East Naples housing project advances despite pushback 

A defunct fast-food drive-thru on U.S. 41 East could give way to a sparkling new Mediterranean restaurant. But it’s what would rise above the restaurant that has neighbors objecting: 30 one-bedroom and studio workforce housing units in a five-story building. 

The neighbors’ objections weren’t enough to sway the Collier County Planning Commission. After an intense three-hour session marked by initial skepticism, the commission unanimously recommended the proposed development at Andrew Drive and U.S. 41 East for approval by the Collier County Board of Commissioners. The vote came as a surprise after the Bayshore-Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency and the Collier County Planning Department both turned thumbs down on the plan. 

The development must still be approved by county commissioners, whose scheduled public hearing is at 9 a.m. Oct. 27 at the Collier County Government Center. 

The long wait 

The controversy centers on the property at 3091 U.S. 41 E., which fronts a 1,000-square-foot building that has been vacant since possibly 2005. After its life as a Kentucky Fried Chicken, attempts to restart it as a Jamba Juice or Dunkin’ never got beyond drafts. 

A local man, Nick Matar, has been hoping to redevelop the lot into a mixed-use building with 500- to 550-square-foot units, largely for singles. To conform to the number of county-required parking spaces, the development will take over two additional built-out residential lots Matar purchased, one behind it and one across the street. 

Land-use attorney Rich Yovanovich, who made the presentation for Matar, called it “a perfect project in a perfect location.” 

“You’ve got the government center right here that’s less than a quarter of a mile away. You’ve got Shadowlawn Elementary School, which is slightly more than a quarter mile away, all easy walks to and from those prospective employers. You’ve got a bus stop right here on 41, not too far from the proposed project. You can walk to the transportation hub,” he pointed out. 

“So basically, you can live here and work pretty much anywhere in Collier County and get there easily by public transportation.” 

Neighbors who attended the meeting had a much different perspective. Several Andrew Drive homeowners said it was commercializing their neighborhood. Three members of the CRA advisory board also came to object. 

“I’m not against redevelopment. I’m not against workforce housing. I am also not against the owner developing his blighted commercial property and making a good business out of it. My only objection is: That is the rezoning of the two residential properties,” said Alicia Mick, an Andrew Drive resident. 

“It does contribute to commercial creep, because these properties were handpicked just to assemble a larger landmass just so that this commercial project could happen. They’re not vacant land. There are residential homes that have been there. People are living there.” 

CRA Advisory Board member Al Schantzen raised a different concern: whether the 1-acre site could comfortably accommodate the proposed density and parking. 

“The density far exceeds what fits on that postage stamp that they were working with,” Schantzen said, explaining why the board voted not to recommend the project. He also questioned the plan to count six spaces along the curb of Andrew Drive toward parking for the apartments. Matar said the spaces would be marked for the apartments and restrictions added. 

“I suspect that’s going to be on county right-of-way property and to restrict that to his use only and not the public use becomes questionable,” Schantzen said. 

No speed bumps 

Steve Rigsbee, who is both a CRA board member and an Andrew Drive homeowner, called resident parking on the street “suicide.” 

“You’re just asking for somebody to get killed because of the speed that is never enforced there,” Rigsbee said. “We’ve tried to get speed bumps there. We can’t even get speed bumps on that street.” 

CRA Chair Maurice Gutierrez questioned the project more broadly, arguing that its need for additional residential property showed the development was too large for the site. 

“If it doesn’t fit, and you have to purchase three affordable residential existing lots in order for your commercial project to work and ask for a zoning change, that’s a nonstarter because that’s not redevelopment. That’s overdevelopment,” Gutierrez told the group. 

He said the CRA’s mission was to balance development with its long-term impact on the neighborhoods, and wondered, if Matar’s development exceeded expectations, “where are they going to park? In front of everybody’s house down Andrew Drive.” 

That didn’t sit well with Yovanovich, who took on his comments during rebuttal time: “We are meeting the code. (That is) to then say if this guy is successful and he still meets the code, you shouldn’t approve them anyway, because they may be too successful.” 

Changes, more changes 

For Matar, who has owned the site since 2020, it has been an exercise in modifications. He said he had initially only planned a restaurant on it but was already entertaining an architect’s suggestion to build a mixed-use structure when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the Live Local Act in 2023, permitting high-density rates for workforce housing. 

Matar’s first plan created a 40-unit building, which was part of the rationale behind the negative reaction from the CRA and county planning staff. After criticism at a neighborhood information meeting, he lowered the number of units to 30. On Aug. 20, he agreed to a number of changes that Mike Bosi, Collier County planning director, said would likely change the department’s recommendation to approval: 

• Dropping a planned pickup window to ease traffic flow through the parking lot. 

• Adding written assurances there would be no alcohol in either the restaurant or a juice and hookah bar Matar is planning for the rooftop. 

• Upgrading the section of Andrew Drive where the restaurant would have its entrance and where the resident on-street parking would be. 

Still, the number of units gave some planning commission members pause. 

“I want to get this understanding of the [number of units allowed]. By right, you’re saying you could put 25 units here?” planning commission member Michelle McLeod asked. “And the second part of my question is: Why 30?” 

Yovanovich explained that they had folded in housing credits from the two residential lots to come up with that number. 

The parking availability and traffic control drew most questions, but Rigsbee received immediate attention when he pointed out that the dumpsters had been placed in a corner backing up to a residential bedroom: “I know the person that owns that property. I don’t think they want to hear a dumpster, at any time, 9 feet from their house.”