and
residential, a total of 164-, or just 164- commercial?
MS. JENKINS: So we calculated the building envelope that
you're seeing on this slide here that's outlined in blue and green to
calculate really what the total square footage could be in that. So it
would be a combination of commercial and residential, potentially.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you very much. That
March 1, 2021
Page 80
was -- thank you.
MS. JENKINS: So your Growth Management Plan, again,
Chapter 163 requires us to evaluate amendments based on relevant
surveys, studies, and data. And then going back directly again to
your Comprehensive Plan, Policy 5.3 addresses these
consistent-by-policy properties, and it incentivizes residential
development, and Policy 5.3.e directs staff to look at when the
properties change in the zoning, such as this one's doing, from
commercial to residential; it directs us to look at the impacts to public
infrastructure, and it directs us to look at the difference between that
and that the proposed use has less impacts than the existing use.
So we can find that we're consistent with your Comprehensive
Plan. The analysis as shown, from public infrastructure, that the
proposed residential and limited commercial uses have less public
infrastructure impact than the current zoning under C-3, and has no
adverse impacts to public infrastructure level of service, is what we
measure.
So with that, we're going to flip through many of these slides,
and I'm going to ask James Sabo to come up and talk to you a little
bit about the changes that we've heard about today because you're
going to see that we went through a summary of findings on zoning
that have changed. So I don't want to have those slides up there and
be confusing to anyone. So I'm just going to flip this down to just
the landscape slide and then let James let you know about the
evaluation that we have had.
We did receive a copy of the changes to the document, and
during lunchtime staff spent the hour in the conference room
reviewing these changes and can react to those now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Attorney Klatzkow, have you
had an opportunity to look at these changes?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, but my staff has.
March 1, 2021
Page 81
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SABO: Good afternoon, James Sabo, Comp Planning
Manager for the county.
We did -- as Ms. Jenkins mentioned, we did review the changes
at our lunch break.
All right. So on MU Tract 1, one of our recommendations
was -- and I don't have -- I don't have graphics. I'm sorry.
MR. OCHS: Look at it up here. It's on the visualizer.
MR. SABO: All right. Oh, all right. Okay.
So on Gulf Shore -- it's highlighted in yellow. So MU Tract 1,
that's the towers. So one of the things that the developer has
committed to do is to actually commit to two towers, so that's an
important note. I think Mr. Pires was concerned about that. So they
are committing to two towers.
They have also increased the tower setback itself from 25 to
35 feet, so they're stepping the tower back further from the street,
Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Additionally, we had recommended the setbacks be at 25 feet,
and we were relenting on that to allow some street-accessible
commercial uses. They're still going to do those street-accessible
commercial uses on the second floor there where the real estate and
the coffee shop, something along those lines.
The setback they changed back to 25 feet, so they're going to
meet -- they're going to meet our recommendation for a 25-foot
setback. They're still going to have the second floor, the
street-accessible commercial uses, so that's -- we are comfortable
with that and are good with that change.
For multi-use tract -- or Mixed-Use Tract 2, it's not highlighted,
but you can see there was a change from 15 to 25 feet. That's also
our recommendation for that setback along Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Again, that meets our recommendation, so we're comfortable with
March 1, 2021
Page 82
that.
With respect to Mixed-Use Tract 1 going down to the maximum
height, the zoned height was reduced to 129; actual height reduced to
165. Based on the testimony we heard from engineers,
Ms. Fountain, and from Mr. Mulhere, the FEMA standards have
changed over time. So with this 129 zoned and the 165 actual, they
are actually in line with what Regatta had been approved for back in
1996. So those elevation standards were different back in 1996
which allowed Regatta to build a little bit closer to the ground. They
have to start at 20.4, they're calling it 21, to be at that first habitable
space at 20.4, call it 21.
So based on that, and based on the setbacks that they've done for
the tower and adding the additional setback, we're comfortable
supporting these changes with the two towers. Additionally --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me.
Commissioner Saunders, do you have a question?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, I do. In terms of the
setbacks that they've agreed to, are those the numbers that meet our
existing codes?
MR. SABO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So they're not asking for any
deviations for setbacks?
MR. SABO: Not for setbacks. The South Bay Drive setbacks
are still at 10 feet. We had recommended 25. So that's still our
recommendation for those to be 25, but they want those at 10 feet.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, you just contradicted yourself.
MR. SABO: Well, the -- we're comfortable with the
Mixed-Use Tract 1; I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. And that's the Gulf
Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Drive [sic]. Those are the
setbacks that meet our existing codes, and the setbacks that
March 1, 2021
Page 83
they're -- the deviation they're asking for, again, is where?
MR. SABO: South Bay Drive Mixed-Use Tract 2 --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay.
MR. SABO: -- 3, and 4, where Mr. Ochs is pointing. Those
are -- we are recommending those at 25. So part -- please pardon
me. I got caught off guard a little bit, so if you can --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, no. That's fine. We just
need to have it very clear.
MR. SABO: Understood.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't mean to -- I'm not trying to
badger you.
MR. SABO: No.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I just -- let's be crystal clear on what's
going on.
MR. SABO: Understood.
And I was -- in fairness, I was going to rely on my slides to help
remind me, and they have been -- they've been removed.
Anyway, so that is -- that is what they -- they're continuing to
propose 10 feet for Mixed-Use Tract 2, Mixed-Use Tract 3, and
Mixed-Use Tract 4 for the front setbacks, and our recommendation is
still at 25 for those. So we're comfortable with supporting the
towers and that change and that increase in the setback.
The other thing that they --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you -- I just wanted to
clarify that the South Bay center -- and Center streets, those are
internal roads.
MR. SABO: Correct. Those are internal roads.
All right. Then what Mr. Yovanovich had also added was 5A,
the DaRuMa parcel. Give me one second.
Okay. So this is 5A, the DaRuMa parcel. The developer
March 1, 2021
Page 84
agreed to an offsite commitment here -- I won't read all this language.
But, essentially, they are committing, as they mentioned in their
presentation, those specific uses. They're going to set aside this
parcel. The following uses are prohibited: Clubhouses, tennis
courts, pickleball courts, swimming pools, et cetera. They have
agreed to change language. And we met with the County Attorney
about this as well. They agreed to change the language to
committing to that off site.
And those are the extent of the changes. Oh, also we're
reducing the total number of units from 172 to 140 and, obviously,
that's a lower number, so we're comfortable with that as well.
I'll entertain any other questions.
Next is -- we're going to skip landscape, correct?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're all hitting our button.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just to -- so we're clear, can you
put up the site plan and show us MU2, MU3.
MR. SABO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just so that we're clear on what
setbacks you're talking about where.
MR. SABO: So this -- I'm going to have to wait for it to show
up. Okay. This is MU Tract 2. It essentially ends to the west at
the Gulf Shore Court roadway. I don't know how to make that turn
yellow like Mr. Yovanovich did. That's where MU Tract 2. So
fronts on Vanderbilt Beach Road and Center Street.
MR. OCHS: Let me try a different schematic here.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That's better.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There it's good.
MR. SABO: All right. So MU Tract 2 we're talking about is
there where the pen is. That fronts on Center Street, South Bay
Drive, and Vanderbilt Beach Road. They've increased that setback
March 1, 2021
Page 85
to 25 feet along Vanderbilt, and the other two are still 10. So that's
MU Tract 2. MU Tract 1 is where the towers are. They've
increased that setback along Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore
Drive to 25 feet, which is what our recommendation was. They had
it at 15 feet. That's also -- the gray area is -- that needs to be
changed. Am I correct, Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I talk?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. What needs to happen is, this
actually moves back, because we agreed to an additional 10 feet
there. So that moves back for the -- for the building portion of that.
That's not to scale.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nor straight.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's not supposed to be straight.
It's supposed to curve.
MR. SABO: Okay. So that is MU Tract 1, and that's where
they're committing also to have two towers and not a single tower.
MU Tract 3 and 4 front the Vanderbilt Lagoon. They are proposing
to maintain that at 10 feet, and then the -- our code allows zero-foot
setback at the waterfront line. But I would defer to them as to how
they're going to design their space, but they can have a zero setback
at the waterfront line.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Will you go back to the chart, the one
that you had before, so now that we can identify these.
MR. OCHS: This one, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, this one.
So the ones you disagree with here are South Bay Drive and
Center Street; is that correct?
MR. SABO: Correct. South Bay Drive and Center Street, our
recommendation is that they be at the 25-foot, and they are at 10, 10,
and 10 and then 10 for Center Street as well. That's 3 and 4, Bay,
March 1, 2021
Page 86
and -- MU Tract 3 and 4, correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. SABO: You're welcome. Go to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a question, Madam
Chair. You eliminated our lights, I think.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, I looked. You didn't touch; now
you are. Yes, Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Were you done?
Commissioner Solis, I think he had more than one question.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I've got some more
questions, but I think it's going to be back for Mr. Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I do have a question
of staff.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Either one of you. I just
wanted -- I heard some representations made by the developer with
regard to trip cap counts, and I want to talk about enforceability of
those trip caps that are represented. I think they represented -- I
don't want to say it out loud.
MR. YOVANOVICH: One thirty-two.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One thirty-two. One
thirty-four is what I had in my mind.
How do we -- how do we, as a group, enforce those trip cap
counts?
MS. JENKINS: There's Trinity. They have modified the PUD
document, Commissioner, as represented here and, further than that,
I'll let Trinity answer your question.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And I have one more
for you after that.
Hello.
MS. SCOTT: Good afternoon. For the record, Trinity Scott,
March 1, 2021
Page 87
Collier County Transportation Planning Manager.
The question is how do we enforce the trip cap. So when an
applicant comes in for their Site Development Plan or their plats and
plans, they submit a new Traffic Impact Statement that is based on
the latest ITE Trip Generation Manual. We look at that p.m. peak
hour peak number based on the new manual and compare that back to
this number. Sometimes the ITE Trip Generation Manual for the
type of unit that they would be proposing may go up. If it goes up,
they're only able to build as many units as they can and stay under
this trip count. If by chance the trip count goes down, they're still
bound by the PUD on the maximum number of units that they can
build.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Maybe I didn't ask the
question properly. We're built, we're developed, and this trip cap is
exceeded.
MS. SCOTT: The trip cap is looked at at the time of the SDP
or PPL. We do not go back out after the fact and take traffic counts
to see if it's been exceeded or not.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So this representation is for
and until the SDP and construction's completed, after which there's a
myriad of circumstances that could vary the actual trips?
MS. SCOTT: That's the case in everything that we do. We
use the industry standards of the ITE Trip Generation Manual for the
basis of our review.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
MS. SCOTT: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I do have some questions for staff.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have another question.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I had two questions. One for
March 1, 2021
Page 88
her and one for them, and then I'll be done.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Go ahead. No, no. Take your
time.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Anita or -- either one. There
were ultimate -- there was a myriad of representations by the
developer of improvements to the parking garage, traffic light, so on
and so forth. Are the time constraints which those are to be
performed in the PUD doc itself?
MS. JENKINS: Let me confirm that for you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MS. JENKINS: I'll confer.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So the -- just another parking
question. The parking for the -- oh, they're huddling.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They all went to a huddle.
MS. SCOTT: If I may, I can actually answer Commissioner
McDaniel's.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
MS. SCOTT: They must be completed by the first certificate of
occupancy, and it's in the PUD language and the transportation
commitments.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Trinity? Ms. Scott, don't
run away yet.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So the parking for the
commercial -- the commercial, the deli, coffee shop, where's the
parking for that going to be? Whoever. Anyone. Anyone.
Bueller?
MS. JENKINS: I like that movie. It's going to be underneath
our structure.
March 1, 2021
Page 89
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I correct one thing, though, that
Trinity just said? The PUD does say that the traffic signal, the
parking garage, and the turn lane with the parking garage and the turn
lane on Vanderbilt Beach Road are at CO, but we committed earlier
that that would -- those would move up to prior to vertical
construction. So we have to make that change. We had said that
earlier, so I just want to make sure the record's clear.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So the parking is
on -- maybe on the first floor or whatever it's going to be in the
parking garage. Okay.
Has staff had a chance to review the parking analysis that's been
provided that we saw today?
MR. SABO: I can answer that. For the record, James Sabo.
The parking calculations, Commissioner Solis, are done at Site
Development Plan; however, we did -- we did have and do have the
LDC definitions for how the parking is calculated and number of
spaces for guests and whatnot. Those -- they're all required to meet
the LDC standards for parking calculations. So whatever the LDC
says they need --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's just a mathematical
calculation.
MR. SABO: Just a mathematical calculation.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But then my other question
was about the traffic analysis. I don't know if that's probably a
Trinity question.
MS. SCOTT: And if I may, we actually have more staff
presentation that may actually answer some of your questions.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay, okay.
MS. SCOTT: We have a traffic --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I'll put that off then.
March 1, 2021
Page 90
Here is some zoning questions, and that is, can we put up the
site plan again? Because now with the DaRuMa piece, I mean, it
does change what the setbacks mean on some of this, right? Because
instead of being a setback from property owned by somebody else,
now it's set back to the developer's own property. And so I just want
to make some sense out of what that's going to mean.
MR. SABO: Do we have that up?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So the --
MR. SABO: MU Tract -- MU Tract 2, which is down on the
lower right --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. SABO: -- that 10-foot setback on Center Street,
essentially, now is set back against their own property, you are
correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So that's not necessarily
going to impact a neighbor. The setback on the MU2 tract on the
east side, I guess, is still -- they're still on South Bay right there.
They're still requesting 10 feet there?
MR. SABO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And then the setbacks
along where Vanderbilt Palms is right under the pen there, right
there, the setbacks from MU1 to the Vanderbilt Palms piece. I'm
trying to see what that says. That says 10 or 15?
MR. SABO: Those are --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Are they all from MU --
MR. SABO: They're 15 -- it's a 15-foot Type B buffer.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And what is that now
under the C-3?
MR. SABO: I would have to -- I'd have to research it real
quick and get back to you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
March 1, 2021
Page 91
MR. SABO: In terms of the buffer requirement or the setback
requirement?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, no. That's a 15-foot Type B
buffer. I was asking about the setback.
MR. SABO: Okay. I can hear Mr. Yovanovich talking. He
may -- he may have a number that he wishes us to use.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I answer?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure. Anybody. Bueller.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Where you're pointing to, this right
here.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, we can agree to 25 feet there,
because there's no structures there.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You'll agree to 25 feet there?
MR. YOVANOVICH: For structures, yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So we'll make a note of
that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So the setback adjacent to
Vanderbilt Palms is going to go from 10 -- I don't know what it was.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm sorry. Could you get a little
closer to your mic.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm sorry, yes.
The setback adjacent to Vanderbilt Palms, then, is going to go to
25; is that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, which I think it already is, but
we'll make it clear that that's 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. It's still 10 feet along South
Bay Drive.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You're still asking for 10 feet there
March 1, 2021
Page 92
and 10 feet for -- along South Bay Drive on MU [sic] and M3?
MR. YOVANOVICH: On 2 --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And 2 as well?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Two, 3, and 4, correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Staff, as a matter of
planning and zoning, I mean, the setback now to developer's
internally owned property doesn't really make any difference,
correct? Is that -- are you in agreement with that?
MR. SABO: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Okay. That's all I had.
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I've got a question for
Ms. Scott and then a question for our staff as well.
On those internal streets there, my assumption would be that
with the new traffic light and the improvements to the roadways
there, that there would not be much cut-through traffic through there.
Would you expect that, or would those -- the South Bay would be
used really only by the people that live in that area? I mean, there
would be no advantage to cutting through, I would think.
MS. SCOTT: The only time I would anticipate if somebody
was going to cut through is if the traffic signal -- you know, during
holiday times, things like that, you're going to have people kind of
moving around, you know, having multiple options. And that's
really what we want. We want people to have options to be able to
get around. And with South Bay, they'll have significant
improvements over what it is today with the sidewalks on both sides,
the closed drainage, as well as the bike lanes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That was my -- yeah, that
was my next question. On South Bay there will be sidewalks and --
MS. SCOTT: And bike lanes, yes.
March 1, 2021
Page 93
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So just from a traffic
standpoint, the 10-foot versus 25-foot setback would be somewhat
irrelevant, just from your traffic standpoint?
MS. SCOTT: From a traffic standpoint, no, we would not get
into the setbacks. They're -- we have no plans to widen that
roadway, you know, to four lanes in the future. That would be when
Transportation would get into whether or not the setback was okay or
not.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. And then for
staff, just a quick question. The existing properties along South Bay,
what setbacks do they have?
MR. SABO: They're all about 25. Barefoot Pelican is 25, and
the Sotheby's Real Estate is 25. Vanderbilt Palms is 25. So
they -- there's a consistency of 25 along that street.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I think our questions are
seceded [sic] for a moment.
MS. JENKINS: Anita Jenkins, for the record.
Again, before we move on to the environmental, I just wanted to
also make you aware of one more commitment that we hope to hear
from the petitioner on. During lunch, we -- given public accesses is
sometimes confusing when attorneys make statements on the record
that we have to go back and look at -- that's not in the PUD
document. We're asking for a commitment that the commercial
access remain public access and that commitment be put in the PUD
document. So at no time would they decide to limit the access to
those commercial uses, that they provide just to the residents with
key cards. So that would be a commitment that they would maintain
that for the public.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want me to answer that now?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That was the intent, right?
March 1, 2021
Page 94
MR. YOVANOVICH: Our commitment from day one was that
the coffee shop, deli, you know, the sundry store, and the real estate
office were always open to the public. There was never an intention
to privatize that. So if we need to put that commitment in the PUD,
we're happy to put that in the PUD.
MS. COOK: Good afternoon. Jaime Cook, Principal
Environmental Specialist with the Development Review Division.
The proposed GMP amendment and the PUD rezoning petition
were reviewed by environmental planning staff for compliance with
the environmental regulations in both the Growth Management Plan
and the LDC. The site was cleared of native vegetation prior to
1962, which staff's able to confirm through historical aerial imagery.
Most of the vegetation that currently exists on site was used -- was
planted to meet landscaping requirements for the various uses on the
property.
The environmental consultant provided a vegetation inventory
currently existing on the site, which was verified by staff during a
field site visit. 0.11 acres of native vegetation exists on site, and the
applicant is required to preserve 0.03 acres of vegetation by the LDC
regulations, which they are proposing to do through offsite
preservation.
The applicant is not proposing any lakes, so there's no littoral
plantings required.
And then the marina, the slip counts, and compliance with the
Manatee Protection Plan are all reviewed through a consistency
determination at the time of the site -- at time of site development.
That concludes the environmental review unless any of you have
any questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have some questions. Have we
addressed sea level rise in terms of the concern of tidal flooding,
especially on the back bays? Have we discussed, as they are on the
March 1, 2021
Page 95
East Coast, increasing seawall?
MS. COOK: That is one of the things that we request in their
environmental review at time of site development.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You request.
MS. COOK: We would require them to submit it to us at site
development, yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Are they going to be required
to raise up the seawalls?
MS. COOK: Perhaps they would be. It would depend on what
that analysis determines. They would also have to go through DEP
permitting for all of this because they are seaward of the coastal
construction control line.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Jaime.
Next, we'll look at utility review and Eric Fey.
MR. FEY: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record,
Eric Fey, Principal Project Manager with Public Utilities.
The slide on screen shows a screen capture from our utilities
GIS. The project lies in the Vanderbilt Beach Center subdivision
which first got utility services back in 1977. At that time, a 6-inch
asbestos water main was run along South Bay Drive, a 2-inch water
main was run along Gulf Shore Court and Center Street, and 8-inch
water main ran along Vanderbilt Beach Road.
In 1991, the 2-inch water main on Center Street and the 8-inch
water main on Vanderbilt Beach Road were replaced with the current
16-inch water transmission main, which is our primary concern
during utilities review for this project, given that the Center Street or
portion of Center Street and Gulf Shore Court right-of-ways were
being vacated and will be occupied by the building on Mixed-Use
Tract 1.
So as you can see labeled on screen, we're anticipating that the
March 1, 2021
Page 96
16-inch water main will be reconnected, re-routed at the new
entrance across from the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage for
wastewater. The Center Street and Gulf Shore Court sewer runs up
to South Bay Drive and then heads west to Gulf Shore Drive.
It was determined during our analysis that that subbasin doesn't
have the capacity for this project, so one of the developer
commitments is to send all of the wastewater flow now to the
southeast. We have a gravity sewer on Vanderbilt Beach Road that
they will tie into with a new pump station and force main.
Obviously, we were concerned about maintaining service to our
existing customers as designated by the yellow stars; there are four of
them. Obviously, with DaRuMa being acquired by the applicant,
that's no longer a concern. But the Barefoot Pelican will continue to
flow west, as will the northern portion of Vanderbilt Palms. I'm
sorry, Vanderbilt Palms will continue to flow west, as will the
northern portion of Barefoot Pelican.
The southern portion of Barefoot Pelican and the real estate
office, that will be captured by a new pump station on the project site
and will be routed with the project flow to the southeast, which flows
eventually up Vanderbilt Drive and is handled by, eventually, Master
Pump Station 101.
So we analyzed all of that, and obviously at the time we
analyzed, the unit count was higher than it was today, so we have no
concerns about wastewater system capacity.
I believe the applicant addressed the commitments that have
been made. I'll just touch on those again.
When the right-of-way as designated by the dark red hatch is
vacated, we will be given a temporary county utility easement and
access easement which will allow us to maintain our existing
facilities until such time as the utilities are relocated and preliminary
acceptance is achieved.
March 1, 2021
Page 97
Likewise, it was mentioned that on Mixed-Use Tract 1, no
vertical construction will take place until those new utilities are
accepted and the replacement county utility easement recorded in the
public record.
As an ancillary benefit of the project -- you know, this isn't
before you today -- the right-of-way permit includes additional utility
improvements to serve the project. That six-inch asbestos cement
water main on South Bay Drive that I mentioned earlier is scheduled
to be replaced by a 10-inch PVC water main. So that is a substantial
benefit to the Collier County Water/Sewer District. It's not a
commitment in the PUD, but it has been submitted by the applicant
as part of their right-of-way permit.
And with that, that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Question, Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Are any of the public utility
upgrades that you just discussed or anything maybe you didn't
discuss going to be the responsibility of the county, or everything has
been agreed to by the applicant or they are going to agree to it? Just
in summation.
MR. FEY: Yes. Commissioner, the improvements will be
fully developer funded.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it. Thank you.
MR. FEY: Thank you.
MS. SCOTT: Good afternoon, again. For the record, Trinity
Scott, Transportation Planning Manager.
The applicant provided a Traffic Impact Statement that's
consistent with our adopted TIS guidelines. The TIS was reviewed
to determine consistency as defined in the Transportation Element of
the Growth Management Plan.
March 1, 2021
Page 98
I will note that our review was based on a higher number of
units, and so with the applicant reducing the number of units, it
would not change our recommendation of approval for the project, as
it would be less traffic on the roadway.
For all Traffic Impact Statements, we look at p.m. peak
hour/peak direction traffic volumes, and those capacities are utilized.
The TIS presented a reasonable scenario which established a
maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD, which is now going
to be 132 two-way peak-hour net trips instead of the previously
established 148 based on the higher unit count. As I noted
previously, that trip cap will be tracked during the Site Development
Plan when the applicant comes forward.
The project is also within a Transportation Concurrency
Management Area, which is a special area -- we have two of those
within the county -- that allow for an exemption from link-by-link
concurrency should it be necessary; however, for consistency
purposes, there is adequate capacity available in the network to
address the project traffic.
This is an excerpt from our 2019 Annual Update and Inventory
Report. On Vanderbilt Beach Road, there are 462 remaining trips.
I'll also note that based on the 2020 Annual Update and Inventory
Report, there are 367 still remaining. So Vanderbilt Beach Road can
still accommodate the project traffic.
Gulf Shore Drive has 500 remaining p.m. peak hour/peak
direction trips based on the 2019 AUIR, and the 2020 has 490.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have a question. The -- so
the -- this is p.m., right? This is p.m.?
MS. SCOTT: P.m. peak hour/peak direction.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And the total right now with
this -- on Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive is -- what has
it been reduced to, or has it been?
March 1, 2021
Page 99
MS. SCOTT: There are four hundred and -- based on the latest
Annual Update and Inventory Report, there are 367 remaining trips.
And their PUD has a total of 132 which will be split from a
directional standpoint. So only a portion of those will go on
Vanderbilt Beach Road, but there is adequate capacity on Vanderbilt
Beach Road.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So it's my understanding, then, there
would be no capacity on these two roads for any kind of commercial
development as the C-3 defines based on the trips that were quoted
earlier, if I copied them down correctly.
MS. SCOTT: So if the commercial were to come forward,
because they are within the Transportation Concurrency Management
Area, they could ask to be exempt from link-by-link concurrency.
By doing that, they would have to provide multiple transportation
demand management strategies, which would include
providing -- there's a myriad of things. One of them is allowing for
telecommuting, flexible work schedules, preferred parking for
carpools and van pools, those type of things. So they would still be
able to move forward with the commercial even if there was not
adequate capacity on the roadway because we are maintaining more
than 90 percent of the capacity within the Transportation
Concurrency Management Area. More than 90 percent of those
roadways are operating at an acceptable level of service.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But this corner would not be.
MS. SCOTT: It may not be.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It may not be. And so it would be
greatly restricted in terms of -- let me put it this way: You can
market it as commercial, but you'd have to tell folks they'd have to
talk to the county first about -- depending on the commercial that is
being put there.
MS. SCOTT: They would still be able to move forward
March 1, 2021
Page 100
coming in with a Site Development Plan, from a transportation
standpoint, by utilizing the tools that are already available to them.
Within our Growth Management Plan, we would not ask for a
reduction of what would be allowed on that site today based on the
rules that are available to them in our current Growth Management
Plan of the Transportation Concurrency Management Area.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. SCOTT: In addition to the capacity analysis that we did,
we required an operational study for this zoning request.
County staff, including Anthony Khawaja, who's our Chief
Traffic Operations Engineer, and Tom Ross, who's a Professional
Engineer from Jacobs Engineering, who you've heard from, I'm sure,
multiple times in the past, they assist us with our outside peer review
of all Traffic Impact Statements. They worked with the
applicant -- we worked with the applicant as a team to perform
operational analysis within the area.
And now I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Ross for specific
information.
MR. ROSS: Good afternoon. Can you hear me?
MS. SCOTT: Yes, Tom. We can.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: All right. Thank you. For the record,
Tom Ross, Traffic Engineer with Jacobs Engineering representing
county staff.
So the current operational conditions, the two main areas that
cause queuing that occurs right now during the peak periods or in
peak season, one location is due to the delay at the intersection at
Gulf Shore Drive due to the high pedestrian volume and the
pedestrians crossing the street, and the other is the delay at the
parking garage due to the payment process system where they have to
actually pay before they can actually enter the garage, and this causes
a queue in the left-turn lane, and also occurs when the garage is full
March 1, 2021
Page 101
and they close the garage temporarily.
On the next slide, we received the analysis files that the
applicant provided to us for our review, and from that we took this
snapshot of the current conditions. And you can see the queuing that
occurs all the way back up through Vanderbilt Drive. And just so
you note, this is actually at real speed. It might be four times, I
believe, but it's not the same speed that the applicant showed
previously.
The next slide is a summary of the -- of the developer
commitments that were offered. They include the installation of the
traffic signal at Gulf Shore Drive, and this would have -- the
applicant also considered looking at a roundabout, but this
offers -- the traffic signal offers an advantage in that the signal will
provide a dedicated phase for pedestrians to cross at the intersection.
This will allow time for vehicles to get through the intersection as
well as the pedestrians, as opposed to no control where the -- once the
pedestrians enter into the intersection, including even a roundabout,
all traffic has to stop and yield to them by state law.
So the roundabout, while it offers some benefits, it wouldn't
address the pedestrian demand and would continue to see the queuing
issues along Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Other commitments included extending the left-turn lane into
the county parking garage, design installation of signs to notify the
public when the garage parking available is full, and also
improvements to South Bay Drive including roadside swales and
addition of a turn lane on westbound Vanderbilt Beach Road to Gulf
Shore Drive.
In addition to the technology at the garage, as you heard earlier,
the applicant has committed to doing improvements to the garage
parking payment system, and this would eliminate the delay at the
entry point, and this would help improve that queue.
March 1, 2021
Page 102
And so one of the other things -- and you'll see in the simulation
you'll see that the result is, is that the queues are significantly reduced
with the proposed conditions.
And one thing I would note is that the Vanderbilt Beach project
also has one of their entrances aligned with the parking garage
entrance on Vanderbilt Beach Road. This was brought up during the
Planning Commission hearing, and there was some concern about
this location being offered. But staff has reviewed this location, and
we have no concerns with it, primarily because this would create a
four-way intersection, which is a very common -- probably one of the
most common intersection configurations, and drivers are very
familiar with these and know how to navigate these very well, and
once the parking improvements to the garage have been
implemented, that will help to reduce that delay in the left-turn lane,
and it will operate similar to any other four-way intersection.
The other thing to note is that this is only one of several access
points for the One Naples development. All the other access points
are onto South Bay Drive by which they could access either
Vanderbilt Beach Road or Gulf Shore Drive. So if the delay
becomes too much for the folks to leave One Naples, take a left turn
during those high-peak periods, they could simply use another route.
And that concludes the Transportation presentation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. I don't have any
questions. Oh, I do. Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One quick one. And I found
that moving video fascinating, because with the -- because, again, the
traffic's been a big consideration, and with the traffic light
installation, the most I saw during that time lapse was four or five
cars stacked up at Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt. Nothing -- I mean, it
was clear back past Vanderbilt Drive without -- as it sits today.
MS. SCOTT: It certainly is a combination of multiple
March 1, 2021
Page 103
improvements with the traffic signal allowing us to queue up the
pedestrians and have them cross to where they're not just streaming
across, as well those improvements to the parking garage and
changing the payment collection, because that certainly is another big
delay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I didn't notice a whole bunch
streaming into the parking garages that weren't able to do that before,
so it's a combination of both of those. So thank you.
MS. SCOTT: Thank you.
And now I will turn it over to Matt McLean to discuss the
right-of-way vacation.
MR. McLEAN: Good afternoon. Matt McLean, Development
Review Director for Growth Management. I'm here to talk today
about the right-of-way vacation application before you this afternoon.
As you see here on the slide here, you can identify the area that
is hatched as the existing right-of-way to be vacated, which includes
Gulf Shore Court, the alley which connects to Gulf Shore Court, as
well as a portion of Center Street.
This particular right-of-way was established by the Board of
County Commissioners in January of 1954 under Plat Book 3, Page
16, of the Vanderbilt Beach Center plat.
The subset area off to the right, you can see an area in yellow
which is proposed by the applicant to be the reconnection roadway to
reconnect South Bay Drive back to Vanderbilt Beach Road to line up
with the county's parking garage.
You've heard by several of my colleagues today about some of
the public benefits relative to this particular application, including the
traffic signalization at the intersection of Gulf Bay and Vanderbilt
Beach Road, the beach parking garage technology and other
upgrades, landscape, utility, roadway and drainage, street lighting
upgrades and improvements within this area as well.
March 1, 2021
Page 104
The right-of-way vacation application established policies and
procedures under Resolution 2013-166 as well as Florida Statutes
were reviewed by staff. All those application documents and the
public benefits identified put staff in a position to recommend
approval of right-of-way vacation application, including those
commitments that you heard from our Utilities Department as far as
continuing to retain temporary utility easements as well as temporary
access easements while those infrastructure improvements are
relocated into the area in yellow that you see on the slide.
I don't have anything further for today, so if you have any
questions for me; otherwise I'll be happy to turn it over to Pam Lulich
to talk about the landscape maintenance agreement.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Seeing none, thank you.
MS. LULICH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Pam Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager.
The landscape maintenance agreement is between Collier
County and Vanderbilt Naples Holding, LLC. It's applicable to
developer-funded improvements in the right-of-way adjacent to the
One Naples development. The improvements are on Gulf Shore
Drive, South Bay Drive, Center Street, and Vanderbilt Beach Road.
So the developer will be responsible for the installation,
maintenance, and replacement of landscaping and irrigation;
decorative street lighting, bollards, decorative sign posts, concrete
sidewalks, and brick pavers, and any -- any asphalt abutting those
brick pavers; benches, decorative trash receptacles, and street
furnishings.
There are two exhibits to the agreement. Schedule A are the
approved landscape and irrigation plans prepared by the Florida
licensed landscape architect and approved street lighting and
construction documents.
The plans -- the landscape and irrigation plans have FDOT
March 1, 2021
Page 105
sightlines on them. There's no obstructions within those sightlines
or clear sight distances. The street lighting includes both decorative
and non-decorative lighting. The non-decorative lighting is the
standard aluminum cobra-type lighting, excuse me, on Gulf Shore
Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The decorative is closer to the
development and is 12 feet on overall height.
Schedule B is the approved maintenance and replacement
specifications which match the drawings.
I'm so nervous. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good job.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? Commissioner
LoCastro?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ma'am, is there a
specificity -- right here. Is there specificity on the landscape on,
like, the heights of trees and things like that for the record? I mean,
the drawings show, you know, Royal Palms that are, you know, fully
grown and mature but, you know, I want to make sure that saplings
aren't planted. Is there --
MS. LULICH: No. There isn't any requirement, but in the
specifications you have a spec sheet with Royals being 28 feet
overall. Alexanders at 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MS. LULICH: So that's what will be built. That's what's
approved.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MS. LULICH: So --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Got it, thanks.
MS. LULICH: So with that, I'd like to introduce James Sabo,
Planning Manager, who will go over the recommendations.
MS. JENKINS: Come on up, James.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Anita's like, come on.
March 1, 2021
Page 106
MS. JENKINS: Well, I'm kind of wondering if I need to look
at these recommendations, because they may be a little bit different.
So let me just say that our recommendation is for approval of the
applications that you have before you today. Where we have the
minimal differences between what has been presented today and staff
is just that little bit of setback where they're not facing their internal
property and facing other buildings. And I think that that would
conclude our presentation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And the height.
MS. JENKINS: No. We're good on the height now. After we
reviewed the height at the lunch hour, we're good on that recognizing
the difference in the FEMA elevations from Regatta to the proposal
today.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So at this point I believe our
developer or applicant comes back? I believe that's the way this
works?
MR. KLATZKOW: Unless Mr. Yovanovich wants to
cross-examine.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I don't have any questions of your
staff. Could I just make one point on the exhibit, if that's okay.
Based upon what Anita just said, I just want to -- it's just this one
portion right here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Go to the mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. Tract 4.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- I think that's the segment that
we're asking for a 10-foot setback versus the staff recommended 25
where we're putting the enhanced landscaping, we're enclosing the
drainage, and we also have a letter of support from Vanderbilt Palms.
So that's -- I think that's the only -- the only area that staff had
March 1, 2021
Page 107
originally recommended 25 feet that we're still at the 10 feet that's not
across from our own controlled property.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: There was a -- Tract 2 had a
loose end, I thought, on the south portion that parallels South Bay
Drive. I think you were agreeing to a 10-foot setback on that small
little part there, and they want 25; is that correct? Yeah, right there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe so, but that was across from a
commercial parcel that I don't think you have received any objections
from the commercial parcel.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's a commercial parcel.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's where the Premier Sotheby's is.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sotheby's.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So I just wanted to make sure that we
were all under the same agreement. I don't have any questions of
your staff, and I guess whatever your procedure is, if we're going to
the public now; I'm not sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have a couple of questions. Are
there any gates?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. This is the -- the road that you see
that's going through and connecting --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: South Bay?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, South Bay remains totally open
and so does the road, the replacement road that we're putting in to
connect -- or to be across from your parking garage is a public road.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. But the proposed DaRuMa
park is not open to the public?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. That's going to be an amenity
for the One Naples project, but there are no -- there are no gates on
the roads to prohibit the public from freely traversing the road
system -- the road network.
March 1, 2021
Page 108
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: How do you propose to signify that
this is not open to the public when you look and see it from the road?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll probably put a nice decorative
fence around there and control the access for the residents with key
fob or -- there will be controlled access for our residents.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And will the waterfront be open for
people to walk on, public?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Waterfront? You know, I don't know
the answer to that question. Let me -- I'll check, if you don't mind,
during a break, and I'll come back up or --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would assume it's a continuous
boardwalk.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What I don't know is I don't know if
you can access it now from Barefoot Pelican. So I don't know if you
can -- there's already that public walk-around or not, to be honest
with you. I just don't know the answer to that right now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But is it -- again, I don't mean to beat
a -- be persistent, but at least on the part that Barefoot Pelican doesn't
front, is that -- are you intending to leave that open for the public?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know the answer. I need to talk
to Mr. Stock about that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But I think the intent is it will be private
since it's their private waterfront and their private docks, and we'll
want to have some security over that, but there are some -- there
are -- as you know, we have four transient docks, and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- the ship store and the fueling will still
remain open to the public, but I don't know that -- I don't think we
intended for the walkway behind the buildings to be open to the
public.
March 1, 2021
Page 109
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I've got a quick one here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Not to pepper you with little
things, but it's part of the topic.
The three transient docks, are they just basically for refueling?
It's not for tie-up or anything? So it's come in, refuel, and leave?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We actually have a couple of captains
that operate out of there right now, and we wanted to provide them
the opportunity to continue with their business operations for them to
have -- charter captains. So a couple of those are for the charter
captains and also to tie up and fuel and get their ship supplies and
then leave.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Have you thought any
more -- and not that this is, you know, a mitigating factor here or
anything, but you know, three of 75 just seems like a small number,
you know, especially -- it's a very convenient place for people to pull
up and get gas and whatnot. And like you said, if you've got, you
know, two of the three transient docks are filled by two captains who
use it permanently, practically, being able to have the general public
be able to still, you know, have access to that area and go into the
marina, shop, and come out.
And just -- I'm not here trying to amend anything, but I just
didn't know in your conversations -- three of 75 seems like a really
small number. They fill up quick, like you said, especially when
you've got captains using it permanently. Just a thought.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We'll talk about that, if you
don't mind, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, absolutely.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Any other questions before I walk
away?
March 1, 2021
Page 110
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So I think now's the time
for us to hear from the public, and we'll start with folks representing
different groups. You will have a --
MR. STUART: Five minutes.
MR. MILLER: Yeah, Commissioner Taylor, what he's
gesturing to is they need to set up things, some displays, and I think
he's asking for a brief intermission.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Why don't we -- we're
about 15 minutes off of when we give Terri a break. Let's break and
gather back here at 2:15, please. This clock.
(A brief recess was had from 1:54 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
It's my intention to hear from the leaderships of the different
communities that are allowed 15 minutes. I believe there are just
two after this presentation. And then we are going to recess and
convene again tomorrow for the public comment. That will give the
planning staff time to go through that strikethrough and underline
PUD document that has been presented as of today, also to create a
chart so that we can see clearly what this project is today, which it
wasn't yesterday or, let's put it this way, it certainly wasn't the last
time staff saw it, and that would help us with clarity up here. Not
that staff has done -- hasn't done that. It's just a very difficult
situation when we came to this meeting expecting one project and
found out it was a very different one.
So at this point, I think we're going to start with --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we should start -- go
through this process, but I don't think we should recess at 3:30. I
March 1, 2021
Page 111
think we should start the public comment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I would like to recess, but if
you would like to -- anyone else like to speak to this, let me know.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm okay with going forward.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. I just think, you
know, we have the right people here, and, you know, I mean, I think
you stay here till the job's done. I think if we hit a roadblock at 4:00
or 5:00 or something like that or something massive, but I think
3:30's sort of an early artificial start [sic]. I mean, I know what
you're trying to say and do by scheduling it, but I'd say we press.
And if we hit something that we think, you know, we need to take a
break, but I don't think artificially setting 3:30, especially when
people I know are here to be heard, and we're here to hear them.
So I don't know. Andy?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I guess I could take a -- the
chairman's prerogative, but at this point to bring forward peace and
collegiality, I will bow to the will of my board, but understanding that
when you're sitting in a meeting for as long as I think we're going to
be sitting, to be able to discuss this at the end of the meeting is going
to be a little more difficult.
So if we do -- if we do proceed, if we do push forward, then at
5:00 we are going to take a break, and that break will be for dinner, a
dinner hour, and then we will come back after that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, with all due
respect --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, now we don't have to have
dinner?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It seems like this is just an
effort to prolong this.
March 1, 2021
Page 112
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, sir. It's not an effort to prolong
it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And you really do not have
the prerogative to adjourn this board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: With all due respect --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Listen, we're here to do the
people's work. So let's just press forward, I say. We've got
someone at the podium that's ready to be heard, and I'm ready to hear
him.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And excuse me, Ms. Terri, an
hour-and-a-half is about it for you, right, and you need a break?
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Okay. Yes, you may start.
MR. STUART: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, fellow
commissioners, the public, staff, everyone involved in this project.
Greg Stuart, for the record. I'm a qualified expert in urban regional
planning, zoning, urban design, and real estate land development.
My qualifications have been accepted by the Board, and they are
Exhibit 1 in the exhibit book that I passed out.
The presentation in front of you, obviously, is now modified
because of this morning's revised development conditions. I did
submit a copy for the record, so you have a formal paper copy.
What I would like to do is figure out how to use this. On the
advice of our counsel reflecting the threatened slap a suit against my
client, I need to read that the presentation is One Naples, 3D
architecture and site plan graphics are Stuart & Associate renderings
of approximate building height, mass, scale, and placement, and
they're based upon the applicant's adjacent building separation and
height exhibits May 18th; One Naples site plans with dimensions,
May 28th; also the development standards that were submitted
March 1, 2021
Page 113
January of this year, 2021.
The landscape and architect treatment are for scale and height
evaluation only and do not represent the applicant's landscape and
architectural plans.
I would like to just jump headlong into Mr. Yovanovich's
criticism of our approach on the project. Specifically, a 15-foot
landscape strip is a very least effective tool for mandated
compatibility.
They are now presenting a 25-foot setback. I'm not sure if
that's going to be an entire 25-foot landscape strip, or is it going to be
15 feet. But what you want to do is look at this. Look at the
hierarchy of compatibility.
Clearly, uses; clearly, intensity; clearly, the site plan are the
fundamental backbone of determining Comprehensive Plan
compatibility. They are. Now, we have no objection whatsoever
about the uses. In fact, what they're proposing, a mixed-use
development is highest and best use of the property, we don't have a
bone to pick with that.
Oh, and, I'm sorry. For the record, I represent Regatta and Save
Vanderbilt Beach. I'm sorry. I forgot to mention that.
But the intensity and the plan itself, i.e., the placement of the
buildings, the relationship -- the relationship of the setbacks, height,
and building mass are the foundations of determining Comprehensive
Plan compatibility, not landscape architecture.
When you look at the hierarchy, the next thing would be the
actual building height and mass. And, personally, I'm pleased that
they have slightly reduced the building height. They haven't really
done anything with the mass, but those are elements of compatibility.
The third element, as you go up the hierarchy, is architecture.
Of course, they have yet to submit their architectural plans.
Everything that you've seen are illustrations. They're
March 1, 2021
Page 114
non-regulatory. They're nonbinding. This is why it was so
important to me when I sent the "gaps in the records" brief to you to
point out that staff had the discretionary authority to say, give us
architectural elevations with street crawl sections, and they didn't.
So there's no way I can even make a case about whether it's
compatible architectural-wise.
And then, finally, the landscape architecture. Yes, that is a
transitioning. It's a softening. It's an element of compatibility, but
it in no way, shape, or form supersedes the fundamentals of use,
intensity, plan, building height, and mass. And it's just factually
correct.
Now, in front of you -- and, again, this has changed somewhat
because of the recently revised developer commitments. But what
you have in front of you is a full-scale mockup showing at 30 feet
and 35 feet. It's important to point out that the development standard
table -- that is what you are approving -- the applicant's Exhibit B,
states clearly it's a 35-foot, you know, parking garage. So what we
did is annotate 30 feet, but it is a 35-foot structure.
What's interesting in this slide is that on the right slide what I
did was Photoshop an existing mature tree and slid it next to the wall.
And the point on this slide is that, granted, the annotation is at
15 feet, now it is at 25 feet, but when you're using landscape architect
to soften something this massive and this structure -- and I have to
state on the record -- and this is obvious -- there is nothing like
this -- in Collier County or in Lee County. An entire city block
dominated by such a parking garage. So what I was hopeful to get
across to you is the verticality and the relationship of that to the
canyonization.
Now, this also gets into Tony Pires' discussion, and
Mr. Yovanovich made a comment about that. I'm showing the
original submittal. All of the applicant's submittals and the staff data
March 1, 2021
Page 115
and analysis are based on an analysis of two towers. The model
doesn't depict anything but the two towers, yet when you are looking
at the development standards -- and I just got a copy of the most
recent stuff, you know, a few hours ago -- I still don't see an explicit
condition that limits the site to one tower. I don't. And I would
certainly think that that would be appropriate.
What you are being asked to do is approve the bubble plan, the
top left plan. And as Mr. Yovanovich stated in the planning and
zoning hearing, you're going to get what we are presenting today.
We're not doing a bait and switch.
And then following up, Anita Jenkins, a few days ago, can the
applicant build one big tower? And her response is yes. And my
point is, this demonstrates a lack of regulatory structure and
professional approach in tying in what has been made in a public
presentation to the actual regulatory document.
I think that unto itself is an easy cure. I think that's something
that, hey, let's write a condition and link it explicitly. Again, it may
be in there, it may be a footnote, but I don't see it.
I would like to point out, in addition to the one big tower
option -- which, again, I see they had the right to -- they also have the
right to do waterfront restaurants. And I point that out because
there's no geographic limitation on their restaurant. They made oral
presentations where it's going to be, but there's no restriction. And
that's important because Stock Development company does great
stuff, but they are not a high-rise builder. They'll probably do a JV
with some high-rise development company. They may, may not.
I'm speculating. But the point is, if I was doing this project, a
waterfront restaurant or two would be pretty keen. And if that's the
case, there should be operating hour restrictions, amplified music
restrictions, and a bunch of other things. So, again, there's just no
tie-in to what I'm seeing.
March 1, 2021
Page 116
Finally, to follow up on my February 24th letter to
Ms. Jenkins -- and she responded to that, and I do appreciate that.
But Ms. Jenkins was in error when she stated that, well, staff didn't
agree that this was not feasible, i.e., the 15-foot optional setback. On
Page 21 and 22 of the transcripts that I sent to you, October 15th,
staff clearly stated in writing, yeah, this is doable. This is
completely doable. It may be costly, but it's doable.
So I don't understand how Ms. Jenkins can come up to you and
say, well, you know, during the planning and zoning hearing, we
agreed that it was not doable. In fact, it was. And then, finally, if
you review the transcripts, there is no evidence whatsoever that the
planning commissioners voted for anything other than height, and
that was on a -- that went south on a 3-3. I forget what the standard
was. They didn't discuss in depth the wedding cake approach.
There was no consensus. There was -- there was no discussion.
So, again, I'm really surprised and disappointed because -- I may
be old school. I believe when you reach an agreement, you don't
have to bring an attorney and do something formal. Handshake.
Your word of honor.
And, again, I represent over 1,600 people. We supported staff.
At the 11th hour staff has changed their conditions. We can no
longer support staff fully, but I'll get into that. And it's unfortunate,
because if you look in my exhibit package book, Exhibit 9, we had a
much more thorough, comprehensive set of standards. And as one
example, a 30-foot setback instead of 25 feet.
But my clients wanted to work with staff and try to come
together and find consensus, so we agreed to do a 25-foot setback and
support staff when, in fact, best professional standards absolutely
mandate a minimal 30-foot setback. So I wanted to -- and please
don't -- Ms. Jenkins, don't believe that I'm beating up. I'm not
beating up, but it is a little frustrating.
March 1, 2021
Page 117
So the bottom line is this. This is the sole question; not how
much traffic and a hypothetical commercial development's going to
cause. This is the only question in front of you, the fundamental
issue. Is this Growth Management Plan sound public policy?
That's it, you know.
And density is the problem, because before they were doubling
the density. Now they're coming in at 161 percent. So they're not
doubling the density. And, again, that's all right. But staff is still
ignoring the problem is the density that's driving the noncompatible
building development. And as an example, the density driving
demand. Parking demand drives the need for this big, 'ole
monolithic parking garage. The requested density is driving the
setbacks.
And as an example, the 25-foot waterfront setback that is the
minimal code requirement, applicant's coming in at zero. The reason
why the applicant wants zero, the reason why the applicant still wants
10 feet is that by having the minimal amount of setbacks possible,
you're maximizing the availability of the site to support the densities.
So, again -- and it gets to open space. Why is there a lack of an
open-space table that explicitly designates where the open space is
and what percentage is common, which is a Collier County
requirement. You know, and the reason is, they want to get away
with doing as much rooftop non-common open space as possible.
And, clearly, if you look at the code -- and I sent you
documentation -- the code for open space defines open space as,
quote-unquote, areas not occupied by buildings. So to me, being a
simple guy that just reads English, and if it says it can't be on top of a
building, it can't be on top of a building. And so the deficiency in
the application is where's the open space?
So that ties back into the density, because the reason why they're
pushing the open-space issue, they're kicking that can down the
March 1, 2021
Page 118
road -- and staff's gone along with it -- is they want to maximize the
site, and that's just as simple as I can make it.
Now, I am glad that -- somewhat that the applicant has backed
off on using Pelican Bay as their density and building height comps.
In my exhibit book, you will notice an October 30th, 2020, letter
from the Pelican Bay Foundation stating, hey, Pelican Bay is
completely distinct and separate from the north side of Vanderbilt
Beach Road. We agree with Pelican Bay, and I believe staff agrees
with Pelican Bay -- with the Pelican Bay letter. That's because they
kind of came up with reasonable conditions.
So Pelican Bay just can't be used as comps. It doesn't make any
sense. I think the applicant's testimony was, hey, well, from this
site, we can look over there, and we can see high-rise buildings, and,
you know, that's like saying I'm in Little Italy in Manhattan, and I'm
looking up and seeing the Empire State Building and, therefore, I live
in Midtown. It doesn't work like that. A neighborhood is a defined
cohesive entity. And for a Comprehensive Plan,
complementary -- complementary and compatibility findings, you
have to base it on adjoining and adjacent properties within the
context of a reasonable market area, and the reasonable market area is
defined in yellow.
Now, it is interesting that the applicant today has pointed out,
hey, you know, we've got Vanderbilt Palms at 52 units per acre, and
Vanderbilt Hideaway at 53 units per acre. Yeah, but they're outliers.
Those two projects are half-acre properties or less. Half-acre
properties or less.
Their average unit size is around 500 square feet. Do you use
those for comps? Of course not. But professional planning
approach would be to throw out the outliers, and I threw out both the
outliers both high and low. I'm not using, you know, the two-story
multifamily. You throw out outliers to get a better understanding of
March 1, 2021
Page 119
what the neighborhood conditions are when you're determining
complementary development and compatible development.
So when I see -- let me see now. The applicant now is at 140
units at 25.8 units per acre. 25.8 units per acre. That's the density.
The neighborhood average -- and, again, it's in your exhibit book -- is
19.8 units per acre. So even now, though they're lowering the
number of units, their density is still much higher than anything in the
area. And then, finally, when they're using Regatta as a
comp -- which is a good comp. That's a meaningful comp, but that
you have to also factor in Regatta sits on 9.1 acres, Regatta has open
space, Regatta has 150-foot front setback around a 50-foot setback
waterfront, you know, depending on how you measure it.
So it's -- you just can't say, hey, you know, Regatta's at this
height. You've got to factor in everything. So, again, when you
look at the approach towards analyzing -- analyzing compatibility
and complementary development, the applicant is off.
Our analysis is bulletproof. We'll stand by it in any court
jurisdiction, whatever.
Now, the request. And this slide is all wrong because they've
changed it, so bear with me. Their request is for 140 units,
10,000-square-foot commercial. Their request increases density
from 16 units per acre to 25.8, which is an approximate increase of
161 percent. So they're asking for 161 percent density increase in a
Coastal High Hazard Area.
Let me see. The building heights went from -- and, again, the
property's C-3, but it's C-3 in proximity to residential tourist, so you
are allowed 100 feet. So I've always been saying, hey, you can do
100 feet. So 100 feet. Now they're at 165 feet, so that's 165 percent
increase. But the waterfront setbacks, you know, zero waterfront
setback to the site plan is measured at 12 feet. Now, staff is saying,
yeah, but C-3 already allows -- already allows zero feet, and I'm
March 1, 2021
Page 120
going, yeah, and C-3 also mandates a 40-foot setback, C-3 mandates
open space. They can't pick and choose. A zero-foot setback for a
brand-new Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development is just completely
off.
The request also is allowing for a new full movement four
leg -- four-leg movement intersection opposite the parking garage.
That's new and different. The application also, in relying on that,
has reduced connection separation by 215 feet. That's part of the
request. I will speak to that shortly.
Another interesting thing, the applicant uses private rooftop
open space without a deviation. Now, I say that because, quite
frankly, I don't think you can get a deviation from a definition -- from
a definition. I can let your attorney speak to that. The bottom line
is -- the bottom line is, open space cannot be determined by using
rooftop open space because rooftop open space is fundamentally,
quote-unquote, occupied by buildings. You can't do it.
So the entire application does not document open space, yet
that's what they're asking for, and they're also asking for a 0.79-acre
right-of-way transfer, estimated from around four to seven million
depending on the calcs. But, you know, that's -- hey, give us four
million, and we'll give you a $500,000 traffic light.
Oh, and also they're asking for, for hurricane evacuation, 174
cots and a utility trailer. So you're looking at around a $36,320
contribution to meet hurricane standards.
So they're asking this, and here's their justification; here are their
benefits. Their benefits and -- their benefits are -- a lot of their
benefits are code required. For example, we're going to rebuild
South Bay Drive, utility roadway drainage improvements, but if you
look at Code 6.06.00, these are developer requirements. They have
to do that anyway.
The pathway, the pathway. Hey, we're putting in an 8-foot
March 1, 2021
Page 121
pathway. Yet, if you look at the code, the code requires a 21-foot
pathway as measured from the right-of-way to the building. So
whereas the applicant's coming in with an 8-foot below-standard
pathway in the right-of-way -- which is a great deal for the
applicant -- it doesn't meet code.
Again, a benefit. We're going to throw in a 300- or $400,000
traffic light. That's a benefit.
Guys, if you can't find 300- to 400,000 in a budget to fund a
traffic light -- I mean, I know you can. I know you can.
Their other justification is, hey, we're doing this as a
really -- this is private sector CRA. You know, we're redeveloping
this site. And the bottom line is that only the Board of County
Commission can ascertain and point out that this is going to be a
CRA and enjoy the benefits thereof. So this is a private sector
development. He rises and falls with the degree of risk that he's
willing to take. Clearly, closing on property without entitlements is
a risk. I know in my career, for 10 years I directed a $357 million
real estate portfolio including three marinas, one of which is in
Collier County. We would never take this approach. We would get
the entitlements, then we would close.
The benefits. Oh, this is the last benefit. Okay. And I have to
state this on the record: I represent 1,600-plus people, and I've
talked to scores of them, and they all are completely in agreement.
Their main concern is making sure that Southwest Florida, their slice
of paradise, doesn't transform into Miami Beach West Coast.
They're concerned about compatible and complementary
development. Traffic is a side issue for them. So when I hear the
applicant's counsel saying, well, you know, everyone's concerned
about traffic, that is not so.
If you look at the benefit of traffic, you know -- and I'm not
debating -- I am not debating that traffic -- commercial traffic is more
March 1, 2021
Page 122
intensive than residential traffic. The trip generation rates are
higher, absolutely. Commercial generates a higher amount of traffic.
But the hundred thousand square foot parade-of-horrible number is
misleading.
I mean, I've looked at it. I've looked at it closely. I don't see
where they used any type of internal trip capture. For example, if
you have commercial here, you know, how many trips are you taking
off the road for the people that want to go to U.S. 41 for stuff.
They're not doing that. They're using a suburban type shopping
center for their trip generation rates. This is -- this is beach retail.
The point I'm trying to make is, yeah, there's probably going to
be a lot more traffic with C-3 than what the project is put forward
right now. But that's just one metric. I have to urge you, this is a
comprehensive plan map amendment. You do not just use one
metric. You use multiple metrics. That's why they call it
comprehensive land-use planning. Metrics such as hurricane
evacuation. Urban form, where we get into the compatibility issue.
Code compliance, where, again, I can go through and point where
they're just not -- they're not meeting code, you know, setbacks, open
space, the pedestrian pathway. Coastal management. These are
areas that I wouldn't say supersede, but they are of equal importance
to traffic as a mean of -- of a means of evaluating whether you guys
want to go forward with that land-use map amendment or not.
So when you look at the record -- and, again, I'm commenting
on my memo. This project clearly fails in meeting Florida statutory
requirements 163.6177, Subparagraph 6, data and analysis. Here are
the gaps in the record.
The staff request. The staff request in the record in April for
mitigation plan wasn't provided. The open-space rule I've already
talked about. There is -- there is no documentation as provided -- as
required by the code. You know, where's your open-space table?
March 1, 2021
Page 123
You have to demonstrate open space. Nothing in there.
Staff request for architectural drawings not provided. That's a
key point, because the fundamental issue in front of you on a zoning
basis is the architecture. There's no data. They're just illustrations
that are nonbinding.
The TIS, certainly Jim Banks is correct, they meet all the
technical requirements, but it's important to point out, again, this is a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. You want to look at long-range
solutions, not, well, you know, we meet this minimal standard.
They did not -- and I went -- I went through every single boring
TIS and correspondence in that. I did not see any discussion from
staff or from the applicant about the interrelationship -- the
interrelationship of reducing a connection 215 feet and then
introducing a new four-legged turning movement from One Naples
going out to the east.
And, clearly, this is a matter of physics, because when you
reduce spacing, you reduce the amount of distance and time that a
driver has to react, respond, and so forth. There was not any
consideration period. And, again, that's a gap in the record.
Marina -- marina design information. Please show me where
the full storage and the full containment area will be. Please show
me where the ship store will be. Please show me where the service
areas, dumpsters, whatever, will be. There's nothing on that and,
yet, in front of you is going to be a marina that -- and I pulled this up
now. The Naples City Docks is at 84 slips. So you're talking about
a marina that's going to be basically almost as large as Naples City
Docks, and there's no information. We'll kick the can down the
road.
If you look at the applicant's justification in their original
submittal package, VD1, there's absolutely no comprehensive
internal -- Comprehensive Plan internal consistency analysis.
March 1, 2021
Page 124
Basically, it's a series of declaratory statements saying, we're
compatible; move on. How are they compatible, they do not
address. It's thin; it's very thin. And the same thing with there's no
neighborhood complementary development standards analysis.
None whatsoever.
Actually, if you look at your Land Development Code 10.02.13
where it says a PUD master plan will graphically illustrate
development strategy using the Community Character Plan for
Collier County, again, there's nothing in the record, and that's a rule
requirement. So, again, you know, there's just absolutely no
discussion.
And then finally the record, if you look at the staff report and
staff correspondence, you will see discussion on compatibility. You
will not see any mention of complementary. Complementary's
important because complementary deals with how the project fits into
the neighborhood which is, on the zoning level, the key issue. How
does this thing fit? How does this thing work?
Well, the project is not consistent with statutory requirements in
terms of data and analysis. Internal consistency. In my exhibit
book, I've provided you with ample professional documentation that
this project does not comply with 23 objectives, goals, and standards
of the Collier County plan. It's in there. I don't need to go through
it unless you want me to. I'll be delighted to, but that's going to
chew up a lot of my time.
If you look, it doesn't meet the density entitlement rule, the
density entitlement rule 4.07.02, and it's also -- it's not consistent with
the actual PUD purpose and intent code, you know, which basically
states that, hey, for a PUD, you've got to have your development
standards that are similar with the neighborhood. Their development
standards are not similar with the neighborhood.
As a legislative policy-making act, which is, again, what's in
March 1, 2021
Page 125
front of you, you have great discretion and not withstanding
Stock's -- Stock Development Company's documentation that we
have some support, there are, I mean, thousands of people that are
opposed to this project, and they have not been misled.
And, again, stating for the -- being very clear, I apologized to
the applicant during the P and Z conference -- hearing, excuse me,
because I did have the wrong building height on my illustration, and
that was as much a graphical scrivener's error. But I'm on the
record. I apologized. That was an accident. But in no way, shape,
or form does that negate the factual documentation that has been
presented. It's not.
This amendment, this Comp Plan amendment and subsequent
rezoning will -- absolutely will grant a unique and special privilege to
the applicant. It won't provide any meaningful public benefit other
than the parade-of-horribles argument which, again, it's not that
legitimate. You have to look at all of the issues. This will lead to a
spot rezoning, it will, because the development standards still far
away, statistically speaking, are greater than anything in the
neighborhood.
The applicant's density drives the project's non-compatibility, so
staff's recommendation to go forward with the amendment really
doesn't make any sense. It's not logical.
And then, again, if you look at professional acceptable planning
principles and practices, and using transportation as an example,
they -- the applicant stated, well, we looked at a roundabout. I have
yet to see any documentation or analysis about any alternatives and,
in fact, we have experts that fundamentally disagree. A roundabout
at South Bay would be an excellent solution. It certainly would
relieve the problems of Regatta and some of my other clients in terms
of, you know, how do you go out on a hugely busy road and go east
towards 41? A roundabout would help solve that. So, again, I just
March 1, 2021
Page 126
don't see the record in terms of them meetings, you know, bare-bones
standards.
Now, when you get into the Coastal High Hazard Area, I think it
is important to point out that your code, it states clearly -- it states
clearly that you have to provide appropriate mitigation to reduce the
impacts of hurricane evacuation times. Evacuation times are not
shelters. It's evacuation. Shelter are the cots, the trailer, I guess.
You know, so right there, 12.1.2, it doesn't comply. It's internally
inconsistent. Right there you should just stop, kick this thing back;
it does not meet that requirement.
If you look at your Coastal Conservation Goal 12, when it says
the One Naples -- where it talks about density and it requires the
project to make every reasonable effort to ensure public safety, I do
not see how increasing density by 161 percent meets that criteria. It
certainly doesn't meet the statutory requirement of a 3178.83.A,
appropriate mitigation, because appropriate mitigation ties back into
your plan which mandates; this is not an option. It mandates
evacuation, not shelter. So, again, the applicant's providing $36,320
worth of stuff rather than actual evacuation. It doesn't comply with
your Coastal Management Plan.
When you look at neighborhood compatibility -- and, again, I
think it's terrific that the applicant has come forward at the 11th-plus
hour and changed their 15-foot setbacks to 25-foot setbacks for
Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive, but it is very important
to point out, that's not the only issue here. The waterfront.
Waterfront; 25-foot is the minimal code requirement. They're
coming in at zero.
I spoke to James Sabo. I said, I thought we had an agreement.
I thought we had an understanding. He goes, oh, no, no. C-3
allows zero feet, so we're going to give that to them. Yeah, well,
C-3 also allows -- mandates open space and setbacks that they're not
March 1, 2021
Page 127
anywhere close to complying. You know, a 25-foot setback on
waterfront is the minimal you can do.
So, again, when I look at that, and then the 25-foot front setback
on South Bay, which is absolutely required -- I heard the discussion
it's an internal street. It's a public street. Talk to the people at
Barefoot Pelican. They're the ones that are going to be -- you know,
here's a project that's complying with the code next to a project that's
much taller, much mass -- much more massive, and it's going to be in
the shadow, if you will, because of these highly incompatible
setbacks.
So conservative language -- a conservative interpretation of the
language of compatibility and complementary certainly would
include, well, I think we do need a 25-foot setback along the
waterfront because that's what the code says.
We do agree with staff in their findings in their original staff
report. If you look on Page 10 -- and I won't cite them unless you
want me to, but on Page 10 through Page 13 they have 11 findings
that state the project's not compatible. They state it for building
height, at street-level parking, to the tower and massing, so forth and
so on. So we agree with them. And staff basically, in the planning
and zoning hearing said, hey, here are our standards, and then we met
with them afterwards. Is this what you mean? Yes. Is this what
you mean? Yes. Well, we'll support you. Thank you. And then
they turn around at the 11th hour and change their standards. It
doesn't make me look that good for my clients.
So when you have a project that -- and this is the
staff's -- excuse me. This is the applicant's comment, when he's
stating that this is going to be high-quality mixed-use development
that is complementary to and compatible with the surrounding
development, but yet the development standards do not get there.
They don't get there.
March 1, 2021
Page 128
You still have a 165-foot building height when your
neighborhood average is around -- is a seven- or eight-story building,
and it's a lot -- it's a lot shorter, too, because, you know, the floors,
instead of having 13- and 14-foot floors, you know, the older
buildings you're at 9, 10, and 11. You know, it just doesn't work.
And also -- let me see here. Mr. Sabo -- someone asked
Mr. Sabo whether they -- whether the new development standards
comply with the code, and he said yes. And they don't. I mean,
let's see here. The tower at the new height, the new -- the new zoned
height requires 64-and-a-half feet, okay. And they're providing
35 feet, okay. So 64 to 35.
And then the waterfront; 87-foot building requires a
43-and-a-half-foot setback. What they're proposing is zero feet to
12 feet. So Mr. Sabo is wrong. He is. Sorry.
Now, this is now obsolete because it's not 186 feet. It's
165 feet, and the 15-foot setback is now 25 feet. But even still, the
new development standards, when you compare that to the adjoining
Beachmoor, the overwhelmed Beachmoor, that should be an
important finding for you to deny the Comprehensive Plan map
amendment.
I keep going the wrong way. Okay.
The canyon effect. I really have to sit back and evaluate what
they are now proposing. Certainly, 25 feet is a lot better than 15 feet
but yet our original standards that we dropped to support staff were
30 feet, and the reason why 30-foot -- from my professional
experience of doing this for 35 years, 30-foot allows for your 21-foot
code-required pathway, plus -- and I was going, okay, plus another
10 feet for foundation plantings, granted -- so -- but instead of 31 feet
I was going, hey, you know, let's just knock it down to nine feet.
That's where we came up with the 30-foot standard. Thirty-foot is
much better. But we honor our word. We said we would support
March 1, 2021
Page 129
staff on the 25-foot setback. We still do.
That said, I'm still not sure -- I hope the optional 15-foot setback
for the tower site has been eliminated. Has it been eliminated?
Because I'm not sure because -- if it has been, we agree with
eliminating that optional 15-foot. If not, I'll talk to you about that.
The same thing with the Vanderbilt Beach Road -- and, again,
the model in front of you is to scale, so it's -- I know the applicant did
not like it because it doesn't show landscaping, but the model does
show the mass, the height, because, quite frankly, landscaping does
not resolve the issues, nor should it be nor can it be from any
interpretation in any reading of any professional books on
Comprehensive Planning. It just doesn't.
Now, I mentioned and I focused on the waterfront setback.
This slide, I think, kind of gets you there. You see where the
applicant's zero- to 12-foot setback compared to Pelican -- excuse
me -- Barefoot Pelican's setback of 25 feet, and they have 25 feet in
front; whereas, One Naples has a 10-foot setback in the front.
So you understand how Barefoot Pelican's just going to be
impacted to shadowing effects, possible creating nuisances. I don't
know. There's not enough data and analysis provided by the
applicant to really -- for me to get an understanding. But, clearly, it's
incompatible.
So, again, I strongly urge you to protect Barefoot Pelican and all
the residents that live on the back bay by having at least a 25-foot
setback. And, again, the code requires, I think, 43.
Another interesting thing, if you look from that perspective, the
building itself; 87 feet, six floors, five hundred and -- 500 -- oh, I
have 520 feet. It's actually 540 feet long, plus or minus. Basically,
you've got an 87-foot-tall building almost the length of two football
fields set back from zero to 12 feet. How could this be found
complementary and compatible? It cannot.
March 1, 2021
Page 130
You have no choice, by a conservative reading of the rules, to
throw the comprehensive map amendment out and just tell the
developer to start all over again and do something neat.
I already pointed out that it does allow potential restaurant uses
on the waterfront. Again, I would like to see Ms. Jenkins come up
and say, hey, we need to have some conditions, you know, the two
building conditions, the waterfront restaurant conditions. Tighten it
up. You need to tighten this thing up.
Driveway spacing and circulation is an important consideration.
I pointed out earlier that if you look at the graphic in front of you,
you see where the 565-foot spacing to South Bay was. Now that's
been reduced to 350 where also they are introducing a new
four-legged intersection with a left out going towards U.S. 41.
So close your eyes. Pretend you're in One Naples, and you're
trying to get out. How do you know when it's safe to get out?
You're going to have queuing up to turning in the parking garage,
you're going to have cars going out of the parking garage going
towards the beach. You're going to have cars going back and forth,
east and west, west and east. How do you know when it's safe?
Mr. Banks, during the P and Z hearing, stated, hey, well, you
know, if that's the case, if it's really jammed up, they'll back up or do
whatever, and they'll go out on South Bay. And so if they're going
to use South Bay, then it's prudent upon the Board to limit the
access -- the gateway access to right-in, right-out. Our original
recommendation, which I would still hold valid, is just close it. But
a right-in, right-out would certainly protect the public.
When you look from a Comprehensive Plan perspective, it's not
consistent. Again, look at my Exhibit 6. I mean, there are a bunch
of policies. Policy 3 2, Subparagraph F, where you have to have
safe and convenient traffic. And, again, my point is that if you have
a 38 percent reduction in intersection spacing, this is physics. You
March 1, 2021
Page 131
know, you're reducing the space; therefore, you're reducing driver
behavioral time; therefore, you are reducing safety.
Now, how much of a reduction? I don't know. But it's not
upon me to tell you. It's up to the applicant. Nothing. Nothing in
the record. Nothing from staff on that.
If you look at transportation policy on, let me see, Objective 3,
protection of future right-of-way. Well, I was going to say the
15-foot. It doesn't. But now that they're at 25 feet, yeah. So I'll
back off on that, because at least you've got another 10 feet to play
with if you do have to widen Vanderbilt Beach Road. So I'll back
off on that.
Objective 7, where, again, it mandates safe and convenient
traffic circulation. I just discussed that.
Seven one -- excuse me. Policy 7.1 and 7.2, impact on
surrounding streets. Again, where the failure of staff comes into
play is that they did not look at alternative options. This is a
long-range comprehensive map amendment. You should be looking
at solutions rather than just meeting minimal standards. Looking at
the problems of Regatta trying to get out is only going to be
compounded. A roundabout would be more than reasonable to ask.
They did not look at it.
The project also is not consistent with 7.4 where it talks about
walkable communities and common open space. Again, what
they're providing doesn't even meet code. Doesn't even meet code.
Doesn't meet the Land Development Code criteria for zoning.
External relationships. It fails to comply with 4.07.02.B, shall be
compatible, even with the revised standards. I'm sorry. My
testimony is it's not, and I'm not using illustrations that are
nonmeasurable. I'm using models. I'm using real statistics based
upon the real neighborhoods.
If you look at residential density, 4.07.02.D, creates un -- an
March 1, 2021
Page 132
inconvenient or unsafe access. I suggest to you that, yes, it does.
They disagree, but I'll stay with my opinion.
Traffic congestion. Possibly. They have not looked at the
interrelated connection reduction and the new turning leg. So, again,
they don't meet the Land Development Code criteria for density.
So if you look at the findings, okay, again, it's not
consistent -- oh, there's a typo. It should be 23, Growth
Management Plan objectives, policies, and standards, not 24. It's
internally inconsistent. I disagree with staff, period.
The zoning is a poorly designed project still based on two
narrow setbacks with no functional open space and a complete
absence of coastal high hazard evacuation mitigation. Again,
cots -- cots are not evacuation. That's what the code requires.
Traffic circulation. Again, I pointed out, this is a poorly
executed project. You should be looking at long-range solutions.
This does not meet the statutory requirement for data and analysis
and internal consistency.
And, again, it doesn't comply with a lot of your codes. I think
the graphic to the right of you shows, hey, this is what a 21-foot
pedestrian pathway that is code required, you know, that's what it
kind of looks like, and they're doing an 8-foot pathway off the
property which is, again, not allowed. Well, not allowed, if they can
get away with it.
If you look at the findings, okay, this is where we get -- it gets
really interesting. You know, you have broad
legislative -- legislative powers, compared to if this goes into a
zoning issue, it's quasi-judicial. If the applicant -- and this is
hypothetical, but if the applicant doesn't like the zoning and he
litigates, basically you've just given him -- gave him an opening.
The easiest way out to prevent excessive county liability is to deny
the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
March 1, 2021
Page 133
The standards. Okay. We have agreed, and we will still say,
yes, we agree to the original planning and zoning recommended
standards, and that was agreed to by staff, and Sarah Spector was on
the phone -- on the Zoom with us November 15th -- that were agreed
to by staff for us to support the project. So we agree with that,
76 feet to 125 feet with the wedding cake design, if you will.
And, by the way, the reason is this -- and it's important to point
out. You've got a 50-foot separation, so if you don't have a
step-back, you know, depending on your angle of how you're looking
at it, you're going to have -- you're going to have, like, this perception
from almost all -- all viewpoints on Vanderbilt Beach Road and
probably Gulf Shore Drive of one massive structure.
The wedding cake approach reduces that so all of a sudden
you're differentiating. So instead of looking at one monolithic -- the
perception of one monolithic structure, the wedding cake then allows
a more complimentary approach. You know, it distinguishes the two
towers. And I know the applicant said, hey, well, you know, the
Regatta's got it. Well, quite frankly, the Regatta never should have
been built like that. They also should have had greater setbacks, but
that's history. No sense -- no sense repeating, you know, what the
Regatta has in terms of setback and step-back.
We agree with staff with the 25-foot setback, but this is where
we disagree. And I just spoke with James Sabo. We were very
clear, 25-foot setback for all buildings, front and back; waterfront,
front and back; the mid-rise on Vanderbilt Beach Road, front and
back. Now staff's backing off on it. So we disagree with staff.
We certainly absolutely recommend in the highest possible
terms a minimal 25 percent open space, and that is below code. But
a 25 percent open space, and it has to be functional. It can't be on
the roof. It has to be functional as per your own definition with
common open space. And the right-in, right-out, I think that's very,
March 1, 2021
Page 134
very important to protect the public.
So when you look at staff's original recommendations, there was
a reasonable nexus between their height standards and their
conditions, and this shows that. You know, you have the 127-foot
Beachmoor. They're coming up with 125 feet, so forth and so on.
So there was significant data and analysis to support their
recommendations, their original recommendations, not the ones they
just changed a week or two ago. I don't know when they changed it.
There's no data and analysis to support their new stuff.
Fifteen-foot setback, we've already gone into that. That's now
25 feet. One thing that I would like to point out, that even with a
25-foot setback, where would this be accessible in Collier County?
Would this -- would this development, the development standards
that we're talking about, be accessible in Marco Island? No. I
mean, Sanibel? Fort Myers Beach? Bonita Beach? No, no, no.
City of Naples, no. Yet somehow, someway, staff is saying, hey, go
ahead, approve the density knowing that the density's going to create
compatibility and complementary concerns and we'll just kind of
condition it and, you know, tweak it a little bit. That's not how it
works. This would not be acceptable any place, certainly Marco
Island.
Setbacks, we already talked about that. The optional 15-foot
setback condition. Again, I'm under the impression that now is
being deleted, withdrawn, so I don't have to speak about that.
So my last is this: The easiest, practical and most lucid way of
approaching this issue is deny the amendment and tell the applicant
to go back and redo the design. This is a legislative action. This is
not quasi-judicial in terms of the Comp Plan amendments. Respect
the original record. How can staff change their recommendations at
the 11th hour when there's no substantial change in conditions? I
mean, the elevations that they were talking about were the same, you
March 1, 2021
Page 135
know, in September, October that were embedded in the staff report.
You know, changing it on the 11th hour and then all of a sudden
forcing everybody to scramble to understand that, I don't understand
why this thing isn't remanded.
So any change -- in my humble opinion, any change from the
original staff conditions, you know, is just really not appropriate and
supportable. You know, you shouldn't be horse trading. This is
way too important of an issue to be horse trading at the 11th hour.
Let's do this right. You should kick -- you should just deny it and
say, start all over again.
And thank you very much. I'm available for any questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't see any questions from my
Board, but I think Mr. Yovanovich has some questions.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, actually just a couple of questions
on format. Do you want to go, Commissioner Solis?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Your button wasn't pushed, sir, so I --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, you beat me to it, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There we go.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So, Mr. Stuart, I'm
just -- I'm trying to understand in terms of the commercial -- well,
you've said that at some point you agreed that the staff's
recommendation for 25-foot setback was acceptable.
MR. STUART: Yes. As long as it doesn't have that 15-foot
option.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. STUART: That is in lieu of our 30-foot but, yes, we have
agreed to that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You've agreed to that, okay.
MR. STUART: For all buildings, front and back, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All buildings.
MR. STUART: All buildings, front and back.
March 1, 2021
Page 136
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. The -- your position that
there's not enough open space, is that -- does that take into
consideration the DaRuMa piece, or is that based upon the DaRuMa
piece not being included in the calculation?
MR. STUART: Well, the DaRuMa piece, quite frankly, is
legally nonpermissible.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, that's not my question. My
question is, your analysis that there's not enough open space, does
that include DaRuMa or not include DaRuMa?
MR. STUART: Well, because this was just sprung up at the
11th hour, I haven't conducted the analysis, but it --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So no?
MR. STUART: If I -- I don't think DaRuMa will get you at that
30 percent, but it would be more beneficial to actually have an
open-space table so we could figure it out.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm still not clear on whether you
answered my -- I mean, you're reaching a conclusion that there's
no -- there's not enough open space. All I'm asking you -- it's not a
trick question -- is whether or not that conclusion that you've reached
is based upon the DaRuMa's being included in that -- in your
calculation or not being included in your calculation.
MR. STUART: DaRuMa, my -- my analysis is based on
DaRuMa not being included in any calculations.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. STUART: And if I did, I have a feeling it still won't meet
the 30 percent, and that's why, again, the code requires some type of
documentation, an open-space table, if you will. There's no
open-space table. I really can't address the issue. Staff should have
been addressing this issue a half a year ago.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I don't have any other
questions for Mr. Stuart.
March 1, 2021
Page 137
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, I know that
Mr. Yovanovich is probably chomping at the bit here to reply.
But when I hear things like Mr. Stuart say it doesn't meet the
bare-bones standards of code -- which I can appreciate your
comment. I'm not attacking you or anything, but you're basically
saying staff did this incorrectly or this incorrectly.
Me, personally, I'd like to hear the rebuttal from the staff. I
mean, I know Mr. Yovanovich is going to probably go through five
or six things here possibly, maybe not, but at some point, I mean, I
took some great notes here, and of the 23 items that don't meet
Growth Management Plan objectives, policies, or standards, you
know, according to, you know, Mr. Stuart, I mean, there's eight big
ones that I'd like to hear the rebuttal on. And, I mean, I just think it's
more appropriate to hear it from the staff than from the applicant,
especially when the acquisition or, I guess, maybe the comment -- I
shouldn't say accusation -- the comment is that staff is overlooking
some pretty key things.
So I wrote down eight things that I'd love to hear -- you know,
eight questions that I have -- and I think they're going to be shared by
my colleagues, so I don't -- you know, I mean, I think we're going to
have very similar questions. So, if I may ask Ms. Jenkins these,
and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ma'am, so you heard, it was
said that it doesn't meet the bare-bones standards of code and that
there's 23 items that don't meet Growth Management Plan objectives,
policies, and standards.
Here's the eight big ones that jumped out to me, and I'd just like
to hear, you know, your reply, because the term was there's major
March 1, 2021
Page 138
gaps in the record. So these are in no particular order. It was the
order they were presented. So what is mandated by C-3 via
setbacks? So zero setbacks on the water is not -- is not acceptable?
MS. JENKINS: It is acceptable, and 25 feet or half the distance
of the building would be required under C-3 for setbacks.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MS. JENKINS: And that would be 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: The second thing I wrote
here is that there's more drainage requirement by the developer.
That was a more complicated discussion. But to your assessment, is
the drainage design and what the applicant is going to provide, does it
meet the requirements of what we would have -- we request via code?
MS. JENKINS: Stormwater management is addressed at the
time of Site Development Plan, not at the time of zoning.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. The trip generation
numbers were questioned significantly, that maybe an example of a
strip mall -- or I forget the exact terminology. It really wasn't apples
to apples, and the staff was incorrect in the numbers. What would be
your rebuttal to that?
MS. JENKINS: I stand by our analysis of the trip generations
that have been done by staff and peer reviewed.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Well, let's shift gears
into hurricane evac, because that's a big one. Is it within standards
and can you rebut or comment on what's being said here about, you
know, cots aren't hurricane standard and that there's a whole bunch of
things in the -- that are county requirements that aren't being met
here?
MS. JENKINS: Sure. Anytime we have a project that needs
hurricane evacuation evaluation, our expert, Dan Summers, does that
evaluation, and we rely on him to do that evaluation.
What Dan has provided to us before is anytime you look at
March 1, 2021
Page 139
evacuation, it's based on the level of service of the roadways. So if
you're at level of service and you have capacity on the roadways, then
you're meeting your evacuation needs. And so Dan's mitigation for
hurricane was to do 172 cots. And that's where that requirement
came from is from our own expert, Dan Summers.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. So in your estimation
then, the analysis was done; it does meet county requirements?
MS. JENKINS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Open space being below
code. What would be your comment on that?
MS. JENKINS: My comment is maybe let's read the definition
of open space, which includes hardscape areas, atriums. I have it
here. It includes outdoor facilities, plazas, atriums, courtyards, and
other similar public spaces. It does not say it has to be on the ground
or on the top. We consider that open space, and open space is
measured, again, at the time of Site Development Plan in Collier
County.
MR. STUART: Areas that are not occupied by building, just as
rebuttal. You forgot that, Madam.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Let me just -- because you'll
get a chance, Mr. Stuart. So when you look at this particular project,
especially now with the acquisition of the restaurant and it gives
more open space as long as it's used correctly, would your assessment
be that the open space does meet the requirement?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: This is a big one, too. The
comment was made that these are just basically architectural
drawings and that they're non-binding illustrations. What would be
your professional comment? And that the staff is -- you know, all of
these were directed towards -- that the staff is just basically using
architectural drawings and making decisions and that these are
March 1, 2021
Page 140
nonbinding. What would be your comment?
MS. JENKINS: My comment is today we agreed to a condition
in the Planned Unit Development document to require two towers on
that location with a 50-foot separation.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So the comment that's dated
where you or some others on the staff said, yeah, they could put one,
now that is -- that has definitely changed and fixed and formal and
whatnot?
MS. JENKINS: Yes. They have committed to it today, and
you will see that in the PUD document that we would approve.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Just two more quick
ones, because they concern me about full storage and the ship store.
How much detail would have to be in the -- you know, the
architectural drawings that we've already seen? You know, the
comment's been made, where is it? You know, it's missing or
whatnot. Is that something, then, that goes against code or --
MS. JENKINS: No, sir. That, again, is done at the time of
Site Development Plan. When you have your marina plan done, to
get a marina, they first have to go through the whole Manatee
Protection Plan to determine the number of docks that they can have,
so they have to go through that step through Site Development Plan.
So we don't -- we don't have that information until they do that
analysis with DEP.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And there's a possibility they
could do that analysis, and it might not meet the requirement --
MS. JENKINS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- correct?
And then, lastly -- and this is sort of an overall comment. But
we heard that the neighborhood -- it's not complementary to the
neighborhood development standards and that no analysis was done,
and I saw you back there sort of shaking your head, so I wanted to
March 1, 2021
Page 141
give you the floor to make -- that was -- this is my last observation.
What would be your comment to that?
MS. JENKINS: Yeah. We did a full evaluation of the project,
and through the review of it all, we find it compatible and
complementary with towers in the area, limited commercial, to
reduce the impacts on public infrastructure, which is required for us
to look at through your Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. Mr. Stuart made several
references to requiring architectural -- actual -- the construction
drawings, architectural drawings for this process. I mean, is that the
usual process for a rezoning?
MS. JENKINS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: When does all that come into play?
MS. JENKINS: At the time of building permit.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And site plan and all that?
MS. JENKINS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And building permit approval and
all that?
MS. JENKINS: Site plan.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Nothing else. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
Commissioner LoCastro asked a lot of the questions that I think
needed to be explained. I think you did a nice job with those.
But one I still have is the issue of the mass of these buildings
and the mass of the parking garage. So I'm a bit troubled. I'm
looking at their display, and I realize that that's not accurate in terms
of the heights of the buildings at this point. But can you kind of
March 1, 2021
Page 142
comment on the issue of the mass of the buildings, the mass of the
parking garage, and I think the term was "canyonization" of this
roadway and --
MS. JENKINS: Sure. What we heard, Commissioner, at the
time of the Planning Commission was their architect that was
testifying about the mass of the building and the air and the light and
the view sheds, the view cones from the other existing buildings
around it, and that's what they were most concerned about, and that's
how this design evolved over time to ensure light, air, and
appropriate design standards for these buildings.
So that was the staff's concern when we first started reviewing
this project. We did not want to see one large building. And
through the design process and the hearing process, they have
amended that to provide for air and light to flow through those areas
and not to block those view cones that people enjoy now.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There was a comment made
that this parking garage is, in essence, a full city block, and there's
nothing in Southwest Florida that is comparable to this type of a large
parking garage this close to the road. Is that -- is that accurate? Is
this --
MS. JENKINS: I know of two parking garages in the City of
Naples that have zero-foot setbacks.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. And I'm looking at
the posters there showing a 35-foot -- I think it was 30-foot and
35-foot kind of a -- to depict the height of the parking garage and
the -- how it will look to people on the sidewalk. I'd just like your
comment on that. I realize that that's a 15-foot, and we're going to
be at 25-foot, and I realize there's going to be landscaping, but is that
a fairly accurate depiction of what that's going to look like, in your
opinion? And if not, why?
MS. JENKINS: I don't think the photos are an accurate
March 1, 2021
Page 143
depiction of what that's going to look like because of the landscaping
that's going to be around it, and today we also heard that they're
going to lower it to 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the parking garage will
be at 25 feet, not at 30 or 35?
MS. JENKINS: No? Oh, I'm sorry. The setback is going to
be 25 feet, not the height.
So that illustration doesn't have any of the landscaping, the
setback of it, or anything else illustrated, so I don't think that's a fair
representation.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The parking garages in the
City of Naples, I'm very -- obviously, we're all familiar with those.
That has zero setback. How tall are those? Do you --
MS. JENKINS: They're three stories so, you know, they're
probably over 35 feet.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just for the sake of repeating
it, this is a Comp Plan amendment and a zoning process that we're
approving right now, and it is common, Mr. Stuart, frustration when
folks are in this -- in this system to have concerns about final details
that are, in fact, coming with a particular project.
Do we have architectural standards available or utilized while
someone's coming through the actual development process for SDP
and such?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir, we do. We have architectural
standards in Collier County that they will follow.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. I was -- I want to
assure you that that, in fact -- that is, in fact, the case. I also want to
assure you that no one is infallible. But it's been a long time since I
heard somebody make the representations that you made today about
March 1, 2021
Page 144
our staff and their capacity to do their job well.
MR. STUART: May I speak to the architectural? Because,
again, I did not state -- did not state we were asking for --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I heard you make a statement
with regard to the architectural plans. You weren't able to review
those, and that was something that you actually wanted to do as a
portion of your --
MR. STUART: That's not correct --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- review.
MR. STUART: -- Mr. Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We'll watch the tape.
MR. STUART: Rule 10.02.13.A.F, and this goes to one
of -- the heart of the issue. When determined necessary to
adequately address the compatibility of proposed uses to existing or
other proposed uses, relationship to open space, rec facilities or
traffic impacts, or to assess requests for reductions in dimensional
standards, the planning and zoning director may request schematic
architectural drawings for the structures. I was not referring to Site
Development Plan architectural standards. I was referring to
10.02.13 as a point of discretion.
And then also, I just have to say, I have never been sandbagged
by staff, so I didn't want to bring that up, but there you have it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As -- and that, in fact, is the
point in case with regard to your comments earlier, sir.
MR. STUART: Well, I'm sorry, being that direct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have no further comments.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm going to let what Mr. Stuart
just said about our staff sink in a minute here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You're more patient than I.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have found that -- I have found
March 1, 2021
Page 145
that so disturbing that I've forgotten what I was going to say.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I'm --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I take great exception to those
comments.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Nothing else.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I believe that Mr. Yovanovich wants
to speak, and so we certainly can come back to you, sir.
MS. JENKINS: I just have one question for Mr. Stuart, if I
may.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sure. Absolutely.
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Stuart, did you attend the Planning
Commission?
MR. STUART: Yes.
MS. JENKINS: Yes? And were you there on October 15th?
MR. STUART: Yes.
MS. JENKINS: And did you hear the conversations about the
FEMA?
MR. STUART: Yes, on pages 21 and 22 of the transcripts.
MS. JENKINS: And did you read through Pages 99 through
120?
MR. STUART: Yes, I did.
MS. JENKINS: And can they build commercial on the ground
floor?
MR. STUART: No, they can't, but -- well, they can have
ancillary commercial uses that relate to a number of functions. As
an example of not being allowed would be kitchens, for example, for
a restaurant.
MS. JENKINS: And do you remember the testimony by
Elizabeth Fountain to talk about floodproofing and what the details of
the building requires?
March 1, 2021
Page 146
MR. STUART: That's correct.
MS. JENKINS: And what was that?
MR. STUART: Well, geez, going into FEMA. I mean, that's a
very broad code. What exactly do you want me to testify to?
MS. JENKINS: I'm asking you -- you said that they could
build, on the first floor, commercial uses; is that what you just said?
MR. STUART: No, I was using -- you can have ancillary
commercial uses such as plazas, areas for sitting and dining, et cetera,
et cetera, that tie into the commercial uses that relate to Mr. Sabo's
original condition, street functionality and street vibrancy.
MS. JENKINS: Okay. So there could be something down
there, but they cannot -- you cannot walk off the street and into a
store?
MR. STUART: That's more or less correct; more or less
correct.
MS. JENKINS: Is correct or not correct?
MR. STUART: Well, because, again, your own staff, on
Page 21 and 22, said it's -- see, the whole issue was accessibility, you
know, i.e., we've got access through an elevator shaft versus -- versus
the activization, and the original condition was to activize the street
to make it compatible, and we agree with that.
MS. JENKINS: So, Mr. Stuart, did Mr. Sabo's comment come
before or after the testimony of the experts of the applicant and the
county staff?
MR. STUART: I think the -- your flood FEMA gentleman was
after Mr. Sabo.
MS. JENKINS: So would it be fair to say that we would -- staff
should respond to expert testimony and evidence submitted during a
Planning Commission to advise this board?
MR. STUART: That's absolutely correct, but then why is it
that a month later -- almost a month later when we're discussing these
March 1, 2021
Page 147
issues with you, you said absolutely, we're going to clarify that
because we believe in Mr. Sabo? So that was well after the planning
and zoning hearing. That's why I'm so irate about this whole issue.
MS. JENKINS: Okay. So the clarification is on the record
that we made an agreement, staff and the applicant and the Board
came to an -- the Planning Commission came to an understanding of
commercial was not doable on the ground floor and, therefore, the
agreement was to allow the commercial on the second floor
accessible to the public, and that's -- and I will be happy to enter that
word for word in the record if necessary, but that is what the record
shows on Pages 90 through 120 or so.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. JENKINS: I have no further questions.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Madam Chair, I remembered my
question.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I saw your light.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And it has to do with the
canyonization issue. What's the height of our parking garage?
MS. JENKINS: Forty feet.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Our parking garage is 40 feet to the
railings and everything on the top floor. And --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Ours or the county?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, no, the county's. I'm sorry.
The county's, yeah, 40 feet.
MS. JENKINS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Forty feet, not -- okay. And do
we have any idea what the setback is on the county parking garage?
MS. JENKINS: Twenty-five.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Twenty-two.
MS. JENKINS: Twenty-two.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Twenty-two feet. Okay. That's
March 1, 2021
Page 148
all I needed. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Mr. Yovanovich, you've been very patient.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, and I appreciate all the questions,
and I -- I'm impressed by Anita's questioning of Mr. Stuart.
Mr. Stuart, I just want to make sure, did you go back and review
your Planning Commission testimony?
MR. STUART: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Was that testimony under oath?
MR. STUART: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is it truthful and accurate?
MR. STUART: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So I can quote it back when I do my
closing?
MR. STUART: Mr. Yovanovich, you can do whatever --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want to go through the whole -- I
don't want to go through a whole recross-examination. I just want to
make sure you're not going to change anything you said from the
Planning Commission, so when I give the excerpts about your
testimony and the inaccuracies of that testimony in my close, you're
not taking anything back?
MR. STUART: Well, I can't because I'm not -- I can't get back
on the record.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So it was accurate, right?
MR. STUART: Mr. Yovanovich, please tell me what's in your
hip pocket.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I've got nothing. I've just got
nothing but your words. And you can help me so I can prepare for
my rebuttal.
MR. STUART: I'd be delighted to help you, Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know, and I don't think anybody
March 1, 2021
Page 149
else in this room who's worked in Collier County knows where
there's a 20-foot-wide -- 21-foot-wide pathway requirement anywhere
in the Land Development Code, because they don't exist anywhere in
Collier County. So when I'm prepared for my rebuttal, I want to
know what section to go to, and then I want to be able to talk to my
consultants as to why we didn't meet that 21-foot requirement.
MR. STUART: May I give you that section?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Yes, you can.
MR. STUART: Just a moment. Because it's both in the -- it's
both in the mixed-use C-3 and in the MPUD section, so let me just
find it. Just bear with me. Oh, I'm on the wrong file. LDC
1.08.02, definitions, pedestrian pathway, the area between road
right-of-way and buildings within commercial mixed-use project and
residential mixed-use PUD project. Pedestrian pathway shall
include street furnishings, so forth and so on, and shall be a minimum
of 21 feet in width and then, again, it's also in the C-3 mixed use. So
there's two spots where it requires a 21-foot -- minimum 21-foot
pedestrian pathway.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sir, you're -- I just want to make sure
I've got this clear. You're telling me I've got to have a sidewalk
21 feet wide to be consistent with the Collier County Land
Development Code?
MR. STUART: Again, 1.08.02, the definition of a pedestrian
pathway not only gives the specificity of 21 feet, but it states that it
has to be, you know, between the right-of-way and the building,
which means it has to be on the property, not off the property.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We'll check that. And my only
other -- couple of other questions. I'm looking at these pictures.
Can you tell me where the property line is on the pictures that you're
showing to the commissioners?
MR. STUART: The property line setback?
March 1, 2021
Page 150
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Tell me where the property line is
on these pictures. Right here. You see. You're displaying them.
Where's the property line?
MR. STUART: Well, the 15-foot shows the outer -- the outer
line. And, again, these are approximate. Oh, well, that's not my
slide. Can I -- no. Can I go back on my slide?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. You're showing these pictures,
and I want to know --
MR. STUART: Well, it's on my slide.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair? Madam
Chair, he needs to be on a microphone so we can get the record. We
have a hand-held microphone.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Please, please.
MR. MILLER: Hold on just a minute.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Somebody hold the picture
for him.
MR. MILLER: Now you can walk around.
MR. STUART: But may I open up -- because it's the identical
picture but it's annotated. May I? Just a moment.
MR. YOVANOVICH: While picking that up, did you have a
surveyor out there actually stake the property line?
MR. STUART: Just a moment. There we go. Approximately
there. And, no, that was -- there was no surveyor. It was basically
just a step-back. And, again, it's an approximate dimension. This
illustrates the height. It doesn't -- it's not supposed to represent, you
know, a literal parking garage, but it's trying to show the height at
15 feet and a setback. So there it is.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And did we ask for any deviations from
the county's definition of open space in our PUD?
MR. STUART: Well, originally you did, yes. Originally, you
asked for --
March 1, 2021
Page 151
MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't ask you the originally. I'm
asking you right now, the document that's in front of the Board of
County Commissioners, did we ask for a deviation from the county's
open-space requirement?
MR. STUART: You originally asked for a rooftop open-space
deviation, and that was withdrawn, I believe, in April based upon
what I strongly believe is an erroneous interpretation. Because when
your code says open space cannot be occupied by buildings and you
have open space occupied by buildings, we'll disagree all day long on
that, Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that a no? Is your answer no?
MR. STUART: Well, no. You did ask for a deviation. Then
you withdrew it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. I'll deal with the rest of it
in my rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask a process question?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: When we met in your office about how
much time --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's up to the discretion of the Chair,
sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, and I'm just asking. You
had said you were going to give them an hour and a half, and Mr. --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He's been there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: He's been there almost an hour and a
half. Are we going to allow their transportation consultant an hour
and a half? Is that the plan?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, we're not. In fact, I think this is
a perfect time for a break for Ms. Terri, because I think she needs it.
So we're going to have a 10-minute break, which puts us back here at
March 1, 2021
Page 152
3:45. That's enough for you, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Eleven minutes.
(A brief recess was had from 3:34 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. So now we
are going to continue.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Somebody's got to hit the live
mic button.
MR. MILLER: No, no. You're --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I couldn't hear you. I'm
sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You couldn't hear me because I
probably was not close enough.
Okay. Thank you very much. So if you would please identify
yourself, and we'll continue.
MR. OLIVER: Sure. Are we ready? Good, thanks. My
name's Bill Oliver. I'm a -- wait a minute. Let me take off my
mask anyway. Yeah, my name's Bill Oliver. I'm a registered
Florida professional engineer certified by the Transportation
Professionals Certification Board as a professional traffic operations
engineer.
I've got 42 years of experience in traffic and circulation issues
relating to land development. In that 42 years, I've undertaken
impact analyses or reviewed on behalf of government agencies over
170 million square feet of nonresidential development and over
180,000 residential dwellings. I've actually kept count.
I've been retained by Save Vanderbilt Beach to review traffic
issues associated with One Naples. And in my presentation to the
Planning Commission, I spent more time discussing a variety of
concerns with the applicant's analysis and his traffic -- the traffic
circulation solutions that are on the table, and I also presented a
concept for providing better long-term safety and circulation by
March 1, 2021
Page 153
separating vehicles from vulnerable road users, that is pedestrians and
bicycles.
I stand by the recommendations and the observations I made in
that Planning Commission testimony, but today, in the interest of
brevity, I'm going to focus on four or five circulation issues relevant
to the proposed land-use plan amendment and your growth
management policies. The blessing of this is Greg kind of hit on all
of them. So I may not even spend as much time as I was planning
to.
So this proceeding is for an amendment to the Growth
Management Plan land-use element to add -- allow greater densities
on the land parcel in question. This isn't a concurrency hearing. As
you're aware, the two processes are very different. You're not bound
in this process by the laws and rules that govern concurrency. You
can apply your planning judgment.
The proposed buildings will exist on that site for who knows
how many years, 80, 100; realistically, that's probably true. So it
makes little sense to limit your considerations and design reviews to a
short-term site access and traffic impact analysis. It makes more
sense to consider this development from the longer-term perspective
of your Growth Management Plan's companion adopted
Transportation Element, and so that's what I've done. And in doing
so, I've concluded the solutions on the table to traffic issues miss
some key opportunities to address some of this these longer-term
issues.
So that's kind of the gist of where I'm going. This -- where is
your technology guy? "Page down" isn't working here. Oh, there
we go. "Arrow down" works.
Okay. So the very first goal of your Transportation Element
says the county's intent is to develop a safe and efficient mobility
system, and those statements are propagated into the land-use code as
March 1, 2021
Page 154
well where it gives you the ability to lessen the density or intensity of
a development when it's been determined that that site or that
development would create inconvenient or unsafe access or create
traffic congestion.
So some of the specific issues. I'll start with the comparison.
I'm going to skip that slide. But I'll start with the comparison of the
proposed development to the C-3 shopping center development
option. You just need to know that the retail land use to which they
have compared their development is that of a typical suburban
shopping center, Publix, Walgreens, dry cleaners, and so forth. If a
suburban shopping center is developed, it would only serve folks who
live out on the beach. Why would someone who lives over by
U.S. 41 come out to the beach to come to a grocery store when there's
many grocery stores available on U.S. 41? In fact, it may eliminate
the need for people who live out on the beach to go over to U.S. 41,
potentially even reducing traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Road.
So another option is maybe they build a beach-oriented retail.
In that case, the trips that come to that retail would probably be
coming to the beach anyway. So there would be no dramatic
increase in traffic. But if they go for restaurants and night life and
those types of land uses, those trips would arrive during the evening
and not during the crunch time of daytime when people are trying to
access the beach and access the parking garage.
So the comparison that's been provided, even as Greg
mentioned, not taking into consideration pass-by capture, the
internalization of trips, it's a -- it's a dramatic overstatement of the
comparison.
This location, this is a beach environment. It's different. It's
not your typical suburban neighborhood, and I'll come back to that
point on another issue in a little while.
So the bottom line to us is that comparison -- their comparison's
March 1, 2021
Page 155
not just as dramatic as they are portraying.
Second issue, quantity of parking at the county parking garage.
It's inadequate. As they've adequately described, it fills up quickly,
cars stack out in the middle of the road and, you know, unless -- and
that issue's not going to be addressed unless the capacity of that
parking garage is increased. The improvements to the access of the
parking garage will help for -- help a little bit because it will get cars
off the street quicker. But once it fills up, it's filled up again.
So that's the fundamental issue of an inadequate county
infrastructure in that area that literally causes problems that spill out
into the street.
Third issue is that -- is raised by residents of the -- oh, and I
have a video clip here that illustrates the existing condition. In the
interest of time, I'm going to forego showing it to you, but it does
illustrate the traffic queues that occur, the heavy pedestrian and
bicycle traffic. If you're interested, I can show it to you in the
Q-and-A period. Well, there it goes.
Okay. An issue -- an issue of inadequate infrastructure is raised
by residents of the existing developments on the north side of
Vanderbilt Beach Road, and that's the long delays and the difficulty
they experience when they try to exit their sites to go left to go east
towards U.S. 41. Residents of Barefoot Pelican and Regatta just east
of the One Naples site as well as residents of the Beachwalk
subdivision over by U.S. 41 have expressed to me the difficulties.
Provision of a roundabout is part of a traffic circulation solution
at the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and South Bay Drive.
Right over in this area. I guess I can point with my mouse as well.
I sure can. Yeah, right in this area would provide opportunity for
residents to make a right turn out of their site and make -- and then
easily make a U-turn as a part of that roundabout operation.
So a series of improvements have been proposed that are
March 1, 2021
Page 156
summarized on this slide, but these solutions basically just reinforce
the current conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
They are proposing to install a west-to-north right-turn lane
which lengthens the length of the crosswalks and the installation of a
traffic signal there to separate pedestrians and traffic time-wise. But
just from observation -- personal observations of beach areas, when a
thunderstorm rolls in or something, there's not a whole lot that will
regulate and control pedestrians who want to get across the street in
order to get out of the rain. So I think that solution has somewhat
limited effectiveness.
Improving the operation of the county parking garage, as I
mentioned earlier, making the entry to the parking garage quicker,
lengthening the turn lane, and providing the remote signage to advise
when the garage is full are good, and they will help in the short term
but, having looked at this from the longer-term perspective from your
Long-Range Transportation Plan, which forecasts about 25 percent
growth in traffic through this roadway corridor, the congestion at the
parking garage entrance will return.
So I had proposed in the Planning Commission meetings an
alternate solution to long-term circulation needs, and that's the idea of
routing your basic through-traffic around the north side and east side
of One Naples and just physically separating vehicular traffic from
the concentration of pedestrian traffic that happens at the intersection
of Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road.
During the Planning Commission hearing -- well, that does a
better job of separating vehicles from pedestrians and bicycles,
especially in that area. It will also reduce the opposing traffic at the
parking garage entrance, making it easier for that left turn in to occur.
During the Planning Commission hearing, there were some
concerns raised with shifting traffic into a residential area, and maybe
the community isn't ready for this solution yet. But this is a beach
March 1, 2021
Page 157
community with multistory residential condominiums. It's different
from a single-family residential neighborhood.
If you look at other communities and how their beach facilities
work, they take advantage of every opportunity they can to help with
traffic circulation. Your circulation options here are limited.
You've either got Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore, or you've
got South Bay. And this -- the option to develop a bypass route on
the north side and east side is an option you need to protect and
develop as it is appropriate for future needs, but this is the step. This
is the land-use plan amendment time. This is the step when some of
those steps need to be taken.
Safety at the access point. This is the slide I used in the
Planning Commission hearing. I'm not going to go into it greatly.
But the key here is that adding, on the right side, a new leg to the
driveway connection point at Vanderbilt Beach Road at the parking
garage, with a continued what -- what, in the long term, with the
traffic congestion returning, there will be queues in the throat of the
parking garage. Simply put, the effectiveness of the new leg relies
on the left turn coming out of the site, which has the most subordinate
right-of-way. Having to make a decision when to make his left turn
when the westbound left turn has the superior, the priority
right-of-way, when he's -- they're going to have to make the decision
when to make that left turn when that -- when the guy making the
westbound left turn is looking in the opposite direction and not seeing
him exit the site.
It's not a normal situation. It's complicated, it's unusual, and it,
therefore, diminishes the safety of that location.
I would recommend that that movement be relocated. You can
take advantage of Center road [sic] as the access to the development,
which fits nicely with the concept of developing traffic around the
north and east side of One Naples or, as Greg mentioned, possibly
March 1, 2021
Page 158
just restrict the movements to a right-out and right-in.
The applicant has indicated that congestion may encourage users
to choose other driveways. But let's face it, reliance on congestion
to promote safety really isn't the best design strategy.
So Land Development Code Section 4.07.02 was written to
ensure that site access and surrounding road congestion issues are
addressed. The question is, between the applicant's plans and the
county's plans, are there solutions to all the issues, short-term and
long-term issues, and are these solutions programmed, funded, and
being implemented commensurate with the development to address
the infrastructure deficiencies? In this case, they're not, and the
proposed development will create new or contribute to these existing
adverse conditions.
So there are solutions to existing circulation problems that I
would recommend you consider putting on the table and promoting
and taking advantage of at this time in the development review
process.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Here we are.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sir, so can you go to your
alternatives on the traffic. That one. So you're suggesting that the
circulation be re-routed so that it goes through South Bay over to
Gulf Shore?
MR. OLIVER: Not all of it, no. The site plan itself right now
has a connection eastward along Center road connecting over here to
the east to South Bay. It's got an exit to the north to South Bay. So
if you wanted to head eastward towards U.S. 41, you could just go
eastward across Center road to South Bay, take advantage of the
March 1, 2021
Page 159
roundabout, and head east, or if you're coming in from the east from
41, you'd make the right turn onto South Bay and then immediately
turn left into the site.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But you're just referring to
the traffic -- sorry -- the traffic, the internal traffic, the folks that live
in this area, Barefoot Pelican. You're not suggesting that South Bay
become, like, a connector or something to divert traffic -- just the
general traffic from Vanderbilt to Gulf Shore, are you?
MR. OLIVER: I actually am. The interesting thing here is
that of all the traffic that's coming westward on Vanderbilt Drive,
25 percent of this turns left to go into the Ritz-Carlton, 25 percent of
it comes on over to the parking garage, stays on Vanderbilt Beach
Road and goes into the parking garage or deals with the beach
dropoff area, 50 percent of that traffic wants to head up north on Gulf
Shore.
So if you can provide a convenient alternate route where they
don't have to get mixed in with the backups from Gulf Shore at
Vanderbilt Drive or the backups associated with the parking garage,
let them take the South Bay bypass, if you will --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. OLIVER: -- and circulate.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: How wide is the right -- how wide
is South Bay?
MR. OLIVER: Well, the developer -- the developer has a
commitment to improve to 10-foot traffic lanes plus bike lanes on
either side.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And was -- I thought it was
brought up that the potential for a roundabout, that there was
right-of-way issues, that maybe that would require -- there wouldn't
be enough land there just to put one in. Is that -- was that your
understanding?
March 1, 2021
Page 160
MR. OLIVER: That is what I heard this morning, and I kind of
agree that a roundabout would probably, in all likelihood, require
some corner clip or land acquisition on the south side, on the Ritz
Carlton property; however, when you consider the advantages that a
roundabout provides, it could be well worth an investment --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. OLIVER: -- along those lines.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And if there's a
right-in -- if there's a right-out only, if the connections on Vanderbilt
Beach Road are right-out only -- and I thought that's what I heard you
say.
MR. OLIVER: Yeah, the possibility of a right-in here and --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. OLIVER: -- and a right-out here.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So then everyone -- oh,
just on that -- on that entrance?
MR. OLIVER: Yes, yes. Yeah, yeah, because the problem
movement is the people trying to come out and turn left onto
Vanderbilt Beach Road.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Which they -- which they
do at South Bay at both ends?
MR. OLIVER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And --
MR. OLIVER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. OLIVER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That's all I have. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. No
more -- Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And maybe it's not for you,
but I thought I saw in one of the drawings a roundabout at the main
March 1, 2021
Page 161
entrance there where -- right across from our parking garage where
we wouldn't have right-of-way issues.
MR. OLIVER: I have not provided any such --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So all that's proposed right
now is an extension of the left turn into the parking garage and a
traffic control signal, okay. Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Just real briefly. Mr. Oliver, I believe
we discussed this at the Planning Commission, and you
acknowledged what -- I think what Commissioner Solis was pointing
out, is there would have to be a taking of some land of the
Ritz-Carlton for that option to work?
MR. OLIVER: I probably -- yeah, my instinct is probably so.
I have not drawn a roundabout to illustrate the extent of that, but my
assessment is it would take a corner clip where, basically,
Ritz-Carlton has landscaping and some drainage.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What about on the north side where you
have the realtor office for -- I think it's Premier Sotheby?
MR. OLIVER: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Would you need to also take some of
their property as well?
MR. OLIVER: I'm not sure. It depends on how much
property, perhaps, the Stock Development might be willing to
provide.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, what happens if -- well, I mean,
you heard the testimony at the Planning Commission by Collier
County Transportation staff saying that this solution is not the
solution that they recommend, correct?
MR. OLIVER: I heard them testify to that; however, at the
same time, I don't think they necessarily were thinking 25 to 50 years
in the future.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, we'll stand by the
March 1, 2021
Page 162
county's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One other question. So if there's a
right-out only at the new proposed entrance, then whatever
percentage of the traffic that you said goes in there is going to have to
go right, and then how are they going to get back to 41?
MR. OLIVER: Well, in all honesty, sir, the applicant's traffic
impact analysis showed zero cars making the right turn out at that
location. I think they assigned their traffic eastward to South Bay or
northward. I guess if they were turning right, they would have
ended up going north on Gulf Shore. So I think they just assumed
all the traffic heading north on Gulf Shore would have gone to the
north to South Bay and then made a right turn.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, I'm asking you, because you
had given us some percentages that 25 percent --
MR. OLIVER: Oh, yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- went to the Ritz, 25 -- so
whatever traffic would be coming out would have to go westward,
and then to get back to 41 would go what way? They'd have to go
all the way up Gulf Shore to 111th and Bluebill?
MR. OLIVER: No. No, no. Okay. So first of all, let me go
back and confirm one thing.
The 25 percent, 25 percent, 50 percent numbers, okay, the
first -- this is 25 -- of all the traffic coming west on Vanderbilt
Beach -- west on Vanderbilt Beach Road, 25 percent goes into the
Ritz-Carlton --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. OLIVER: -- 25 percent goes to the parking garage or
deals with the beach --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. OLIVER: -- and probably returns to the parking garage,
March 1, 2021
Page 163
50 percent wants to head up to Gulf Shore.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So no -- if you do the math, then
nobody's pulling into here, is what you're saying?
MR. OLIVER: Well, yeah, but I'm talking about the existing
traffic, just --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. OLIVER: -- getting a feel for what it is. So if there's
somebody from this site that wants to go back towards U.S. 41, I
would say the best move to make would be to go to the east on
Center road and go out this way right here to South Bay and then
come down South Bay, go around the roundabout and head over to
41.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Banks [sic], are we talking about
roundabouts, or are we talking about traffic circles?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Oliver.
MR. OLIVER: I think -- well, let's not confuse with --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a difference.
MR. OLIVER: Yeah. They are different, and I would say
roundabout.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You'd say.
MR. OLIVER: That's what I would.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you want the larger --
MR. OLIVER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are you aware of the
roundabouts -- or the traffic circles on Seventh?
MR. OLIVER: On?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Seventh Avenue North in our city?
MR. OLIVER: Ah, no, I'm not.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Maybe you want to take a look at
those.
March 1, 2021
Page 164
MR. OLIVER: We're dealing with 120-foot diameter here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. That's not my traffic --
MR. OLIVER: They're big. They're reasonably big, yes.
Roundabout may not be the absolute best solution. A four-way stop
may work pretty doggone well as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. OLIVER: To me, there's many advantages for a
roundabout.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Excuse me. Would you like -- would you like just to bring that
forward and to have the microphone so that you can -- you can sit up
here?
MS. SPECTOR: I should be okay for just the short amount of
time that I'll be speaking.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MS. SPECTOR: Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Spector.
I'm an attorney with Roetzel & Andress. I represent the Regatta at
Vanderbilt Beach Commons Association. It's the master association
for the Regatta at Vanderbilt Beach Condominiums, which is just to
the east of this project.
The Regatta is also represented by Greg Stuart and Bill Oliver,
who you just heard from. You'll also be hearing from some of my
colleagues, who are counsel to other groups in the area, and I just
wanted to, in addition to adopting the testimony of Mr. Stuart and
Mr. Oliver, also adopt their testimony into what I'll be presenting
today.
The first thing that I do want to present -- and I must admit I'm a
little confused about what was presented earlier to do -- is whether it
is appropriate to move forward with the application in the manner in
which it's been presented to you today.
One question I have is whether -- it's still not entirely clear to me
March 1, 2021
Page 165
whether the DaRuMa parcel is being considered part of the PUD,
because it's being incorporated into the PUD ordinance, but at the
same time it's not being incorporated as part of the legal description
of the PUD. And it's my understanding, just from hearing around
the room today, that it's going to be a stand-alone C-3 parcel with the
standard C-3 regulations, which is also confusing to me because I've
never seen it where you put conditions on a conventional zoning
district in a PUD document for property that the applicant does not
own and has not submitted an application to you on and has not even
presented that he has the authority from the owner, at least not that
we've seen, to make that representation to you. If it is a part of the
Planned Unit Development, I have concerns regarding the notice,
because the notice that was provided did not include the DaRuMa
parcel. So I just wanted to put those concerns on the record.
Is there someone that wanted to respond to that?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Yovanovich, I asked him to wait,
but if you'd like to open this dialogue, I'd be happy to do that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The plan is to have an offsite
commitment incorporated into the Planned Unit Development
document limiting the uses on the DaRuMa piece. Those limited
conditions would go into effect when we own the parcel. If we
never own the parcel, we never have a One Naples project.
We are not changing the zoning on the C-3 piece that is the
DaRuMa piece. It will stand alone as a C-3 development parcel.
It's not being incorporated into the PUD document because I'm very
aware of the notice issues if we were trying to incorporate land in a
PUD that we never -- we didn't go through the proper process.
So it will be an offsite condition. It is very similar to an offsite
condition that was done for the Eagle Creek PUD where there were
offsite conditions imposed on the straight zoning for the commercial
shopping center that was on the corner of 951, Collier Boulevard, and
March 1, 2021
Page 166
U.S. 41.
So we are imposing those conditions, and they're only
conditioned upon our actually going forward with acquiring the
DaRuMa piece, demolishing the DaRuMa piece. And if we never
do -- never acquire that piece or never demolish that piece, we don't
have a Naples One project. That's what that language says.
MS. SPECTOR: And I know this is somewhat unconventional,
but since Mr. Yovanovich is up here, I had a few other questions.
Can I just ask them to you with, hopefully -- well, one is that I did not
see that the proposed use is allowed in the C-3 zoning district except
I didn't have much time to look. So I just wanted to know whether
you had seen that it is a permitted --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely, it is an allowed use under --
MS. SPECTOR: As what? I was just curious what you're
classifying --
MR. YOVANOVICH: If you'll give me a second, I actually
brought my SIC code book to do that.
MS. SPECTOR: Okay. I did not have that --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Basically, under the C-3 zoning district,
condominium associations can own property and develop amenities
for the condominium association. So that is -- that's the SIC code
we're using.
MS. SPECTOR: Okay. I'm not going to trust you on that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You don't have to trust me.
MS. SPECTOR: Okay. But thank you for that clarification.
Then one other thing is, do you have a current map of what the
project looks like now? I just had a question regarding the DaRuMa
parcel.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'd have to come over there, pull
up my PowerPoint presentation.
MS. SPECTOR: I didn't know if you just had it.
March 1, 2021
Page 167
MR. YOVANOVICH: I may be -- Sarah, if you give me two
seconds, I'm sure I can find a hard copy of -- do you want the site
plan with DaRuMa on it?
MS. SPECTOR: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Give me two seconds, and I'll do it.
MS. SPECTOR: Not that one. Where they had the actual --
MR. YOVANOVICH: If someone will give me a hard copy to
put on the visualizer.
Keith, can you put the site plan with DaRuMa on it.
MS. SPECTOR: I just wanted to -- I was not clear on
whether -- because I know that that part of Center Street's not
included in the vacation, and I could not recall whether --
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not vacating any of Center Street.
MS. SPECTOR: I just couldn't recall if the DaRuMa parcel -- I
mean, the park was going into the street, so I just --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It is not. It is staying on the DaRuMa
parcel.
MS. SPECTOR: Perfect. And I just wanted to clarify that
before placing any objections on the record, since you were up here.
Okay. Perfect.
So I still have concerns with Mr. Yovanovich's clarifications,
because I don't understand how the PUD document encumbers other
property, and there's nothing in the PUD document that requires them
to encumber that property to be used for that purpose because this is
not part of the PUD.
MR. YOVANOVICH: There is, and I showed you the
developer commitment language that specifically says that we are
doing this offsite commitment and limiting those uses.
MS. SPECTOR: I just don't see how, with it not being part of
the PUD -- and that document governs the PUD. It's the
development order for the PUD, how it encumbers the DaRuMa
March 1, 2021
Page 168
property.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we just -- we have specifically
said in the PUD that there will be an offsite commitment. The legal
description is described for that. Staff will put a note on the zoning
map so when you go look at the zoning map you'll see a footnote on
the C-3 DaRuMa piece that sends you to the PUD so you'll be able to
track the conditions that are limited on the C-3.
MS. SPECTOR: Okay. I still -- and not having the
opportunity to look at this with it being new today, I don't know
whether I agree with that, so I just wanted to place that on the record,
whether that is proper or not.
As you've heard time and again today, we did not have the
opportunity to go back and revise our presentation. So I do have a
short presentation. If you -- yeah, Troy.
When I was before the Planning Commission, a large portion of
my presentation was focused on the Growth Management Plan
amendment, and the -- I'm sorry -- the applicant's failure to provide
relevant and appropriate data and analysis and surveys, studies, and
data regarding the area. And as such, it was not proper to be
approved as presented. My position is still the same on that, that
there has not been enough evidence and data submitted onto the
record to approve the Growth Management Plan amendment. So it's
still my recommendation that you deny that. And I would like to
incorporate my Planning Commission presentation into my
comments here because today I would like to focus on the land
development amendment for the MPUD.
If you noted in your package, the staff or -- the executive
summary included a long list of legal considerations to consider
whether it's appropriate to approve this rezoning request.
Oh, it's "down." Sorry about that.
So going through those, since we did not have a revised staff
March 1, 2021
Page 169
report, the last thing I have to look at is the staff report that was
issued for the October 1st Planning Commission meeting. There
were 26 legal considerations presented to you. Staff found that
seven criteria had not been met by the application, and there's an
additional six that I would argue have not been met. That means that
there's half of the legal considerations that have not been met, and
it's -- when staff had presented those to you, I want to, sorry, point
out one more time, it said that you are able to disapprove this request
if you find that one of these cannot be answered in the positive. And
they've pointed out seven, as I mentioned, and there's actually half
that haven't been met.
So conformity with the GMP. In two places in those legal
considerations, staff has mentioned that the requests will only be
consistent with the GMP if the GMP amendment is approved. And
unlike what Mr. Yovanovich said, I don't agree with him that there
are certain instances in which it is appropriate to adopt a Growth
Management Plan amendment that only benefits one property for a
specific project.
So an "it depends" analysis is not anywhere in the code or in the
Growth Management Plan or statutes, for that matter. So it's not
currently conforming with the GMP and will only -- if you adopt the
amendment, that, as I started out with, should not be approved.
The internal and external compatibility, even with the changes
proposed by the applicant, the development standards are still not
directly compatible, and there has been no competent substantial
evidence to support 165-foot height. Staff has not provided anything
to support the change from its 125-foot recommendation and,
respectfully, Mr. Mulhere's recitation of the various definitions of
compatible and complementary and then saying just look at it is not
competent substantial evidence to support that it is compatible now
that they have lowered it to 10 stories over two stories of parking.
March 1, 2021
Page 170
Additionally, the setbacks. Earlier you were speaking about
setbacks where it is not on Vanderbilt Beach Road or on Gulf Shore.
The setbacks are not just for those who are across the street from the
property, like Barefoot Pelican or Vanderbilt Palms. It's for
everybody. Setbacks are meant to address not only compatibility
with your neighbors but with the area as a whole, and that's one of the
important aspects that you look at to determine whether the mass of
the project is -- and the scale of the project is appropriate is how
much land it's taking up and how far back it's set from the road, and it
does not meet with the surrounding property in that regard.
The adequacy of open space. This -- you had heard Ms.
Jenkins read a part of the definition of your open-space definition
from the code. She didn't read the first part, and this is what
Mr. Stuart was referring to, and I just wanted to read that first part
rather than just refer to it. It actually says that open space are areas
that are not occupied by buildings, impervious parking areas, streets,
driveways, or loading areas. So it specifically says, may not be
occupied by a building. So to count in the rooftop is not sufficient
and, as Mr. Stuart pointed out, we don't know what amount of open
space they're providing because there's been no calculations to know
whether or not they would actually meet any sort of open-space
requirement provided that they incorporate the DaRuMa parcel.
The existing land-use pattern. The staff does recognize here
that the project will intensify the residential land-use pattern, and I
think Mr. Stuart provided testimony on the record that supports that
statement.
Creation of an isolated district. The staff here, they say that
there are existing PUD projects in the nearby area, but it's
disingenuous to say that that does not create an isolated district,
because this PUD is not anywhere near what the other PUDs in the
area look like. The other PUD in the area, one is -- which we've
March 1, 2021
Page 171
already said is not a comparison is Pelican Bay, which is much, much
different, and then you have the Regatta, which has, as Mr. Stuart
pointed out, much more in the way of land and setbacks. So we do
think that that does create an isolated district.
A changed or changing conditions. This is where staff has
specifically said that the proposed change is not necessary, so there's
really nothing more to state there.
The influence on neighborhood living conditions. This is
important because the original staff report, the staff report that is still
in the record, specifically says that there are many components of this
project that are not directly compatible. And if there wasn't going to
be an influence on the neighborhood living conditions, they wouldn't
have proposed a recommendation that cut the height from 183 feet,
which it was higher than that at the Planning Commission, all the
way down to 125 -- actually 76 feet with the option to go up to
125 feet. So they -- staff obviously recognizes that there's an
influence on the neighborhood living conditions even though they
don't say it in their legal considerations.
Grant of a special privilege. Here staff says that consistency
with the Future Land Use Element is determined to be consistent with
the public welfare, but you don't get consistency with the Future
Land Use Element until you amend the Growth Management Plan.
So that's where we go back to the Growth Management Plan
amendment not being appropriate for a specific parcel for one
project.
Then the use of the property with the current zoning. Again,
staff very clearly says that they could use the property as it is and
develop it as it is. So there's no real need for this rezoning.
Scale in comparison to the neighborhood. Staff does recognize
that it exceeds the existing C-3 zoning district regulations and, again,
had recommended conditions to lower what the applicant had
March 1, 2021
Page 172
provided.
And, lastly, the physical characteristics degree of site alteration.
The staff cites to the vacation. This project could not happen were it
not for the vacation. So there is a huge site alteration that's required
in order to be able to develop it.
So we would ask that you not approve the Growth Management
Plan amendment, and if you do see fit to approve the Growth
Management Plan amendment and approve the MPUD, we would ask
that you impose the staff's original conditions, as Greg had mentioned
in his presentation.
Thank you. Were there any questions?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't see any. Thank you very
much.
MS. SPECTOR: Thank you.
MR. BROOKES: Good afternoon. My name is Attorney Ralf
Brookes, and I represent Save Vanderbilt Beach, Inc. I'm an
attorney, and I'm certified in the field of city, county, and local
government law. In fact, I've been certified since 2004, and I was
just recently renewed this year.
You have to take a test, and you have a peer review, and you
have to keep up additional CLEs. And some of you are lawyers on
the Commission, and you understand what it means to be certified in
this area. But I've also served as Assistant County Attorney for
Sarasota County. I was Assistant County Attorney and land-use
litigation attorney for Monroe County, which is the Florida Keys, and
I've been City Attorney sitting in the chair similar to where Jeff sits
for cities, for Bradenton Beach, Madeira Beach, St. Pete Beach, and a
small little town called Yankee Town in Levy County. All of these
cities have one thing in common: They're all in the Coastal High
Hazard Area, and they have barrier islands, and they're on the west
coast of Florida.
March 1, 2021
Page 173
So I've dealt with Coastal High Hazard Area issues, barrier
island issues, traffic, building on beaches. Everything from very
small -- small towns, low-rises like Bradenton Beach to, perhaps, the
highest of high-rises in Madeira Beach and St. Pete Beach that has
pretty big high-rises.
I'm going to just be pretty short today. I want to give you a
little bit of a legal overview on the tests, the legal standards there are
for the two different major applications you have in front of you, is
the Comp Plan amendment and the rezoning, and not really talk too
much about the landscaping plan or the street vacation. Those will
be dependent on your two other actions.
Prior to 2011, first you did a Comprehensive Plan amendment,
and then you had up to a year to get a rezoning. In 2011, the
legislature said you can do rezonings and plan amendments
concurrently; you could do them at the same time if you wish.
They also changed small-scale plan amendments. You used to
have only a certain number that you could approve per year, and you
also couldn't adopt plan amendments like more than, like, twice a
year. So all these things are changing now to speed up, streamline
the process, which is a good thing in most cases, but sometimes you'll
have a controversial project like this one, and that's when things
begin to mash up, when you're doing plan amendments and rezonings
at the same time.
I like to keep things separated in my head, and it's something
you'll have to do, too, when you're analyzing this. Plan
amendments -- all plan amendments are now legislative. I used to
think small-scale plan amendments might be quasi-judicial, but there
was some case law that went to the Florida Supreme Court, and they
said, no, all plan amendments. Any time you're amending a
Comprehensive Plan for what your community is going to look like
over the next 30 years of planning, your long-range planning cycle,
March 1, 2021
Page 174
all those are legislative determinations.
So you can vote to change a plan amendment, but you can vote
to deny a plan amendment for any reason. The only thing that you're
held to is you can't deny one for suspect class, you know, based on
race or ethnicity or religion. You have to have a rational basis if you
are going to deny a plan amendment. But your rational basis can be
simply that you like the plan as it is now, and the time is not now to
change the plan.
One of the speakers said, you know, is it sound public policy?
That could be a question for you for a plan amendment. You can
deny the plan amendment because you think it would offer too much
mass, bulk, height, or even density in the Coastal High Hazard Area,
something that you're not willing and ready and able to handle just
yet.
Substantively, I would adopt the testimony. I'm not an expert
myself in the field of planning or Coastal High Hazard Areas. The
Planning Commission, Dan Trescott, who is a Planner and a
Hurricane Evacuation Expert, he was with the Regional Planning
Council, and he worked on your evacuation plans for Southwest
Florida for many years, he pointed out that under the state statute
163.3178(8)(a), it says, you have to have a level of service of no
more than 16 hours out-of-county evacuation time, okay; 16 hours.
And that your latest hurricane evacuation model and plan for 2020 in
Collier County says that you have -- believe it or not, this is
incredible -- 96 hours out-of-county evacuation time, and you have
94-hours time to shelter.
So if someone was leaving the Coastal High Hazards Area, it
takes them 96 hours, which is quite a number days, 24, 48. You
know, it's, like, three, four days. So you usually don't have enough
time to evacuate. By the time they tell you to evacuate, if your
evacuation time is 96 hours, you're going to be behind the wheel,
March 1, 2021
Page 175
maybe, while the storm's coming in.
So the statute also says, if you can't meet this 17 hours, and it
says no -- no county/city in the state with Coastal High Hazard Area
can have a level of service higher than 17 -- 16. So even if you
wanted to adopt 96 hours and say, well, we meet it, you can't do that.
So you're many, many days behind the level of service for hurricane
evacuation.
So that could be a reason for you as a legitimate public policy
purpose to say no to the plan amendment at this time, because you're
doubling the density in the Coastal High Hazard Area, or
approximately. There's some new numbers that came out today.
But even with those new numbers, you're still increasing the density
in the Coastal High Hazard Area.
Again, you're increasing the height, you are increasing some
setbacks, but other setbacks you are not protecting. I don't think
zero feet to the waterline is a good setback. I mean, most -- like, my
Yankee Town, we have 50 feet. You know, we have 200 feet to
wetlands. You know, they're pretty conservative and environmental.
But zero to the waterline is very, very -- it's zero lot line. And that's
something that the City of Sarasota has been embarrassed by recently
because they have approved some zero lot line tall high-rise
hotel/condo buildings right at the main corners of their building -- of
their downtown. No one realized what it would look like till it went
up, and now everyone is up in arms, why would they ever approve
this zero lot line on this corner?
So the plan amendment is legislative. You can say no for any
rational basis, any public planning purpose. Quasi-judicial enters
into it at the rezoning phase. A PUD, Planned Unit Development,
believe it or not, is its own zoning category. So you might have a
zoning category of C-3, but planned urban development is for one
site, but it's its own zoning category.
March 1, 2021
Page 176
You heard your planning staff, Anita, say that density -- they did
not include DaRuMa for density. So if you're not including
DaRuMa for density because it's not part of the PUD, you really
shouldn't be including DaRuMa for open space because it's not part
of the PUD. The DaRuMa was not advertised in the legal notices for
the Comp Plan. There's supposed to be a map of the affected area,
and it's not in that. Under 163 you're supposed to have advertised
the plan amendment with maps.
The rezoning, also, for the PUD doesn't show DaRuMa within
the PUD. So it's either in the PUD or not in the PUD. You can't
have it, really, both ways.
It was not considered by the Planning Commission. It was not
provided in advance of the meeting. You know, we don't think it's
proper that DaRuMa be introduced now at this last minute, because
when you're adding DaRuMa and you're saying, oh, it's just all going
to be open space, the addition of DaRuMa to the parcels allows you
some design modifications that could have occurred. Some of the
buildings could have been moved around slightly because of
DaRuMa but, more importantly, we should ask about the ingress and
egress. Can we use the DaRuMa parcel to ingress and egress to the
site off Center, thereby avoiding all the impacts to Vanderbilt Beach
Road at that critical -- critical intersection with the beach. You
heard about that from the testimony of the traffic engineer.
So the rezoning, you have a two-pronged legal standard under
this case called Snyder versus Brevard County. The first is that it's
the developer's initial burden to show they're consistent with the
Comp Plan. And so if you pass the Comp Plan amendment, maybe
it addresses some specifics, but it has to be specific with each and
every element of the Comp Plan, including goals, objectives, and
policies that are in the Comprehensive Plan.
Even if they show that it is consistent with everything in the
March 1, 2021
Page 177
Comp Plan, you can still deny a rezoning for a legitimate public
purpose, and that's not defined by the Florida Supreme Court but it
means, again, basically, any rational basis.
The Supreme Court explained that the Comp Plan just sets a
long-term maximum goal for the planning horizon. Thirty years
from now it might be appropriate, but at this point in time it's not.
So you could still say no to something that's consistent with the
Comp Plan. The Comp Plan is a long-term maximum; it's not a
guaranteed short-term minimum. You don't have to approve a
rezoning even if it is consistent with the Comp Plan.
Quasi-judicial, you look at competent substantial evidence.
And some people will tell you, well, if someone's a citizen and
they're a layperson, that's not competent substantial evidence; you
can't rely on it. That's not true. If a citizen lives in the
neighborhood and they have fact-based observations, things that they
observe, aerial photographs, zoning maps, the things that they have
seen and exhibits that they put in, those can be considered. That's
under the Blumenthal case and the Sport Acres case. There's three
or four cases that say you can consider citizen-based testimony to
support a denial.
If you are going to vote to deny this project, I would advise a
local government to deny the plan amendment, because once you
approve the plan amendment, you create certain expectations, and
then you kick in that second part of Snyder. Is it consistent with the
Comp Plan? Well, it might be an easy determination as to that
small-scale plan amendment. Does it meet those criteria? But
you've also got to look at everything else.
And once you have a Comp Plan amendment in place, if you
remove that Comp Plan amendment, then you might run into trouble
with Bert Harris down the road. Bert Harris says, after 1995
anything that you do to downzone property could raise a Bert Harris
March 1, 2021
Page 178
claim.
Now, you would still have the rezoning. Maybe they'll qualify
because they don't have the rezoning, but you're setting your steps in
motion. You're taking that first step towards giving them property
rights entitlements under the Bert Harris Act, and you don't want to
give those entitlements until you're ready to grant the approvals for
the rezoning.
So if you don't like something in the rezoning, the mass, the
height, the building setbacks, anything with the -- that you want to
consider more and send it back to the drawing board, if you don't do a
continuance or continue this hearing, which has already been denied,
if you want to deny this -- this development application, you really
want to start with simply denying the plan amendment, because that
cannot be reversed. You're going to prevail there.
If you approve the plan amendment, you should know that there
is an administrative hearing process that can happen for Coastal High
Hazard Area violations. You wind up in an administrative law
proceeding, a DOAH. That's further on down the road. I don't
think we need to go there now.
This is a public-policy decision for you guys right now as to
whether or not to approve this -- this change that would increase
density in the coastal high hazard, it would increase the heights of
these buildings, and it would vastly increase the bulk, as you've seen
in the 3D models and presentations.
I don't have anything more, but if you have any questions, I'd be
happy to answer them for you. And I guess we would also adopt the
following testimony that's going to come from Anthony Pires and
Bill Schuman on contract zoning and on spot zoning. Those are
common law zoning doctrines. Take a little bit of time to get into,
so I'm going to let somebody else talk about it, but we'll adopt those
objections.
March 1, 2021
Page 179
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. No questions up here.
Thank you.
MR. BROOKES: I'm supposed to remind you Bill Schuman
and Buzz Victor are on some kind of Zoom. You're supposed to pull
them up when their time comes up.
MR. MILLER: I wasn't aware of that, ma'am. Let me check
to see if they're on there. I heard Buzz Victor. What was the other
name?
MR. BROOKES: William Schuman or Bill Schuman.
MR. MILLER: I have a William Schuman on Zoom right now,
ma'am, but I do not see -- oh, well, I'm guessing Buzz is not his real
first name. I should probably be looking under his actual first name.
MR. BROOKES: William Schuman and then Victor, Arthur.
MR. MILLER: Arthur Victor. That was my mistake, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. That's quite all right.
MR. MILLER: I do not see an Arthur Victor. I see Mr.
Schuman online.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's hear from Mr. Schuman.
MR. MILLER: Oscar, could you please unmute Mr. William
Schuman.
Mr. Schuman, you're going to get a notice on your computer or
your phone to unmute. Please do so.
MR. SCHUMAN: This is William Schuman. I've just
unmuted myself. Can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir, we can. Before you begin,
Ms. -- Commissioner -- Chairman Taylor, excuse me, should I be
timing this, this comment?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I believe they're still part, but it
should be 10 to 15 minutes.
MR. MILLER: Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Schuman, go ahead, please.
March 1, 2021
Page 180
MR. SCHUMAN: Yes, thank you very much.
My name is William Schuman. I'm going to speak about just
one issue today, and that is that Stock's proposal, even as modified as
we've heard it today, is unlawful spot zoning under all the Florida
case law. There's the Florida Supreme Court of Florida Appellate
Courts and the Florida Statutes. I've written several letters. They're
in your packets at Pages 1183 to 1223, and those materials include an
opinion letter from counsel for another one of our members of Save
Vanderbilt Beach who agrees that this -- that this effort is unlawful
spot zoning.
I'm going to start by very briefly providing a quote from a
Florida appellate case. It explains, spot zoning is -- and I'm quoting
now -- piecemeal rezoning of small parcels of land -- that's this
case -- to a greater density leading to disharmony with the
surrounding area. That's this case. It gives preferential treatment to
one parcel at the expense of the zoning scheme as a whole. That's
this case.
Stock, even as modified as we've heard and we're all acting on
the fly to a bit -- to a degree, but doesn't matter with respect to the
conclusion here. Stock's asking for, apparently, 60 percent more
density than it's permitted. It's asking for enormous relief on
setbacks and, most importantly, as I understand the numbers, it is still
asking for way more than double the permissible height.
This is unlawful spot zoning, in my judgment. It's the poster
child for spot -- for spot zoning. It was before their modification. It
remains so, except maybe slightly less, frankly. You cannot
compare the buildings in Pelican Bay to the proposed project.
Pelican Bay's a vastly different community, vastly different
regulatory controls and constraints. It's in a different zone.
If you were allowed to compare buildings in the next zone over,
your zoning laws would be meaningless because the next zone's rules
March 1, 2021
Page 181
would be important to nearby laws -- nearby zones just because you
can see them or they're near-by.
And, not surprisingly, Florida case law prohibits importing
neighboring zone's rules, because it would result in impermissible
spot zoning. There's a case called Macchato. And, again, briefly, a
comprehensive land-use plan -- that's what we've got
here -- legislatively sets zoning norms for each zone, not a single
piece of property. And the point of it is to prevent spot zoning.
Collier County's Land Development Code, and it's Section
1.05.01.F, reminds us all that each zoning district has its own purpose
and establishes its own density and density regulations.
Section 9.04.03 allows a variance in a zone, like what you're being
asked for here, only if it will be the minimum variance that will make
possible the reasonable use of the land. They've not shown that.
And Section 2.03.07.L, which speaks to the Vanderbilt Beach
residential tourist overlay requires -- and now I'm quoting -- requires
to be sensitive to scale and compatibility in the Vanderbilt Beach area
and prevent canyon-like effect on Gulf Shore Drive.
Now, it's important for the commissioners to understand, we're
not just dealing here with one property, though there's only one
property right now on the table. The stakes are way bigger. Right
now there is nothing compatible. You just can't find something
compatible to what they're proposing to build.
But if you allow this, then the commissioners are going to be
powerless, probably, to stop the next building and the next building
and the next building because right now there's nothing comparable,
but if you allow this one to be built, the next developer is going to
cite this one, and you'll be hard pressed to find a basis not to.
This is the one, right now, where there is no comparable basis
for allowing a building of this scale and scope. If -- and if you allow
this to go on, you're going to have an entire neighborhood, thousands
March 1, 2021
Page 182
of residents who've built a neighborhood over decades that are going
to have their property and their neighborhood taken away from them
for the benefit of a single developer. This isn't a public-works
project. This is a single developer. This is what spot zoning is
defined in the case law.
And Stock can't get around this legal impediment. They can't
get around it by dealing with the Growth Management Plan first, and
they say, okay, we'll do that first; now we have a way out. And you
can't do that.
There's a case called Macchato that explains that the prohibition
about amending for a single piece of property, as opposed to a whole
zone, is the only way -- now, I'm quoting -- the only way to, one,
regulate and maintain land use by zones; two, make individual zoning
changes conform to a legislative plan; and, three, avoid arbitrary
spot-zoning change that permits the use of individual parcels to
depart from a plan.
And Florida Statute 163.31941 says that amending a GMP can
only be done, quote, as to the area of the entire zone, end quote. Not
a single piece of property like what's happening here. Macchato
explains why. Macchato explains it under 163. A local
Comprehensive Plan, like they want to change, they're defined in the
law to not be zoning laws. They are a, quote, limitation on a local
government's zoning powers. That's the significance of the
Comprehensive Plan and the fact that you can't come in and move
one -- and address -- adjust or address one parcel ignoring the rest.
That's what spot zoning is intended to eliminate and prevent.
Now, in the -- and it's consistent with that, and the lawyers on
the panel will understand, particularly, some of these concepts.
Because of the law, because Stock can't ask you to do this at these
numbers in this design, the commissioners' judgment -- this is a
matter of law. Courts do not exercise deference. They're not going
March 1, 2021
Page 183
to look to see, did you have enough of a basis? And you're the pros,
which you are, but in a typical circumstance when they defer to you
because you're the pros, that's not this. This is a matter of law. It
requires de novo review by a court applying strict scrutiny. There's
no deference to the commissioners if it is unlawful spot zoning. It's
a de novo review.
And in my humble judgment, a reviewing court looking at these
statistics, particularly the height and the additional density, they're
going to find that it's unlawful spot zoning, and they should.
I'm going to give you, just in closing, a brief example. It's very
imperfect, but I think it illustrates exactly what we've got going on on
Gulf Shore Drive. The speed limit on Gulf Shore Drive is 25 miles
an hour. If Stock gets in a car and drives 27, 28, it's not allowed to
do it, but will he get away with it? Is it within the rule of reason?
Is it permissible? For sure. We all know that.
What if he goes 31 or 32 miles an hour? You're getting right to
the fringe. And if, instead, he drives 65 miles an hour down this
little two-lane road with people biking and walking, the authorities
are going to grab him by the larynx and they're going to say, no,
you're destroying -- your risk of destroying property and lives would
be too great.
This proposal is 65 miles an hour in a 30-mile zone. If he was
asking for 32, 33, we'd all be having a different conversation. Where
the line is, pretty tough for anybody, lawyers or not, to know, but at
double the height, more than double, at 60 percent more density with
open spaces that don't conform with a single piece of property, this is
the -- this is the poster child for spot zoning.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Seeing none, thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I know Mr. Victor is important
to this group here. We're having trouble getting him connected on
March 1, 2021
Page 184
Zoom. I'm having my IT people work with him behind the scenes
right now, but we don't have him as of yet.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So --
MR. BROOKES: He said he's in the queue. I don't know, was
there a phone number on there?
MR. MILLER: I've been talking with about six different
people about this. I have Oscar in the hallway trying to resolve this
issue, ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Just audio? Can he do just
audio?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. At this point, I know of two
representatives of two groups -- one is here, the other is Pelican
Bay -- that have been allotted 15 minutes each, and so I would ask
Mr. Pires to come forward, please.
MR. PIRES: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome.
MR. PIRES: Members of the County Commission, good
afternoon. My name is Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward,
Pires & Lombardo, and I represent the Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association, a group of almost a thousand residents in the North
Collier area.
The boundaries of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association
of the area, the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Vanderbilt Drive on the
east, Vanderbilt Beach Road on the south, and the Cocohatchee
River/Wiggins Pass on the north.
I've appeared before the Planning Commission on this issue, and
I know the record of the Planning Commission, all the transcripts, are
included as part of these agenda packets, and I will try not to be
repetitive. And I adopt some of the arguments and the arguments
that were made, for example, by Sarah Spector and Mr. Brookes with
regards to the legal issues and also the objections to this particular
March 1, 2021
Page 185
application.
Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association have tried for years to
work with Stock Development. They met with them originally.
And the original project, as you know, was one big building, and now
we're at the point where it is to be two towers, and I would submit to
you on that point that if the Board is inclined to approve the
PUD -- we oppose, first of all, the Growth Management Plan
amendment, and we oppose the PUD. If the Board is inclined to
grant the Growth Management Plan amendment, you need to take the
units down to 140. It still says 172 in that ordinance.
So I know the applicant said that they're willing in the PUD to
reduce it to 140; I did not hear that as to the Growth Management
Plan amendment. I would like to assume that it would be the same
but, for consistency purposes, I think we don't want to keep that door
wide open for 172.
Again, we oppose it. We don't believe there's appropriate data
and analysis for all the arguments raised by Mr. Stuart and
Ms. Spector and Mr. Brookes, but if the Board's inclined to approve
the amendment, please eliminate that 172; bring it down to 140.
With regards to -- the concerns that Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association have are many. Back a number of years ago, the
Vanderbilt Beach RT overlay district was adopted after much input, a
couple years, thousands of residents in Vanderbilt Beach. And the
idea was to avoid canyonization, high intensity, high density, and,
you know, additional units in the Coastal High Hazard Area and
adverse impacts to air, light, and view. Those are the exact same
issues that are at issue today with the proposed One Naples project.
The project has been, apparently, substantially modified today.
We're all finding out today at the last minute what that might consist
of, because I'm still not quite sure. I think there are too many
variables. But those issues, those concepts we thought -- Vanderbilt
March 1, 2021
Page 186
Beach folks thought were resolved many, many years ago, and we
would submit that if you were to approve a development of greater
intensity and density, then along Gulf Shore Drive, which is in the
Vanderbilt Beach RT overlay, it would result in an erosion of those
protections, because that would be used as a precedence for
compatibility/complementary in the future. You've heard that
argument before.
So with regards to that, we agree also with the now increased
setbacks, with regards to the height of the towers being 125 feet, the
tower being set back 35 feet, everything else being 25-foot setbacks
all the way around.
And on the issue of the towers, I would suggest there is no
language in the Development Standards Table that says they have to
build two towers. The Development Standards Table has a footnote
that talks about in Exhibit C in setbacks, but there is -- the Exhibit C
is an exhibit that does not show the towers.
I would suggest specific language in there prohibiting one big
wide building and prohibiting three towers on that Tract MU 1B
specifically included in the ordinance so there's no question in the
future, because whether or not Stock Development will be the
developer or someone else will acquire it, that clarity needs to be in
there, in my humble opinion, for the Board, for the county, and for
the community.
With regards to -- additionally, we think we need to spell out the
25 percent open space. I know staff says that's calculated at the time
of Site Development Plan approval. Unfortunately, that happens
without public notice. That's purely at the staff level. No one -- no
member of the public knows that is going on, so the opportunity to
provide input into that process to have appropriate calculation of
usable open space as defined in the code is really not readily
available to the public during the SDP process. It's not a real valid
March 1, 2021
Page 187
process to provide input.
We have other concerns with regards to the DaRuMa piece.
And perhaps I heard Mr. Yovanovich wrong. I've known Rich for a
long time. We've generally sparred. We actually worked together
on one project. We shocked everybody that day. But, generally, we
are on opposite sides of the issues.
But if I heard him correctly, he said, if we do not close
DaRuMa, we'll not do the One Naples project. So it sounds like
contingent or contractor zoning to me. You're not doing it based
upon what you know today. You're doing it based on what may or
may not happen in the future.
Additionally, typically, and as required by the administrative
code and the Land Development Code, as I read it, in the PUD
application, a person has to submit a covenant of unified control or an
affidavit of authorization saying, hi, I'm the owner of the property. I
have it under contract to ABC. ABC is authorized to act as my
agent, and I'm going to be bound by whatever you-all do. I've not
seen that, and I've not even been told that that exists.
So I think for the Board to rely upon the representation that
DaRuMa will be subject to this, absent -- first of all, I'm not sure it's
appropriate, because I think this contingent or contract zoning.
Secondly, you have no evidence that the DaRuMa property owner
has agreed to this contingent on its property. And as Rich said, I
think, only conditioned on the closing of the DaRuMa parcel. So
again, I think it's inappropriate to approve it based upon that, and I'd
request denial of this application.
Again, I echo the concerns and the positions and objections
raised by Sarah Spector. There's no property ownership disclosure
form that shows DaRuMa as part of this deal. There's no evidence
of unified control, that DaRuMa's under control.
And I would submit that the -- we request the Growth
March 1, 2021
Page 188
Management Plan amendment be denied and also that the PUD
application as proposed be denied. And if you are going to approve
them, change the ordinance for the Growth Management Plan to
reflect the 140, and on the PUD, place a specific restriction in there
about not having one big building, 25-foot setbacks all the way
around, 35-foot to the tower. And, again, I still think there's a
fundamental flaw with regards to the -- I'll call it the sweet carrot of
the DaRuMa parcel. I think it's more of a clove of garlic than a
sweet carrot. And, half Italian, I can say that.
No further comment and available for any questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I wanted to let you know we do
have Buzz Victor online now. We were able to get his connection.
I don't know what order you up want to go in here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I think right now we need a
court reporter break. She's over her one-and-a-half hours, and I
think we are in for the long haul. So I think at this point we'll
adjourn and reconvene at 4 -- 5:15.
(A brief recess was had from 4:58 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.)
MR. MILLER: You have a live mic, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. So I think
we have Mr. Victor on the Zoom.
MR. MILLER: Yes. I'll have our Zoom folks go ahead and
send Mr. Victor the cue to unmute himself.
Mr. Victor, you will be getting a note to unmute. If you'll
please do that. There you are. Mr. Victor, do you hear me?
MR. VICTOR: I do hear you.
MR. MILLER: Thank you, sir. And I think, Chairman, you
said 15 minutes?
MR. VICTOR: My apologies to you all. I wasn't intending to
March 1, 2021
Page 189
make this dramatic entrance, and I have kudos for both Troy and
Oscar for helping me.
I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to address
you, and I want to thank you in advance for what I know what will be
your thoughtful consideration of all the facts regarding this
application.
I'm Buzz Victor. I'm a homeowner residing at 312 Lagoon
Avenue, and I'm the President of Save Vanderbilt Beach, Inc., a
Florida 501(c)4 Florida nonprofit that we established late 2019.
I'll be referring to Save Vanderbilt Beach as SVB. I apologize
for not being in person today. I would have liked that very much.
But as a cancer survivor, I feel that there's an undue level of risk
associated with being in a relatively small indoor space. As you
know, we had lobbied for a potentially safer venue, but that was not
to be.
The mission of Vanderbilt Beach is to protect residents of the
Vanderbilt Beach and Naples Park neighborhoods from unreasonable
development and, in a more general sense, to protect all of Collier
County's residents who are users of Vanderbilt Beach itself by
promoting continued and improving access.
I'd like you to know a little bit more about Save Vanderbilt
Beach, its volunteers, its membership, and its activities. First, I want
to stress that all those who have given their time, their intellect, their
encouragement and support to SVB have done so without
remuneration of any kind. They have given countless hours to the
project only because they love their neighborhood, their beach, and
living in Collier County.
Likewise, the 1,200 who have registered on the SVB website,
about half of whom have contributed funds to our activities, do so for
love of what they now have, a lovely human-scaled community.
Let me emphasize what I just said. Nearly half of the members
March 1, 2021
Page 190
of SVB are contributors. Let that sink in for a moment. Nothing
can better express how passionate these people are in supporting the
mission of the organization than the fact that they've reached into
their own pocket to protect their neighborhood. They've provided
more than $136,000 over the last 15 months. Those funds have been
used to engage experts, create and maintain a professional website, to
develop graphics that show without editorializing the impact of the
development, to build the model you see in front of you, and to
develop the marketing and promotion of our cause. This is
remarkable. These residents have skin in the game.
But in a fundamental way, it's also very sad. We're a group of
citizens frightened about a serious threat to our lifestyle; that it
should take funding on this level to be properly heard and represented
before you is truly unfortunate. It's lamentable that we have had to
spend tens of thousands of dollars on advertising, print, radio,
television, social media just to keep up with the developer's
marketing efforts, but that's the reality of the system.
And we have been heard. You have received many hundreds of
emails and other communication from your constituents expressing
opposition to this development. Many of those have been repetitive.
I bear the responsibility for that, as I made one-click communications
possible, but I do not apologize. Every one of those communications
was sent by a person only trying to protect his or her environment.
Each is asking only that you listen to your constituents and uphold
existing comprehensive plan policies and Land Development Code
rules regarding the permissible development.
Is that really so much to ask? Recently, with the help of the
Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, SVB designed and
published a survey about which you'll hear details from Mark
English, the president of PBPOA, in just a few minutes. I will tell
you that some 3,300 county residents have responded to that survey;
March 1, 2021
Page 191
a tremendous outpouring. Notwithstanding Mr. Stock and Mr.
Yovanovich's comments about their perception about the misleading
nature of the survey, this response is truly remarkable and, again,
underscores the community's interest in this project.
You have heard from Greg Stuart, our professional planner;
from Bill Oliver, our traffic engineer; and from our attorneys about
why this application has to be denied at the Growth Management
Plan level. That denial makes moot the developer's request for road
vacations. This, as you know, is surely a $4.3 million gift to the
developer. It eliminates the zoning request, which still doesn't meet
the height concerns initially expressed by staff.
Look, while I don't have the technical expertise of our experts, I
can tell you that I've been a real estate developer for over 40 years,
and in this case, the developer's requests are all about money. Now,
that's understandable. Stock Development is a business, and it's in
business to make a profit, and they have every right to do so. They
knowingly made a high-stakes gamble with eyes wide open when
they acquired the 4.6 acres from the private parties that owned them.
According to the Collier County Assessor's website, Stock paid
in excess of $25 million for these properties. Stock closed on the
acquisitions before he had any permission or certainty of receiving
the necessary approvals to construct a profitable development that
was at the time not permitted.
In my 40-plus years of experience, I've often negotiated with
landowners who are very proud of their properties and asking very
high prices. I've regularly agreed to pay those high prices, but I
made clear to them that the value of their land was contingent upon
the use to which I was able to put it. To me, it had no value at all if I
couldn't develop a profitable project. Because of that, I made my
purchases contingent on my receiving fully non-appealable approvals
to do with the property as I desired.
March 1, 2021
Page 192
Stock Development made the calculated decision to take
ownership of the land before it had those assurances, and that's why
they're so insistent on developing a project that continues to be too
tall, too close to several street right-of-ways, and too big for the site
and the neighborhood.
Let me state, this is a bed that Stock Development made for
itself. Government has no obligation to and must not concern itself
with the developer's economics.
So where do we stand and what happens next? We are today
and always have been realists. We are not against development of
this corner; we are not, nor have we ever been, against Stock as a
developer of this corner. What we've objected to is only his plan for
the One Naples project.
We hope that you will recognize that no matter the ultimate
configuration, the Stock application is of no benefit to the public. It
benefits only Stock Development.
Stock's acquisition of the DaRuMa property and his willingness
to maintain it as open space is encouraging to us, but we're
disappointed that it remains exclusively for the private use of the
owners of residences in One Naples.
We would request assurances that his commitment is firm and
an unalterable requirement of any approvals that he may obtain, but
this doesn't change our concerns. We, and thousands of county
residents from whom you have heard, continue to request that you
deny the amendment to the Growth Management Plan. We will
agree and are appreciative of the increase in setbacks on Vanderbilt
Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive, yet I do not understand how the
actual building height of the towers can have gone from 125 feet to
the applicant's 165 feet. Nothing has changed to justify that change.
As for the marina, Stock's original proposal has morphed from a
totally private facility to a quasi-public one. At very least, we would
March 1, 2021
Page 193
like any slip not counted in the four that Stock seeks for charter
operators or those temporary facilities for fueling operations to be
deed restricted such that its owner or renter in perpetuity must also be
the owner of a One Naples residence.
But if this development is approved, even with its new design,
future developers with grandiose plans will be pointing to these
structures in Vanderbilt Beach when they argue about their projects
being compatible and complementary. You will inevitably soon see
the Miami of Vanderbilt Beach. What a tragedy.
After the public comments are complete, you and -- and you
commence on your deliberations, all interaction will be between you,
Stock, and his representatives. You'll be asked to make final
decisions without benefit of further (audio malfunction). That would
be unfair, especially since the public's had such a limited time to
consider today's new development -- new developer presentations.
When you assumed your posts, you entered into a covenant with
your constituents to faithfully represent their interests. They are
overwhelming asking you to protect them today by denying Stock's
proposal. I implore you not to ignore the feelings of the community.
At the very least, continue this application and allow your
residents to be able to properly digest the newly delivered
information.
Finally, I'd like to tell you about the eulogy given by Senator
Charles Sumner in 1865 at the funeral of President Abraham Lincoln.
In his eulogy, Sumner said Lincoln was mistaken when, in the
Gettysburg address he said, the world will little note nor long
remember what we say here. Rather, Sumner remarked, the world
noted at once what was said and will never cease to remember it.
Now, I grant you, that's a bit of a stretch, because this
development may only stand on this corner for a hundred years or so,
but I do assure you that the citizens and voters of Collier County will
March 1, 2021
Page 194
long remember what happens here today.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. And I believe
Mr. English, representing Pelican Bay property owners.
MR. ENGLISH: Madam Chair, Commissioners, good
afternoon, leadership of Collier County. Let me --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Please identify yourself, sir.
MR. ENGLISH: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Mark English, and I
represent, as President, the Pelican Bay Property Owners
Association.
Let me start with something we can all agree on. The Dow
Jones industrial averages are up 603 points. You may already know
that, but that's a good one.
I want to make one comment about traffic. A lot's been said.
I'm trying not to be duplicating here. But the project as proposed is
going to generate a lot of traffic from Amazon delivery, UPS, Federal
Express, Door Dash, Uber, Lyft, just about everybody you can think
of, plus all the supporting services, the air condition and heating
people, the lawn service, the pool service, the people that
take -- clean up the garage and all this sort of thing.
And I don't know if they factored all that into their analysis of it,
but I share that thought with you, because that's going to be an awful
lot of people in that place.
The Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, along with Save
Vanderbilt Beach, have designed and published a survey of
countywide attitudes about the Collier lifestyle. Questions on the
survey range from attitudes about the quality of life and smart growth
to thoughts about traffic and red tide. Respondents were asked about
their familiarity with the One Naples project and their feelings about
it.
Let me present some of the detailed -- details of those who filled
March 1, 2021
Page 195
out the survey. As of yesterday -- yesterday was Sunday, and we
shut it off at 3,192 residents. Buzz commented that it was over
32- or 3,300 now. But those numbers, while proportionate, are not
in these numbers that I'm going to read to you. These came from
throughout the county but, understandably, the majority came from
Commissioner Solis' District 2 where the project is located.
Here are the specifics. Okay. Thirty-one hundred ninety-two
total respondents to the survey; 416 were from District 1, which was
13 percent of the total; 2,170 were from District 2, which is
6.8 percent of the total; 210 were from District 3, representing
7 percent of the total; 251 were from District 4, representing
8 percent of the total; and 145 were from District 5, representing
4 percent of the total.
Asked if smart growth is important to them, 79 percent strongly
agreed and an additional 9 percent simply agreed, making the total
88 percent that smart growth was important.
Asked if quality of life is important to them, 96 percent agreed.
The vast majority of those strongly agreed at 91 percent.
Asked if developers should be allowed to amend the growth
management for their own benefit, 94 percent said no. 98 percent
were familiar with One Naples. 1.6 percent stated that
commissioners should approve the change for the GMP, 1.6 percent,
and a whopping 92.3 stated that the commissioners should deny the
amendment. That's 2,946 out of the 3,192 taxpaying residents
throughout the county.
I guess what's amazing to us is how 1.6 percent when
the -- whether the vote is 92.6 to 1.6 -- 92.3 to 1.6, how does the 1.6
break the tie? And these are the people that elected you and
supported you, and they're just asking you to follow their wishes.
And there were thousands and thousands and thousands of letters and
calls and emails that you were subject to asking you to please deny
March 1, 2021
Page 196
this request. It's not who's right; it's what's right. It's not who's
right; it's what's right.
This is the wrong project at the wrong place at the wrong time.
And, respectfully, we ask that you deny it. We thank you for all that
you do. Watching you all here today and figuring you have many
days like this, this is not an easy job, and we understand that, and we
thank you for your service.
Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No questions, Mr. English. Thank
you.
All right. So, Commission, we are -- we have how many
speakers, including the ones here in the room?
MR. MILLER: Approximately 65. It's -- the registrants online
tend to go up and down. Some leave the meeting, some join the
meeting, but you cannot join unless you've preregistered.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So what is the will of the
Commission? Should we maybe around, I guess it would be
6:30'ish, which would give -- Terri, that would give you your hour
and a half working. We'll take a break, we'll eat, and then reconvene
after that. And an hour -- does an hour work with everybody?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could I make a suggestion?
Just a thought that I think all of us can probably afford to miss a meal
or eat dinner later when we get home. Let's get through the public
hearing. That's just a thought. I don't know if anybody would agree
with that, but --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I need to eat. I don't want to miss a
meal. We could -- we could reduce that time, perhaps, to half an
hour. We could ask us to order in for us so that we have it here,
which would facilitate.
March 1, 2021
Page 197
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner LoCastro has
a connection to pizza.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He's already got -- he's already eaten,
folks. He's been eating.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: One of the things -- it's not
about the food.
One of the things I want to just say is I hope nobody who's
watching, either in the stands here or at home, thinks we're trying to
just press through to rush through this. I look at it just the other way.
We're doing this out of respect for, first of all, momentum. You
know, we're in the thick of the details here while things are fresh.
And I tend to think that, you know, if we called it quits right now,
half the people -- that 65 would probably disappear, and they
wouldn't be able to be online tomorrow.
So, I mean, I think we're doing it because we're so dedicated to
this project and, you know, we're not trying to make a -- you know, a
5:30 dinner reservation somewhere or we have somewhere else to be.
So, you know, I don't know the thoughts of the crowd right now, but I
know all of us are dedicated to pressing through with this, not to
speed things up.
But this is a very important decision for all of us, and we've got
all the experts here now, all the people, and all the momentum going
forward. So, you know, if anybody thinks it's otherwise and, you
know, we're just trying to rush through something, nobody here's
rushing through anything.
And also, we haven't voted on anything. So, you know, to your
word, sir, which I certainly really respect what you had to say at the
podium, you know, we do hear constituents. We haven't voted on
anything yet. So we haven't -- so, you know, we're here to listen and
make sure everybody is heard, and that's why we're going to continue
to press forward, because everybody's here.
March 1, 2021
Page 198
So whatever the will is of the -- of our chairwoman, I think, you
know, if we need 30 minutes, an hour, whatever, I've got -- I have a
really good assistant, so I have pizza in my office, so I can eat -- and
I'm former military, so I can eat dinner in five minutes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think what we'll do is break at 6:30
and, if you -- I'll bow to everyone here. Half an hour. We'll have
food brought in so that we can eat.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sounds good.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And we'll -- 6:30, so we'll come back.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going over to Rick's
office right now.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Pizza's $3 a slice. I'm on a
limited budget. So -- and, Terri, are we okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 6:30. Do we want to have a
discussion about the public speakers? Do you want to allot the full
three minutes or have a discussion --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, sir, I do. Yes, sir, I do. Three
minutes. Everyone gets three minutes. They do not have to take
three minutes, but you have a time frame, and at three minutes, we
probably will say that we would like you to finish up. If you agree
with the previous speaker, the one before you, if you feel so inclined,
please give your name and perhaps not necessarily address but the
area that you live in and say that you agree with it. We will find that
a lot of the testimony, depending on if you are for it or against it, will
be repetitive. But we are here to do your business. That's what we
were elected to do. And this is your time to speak.
So given that...
MR. MILLER: All right, ma'am. We will start with all of our
in-person speakers, as we have previously done.
March 1, 2021
Page 199
Your first speaker is Peter Duggan. He will be followed by
Ralph Cowie, and then Ken Melkus.
I'd like to encourage our speakers to use both podiums so that
the other podium can go cleaned in between.
Mr. Cowie, if you're here, could you please queue up at the other
podium. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Duggan, you have three minutes, sir.
MR. DUGGAN: Thank you. Peter Duggan. I live in Pelican
Bay. I'm a full-time resident. I've lived down here for 11 years.
I'm an ex-navy person. I spent my business career at Fortune 500
companies, Pepperskill (phonetic), Heinz, and Bordan (phonetic).
I'm very proud of my environmental background. My father
was the founding chairman, Steven Duggan, of Natural Resources
Defense Council, NRDC, which, next to Sierra Club, has the best
standing as an environmental. I bleed the environment like other
people bleed their causes.
I'm president of the Mangrove Action Group which is the only
NRPA in Collier County, and you're worried about the coastal. The
mangroves were the heros in Irma. Absolutely the heros. They
saved what rooftops -- five neighbors, including myself, all lost their
rooftops. So you have a great -- you have a great responsibility. I
am failing in my mine, and I'll give you some examples why you're
failing in yours.
The environment. The water, the land, and the air are your
responsibilities. You're spending 90 percent of your time and
listening to all the consultants and all the lawyers and everything else,
but the reason that most people are here is because the beaches, the
water, the fishing -- I fish every other week in inland waterways. I
hunt. I love the environment. And, believe it or not, hunters are
great environmentalists because they only take what they plan to eat
or use.
March 1, 2021
Page 200
But, please, folks, do a better job than you're doing now because
you are failing, like I am failing.
A couple of statistics. We've lost 350 manatees. We're
estimated to lose 2,150 manatees before the end of the year, which is
about one-third the estimate of the total manatees we have.
Now, the sea cows are wonderful creatures. They are starving
to death because of seagrass loss. We don't know how much the red
tide, algae blooms, and other things impact the manatees. But we're
failing on that. I'm failing on that in representing my cause to you.
We're failing on water quality. The lagoon was estimated by
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida at, like a D -- no, it was a C
minus in 2005. In 2017, the quality of the water in the lagoon that
we're talking about was a D minus. And you folks have the
responsibility like I do for the environment? That doesn't even get
into water rise and global warming. That just gets into our local
issues.
So, please, take what you've heard today from these
professionals and take it into consideration in a different light than
you had coming in here, because no matter what you say, some of
you have made up your mind. Some of you have great influences
and pressure on you, but you're above those. So please take that into
consideration.
And, finally, open space. If we don't get the policies we want,
we will change the policymakers.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Duggan.
MR. DUGGAN: Including you, Andy.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ralph Cowie. He'll be
followed by Ken Melkus and then Carolyn Jasul Ferrari.
MR. COWIE: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is
Ralph Cowie. I live in Barefoot Pelican at 271 South Bay Drive.
I've been an owner for 38 years. I'm enjoying myself in a wonderful
March 1, 2021
Page 201
paradise. I'm also a Florida resident.
Approximately, in early January, we had a vote on the people,
60 owners in Barefoot Pelican, about One Naples. There was more
than a majority of 31 against. At that point we were over the
majority, we stopped, but there were six in favor, okay.
In February, we worked with Brian Stock on a memorandum of
understanding. This was negotiated with Vanderbilt Holdings,
which, again, is the developer of One Naples. A vote was taken
again in early February on this MOU. The vote was 32 in favor and
27 opposed. However, this was not a vote on the approval of One
Naples. This is a vote on the acceptance of over $540,000 from
Vanderbilt Holdings for Stock Development, which was over $9,000
to each owner of the project as approved.
I ask you to vote no. I think this project is wrong for Vanderbilt
Beach. This development is not good for Vanderbilt Beach. And I
have a problem with this development and the setback along South
Bay Drive.
Setback drive [sic], as mentioned today, is the only one that still
stays at 10 feet. I would ask you to go to 25 feet. Barefoot Pelican
is at 25 feet street side and water side, okay.
The building that's being proposed, the two buildings on South
Bay Drive, have a setback as proposed of 10-feet, however there's an
overhang on the building of five feet. The 10-feet is at ground level
or garage level, if you will, and then there's a five-foot hangover in
the building.
Now, I'm on the fourth floor of Barefoot Pelican, which is
approximately 35 feet from the ground. I built a wall, which all of
you received my memo on. I hope you'll remember it. We built a
wall that was 20 feet in front of the building out of plywood, which
was to illustrate that that wall is 87 feet tall. Not 70 feet as was
proposed here, but 87 feet. I'm telling you that's just astronomical.
March 1, 2021
Page 202
I'm sitting on the walkway enjoying myself, and I'm going to be
enclosed with a shadow that's sticking out 20 feet and 87 feet high.
The building also, by the way, was mentioned earlier being
25 feet.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm sorry.
MR. COWIE: Forty feet to my southwest is where the building
is going to be. I'd ask you to vote no on this proposal. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ken Melkus. He'll be
followed by Carolyn Jasul Ferrari, and then David Galloway.
Mr. Melkus.
MR. MELKUS: Thank you. Just in order to avoid
duplication, I would just simply.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Come up to the --
MR. MELKUS: In order to avoid duplication, you've heard
most of the commentary. I oppose the project and have been very
active in my opposition and hope that, Commissioner Solis, you
would listen to the constituents that you have that have voiced their
opinion as to denying this project. So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Melkus.
MR. MILLER: All right. Carolyn Jasul Ferrari. Carolyn
Ferrari?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: David Galloway? I see Mr. Galloway
approaching. Mr. Galloway will be followed by Kristin Harvey, and
then Michael Moore.
MR. GALLOWAY: Thank you, Commissioners, for the
opportunity to speak today.
Hi. My name is David Galloway. For almost 20 years I've
lived at 91 -- excuse me -- 9051 Gulf Shore Drive, which is the
Beachmoor condominiums, directly across from and less than 50 feet
from the edge of the One Naples property.
March 1, 2021
Page 203
I'm also the president of the almost 30-year-old Vanderbilt
Beach Residents Association representing almost 6,000 doors in our
defined geographic area.
Over almost four years since the One Naples project was
announced, the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association has had a
very cordial relationship with Stock Development, having met
numerous times in person, via telephone, and Zoom with Brian Stock
and Keith Gelder.
Our members have attended the various informational meetings
regarding this project. The Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association
board of directors and membership thoroughly understand that the
parcels of land in question will be developed at some time. We want
it to be done in a responsible manner that can be supported by the
area's thousands of residents. I personally believe that the Stock
Development group is an excellent building company; however, I
understand this project will be their first high-rise tower endeavor.
We believe the project, as it is presented, is too tall and doesn't have
the adequate setbacks proposed and needed to accommodate these
buildings, amongst other items that are being presented by our legal
counsel today.
The Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association were involved
almost 20 years ago with the county working to change the Land
Development Code, as some of you may remember.
This became known as the Vanderbilt Beach Tourist Overlay, or
the VBRTO, to address and prevent oversized buildings that are
definitely out of scale, especially up and down Gulf Shore Drive.
The answer is very concise: Just comply with the present Land
Development Code without any variances. It's equally appropriate
for both the developer and the residents that live in this area to
preserve our neighborhood and not make a community along the gulf,
like Miami is along their oceanfront.
March 1, 2021
Page 204
The Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association and I request you
deny these applications as presented and to leave it as C-3 zoning or
have the county purchase the property back from Stock Development
and build a pristine park for all the Collier County residents to enjoy.
Commissioners, please listen to your constituents, especially my
friend, Commissioner Solis. This is your commission district, and
we wish that you people would vote to deny these applications as
presented.
Thank you for your time at this late hour.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next registered speaker is Kristin Harvey.
Michael Moore. Mr. Moore will be followed by Jacqualene Keay,
and then -- I'm going to try to pronounce this name in hopes that this
person will recognize it. I can't read it. It's Caeley Yolard, maybe,
Stockbo. If that sounds like it's your name, please come see me in
the boardroom.
Mr. Moore, you have three minutes, sir. Please begin.
MR. MOORE: Good evening. My name is Mick Moore, and
I'm one of the owners of the Vanderbilt Beach Resort and the Turtle
Club restaurant on Vanderbilt Beach. Our resort was the very first
property built on Vanderbilt Beach Road in 1951, and my family has
owned the resort since 1968.
Over the last 50 years, the area has grown and changed, and we
have heard on multiple occasions that the approval of a condominium
project would be -- would mean the end of the world for Vanderbilt
Beach. This has simply not been the case over the years, and the
area continues to attract tourists and residents who love it.
Our neighborhood has developed into a nice mix of
condominiums, residential homes, two beachfront hotels, and a few
smaller businesses. It's primarily residential tourist, which is what
most of the zoning is except for this piece, which is zoned
March 1, 2021
Page 205
commercial.
I certainly understand why my fellow neighbors were upset
when they first saw Stock's plan, because I have to admit when I first
saw the plan I thought that the building was too high and the project
was too intense, although I've always felt that the property should be
used for a residential purpose rather than a commercial use.
Fortunately, Stock Development has responded to the concerns
of the residents and the concerns of the county, and I personally find
the current plan of 10 stories over two stories of parking to be very
compatible with the neighborhood, very complementary with the
nearby buildings. I've been pleased and surprised at how they've
made these reductions, and I think the current proposed project will
fit in well and will be a fine addition to the neighborhood.
The biggest and most drastic change that could occur to our area
is if you were to deny this project, force the developer to develop
commercial, and now you have a commercial project in what is
otherwise a residential area. That would change Vanderbilt Beach
forever in a negative way, in my opinion.
In my view, a commercial project on this property would be
much worse for the neighborhood because of the increased traffic and
the increased noise, and it would be much less compatible with the
area rather than what Stock has proposed, which I think is
compatible.
This property is going to change. It is going to be developed.
I'm not willing to gamble the future of Vanderbilt Beach on the
possibility that Stock won't do what they said and develop it
commercial if this is not approved.
So if you want to Save Vanderbilt Beach, I encourage you to
approve this project, preserve the character of the neighborhood,
which is residential, instead of turning this corner of our
neighborhood into a commercial project.
March 1, 2021
Page 206
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jacqualene Keay. She
will be followed by Justin Finch and then David Jeskie.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: I'm told all of our speakers have moved down
to this floor, so I'm guessing we've lost a few.
Are you Mr. Finch?
Okay. Mr. Finch will be followed by David Jeskie and then
Brandon Seward.
MR. FINCH: Hello, Board. My name is Captain Justin Finch.
I have lived within one mile of the proposed project for the past 36
years. For the past 18 years, I've owned and operated South Bay
Marina, which is located at the southern end of Vanderbilt Lagoon
and is on the property of the proposed project.
I have worked in various capacities at this location for a total of
28 years. As a business owner, I see great potential in the
potential -- the proposed commercial option for this project; however,
as a 36-year resident and property owner who plans to continue to
live in the area well into retirement, I feel the residential option is by
far the best fit for this community.
On a personal note, I feel it's very important for me to address
my experience working with Brian Stock and the character of all the
staff at Stock Development.
Shortly after the property changed hands, we were hit by
Hurricane Irma. My building that I had been working out of since
2003 was damaged beyond repair. Thinking this was the end of my
dream, which I had invested my life savings, was a sad and sobering
event.
Soon after, Brian and his team reached out to me -- reached out
and made it possible that my staff and I could continue to operate in a
limited capacity using our fishing guide services in order to continue
March 1, 2021
Page 207
to provide for our families. This was such a blessing in a bleak time.
As we started to repair our homes and our lifestyle, we were hit
with yet another roadblock as devastating red tide outbreak plagued
much of our 2019 season.
The unsolicited consideration of Brian and the team helped pull
us through yet again, as they assured me they wouldn't give up on us
through this challenge.
Next comes 2020. With the peak of my business -- my busy
season being February, March, and April, the impact of COVID
proved to rival the impacts of Hurricane Irma. Without anyone
singing their praises or claim from social media, once again, Brian,
Keith, and the family at Stock made every effort to ensure that a
small local business continued to stay afloat. Not based on us being
the highest bidder or having the shiniest boats, but because we were
locals who have our blood, sweat, and tears in this property.
So when I hear anyone negatively question Stock Development's
character or commitment to doing what is best for your community,
with nothing but gratitude in my heart, I will strongly disagree.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is David Jeskie, followed by
Brandon Seward, and then he will be followed by Judy Dugan.
Mr. Jeskie, you have three minutes.
MR. JESKIE: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners.
My name is David Jeskie. I currently own and operate the Beach
Store of Naples at 155 Vanderbilt Beach Road. I've currently been
at the facility for a little over 11 years. During that 11 years, the
corner property has been for sale through various owners.
I was familiar with the previous owners. When they did go
forward to sell it, they did go through and vet a number of
developers, but Stock Development came out on top. And the one
reason I was told that they did agree to sell to Stock Development
March 1, 2021
Page 208
was because they were sure that the project would get built and get
built the proper way to fit into the community.
Stock Development has been very upfront with all the
organizations in the area. In fact, I think -- believe they went above
and beyond anything by having hundreds of meetings with all the
associations trying to get a consensus on what would really work in
the area. I could say that's probably more than any other developer
in Collier County has done. In addition, they have the financial
backing and right-of-way to do a first-hand quality project.
Unfortunately, I'm at my business quite a bit, a lot more than I'd
like to be. And, you know, one big issue that constantly comes up is
the traffic. In my humble opinion, the traffic will actually be
decreased. Right now, as residents come down -- it's not even
residents. It's a lot of Miami people and West Coast people that
come to Vanderbilt Beach. They're parking everywhere, in the open
fields and every little nook and cranny that they can. It's an
unmanageable situation.
By eliminating a lot of the offsite parking, we'll also eliminate
the number of people on Vanderbilt Beach. By having a
well-coordinated community on that block will only enhance
Vanderbilt Beach.
I strongly suggest that you do approve the project, and I think
Stock Development would be great for the area, unlike a lot of the
other developers that have fallen by the wayside, specifically in the
City of Naples.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Brandon Seward. He
will be followed by Judy Dugan, and then we will move to our online
speakers with AJ Attavar.
Mr. Seward, you have three minutes.
MR. SEWARD: Thank you.
March 1, 2021
Page 209
My name is Brandon Seward, and until about a month ago, I
lived in Mercato above, like, Rocco's Tacos. And you can imagine
living in Mercato for a 20-something is pretty attractive. But from
my experience living around bars and restaurants, it wasn't what I
thought it was and it's, ultimately, the reason that I left, the bars and
the restaurants.
I can say firsthand that living around all these definitely detracts
from the living experience and frustrated me to the point of moving
away down to Island Walk; however, I do do frequent
stay -- weekend stays at the Ritz-Carlton and, from my experience,
looking out over the balcony, seeing high-rises to the south and one
more residential building to the north doesn't detract from the
experience in any way, but residential only. The building originally
proposed fits the aesthetic and would blend in perfectly.
From my years of commercial real estate ownership
experience -- my business partner and I own $20 million worth of
commercial office space -- I've learned that you want to reward the
residents, not punish them. A commercial development in the form
of shops, restaurants, and residences rewards visitors and punishes
residents that have made Vanderbilt Beach their home.
On a personal level, taking away DaRuMa's, a Naples icon since
I was an infant, is heartbreaking. Shame on you.
This is not Miami Beach. Let's keep it that way. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Judy Dugan. She'll be
followed by AJ Attavar and then Bev Cohen.
Ms. Dugan, I hope I'm saying your name correct.
MS. DUGAN: Yes, you are.
Thank you, Commissioners. It's a great honor to talk in front of
you. And my name is Judy Dugan, and I'm in favor of the One
Naples project by Stock Development.
My family and I own and operate the Lighthouse Restaurant and
March 1, 2021
Page 210
Buzz's Lighthouse -- the Lighthouse Inn and Buzz's Lighthouse
Restaurant for the past over four decades.
My husband -- I'm going to get a little personal. My husband,
Buzz, and I came to Naples on our honeymoon in 1973, a long time
ago. And we fell in love with Naples because it was very quaint, the
beaches, the palm trees. There was a movie theater on Third Street
and Broad, and Wynn's supermarket on Fifth Avenue. There was
also the train down Goodlette Road, the west side, and the conductor
used to wave at everybody and toot his whistle and everything.
There was also the 15-cent hamburger joint on 41 and also the
drive-through -- car drive-through with the carhops -- the pretty
carhops on 41.
Since that time, Naples has grown, and people have accepted the
change, and Naples has grown into a beautiful, high-end resort city.
And people -- it's very, very well known.
And so Buzz and I, we fell in love with Naples, and we got a
two-bedroom, one-bath condo in Vanderbilt Beach on Willet Avenue
for $250 a month. That's right, $250. And we loved being on the
water.
Buzz went into real estate, and he bought and sold lots,
residential lots in Vanderbilt Beach, buying them at that time for 6- to
$10,000 and selling them.
We also bought commercial lots in the commercial area that
Stock is planning to build on. And we had owned, with a group, the
property where Regatta is today, and also we also owned --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You have 30 seconds, ma'am.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And so, anyways, we bought the
Lighthouse Inn in 1978, and we built Buzz's Lighthouse Restaurant in
1980. My sons and I, we still operate both of the businesses, and
we've served many dinners and lunches to very -- how many Naples
residents.
March 1, 2021
Page 211
Anyways, just one more couple sentences, please.
Vanderbilt Beach is an upscale residential area, not commercial.
It's a residential; Vanderbilt Beach. One Naples project by Stock
Development is also a residential upscale development. And I feel
that they will both complement each other if given the chance. They
really will.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you very much.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: As we move to our online speakers, I want to
remind them you will be prompted when to unmute. When it is your
time to speak, please do that and then begin.
AJ Attavar has dropped off, so we'll go with Bev Cohen,
followed by Bob Giannetti, and then Bonnie Michaels.
Ms. Cohen, you'll have to unmute yourself, but we're ready for
your comment.
MS. COHEN: Hi. Thank you.
My name is Beth Cohen, obviously, and I've lived in Pelican
Bay for over 30 years.
And I initially was questioning the traffic studies. And in
Pelican Bay, Pelican Bay Boulevard has always been used, more
recently lately, as a cut-through. And the roadway is four lanes, two
southbound, two northbound, but two of those lanes, both southbound
and northbound, are cyclist lanes.
And so, consequently, there's a lot of cyclists going through
Pelican Bay during the day, and so it really essentially renders the
roadway to two lanes, one north, one south.
And it's difficult to exit onto Pelican Bay Boulevard from our
neighboring communities during the day because of the heavy traffic.
There are various locations going across Pelican Bay Boulevard
where you can have access to the beach, and people are crossing the
roadway at various points during the day and then later at night when
March 1, 2021
Page 212
they're coming back from the beach or back from some of the
restaurants in Pelican Bay.
And I didn't know whether a traffic study had been done with
regard to the two lanes which really Pelican Bay Boulevard has
become. And traffic from One Naples can either avoid the traffic
lights on Vanderbilt Beach Road and 41 by entering Pelican Bay
Boulevard from North Point Drive and Hammock Oak Drive. So I
didn't know if a traffic study had been done within our area of Pelican
Bay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's my understanding that it has not
been done regarding this -- this particular development.
MS. COHEN: Because it's already sometimes a dangerous
situation. I mean, I've seen a couple of accidents. I've seen a
car-and-bike accident. So I think it might be a consideration.
And thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bob Giannetti. He will
be followed by Bonnie Michaels, and then Carl Djusberg. I hope I'm
pronouncing that, sir. I think the D is silent.
Mr. Giannetti, you will need to unmute yourself. Mr. Giannetti,
you need to unmute yourself. We're going to be one second longer
for patience here. Mr. Giannetti, if you can hear me, please unmute
yourself.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: All right. Let's try to move on to Bonnie
Michaels. Ms. Michaels, you're being prompted to unmute yourself.
If you'll do so, please. All right. Ms. Michaels.
MS. MICHAELS: Yes, I'm here. Bonnie Michaels.
I live on Beachwalk, on Vanderbilt Beach Road. And not too
much has been discussed about our issues regarding traffic, because
we cannot turn left.
March 1, 2021
Page 213
The main points that I have are quality of life. I've lived here
for 20 years, and if I knew that a Miami tower was going to be down
the street, I would never have bought. You know, the human
element is really important here. We knew there was going to be
development, but we'd hoped that there would be something in
moderation and something for our neighborhood.
We really would prefer having a combination of mid high-rise,
some commercial. Some commercial is not bad at all. A few
restaurants, a little boutique sounds good to me, better than massive,
massive concrete. Commercial has been discouraged completely by
Stock. There were never any options at all.
And we keep talking about it's compatible. It's not compatible.
I'm the person that walks down the street on Vanderbilt Beach Road,
and there will be this massive two towers, dense building. That is
not compatible at all. Lush landscaping doesn't change the massive
165-foot tower. I think lush was probably mentioned about 10 times
today by the developer.
So we're asking that you consider options. Do not approve of
this plan. And nobody has really talked about the effects of the
beach. Has Parks and Recreation at all been involved? Coastal
Management? Vanderbilt Beach is already a failing beach. I can't
imagine what it's going to be like when we have 172 condo people
plus their friends plus their grandchildren. It's like Pony Island right
now.
Quality of life is really important to so many of us. One Naples
doesn't improve it. It detracts. There is nothing for us in that
development.
Please do not approve this, and give us some options; reduce the
height, the density, or give us a combination of commercial and
mid-rise.
Thank you.
March 1, 2021
Page 214
MR. MILLER: Your next online speaker is Carl Djusberg,
followed by Carolyn Baxter, and then Colin Kanar.
Carl, I hope I'm pronouncing your last name correctly. You're
being prompted to unmute, sir. If you'll do that now. Carl?
MR. DJUSBERG: Hello?
MR. MILLER: Oh, there you are, sir. You have three
minutes.
MR. DJUSBERG: Okay. I actually was just watching. I
didn't want to speak, so I don't know how that happened. I
apologize.
MR. MILLER: All right, sir. Then we will move on. Thank
you very much.
Your next public speaker is Carolyn Baxter, followed by Colin
Kanar, and then Craig Chandler.
Ms Baxter, you're being prompted to unmute. Ms. Baxter, you
should be prompted to unmute now, if you can do that for me. I'll
pause one second longer, Madam Chair.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: All right. Let's move on to Colin Kanar, if I'm
saying that right. It's K-a-n-a-r. You should be prompted to
unmute yourself now, Colin. You have three minutes, sir.
MR. KANAR: Okay. Hi.
MR. MILLER: You'll need to mute whatever other TV you
have going in your room there, sir.
MR. KANAR: Okay. Let me move away here. Yeah. You
know, I just wanted to say, I'm a resident of Vanderbilt Beach.
We've lived here for over 20 years. I live actually directly across the
bay from this project.
I have written to all the commissioners. I am against this
project. My entire family's against it as it stands right now for all the
reasons that have been outlined here by the various entities.
March 1, 2021
Page 215
I realize there are a few people who have presented today who
all seem to have a financial interest for their business positively
reflecting on this project, but aside from that, almost everyone who's
called in is opposed to it. We've expressed that very distinctly to all
the commissioners. I hope you'll make a wise decision and represent
us. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Craig Chandler. He'll be
followed by Dailey McPeak, and then Edwin Eckert.
Mr. Chandler -- oh, you're there. You have three minutes, sir.
MR. CHANDLER: Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank
you.
Just real quick. I'm one of the thousands and thousands of
people that are speaking up and have spoken out that we're not for the
current Stock Development.
We -- we all knew it was C-3 when we bought in. I knew that
five years ago. I'm a resident. I'm here in Naples Park.
Homeowner, six registered voters, District 2.
And, no, we figured that when something would go in it would
be like Bayfront, Venetian Village, a mini Mercato, and that can still
happen. That will be amazing.
Is that area commercial? Well, the Ritz-Carlton thinks so.
They've got 450 units there. LaPlaya, Turtle Club, Vanderbilt
Beach, and Buzz's Lighthouse. There's like four hotels, probably
about 600 rooms, maybe more, total. Very commercial area. We
can definitely handle the restaurants.
In my opinion, this vote is simplified. Simply you're voting,
should it be public use for everyone in the county plus our guests, or
is it private and we shut the doors? Either way, I'm going there. I'm
one of those 400 people that are crossing the street every day, right,
and because I have a casual lifestyle here, I go down to the beach a
March 1, 2021
Page 216
couple times a day.
Yeah, I mean, if you want to put a condo with 400 people
crossing in front of it, that would be -- that's going to be interesting.
I wouldn't enjoy that. I would never move into something like that.
But if you give it commercial possibilities, if it stays C-3, well, you
get more parking, which I know you're looking at, at Seagate. So
not only do you have your current parking lot, you'll get more public
parking, you'll have more customers, you'll have more options for the
guests and, quite frankly, I'm dreaming about having blueberry
pancakes overlooking the bay. I think we can all agree on blueberry
pancakes.
And that's it. My vote: No, thank you. Keep it C-3. And
thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dailey McPeak. He'll be
followed be Edwin Eckert and then Elizabeth Pircio.
So, Mr. McPeak, you're being prompted to unmute yourself.
And there you are. You have three minutes, sir.
MR. McPEAK: Hi, I'm Dailey McPeak.
MR. MILLER: Sir, we're having a real difficulty hearing you.
I see you're unmuted, but we still can't hear you.
MR. McPEAK: I'm sorry. Better now?
MR. MILLER: There you go, sir. You have three minutes.
MR. McPEAK: I'm Dailey McPeak. I live on Gulf Shore
Drive. I live a couple blocks from the proposed project.
I would invite you commissioners to sit back, take a deep breath,
imagine that you're -- you are coming from another state, and you
want to get the global picture, the bird's eye view of what is best for
our area and its community. If you do that and think of yourselves
as the physician who's trying to do what's best for the patient -- you,
the commissioners, are the physician, the people of the community
are the patient, and the physician is motivated to do what's best for
March 1, 2021
Page 217
the patient.
If you, with that global perspective, consider making this five or
so acres into a relaxing park very much like Connor Park up on
Bluebill/Immokalee, that would help lower the stress level, the
tension level of all the congestion of vehicles and bikers and walkers
and people pushing carriages and carrying equipment to the beach.
So in terms of what is best for the community, please consider
that approach, and please deny approval of One Naples. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Edwin Eckert. He'll be
followed by Elizabeth Pircio and George Marks.
Mr. Eckert, you're being prompted to unmute yourself.
Mr. Eckert, one more time, if you wish to speak, you will need to
unmute yourself now.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: And let's move on. We will try Elizabeth
Pircio, followed by George Marks, and then Ilona Schmitt.
Ms. Pircio, you are -- I hope I'm saying your name correctly.
You are being prompted to unmute yourself. Will you do so now,
please.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, Ms. Pircio, one more chance.
Can you please unmute yourself. It's your turn to talk. There you
are. Three minutes, ma'am.
MS. PIRCIO: Hi, can you hear me -- oh, excuse me. I
have -- can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am, we hear you. You have three
minutes.
MS. PIRCIO: Hello.
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am, we hear you. You have three
minutes.
MS. PIRCIO: I'm not sure that you can hear me.
March 1, 2021
Page 218
MR. MILLER: We can hear you.
MS. PIRCIO: Excuse me. Can you hear me now?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. We can hear you.
MS. PIRCIO: I'm sorry. I had my computer on and my
laptop, and it was very difficult.
I was going to say good afternoon, but I guess it's good evening.
My name is Elizabeth Pircio. I own a condo at Barefoot Pelican.
I'm a direct abutter to One Naples. I'm also on the board of Save
Vanderbilt Beach. I'm a practicing CPA and formerly served as
member and chairperson of my planning board in Massachusetts.
Barefoot Pelican was offered $576,000 worth of incentives to
endorse One Naples. There's 60 units. Through a lot of pressure
put on by the Board, they got 32 owners to endorse One Naples. It
was very distressing to see this type of machination go on.
I'm mentioning this because it's not a runaway endorsement by
any stretch of the imagination, and there's still people at Barefoot
Pelican that are violently opposed to this development.
I hope that you will disapprove the Growth Management Plan
amendment. This development is very, very bad for the residents
who live in the Vanderbilt Beach area. The people that have spoke
in favor of it are businesspeople, the Beach Box, owner of the
marina, Buzz's Lighthouse, the Turtle Club. These people are going
to -- they have a financial interest in this passing. But the people
that vote, us, the people that live there, we don't want it. It doesn't
fit.
I hope that you deny the Growth Management Plan, but if you
decide not to, there are two main issues to me on why it doesn't fit.
One is the height of the high-rises. Every high-rise around it,
including the Ritz and including Beachmoor, is under 12 stories, so
under 125 feet. If you're going to approve it, you should limit the
height to 125 feet of both of the towers.
March 1, 2021
Page 219
The other issue that I have is setbacks. Every single building
on South Bay Drive is set back 25 feet from the road and 25 feet from
the water. Why should they get an exception? All of the setbacks
should be at least 25 feet to be in conformance with the rest of the
neighborhood.
I don't know what else to say. I've been fighting this since
2017. I know your planning staff very well because we've had
many, many meetings with them.
Commissioner Solis, you're the commissioner in our district. I
would hope that you would listen to the residents. The residents
don't want this. The voters don't want this. The businesspeople, of
course they want it. But I hope that you listen to the residents.
We're the people that vote you in. You have our quality of life in
your hands with this vote. And I hope that you are listening.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is George Marks. He'll be
followed by Ilona Schmitt and then Jacqualene Keay.
Mr. Marks, I see you're there. You have three minutes, sir.
MR. MARKS: Thank you very much, Commissioners. My
name is George Marks. I am a resident of Vanderbilt Beach. I live
at 319 Lagoon Avenue.
You've heard today from Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Stock, how
they have continued -- they have mentioned how they have
continually worked with the community. If that was a genuine
statement and genuinely true, Save Vanderbilt Beach would not have
had to raise over $135,000, and who knows how much more will be
required if the commissioners decide to approve the growth
management amendment.
As late as today's lunch break, Mr. Yovanovich was contacted
by a representative of Save Vanderbilt Beach to reach a compromise
that would have ended this hearing and avoided what could be years
March 1, 2021
Page 220
of potential litigation for all. We'd all like to avoid that.
Mr. Yovanovich's answer was no, and he was not interested in
discussing further. We thought we were close.
Please listen to the 3,300 residents that have responded to the
survey and deny the Growth Management Plan amendment.
As commissioners, you know how difficult it is to get 3,300
people to respond to a survey. So, clearly, your constituents believe
that this Growth Management Plan amendment should be denied.
Mr. Stock can always come back and resubmit a plan that works for
all. I don't think we're that far apart but approving it today would
not allow for that to happen.
Please do the right thing and deny the Growth Management Plan
amendment. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ilona Schmitt, followed
by Jacqualene Keay, and then John Bamberger.
Ms. Schmitt, I hope I'm pronouncing your name correctly. You
have three minutes, ma'am.
MS. SCHMITT: Perfectly. Thank you.
My name is Ilona Schmitt. I'm a resident of District 4, and
rather than repeat all of these wise people that have come forward
today, I'd just like to say that -- please listen to your constituents and
vote no on this measure.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jacqualene Keay. She'll
be followed by John Bamberger, and then John Nick.
Ms. Keay, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at this
time. There you are.
MS. KEAY: Okay. Wonderful. Can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. You have three minutes.
MS. KEAY: Okay. Thank you.
If I understand correctly, one of the greatest crises facing our
March 1, 2021
Page 221
community is the exodus of those in lower-income and middle-class
brackets because many of us cannot afford attainable housing. This
issue is critical if we wish to sustain our community for future
generations. I spoke to someone recently, and he said the reason he
thinks attainable housing is less of a priority is because he believes
there's a lack of political will.
I can see there is a financial and political will for development
such as One Naples, which caters to the needs of the wealthy. The
prosperity of Naples will not be sustainable without the working class
who are the backbone of this community.
What happens when the working class are pushed out and do not
return because of lack of attainable housing? Who will provide
those essential services? Where does that leave the wealthy? If it is
not conceivable that they will be the next -- is it not conceivable that
they will be next in line for a great exodus?
Like every boom in history, there is a bust. If Naples is busting
at the seams with the wealthy, there will be no to little room for the
working class who are needed to sustain our economy.
So developments like One Naples does not address the housing
crisis nor is it a solution to the retention of the working class.
Economic development must address equity in relations to race and
socioeconomic status of all community members. The results of
major development catering to the needs of the wealthy will be
detrimental to the community in the long run.
Even if one argues that such developments bring in jobs to the
community, it does not provide needed housing to those who require
it most. I oppose this project because it will further widen the
wealth gap and does not provide any attainable housing. I sincerely
hope that leaders will put in as much will and effort into making
attainable housing a reality for the working as they do for building
yet another luxury development that only serves the wealthy.
March 1, 2021
Page 222
Thank you all very much, and I appreciate your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John Bamberger. He'll
be followed by John Nick and then Jon McGaunn.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're going to at --
MR. BAMBERGER: My name is John Bamberger, and I am a
full-time resident of Collier County, and I reside at the Regatta.
My concern today is the street setbacks to the actual building
height that Stock is requesting. The current 3C [sic] zoning requires
an actual building height to front street setback of 50 percent with a
minimum of 25 feet. So in other words, a 100-foot actual height
building would require a 50-foot setback.
Street setbacks and the actual building height go hand in hand.
When done correctly, they provide open views, green space, sunlight
and, most importantly, a sense of security. This is why we have
zoning codes written to complement and enhance any neighborhood.
And our Vanderbilt Beach neighborhood is a very good example
of how it can be done correctly. Provided in one of the previous
presentations, the average height -- actual height in the Vanderbilt
Beach neighborhood was 80.5 feet. The average setback was
49 feet, which is a 60 percent ratio, far exceeding the current C-3
regulations.
Stock's now 165-foot towers is asking for just a 21 percent
setback ratio, and the 87-foot Bayfront mid-rises are requesting less
than 12 percent.
Stock mentioned my community, Regatta, several times today.
I live in Regatta, Building 1, which is 148 feet, which is the closest to
the One Naples development. Our building is set back 150 feet from
Vanderbilt Beach Road. You can barely see it driving down the
street.
The rear of our building was also designed at an angle to allow
greater setback and more compatible with Barefoot Pelican. We do
March 1, 2021
Page 223
not block their view.
On a related subject, I would like to have clarification on the
actual building heights that are being requested by Stock. I'd like to
see if they'd include the rooftop amenities, such as the cabanas, the
elevator access, and trees that are on their 87-foot mid-rise buildings
that are shown in all their renderings. If they aren't, then these
buildings would be even taller.
From what I've been able to determine, talking to James Sabo
and others in the Planning Commission, there is no other commercial
or, excuse me, residential project in all of Collier County that has
setback ratios as small as they're requesting. There are garage
spaces, not residential. If this was allowed to go, this would create a
precedence for a Miami-like setting in all of Collier County.
I do appreciate your time today. I just want to save my
neighborhood. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think now we're going to take a
break, and we'll reconvene at 7:00.
(A brief recess was had from 6:28 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.)
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. I think we'll
resume our public hearing.
And, again, just to remind those who have been patiently
waiting, that you do have three minutes to speak, and we want to hear
from you. But if you agree with the previous speaker, if you just
give us your name and maybe a district where you live and say that
you agree, we'd appreciate that also. Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: All right. I'm sorry. I've got a little confusion
here. I believe John Bamberger is next, and then John Nick, and
then Jon McGaunn. I could be wrong on Mr. Bamberger. He might
have spoke right before we went to break.
Mr. Bamberger, you're being queued to unmute yourself.
March 1, 2021
Page 224
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He already spoke.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
Let's move on to John Nick and then Jon McGaunn and then
Joseph Taormino.
Mr. Nick, are you with us, sir? You'll need to unmute yourself.
John Nick, you're being prompted to unmute yourself, sir.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: All right. He's not there. Mr. McGaunn has
left us. So let's move to Joseph Taormino, Julie Wyman, and then
Kathleen Curatolo.
Joseph Taormino. Sir, are you with us? You'll need to unmute
yourself. Mr. Taormino, T-a-o-r-m-i-n-o. Taormino. There you
are, sir, Mr. -- Joseph, you have three minutes, sir. Sir? Can you
hear us? Well, I see him unmuted, but --
MR. TAORMINO: Can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. We can hear you. Speak up, please.
You have three minutes.
MR. TAORMINO: Thank you. My name's Joseph Taormino,
and I own three properties in Naples Park. And basically, I'm
concerned with the rest of the Collier County community. When
they try to get down to the beach and they live west or east of 951 or
thereabouts, trying to get to the beach is a real tough job for these
people, and I think those people have the right to use our beaches as
well as those of us who are close to the beach. And I think the
inequity of that represents a problem for our state of caring for other
people and for those who have less than we do.
So I can think that basically by having these high-rises cater to
the, you know, quite wealthy people is okay, but at the expense of
those people who live east of us who don't have those means. And I
am concerned that they will be limited to beach access. And if
anyone's noticed, the beach is not wide at all.
March 1, 2021
Page 225
So I thank you for your attention, and I wish you and yours the
best. Thanks, and have a good evening.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker will be Julie Wyman,
followed by Kathleen Robbins and then Kathleen Sheran.
Ms. Wyman, I see you're there. You have three minutes,
ma'am. Please begin.
MS. WYMAN: Good evening, Madam Chair. Can you all
hear me?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. WYMAN: Thank you. My name is Julie Wyman and I
am a resident of Pelican Bay. I agree with my neighbors to deny
One Naples as presented today.
I do want to mention one additional concern I have, but I am
hopeful Collier County will not continue past Vanderbilt Lagoon
development mistakes, whether residential or commercial. I refer to
the destruction of mangrove shorelines from these old developments
which are destroying the natural filtering systems to handle the
polluted land runoff into the lagoon waterway.
Bigger waterfront developments like One Naples with zero-foot
setbacks from the water will bring continued loss of water plant
habitat for shore and seabirds and marine wildlife.
Going forward, when we have the opportunity, let's keep our
lagoons and bays public and accessible for the enjoyment of all our
county residents, even the less wealthy, to enjoy perhaps with a
Vanderbilt Lagoon waterfront restaurant rather than a condo
overhanging the lagoon.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kathleen Robbins. She'll
be followed by Kathleen Sheran and then Kevin Dugan.
Ms. Robbins, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at this
March 1, 2021
Page 226
time.
MS. ROBBINS: Good evening.
MR. MILLER: Good evening.
MS. ROBBINS: My name is Kathleen Robbins, and I live on
Gulf Shore Drive in Vanderbilt Beach. I am the treasurer of the
Save Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association.
Our organization, as you've heard, is opposed to your approval
of the One Naples project as proposed. Even the revised
proposal -- which my head is still spinning. I don't know how you
guys can consider it just having received it this morning.
Our reasons for our group asking you to deny the One Naples
project are many of the same of those who have already spoken. But
I will emphasize that we find most objectionable the dangerous
precedent it will set in our neighborhood.
Vanderbilt Beach was developed in the '60s and '70s, and our
neighborhood along Gulf Shore Drive is primarily a low- to mid-rise
neighborhood with a number of single-family homes as well. In the
early 2000s, as you have heard, the precursors to our organization
sponsored a change to the Land Development Code, which is known
by the name the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay. This
effort was working with county staff. We spent over $50,000 and
over two years working with their staff. There was also a two-year
moratorium that allowed us time to suspend building and talk to staff
about getting this implemented.
The approval of the One Naples project as proposed, however,
will open the floodgates allowing other developers to buy up the
older properties along Gulf Shore Drive, which are now 40, 45, 50
years old, and perhaps Vanderbilt Drive as well, and ask for approval
for high-rises similar to One Naples, using One Naples as a
precedent. This will have the effect of destroying our Vanderbilt
Beach Residential Tourist Overlay and, as a byproduct, our
March 1, 2021
Page 227
neighborhood.
Please vote to deny all three applications. Thank you for your
time and attention.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker will be Kathleen Sheran
followed by Kevin Dugan and then Kim Jacob.
Ms. Sheran, you are being prompted to unmute yourself. There
you are. You have three minutes, ma'am.
MS. SHERAN: Thank you. I appreciate all of the time you're
putting into this. I've been listening, and I support the opposition. I
have nothing to add to what's already been said.
MR. MILLER: Thank you, ma'am.
Your next speaker is Kevin Dugan, followed by Kim Jacob, and
then Laura Donovan.
Mr. Dugan, you have three minutes, sir.
Please begin.
MR. DUGAN: Good evening, Commissioners. My name's
Kevin Dugan. My family and I own and operate Buzz's Lighthouse
and also the Lighthouse Inn for the past 40-plus years.
I fully understand the controversy surrounding this development.
And it does not matter what is proposed here; all will be met with
opposition.
My family and I are in support of this One Naples development
and believe that Stock, being a local company committed to Naples
over the years, is the right developer.
I am born and raised in Naples and Vanderbilt Beach. Some of
my best memories were growing up here in Vanderbilt Beach.
Times sure have changed. If we could only have stopped
development back in the '80s. Unfortunately, that is not an option
and was not an option.
I also believe Collier County has done an excellent job
managing the explosive growth over the years. The fact that
March 1, 2021
Page 228
Vanderbilt Beach is mostly residential has been a major draw for
property owners.
We don't want this area to turn into a South Beach or Las Olas
Strip, and that is exactly what commercial the other option would do.
Residential is here.
Some people are thinking and hoping Stock will not develop
commercial. That is a huge gamble for you, our Collier County
Commissioners, to take. The problems commercial development
will cause from increased traffic and noise will ruin the fabric of
Vanderbilt Beach.
Now, there is a beautiful master planned development that is
sure to benefit this area. Once again, I believe in One Naples and
Stock Development as the best fit for this neighborhood.
Thank you, Commissioners, for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kim Jacob. She'll be
followed by Laura Donovan and then Linda Roth.
Ms. Jacob, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at this
time. Kim Jacob. You should be getting a prompt to unmute
yourself, Ms. Jacob.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: And let's move. Your next speaker is Laura
Donovan, and she will be followed by Linda Roth and then Linda
Torni.
Ms. Donovan, you should be getting a prompt to unmute
yourself at this point. Laura Donovan. Ms. Donovan, you
should -- need to unmute yourself at this time, please, if you wish to
speak.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: All right. I'm hitting a losing streak here.
Let's try Linda Roth followed by Linda Torni.
Ms. Roth, you should be getting a prompt to unmute yourself at
March 1, 2021
Page 229
this time. Linda Roth.
Ms. Roth, you have unmuted. You'll need to make sure
everything else in your house is unmuted -- your TV -- or is muted,
so forth.
MS. ROTH: Hello. Can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, Ms. Roth. You have three minutes.
Please begin.
MS. ROTH: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is
Linda Roth. I'm a resident of Pelican Bay. I agree with all the
reasons presented by previous speakers opposing the One Naples
application.
As you are aware, there are great concerns among residents and
visitors about water quality and algal outbreaks in Collier County's
water bodies. Vanderbilt Lagoon is located at the southernmost end
of Wiggins Pass Estuary approximately three-and-a-half to four miles
of Wiggins Pass inlet. Consequently, it has very little circulation
and flushing. As expected, this water is consistently declining.
And, in fact, it receives a D minus grade in the Conservancy's
2017 estuaries report card. Having 75-plus boat slips in the marina
and a fueling station at the southern border of Vanderbilt Lagoon will
not only significantly increase boating traffic in the Wiggins Pass
Estuary, also the amount of oil, gas, detergent, paint, heavy metals in
the lagoon, thus accelerating degradation of the already impaired
water, leading to algal blooms and fish kills in the Wiggins Pass
ecosystem.
I urge commissioners to deny the One Naples application as
presented by Stock today. I believe Stock (audio malfunction) revise
its plan to make it better for our neighborhood.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker will be Linda Torni,
followed by Kathleen Curatolo, and then Marsha -- Maria Tsakos.
March 1, 2021
Page 230
Excuse me.
Ms. Torni, I see you there, ma'am. You have three minutes.
Please begin.
MS. TORNI: Yes. I'm opposed to the building of Naples One.
The reason why I'm opposed I'm at Barefoot Pelican. My light, my
air, my view will be destroyed.
What sells my condo is the view. You take away the view, you
take away the value of my condo.
My great grandchildren love the beach. This year when they
were down there, they were elbow to elbow with people even during
COVID. You're adding that many more people in the area, and the
beach won't be able to be enjoyed anymore.
I just don't understand where Stock comes out with -- well,
there's people who won't be using the beach. Well, why is he
building that close to the beach, and why is he offering a shadow to
Wiggins Pass? It just doesn't make sense to me. The whole
area -- it just doesn't make sense. We don't need a cement city.
I'm completely opposed to it. I think what we have there now,
it looks terrible, but that is also Stock's problem. He let the building
sit and rot and then he tore them down and didn't even maintain the
grounds around where they tore down.
That's all I have to say. He's responsible for the blight. Thank
you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kathleen Curatolo,
followed by Maria Tsakos, and then Matthew Seely.
Ms. Curatolo, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at this
time. Ms. Curatolo, I think that's a Star 6 if you're on the phone.
There you go. You have three minutes, ma'am. Ms. Curatolo?
Kathleen Curatolo.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: I think -- I see her unmuted again. Let me try
March 1, 2021
Page 231
one more time. Ms. Curatolo, are you there, ma'am?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: All right. I don't have her. Let's move on.
Maria Tsakos followed by Matthew Seeley.
Maria, you should be getting a prompt right about now to
unmute yourself. Will you please do so, Maria Tsakos. Maria
T-s-a-k-o-s, Tsakos. That's how I'm pronouncing that. If you're
there, please unmute yourself.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: We'll move on. Matthew Seely followed by
Maureen Gambocurta.
Mr. Matthew Seely, you should be getting a prompt to unmute
yourself. If you'll do so at this time, you have three minutes, sir.
MR. SEELY: Thank you.
Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners.
For starters, I'd like to thank you for your diligence today and
your professionalism along with your staff. I've been following this
project from the very start, and I've watched the emotional level of
rhetoric that's gone on in the community basically caused by Save
Vanderbilt Beach and, truthfully, none of the arguments that they
pose really have anything to do with what's best for our community.
I happen to own two condominiums at the Barefoot Pelican.
I've been asked by 30 other owners to represent them tonight, that's
50 percent of the owners at the Barefoot Pelican. And I find it
reprehensible that there are other members of our association that
have come here tonight and tried to represent that somehow our
receiving $575,000 from Stock Development was done as their
making some type of a proposal to us. We requested it. We
negotiated with them. We came to the table and said, if you would
like the support of our association, what can you do for us. Stock
never once approached us and tried to make some kind of lucrative
March 1, 2021
Page 232
offer in lieu of our support. So for these same people that bellied up
to the table to take $9,000 per unit are now here criticizing Stock is
reprehensible.
I've owned in this community for many years. And the walk
from the Barefoot Pelican to the beach down South Bay Drive is the
biggest embarrassment in all of Naples. It is slum-like how poorly
this area has been allowed to exist over the years. These 30 owners
are ecstatic about what Stock is proposing and the idea of us living in
an area that could be really the crown jewels of North Naples now,
worthy of neighbors like the Turtle Club and a Ritz-Carlton, is
something we are all very excited about, in support just
unconditionally.
I can tell you that I represent a silent majority. You know how
many people you represent in your particular districts. There's only
a handful of people here at this meeting, and most of them are giving
these impassioned pleas that have nothing to do about the future or
what's the best type of development for where we're at.
We want residential, we want it to look first class, and we want
it to be something that we can be proud of that will increase our
property values without compromising the density of the area and the
neighborhood. I think that the DaRuMa development just, I think,
shows further proof that Stock is committed to working with their
neighbors, creating green space, and a beautiful addition to our
community, and we couldn't be happier for if it, and we encourage
you-all to vote favorably for this proposal.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Maureen Gambocurta,
followed by Maureen Straight, and then Michael Kafantis.
Maureen Gambocurta, I hope I'm saying your last name right.
Ma'am, you have three minutes.
MS. GAMBOCURTA: Yes. I'm an owner in Beachwalk
March 1, 2021
Page 233
Gardens on Vanderbilt Beach Road one block from the proposed One
Naples.
I believe that Stock intentionally came up with a grandiose plan
knowing that they would have to make concessions. They make
concessions now to make themselves look good and get what they
probably intended originally. But the bottom line is that they still
don't meet the current rules and regulations.
Part one of Stock's plan was an amendment to the county's GMP
in which Stock asked to change the current regulations that limit the
density allowed on its land. It's original request and current
modified request would exceed the density allowed on 16 dwelling
units per acre or 87 units. Without this change to the GMP, the plan
that he presented in his rezoning application, or Part 2, in which he
asked for excessive height in towers, inadequate setback, several
mid-rise buildings, and other considerations could not be approved.
The point that came across clearly from the Planning
Commission's meeting on Thursday, November 5th, was that the
developer's proposal is unacceptable. The developer is pushing that
mixed-use residential would be better than commercial, but they can
certainly build a scaled-down version of that proposal. They can
certainly bring the height and the density and setbacks within the
current regulations and still have the same type of project.
The development should fall within rules and regulations. Why
does the county establish these rules if they're not going to be
followed? 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. Why did Stock close on a property without entitlements?
Stock is relying on previous situations that were voted to allow
March 1, 2021
Page 234
developers to run over the wishes of your taxpaying constituents.
When Stock Development incentivizes the Barefoot Pelican
Condominium Association with nearly $576,000 in cash and services
to subscribe to Stock's position, that shows there are no boundaries
for developers. If there is a resistance problem, they simply throw
money at it until it's fixed to their satisfaction. The idea, apparently,
is that everyone has a price.
Stock and other self-serving developers cannot be allowed to
buy their way into our neighborhood and completely compromise our
quality of life solely for their benefit.
Please have regard for the will of the people and do not side
with developers and the endless unrestrained growth.
Traffic will be increased on a road that already has traffic issues.
Showing you only four or five cars backed up at the Gulf Shore Drive
light is not realistic. This is very obvious with the amount of traffic
shown on the videos. It is clear that during the time the pedestrians
are allowed to cross, more than five cars will back up.
Beachwalk Gardens with 356 units has asked for a traffic light at
their entrance due to traffic congestion, and it has been turned down.
I have been told that the county states that 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 out of the
development in order to make a left. The drivers then have to either
make a U-turn on Vanderbilt Beach Road or drive through the
residential area and up 91st Street.
Stock should add concessions that they make in other
developments and add a light to the Beachwalk Gardens. To
March 1, 2021
Page 235
approve any plan in excess of existing rules and regulations sets a
precedent for all future building. Any future developer can and will
ask for exceptions based on this case.
I ask, why is staff approving anything that does not meet the
rules and regulations?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. GAMBOCURTA: Again, no exceptions should be made.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker will be Maureen Straight,
followed by Michael Rowe, and then Michael Seef.
Ms. Straight, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at this
point. If you'll do so, if you wish to speak. Maureen Straight.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: I do not see her unmuting. Oh, there she is.
Maureen Straight. Ma'am, you have three minutes.
MS. STRAIGHT: Hello. My name is Maureen Straight, and I
live in Naples Park. And I will reiterate that I am opposed to the
project.
I do appreciate Stock's listening to the community and reducing
the project, but I do believe it's still too big.
I appreciate the commissioners listening to all of us and staying
for this long, but I do request that they deny this, especially the
land-use amendment.
Living in Naples Park, I have a sense of this spot development
will creep toward my neighborhood.
In the reality of the traffic, there is no place for the traffic to go.
There was a -- Commissioner Solis said, well, how will they get back
to 41? Well, they will go down to Immokalee, but most people will
turn down Vanderbilt Drive when they can't get to the beach, and
then they will come back through 91st and 99th. These are not
people who live in Naples -- One Naples; these are people who are
March 1, 2021
Page 236
trying to get to the beach.
So the congestion there will just get worse. And as a -- right
now it's -- I don't know. You know, bikes, dog, cats living together.
You know, mass hysteria.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mass hysteria.
MS. STRAIGHT: In addition to that, it's a concern to my
neighborhood. I would like you to consider that. I know I don't
live next to it, but I'm certainly going to be affected for it.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Rowe. He will
be followed by Michael Seef and Raymond Parker.
Mr. Rowe, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at this
time, if you'll do so, please. Michael Rowe? Mr. Rowe, you'll need
to unmute yourself. I will try you one more time. Michael Rowe?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: All right. Let's move on, then, to Michael
Seef followed by Raymond Parker and Raymond Dearchs.
Mr. Seef, you're being prompted to unmute yourself, and there
you are.
MR. SEEF: Yes, sir, yes, sir, thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: You have three minutes.
MR. SEEF: I hope you-all can hear me, and I appreciate your
efforts in staying this late.
But as you know, there are umpteen issues connected with One
Naples, and they need to be worked out, compromised, or else retain
the C-3 zoning.
I live in the Beachwalk community of 356 dwellings, which is
the largest community between Highway 41 and the -- and the beach,
and the -- and we have huge difficulty currently with traffic during
the season, and when there's beachgoers in one direction or another,
but we also have a serious safety consideration, which you just heard
March 1, 2021
Page 237
about a short while ago from Mrs. Maureen, and that's only going to
get worse.
And your TIS did not consider our location on Vanderbilt Beach
and as I -- Vanderbilt Beach Road and, as I mentioned, we're the
largest single community fronting on VBR, Vanderbilt Beach Road.
And this is -- the unsafe condition is a major issue, but we're
also concerned with your -- the zoning density, setbacks, open space,
and the number of dwellings that are proposed by Stock.
We ask that you deny the amendment to the Growth
Management Plan for all the reasons that people have stated before.
And I'll end with this: There is no planning when a commission can
arbitrarily change zoning and growth management policy to approve
these variances which also conflict with safety, community rights,
and common sense.
Thank you very much for listening, and I appreciate your efforts.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Raymond Parker,
followed by Raymond Dearchs and then Richard Gallagher.
Mr. Parker, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at this
time. There you are sir. You have three minutes.
MR. PARKER: Yes. Yes, thank you. I'll just take 30
seconds of your time to say that I've tried very, very hard to keep up
with the different iterations of One Naples as they've evolved over
the last few years, and it's really impossible today to understand the
(audio malfunction) of that Japanese restaurant property and how it
fits into the scheme of things, and I can't imagine how the
commissioners and the staff can also -- you know, look at this
information and evaluate it properly.
This is now, in my opinion, a very rushed proposal that begs to
be, you know, at least slept on, thought of overnight before a decision
gets made.
I was against the original proposal. I'm encouraged that some
March 1, 2021
Page 238
modifications, I guess, have been made in order to accommodate
setbacks and different things, but I still am reluctant to support the
project as it exists.
Somebody said along the way that, you know, perhaps a
Mercato kind of, you know, installation there is something people
would want. Well, I, for one, would like an installation like that.
And I hope that the commissioners, if you're going to vote tonight on
this project -- and I encourage you not to -- that you vote it down and
that you think about this overnight and have a better comprehensive
view of the project as it sits.
I do think it's spot zoning, and I don't like the developers push
zoning rules and exceptions.
I appreciate your work and look forward to your result. Thank
you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Raymond Dearchs,
followed by Richard Gallagher, and John McGaunn. That is
D-e-r -- D-e-a-r-c-h-s. I hope I'm saying that right, sir.
MR. DEARCHS: It's close enough. I appreciate it very much.
MR. MILLER: You have three minutes.
MR. DEARCHS: Thank you-all for -- thank you-all for
listening to us this evening.
A couple things: First of all regarding the setback, and a lot of
people talking about the setback being 25 feet at Regatta. I walk by
Regatta at least twice a day trying to get my exercise in, and while
that might be true for one of the buildings, for the taller buildings, the
setback is way more than that.
And I do fear that the setback on this fortress-like parking
building is going to make it look just like that, a fortress around that
block, and then that small setback, regardless of what the wonderful
staff said, I don't think, is going to be enough. We're not going to
like the look.
March 1, 2021
Page 239
In addition to that, I don't like the height. I think the height's
fine if it's limited to less than or equal to the Regatta or the
Beachmoor, but it should be, in total height -- and forgetting the
zoned height and all these other technical ways of describing it, the
total height should not be any taller than those two buildings, and
then we'd be fine.
Secondly, I am concerned as a resident on Gulf Shore Drive that
this will be used, as the treasurer of the association said, a precedent
for further -- a developmental march down north on Gulf Shore
Drive. And I'm very afraid of that, that this could be used as
precedent for that, and it's not going to be an isolated decision that
you make, which was brought up in the past.
And, lastly, I would just like to say, that just remember, as
representatives of all of us taxpayers and citizens of the district and
the county, that thousands and thousands of people through their
representatives and in conversations have expressed their interest
against this project while the only people who have expressed interest
for the project today have been the developer, a couple of
restaurateurs who will benefit by being the only restaurateurs without
having any commercial development, and a gentleman who was
bribed with $9,000 a head to come here and make his comment.
The individuals who were represented here against the project
actually contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to be
represented. They actually paid money out.
So please consider all that, and please do the right thing by the
people who voted you all into office. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Richard Gallagher,
followed by John McGaunn, and then Rosemarie Pyott.
Mr. Gallagher, you're being prompted. Oh, there you are, sir.
You have three minutes.
MR. GALLAGHER: Good evening. My name's Rich
March 1, 2021
Page 240
Gallagher. I reside in Naples Park.
As a preface, I feel compelled to state how embarrassed I am as
a county resident by some of the behavior exhibited by body sides of
today's hearing. Of particular concern is the comments made about
county staff, though I was heartened by the commissioners' and
Ms. Jenkin's rush to defend those staff.
However, I question, where was the same defense when
Mr. Yovanovich repeatedly ridiculed Mr. James Sabo, the county
planner, at the Planning Commission hearings back in October?
But moving on, there's been some dialogue today regarding
existing parking garage setbacks and how they are in line with the
developer's latest proposal. But let's remember, those county
garages do not have two 145-foot-high towers rising from them. It's
easy for the developer to argue compatibility using aerial views and
drone-generated vistas but quite another when looking at the
development from street level.
My head, too, is still spinning with all the debate and variations
and late changes to setbacks, densities, zoning, and actual heights. I
think it behooves all parties to pause and assess the new revision.
Lastly, I respectfully plead that you'll listen to your constituents.
Don't fall into the same trap as Planning Commissioner Joseph
Schmitt when he incredulously stated on the record that the public
failed to understand the complexities of the One Naples project, and
he knew what was best for us.
I'm opposed to Stock Development as currently structured.
Thank you, and I appreciate your consideration.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John McGaunn, followed
by Rosemarie Pyott, and Suzanne Geoffrion.
Mr. McGaunn, I hope I'm pronouncing your last name correct,
m-c-G-a-u-n-n. You're there, sir. You have three minutes.
MR. McGAUNN: Correct.
March 1, 2021
Page 241
Good afternoon, Chairman.
MR. MILLER: Sir, sir? You're going to need to mute your
TV or whatever other audio source is playing this meeting. We will
prompt you to unmute again, sir. There you go.
MR. McGAUNN: All right.
MR. MILLER: Sir, we're still getting some feedback. You
must be sitting near something else that is playing the meeting. If
you could mute any TVs or other computers that might be playing at
the same time. We'll try again, sir.
MR. McGAUNN: I'm here today to express my support --
MR. MILLER: Mr. McGaunn, now I can barely hear you, sir.
MR. McGAUNN: Can you hear me now?
MR. MILLER: No, sir. It sounds like you're not on your
phone. I'll tell you what, Oscar, let's mute him. We'll try to come
back to him at the end.
Let's move on to Rosemary Pyott -- I hope I'm pronouncing that
right -- Suzanne Geoffrion, and Tina Seely.
Rosemary, are you there? Yes, ma'am, you have three minutes.
MS. PYOTT: Yes, I'm here. Okay.
I'm against the project. I think it is just too large for that corner.
I wouldn't mind if you put something else there, but I just think it's
just much too large for that corner. It just doesn't fit in with the area.
You're going to see it from everywhere. I live over here on
Bayside, and we can look over and see the Ritz-Carlton, and now
we're going to see this huge monstrosity on the view over there, and I
don't know anybody around here who's in favor of this.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Suzanne Geoffrion, Tina
Seely, and then William Aziz.
Suzanne, I hope I'm saying your last name correctly. You will
need to unmute, ma'am. Suzanne Geoffrion, you will need to
March 1, 2021
Page 242
unmute. You're being prompted to do so. One more call for
Suzanne Geoffrion.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: All right. Let's move on, then, to Tina Seely,
followed by William Aziz, and then William Schuman.
Ms. Seely, I see you there. You have three minutes, please.
MS. SEELY: Thank you.
My name is Tina Seely. I own at the Barefoot Pelican. I have
been in the area for 10 years, 11 today, actually, and I am really
excited about this One Naples coming to our corner.
I know that it's going to beautify our corner and match what we
should have and what we haven't had, and it's going to actually make
our building look better in Vanderbilt Palms.
I've worked with Stock, with Keith and Ryan, and I can honestly
say they listened to what we had to say when I was on the board last
year, and they -- they even came to our association to talk to us.
I have only the best regards to say for Stock Development. I've
seen what they do, and they do a wonderful job.
I'm very excited for them to be on our corner. I could not think
of anybody else who I would want on our corner.
As for everybody who is in our corner, everybody has approved
having them, which is Vanderbilt Palms, which is Barefoot Pelican,
which is Buzz's, which is Turtle Club. I think that this
residential -- that's why I moved there, because it's mainly residential,
but I could still walk and get a coffee or walk and have dinner, but I
don't want it next to my building. I want to have the peace that we
have now. That's why I bought in that corner.
And just the fact that the streets are going to be not flooding and
that we're going to have sidewalks and that we're going to have palm
trees, it's going to be absolutely beautiful.
So I'm not going to delay this, because I know you have more
March 1, 2021
Page 243
calls. I really appreciate everything the commissioners are doing,
and I believe that you will make the right decision.
And the Planning Commission has already approved and now
they actually have cut down and given us more that -- I think that
everybody has a say, but I really truly believe that you will make the
best decision, and I'm very thankful that you had time to listen to me
today. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is William Aziz, followed
by William Schuman, and then Patrick Murray.
Mr. Aziz, you're being prompted to unmute. There you go.
You have three minutes, sir.
MR. AZIZ: Thank you very much.
We live at the Vanderbilt, which is just down the road Gulf
Shore Drive. First, I'd like to thank the commissioners. It's been a
long day. I have watched since 9:00 this morning. I'm sure you're
exhausted. So thank you for your dedication in trying to do this.
I would say that the best idea I've heard all day was putting a
traffic light at the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore
Drive. That is a very dysfunctional corner, and someone's going to
get hurt. I think that's a very important idea.
We think that the proposed building, as it is, is quite large for
the site, not to mention the additional traffic that will come from
guests of boaters with the marina. It will be oversized and I think
much more complicated than it needs to be.
I'd simply like to say that it should be scaled down. I'm not
against a residential development there, although I also think a
commercial property like Venetian Village could be also valuable in
the area.
In any event, thank you for the time, and thank you for your
efforts.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is William Schuman.
March 1, 2021
Page 244
He'll be followed by Patrick Murray, and then we're going to try to
connect with John McGaunn again.
William Schuman, Mr. Schuman, you're unmuted. You have
three minutes.
MR. SCHUMAN: I'm here, but I spoke earlier as part of Save
Vanderbilt Beach. I was the spot zoning guy. So unless you've got
further conversation on that, I won't double dip.
MR. MILLER: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your honesty.
Your next speaker is Patrick Murray, and then we will try John
McGaunn again.
Mr. Patrick Murray, you're being prompted to unmute yourself,
sir. There you are. You have three minutes.
MR. McGAUNN: Hello. Good evening. And I thank the
Commission for taking all the time today. I've been listening since
9:00. My name's Patrick Murray. I'm actually an owner of
Beachwalk as well as Vanderbilt Palms.
I'd just like to bring up two issues that you make sure you guys
address. Being a resident of Beachwalk for a better part of 12
years -- and I've listened to all the traffic surveys. You really kid
yourself if you seen the traffic that goes up Vanderbilt Beach during
the holiday season or during the season between November and
April. You cannot make a left out of Beachwalk to try to get on
Vanderbilt Beach Road to head down to 41. As a matter of fact, the
other day, when I was there last week, it took me 10 minutes to wait
for the traffic to pass, and that was at 2:00 in the afternoon.
Being an owner of Vanderbilt Beach Palms, I would just like to
say we are very surprised that Mr. Stock purchased DaRuMa. We
asked Mr. Stock if he was in negotiation with DaRuMa quite some
months ago. He said no. I guess that has changed.
I will tell you that we were given a fairly de minimus amount of
improvements to the building. We really have no choice, because
March 1, 2021
Page 245
we're being surrounded by this development, and it was pretty much
we needed to sign the document, take it or leave it, or we would get
nothing.
So I would just like the Commission to think of what they're
going to do. I don't think that we're against the development, but it
needs to be thought out, and the fact that they presented today about
lowering the two towers is exactly what they're trying to do is force
this issue and rush you guys to make a judgment.
So I would just like you guys to think of the new development,
think about the open-area space, because it's not going to be left for
the public. It's only going to be left for the owners of the new
development. And I thank you for your time.
MR. MILLER: Thank you, sir.
Madam Chair, that concludes the first -- all of the speakers that
we have. I do have a list of nine names who we called that didn't
unmute. Would you like me to try to call them quickly again?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just as a courtesy.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir [sic].
Okay. Oscar, stay with me, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What happened to John?
MR. MILLER: John.
MR. YOVANOVICH: McGaunn.
MR. MILLER: He dropped again, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: He dropped again?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
Bob Giannetti. Mr. Giannetti? Mr. Giannetti, you're being
prompted to unmute yourself. If you wish to speak, please do so.
Mr. Giannetti?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: All right. Carolyn Baxter. Carolyn Baxter,
you're being prompted to unmute yourself. If you want to speak,
March 1, 2021
Page 246
please do so now. Ms. Baxter?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Edwin Eckert. Edwin Eckert. Mr. Eckert,
you're being sent a notice to unmute yourself. Please do so now if
you wish to speak.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: He's gone.
Let's go to John Nick. Mr. Nick, if you're there, please unmute
yourself if you want to speak.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, so you know, I can see all of
them here. They're online, and they're not unmuting, okay.
Let's try Laura Donovan.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Laura Donovan. She's gone.
We'll try Maria Tsakos. Ms. Tsakos, if you're there, please
unmute yourself at this point. Maria Tsakos?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: All right. That takes us to Michael Rowe.
Michael, if you're there, you're being prompting to unmute yourself.
Please do so now if you wish to speak. Michael Rowe?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: I've got two more, Madam Chair. Kathleen
Curatolo. Kathleen Curatolo?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: I know she was participating by phone. I
haven't been able to get her to unmute properly yet.
So we will try Suzanne Geoffrion. Suzanne Geoffrion?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, that is everyone. We have
concluded.
March 1, 2021
Page 247
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. That concludes the
public part of our hearing.
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. That is all the public speakers.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Mr. Yovanovich, the floor is yours, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Thank you.
Hey, Troy, can you help me pull up our presentation again.
MR. MILLER: Just a second.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Appreciate that.
MR. MILLER: That one?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Can you help me just jump to
Page 114.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir, I can.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know there's a way you can do it
without going through every slide.
MR. MILLER: Hold on one second, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I appreciate that.
MR. MILLER: Is that it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's the one right before it. I can just
back up one. Thank you. Thank you.
Well, it's been a long day. I think it was eight hours ago we
finished our presentation, and now we've been listening to staff's
presentation and the public. And I don't have -- I don't have a big
close. If you have questions, that will be -- we'll be happy to answer
them, but I do want to hit a couple of highlights to kind of go back to
where we were.
First of all, I think that there's no question from a traffic
standpoint that the One Naples residential option is the best option
for traffic. And for those who spoke to you from Beachwalk, I don't
know if they saw Mr. Banks' presentation, but we analyzed the
corridor all the way to U.S. 41. So their developments were, in fact,
March 1, 2021
Page 248
considered when he was doing his traffic analysis and making the
recommendation.
So I don't really know what to say about Mr. Stuart's testimony
other than to say that I will put Mr. Mulhere and Ms. Jenkins up
against his planning expertise any day of the week. They both are
familiar with your Land Development Code, your Growth
Management Plan, and they both testified that what we're proposing
is compatible and complementary to what is around the existing
community.
Mr. Stuart, at the Planning Commission, when I asked him about
his experience in Collier County, he said he did one strip center
many, many years ago on Rattlesnake Hammock, but he's currently
doing a project in Seattle. That was his expertise for planning at the
Planning Commission. And if you read their transcript, every one of
his representations regarding what the Collier County Land
Development Code says and requires was wrong at the Planning
Commission and is wrong again today.
He cited to you a section regarding the pedestrian 21-foot area.
That deals with if you decide to do a Mercato-type development
under C-1 through C-3 zoning in your code. We're not proposing to
do that. So he cited to you another section that does not apply to
what we're proposing to do. You can verify that with your planning
staff. So his 21-foot-wide pathway was, again, an inaccurate
recitation to what your code requires.
The site plan that you have up here today is an excellent
proposed plan for this project as we've modified it to your height and
your setbacks. Your staff has looked at the changes that we did
regarding setbacks. We've met what they asked us to do on the
setbacks, and they've said that they believe that the 140-unit option
with the 10-over-two heights that we're talking about is compatible
and complementary, and they are supporting it.
March 1, 2021
Page 249
They don't have a stake in this other than to make sure they're
making a recommendation that's the best interest of the public, and
they are recommending approval.
Mr. Pires raised some concerns about making sure we don't do
more than two buildings on the MU tract -- MU 1 tract. We're fine
with that. We never had an intention to do more than two in the first
place, and we thought the documents were clear that we were doing
two buildings. But we're perfectly happy to make sure whatever we
need to, to make it clear that there's going to be two buildings on the
MU 1 tract does, in fact, occur.
We meet the open-space requirement without
DaRuMa -- please. DaRuMa is additional open space. We meet
your open-space requirements under the PUD without the need for
DaRuMa.
I'm surprised that my voice is as gone as it is.
But I just want to quickly highlight again, since it's been about
eight hours, the benefits of the project. Specifically, I found it
interesting that Mr. Stuart says that every project that's within the
project is an outlier because he didn't like the densities assigned with
those projects, but we are consistent with what's around us from a
density standpoint.
And, again, the Comprehensive Plan does not want commercial
to be on this property. And I think, generally, people don't want
commercial to be on this property. They really would like to see a
residential project on this property.
I thought the survey -- when you add the true facts, we have the
same goal. Brian Stock has the same goal. Do the best project for
Collier County, and what he's proposing is the best project for Collier
County.
We stand by our project. We believe a residential project, as
we're proposing it, is in the best interest of the residents of Collier
March 1, 2021
Page 250
County. We hope you will follow suit and will vote in support of the
Growth Management Plan amendment and, of course, we'll make the
change down to 140 units in the Growth Management Plan to be
consistent with what we're requesting.
That's just a brief summary of where we are. And we're open to
answer any questions you may have regarding the project. It's been
a long day. I know a lot of questions have been asked. But if you
have any further questions of us or anybody on our team, we're ready
to answer them.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel, then
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Just -- you mentioned
it towards the end on the open-space requirement. When do
you -- has staff already approved your open-space requirement within
this request for the zoning, or is that done at the SDP level?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's done at the SDP stage, but we're
not asking for any deviations from that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand. I just wanted
to clarify it. And, again, this is part of the process is where folks
have a difficult time conceptualizing actually what's going to go on
when we're doing a Comp Plan and a zoning change. It's difficult
for people to -- I'm sorry. It's difficult for people to know and
conceptualize that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You made a comment earlier
on when you were over there about the DaRuMa piece, and like that
young man, I'm saddened that that restaurant's leaving, but I think
they'll probably find a new home.
MR. YOVANOVICH: They are. They are looking for a new
home.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The comment that you made
March 1, 2021
Page 251
was without the -- without the commitments that you've made on that
piece, there is no One Naples. Is that what I heard?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. If we -- we are basically saying
we're closing on DaRuMa's.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If we don't close on DaRuMa, we don't
have a One Naples project.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, the representation of
commitments that Mr. Stock can do as a contract owner aren't really
prevalent until he's actually --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Owns it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- until he's actually in title.
He's got rights to make commitments as the contract owner but can't
implement them until he's actually in title, so...
MR. YOVANOVICH: And we are not doing anything to take
away any of DaRuMa's rights until we close on the property.
COMMISSIONER McDANIE: No. I mean, you can do that.
As a contractor owner, you can't do that, so...
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And just so you know, my
daughters just learned about DaRuMa's during this presentation.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. That's all my
questions for you, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I've got a question for our
zoning staff but also a couple questions -- or a question for the
County Attorney.
Mr. Klatzkow, there's been issues raised concerning spot zoning
and contract zoning, and I'd like to get your opinion. I can guess
what it is, but I'd like to hear on the record what your opinion is
concerning the issue of spot zoning and contract zoning if this is
approved.
MR. KLATZKOW: With respect to spot zoning, I don't know
March 1, 2021
Page 252
how you can have spot zoning during a small-scale Comprehensive
Plan amendment. We're changing, if the Board votes that way, the
Comprehensive Plan so that the development on that parcel would
now be approved. It would be compatible with the plan.
So I understand spot zoning in Massachusetts. I understand
spot zoning in New York. I don't understand spot zoning the way
Florida currently operates in the context of the small-scale plan
amendment. The argument was made that you can't have a
small-scale plan amendment just for one entity. I'm not familiar of
any case law that's ever said that, and I know that as a county we've
been doing similar actions even before I became County Attorney.
It's just something that we've been doing.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: How about the contract
zoning issue?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. The contract zoning here is -- there
is no contract zoning here. In the context of the street vacation, they
need it for the project.
I talked to Trinity prior to the Planning Commission. Trinity
said that the county is in a better spot with the new road system and
the lighting than we were before, which is the reason for the vacation.
The contract zoning is basically if you allow me this use of the
property, I'll give you -- I'll just give you money. That's not really
what's going on here. It's all part of the integrated project.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. And then for our
staff, current zoning is C-3. Can you develop a hotel in a -- in that
district as it currently exists?
MS. JENKINS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Can you tell me
what the parameters would be for a hotel? What's the maximum?
You've got almost six acres of land -- or actually got -- I think with
DaRuMa's you've got, yeah, almost six acres of land, a little bit.
March 1, 2021
Page 253
MS. JENKINS: I'll have to look at that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could you do that real
quickly?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, I will.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So assume that DaRuMa's is
part of that property. I guess that's what, six-and-a-half acres?
MS. JENKINS: Six point two.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Six point two acres. How
many hotel units could be built on that?
MS. JENKINS: On 6.2 acres?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah.
MR. JESKIE: Is that your only question, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. That's -- well, I think
that's -- let me just make sure. That's it for right now. But if you
could get me that answer pretty quickly, that would be appreciated.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. I thought we were on
the questions for the petitioner and not everybody, so I had two more,
if I may, please.
One was to the County Attorney, and that's with regard to the
representations of precedent. Is that similar to the contract zoning?
There's been a lot of representation that we're establishing some kind
of a new precedent by -- if this were to go forward.
MR. KLATZKOW: Every land-use application is unique. In
my opinion, you never set precedent with a land-use application.
The one thing that you do do, though, is from a compatibility
standpoint, once you start increasing density in an area, additional
projects with that density then becomes compatible. But as a general
rule, every land-use item stands on its own, especially in the context
of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, which is purely legislative.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And you want to go ahead
March 1, 2021
Page 254
with her?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, can I go
ahead and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, of course.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do you have a kind of an
estimate there?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, I misspoke. We cannot do a hotel in
C-3. The hotel was being brought in originally on this plan with a
Comp Plan amendment and the PUD. But in the underlying zoning
and C-3, they would not be able to do a hotel.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Then I did have
one other question concerning the height. Your original staff report
recommended approval with a maximum height of 125 feet.
MS. JENKINS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're now saying that that
height is consistent with what's in the neighborhood. Can you tell
me what the actual height of this project will be compared to the
125 feet that you initially --
MS. JENKINS: The actual height, I believe, is 167 -- 65, 165.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. All right. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Couple questions. Someone had
mentioned several times that the vacation of road was some kind of a
benefit, but what's really happening here is the road is being
realigned, and that road is going to be open to the public.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to your question is you're
correct, and now I'm stuck.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Now, is that going to be -- so
the -- right. The road is being realigned so that it lines up with the
parking --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Commissioner, this is the new
March 1, 2021
Page 255
road that we are building that will be a public road that lines up with
your --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So there will be an easement to the
public --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. It will be a public road that
we will maintain.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And through the landscape maintenance
agreement, we will basically be taking over the landscaping for South
Bay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
Okay. I had a quick question for Ms. Jenkins. There's a lot of
concern, I think, understandably, regarding the precedent that this
would set and that this kind of development would march its way up
Gulf Shore. I mean, I'm not aware of any other vacant commercially
rezoned land anywhere on Gulf Shore, right?
MS. JENKINS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Everything north of Gulf Shore is
either condominiums -- I guess there's La Playa, there's -- and then
there's single-family north of that.
MS. JENKINS: That's correct. It's RT.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. It's RT.
MS. JENKINS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No other -- no other commercial
property, say, at the very north end. That's 111 -- that's Bluebill and
Gulf Shore. That's all condominiums at the north end?
MS. JENKINS: That's my recollection, yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So the concern that this
would happen again somewhere north of here, I mean, is that -- is
that a possibility? I mean, I don't see how that would happen.
There's nothing that's zoned commercial that's not a rezoned
March 1, 2021
Page 256
residential. Could that happen?
MS. JENKINS: Well, at any time a petitioner or a property
owner can come in and petition you for a rezone or a Comp Plan
amendment just like this.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well --
MS. JENKINS: But there's not another condition similar to this
one where your Comprehensive Plan is directing a change from
commercial to residential and incentivizing that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that was -- that was the
explanation -- that was the intent behind that provision of the plan
was to incentivize the switch, the change, from commercial to
residential in this situation?
MS. JENKINS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So that was a -- that was a policy
that we adopted years ago.
MS. JENKINS: Years ago. With your original
Comprehensive Plan, you wanted commercial to be concentrated into
the activity center, so you incentivized the smaller areas to become
residential.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. A couple quick questions,
again, on the setbacks. The setbacks for -- on South Bay for
Barefoot Pelican, you know, we've thrown around so many numbers.
I want to make sure I understand the setback from the property line
on Barefoot Pelican on both the north piece and the east piece. What
are those?
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to ask James to bring those setbacks
up to remind me. James, can you come with the setbacks. I believe
it's 25 feet, but I want to --
MR. SABO: They're both 25.
MS. JENKINS: Yep. They are both 25.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Okay. And the
March 1, 2021
Page 257
commercial building where Sotheby's is right at the entrance -- or the
intersection of South Bay and Vanderbilt is what?
MR. SABO: Twenty-five.
MS. JENKINS: Twenty-five.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: On Vanderbilt and on South Bay?
MR. SABO: Two fronts, 25 each.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not on South Bay, though.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That's all I have right now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ms. Jenkins, just a couple
more questions for you.
So the only setbacks that are less than 25 is the water, right?
That's zero.
MS. JENKINS: That's one.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And explain that a little bit
more, just -- because we heard so many different things. Why would
you want a zero setback? Why wouldn't you want a bit of a setback?
So what am I missing?
MS. JENKINS: Well, generally you're going to have a dock
there that you need access to, right? So they'll have a dock facility,
and the buildings can now be legally at a zero-foot setback.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. So it's not
uncommon? It's --
MS. JENKINS: No.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- not some kind of --
MS. JENKINS: No.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. The other one that's
less than 25 feet was a small -- it's between the smaller buildings and
South Bay, right? Isn't there a -- there's a southern part of a building,
and we said it was 10 feet, right? But everything else is 25 all the
March 1, 2021
Page 258
way around, correct?
MS. JENKINS: What they're proposing is 10 feet.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: In that one little spot, right,
but everything else is 25?
MS. JENKINS: No. They're proposing 10 feet all the way
around on the interior setbacks, yeah. On tracts --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Just -- go ahead. Show me
where the 10-feet areas are again just so I --
MR. YOVANOVICH: There.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And here.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The only part where we don't own both
sides of the street --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is this little piece right here, and --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I guess right here, too.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. And, Ms. Jenkins,
you know, one of the things where I think some -- you know, I
appreciate every caller's, you know, comments. I think we all do,
and that's why we're staying here late. And we've heard them all.
But where I think some people were a little confused is a few
people think we're voting on, you know, putting a shovel in the
ground tomorrow and bringing in the bulldozers, and I equate it to the
vote that we had on Great Wolf. I got so much hate mail from Great
Wolf. Why would you approve the construction of Great Wolf?
And we didn't approve the construction of Great Wolf. We just
approved conversation to have the staff bring us back options.
I know this one's in a little bit of a different, you know, stage.
But explain to us, if we did approve this change from commercial to
March 1, 2021
Page 259
residential, then what happens? Because some of the questions we
asked earlier was, the marina's not a guarantee, right? They have to
go through a bunch of things. They may not get 75 slips. There's a
bunch of other things that might not be a guarantee as well, right?
So maybe for the sake of just everybody here, and me as well -- but I
think there's a few people at home that think, you know, we're
starting construction tomorrow. What happens next if this change
was approved from commercial to residential?
MS. JENKINS: Sure. So they'd have to go through, you're
right, permitting, DEP permitting for the marina. They're also going
to have to go through site plan review with staff to check it. If they
didn't ask for a deviation, and they haven't asked for many deviations,
then they have to comply with the code.
So their Site Development Plan will come through the county
for review and approval that's consistent with what you approve
today and what's consistent with the code.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And that's where, if you saw
more specific things that were red flags or a big issue, the county has
multiple steps to be able to say, wait, time out. These drawings don't
now equate to the blueprints or we discovered something else,
correct?
MS. JENKINS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So we would have many
stages to be able to say -- I realize this is a big jump, this is a big
approval, but it's not putting a shovel in the ground tomorrow --
MS. JENKINS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- correct?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any other questions?
Commissioner Saunders.
March 1, 2021
Page 260
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. One of the things -- I
want to ask our staff this question. But this commission has been
very diligent in protecting our neighborhoods. There were a couple
recent things that we did, the Limestone road gatehouse issue just a
couple weeks ago where we protected The Quarry and Heritage Bay.
And in the Bayshore area, we had the hole in the doughnut, if you
will, and we made a determination that approving that was in the best
interest of the neighborhood.
My question to you is, is approval of this, in your opinion, really
the best way to protect that neighborhood knowing that the
alternative is commercial development?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. Knowing that the alternative is
commercial development at the amount of commercial development
that could occur there, it's the best interest of the neighborhood to
forego that option.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no other questions,
Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Along the line of that
question: Have you ever had an experience as you had today where
you, as a staff member, the head of planning, have not had the
opportunity to see the revised plans of a developer and knowing the
incredible importance and this wide range of outcry from the entire
community on this?
MS. JENKINS: Not in the position I'm in now, no.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And I saw, as it was being
unveiled, Mr. Sabo looking and copying things down. Do you -- in
your professional opinion, not personal opinion, would you have
preferred to have more time so that you could have integrated it into
the larger picture?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, I would have preferred to have more time
to be able to provide a presentation to you to have that analysis. The
March 1, 2021
Page 261
changes that we made that were put on the overhead for you that
were highlighted were something that staff felt comfortable
reviewing at lunchtime and then coming back and making an opinion
with you. But, certainly, we would have liked to have known that
beforehand so we could make a presentation to you that was
complete.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is it not the custom -- which I think
I've heard Mr. Yovanovich speak before and criticize
another -- another advocate in a meeting. Isn't it the custom to
submit these plans seven full days before the hearing?
MS. JENKINS: Generally, we see changes occurring up to the
hearing. We would certainly prefer that they be submitted seven
days before, but we see changes coming in right before it goes into
your agenda packet as well. So as long as staff can respond to it,
that's the key. And the amount of change that occurs is the key to
that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And then can you name a
community where they attribute open space to pools on the top of a
building?
MS. JENKINS: Not right now, not just thinking about it right
offhand.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So where did that come from?
MS. JENKINS: Well, it's allowed in the code to have open
space that is playgrounds, hardscapes, things like that. So it
doesn't -- the code doesn't say where the open space has to be, but it
gives you an idea of what is considered usable open space, like tennis
courts and playgrounds. So you can imagine hard surfaces and
recreation facilities. So it's really about the recreation facility, and
this is the open space, and they are providing that on the rooftops.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So -- but this would be a judgment
call on your part?
March 1, 2021
Page 262
MS. JENKINS: Well, the code does allow those types of
facilities, and the code doesn't say it has to be on the ground or up on
the building.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So --
MS. JENKINS: So the location is optional.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- the testimony about Mr. Stuart
when he indicates that it does -- that it does talk about but not
on -- not part of a building as I remember, something --
MS. JENKINS: I don't agree with Mr. Stuart.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, can I just
clarify something here --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- because I thought
Mr. Yovanovich had said that they're not -- that was something that
was done in April of last year and was withdrawn; that there's no
open space on top of the buildings.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, Commissioner Saunders. I
want to clarify on the record, we are not using the pools on top of the
buildings to meet our open-space requirements. We're not doing
that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But you meet those
requirements even without the DaRuMa parcel?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: All right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you for that. Thank you.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Could you just repeat that.
I want to make sure I heard that right. So the application without the
consideration of the DaRuMa piece met the open-space
March 1, 2021
Page 263
requirement --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- without counting the pool, so
that --
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not counting the pool towards
our open-space requirements --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and the PUD meets the 30 percent
requirements on its own.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't need DaRuMa's to meet the
30 percent, and we were not using the pools -- the pools on top of the
buildings as open-space calculations.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And staff is in agreement
with that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: They said we could, but we're not
asking to do that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I mean, in agreement that it
meets the open-space requirements without the pool?
MS. JENKINS: They have not asked for a deviation, and the
open space will be required on their Site Development Plan to be
shown. So they will have to be in compliance with that, yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And has anyone on the
staff had an opportunity to -- if you factor in the amount of open
space, that the DaRuMa's piece will, you know, constitute in terms of
the overall project? Has anybody figured out what that percentage
is?
MS. JENKINS: What I understand is that the One Naples
project, let's say it's five acres, DaRuMa's about two acres. So, you
know, it's a pretty high percentage to add --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: DaRuMa's is .7 acres.
March 1, 2021
Page 264
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Point 7.
MS. JENKINS: Point 78.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Point 78.
MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And the rest of it is how
much?
MS. JENKINS: 5.42.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: 5.42 and .7, that's, what,
15 percent?
MR. YOVANOVICH: So 5.42 times, you know, .3 is, like,
one-and-a-half acres ballpark, and then you're going to throw another
.78 on top of that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's close math; not to the precise
number.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So that's --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. All right. We have
before us -- County Attorney Klatzkow if you would just briefly go
over what we need to make a decision on and what the votes required
for it and where we start, please.
MR. KLATZKOW: You need four votes for the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. You need four votes for the PUD.
So, basically, the project needs four votes. Vacation would need
three, but it doesn't matter. It needs to be four votes. You can vote
on them separately if you want or all together.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we should vote separately if
we could, if we're in agreement.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So do I hear -- are we ready to vote?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Ready. Do you want me to
March 1, 2021
Page 265
do it, or do you want to do it?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I'll make a motion for
approval. We're going to vote on these individually, 1, 2, and 3, 2A,
and this is the Comp Plan amendment, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. KLATZKOW: 2A is the --
MR. YOVANOVICH: 2A's the vacation.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- vacation.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Hold it. 2A is the vacation.
What am I looking at?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: B.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let me make sure -- because
I was looking at the -- what I had here as my agenda package, which
was --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Do you want me to read them?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, please. This -- he just
handed me -- forgive me, Madam Chair. I was --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, that's all right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm looking at the short form
of the --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- of the advertised hearing,
so -- and it's different for –
Item #2A
RESOLUTION 2021-47: VACATING THE COUNTY AND THE
PUBLIC INTEREST IN GULF SHORE COURT, THE 20-FOOT
ALLEY IN BLOCK “D” AND A PORTION OF CENTER STREET,
ALL PART OF THE PLAT OF VANDERBILT BEACH CENTER,
PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 16 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
March 1, 2021
Page 266
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS PART OF THE
APPLICATION FOR THE ONE NAPLES PROJECT. THE
SUBJECT RIGHT-OF-WAYS ARE LOCATED IN THE
NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF GULF
SHORE DRIVE AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD IN
SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA – ADOPTED
MR. RODRIGUEZ: The first item, Commissioners, if I may,
Item 2A, is a recommendation to disclaim, renounce, and vacate the
county and the public interest in Gulf Shore Court, the 20-foot alley
in Block D, and a portion of Center Street, all part of the plat for
Vanderbilt Beach Center, Plat Book No. 3, Page 16, of the public
records of Collier County, Florida, as part of the application for the
One Naples project.
The subject property -- or the subject
right-of-way -- right-of-ways are located in the northeast quadrant of
the intersections of Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road,
Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 east, Collier County,
Florida.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I'll make a motion for
approval of that one as recommended in the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, on the
motion, I want to make sure, we're on Item 2B; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 2A.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: 2A.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Vacation of the --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. This is the
vacation.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
March 1, 2021
Page 267
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. I have no
comments in reference to the vacation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Neither do I.
So there's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
Aye.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Madam Chair.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What was the vote; was it
4-1?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Four-1. And please note that I will
be voting against this -- this project as it stands right now.
I'm not saying -- I'm not saying I'm terribly an old timer but, you
know, I've been kicked around a lot in politics for the last 20, 25
years. I have never been in a hearing where a -- the applicant comes
in and changes the statistics and the numbers of the development and
not given the public, the staff, even the Planning Commission a time
to review and assess it.
This is the most controversial and probably most important issue
we've had before us in many, many years, and not to -- you know, it
was a decision of this commission not to continue this, but I think this
is wrong.
We must go ahead with this, and we will tonight, but it's not fair.
It's not fair to the public who elected us, our taxpayers.
And just to sum this up, I have briefly copied down some of the
comments of some of the people that spoke tonight. And I'm just
going to review some of them with you, and I want you to remember
March 1, 2021
Page 268
these words after this is over. We want it to be done. There's no
"we don't want it to be done." It says, we want it to be done in a
responsible manner with support of the neighborhood.
I hope you will make a wise decision and represent us. I am
one of thousands of people who oppose this development. The
people who vote, we don't want it. It doesn't fit there. The residents
don't want it.
You have our quality of life in your hands with your vote. I
think it's prudent for all parties to pause and assess the development.
It needs to be thought out.
This has been an unfortunate day for Collier County because
what we weren't doing is working with the people in the
neighborhood where this will sit. We are setting a standard, and that
standard says we know what's compatible for this neighborhood now,
and this is not compatible to this neighborhood as it sits. It could be.
I'm not here saying that this is a bad development. I'm saying
this is too intense for this area. And we could work this out. But
this is not the decision of the day. And I think it's a sad -- it's a sad
comment on us as lawmakers and as legislators.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
I was rather insistent on moving through today and finishing the
public hearing and getting us to the point where we are right now.
I'm not insistent on making a decision tonight. If the Board feels
that we need more time, we can come back next week. We've got
our commission meeting next week. We don't have to make a
decision tonight.
I'm going to turn to Commissioner Solis and just kind of ask
your opinion. Are we ready to vote on this now, in your opinion, or
do we need to remand this to the Planning Commission for them to
take a look at all of the things that have been done? We've closed
March 1, 2021
Page 269
the public hearing. There would be no more testimony. It would be
simply Planning Commission -- and I'm not suggesting we do this,
but this is just a thought. Planning Commission hears the new
package, staff hears the new package, everything is completed, come
back to the Board. Are we ready?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, first, I would say that we
heard -- just heard from staff that while these changes came up today,
that they've had a chance to review them, and they're -- they would
recommend approval based upon these revisions that lower the size
of -- the height of the building and reduce the density by, what,
30-some-odd units and increase the setbacks, which have always
been the main -- what I've always considered to be the main
stumbling blocks for the whole thing. And so, number one, we've
heard from staff that that -- that they've reviewed them and that they
agree that they lessen the issues.
Number 2, I would say to the chair that revisions on the fly is
exactly what happened at the Planning Commission, which happens
in almost every single zoning meeting that we have. At the Planning
Commission, the planning commissioners argued back and forth on
the height of the building, and those things happen.
You know, I have thought about this. This is my district. I've
lived in District 2 since 1993. This is where, most of the time, I
would go to the beach. And I understand the neighborhood. I also
understand what being in a development like the Mercato is. My
office was in the Mercato for many years.
And having a commercial property, having this developed
intensely as a commercial property I think would fundamentally
change the neighborhood, and I'll tell you why. First, this will be an
attractor, just like Venetian Village is an attractor, just like the
Mercato is an attractor. I think somebody said that nobody would
come here but people that live in the neighborhood, and I think that's
March 1, 2021
Page 270
just -- that's just an unrealistic idea of -- you know, how many places
can you go dine, drink, and walk to the beach in Collier County?
Maybe three. Maybe.
So it would be an attractor. That is -- brings up another issue
for me, and that is that Vanderbilt Beach Road is a policy-constrained
road. It's constrained to what it is now by policy by the Board,
which some future board can change. And that's going to put
pressure on there being some change to Vanderbilt Beach Road,
which I don't want to see and nobody in the neighborhood wants to
see, and that's always been an issue.
I think we've heard what these changes mean. The staff had
recommended approval based upon more intensity, higher buildings,
and less setbacks. The petitioner has offered to address those to
make it more compatible. And in terms of -- and what I've told
everybody, what I've told the Save Vanderbilt Beach folks and then
I've told Stock Development, the compatibility is very clear. You've
got the Regatta here, and you've got Beachmoor here. They are what
they are. And this is as close to those two as I think we can get.
So I don't feel that there's any -- any need to send this back to
the Planning Commission. I mean, what would they review? They
would hear the same thing that we heard from staff today. And so
we've had 10 hours -- almost 12 hours of public hearing. We've
heard from at least 10 experts. We've heard from staff two or three
times. We've heard from the opposition. And I think we need to
make a decision and move forward. I don't see -- the staff isn't going
to, as I understand it, make any other recommendation than what
we've already got.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Although I appreciate what
Commissioner Taylor said, first off, we've only voted on the
March 1, 2021
Page 271
right-of-way. So to say that, you know, we've made a huge mistake,
I haven't voted on anything yet when it comes to this project, you
know. So 2A was a basic vote that I think should have been
unanimous, because it wasn't the heavy-lifting vote.
You know, a lot of what citizens enjoy now in Collier County
was once protested against, a lot of developments and whatnot. So I
don't sit here and say, you know, because a large group of people
who -- you know, there's also -- I always say the folks that are for
something, they're out playing golf and fishing. The people who are
against something, you know, will come to the podium, although I
don't discount anything that the group has said.
I guess I sort of want to just piggyback a little bit on what
Commissioner Saunders said. One of the reasons why I also agreed
to stay here the entire time is we were hot. We had momentum.
You have all the right people in the room. And I guess maybe this
question is for Ms. Jenkins, and maybe you could just wave, or if you
feel like you need to come forward.
I appreciate that you and your team were able to react on the fly.
I don't think the adding of DaRuMa was some big, huge last-minute
zero-hour type thing. I mean, much like what Commissioner Solis
said, we should able to react and be agile and flexible.
The question I would have for you is, there seems to be a lot of
pen and ink sort of add-ins today. Is there anything gained -- with
your expertise back to us, is there anything gained by taking all the
pen and ink things, all the things that were agreed to really quick
here, all the last-minute wrangling that you-all had to do over lunch
to add that stuff formally into a document, take one last look over
something that's formal and typed, it has no little, you know, magic
marker type things? And I'm not being -- you know, I'm being a
little bit, you know, sort of not specific, but -- or literal, I guess. Is
there any advantage to that, to give you and your team the one last
March 1, 2021
Page 272
look to work with Stock Development and have them add in all the
little changes that were -- to a lot of people in the general public
today seem to be sort of off-the-cuff? Which in my opinion weren't.
This is the way it actually works. But would there be something
gained for your team to be able to have a solid document that had
everything on it, any, you know, last little questions you had so that
we were 100 percent sure every T was crossed, every I was dotted?
MS. JENKINS: So we will control the changes to the
document now. And we've heard all the testimony, all the
commitments that have been made today, all the changes. We will
review the record again to make sure that we catch every change,
every commitment that's been made by the applicant again.
So, typically, staff -- after a board hearing, if there's changes
made to a document, staff will make those changes to the adopted
ordinance before it's sent to the Clerk. So we're good with making
those changes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I just -- you
know, I want to commend Commissioner Solis. That was a very
succinct statement with regard to how things have transpired.
We've addressed the density. There was concerns of density.
There was concerns of height. We've addressed that. The
develop -- you know, I candidly have been dismayed by the
quality-of-life issues for the people that are already here for the lack
of traffic control. Traffic's a huge issue. And to know that there's
that much difficulty for people to get through that intersection just
because of pedestrian traffic when we could have taken care of that is
an issue.
I'd certainly like, at some stage, to have discussions as to what
our future plans are for maybe a roundabout over at Regatta or at
March 1, 2021
Page 273
another area that's more conducive just to help the traffic flow for all
of the residents, so -- we took care of the time constraints with regard
to the developer's commitments.
So I certainly know and understand -- I understand the residents,
the folks that spoke in opposition of the project. I understand their
concerns. But with the underlying zoning that is there and just an
oversimplified process of 100,000 square feet of allowable
square -- of commercial, C-3 zoned property, and the
intensity/density that comes with that in comparison to what's being
proposed which, as best as I can tell, equates to about 25,000 square
feet of commercial intensity/density -- intensity and density of the
property. It's -- the residential -- the conversion from commercial to
residential makes a tremendous amount of sense to me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: As I said when I was making
some comments earlier, we go way overboard -- and I shouldn't say
way overboard, but we do do everything we can to protect the
neighborhood, and I pointed out a couple examples in just recent
weeks.
I'm going to rely on our staff. They've indicated that this, in
their view, is the best approach for protecting that neighborhood.
I'm going to rely on Commissioner Solis. He represents that district
and made, I think, a very forceful argument that this is the best
approach for the development of that property and for protecting the
surrounding area.
So I'm ready to vote tonight. I was just throwing out the
possibility if we needed more time that we had that option. But I'm
prepared to move forward with this tonight.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So just one last word before we start
to vote. I hope my colleagues realize that we, again -- not me, but
you are, again, increasing density in a county on infrastructure that
March 1, 2021
Page 274
we cannot improve or expand.
So do I hear a motion?
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Now, you want to read
No. 2B, I believe it is, sir.
Item #2B
ORDINANCE 2021-08: APPROVING THE VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT - AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES
BY AMENDING THE URBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT,
RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO ADD THE VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 172 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING
UNITS AND/OR HOTEL ROOMS/SUITES, BUT NO LESS THAN
40 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF C-3,
COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL USES, AND A
MARINA AND A SHIP STORE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF GULF SHORE DRIVE AND VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST, CONSISTING OF 5.42 ACRES; AND FURTHERMORE,
RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED
AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
March 1, 2021
Page 275
– ADOPTED
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Commissioners, Item 2B of your advertised public hearings:
Recommendation to approve, by ordinance, the Vanderbilt Beach
Road mixed-use subdistrict amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as
amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending
the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and map
series by amending the urban mixed-use district, residential
subdistrict to add the Vanderbilt Beach Road mixed-use subdistrict to
allow construction of up to 172 multifamily dwelling communities.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Strike that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's to be amended to 140.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Hundred and forty.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What's in our printout says
172, but they already agreed to the 140.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Commissioner.
To allow construction of up 140 multifamily dwelling units but
no less than 40 residential units and 10,000 square feet of C-3
commercial intermediate commercial uses, and a marina and a ship
store.
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the
intersection of Gulf Shore Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road in
Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, consisting of
5.42 acres and, furthermore, recommending transmittal of the
adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity providing for severability and providing for an effective
date.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Before I make the motion, I
have one quick question of the County Attorney. With the
March 1, 2021
Page 276
adjustments that were made in the hearing today, do we need to
include those in my motion for approval, or are they --
MR. KLATZKOW: No. We'll be here till 10:30 if we did
that. I've got Ms. Ashton over there who's been taking vigorous
notes and talking to the -- and I've got the staff -- well, we'll give you
the document that you are voting on.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Then I'd like to make a
motion for the approval of the -- adopt a small-scale amendment.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Can I ask one question before
we do that?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's hear, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. There is a second.
Please go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Does the 5.42 acres change,
since we've got the restaurant? Anything? And should there be any
stipulation in there saying that if something falls through with the
restaurant, like you said, Mr. Yovanovich, we have no One Naples?
Those -- is that any terminology that should be in there?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's in -- may I?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Since you asked me. That's in the
PUD.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the next -- that's the next vote.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. I wanted to make
sure that the right verbiage is in there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a
second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
March 1, 2021
Page 277
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
Aye. Carries 4-1.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And last, but not least, 2C,
sir.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Madam Chair,
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can I -- I don't know that we
need to read the whole title, because there are some mistakes in it.
So I'll save you that.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, then with --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Recommendation to approve an
ordinance. Start there.
Item #2C
ORDINANCE 2021-09: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN
DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A COMMERCIAL
INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT (C-3) ZONING DISTRICT TO A
MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD)
ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS
March 1, 2021
Page 278
ONE NAPLES MPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO
172 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AND/OR HOTEL
ROOMS/SUITES, BUT NO LESS THAN 40 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS, UP TO 208 FEET IN HEIGHT INCLUDING A PARKING
DECK, AND 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF C-3, COMMERCIAL
INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL USES, AND A MARINA AND
A SHIP STORE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GULF
SHORE DRIVE AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD IN
SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
CONSISTING OF 5.42 ± ACRES: AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE – ADOPTED
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Commissioner. Item 2C of
your advertised public hearing, recommendation to approve an
ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. Do I hear a
motion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved with the -- and,
again, I'm assuming we're going to bring in the public hearing
discussion as part of that particular motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor. Do I
hear a second?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
March 1, 2021
Page 279
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
Aye. Carries 4-1.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You have one more.
Item #3A
A COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND VANDERBILT NAPLES HOLDINGS, LLC FOR
DEVELOPER FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS TO LANDSCAPE,
IRRIGATION, LIGHTING, BRICK PAVERS, AND OTHER SITE
FURNISHING IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE RIGHTS-OF-
WAY ABUTTING THE ONE NAPLES PROJECT – APPROVED
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Madam Chair and
Commissioners.
Under your County Manager's report, Item 3A is a
recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Collier County landscape maintenance agreement between Collier
County and the Vanderbilt Naples Holding, LLC, for developer
funded improvements to landscape, irrigation, lighting, brick pavers,
and other site furnishings improvements within the right-of-ways
abutting to the One Naples project.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make a motion for
approval on that as well.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a
second. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye.
March 1, 2021
Page 280
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
Aye.
It carries 4-1.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a -- I just want to thank
the Commission, our staff, the audience, everyone that was involved
in this, in pursuing this or finishing this today. I think. It was the
right decision. And I want to thank the Chairman for permitting that
to occur. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I was outvoted.
Meeting adjourned.
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:38 p.m.
March 1, 2021
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECI a P STRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
PE Y TA OR, C AIRMAN
ATTEST:
&-e/Uktp(-CC
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on J)93) 9'-1 , as
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS
COURT REPORTING BY TERRI LEWIS, FPR, COURT
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 281