Alienum phaedrum torquatos nec eu, vis detraxit periculis ex, nihil expetendis in mei. Mei an pericula euripidis, hinc partem.

Recent Filings By Stock Development – What it means to you

savevanderbiltbeach / Blog  / Recent Filings By Stock Development – What it means to you

Between May 28, 2020 and June 8, 2020 Stock Development provided certain updated information to the Collier County Planning Department. This was in response to a letter from the County planners dated May 1, 2020 to Stock’s engineering firm, Hole Montes Inc., requesting further information and clarification. Here are the salient questions that were raised in the County’s letter, Stock’s responses and our comments.

Parks and Rec Reviews

Questions:

  1. 1. The egress and ingress on Gulf Shore Court appears to be directly across from the entrance to Vanderbilt Beach Garage. This is an extremely busy area and sometimes traffic backs up on Vanderbilt Beach with folks waiting to enter the garage. How does the developer propose to ensure congestion doesn’t occur here? Please address the questions and concerns.

Responses and Updates

Update: 2/18/2020 The Parks and Recreation Division is in discussions with One Naples developer regarding improvements related to the Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage, 17- parking spaces at Vanderbilt Beach, and Vanderbilt Beach access point. These discussions have centered on relieving congestion related to Naples One, but have not been finalized. Discussions to continue to develop mutual agreement related to easing congestion in this area.

Update: 4/27/20 Parks and Rec has not confirmed that a mutual agreement has been finalized.

Response:
We have coordinated with Barry Williams, Director of CC Parks and Recreation. Barry has approved our proposed developer commitment (related to Developer funded County parking garage improvements See email below.

  1. Along Vanderbilt Beach Road, there are County beach parking spots that must be retained. How will the project effect those spots? Please address the concerns and questions.

Updates and Responses

Update: 2/18/2020 The Parks and Recreation Division is in discussions with One Naples developer regarding improvements related to the Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage, 17- parking spaces at Vanderbilt Beach, and Vanderbilt Beach access point. These discussions have centered on relieving congestion related to Naples One, but have not been finalized. Discussions to continue to develop mutual agreement related to easing congestion in this area.

Update: 4/27/20 Parks and Rec has not confirmed that a mutual agreement has been finalized.

Response:
We have coordinated with Barry Williams, Director of CC Parks and Recreation. Barry has approved our proposed developer commitment (related to Developer funded County parking garage improvements See email below.

Our Comment:
This email is not clear as to what the “agreement below” contains. See Transportation Planning Review, below.

Transportation Planning Review

Questions:

Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Operations Review:
Rev.3: Staff agrees that the meetings regarding operational improvements related to this development have been very productive. The timing of the improvements needs to be added to commitments, in addition the improvements have not been finalized and may be revised; updates will be needed as-if applicable for review by staff including CAO. Continue to make sure master plans are consistent and up-to-date as much as possible until finalized, including the noted improvements which can be shown on master plans.
Rev.2: Understanding that work continues to resolve these issues there remain questions regarding driveways-garage connections-setbacks and how they will function. The additional master plans help but are not clear-readable currently. As issues are resolved and DCA is completed document updates will be needed for consistency.
Rev.1: Reference various master plans provided. There are inconsistent ROW vacations and access points shown including a potential partial vacation on South Bay Drive? Please explain and have consistent master plans. Additionally, there are numerous access points including “garage” access. Please explain how there’s work avoiding additional conflicts on the adjacent roads. Please also show how the new site layout will replace-improve the existing roads if ROW’s are vacated. At this point staff cannot agree to the proposed vacations.

Response:

We have added timing requirements to the commitments. It is our position that commitments are now finalized. We understand that changes may occur at Public Hearings.

Our Comment:

As part of this whole process, Stock has made certain formal Commitments to the County.  With regard to Transportation the above response is saying that Stock has given the planning staff as much as Stock plans to give them, no matter what additional information they may want.  Further, Stock will be relying on the public meetings of the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners to approve what Stock has presented in its current form or to require changes or additional information.
His Commitments with regard to the traffic situation include the following which Stock agrees will be completed before owners can occupy his buildings:
  1. Design and installation of a traffic signal at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive, subject to design approval by Collier County Transportation.
  2. Design and installation of an extended left turn into Collier County parking garages, subject to design approval by Collier County Transportation.
  3. Design and installation of enhanced technology for Collier County parking garage including signage upgrades for notification to public of garage parking availability subject to design approval by Collier County Transportation and Parks and Recreation.

The interesting fact, here, is that Stock’s traffic consultant is not providing any proof or data to confirm that these changes will, in fact, solve any additional traffic problems caused by his development.  One would assume that such information would be a requirement.

Staff’s comment that, “At this point staff cannot agree to the proposed vacations.” is remarkably interesting.  The Stock development relies on the County giving it several roads that are now County owned.  (See the outlined red areas in the illustration below.)  Without the vacation of these roads, Stock cannot develop his current plan which occupies much of this area.

 

 

These are of a highly technical nature and will be addressed at the Planning Commission public meeting and the County Commissioners’ public meeting by our traffic engineer.

Zoning Review

Questions:

Correction Comment 11:
At the March 3rd NIM, a commitment was made to provide renderings of the size and dimensions of the proposed buildings. Please provide renderings of the proposed buildings showing dimensions.

Response:
This is not a “sufficiency” issue.

Our Comment:

Stock may be correct that this is not formally a “sufficiency” issue, but his unwillingness to provide something to which Stock committed, and which was extremely important to the more than 450 citizens who were present at the Neighborhood Information Meeting points out his cavalier attitude both to County staff and to the neighborhood.  Save Vanderbilt Beach is in the process of “doing Stock’s job for him.”  SVB has contracted to be created a three-dimensional model of the 5.42-acre site as well as to the immediate area surrounding it.  The model makers will utilize those plans that Stock has submitted to create a true-to-scale model showing comparative building heights and building placements detailing setbacks.  Additionally, SVB has contracted to be created visual aids showing views from eye level of the proposed project from various locations.

Correction Comment 12:

Development Standards list perimeter setbacks at 15 feet. The setback dimension is not sufficient. The development pattern in the Vanderbilt Beach area is greater than 15 feet. Please consider revising the setback dimension.

Response:

The actual setbacks vary. The minimum required 15-foot setback is measured from the property line to the parking deck, which is 35 feet in height. The parking deck is setback another 10 feet (and greater) when measured from the edge of pavement, and on average another 17 feet from the travel lane. The tower elements are set back a minimum of 25 feet from the property line, but this only occurs in two locations.

In all other areas the setback from the property line to the tower ranges from 34.3 feet to 97.3 feet. The setback to the towers from the edge of pavement ranges from 34 feet to over 100 feet, and the setback to the towers from the travel lanes ranges from 58 feet to over 117 feet.

This needs to be considered with the perspective of the prosed ROW enhancements, most particularly the enhanced perimeter landscape buffers, both on the property and proposed in the ROW through a ROW permit and Landscape Maintenance Agreement.

We propose to provide a significantly enhanced landscape buffer between the travel lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks to create an aesthetically pleasing condition for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Examples of buildings in the neighborhood that are three stories(and higher that the 35-foot tall parking deck), with similar setbacks to the ROW and buffers that are substantially less that what is proposed, include the Barefoot Pelican (5 stories), Vanderbilt Palms (3 stories) the building located east of Sotheby’s at 377 Vanderbilt Beach Road (3 stories).

Our Comment:

One of the most outrageous aspects of the Stock project is the wanton disregard for typical, neighborhood-respecting, zoning-ordinance-required setbacks.

Take this Stock-created drawing, for example.  Remember that the current zoning on Stock’s property is C-3, a medium commercial zoning.  Under C-3, residential can be built, notwithstanding  Stocks continued comments to the contrary.

Sixteen residential units to the acre is allowed under the current Collier County land Use code.  That would give Stock 87 residential units, not the 172 Stock is requesting.

Building height allowed in C-3 is 100 feet.  Stock is requesting tower heights of 208 feet.

C-3 required that, if a building is more than 35 feet high, the setback from the property line must be one-half the building height.  Stock’s “Building 5” in the drawing above is scheduled to have a height of 77 feet.  That would require a setback of 38.5 feet.  Note the yellow highlighted dimension.  It is 15 feet.  That is 23.5 feet less than is typically required.

Think of the view from the street or sidewalk.  A pedestrian would see a 77 foot, six-story building a mere fifteen feet from the property line, and 32.5 feet from the edge of Vanderbilt Beach Road’s pavement.

Compare that to the photo below.  The smallest setback to any building between Vanderbilt Drive and the proposed development along both sides of Vanderbilt Beach Road is 70 feet,

 

roughly twice Stock’s proposed design.  The average setback is more than 115 feet, almost three times Stock’s.
Stock’s discussion of his superior landscaping and its effects is misleading.  His buffers reflect the minimum standard required by the Land Development code.  They are nothing special.

Buildings 3 & 4 shown above, have their northern side facing Vanderbilt Lagoon.  This plan shows an approximately 12-foot setback to the water.  Interestingly, the filed “Exhibit B One Naples MPUD Development Standards,” which is the document that defines what may be built and which controls, states the waterfront setbacks for these buildings to be 0 feet.  Twelve feet is insufficient, but zero is ridiculous.
A similar discrepancy exists relative to the parking structure.  It is shown on submitted drawings as being two stories and 35 feet in height.  Yet the Development Standards describe an allowed height of 45 feet.
The drawing below shows additional setback dimensions.  It is quite telling in several regards.  Look at the dark grey area.  Virtually all of this is two-story parking structure.  It literally takes up  the entire distance along both Gulfshore and most of Vanderbilt Beach Road except for an entry drive and the even taller Building 5.  Think of it, more than 700 of feet of 35 to 45-foot high wall running the length of the property about 35 feet from the edge of the pavement, as little as 15-feet from the edge of the sidewalk.

Stock talks about setbacks to the towers from the edge of the pavement being between 35 feet and 97 feet.  From the property line, the closest distance to the tower is less than 25 feet.  Remember C-3 setback requirements of half the building height.  That would push the towers more than 100 feet from the property line at their closest points.  Here’s Stock’s problem in a nutshell.

Stock paid $19 million or more for the land.  It is difficult to design a development on a site as strangely shaped as the property Stock owns.  If Stock were to adhere to the C-3 setback standards, Stock would be unable to build much of anything.  The red lines in the photo on the following page are 104 feet, half the height of his proposed towers from his property line along both Gulfshore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road.  That is a no-build area.

It is neither our job nor is it the job of County officials to protect Stock’s investment or to assure that Stock makes money on his investment.  Our job and that of County officials is to enforce the laws and codes as they exist and to protect the rights of the citizens of the County.

THE HOTEL CONUNDRUM

At the Neighborhood Information Meeting and elsewhere, Stock has always stated that if Stock did not get his zoning approved, Stock would market the property to a commercial developer who could build a Costco there.  We have long held that the possibility of a Costco, gas station, or supermarket was nonsense as no such business would desire to be at that location. Stock recognizes that as well, but Stock does think that a hotelier might have an interest.

Hotels are not approved in the existing C-3 zoning.  To protect his investment, however, and to give himself more flexibility, Stock is asking that a hotel use be part of his new zoning.

Not only that, but Stock has not qualified that request in any way.  There have been no site plans showing a hotel.  There are no elevation drawings of a hotel.  There is no way to know if the ballroom will hold 200 or 700, or even if there will be one.  There is no mention of restaurants serving large Sunday brunches.  Nothing.  Only that it can have up to 172 rooms.

This is not acceptable.  Period.

THE MARINA ISSUES

Based on the linear dimension of the seawall adjoining Stock’s property, Stock has the right to develop as many as 95 slips in the proposed marina.  That would be huge, along the lines of the Naples City Dock.  Even if he builds fewer, there are numerous problems that Stock has not addressed.

There has been no study of the impact of any marina development on the Lagoon waterways.  Will manatees be affected?  How about the sea grasses and water quality?  Stock says that the marina will take such things under advisement, but provides no data allowing County officials to make judgements.

In the earliest Stock filings, the slips were for the exclusive use of One Naples residents. Recent filings say that they are “primarily for residents and guests.”  That poses numerous problems.  What is a “guest?”  Can a “guest” own a slip?  Rent a slip? How many “guests” will there be?  Where will they park?

The latest filings state that as many as three of the slips may be occupied by commercial marine operations, charter boats.  How many trips a day will they be taking.  How large will the boats be?  How many customers will they serve?  Where will the customers park?  How will the disposal of fish parts, after fish are cleaned, be handled?  Sharks?

A point about ownership of the slips.  It is our position that the slips may be owned only by owners of residences of One Naples whose names are on the deeds showing their ownership.  Further, no owner of a slip may sell or rent to anyone who does not meet the above restriction.  Nor can Stock sell or rent to anyone who does not meet the criteria.