Collier commissioners overturn staff's denial of redevelopment project on East Naples triangle site
Laura Layden, Naples Daily NewsPublished 5:16 p.m. ET June 26, 2019 | Updated 4:36 p.m. ET June 27, 2019
A luxury high-rise condo-hotel planned for East Naples has been put on hold in 2018. This video shows how the project was more affordable in 2017. Vonna Keomanyvong/ Naples Daily News via Wochit
Collier County commissioners have overturned county staff's decision to reject the latest plans for an East Naples luxury condo-hotel project formerly known as Trio.
Sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals, commissioners voted 4-1 to side with the property's owners, giving them the green light Tuesday to move forward with a more intense mixed-used project at the corner of U.S. 41 East and Davis Boulevard.
The decision came after Commissioner Donna Fiala moved to uphold staff's denial, but failed to get a second.
Fiala voted against reversing the decision based largely on her fears that the project will only worsen the traffic snarls in the surrounding neighborhood.
"I think we are trying to pack too much in a very small area. So, I can't support it," she said.
The latest plan includes 150 hotel rooms and 24 tower residences, along with retail shops and restaurants in the same nine-story building.
Fiala (Photo: Photo by Gregg Pachkowski/Special to the Daily News)
A previous revision in 2017 doubled the number of hotel rooms to 48 — and increased the commercial footprint from 12,000 square feet to 16,000 square feet. County staff approved those changes without a hitch.
With a more intense development plan, however, county staff applied a different development standard, resulting in their decision to deny it.
More hotel units, Fiala said, will just mean more people and more cars trying to get in and out of the development.
"I just think that is going to be a crushing blow to everything else around it, including the city, who has objected to this," she said.
Her fellow commissioners saw the situation differently. However, all seemed to agree it was a difficult decision to make — and that changes may be needed to the land development code to avoid such a quandary in the future.
A 'really difficult' decision
Commissioner Penny Taylor moved to overturn staff's decision. Commissioner Andy Solis seconded, describing the case as "really difficult" — adding there were good arguments to be made on both sides.
County staff approved the more intense site plan last year, but then made a turnabout in January after developers of a neighboring project objected.
Taylor described the case as "a real donnybrook" that had her and other commissioners shaking their heads and sighing over what to do.
"I know there is a problem with this change and I think in a sense it's unfair," she said of staff's change of heart on the project.
Commissioner Burt Saunders said he didn't see it as an issue of fairness or unfairness.
"Sometimes staff makes mistakes," he said. "Those mistakes aren't binding."
The issue came down to the allowable square footage for the hotel inside the building, which is planned on roughly 2 acres in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay.
The latest revisions for the project were classified as insubstantial, which gave staff the authority to approve or deny the changes without the need for a public hearing or a vote by county commissioners.
A deeper look
The denser plan and the challenge by neighboring developers triggered a deeper look by the county's reviewers, who decided the hotel portion of the project must meet the floor area ratio (FAR) requirements outlined in the county's land development code.
Floor area ratio is the measurement of a building’s floor area in relation to the land it sits on.
County staff argued when there's a conflict between the land development code and the growth management plan, the more restrictive standard should apply.
Just because the county hasn't adopted development standards for hotel projects in the overlay, it doesn't mean there shouldn't be restrictions put on them, said Mike Bosi, the county's planning and zoning director.
A nighttime rendering of the former Trio project. (Photo: Submitted photo)
Naples attorney Rich Yovanovich, who represents the property's owners London of Naples, told county commissioners that staff clearly made a mistake in applying a stricter standard because the overlay allows for — and actually encourages — more intense development.
"We are in your redevelopment overlay and we are subject to those rules and regulations," he said.
Those rules and regulations, Yovanovich emphasized repeatedly, don't even mention floor area ratio requirements.
"The overlay was created to revitalize the redevelopment area by providing incentives, including modifications to development standards, that will encourage private sector investment for development in the area," he said.
Based on the property's zoning, county staff determined the floor area ratio must be no more than 0.6 for a hotel, then denied the project based solely on that factor, Yovanovich said.
Here's how the calculation works: A ratio of 1 means the square footage of a building — or use — can be equal to the size of the land underneath it, while a 0.5 means a project can't be any bigger than half the lot size.
The larger the ratio, the more that can be developed on a site.
The ratios staff wanted to apply to the development would have limited the hotel to 41,609 square feet. The property owners wanted roughly 67,500 square feet.
Not what the county wants?
By requiring the floor area ratios, Yovanovich told commissioners, the county could change "what's inside the box" but little else, including the setbacks and the height of the building — still at 112 feet.
The project, he said, could still have a lot more rooms, but they would be much smaller — and it probably would not be the kind of marquee development the county wants or expects to see at the crucial corner.
The owners, who purchased the property as an investment, have already met the parking requirements for at least 150 hotel rooms, getting county staff's approval after addressing all of their concerns, Yovanovich said.
The latest vision is to build hotel units in the range of 400 square feet to 450 square feet, which the owners believe will be the right size to anchor the kind of redevelopment the county should have in the district. That requires a lot more room than the FAR standard allows.
"Our desire was to do a nice size hotel, with nice amenities and nice size rooms," Yovanovich said after the vote. "I think that's what Collier County commissioners envisioned when they voted to redevelop the area."
Yovanovich said there's not a market for the larger units the neighboring developers suggested the county must require. If there were a market, the first developer, Anthony Fortino, wouldn't have lost the Trio project, which had bigger, but fewer hotel rooms, he said.
Last year, Fortino surrendered the deed to a lender to avoid foreclosure and satisfy a multimillion-dollar loan taken out for the development. A few months later, he filed for personal bankruptcy.
London of Naples has the property up for sale. It hit the market again in March after a buyer who had it under contract for a hotel backed out due to the disagreement with county staff over density, said David Bartley Sr., the owner of Bartley Realty, who has the listing.
Asked if the county commission's decision to reverse staff's denial of the site plan would help efforts to sell the property and attract a hotel developer, Bartley said in an email: "Most definitely."
A violation of Florida law?
Naples attorney Jeff Fridkin, representing the opposing developers, told commissioners staff was right to revoke its approval.
"Florida law requires that some standards be in place to control density and intensity," he said. "That's the reason we oppose the position that has been taken by the applicants."
He added if there's no control over density and intensity in the Bayshore/Gateway overlay, then "Collier County would be in violation of Florida law."
Fridkin represents developers Jerry Starkey and Fred Pezeshkan with Real Estate Partners International in Naples, who have a contract to buy 5 acres of county-owned land next door and plans to build a more massive project that includes a mix of housing, retail and entertainment in up to three towers, each as tall as about 15 stories.
Zoning for the larger project allows up to 377 residential units, 228 hotel rooms and a maximum of 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, which could include restaurants, coffee shops, bars and a movie theater. The project's developers are concerned that the adjacent development as proposed could become a so-called micro hotel, with no-frills capsule units, measuring no more than 300 square feet, bringing hotel prices and the neighborhood down, instead of boosting it up, Fridkin said.
London of Naples, Fridkin argued, should at least be required to meet the minimum requirements of 700 square feet per unit spelled out elsewhere in the county's land development code for commercial uses.
Bosi, however, said those minimum size requirements wouldn't apply to individual hotel rooms, as Fridkin suggested.
Fridkin argued that Bosi was just expressing his opinion, not facts.
County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow said arguments about the size of the hotel units were over "something that is irrelevant" to the appeal, which solely dealt with questions surrounding the floor area ratio requirement.
A faster resolution
Before reaching county commissioners, London of Naples' appeal went before the county's hearing examiner Mark Strain, who heard arguments on both sides.
However, before Strain could come up with a recommendation, Commissioner Taylor brought the dispute directly to the board for a vote — and a faster resolution before the board breaks for summer.
Some county commissioners said they could have greatly benefited from having a detailed report and written opinion from Strain, even if they ended up disagreeing with him.
At times, Commissioner Fiala said the hearing examiner has shed light on "things we don't see" in planning and zoning cases.
Strain, who was still reviewing the information presented to him on the case, said he didn't have an inkling of what he might have recommended if given the time to finish his analysis and report.
Ultimately, he said county commissioners are the policy makers and the ones who have the final say on how to interpret the local development codes.
"It's their code," he said. "They are the highest authority in the land, so it certainly is their prerogative."