NEWS

Bonita Springs zoning board votes against towers

The Bonita Springs City Council will be the next stop for a controversial plan to build four 22-story buildings at Pelican Landing after the zoning board unanimously recommended denying the project.

Bill Smith
BSMITH@NEWS-PRESS.COM
Bonita Springs City Hall

The Bonita Springs zoning board voted unanimously Tuesday to recommend that the City Council reject a zoning change that could lead to construction of four 22-story towers at the Pelican Landing Raptor Bay property.

The vote came after more than two hours of testimony from the developer’s experts and comments from members of the public opposed to the proposal.

In annexing the property, Bonita Springs promised to change the zoning. The annexation agreement says the city "supports and will approve" an application to build the towers.

The zoning change is being pursued on two fronts. The city planning staff is asking City Council to amend the zoning code to allow the development it previously promised. At the same time,  amendment to the city 's comprehensive plan to allow the change has been sent to the state Department of Economic Opportunity for approval.

Opponents of the rezoning centered their arguments in complaints that the proposed use would be too densely populated, that it would create traffic problems on Coconut Road and that hurricane evacuation would be difficult over the two-lane road.

Land-use attorney Neale Montgomery, representing WCI Communities Inc, the owner of the property, said the project is not high density because parcels of land were added to the company's holdings over the years. While the plan calls for concentrating the housing units  in four buildings, Montgomery said when density is calculated, it is on the basis of all WCI's contiguous land.

"Even though there may be buildings that have higher density … when you look at the overall development ... it's still within 1.5 (housing units per acre)," she said.

As for traffic complaints, Montgomery said the company wants to build the same number of units it could construct under current zoning so there won't be a traffic increase.

"We're not changing the number of units, we're not changing the square footage, everything that has been there over time is staying the same," she said.

A traffic expert retained by WCI said that the traffic issues would not get worse because of the development and claimed that towers do not produce additional traffic because their residents “stay in the towers and enjoy their amenities.”  The remark was followed by guffaws from the audience.

Asked to see what WCI would build, the company attorney said she couldn't provide it.

"We don't have a plan for Pelican Landing," Montgomery said. "We don't really have neighbors."

Some residents have been alarmed by talk that WCI would next move to acquire the adjacent Weeks Fish Camp property, owned in major part by two limited liability companies, Estero Marine and Sugar Mountain Development.  Montgomery said there is "confusion that seems to exist" about WCI's intentions with respect to the former Weeks property.

WCI Senior Vice President Paul Erhardt told Pelican Landing residents last month that the company has "an option to buy" the Weeks property "but we haven't exercised any option in it."

"That property is not part of this application, that property is not owned by WCI, I know everyone wants to talk about it," Montgomery said, deflecting opponents' efforts to raise the argument that  other planned developments off Coconut Road should be taken into account when deciding  the Raptor Bay case.

"That's for another day and another time," she said.

Several residents spoke against the rezoning, with traffic issues raised most often.

"The traffic study was done in the summertime, the summertime is certainly not reflective of what goes on right about now and in January, February, March and so forth," noted resident Anne Kramer. "That's an irrelevant study unless it's done in the time of year when the people are actually here."

Former City Council member Richard Ferreira raised the issue of protecting the wetlands in Estero Bay and the water quality in the bay. He, too, cited traffic as an issue.

"What impact will the future development have, with hundreds of more people and cars," Ferriera said. "There is going to be a tremendous increase in traffic on Coconut Road — it's an evacuation route for us ... let's be practical here."

In unanimously adopting a motion to deny the WCI request, the board cited increased housing density, crowded streets and difficulty evacuating the property through Coconut Road as reasons for the denial.

Montgomery, the attorney for WCI, said those reasons for recommending the council reject the change are not a legally sufficient to deny the application, and the company will “absolutely” pursue the zoning change before the council.

“I have an approved (development of regional impact), approved density, a traffic study with the number of trips,” Montgomery said.

Tuesday's vote by the zoning board, formally known as the Board for Land Use Hearings & Adjustments and Zoning Board of Appeals, does not kill the project. The board's action is a recommendation to the City Council, which holds final local approval authority.

If the City Council rejects the zoning change and the case goes to court, the city would be be liable to pay WCI's expenses, including attorney's fees, in bringing an action to enforce the promises Bonita Springs made in the annexation agreement.

Bonita Exchange

The zoning board endorsed a proposal for Bonita Exchange, a mixed unit development that would be located at Bonita Beach Road  and  Quail's Nest Lane.

A mixed-use development, the project would include 246 dwelling units and 20,000 square feet of commercial space over 26 acres.

The project will include improvements to the intersection of Quail's Nest Lane and Bonita Beach Road.

Among the improvements are an eastbound right turn lane at Bonita Beach Road and Quails Nest Lane and intersection improvements designed to make hazardous turns safer.

The zoning board vote to recommend City Council adoption of the plan was unanimous.