Where Did Reason & Reality Go?

At the January 8th commission meeting, there were many misconceptions being spouted in the chamber by commissioners, anti-hotel folks, and just plain everyday people who were very confused.

First, here are the facts about the 4-story hotel which is being developed on the corner of Colorado and opposite Kindred Street on what is known as A Street. This parcel is the last one in the Royal Palms Financial Center. It is being built without a change to land use. The height is within the current code as is the number of rooms (102).

The entire Creek District Code is form-based. For almost two years until its adoption in February of 2023, there were extensive meetings with the various boards, workshops, and many one-on-one meetings with the consultants, the Treasure Coast Planning Council, and citizens about form-based code. Every member of the current commission adopted that code in two formal votes.

The applicant was seeking relief from three sections of the code:

1) The 24” parapet wall for this building can be no more than 40% of the facade. They are asking for it to be 48% to shield the equipment from view of the neighboring buildings and homes.

2) There is a sidewalk required on both sides of A Street. The applicant is requesting that it be waived on the far side so as not to remove any oak trees in the right of way.

3) The parking garage at the Royal Palms Financial Center, which is within the allowed 500 feet of the structure, will be available for hotel parking. There is a shared parking agreement for that garage between all the owners of the buildings making up the Center. It runs with the property and not with the individual owners. In other words, it can’t be cancelled with a sale. This shared garage, though permitted, must come before the commission because of the way the code is written. The purpose is to make sure that there is an agreement between the lot owners that cannot be cancelled. The city attorney and consulting attorneys have issued opinions to that effect. Further the language states the commission shall approve it not may.

4) In conjunction with Item 3, there needs to be 12 EV charging stations by code. They are requesting that 10 be located at the surface lot adjacent to the garage and two on site.

The problem with all of Stuart’s codes is that the commission becomes too intimately involved for unimportant reasons. For example, in almost any other jurisdiction, the first item would be an administrative matter. It makes common sense to shield ugly but necessary building infrastructure from neighboring buildings and street views.

The same goes for whether to place the second sidewalk. If a goal in the comp plan is to have trees, then it makes perfect sense not to place a second sidewalk on a street that even with the hotel will have light traffic and few pedestrians. It preserves mature trees.

As to the parking situation, that also seems to be a lot of fuss over nothing. The comp plan calls for shared parking wherever feasible. The code states that parking must be within 500 feet of the property. Both criteria are met. The reason for commission action is to make sure the parking exists and cannot be taken away later.

The master parking agreement was approved by the commission as a condition of the Royal Palm Financial PUD. At the time, it was anticipated that the garage would be shared with this parcel’s eventual building. The agreement runs with the land and cannot be cancelled by a subsequent change of ownership. What is the commission’s role? To make sure the letters are in the file.

The city’s own attorney and other attorneys have issued an opinion to that effect. The developer of the hotel is receiving a franchise from Hilton Corporation and a bank is giving him a mortgage. Is there anyone who believes that either would go ahead with a deal where the parking could disappear and jeopardize the financial wellbeing of the hotel?

Lastly, we come to the moving of the charging stations. A few years ago, the commission decided to be “green” and require charging stations with new construction. It may have seemed like a great idea at the time, but just like the mandating of no plastic straws, it was a feel-good measure with no tangible effect.

As we saw, the commission, instead of just allowing the ten stations to be placed in the parking lot, now has said there is only a need for four plus the original two on site. The commission from the very beginning should have let the market decide whether charging stations were needed.

The hotel will have a swimming pool because the market calls for it. The city needs to stay in its own lane and leave business to decide what is needed to make the project successful. In situations when developments are investing millions and years in getting the project going, the developer (in this case, a hotelier) is the expert, not a panel of politicians.

When does the government start educating the public as to what is allowed to be done and what isn’t? For over two hours, we heard from a very uninformed public not understanding the code and quite frankly the duty and responsibilities of the commission.

The biggest example of misleading the public was the rhetoric from Commissioner Collins. He doesn’t like the project (I have yet to see one project that he does like) and that is fine.

However, the parapet and sidewalk could be done without a problem according to current code. The rooftop would be visible not to guests arriving but to the homes of the people complaining about extending the wall. The guy could build the sidewalk and lose the oak trees. That would alleviate two reasons to come before the commission.

As to the parking, the commission could have said no, but there would be a lawsuit and no judge would believe that the commission acted appropriately. It isn’t as if the owner isn’t complying with the comp plan and code. The shared parking agreement was already approved by the commission earlier. It would take a judge no time to strike down the commission’s no vote and consider it a taking.

As a CRB member, I had concerns with adequate drainage. However, the engineer for the applicant came up with a plan that meets code. The city’s staff said it meets the code. The city’s consulting engineer said the same thing. I am not allowed to substitute my judgement for those of the experts. Neither should the commission.

From complaining about the building being too tall (four stories) or the hotel brand being subpar, the public has opinions. But that is all they have…opinions. The commission including Collins is obligated to vote yes. Remember the commission including Collins approved the code that the developer is using.

The naysayers are the same people complaining about every project…some of whom live within the city and others who live elsewhere. A few younger people like Collins have a vision of a city that never was. Older ones just don’t want any change. And some will jump on the “No” bandwagon when they believe their economic interests are at risk such as the owners of the Colorado Inn did at the meeting.

The government needs to do a better job educating the public about the code. The development department does good technical presentations. But either the manager or attorney needs to explain in plain language why the commission is voting on this and what the issues are. I would also suggest that the commission stops trying to make themselves relevant by keeping their finger on things that unnecessarily create controversy.

Stuart makes mountains out of molehills. A hotel has been part of the wish list for two decades. Commissioners and citizens have been trying to get one built for 2 decades. They are finally getting their wish, but this being Stuart some people will still complain.