At Monday’s City of Stuart regularly scheduled Commission meeting, one of the items to be discussed is the Fairfield Inn project.
The proposed hotel includes a parcel located at 255 SW 6th Street in Stuart, just south of the Roosevelt Bridge.
And, like everything else regarding development in the City of Stuart, this isn’t a cut and dry application.
The parcel in question
On April 27, 2023, Polk Street Hotels, established on March 27, 2023, as a domestic for-profit company, purchased three parcels.
Two of the parcels are zoned urban highway and one parcel is urban waterfront. The total of the parcels is 1.58 acres.
The two parcels that are zoned urban highway were used as Aycock Funeral Home.
The parcel that is urban waterfront is 0.33 acres and is currently vacant.
The application before the Commission was submitted as a “simple zoning change” to amend the one urban waterfront parcel to also be urban highway.
Both zonings allow for a hotel to be built, but the building placement on the parcel is different.
The main difference is urban waterfront requires parking in the front of a project, to allow for the waterfront view to be unencumbered. According to the City’s Land Use Development Code, if parking is in the front, then the building can only be 3 stories.
Urban highway zoning requires parking in the back as the building faces the highway. And the zoning guarantees an applicant can build up to 4 stories, the maximum currently allowed by the City of Stuart.
The inference is that a smaller hotel would allow for fewer rooms and, therefore, less profitability for a hotel.
What’s fair to the neighborhood?
The owners of Polk Street Hotels applied and received a unity of title. This allows for all three parcels to now be considered one parcel according to the Martin County Property Appraiser.
A unity of title does not guarantee that zoning will be amended but seemingly would assist in the developer’s efforts.
However, all real estate purchases are speculative. The parcels were purchased by the new owner knowing the zoning that exists and knowing that there is no guarantee that requested zoning would be granted.
If the developer’s request is approved, the developer would not have to present a site plan to the Commission for review or approval. He could build whatever is permitted by right with no questions from the Commission nor from the public. `
The developer has offered to host a neighborhood workshop. However, they wouldn’t offer this until or after the zoning change has been approved. And then it’s too late.
The developer has stated the project would be under 50,000 square feet, avoiding the need for them to present in front of the Commission.
It should also be noted that the proposed traffic would be 400 to 600 daily trips.
Rezoning Justification
As part of their application, the developer submitted a Rezoning Justification document.
The 6-page document, submitted by the developer’s legal counsel, presents the case as if the zoning change will have only a positive impact on the surrounding area.
“The redevelopment of this Property will not only increase the lot’s property value, but the value for adjacent areas. The hotel will bring guests to the Downtown Stuart area that will frequent nearby shops, restaurants, and attractions. The ‘trickle down’ will help provide additional opportunities to nearby businesses and properties and increase nearby property values.”
“The rezoning and planned redevelopment will not have a negative impact on improvement or development of adjacent properties. If anything, the redevelopment of this Property is likely to spur redevelopment and improvement of adjacent properties. Currently the Property is an underutilized, former funeral home. The addition of a new hotel is more likely to encourage investment in the surrounding neighborhood than keeping the Property in its existing condition.”
“As such, the rezoning application will not result in negative impacts for living conditions in the adjacent neighborhood. Instead granting the application will permit the redevelopment of a currently under utilized (sic) Property in an attractive hotel.”
What is not mentioned in the justification is the increased trips per day and how that will potentially negatively impact the adjacent neighborhoods.
Again, the developer has offered to host a neighborhood workshop. But will they host them if their request is approved? Honestly, there would be no need to as the commission’s ruling is quasi-judicial and, for all intents and purposes, binding. Why would a developer need to appease its neighbors at that point? Their opinion would be moot.
What is also not provided is any economic study to prove these statements. It can be assumed that a thriving business increases property values. But there is also a cost and impact of doing business as a hotel to the neighboring areas.
What is the potential for the costs for police to have a greater presence in the area? What is the cost for the increased traffic impact? What are the potential costs to taxpayer for increased security and police? Are there enough projected visitors to Florida, and specifically Martin County, to support new hotels?
As a reminder, a contested 102-room hotel was approved in January 2024 in the Creek District just off Colorado. Can the City of Stuart draw enough visitors to both of these new hotels and the existing surrounding lodgings?
According to Visit Florida, the state of Florida’s official source for travel planning in a report released on November 15, 2024, the year-to-date occupancy for 2024 compared to 2023 was down -1.5% from same time in 2023.
Whatever a landowner chooses to do with their property is up to them. However, saying any business will bring added value without an economic study or comparative examples is strictly speculative.
The Decision Before the Commission
The question at hand is basically if what is proposed is what’s best for the community.
Granted, the Commission has made some questionable approvals over the last five years, though the current Commission has been better about asking questions to determine the overall impact of their approvals on the health of the neighboring communities.
When land use and zoning amendments are incongruent and incompatible with an area, they absolutely should be addressed.
But they shouldn’t continually be changed, especially at the request of a developer who needs the land use change to make a profit on their investment.
A developer buys land knowing the existing approved land use and zoning requirements of the land they are purchasing. They are guaranteed nothing beyond what is permitted by right. And it is not a right to apply for and receive a land use and zoning change.
The Zoning In Progress would have been the opportune time to address these possible land use and zoning inconsistencies.
But specific to these parcels, if the “simple zoning change” is granted, the developer would be able to build whatever is permitted by right with no consideration to how it will affect the neighborhood directly behind it.
The Commission should review the project to ensure what is approved allows for the project to be congruent to the community.
If the “simple zoning change” is approved, the repercussions of this change will have an exponential impact on the rest of the City.
Where do we draw the line on development and when will we start recognizing the impacts beyond the obvious?
The meeting begins at 4pm. Click here to access the full agenda.