City officials told a North Carolina-based developer looking to build an apartment complex near a gated community in Ocala to go back to the drawing board after residents made a PowerPoint presentation voicing several concerns about compatibility, traffic, and property values.
During their regular meeting on Tuesday, May 7, Ocala City Council members decided to table their vote on an ordinance and resolution that will pave the way for Fox View Apartments, a 96-unit apartment complex planned for the northeast and southeast corners of SW 60th Avenue and SW 43rd Street Road.
The discussion on the apartments began with a presentation by the developer, Bergman Real Estate. Leah Bergman, a managing member, and W. James “Jimmy” Gooding III, a former assistant city attorney hired by the developer, made a presentation about the property, which will be situated next to Hunt Club at Fox Point.
“The site plan and details have changed significantly over time since our initial neighborhood meeting,” said Bergman. She went on to elaborate that the developer has tried its best to incorporate “neighbors’ concerns” and that the overall proposal “is for a relatively low density community,” which is what the “land was originally intended for.”
Bergman said that they amended their plans from the original to move buildings and provide a “significant open space buffer” between the apartment complex and neighborhood family to the east.
During his presentation, Gooding showed images illustrating all of the changes that the developer made in response to requests from the community.
After hearing from the developer, multiple residents from the community took turns presenting a PowerPoint that had been prepared by the group.
“We do not support the proposed development of rental properties adjacent to our community. We do support owner-occupied residences. This would create a compatible environment for all parties concerned,” said Stacey Graham, a resident of the community.
Graham suggested the apartments would not “enhance” the neighborhood and said that a developer’s agreement signed over 20 years ago was not consistent with the city’s current standards.
Kevin Miner, another resident in the community, stated that the group had determined that there were “12,000 approved dwelling units” in “close proximity” to their neighborhood. He said just under 7,000 of those were “rental apartments” that were located near industrial parks, businesses, and other areas.
Miner, along with several other residents during the meeting, suggested that if the apartments were constructed, Hunt Club at Fox Point would be the only private community in southwest Ocala with access solely through an apartment complex.
Another resident in the community, Mike McCool, said that the last three homes in Hunt Club had sold for “over two times the average value of an Ocala property.” He then proceeded to show images of other apartment complexes that were built or acquired by the developer.
“We understand some of these properties were probably not built by them, but acquired by them, but either way, that’s how they represent themselves today,” said McCool.
Jake Gedman pointed out that in its own mission statement, the city calls for “physically responsible services.”
“The mission statement for the city of Ocala is to provide physically responsible services consistent with the community’s current and future expectations. This is not physically responsible planning,” said Gedman, who also resides in Hunt Club. “The decrease in home values leads to less taxation and subsequently, less funding for the people that they are trying to bring in. Teachers, fire, emergency, EMS, less taxes for the community, means less funds for them. This project is not up to our community’s expectations, especially compared to other apartments close in proximity.”
Paul Joseph, a retired real estate broker, said it was his “professional opinion” that the project would “negatively impact the values of the homes within Hunt Club.”
“I have a high degree of confidence that the values will decrease,” said Joseph. “We support development, but the fit of that development is extremely important on many levels.”
Pamela Graham, a fourth generation Marion County resident, asked the council to empathize with the neighborhood’s concerns while also putting herself in the shoes of potential renters.
“I am sensitive to the needs of our fellow residents looking to rent an apartment because I’ve been a renter,” said Graham. “But in all my years in Ocala, I have never seen a private subdivision and private homes share the same ingress and egress [as an apartment complex]. For the developer, I understand it’s just business. But this is my home.”
After comments by a few more members of the public, and after several members of the public declined to speak when given the opportunity, the developer’s attorney took the podium to address several concerns, including the traffic and buffer concerns.
“When you’ve got a plat that shows it as multi-family, it’s not reasonable to expect that it’s going to be owner-occupied,” said Gooding. “And the parade of horribles, the fact that we’re going to have to drive through a low-income community, and these walls, doesn’t change that.”
Gooding went on to suggest that the problem was that the housing was in “close proximity” to the neighborhood.
“There are apartments located in the midst of single-family neighborhoods all throughout the city of Ocala. And yet, without the type of concerns and parade of horribles that we see here,” said Gooding.
As Gooding was making his comments, councilmember Kirsten Dreyer interjected.
“Can you tone it down,” asked Dreyer. “This is probably the best community presentation we’ve had before us. I don’t want to insult, what I feel, is their true and reasonable concerns.”
Gooding went on to elaborate that the proposed plan was a “very nice apartment complex” and that, although it may not be the “highest-end with rentals,” it wasn’t a “low-income project.”
Once Gooding concluded, Dreyer indicated that the project gave her “heartburn” and that the apartment renderings looked “institutional.”
“This gives me heartburn. I hate this project. I’m just going to be honest with you,” said Dreyer, who received applause from the audience for her comment. “Stop clapping. Let’s not do that.”
Dreyer went on to suggest that the residents in that community live in “half a million dollar and plus housing,” and that one egress and ingress is “not how we do it anymore.”
“This is a strange anomaly when you compare it to all the things that we’ve been building. All of the things that we’ve been building have been beautiful architecture,” said Dreyer. She went on to refer to housing at Fore Ranch and the “stuff on 42nd,” possibly referring to the Retreat at 42nd Luxury Apartments.
“I can’t imagine one person in this room, that would be okay, living in the Hunt Club with these apartments in them. These are not visually appealing,” said Dreyer.
Councilmember James Hilty echoed Dreyer’s sentiments.
“For me, this is like putting lipstick on a pig. It does not belong,” said Hilty. Although he suggested that the site consider rezoning to single-family housing, that idea was later rejected by council member Jay Musleh on account of setting a precedent of the city entering agreements under false pretenses.
Council president Barry Mansfield said that he thought the developer had done a poor job presenting its case.
“I think everybody’s done a really good job, except for, honestly, the developer. You know, I am a developer, I sit in these meetings myself. And they did a very good presentation,” said Mansfield in reference to the neighborhood’s presentation. “They did a very good presentation and y’all didn’t. I mean, I’m just telling you the truth.”
In response, Gooding reiterated that the developer had been trying to work with the community dating back to last year. He said the developer drafted agreements and dealt with “every issue that they requested,” but that ultimately, he believed the group didn’t want a resolution.
“We did try to work it out with them,” said Gooding. “They don’t want apartments in front of their buildings.”
During the discussion, Mayor Ben Marciano shared that if the project were approved, he would likely veto it.
As the discussion came to a close, some of the council members determined that it might be easier to separate the rezoning ordinance from the planning development resolution, saying they could pass the ordinance independently from the resolution. The items were originally grouped together to “make it easier” for the council to deliberate on them, according to staff.
When it seemed like the council was going to separate the items, Gooding said the mayor’s comment had changed his mind.
“He’s got one role here, other than picking a police chief. He can veto ordinances, he can’t veto resolutions,” said Gooding. “I don’t want to give him any ideas, but he’s a bright guy, and I’m sure he’s already thinking about it. He can kill an ordinance with a veto, in which case, there’s no reason for us to vote on the standards,” explained Gooding.
Gooding went on to say that the developer would rather come back “with both” the resolution and ordinance to be voted on “at the same time.”
“Considering what [the mayor] said, it would throw a whole monkey wrench if we got an ordinance approved and the zoning…and then he vetoes it. And then we have to come back,” said Gooding. He added that while he agreed with city staff that it might be best to separate the two items, after what the mayor said, the developer preferred that both items be continued.
Shortly thereafter, council members voted unanimously to postpone discussion of the resolution and ordinance until their regular meeting on June 18.
After the vote, Gooding took a moment to again share his thoughts on the veto comment made by the mayor.
“It really helps when the mayor makes comments like that. Because it would have really been a problem had we gone on with what I was suggesting. I haven’t seen Mr. Marciano very much because I don’t come here that much anymore, but I would encourage y’all to encourage him to let y’all know how he feels on things like that to keep y’all from adopting something that he’s already against,” said Gooding. “I thought that was a game-changer.”
The Fox View Apartments represent the second phase of the Hunt Club at Fox Point, which was developed over 20 years ago. Originally slated to include 126 units, additional limitations were placed on the planned development over the years.
Those limitations reduced the maximum number of units to 96, among other changes.
Although both the ordinance and resolution for the planned development had their first readings in early April, the second and final readings were previously postponed from the April 16 meeting of the council.
Now, council members will look to deliberate on the matter again next month after the developer and city staff have a chance to make changes and come back before the council.