Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/05/2023 (Draft) TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida October 5, 2023 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Joe Schmitt, Vice Chair Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Paul Shea Randy Sparrazza Chuck Schumacher Christopher T. Vernon Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Eric Johnson, Principal Planner Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Derek Perry, County Attorney's Office P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the October 5, 2023, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Secretary, please call the roll, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Present. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And, Commissioner Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Mr. Chairman, we are all present. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Let's see. Addenda to the agenda. Mr. Johnson sitting in for Mr. Bellows. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, Mr. Chair. Eric Johnson. I respectfully -- let me give some background. We believe that we'll be having some Land Development Code amendments coming online pretty soon that would require a nighttime hearing to start at 5 p.m. And so I was looking at the calendar trying to figure out a time when it would be good for staff as well as for you. It's been your informal policy to have these nighttime meetings held on days that you have a Planning Commission meeting. And so I was looking at December 7th as a possibility for having a hearing that starts at 5 p.m., and I was trying to solicit your input on that while you're all together. So December 7th, if -- depending on the number of other items that are on the daytime agenda, Mr. Bosi could schedule the regular agenda, the daytime agenda, later in the day. But, certainly, the land -- at least one Land Development Code amendment would have to start after 5. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. December 7 in the evening would certainly work for me. What about other Planning Commissioners? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm good. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm going to probably miss my second Planning Commission meeting that day. I'll be out of town. So I'll miss the morning and the evening, so I'd just as soon do it on another date. But if you have a majority here, I'm fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see what others say. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I don't know. I don't have my phone with me, so... COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What's the date again? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seventh of December. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thursday the 7th. MR. JOHNSON: Thursday, December 7th. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I think that's fine for me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I could possibly make it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: It looks like we'll have a quorum. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How many amendments are we talking? MR. JOHNSON: At least one. I don't have an exact number because we're still working on them, but it could be more than just one. It could be two, maybe three, maybe more. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It sounds like we would have a quorum, but probably not by much. MR. JOHNSON: Understood. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I suspect I'll be available. I just can't verify that right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'll be available, Chair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Oh, thank you, Commissioner Schumacher. Do you have a second date to run up the flagpole for us to consider, or no? MR. JOHNSON: I don't. I would have to -- MR. BOSI: That would be December 21st, the second meeting in December. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And we plan on having a meeting that day? Because of Christmas coming up? MR. BOSI: And that could be a decision that the Board of County -- or not the Board, but the Planning Commission could make. If you feel like the 21st is too close to the Christmastime and holiday plans, and you can do -- you can tell me now that we are going to plan to cancel that meeting if the Planning Commission -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. BOSI: -- thinks that's too close to Christmas. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll be traveling. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Others? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I can be here. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I can make the 21st. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I don't shop till the 24th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good for you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Midnight. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So we know we'll be down one, and it sounds like, otherwise, that would work for us. Well, it's up to the Planning Commission. It sounded to me like we had more certainty of a quorum on the 21st, but maybe others heard it differently. MR. BOSI: And, Chair, as we -- right now we have zero petitions scheduled for the 7th or the 21st. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. MR. BOSI: As we come closer to, say, the first week in November, I will send a reminder to myself to email the Planning Commission, let you know how many petitions we expect to be on the December 7th and the 21st and see if we can establish a quorum for each of those days, and then we can have a little more certainty. You'll have a little bit more time to -- you know, to view your calendar and understand what you have coming up. So if we wait for another month -- and I'll send that email out to the Planning Commission, and I think we'll be able to identify where we can have that quorum. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. From my perspective, we've got these two December meetings that are still on the books. Depending upon the number of applications we have, if we could -- let's say we have five, if we could put all five on one and then cancel the other meeting, particularly if we put all five on the 7th and then cancel the 21st because of its proximity to Christmas, that might -- MR. BOSI: Understood. Understood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. BOSI: And I will reach out the first week in November. And, actually, I'll have a conversation with you because -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll be here. MR. BOSI: November 2nd, we'll be reviewing the AUIR. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is there any reason we can't pull it back from December, like, to the 16th of November? MR. BOSI: There is -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Does it just take -- or it can't be ready by then? MR. BOSI: We probably could maybe make one, but we're trying to get -- we're trying to get two specific LDC amendments that require nighttime hearings to -- so that's why we focused upon the December 7th date. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, we'll have further discussion then, I guess, about this. You've got -- you've got some input, and some uncertainties up here may be resolved. By our next meeting, we could get a better idea. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other addenda? MR. JOHNSON: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Planning Commission absences. Let's see. Our next meeting is on October 19, 2023. Anyone know if he or she won't be able to attend that meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm checking. I think I'm gone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm not available on the 19th either. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anyone else know -- all right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's it look like for the 19th, Mike? MR. BOSI: Currently, we have three petitions scheduled for the 19th. We have the extension of the Future Land Use Map. Our Future Land Use Map and Element currently only go -- is from 2012 to 2025. To be statutorily compliant, we need to extend that out to 2045. Luckily, we have the institutional knowledge of David Weeks, who's helped us craft an amendment and do the analysis to move the -- or the Future Land Use Element and Map to 2045, and then we also have the GMP amendment. And the PUD amendment for the Golden Gate Golf Course to allow for the conversion of the Golden Gate Inn to affordable housing and a multifamily structure, so that's going to be on the agenda for the 19th. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's the second return, though, right? Haven't we already looked at that the first time, right? MR. BOSI: That's been approved. It's been amended, and this is going to be the second time it's going to be amended, and it's also going to be amended again for Collier's purposes because we need to move the veterans facility from the westernmost portion of it over to the easternmost portion of the subdistrict because of changes within the driving -- or the BigShots entertainment facility no longer is going to be occupying that land. But we'll get into that later in October. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But it's not a full conversion of the golf course? MR. BOSI: No, no. The golf course is being converted to a 12-hole golf course around the Par, but we'll get into those specifics. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So it looks as though we'll have a quorum, and we understand Vice Chairman's absence. Same question for the meeting on November 2, 2023. Anyone know if he or she will not be in attendance? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll be here. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm pretty sure I will not be here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Pretty sure you will not, okay. All right. So it looks as though we're going to have quorums on both those days. Approval of minutes. None are before us today. BCC report and recaps. Mr. Johnson, are you going to cover that? Or, Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: Yes, one second. This is what happens when Ray's not here. At the 9/26, the BCC continued the Shamrock storage facility on 13th Street, GMP amendment and CPUD, to the 10/10 meeting just to incorporate -- we had to incorporate some last-minute changes related to the relocation of the entrance on Collier Boulevard farthest to the south to appease a number of those residents that were pretty opposed to the entrance to the location being on 13th Street, but they also approved the Brookside Marina zoning request and, on summary agenda, there were no land-use items. So it was only the Brookside that they approved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. BOSI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Chairman's report, none today. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Just a quick question, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mike, just help me remember. The Shamrock, was that the one where a lot of residents were concerned about the students getting on the bus and -- MR. BOSI: Yes, yes. And the developer had actually agreed to construct a bus stop with parking for parents to wait for their kids to be able to get on the bus. And they were opposed to access on 13th Street. Transportation said that it violated the policies to put it on 13th [sic]. They were able to move the preserve -- move the preserve to the north area to help give additional buffering with the additional landscape enhancements that they provided for, and the entrance is going to be the farthest south on that parcel. It's going to meet the Transportation needs, and it's going to align with what -- the residents. So we're hoping the BCC meeting is a little less contentious than what the Planning Commission meeting was. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Great result. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. That takes us into our public hearings. ***First advertised public hearing is PL20220001779, the Rock Creek Estates RPUDZ. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with Ms. Lockhart. MS. LOCKHART: Materials only. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials and site visit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Matters of public record, meetings with staff, communications with the applicant's agent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Discussions with the applicant's agent. Also, I had conversation by email with Mr. Bosi and Mr. Bellows in regards to a petition that came before us in 2010, and that was the Meridian Village PUD, because of the restrictions that were imposed by the airport authority, and I wanted to validate and verify those restrictions against what was proposed for this. So that petition, I received, and I think the rest of you all received it as well. But I also took the liberty to forward that to Mr. Yovanovich, because he and I spoke about it, and I said I'll forward you the petition -- or the ordinance, which was -- I didn't think it was objectionable, so I took it upon myself to forward it to him, because we discussed the issues in regards to the -- I guess, the covenants that were being imposed. So I'll talk more about that during the petition, so -- my only other question: Is anybody here from the airport authority? MR. BOSI: Yes, we do have representation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Continuing down, please. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Matters of public record, and I had a staff meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I had staff materials and a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Materials, site visit, and a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Incidentally, I -- maybe I received the petition -- or the ordinance you were talking about, Vice Chair, but I don't believe I did. Everybody else get it? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I thought it was sent to everyone, Mike, you said, for information. MR. BOSI: I asked Ray to send it to the Planning Commission members. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I don't have the -- I just have the one that you sent me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. At this point, the Chair recognizes Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, and good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich, on behalf of the applicant. With me today is Erik Mogelvang. He is the principal for Elah Holdings, LLC; Josephine Medina is with RVI, and she is the professional planner for the project; Marco Espinar is our environmental consultant; our transportation consultant is Ted Treesh; and Jeff Rogers is our coastal engineer, if you have any questions of those disciplines. The property is located on North Road basically at the entrance of the commercial portion of -- the commercial terminal at Terminal Drive for the Naples Airport. I think -- I think the primary issue here today is what the airport authority wants from my client with regard to notices of easements, so I'll preliminarily get into that, and Josie will get into the specifics of the master plan and how it's consistent and compatible. I think it's important to note, and this is in the airport authority's own correspondence, that the property is not located within the noise decibel areas that would question whether it's compatible, and it's not within the flight pattern for the airport. Iron -- well, not ironically, but Mr. Mogelvang's family has lived in this area for many, many, many years and, obviously, believes it's compatible with the airport, understands the noise that's associated with the airport. He believes so much in this that he bought this property and plans to develop it and doesn't have any concern about others wanting to live near the airport. The property's 11.38 acres. It's currently zoned agricultural. As you know, that's a holding category under the Comprehensive Plan, but we're not asking for any changes to the Future Land Use Element. The Growth Management Plan would allow up to three dwelling units per acre, which would allow for 33 units to be built on this property. We're asking for less than half; we're asking for 15 single-family homes. Your staff has determined that that is compatible, and Josie will give you her professional opinion as well. What we're objecting to is a portion of the staff recommendation, and the portion we're objecting to is the requirement that we provide an avigation easement to the airport authority. We're not within a contour -- the noise contour zone, and we're not within the flight pattern, so there's absolutely no nexus between requiring us to give an avigation easement to the airport authority and, therefore, in my opinion, it's an improper exaction and can't be imposed upon my client. I don't care what any other projects -- any other lawyers may have agreed to in the past, in this particular case, there's no nexus and no -- and no requirement to impose that type of requirement on my client. Interestingly, the information provided by the airport authority at Page 84 of your packet states that residential land use is generally not incompatible in the 60 to 65, 65 to 70, and 70 to 75-decibel contour intervals. We're not in that. They acknowledge -- and then -- then we could talk about compatibility. And in other cases, the way that was handled was how you build the building. This was attached to a hotel, and the hotel agreed to certain noise reduction measures to bring the decibel levels down so they could assure compatibility. Their own documents prove we are compatible with the airport. Our single-family homes at the height we're requesting in no way impairs the safe operation of the airport or the safety of the homes that we're going to construct on this property, yet the airport authority is asking you to deny the project and then, if you don't, they want us to impose this avigation easement on our property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me for interrupting. And then I'm going to ask -- the Vice Chairman also wants to talk. The avigation easement, is this the only piece of the Naples Airport Authority that your client objects to? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. We're fine with providing the notice that we're within -- we're in close proximity to the airport. We're providing -- and put it in a deed restriction on the property that we're in close proximity. So if someone buys this without actually coming to see the property and see the airport's right there, they will have notice in the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But the only piece of these recommendations -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- from the airport authority is the avigation easement that you object to, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'll take you through some slight modifications to the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Yovanovich, can you explain to me what does this -- I guess you called it a navigation easement? MR. YOVANOVICH: Avigation. Avigation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Avigation? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aviation -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just navigation without the n. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What does that easement do to you legally? MR. YOVANOVICH: What does it do to me legally? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'll tell you what -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or to your client, I should say. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll tell you what it does to my client legally. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: It requires my client to give the Naples Airport Authority the right to, effectively, if you look at Page 54 of the document, to operate in a manner -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Where's 54, if you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Page 54 of your packet. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Fifty-four of our packet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which is Page 3 of 6 of their easement. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm having trouble finding that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you explain? MR. YOVANOVICH: I was waiting for Mr. Klucik. I think he -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'll find it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. It says in 3C of the avigation easement that it is expressly intended by grantee and declarant and its successors, successors in title and assigns, that the avigation easements shall apply to the passage of aircraft and to noise and other effects of aircraft operations that may otherwise be objectionable or constitute a trespass, a permanent or continuing nuisance, personal injury, a taking, an inverse condemnation, or damage to the property. So we have to let the airport authority and anybody who operates an airplane out of the airport authority do whatever they want, go as far as they want, to where it's effectively a taking of the property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So let me follow this further, then. The petition I talked about at the start, which was the most recent I recall -- I remember one other petition coming in that was in the flight path. That was the electric company over there in the -- off of Enterprise. They wanted to build. There was a place they wanted to land a helicopter on the building. I understood all of that from -- regards to the requirements of the airport authority. The other petition was here at Estey and Airport, which is now located -- it's titled The Beach Club. It's -- Beach Club. It's a condominium. And I'll ask Mr. Yovanovich and the staff as well, are there any other petitions that you are aware of that these kind of restrictions were imposed by the airport authority? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I can understand the sound. I mean, if I'm going to buy a home, and I buy a home and the airport's across the street, it's pretty obvious that -- but I think it could be in writing, and I have no problem with that. You're moving near an airport, and you might not be happy with the noise. I can -- I vividly remember my years in Washington, D.C., when Dulles airport was built, people thought they had to pack a lunch to get out there. Now people who live out there are complaining about the noise. Well, the airport's been out there since, what, '69 or '70 or '71. Now that's one of the largest growth areas in Virginia. But this case here, I guess my question is, is there any other petitions where these kind of restrictions have been imposed? MR. BOSI: Not to my knowledge. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are you in the flight path? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are you in the -- where are you as far as the overlay for the sound ordinance? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll show you that. I've got that as an exhibit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Because, again, I'm going to -- I want somebody from the airport authority to come explain this to me. MR. YOVANOVICH: And -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I know where he's at. I want it to be on the record. I'm very familiar with that. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: The only petition I recall being involved in was in the city, and it was for Bayfront. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And Bayfront is -- of course, it's -- you're -- it's almost in the flight path. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't recall there being a requirement that we provide an avigation easement -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If I may -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically, you can -- you can restrict for height, because that's an FAA requirement, naturally, and it's understandable. And if -- at a certain height there has to be warning lights, all those kind of things. All I ever did is jump out of airplanes. I never flew one, but I'm pretty familiar with the whole process. But the -- this restriction seems to be, I'll use the word "obscene" because it is, and I want the airport authority to be prepared to discuss with me why they want to impose this kind of restriction. I could clearly understand the requirements, again, to advise people that they're moving into a facility that may be -- you may be unpleasantly impacted by the noise of jets taking off, but as far as safety, has there been -- is there deemed any safety hazard here with this petition? MR. YOVANOVICH: I am not aware of any safety hazard where these homes are going to be with regard to the operation of the airport. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before I call on two commissioners who want to be heard, I want to hear from Ms. Ashton. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Do you want me to comment on the illegal exaction? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure, yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: First of all, this is in the county's airport overlay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And this is a request -- an intergovernmental request coming from the airport authority. As to the illegal exaction, this is a Planned Unit Development. This is different from a straight zoning district. This is negotiated. You can ask for things that you might not ask for in a straight zoning district, you know, rezone. COMMISSIONER VERNON: When you say "you," you mean the Planning Commission? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Got it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Otherwise, you know, all you're doing is doing a deviation from the straight zoning districts and the other requirements for design in our Land Development Code with nothing coming to the county. So I do think that you have the ability to request the avigation easement, and the airport authority will have to make their argument as to why they believe it's needed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. So what you're saying, Counsel, is that we can -- the county -- obviously, we make the recommendation to the county commissioners, but the county commissioners can impose this -- if we -- if the county commissioners feel that what the airport authority is requesting is reasonable and even necessary, the county commissioners have that authority. They're not breaching -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I believe so, yes, if you find that there's a public purpose for it. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I guess I would just ask the petitioner if he agrees that that actually is the case. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Let me give an example. I think the law is clear, even when you come through with a Planned Unit Development, what you request of the petitioner has to have a rational basis for the request. There's tons of case law -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that goes back to there has to be a relationship between the request and the impact of the project. Let me give an example. And I know Mr. Schmitt will -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what you're saying is that, in theory, there is the ability to make an imposition because it's in this airport zone; however, if that authority is going to be exercised to impose that on a petitioner, there has to be some basis that can be elicited, and it becomes apparent, rather than just abundance of caution, oh, this would be really cool, this is what we would impose if we could rule the world, this is how we'd like it, which is very different than we really need this. MR. YOVANOVICH: There needs -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I mean, is that really it? It's not -- it has to be this is necessary rather than we'd like this. MR. YOVANOVICH: There needs -- yes, there has to be a rational nexus between the request and the imposition of this. Now, let me give an example first before we -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm sorry to jump in, but he said "necessary," you said "rational nexus." MR. YOVANOVICH: Which makes it -- it has to be -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: They're different things. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there has -- there has to be a -- there has to be a nexus between what is wrong and why you're asking for it. So Mr. Klucik and I are agreeing just because you like it and it might be better doesn't make it legal. It has to be necessary. There has to be a safety concern related to -- a safety concern related to the request. Now, I know Ms. Ashton and I don't agree, and we can battle that out in court if we need to. But let me give an example that most of you are probably familiar with. I know Mr. Bosi's familiar with it. I know Mr. Schmitt is. There was a point in time, a period in time when PUDs were coming through asking for what was consistent with the Growth Management Plan, yet in order to get that fourth vote on the Planning Commission we had to agree to make an affordable housing payment. We had to make an affordable housing payment to get that vote. Now, my clients decided, you know what, it's cheaper to do that than to litigate, but later on it was ultimately determined that there was no nexus between the project and the requirement to provide affordable housing. There have been no studies done to substantiate the request, and that was a voluntary give. We're not voluntarily giving. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: May I respond? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I'd like -- I wasn't done, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. On the same subject, why don't you go ahead, and then, Ms. Ashton, we'll get back to you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So then my question is is the -- you know, is the practical concern that the usage and the traffic at the airport is going to change or, you know, it might change and that this -- you know, as the usage stands right now, maybe your client wouldn't necessarily be worried about this imposition, but because there could be a change in how the airport is utilized and the type of traffic and the amount of traffic, that that's -- that's really where the concern lies because it's -- there's no limit on the imposition? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And I can't -- I'm not in the habit as an attorney of telling my client to sign something that I can't tell them what their risk is. It says on Page 53 of -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. Without any restriction, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have to -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Without any restriction on the airport authority, they can interpret this and impose and take whatever they want. MR. YOVANOVICH: They can do as much as -- whatever they want to do that amounts to a taking, in their document, and I have to consent to it. Now, Page 53 is -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So as a practical matter -- and I'm sorry to interrupt -- but they could then change a traffic pattern so that it wouldn't be safe to live there? MR. YOVANOVICH: They can do whatever they want. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. But, I mean, that -- I realize it wouldn't -- it's very unlikely to happen, but if they wanted to, they could have planes coming in so close there to those homes that it actually wouldn't be habitable and it would be like, well, too bad, you signed this thing, and now we're taking what everyone agreed was a possibility of ours to take and that -- and I think when you frame -- I realize that's a ridiculous framing of it because they would have to reorient, you know, the runways and everything, probably, for that to happen; nevertheless, why should -- you know, what is the rational basis to say that there's no limit to what the airport authority could do? That's kind of my starting point, and I don't -- I haven't heard from the airport authority, but that's my question. What's the -- what is the rational basis to have that broad and that, you know, limitless easement? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And, again, you know, I'm not in the habit as an attorney to advise my clients to give someone property rights when there's no rational basis, there's no nexus between the request. And now we have to assume the risk whether -- we shouldn't have to assume any risk. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Would you agree that there might be some form of easement that would -- that would be reasonable? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, ironically, we had agreed to give them the same easement that was given by Anjo Development, Inc., which was you can have an easement over the airspace 150 feet in the air to fly over the property 150 feet in the air. They didn't want that. They wanted the rest of this stuff. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we have been willing to give them an easement over the property to fly over the property at a certain height level which, if you read their easement is -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Which is reasonable because you realize you're right next to the airport. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which is consistent with their request; they didn't want us to let trees grow higher than 150 feet. So we were willing to do that, but they want to go further. And I -- I can't -- I can't, in good conscience, and my client isn't going to do it just because it may be expedient and maybe there isn't a risk. They would assume the risk. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And one more question. Can you -- like what -- I realize I'm asking you to guess, you know. But, like, can you -- like, what is the basis for making the broad request? You know, like, what is the reason that they would want -- you know, if you're trying to come up with a reason, what would be a reason the airport authority would insist, no, no, we need this? CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I may, Commissioner, you can certainly ask that question and obtain an answer, but suffice it to say that the airport authority will be testifying -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- extensively. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. I'm just trying to figure out if you have any reason to think -- like, what do you -- to me that implies that there's something later on that they think they need that for. Is that what your concern is? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. And what I don't know -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I don't want to force you to guess. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want to guess, and I don't -- I think, candidly, the real issue was set forth in their letter, and their letter was, we're concerned about more residents being close to the airport and complaining about the location of the airport, because right now they're under attack. They are -- there are people complaining about that airport, and they want it moved. I get it. We will do our part. We will put notice all over this property that we are with -- in close proximity to the airport. I personally -- if I were a judge sitting up there and someone bought a house here and said, I'm going to complain about the noise, I'm going to laugh at them, and I'd say, go away. Now, they're under political attack by, I think, the City of Naples City Council. So I understand; I understand their concern. We will address their concern by providing notice to everybody who buys a piece of property or buys one of the parcels in this piece of property. That's the concern that was expressed in their letter. They didn't express the need to -- we have to agree to allow noise, vibrations, odors, fumes, vapors, air -- illumination, fuel particles, smoke, dust, and other particular matter. I don't know what any of that means. They didn't say they needed that for purposes of operation of the airport. I don't know why they need that, and it's unlimited, and we're just not going to agree to it. We're just not going to agree to it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. MR. YOVANOVICH: We are willing, like I said -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Weren't we going to hear from counsel again, or did you -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry, yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I want to hear what she has to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: My bad. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's just back to the illegal exaction. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm sorry. I didn't -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm referring to the illegal exaction again where he said -- he was talking about the history of the PUDs, and PUDs have evolved over time where the development standards of the straight zoning districts have been whittled down and reduced. So the law can't possibly mean that they get one great deviation from our code, and we can't get anything in return. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to -- I don't know how long you-all have been around. I tried -- I've tried twice to do straight zoning, a rezone to straight zoning, and the Planning Commission, the former chairman, and many members on that Planning Commission didn't like a straight rezone request because you didn't get to see the master plan. You had no input on the buffers. You had no input on lot sizes. You had to live with straight zoning. So I have historically told my client, do a PUD because then everybody gets to see your master plan and determine whether or not there's adequate buffers, adequate height restrictions, all those other issues so the county has a say in how the project looks. That's my historical application of the processes available. So the county gets a lot through the PUD process. They get certainty on the master plan. They have input on the buffers and other aspects of the development. That's what you get. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I've got two commissioners who want to be heard, starting with Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'd just like to back up and understand, why are you here? What do you need from us? I don't fully -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I want a straight -- I want the PUD approved for 15 units an acre. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What could you do without coming here? What could you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm zoned agricultural. Two lots. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You're zoned -- so one to five. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I've got two lots, so I have to come through, because the Growth Management Plan, as you know, ag at that point was all of the county. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. I wanted to make sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This will be to the airport authority as well. But could you go to the other map you just had up. Just so the public's aware, show where the terminal building is. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe that's it right there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's about right there, yeah. Do you know of any of these concerns for the public safety? If I go over there to rent a car, am I warned of any type of -- I'm exposed to fumes, exhaust, potential for some kind of damage or otherwise? Do I -- is there -- are there any kind of signs posted that warn me -- I'm not going there to fly, but I'm going to go rent a car. Is there any type of restrictions imposed upon me? Do you know of any restrictions that are imposed upon the businesses that are working in the terminal? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm the wrong person to ask. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. I'll ask the airport authority. That's another question. Thank you. MR. BOSI: Vice Chair or Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. BOSI: Chair, I just wanted to respond to -- I did recall, there has been imposition. It was -- the mini-triangle, if you remember, has restrictions related to the Naples Airport as well. It doesn't go as far as what they're suggesting today. It's more in line with the Meridian Village restrictions in terms of what's imposed within that individual PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But that was within the flight path? MR. BOSI: Much closer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we are -- whoops, wrong way. No, I'm going the right way. I'm going the wrong way. We are asking -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you go back, though. Explain the map you have up, the various boundary lines around the approach zones. Those are the approach limitations. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, I'm -- I believe this is the flight path. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, yes. It's the flight path, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And these are the noise contours. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Noise, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: You can see where -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know what they are. I just want the public to know what they're viewing. MR. YOVANOVICH: And so like I said, we're here to help the airport authority by providing the proper notices. We're asking for a revision to the language that's -- I think it's -- ii was the original request -- or iii, sorry. We just want to say, "The owner shall record a restrictive covenant incorporating the following disclosure," and that's their disclosure. We haven't modified their disclosure. And I've already kind of gone through this. The purpose of this was to show you that clearly the property is outside of both the flight path and the contour zones that might somehow give them some authority to request or require the avigation easement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So just, in summary, do you concur with any of the stipulations that would demand that you inform potential buyers of the noise and the proximity of the airport -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And also -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- however that language may be crafted? MR. YOVANOVICH: And the height. They wanted us to limit the height, which we're fine with. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the height. That's understandable. That's an FAA restriction, and certain requirements around the airport, that's certainly understandable, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's simply the avigation easement we are not willing to provide. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: With that, I will have Josie take you through the petition, unless -- unless you're comfortable with understanding the petition and want us to stop. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one is signaling at this point. Do we -- yes, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. My rule, you guys know, I think you've heard me say this, I hate to give any opinion or thought process before I've heard all the evidence, but there's an exception to every rule. So I want to say that from what I've seen so far -- I'm going to rely on counsel. I'm going to say I don't think it's an exaction, because that's what my general counsel's telling me; however, I don't think that's the end of the inquiry. It seems to me what Mr. Yovanovich is saying pretty clearly is they're asking me to agree to something I don't even know what the ramifications are, I don't think I have to give it, and I'm certainly not going to -- pig in a poke thing. I don't know what I'm getting here. So I'm -- it appears -- I haven't flown right seat in 15 years, but it seems like the approach is going to go right over it, and the airport's going to get what they need, depending on which runway they use. I don't understand why they're asking for this either. So I think a lot of my questions, I think a lot of Commissioner Schmitt's questions and Commissioner Klucik's questions are to the airport, really. So I'm -- you know, either -- I'm fine either way on the rest of the petition. But I think I'd really like to hear from the airport at some point. Well, obviously I'm going to, but that's where all our questions seem to be focused. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. Have any of these particular items that they are requesting been imposed upon any of the other residential areas, for example, on North Road? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not aware of that. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Maybe that's a question for the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- authority, for the airport authority. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: For staff, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to call on Commissioner Vernon, but before doing it, I want the Planning Commission to consider maybe we expedite this and allow more latitude on rebuttal, if that seems to be appropriate, so that we can get to the airport authority and get some of these questions answered. Is that... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'm in agreement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Just following up on Commissioner Sparrazza, it appears -- and, again, it's a question for the airport, not for you, really, but we've been given this map, and as I understand it, they're asserting that everything in red -- and there's five areas in red or maybe seven -- five to seven or five to eight areas in red where there is an avigation easement. Maybe you can answer for me -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I see what you're looking at? They didn't give it to me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, these are not all avigation easements. There are easements -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I think the red -- the red is the avigation easement. COMMISSIONER VERNON: The red is the avigation easement, and I count -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I can tell you, I can't find anything in the Beach House ALF that says -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I believe you, Joe, but I'm saying this map is saying there's five to eight -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's something staff has to tell me. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have no idea what you're looking at, Mr. -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I assume this came from the airport. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me. I'm going to ask everyone -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I'll ask them. I don't think -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I may, Commissioner. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd like to see it. If they're going to provide evidence -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just a moment, Mr. Yovanovich. The per-meeting reminder, at least once, we've got to not walk all over each other when we're speaking. The court reporter can only do one at a time. Thank you. Now, let's see. Commissioner Vernon, did you have more? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes, sir. Sorry, Terri. Okay. He's looking at it now. What I understand this map to say is there's -- depending on how you look at it, it looks like there's five to -- five big avigation easements, three little avigation easements on this map, if you look at all the red. If I look at the legend, it says in red -- I'm a little colorblind, so I could be wrong, but I think it's saying those are avigation easements. So the question to you, which you may not know, is the avigation easements that they do already have in these red areas, are they to the extent they're asking from you, or are they a lesser avigation easement? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know the answer to all that. I think some are lesser. And I think for purposes of the discussion, it's irrelevant. The question becomes -- just because someone else agreed to it because it might have been convenient for them to do it doesn't mean my client should just simply capitulate so we don't have to -- we don't have to litigate whether it was appropriate to impose this easement on us. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I understand. It is just to let the airport -- if you can't answer it -- and I don't expect you to answer it. But it is relevant to me because I want to know. So, I mean, I understand what you're saying, but I am curious about it. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I would say, locationally, it is very different. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I understand that, too, but that's not my question. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And it's fine if you -- I don't expect you to know the answer. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. I don't know. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But I am asking you if you happen to know the answer. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I don't. I do know that some of the examples that they provided to us, for instance, like I told you, the one that's Anjo Development, Inc -- I don't know which one that is. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's the one on North Road. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which one? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's the one on North Road right almost next to the property. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I'm pointing -- I can't point, can I? No, no. I got it. I got it. I just can't -- I guess what I'm saying, it's this one. COMMISSIONER VERNON: On the south side? MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll sign that today, sign that same -- very same form. That's the one I told you we were fine signing it. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's a lesser avigation easement? MR. YOVANOVICH: It gives them what we told them. We'll give them an easement from 150 feet and above. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Is that still -- on this one on the North Road just on the south end, that is still considered avigation easement? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's an easement giving them the right to fly over the property. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But is the term "avigation" -- is it called an avigation -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that is the correct -- that is the correct terminology. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So with that, again, we can go through the entire petition, or if you want to jump to the airport authority, unless you have questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I ask the dumb questions, but what does the Growth Management Plan call for on this property? MR. BOSI: It is -- what does the Growth Management Plan? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. MR. BOSI: Urban residential. I mean, it's -- it is four units per acre. MR. YOVANOVICH: Three. We're in the coastal high hazard. MR. BOSI: Oh, it's in the coastal high hazard area, I'm sorry. Three units per acre they would be eligible. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So they're consistent with what the long-range plan is for the area for the county? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So we'll -- Mr. Yovanovich, if it's all right with you, when we call you back for rebuttal, you won't be limited to matters that have been raised. MR. YOVANOVICH: Understood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can continue with your case in chief. But I think it would be useful to all of us to turn now to the county for its recommendation and, certainly, Mr. Bosi, if you're going to have the executive director from the airport authority up here to testify, that's fine. If you're not going to ask them, we are. So your call. MR. BOSI: And that would be the role of the Planning Commission. I mean, they are a party -- they are an adjacent governmental affiliated agency not under the control of the Board of County Commissioners. We included their restrictions as a courtesy, but by no means was this something that we spent a tremendous amount of time discussing with the airport authority. From a planning standpoint, this project is consistent with the GMP. We find no issues with compatibility. We think there's capacity within the system. There's no issues from a planning standpoint. So with that, that would complete our staff report. And in terms of what the impositions -- we will defer to the Planning Commission in terms of what we -- what the -- in terms of how far the request from the Naples Airport should be imposed upon the petitioner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. And before we -- before we ask the airport authority representative to come up, I've got three commissioners who want to be heard. Fine, but remember that we're going to have the person who has, perhaps, most, if not all, of the answers coming up momentarily. With that, the first commissioner signaling is Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Mr. Bosi, I guess I would ask for the sequence -- or the genesis of the sticking point. So petitioner submitted their petition, and because it's in this approximate area of the airport, you approach the airport authority. Hey, we've got this petition. What do you think? Any concerns? You know, is there anything that you would like us to add to -- you know, from the perspective of the county before we make our recommendation? You know, is that the genesis of why this has been the recommendation? MR. BOSI: Yes. We reach out when we have a project in close proximity to the airport, provide them a review, and -- to be able to incorporate any conditions they feel appropriate. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so is it -- your staff recommendation, then, is that we -- that we have to -- you know, that we impose this? MR. BOSI: No, it's not staff's recommendation to impose it. It's staff's recommendation that you evaluate the appropriateness of these conditions being suggested by the Naples Airport Authority. You're under no obligation. You're under no -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. I'm just saying, like, in your professional judgment as a staff, do you think we should include that, or are you -- MR. BOSI: I think there should be some restrictions related to notification, and I would also agree that, you know, the allowance -- the recognition that there is a limitation in terms of, you know, trees being able to grow past 150. There's a limitation on heights and such. The specifics of how far they reach into -- with their -- the -- it's not something that staff has necessarily endorsed. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I know the Chairman's right, and I should be asking the airport, but we asked Rich. What is your -- if you have any thought process on why the airport wants this -- I probably shouldn't use this term, but I'll say, sort of, this avigation easement on steroids. Why do you think they want it to the extent they're requesting it? MR. BOSI: Oh, I think the applicant most certainly identified it. They're under political pressure from individuals who live in close proximity to relocate the airport, so I think out of an abundance of caution they're looking for additional protections to be able to impose upon future residents surrounding the airport. And I will let you know, the mini-triangle PUD, which was approved in 2022, so not that -- does have the airport authority provision within it, and it says, the developer shall record a restrictive covenant use in the Naples Airport Authority agreement -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mike. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mike, yeah. MR. BOSI: -- in declaration of height restrictions and covenants in the form approved by the Naples Airport Authority and the public records of Collier County. And it says, one, the maximum height of any building or structure shall not exceed 160 feet. The restrictive covenants shall be recorded at the time of conveying the title of the property from the county to the developer and prior to any mortgage or encumbrance. The developer shall provide any declaration to condominium sales contract, leases, similar instruments encumbering, selling, or transferring interest in the project. The following disclosure -- Naples Airport. The Naples Municipal Airport is located less than one mile from the condominium property in close proximity. Purchaser can expect the usual common noises and disturbance created by the operation of an airport. And there's two other provisions. It says, developer shall comply with all stipulations of each FAA determination, no hazard to air aviation issued on January 20th of 2017 or may be extended, reissued, or subsequently issued. And the final condition was, any crane used for construction and/or maintenance shall first receive an FAA determination of no hazard to air avigation [sic], and the applicant shall adhere to any stipulations contained within any FAA determination of no hazard. And that was what was imposed in a PUD related to the Naples Airport concern for the project. That was the limitations of it. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That was in 2022? MR. BOSI: 2022. COMMISSIONER VERNON: The triangle? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else, sir? COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mike, this map came from where? MR. BOSI: The Naples Airport Authority asked me -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did staff evaluate the validity of this in any way from the standpoint -- MR. BOSI: No. Staff simply put it on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The avigation easements that they cite here, did staff compare the differences between them? MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: When you received information from the airport authority in regards to what they wanted to impose on this project, was there any evaluation of these stipulations versus previous approvals? MR. BOSI: And that was a misstep on staff's part is we did not go back and look at the limitations being requested today compared to what was composed in 2010 or 2022, because I -- from our understanding now, that there is more restrictions being requested. But without direct dialogue with the airport authority, we did not go back and do a compare-and-contrast against it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll ask the petitioner, did you receive a copy of this prior to today's meeting? MR. YOVANOVICH: The first time I saw this was when I looked up here on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you were not privy to any of this information in regards to what the airport authority, at least -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The only thing I've reviewed is -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- states that these facts are, in fact, factual? MR. YOVANOVICH: The only information I received from the airport authority were the sample easements they had provided from other properties. And as I said early on, just because someone else was willing to give away certain rights doesn't mean my client should. We did agree with the one sample I told you we would agree to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm assuming they provided that as, you know, okay, you can have that one if you want it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One of our annoyances in the past -- and we've always stated this -- is we just don't like things dumped on us the morning of the meeting, and to come in here and see this -- I don't know where it came from. Now I find out it's the airport authority that actually provided this. Was this -- when was this provided to staff? MR. BOSI: Ten -- like 8:53, 8:50. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: This morning? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Since, Rich, you're back up there, just a quick question. Are you familiar with the 2022 triangle avigation easement that Mike just read? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Vernon, I have to go back. I read some, and some have similar language. I'm not going to say they don't, but that doesn't -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, there are some that have some similar language. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But just the question -- and I know you haven't fully read it. Does that sound like something your applicant would agree with? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, absolutely not. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because remember, the thing was -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: Some of the terms, yes -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I gotcha. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- but the requirement that I sign an avigation easement that makes them happy, no. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But just that whole thing, you're saying no, the 2022 triangle one? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. No, we would do the height. We would agree to the height that was in there. Things like that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And the trees and -- yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But not the full extent of what they did at the '22 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Gotcha. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, just for the record, again, I'm very familiar with the Beach Club, when that came in. The other one I recall -- and it's a building now owned by the Clerk of Courts over there on Estey -- oh, no, correction, over in the industrial area. It was in the approach zone. That's the one where it was once built -- it was an electrical contractor building the building, and they came in because they wanted to put a helicopter pad on top of the building. That building was built with the helicopter pad. There were several restrictions in regards to that. Of course, that -- I think that company ended up going bankrupt, and that building is now owned by the Clerk. But that building was the last one I recall that came in in regards to restrictions for aviation, but that had to do with the approach zone and notice to the tower and all the other kind of things that were associated with attempting to land a helicopter on the roof of this -- the building. And, in fact, it was built. So staff has not gone back and looked at any of these similar instances? MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. With that, I'm going to ask the representative of the airport authority to approach the podium. MR. ROZANSKY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, sir. MR. ROZANSKY: Chris Rozansky, executive director for the Naples Airport Authority. Thanks for hearing us today. There's been a lot that's been said this morning. I can't speak back to all of it, but hopefully I can clarify some things. I'd like to separate the two issues. The first issue, of course, is our objection to the project. And I think it's, perhaps, common sense that realize that annoyance and disturbance from aircraft overflight isn't limited to noise contours. Actually, some of the challenges we've been working -- working with trying to mitigate noise impacts to the extent possible, some of the loudest voices are from the neighborhoods closest to the airport but are off to the side of the runway, including the neighborhood directly behind the proposed -- the petitioner's proposed development, including by individuals who, full knowledge, bought their homes next to the airport and built a new home. I'm speaking of the Brookside neighborhood in this instance. They even said in one of our public board meetings that, we would enjoy the airport. We would set up our lawn chairs, while the home was under construction, and watch the aircraft. But that tone and perception quickly changed once they completed their project, a beautiful home, luxury home, similar to what's been proposed here. The underlying objection to the project in the first place is the nature of what will be truly beautiful luxury homes. The premise that people acknowledge that they're -- they should know that they're buying next to an airport isn't always the case anymore. A lot of folks buy homes online sight unseen, and it truly is astounding to us how many folks, perhaps, bought in July or August or the realtor undersold the activity at the airport, which last year had more than 100,000 takeoffs and landings and served about 200,000 passengers by our own estimates. We don't keep exact passenger numbers, but that is a very conservative estimate. So you can see there's a very legitimate public purpose to what we've requested. Now, realizing the airport authority doesn't have land-use authority, we look towards the request for the developer commitments in the avigation easement. I don't -- I am not certain, because we have been in discussions with the petitioner and multiple attorneys representing the petitioner for more than a year now, I would have to look back to whether we've provided this exact exhibit before. But what I can tell you is that we did provide the text, the actual avigation easements represented by -- and I don't have a pointer but, essentially, everything on -- almost everything -- four of the five highlighted red and blue subject properties south of the airport. So that's the Meridian Village on Airport Road, the condominium development immediately across from the airport, the mini-triangle, and the hotel where the Hyatt House sits today. Those recorded documents are in our letter of July 13th which are included in your packet that the petitioner and their multiple attorneys have certainly seen over the course of our discussions since the project was first proposed. So I'd like to further separate two issues, two further issues within the avigation easement. I, of course, am not a land-use attorney. We have our general counsel here, who has been engaged in discussion with the petitioner's attorney. CHAIRMAN FRYER: He's here today? MR. ROZANSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, good. Thank you. Go ahead. MR. ROZANSKY: We first -- there was prior counsel that we were working with for, I would say, not quite a year. Initially, we were working with the petitioner himself, the owner himself, and then he engaged counsel, and we had a dialogue back and forth and discussion over some language in the proposed easement. I believe it was only within the last two or three weeks that Mr. Yovanovich was engaged, and our attorney had their first conversation. At that time, they -- well -- and I don't want to speak exactly. There's been so much dialogue. Throughout the course of the petition, they have generally objected to providing disclosure, saying that they would put it in HOA documents. That has been their position up until what we've seen here today. We believe there is a past practice and a legitimate public purpose behind what's being asked for today; however -- in an avigation easement; however, our counsel provided a Word copy of the proposed language in the avigation easement and has not received anything in return since that -- they first spoke two or three weeks ago. So raising an objection to a disclosure or easement altogether versus negotiating the exact language of the easement itself is something -- are two different issues, and we're perfectly happy to further engage in that dialogue with the petitioner and their counsel. But I can assure you, because I deal with this personally almost every day, that should this project move forward with no stipulations, no developer commitments for disclosure or rights of overflight and noise and disturbance, the project will be built, no doubt it will be beautiful, and people who are looking to buy there will overlook, in the lure of Naples, the lure of Southwest Florida, and their project, and the emotions that come along with buying a beautiful slice of paradise, they no doubt will turn to the airport authority, the county, almost immediately -- not in every case, not in every case, but in some cases, and either insist, as the example I mentioned earlier, to either close or move the airport. And so that, fundamentally, is why we're here today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I've got a couple of commissioners who want to ask questions or make comments, Mr. Rozansky. First is the Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Rozinsky, is it? MR. ROZANSKY: Rozansky, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Rozansky, thank you. How long has the airport been in business? Or when was the airport built? MR. ROZANSKY: Since about 1943 is -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I believe, yeah, '42, '43. Wasn't it a training -- originally a training site? MR. ROZANSKY: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the building -- the airport's been there since '43. Naples grew around it. MR. ROZANSKY: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you believe -- what I heard you say -- and I'm going to put it in laymen's terms. You believe that -- I assume what you just said is you object because you think people are going to buy this property and not understand that they're buying near the airport, and then that way you're trying to -- you're trying to not be the recipient of their complaints. Because you don't like people complaining; therefore, you are objecting to this project being built near the airport. MR. ROZANSKY: Well, not exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, that's what I heard you say. MR. ROZANSKY: That's not exactly correct. We deal with it almost every day, and we try to mitigate noise impacts to the extent possible. Yes, aircraft make noise, and we know it can be disturbing to people. It's not enough for us to say, well, the airport was there first. There's -- there is a quality-of-life factor that people who object commonly bring up. We believe that because people buy homes online, they don't even look at the neighborhood around. Even people who live on North Road have been actively engaged in opposition to the airport, even -- not the petitioner, but other people, prior ownership of the RV resort down the street and folks that live in the neighborhood around the corner, Avion Park, have been actively engaged in opposition to the airport despite driving by the front entrance to it on their way to and from their homes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So -- and, again, I'll restate exactly, in my words, you don't like people complaining; therefore, you're voting against this, or you recommended disapproval? MR. ROZANSKY: Not that we don't like people complaining. There's only so much we can do to protect the quality of life of people who choose to live near the airport. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I'm going to use the words that Mr. Yovanovich said. If I were a judge sitting and listening to the complaint, I would say, there's the door. Didn't you know the airport was there when you bought the home? And if you didn't, that's your problem. I don't understand what's your justification -- and I -- the petitioner agreed to all the other restrictions that you imposed except for this, I call it, onerous, pretty much giving up all their rights, what was that, Petition I, 3I, I believe it was. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: 3IC. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 3C. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 3C. So are you stating here today you would agree or move forward in regards to this petition if they were to agree to everything except that one element that they disagree with? MR. ROZANSKY: The easement itself, the two core issues are overflight -- well, three issues: Overflight, the height restriction, and disturbance from noise that comes along with it. Those are the three core issues. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I go to the terminal and I rent a car, am I warned of any type of noise or any type of problem that -- or are -- the businesses that operate out of the terminal, are they under those type of restrictions as well? MR. ROZANSKY: So commercial or industrial land uses are generally compatible with airport operations, and you wouldn't look at those considerations in the same way. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is this -- is this property in the noise restricted area of the property or the -- MR. ROZANSKY: No, no. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not? MR. ROZANSKY: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So how can you stand there and tell me that you want to impose these restrictions when, in fact, it's not in the noise restriction area? MR. ROZANSKY: Almost none of the highlighted avigation easements on that screen are in a noise contour. So there is an established precedent for -- for this request. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And what precedence is that? MR. ROZANSKY: It's on that screen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But none of the other -- how many other petitions contain the same language -- avigation easements contain the same language that you're asking this petitioner to agree to? MR. ROZANSKY: I can't answer that here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then why did I get this document? Did you do an evaluation of the various easements? MR. ROZANSKY: Yes, we have all of them. I can't recall them from memory. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And how -- MR. ROZANSKY: They're all in the letter we provided. Now, the petitioner's attorneys request that they would happily sign a document from the 1980s, that -- a one-page document from the 1980s that was missing some key information such as disclosure to potential buyers. Yes, it would be recorded, but a disclosure in a sales contract is something that's generally in all of these agreements that have been agreed upon over the years. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you explain, who do you report to? MR. ROZANSKY: The airport authority board of commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it's -- they are under -- they are a separate governmental entity, or are they part of the City of Naples? MR. ROZANSKY: No. They're appointed by the Naples City Council; however, it's a separate government entity. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So your concern is -- what I'm hearing you state today, your concern is that you've got too many people complaining about the airport, and they want it moved. What's the reality of that happening? MR. ROZANSKY: Well, coincidentally, we're going to begin a study on the feasibility of developing a new airport in Collier County. We're going to spend, perhaps, half a million dollars, starting next month, to look at, over the next six months of study, working with Collier County on this endeavor because, clearly, there's nowhere in the city where you could do something like that. What the feasibility of it is, the reality of it is, I don't know. The study will determine that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So, in summation, you've recommended disapproval simply because of the proximity, but there's no other justification that I heard you say other than you believe these people will complain about noise, you believe that they're going to buy this property because they don't realize they're buying a piece of property near the airport, even though it's right across the street from the main entrance, and that you don't want to hear people complain in the future who move into this property. That's pretty much what I heard you say. MR. ROZANSKY: I object to your summary, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Please explain, then. MR. ROZANSKY: It's not that we don't want to hear from people. We know there's going to be complaints. Luxury homes in particular are going to -- like the one that I recently referenced, and others, are particularly going to -- because those folks -- they do buy sight unseen. We see it all the time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What difference does that make -- I hate to use that statement, but -- if it's a trailer or a luxury home, I don't understand the basis of your argument. MR. ROZANSKY: Let's separate the argument. We object to the project. It's not within our purview to approve or deny it, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Please justify, then, your objection. MR. ROZANSKY: Let's move -- there's not much more I can say other than what we've -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Other than you don't like it and you're afraid that people are going to complain? MR. ROZANSKY: I don't agree with that interpretation, but I will -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, that's what you just said. MR. ROZANSKY: -- respect your right to have it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. You know my position on this, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. So you mentioned there's a public purpose, so I wanted to kind of explore that. What is the public purpose for -- and, you know -- and I realize you probably have already somewhat stated it, but I'll -- you know, I want to phrase it, you know, in a particular way. What is the public purpose for insisting on the particular extent of the avigation easement that you're insisting on? MR. ROZANSKY: Well -- and let me help rephrase that question. The public purpose behind an avigation easement subject to language that is agreeable. We've provided this documentation. We've not -- we've not received proposal back from the petitioner's attorney. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no, you're not answering the question. MR. ROZANSKY: And I will answer that, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Yeah. Please don't do a preamble. I do preambles, but you don't get to. MR. ROZANSKY: The public purpose is to protect an asset used by the broader community for the economic and the public service benefit that it provides. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Okay. So there's definitely a legitimate interest that the airport authority has about what's going on around it. That makes sense. Right now it's somewhat generic or general that you've come up with. So what is the -- these particular restrictions that the petitioner is objecting to, what is the nexus of those particular restrictions to the public purpose that you have? Because what we've got is, you know -- and I guess, you know, a side question is, are you -- are you saying that you would agree to something less but you just haven't had a chance to negotiate that? MR. ROZANSKY: We would agree to some narrow -- more narrowly tailored compromise language, yes, that perhaps is -- I'm not sure we could be agreeable to the language from -- if I'm recalling it correctly, the Anjo Development, which is the condominiums on North Road, but more analogous to what was included in the Meridian Village, which is a bit more recent. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So, I mean, are we -- are we sort of -- I don't want to say we're wasting our time, but would our time be better spent to allow them -- it sounds like they haven't communicated directly about hashing this out. I mean, is that something that seems possible that you guys could talk for half an hour, and then we could come back and -- MR. ROZANSKY: We'd be happy to do that. As I mentioned, the petitioner's new counsel was only engaged a couple of weeks ago. And we had discussions with prior counsel, but not Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I do have just a follow-up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's hear what Mr. Yovanovich says. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me start with, I have had conversations with their attorney. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's hard to hear you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me start with I have had conversations with their attorney, and I raised the same objections that the prior counsel raised. And I read the letter. They said, no, they're not going to make the change. Yes, I asked for the Word document. I quickly realized that there was no way I could modify that document in a way that would be acceptable to us and acceptable to them. So I am willing to make a proposal, if it's appropriate now, and then maybe we could talk about it in the hallway; otherwise, it's a waste of time to send us out in the hallway. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's hear it. MR. YOVANOVICH: And my proposal is, we'll sign the Anjo easement, and we will add the notice disclosures they have asked us to that we said we'll put on the property as well as the height. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I just interrupt there? So when -- I think -- I'm sorry. Rozan -- MR. ROZANSKY: Rozansky. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Rozansky. Mr. Rozansky, I think he makes a point; I've made it before. I tend to get frustrated by the official recorded, you know, documents that nobody reads, even though that, you know, they might want to read, that that doesn't -- as a practical matter -- as a legal matter, it's notice. As a practical matter, it's very odd to think anyone would ever see those things if there's something in there that's kind of frightening. That is a good place to hide it because no one's going to read it. So are you talking about something beyond just the legal notice that gets recorded? Are you talking about actually making sure that a potential buyer gets this information before they're at the closing table? MR. YOVANOVICH: Look, I'm perfectly willing to impose a requirement on my client that in his sales contracts he will let them know, but I'm not going to commit to any future buyer as to what they may or may not do. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, right. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want that responsibility. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no, no, and I think that's great -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- because I think that's -- in the contract is where it's a meaningful notice that a consumer -- I mean, a sophisticated consumer isn't -- you know, I agree with, you know, a lot of what you've said. People are not -- they're acting kind of rashly because they're excited, and that is often what happens in home buying, and then some people go the opposite way, and they scrutinize everything, and you never know what you're going to get. But the problem, then, is presented to the airport authority. They have to deal with whoever it is in whichever approach they take. So, I'm sorry. I interrupted you. You're talking about a notice beyond just a legal notice. You're talking about something that seems meaningful. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're happy to put a notice in the contracts from us to the first buyers -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that -- the same notice that we'll record on the property. So they'll get a double notice that they live close to an airport. Happy to do that. Now, we can add that also to their -- one of the samples they gave me, which was the Anjo Development easement, which I assumed was an acceptable easement. We're happy to add to that -- because it talks about flying over. We're happy to add what he just said, height and notice to that easement. We are not willing to give them carte blanche and adding all that other stuff that is in that avigation easement. I appreciate the predicament that they're in because people are complaining about the airport, but if -- what should have happened is the airport authority should have bought up all the property around there to protect themselves, and they didn't, but now they want to protect it by saying don't approve the project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. At this point, Mr. Rozansky -- and we're coming close to breaktime. I'm not asking you to agree or disagree right now, but do you think it would be fruitful if we had a lengthy -- more lengthy breaktime, say 15 or 20 minutes, would that be a good use of our time? MR. ROZANSKY: I believe so. I think we could find compromise. It would be, perhaps, slightly more than what Mr. Yovanovich has proposed, because he mentioned two items. We mentioned a third, which is overflight and the disturbances that come along with that. But we have language that's been used in the past that summarizes that very succinctly, and we're very openminded to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So it would be useful for us to, when we take our break, to take a 20-minute break so that you can sound this out and see if there's a possibility it can be disposed of amicably and -- MR. ROZANSKY: We'd be glad to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- informally? Okay, good. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I think it might be helpful to us, if you do come up with something, even if there's a little bit -- you know, there still might be some disagreement -- if you could have it so you could at least put it up on the screen for us, even if you can't give us a copy of the written, you know, the -- this additional language, I guess. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. You want bullet points, okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. I'd like to see what it is that -- you know, visibly what the sticking points might be or what you've agreed to, either way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I'm going to call on the two commissioners who are signaling at this point. I have some questions I'd like to ask the general counsel. I'm not sure whether it would be useful for me to do it before we take a break or after, but we'll confront that decision in a moment. First, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I think -- I think my view is different than Commissioner Schmitt's on this. You know, I've watched the airport. I haven't flown in 15 years, but I do have a pilot's license. I've been to the airport many times. You guys do a phenomenal job. And you're under extraordinary pressure. And to say -- and I understand Mr. Yovanovich said that. But to say you can just go before the judge and the judge will say, go away, neighbors, your half million dollars to figure out a new airport could very easily be spent on litigation defense getting the judge to say that very easily in today's world. And, you're right, we're dealing with a lot of very wealthy people who move to the nuisance and then complain about it, so I understand that this -- this is a big problem. So I'm very sympathetic. You guys provide a great service. And I don't think -- and I'm relying on counsel. I don't think it's an exaction, so I think we have the power to do something about this in terms of addressing your concerns. My problem is, I'm not -- I'm not sure -- I think I'm kind of -- if I'm hearing you, you're talking about flyovers, you're talking about height restrictions of trees and structures, and you're talking about noise. If I think I understand Mr. Yovanovich, the applicant, I think they're okay with the flyovers. I think they're okay with the height restriction. They're not willing to do the noise, is the component that I'm -- MR. YOVANOVICH: (Shakes head.) COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Wait a minute. Wait. You don't need to get up. That's okay. That's okay, because I don't have to fully understand. I just want you guys to know my thoughts. So I think we do have the power to do something here. I'm just not sure whether I feel comfortable doing it on behalf of the airport. I love Mr. Klucik -- Commissioner Klucik's idea of you guys going out in the hallway for, I'd say, maybe a half hour, and try to hash these things out. And I think it would be important for the Chairman to ask his questions first, because I think that will give the parties a better understanding of where everybody's head is to the extent the commissioners want to speak before we take a break. So those are my thoughts. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. At this point no one else is signaling. What I'm going to ask you to do -- and we're probably not going to get complete with this by 10:30, which is when we usually take our midmorning break, but I'd like to at least start it. Would the general counsel please join you at the podium, and I'm going to ask you to stay up there, Mr. Rozansky, because I'm going to ask questions that you may be more in possession of the answer than the general counsel. And I guess the first question may be one that Mr. Rozansky has a better understanding of, but whichever one of you wants to respond is fine with me. Just identify yourself before you speak. My question is: On the City of Naples side -- in the interest of full disclosure, I reside in the City of Naples. But on the City of Naples side of the airport, are there -- are there any property owners who are -- who are subjected to an avigation easement? City of Naples people. MR. ROZANSKY: I believe I can answer that. Chris Rozansky with the airport authority. When you look directly off the end of the runway, it's the Hyatt House where the hotel developed nearly 10 years ago now. And the other development on the other side of the road, I can't recall whether those are condominiums or boat storage. And there are -- as you can see, those other developments highlighted in yellow that are required to provide disclosure, that, I believe -- and the legend doesn't show on the screen, but when you look at the legend -- yep, that -- those are required notifications. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. If I may, I take it from your answer that you're not aware of any avigation easements that have been signed onto by property owners in the City of Naples? MR. ROZANSKY: Property owners, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. ROZANSKY: The ones that are highlighted in red are property owners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, but they're not in the City of Naples. One of them, maybe, is on the border. Are they? That may be the city. Okay. All right. All right. So that's that. Now let me turn to -- I think maybe the general counsel's better equipped, but however you want to divide it. Let's say that you've got a property owner in the City of Naples who is complaining that the flyovers are -- they constitute a trespass of some kind on his property, his or her property, and the noise is unacceptable, and that he claims that there is a taking that has happened and wants compensation. In your judgment, as counsel -- and, of course, if this is privileged, you may certainly invoke the privilege, and it won't go any further. But subject to your invocation of privilege, can you advise in your judgment whether that property owner would have a cause of action on any of these points? MR. OWENS: Good morning. My name is Bill Owens. I am counsel for the Naples Airport Authority. I am, first disclosure, not a land-use attorney, but I will tell you, in general, it would be my opinion that having an avigation easement that encumbers a piece of property would most definitely protect the Naples Airport Authority against those types of claims. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that may be so. That's not quite what I asked. I'm trying to determine if you're asking more from folks who are living in the unincorporated county than have been given by the people in the city. And my main concern is, you know, whether the avigation easement gives you immunity or protection that you don't already have by virtue of the fact, let's say, that they moved in knowing full well that there was an airport there. MR. OWENS: To answer that question, I can answer, yes, it is my belief that it does provide the airport authority protection. The best example I can give is if a property owner has people walking across their lawn, say, to access the beach that is on the other side of the property and that property owner, subsequently -- complains about that and can make a claim for trespass. If that property owner subsequently provides a public access easement for ingress and egress to the beach, clearly, that property owner would not have a claim for trespass. I think the same analogous -- you know, could be -- analysis could be to the airport, so that if someone was to try to bring a claim against the airport authority for trespass or a taking because of nuisances from overflying aircraft, then I believe, if there was an avigation easement on that property that allowed those overflights and allowed those noises and disturbances, then the airport would be protected from that claim. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before we move on, I'm going to ask the County Attorney -- and my objective here is to -- and I realize that the airport is having issues with the residents in the City of Naples, particularly certain segments, certain neighborhoods in the city who are complaining about noise, and I also realize, at least in my opinion, that it's a zero sum game. If you take -- if you reduce the noise in one neighborhood, you're probably going to have to be increasing it in another. And so that's a delicate equation that you-all are -- it's also got huge political overtones. And so you're contending with that, and I understand the difficulties in contending with that. I want to be sure that we're not asking more, though, of people in the unincorporated county to protect the City of Naples and the City of Naples taxpayers like me than we're asking for the residents of the City of Naples themselves. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, can I ask you one question before the break -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I want to hear from Ms. Ashton first. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: What question you're asking, whether he's asking for more from the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, mindful of the fact that I know very little about the law in this area, we've got -- the issue of trespass has been mentioned, which I assume is flyover, into airspace beneath a certain level; we've got noise, and we all know what airport noise is about. That one I get. And then we've got a taking. I also understand that. The folks in the City of Naples, are they -- will they have an easier time of it complaining to the airport authority since they haven't signed an easement than would the folks in the unincorporated county if they do and are requested to or are required to live under that easement? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think the concern of the Naples Airport is being sued taking some of these air rights -- or air -- you know, area above the homes. I think it's more of a money issue. And their secondary issue, obviously, is that they're going to get more complaints, and it's going to be politically more difficult, but I think there's more than one issue here that they're concerned with. Now, whether or not they've increased what they're requesting from properties around the airport and whether the increase in the request of what restrictions they want to put against the property is greater than it was, you know, in 1989, which is the Anjo easement that they're referring to, which kind of has evolved over time, I think you need to look at what they're requesting and decide whether you think it's reasonable or not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The extent we do have copies of the Anjo easement, as I mentioned, and then Mr. Perry has pulled up the other seven that are recorded. If you would like to see them, we can forward them to you, or we can have them printed out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. So with -- I've got two commissioners who want to be heard. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just wanted to follow up on what you said. Maybe I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking is somehow the city going to be exempt from this restriction. Is that not what you were asking? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, partly. I think -- I don't know that there's been such a level of aggressiveness on the part of the airport to protect itself from lawsuits brought by individual owners in the City of Naples because, as we heard, the airport is an instrumentality of the City of Naples, quasi independent, but, I mean, its membership are appointed by City Council. So I just -- I want there to be fairness here, particularly since, you know, the airport finds itself in a very difficult position not of its making, and that is neighborhood associations within the city flexing their muscle with the City Council to see if they can't alter paths -- landing and takeoff paths to reduce the noise on the west side of the airport and, of course, that's -- they have every right to do that. But, now, we're representing also -- in addition to the people who live in the city, whom we represent, because it's part of the county, we're also -- we've also got our unincorporated people, and I want to be sure that they're not having more onerous undertakings offloaded to them than get offloaded to the people who have a better connection with the City Council and the airport authority because they live in the city. Now, having said all of that, with leave to the Vice Chair who's signaling, it's 10:30, I would like to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: May I ask one question before we go on our break? I think it's important. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I want to make sure I heard Mr. Rozansky correctly. The yellow areas just provide notice; is that correct? MR. ROZANSKY: Yes, disclosure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just disclosure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, that's what I heard, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And that includes, I think, the Bayfront project, the condominium project directly to the north, and to the west of that is a new condominium project that's been developed by Ronto, correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Naples Square, I guess. MR. ROZANSKY: Naples Square. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that was satisfactory to the Naples Airport Authority that they provide a notice? MR. ROZANSKY: No. That's not our initial position, and up until recently, we've not heard that, as a recorded developer condition, that the petitioner would be agreeable to disclosure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Happy to -- MR. ROZANSKY: Contrary to what's been said before, up until Mr. Yovanovich was engaged, that's not -- two, three weeks ago, that's not been the position. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, it sounds like progress of some kind could be made during this break in order to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just one question before the break. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for the record, okay, with this map, all of these are relatively new developments, so -- but from the standpoint, Mr. Yovanovich, you are not disagreeing with -- not negotiating an avigation easement. You just are -- you just are objectable [sic] to some of the language that they proposed. But regards to the other steps that you stated, height, noise, notification, tree height, those type of things, you're in agreement? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not an issue for us. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So with that said, it's 10:35, plus 20, is 55. Let's take a break until 10:55. That's 20 minutes. If you -- if it's productive, come on back in and tell us you need more time, and we'll extend the break, all right? And with that, we're in recess until 10:55. (A brief recess was had from 10:35 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene. I have been informed that the airport authority and the applicant did not need additional time, yet they are still out of the room, which I take it to be a productive sign. We'll stay in session here for a few seconds and see if we can get them back in the room. Would someone please report to us as to the progress, if any, made during the break. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have actually -- you know, we have an agreement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excellent. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, essentially, we need to just -- we'd like to revise the PUD to say something along the lines of that the owner and developer will enter into a mutually acceptable easement. We have an agreement on it but, obviously, we haven't crafted it yet. But the major business points have all been resolved. So instead of talking about a specific easement, we'd just rather -- and you can leave the disclosures language in in the PUD if you want to. It doesn't really matter, because we've agreed it's going to be in the easement. But if you want to just impose a developer commitment that we'll enter into a mutually agreeable easement, that will be fine, because we'll have it done before the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Let's see. Vice Chairman, do you want to be heard? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, if that is resolved, I do have a question on access. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're right across the street from the main entrance. Is transportation -- from the standpoint of that will be a full opening -- of course, it's a two-lane road, so there will be -- it's right across the street from the entrance of the airport. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Has that -- my concern there -- and I'm in favor of -- supporting the airport in this regard. Has that been coordinated with the airport from a traffic safety issue? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think there's a concern about our accessing our project. I think the -- and my last experience at the airport, that's not the busiest part of the airport, but I don't know. MS. MEDINA: Josephine Medina, for the record. There's only one tract that's directly across from the airport. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There's one entrance there? MS. MEDINA: Yeah. And there will be -- yeah, and that's where -- the Tract A where we have the recreational -- private recreational. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're not right across? MS. MEDINA: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wait a minute. That's the main access to the development as well. MS. MEDINA: No, there's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: They're farther down. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. My mistake. MR. YOVANOVICH: We can pull the master plan up so you can see it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, please do. MR. YOVANOVICH: Whoops. I'm not on. If you put us on, you can see. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you have the recreational tract which is directly across. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I see it there. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then you have the main entrance further -- I think that's east. Did I get the right direction? MS. MEDINA: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm bad at that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I ask Mr. Rozansky to come back up? MR. ROZANSKY: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just a housekeeping question, sir. You heard Mr. Yovanovich's testimony and his characterization of an agreement reached. Is that accurate and complete in your judgment? MR. ROZANSKY: Thank you for the question, Chair. Yes, we agree. The airport authority agrees that's a fair assessment, and I think on the high-level points, we're in agreement. Of course, the devil is in the details, but we have confidence, based on the discussion we just had, that that can be resolved amicably before it gets to the BOCC. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Does that then remove, officially, your objection to recommend disapproval? You now are recommending approval of subject to the negotiated settlement? MR. ROZANSKY: I don't have that authority. The board -- our board of commissioners didn't grant me the authority to support the project, but we certainly are in a much better position -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I think -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it's important that somehow you take back -- that back to your board before this comes back to the Board of County Commissioners, because if you go into the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation -- you recommend disapproval, then we're back to this food fight again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me see if I can characterize it. And you may still feel the way you do. But the airport authority is saying we recommend denial, but if you approve, we ask that you include conditions, and the language of the conditions has now been agreed to. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Let me help. I understand his inability to bind his board. I know he's got to go back to the board and say, "These revisions were made. What position are you going to take?" If the board says we're still fighting, I'm going to have the condition in the PUD removed or try to get the condition removed at the Board of County Commissioners' level. I hope it will never come to that, but I still have an out if we do not get -- if the board decides we still want to object. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The Naples Airport Authority board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fine. For our purposes, if we'd be so inclined -- and we haven't had our discussion yet -- but if we were so inclined to approve this with conditions, we could say we approve it with the conditions as informally agreed to by the airport authority and petitioner and to be reduced to writing. Okay. All right. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. And I'm stating the complete obvious, I think, but I just want the Board of County Commissioners to understand that we have not looked at the mutually agreeable agreement you come to so they don't think we've vetted it for other objections we might have, separate and apart from you two guys agreeing. You with me? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Do you want to vet? COMMISSIONER VERNON: What's that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I've never had the Planning Commission vet private agreements before as part of -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, no. I'm just saying it's not going to be just a private agreement. It's going to be a condition of whatever gets approved. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm simply saying I want you to tell the Board of County Commissioners -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- that we are very pleased that you guys came to an agreement, but we don't know what that agreement is and, therefore, we have not reviewed it, and I want to put that on the record and ask Mr. Yovanovich if you'll represent that to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will be happy to. I'm assuming staff will also include that in the executive summary. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. You're with me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Anything else on this point? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I guess I would say that it probably is appropriate for us to direct staff to make sure that the commissioners are aware of that, the point that was just made. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And I think Mr. Bosi nodded his agreement. MR. BOSI: Yes. Staff understands and will include it -- that point within the executive summary. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? Let's see. I guess we were -- we had concluded the staff recommendation, then we called up Mr. Rozansky. I'm not sure if that was part of -- let's just say that it was an important discussion that we needed to have, but is it now the wish of the Planning Commission that we return to the petitioner's application in chief, see if they have anything further? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And the public. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the public, of course, yes. Okay. Go ahead, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Unless you want us to go through a detailed explanation of the project, we have nothing further to present. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I don't -- I don't think we do. Am I wrong? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. Okay, we don't. All right. So we've heard from the applicant. Oh, did you want to be heard? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, just one question. As far as the boat docks are concerned, from the standpoint of permitting, have you gone through that process in regards to the permitting? It's the Manatee Protection Plan and the valuation and in regards to all that, that's all been -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to have Mr. Rogers come up quickly and explain where we are in that process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Good morning. For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates. To answer your question, no, we are still in the preliminary design phases to get through this local process, and then the docks themselves will be subject to their own permitting process, state, federal, as well as local county, which has not started to date. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None of that's started? MR. ROGERS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You have to go through DEP as well as Army Corps of Engineers? MR. ROGERS: In this case I think it's going to be the South Florida Water Management District instead of DEP because it's a multifamily development, so to speak. So, yes, they would be the state agency, the Army Corps is the feds, and then, obviously, Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But in regards to the Manatee Protection Plan, you're clear in -- MR. ROGERS: Yes. So we have -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Jaime's going to come up. Because I'm going to ask Jaime in regards to this, because it's always been an issue in regards to the various aspects of the plan. So, Jaime, where are we with the -- what -- we've deemed this to be what, a -- go ahead. MS. COOK: Jaime Cook, director of Development Review, for the record. The applicant has gone through the consistency determination for the Manatee Protection Plan. Under the plan, they would be allowed up to 129 slips based on the shore length as a preferred site. They're proposing 12, which is well under the limit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Pretty minimum, yeah. Minimal impact on regards -- MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So no objection from the county in regards to the Manatee Protection Plan? MS. COOK: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay, thank you. MS. COOK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And no one is signaling at this point, so we will move to public comment, and I'll ask Mr. Sabo, Ms. Padron, do we have any registered speakers? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, we have two registered speakers. Mr. Rozansky was one of them. I imagine he's completed. And then Chris Brown is the other. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN: Is this the right podium? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Either one. MR. BROWN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for giving me an opportunity to speak. I'm speaking on behalf of my family and some other residents in the Brookside neighborhood. We have the house at 2347 Harbor which -- on the other side of Rock Creek, probably about 100 yards to the west of this proposed development. As we just heard at the end -- and it was very interesting listening to the back and forth regarding the airport. I've never attended a meeting like this. But we just heard first mention at the very end here of the boat slip piece, because I see this as a two-part development. You know, you're building 15 homes in a fairly large tract of land. And I don't have any comment regarding the airport and the noise and all that. That's outside of my area or my concern, but the second piece is putting 15 boat slips -- and this is a concern that -- I know I speak at least on behalf of my neighbors, the Browns, no relation; Mr. Faett who was here earlier who had to leave who also lives on the creek; that the big concern here is -- and I know there's some folks that have done site visits, and there's probably people that have taken their boats up Rock Creek at least at one point. This is a very narrow, very shallow waterway in which there's development -- other than some old existing really dilapidated docks, all of the development is on the south side of the creek. And so what we're talking about here is not just putting in a boat dock or two boat docks but 15 new boat docks, multi-million-dollar homes, which will probably be beautiful homes, but multi-million-dollar homebuyers buy big, expensive boats. And to be quite frank, if you've ever boated that creek, the thought of 15 large vessels with seasonal residents trying to get in and out of there is comical but also a little bit scary. So, you know, we're talking about DEP approval and things like that, but I don't think that this commission or the County Commission should cede its authority over the change in the use of a piece of property that's always been zoned one way. And I realize Mr. Yovanovich says it's a holding -- it's a description for a holding pattern, if I'm using the right term, agricultural use, but not only changing it to allow it to be residentially zoned, but to put in a cut-in with 15 boat slips in an area where you could wade across that creek -- you know, you could toss a baseball back and forth between the two sides. You wouldn't need a mitt. I don't know how many other examples to use. This is not a large body of water where 15 boats is an insignificant addition to the boat traffic in the creek. Quite frankly, I'm not even sure how they would get in and out of there. Recently I tried at medium tide to get to the spot where this proposed development was, and there are so many mangrove roots right down in the middle of the creek that it's very difficult to get through there without getting hung up. So I actually think it's absurd, the concept of putting 15 boat slips in there. The houses I have no objection to; it's their property if things can be worked out with the airport and it's consistent with the county's land-use plan for this coastal area. But the boat slips and the effect that it will have on this sensitive, really, beautiful small body of water that we love and the mangroves around it and the ability of the people who already live there to enjoy their property is the massive concern that we in the neighborhood -- I don't claim to speak for everyone in the neighborhood, but I have, and my immediate neighbors have, Mr. Faett has, and other folks that I've spoken to in the neighborhood. So that's what I wanted to address. And I'm hoping that not just a developer's rights to make money or the airport's ability to protect itself from lawsuits -- I'm hoping those aren't the only considerations but that the citizens of Collier County, who already live there who have invested into improving their properties and maintaining their properties -- the Brookside neighborhood's becoming a really amazing place to live, not that it hasn't always been. I hope -- I'm hoping those concerns are taken into account, the concerns of the voting citizens who live there and not just whether or not the developer can maximum the profit from this parcel. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Don't go anywhere. MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I have a question, number one, and probably for Mr. Yovanovich, in regards to riparian rights. The -- and maybe from Turrell, Hall. Who's that from -- I can't remember his -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Jeff Rogers. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Jeff? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, Jeff. Two questions. One, the riparian rights, you have a right to access? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, Jeff, from the standpoint of preliminary design, is this going to require any type of boat dock extension requests, or are you going to be able to -- are you looking at building docks within the areas that will not restrict navigation? Because that's all going to be part of your permit application. MR. ROGERS: Correct. And per my last time I was up here, that's what we're subject to at the county local level -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. ROGERS: -- is we will be required, as shown currently, a boat dock extension process, which is also a public hearing, meeting the criteria, water depths come into consideration, size of vessels come into that petition as well, and that's all part of the criteria we will be subject to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, this is -- these are -- these are tidal waters. Is this Title 10 navigable waters? MR. ROGERS: It's not a federal channel by any means. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not a federal channel. MR. ROGERS: It's a local knowledge channel. There's no markers in it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No marker. So you're not subject to Title 10, but you're still subject to the requirements to allow for -- because what I'm hearing are safety concerns and issues with depth and other types of things. Are you coming in with a request for a type of dredging or removal of mangroves? Of course, you know if you remove the mangroves, you're subject to mitigation or other types of measures to avoid, mitigate, or compensate. MR. ROGERS: Correct. So, yes, the docks and their proposed access points will go through the mangrove fringe, and we'll have to design those access points per the state criteria, which allows for walkways through mangroves. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. ROGERS: So we'll also limit our impacts to the mangroves by pushing the docks out as far as we can to be within the allowable 25 percent that we're allowed as riparian right owners. So across the waterway, they're allowed 25 percent, leaving approximately 50 percent open -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fifty percent open. MR. ROGERS: -- for navigation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now, as far as the application -- and I -- anybody has the right to review -- or to review or comment on the application for docks. MR. ROGERS: Correct. Yes. So the State of Florida and the Army Corps will do a public notice -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. ROGERS: -- where they -- I believe it's 500-foot radius, so it's not huge, but also once we get to the county level, there's a public noticing, just like this meeting was publicly noticed, for the boat dock extension to go in front of the HEX. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Does that help you understand? I'm a former Army Corps guy, so I know all those answers. I just wanted it to be on the record. MR. BROWN: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I want you to know that you will be able to view what is being proposed, and you can object if there's a reason to object, whether you feel it's a safety issue otherwise. That will be probably through the -- through -- it will be through the Fort Myers office -- Army Corps of Engineers Fort Myers office. MR. BROWN: I do understand, and I do know that there will be public notice of the proposal to build the docks. That being said, the change that's proposed for the PUD to the county ordinance allows for 15 boat slips, so it's a two-step process. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. BROWN: So you're being asked to approve it as well. And I'm simply saying -- and I mean this very respectfully that -- especially with the knowledge you have, Commissioner Schmitt, yourself, that issue simply not be punted over to whether it's the Army Corps or whether it's the Southwest Florida [sic] Management District. This is actually a matter of simple common sense. You can't get a johnboat past there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I have no -- I'm sorry. MR. BROWN: And it's going to be -- not that, you know, I have standing to make an argument for them. I even wonder about these future homeowners. They're going to come down and buy $100,000 boats, and they're going to come right around that corner and be hung up, and -- but, you know, that's also going to correct a problem for the rest of us when Sea Tow is in and out of there every five minutes because it's just -- this is not a tenable plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, Jaime, question. I pretty much know the answer, but I'm going to ask again, the Manatee Protection Plan for this area restricts size of boats? Will it restrict the size of boats for this area? MS. COOK: Restrict the size of boat. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Size of boats, yes? The draft -- the draft that the -- MS. COOK: Yes. They would have to -- it's going to be restricted based on the water depths in the area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's -- I can't tell you what -- I don't know what $100,000 is going to buy in a boat, but -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Johnboat. MR. BROWN: Not much -- well, maybe a johnboat. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Johnboat. MR. BROWN: Maybe I used a bad example. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But from that regard, it is -- it will go through the process. The county will evaluate that as well, and it goes through the public process. So I can -- all I can do is assure you that all we do is approve it for zoning, but we don't approve the design and construction of the docks other than what Chris stated was the 25 percent restriction on the depth or the -- correction -- the width of the waterway. MR. BROWN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They could only go out 25 percent. If they exceed that, they have to come in for a boat dock extension, which now goes to the Hearing Examiner. They used to come here, but they no longer do. MR. BROWN: Well, you know, and that's another concern, too. And I'm not directly across from this parcel, but since you bring that up, if you go 25 percent on both sides where they are, you're not going to be able to get vessels in between those docks, not of any decent size. So, you know, the problem here is you're changing the usage of something that's never been used for this purpose ever before across from properties that have been for decades -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BROWN: -- on a very small body of water. And do we know what the depth is there? I mean, I understand that this is subject to later approval by different groups, but this group is being asked today to approve it in principle subject to these other groups approving it. And I'm saying the principle of the thing is -- not the principle of the thing. But the idea of putting in 15 slips there on its face is ludicrous. I mean, what is the depth there? I mean, what is the ability? Has it been studied whether vessels are able to get in and out of where they're proposing to build these 15 slips? CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I am going to -- and I know I've got two commissioners who want to be heard. Do you want to be heard on this? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. So, sir, you're -- thank you for your input. Where are you living or who are you representing? MR. BROWN: No, I'm not representing anybody. We have the house at 2347 Harbor, which is directly -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So you're right -- MR. BROWN: Across but to the west. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You're right along Rock Creek then? MR. BROWN: Yes, on Rock Creek. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. But closer to the gulf? MR. BROWN: Yeah, right, exactly. Not directly across from -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what was your property zoned before it was -- it was zoned for residential? MR. BROWN: I have no idea, because it's been zoned residential probably since the 1950s, but I couldn't tell you before then. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Probably agriculture, but I don't know. MR. BROWN: At some point probably. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I guess, you know, the point -- you can guess what my point is. Everyone comes to the table with rights and goes through the same process. As the Vice Chair, you know, mentioned, we don't get into the particulars of what the dock is going to be like. That's a problem that has to be resolved by the petitioner at the next stage with whoever -- whatever body they're going forward with. I get that there's practical -- there could be practical issues, but we also have -- you know, are there riparian rights that go with agricultural land? MR. BOSI: I'd have to defer to the County Attorney's Office on that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Like, are there -- right now is it zoned -- are there riparian rights to have docks? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think that in order to have a dock you'd have to have the principal use, which would be a residence, so they could probably have up to two docks; is that correct, Jaime? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Probably three. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Or two slips. MS. COOK: They can have up to two slips with a primary residence on the property. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Which is probably going to, you know, make an imposition 25 percent, so you're going to have that narrow, you know, place anyways. MS. COOK: Correct. And again -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And my point simply is, people have rights. Landowners have rights. Landowners have a right to petition. We have a right to -- you know, we, then, have a duty to -- an obligation to evaluate the petition. You raise a good point, but I think the -- to the extent there are practical issues with whatever -- however the riparian rights end up being executed, you know, by the petitioner at that stage, that really isn't our decision to worry too much about. It's certainly, you know, good for us to be aware of it, but I certainly wouldn't make a decision on that -- on that basis. But I appreciate your input. MR. BROWN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, let me give you kind of a tough hypothetical. Let's pretend you're a judge and pretend you don't live at Brookside and Mr. Yovanovich appears in front of you and Brookside folks, and you've got to weigh the rights of the existing neighbors who have been there, had docks, and it's a small, I understand, local channel, and they've got property rights, and I would assume that their ability to say it's going to be a boating community is extremely valuable to them, what compromise or what would you propose that they build, or would you just -- you don't have any thoughts other than they shouldn't have the docks there? MR. BROWN: Well, obviously, I'm highly biased, but I'm going to try to take off that hat as being somebody who lives there and also that probably most of us don't want judges proposing compromises to parties in court, but -- say I'm a mediator. COMMISSIONER VERNON: How about king for a day. MR. BROWN: Yeah. Well, I mean, I did hear something about size limitation on vessels, and I would like to see a study that indicates depth and the ability of vessels to get in and out of there. There's a safety issue. A study that would show if you went out 25 percent on both sides of the creek at the point they're talking about, you know, how large of a vessel could be accommodated. At that point how are vessels going to turn around? I mean, that's a dead-end there, so -- just past there, so you've got to be able to -- you know, up the creek, you've got to be able to turn back around and head back out. So I would probably want to know the answers to those questions before I would be able to say if there's any acceptable use that involves putting a bunch of vessels on the other side of a narrow waterway where there are already boat docks on one side that have been there for decades. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And if we had to make a decision today, what would you propose? What kind of condition would you propose we suggest or -- MR. BROWN: I would propose denying it unless you had proof that it would not adversely impact the property rights of the other owners that have already been living there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think there are other approval authorities with much greater expertise than perhaps we have to look at this, and I have confidence in their judgment to know that if all you can get up and down there is a johnboat, that's what they're going to limit it to. But I'm not in a position to make a judgment on that, and I don't know that there's -- the people in the room have sufficient evidence to inform me sufficiently that I could. So I guess from my perspective, I think we're getting out a little bit ahead of our skis. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. There's a process that we have to follow. All your -- and the process is to go get a boat dock extension after we get our zoning approved. If we can't safely navigation, I'm not going to meet the criteria, and I'm not going to get approval for a boat dock extension. We have pretty much all of those questions that he just raised available to you, but I don't think this is the right place to make the determination as to whether or not to approve the boats. The right place under the County Attorney's process is to go apply for it and go to the Hearing Examiner. And if we meet the criteria, those criteria protect not only our riparian rights but the riparian rights of everybody else who's accessing that water. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm inclined to agree with that. Mr. Brown, you're excused. Thank you, sir. MR. BROWN: Thank you very much. Have a nice day, everyone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Do we have any further registered speakers? MR. SABO: Mr. Chair, there are no further registered speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anyone in this room who is not registered to speak but wishes to be heard in this matter, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I see no hands being raised, so with that, we'll close the public comment segment of this hearing. Mr. Yovanovich, any further rebuttal? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, there's -- no, it's not rebuttal; just a clarification. It should be 12 boat slips, not 15. So we need to make that correction. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I heard 12 from you, 15 from him; 15 houses, 12 boat slips. But are you authorized to do 15 and planning to do 12, or you're only authorizing 12? MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm asking you is to modify the PUD to limit us to 12. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes, gotcha. MR. YOVANOVICH: If it says 15, it should say 12. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Gotcha. And are the -- if you don't mind, Your Honor -- Your Honor. Your Honor? He's not responding. Your Honor? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have no honor. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Your Honor? Do you currently have any restrictions on the size of the boats in -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you really want me to get into the detail of the depths of the water and -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. I'm just asking you whether you currently -- I can ask, Jeff, do you currently have thoughts on that? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. Basically, we got a third party to do a water bathymetric survey for us to provide to the county as part of the MPP consistency review process, which is here -- we're getting into the weeds here, but negative 4 feet mean low water, which means on an average low tide, you have four foot of water, which allows for, you know, enough room for a manatee and a vessel. This is a natural waterway. It's called Rock Creek for a reason. It's shallow. It's narrow. It's one creek left that hasn't been man altered significantly until you get closer to Brookside area. So it's a natural waterway. We have the study. We have the depths. We're subject to the process, and that's really -- it's gonna be a tough process, but we're subject to the process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. No one is signaling at this time. We've closed the public comment segment. One final question of Mr. Yovanovich; if you want to be heard on rebuttal, now's the time. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. All we're asking is you recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners, you know, with the condition that we deal with the Naples Airport Authority between now and the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So just -- let me before -- because we may be getting some motions coming in pretty quickly. We're going to take the paperwork before us, and we're going to say our approval is subject to the conditions informally agreed to by the petitioner and the Naples Airport Authority and, second, to modify from 15 to 12 boat slips, and I think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- in every other respect it stays the same. With that, I'll open it up for discussion and/or motions. Vice Chairman? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I just want to add, in regards to my colleagues, the enforcement of the Manatee Protection Plan is pretty strictly enforced by Jaime and her staff, so -- and the whole process is pretty strictly monitored, which Turrell, Hall & Associates is well aware of. So it's -- I have every confidence from what was stated here that we have nothing to worry about in regards to the approval process. And then when it goes through the state and the federal review entities, it will be strictly controlled, and the regulations will be strictly adhered to. So I just want to make sure everybody knows that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I would like to make the motion to approve as you stated the motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I do have concerns about the docks, but I think that, based on what Commissioner Schmitt said and my understanding, it's probably beyond -- it's not a legitimate basis for me to object to the project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further discussion before we vote? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's the paperwork as presented plus the conditions informally agreed to between the petitioner and the Naples Airport Authority and modification from 15 slips to 12. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, and that's subject to their eventual mutual agreement? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, of the language. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant, members of the public, staff, Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I would just like to say, on behalf of all of us -- and I apologize if -- I'm not sure if it was my colleague next to me or not that suggested the two parties that were having a difference literally go in the hallway and work through it, and they did. And if we could do more of that throughout government, business, and, heaven help us, in Washington, this place would be a lot better. And I just want to applaud both of these guys that -- let's face it -- that were not going anywhere, they went out in the hallway, and in 25 minutes came back and they told this board we have an agreement that we're both going to work through and take care of the dotting the i's and the t's, and I just think that was great. It was a great example of what can be done when you put your mind to it. Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. I agree with all that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And all I did was mimic our chairman, his past practice, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, thank you for that, I think. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Your Honor. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Your Honor. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So I would like to throw this out as a suggestion how we proceed. I'd like to start on the next matter now. We've got, I think, possibly six public speakers. It would be nice if we could get to them. And if this runs -- if this runs us into, like, a 1:00 p.m. lunch, and I'll extend it, even a 1:30 lunch, is this -- is this the way the Planning Commission wants to proceed? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And the court reporter's okay with that? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So that's what we'll do. Let me call the next matter. ***Okay. PL20220003791, the Marco Shores Golf Course CPUDA. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Disclosures, please. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials and site visit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Matters of public record, meeting with staff, and communication with the applicant's representative. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only comment was, walking in, I said to Noel, I got his email. I had no questions to ask of him, so I never responded to his email. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Plus the fact that we were off email for several days, us two new commissioners. COMMISSIONER SHEA: They forgot to renew us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very strange. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They didn't renew us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I have not had anything but the staff briefing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Just staff briefing. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Packet of materials and a conversation with Mr. Davies. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. With that, Mr. Davies, you have the floor. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. Noel Davis with the law firm of Davies Duke on behalf of the applicant for this item, SK Holdings Real Estate, LLC. I have with me today Jonathan Kassolis, the client representative. My client is a local legacy developer here in town. They've done a number of projects, very high quality, over the years here, and they typically are accustomed to managing their projects after construction. Christopher Scott is our professional planner with Peninsula Engineering. John English is here today, our civil engineer, also with Peninsula, and Norman Trebilcock is our transportation engineer. The subject property's located at the end of Mainsail Drive immediately west of the Marco Island Executive Airport. Our request is an amendment to an existing PUD, Marco Shores, which covers approximately 314 acres. My client is seeking to add 90 market-rate apartment units, which results in a density of 5.3 units per acre across the PUD. The PUD is currently approved for 1,580 dwelling units, which is five units an acre, and our request would increase that total number to 1,670, which, again, is 5.3 units an acre. The subject project would be Phase 2 of what's known as the Mainsail Apartments. Phase 1 completed construction in July of '22. It has leased up very quickly. There is still significant demand for market-rate apartments, particularly in this portion of the county. The subject property was previously owned by the City of Marco Island. It was used as a utilities wastewater treatment plant and related uses. The utility use and corresponding improvements were discontinued and removed from the property between 2018 and 2020, at which time the City of Marco put the property up for sale, and it was recently purchased by my client. With that, I would like to introduce my client's professional planning, Christopher Scott, who will walk you through the rest of our presentation. Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. SCOTT: For the record, Chris Scott with Peninsula Engineering. Again, this Planned Unit Development amendment request is for the additional 90 units, which would make possible the second phase of the Mainsail apartments. The Phase 1 includes existing 100 market-rate units, and this would allow for an additional 90 units. The transportation study identified this additional density would result in another 35 peak-hour p.m. trips. The development team on this project is the same that did the first phase; the same engineering firm, same architectural firm. So the units will share a similar look and feel of what is already there. Those are shown on the images on the bottom of the screen, and there will be an interconnection from the existing first phase to this one. So this is the proposed Master Concept Plan. The image on the right is just a blowup of the area on the eastern side of the development. The area would all become part of residential Parcel 2A. On the opposite side, you have the golf course -- opposite side of Mainsail Drive is the golf course. To the north of the property you have existing preserve lands. We are adjacent to the Marco Island Executive Airport. I know you just had lengthy conversations about airports, so timing could not be more perfect. We are in the airport overlay. The obstruction height listed is 100 feet, which is measured above the elevation of the runway itself. The maximum height permitted for this property would be 58-foot zoned height, 72-foot actual. So we will not be considered an obstruction by that requirement, and we've also added a couple conditions to the PUD to address making sure that -- let me see if I have them in here. I do not. They are in your staff report, but one would be a notification to potential lessees that they are adjacent to an airport and there's noise associated with that, and the other is to provide a copy to the Marco Island airport any FAA permits that we would be required to go through both for the new construction and the cranes associated with that construction. So the proposed amendment is consistent with the findings of the Land Development Code. That analysis is in your staff report. I won't go through there. But we are suitable with the development near by. There's multifamily immediately to the west. This would be a continuation of golf course to the south, preserve to the north. It conforms with the Growth Management Plan. The staff has reviewed the petition and is recommending approval. And with that, I'll ask that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners, and I'm here for any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one is signaling at this point. Planning commissioners have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Apparently not. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you, sir. A quick question. I apologize. I thought you answered. Just want to confirm. Will there be an interconnection between the existing property and the new property? MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay, great. And with a letter that we received -- not that I'm for it or against it -- but what is your vacation rate currently with the existing building? MR. DAVIES: I think it's right around 7 percent or something. It's in the 90s occupancy-wise. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, you're that high, okay. Very good. Thank you. No further questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Let's see. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Are there any -- just a couple basic questions. Any environmental issues because it's formerly a water treatment plant? MR. DAVIES: No, I don't believe so. I think that's all been remedied. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. No affordable housing component, right? MR. DAVIES: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I just can't resist doing this; is there an avigation easement in play here? MR. DAVIES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER VERNON: What is the -- a little more serious. Has the airport had any input on this? MR. DAVIES: The airport's reviewed it and doesn't have any objections. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything further from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, we will turn to staff for its recommendation. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. As contained within the staff report, we've reviewed the proposal for consistency against the Growth Management Plan, reviewed the location for compatibility analysis, access, infrastructure availability. We have positive results on each one of those analyses, and based upon that, staff is recommending approval of the proposal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions or comments for staff? Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a question. I mean, we go through this all the time. You're putting 90 homes on four acres. That's 22 dwelling units an acre. And I know we're averaging it out over the entire PUD. I'm assuming that this additional 90 would still keep the PUD within the agreed-to density, or is this going to -- I always hate when we take a little piece of land, we overload it, and then we spread it out over all these other acres. And I know that's the way it works, but -- MR. BOSI: This project is unique in terms of the age of it. By Florida Statutes, it's vested for 1,970 overall units. This request will put them well below that vested number of units that are entitled to the project. So even though the net density at the -- on the four acres will definitely be higher than 5.3, the total units that are being requested are within the -- within the rights that are associated with this property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi, you said 1,970. My notes say 1,980. MR. BOSI: I think I misspoke; 1,980. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So 1,980 divided by 314.7, what kind of density does that give you? COMMISSIONER SHEA: How many acres; 340? CHAIRMAN FRYER: 314.7. COMMISSIONER SHEA: 6.3. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I roughly thought, yeah. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So even at 5.3, they're well under what they've already been vested for, are they not? MR. BOSI: Yes. Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Other questions or comments for staff from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you. And we will turn to the subject of registered speakers. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, we have 10 registered speakers, about six online. And we have two podiums, so if we can get David Wuellner at the right-side podium and Ann Marie Foley at the left-side podium, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And you're Mr. Wuellner. MR. WUELLNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have the floor. MR. WUELLNER: My name is David Wuellner. I live at 1528 Mainsail Drive in the Tropic Schooner Condominium. Just a little bit of a history about the Mainsail Drive or Marco Shores development. It was the result of many, many years of litigation between the state and the federal government and the environmentalists and the Deltona Corporation when they were madly going about trying to develop Marco Island and all areas north all the way up to Naples. When the environmental movement began in the '70s, they were pretty much stopped in their tracks, and through years of litigation, were finally allowed to develop one little piece of land left which was the little road that went to the airport and Mainsail Drive. And so the PUD that we're talking about here has been in existence for greater than 40 years. Tropic Schooner was the first community that was developed by the Deltona Corporation. I found it interesting that in the prior agenda item, there was a lot of talk about the sanctity -- I don't want to use the word "sanctity," I guess. The nice thing about PUDs and master plans is certainty and that in PUDs you can get more than if you just follow basic zoning law. And I guess that's pretty much what we're asking for here. And I might also add, if you're doing your math, 1,980 or 1,580, whatever the number is, divided by the number of acres, you're throwing in, you know, a huge 18-hole golf course within that -- within that 314.7 acres. So, actually, if you really count the density, it's much higher than that if you -- you're not talking about -- including the golf course land. And I can't speak to the -- to the history that was -- that happened a few years ago when they developed Borghese, but my understanding is -- and I'm sure future speakers will speak to that -- is there was a capitulation among the Mainsail owners at that time when they developed that that if we would allow them to increase the height of those buildings to three stories we, in turn, would get something because we're a PUD, and they would -- they would develop or landscape the road from the Hammock Bay entrance all the way to the airport. The county invested God knows how many, $20 million, whatever, in the new airport a few years ago and, frankly, the road looks like something out of third-world country, especially this time of year. I've got to say the worst landowners we deal with on Mainsail Drive is Collier County and how poorly maintained and cared for our road is. It's not maintained -- mowing-wise, they wait until the grass is two feet tall. The sidewalks that you just spent a bunch of money on repairing is allowed to just grow over with weeds this time of year. It's -- you have allowed at least 12 squatters to remove mangroves so that they can keep their boats and their boat trailers in there. It looks like a homeless community in busy times of the year, and that's been allowed to happen. So it's hard for me to understand how important mangroves and the environment are when this PUD was put together to protect all that. So in the interest of that, I would implore that you -- that this not be allowed. That land was supposed to be a park. So if the master plan has any value, that's what that land was supposed to be. Half of it was going to be to support the Marco Island Utilities property, but the property adjacent to it where these apartments are was supposed to be a park. So so much for master plan. So that's all I really have to say about the matter. But I really hope that this would get a negative recommendation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Ma'am. MS. FOLEY: Good morning. I'm Ann Marie Foley. I live at 1355 Mainsail Drive, Unit 1501. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you say Foley? MS. FOLEY: Foley, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Got it. Thank you. Go ahead. MS. FOLEY: And my husband, John, and I live at -- on Mainsail in Mainsail 1, which was the first property that was developed along Mainsail Drive back in the -- back in the day, a long time ago. I had the privilege of working for the Mackle family and the Deltona Corporation a long, long time ago, so I'm very familiar with the plans and what happened over the years. And one of the things that they did right was they set land aside for parks. And there's lands that's been set aside for parks. Now, they were forced to sell the property, but the zoning didn't change. And I don't -- I think the developers are going to get their way and be allowed to develop the property. I get that. I accept that, but I think a more appropriate way to handle this would be to take land somewhere else between the current rental property and Mainsail 1 and convert it to that many acres of a park and not give up parkland. I mean, I think as a Planning Commission, that's a very important part of your role is to maintain a property that will be left in its natural state. I don't ever want the park developed. I don't want a playground. I don't want a parking lot. I want it to be a passive park where people can go and enjoy, those of us that can walk to the property. I have a couple of other thoughts on this. I want to emphasize that the -- there will be a better presentation about the median work than I'm prepared to give, but I strongly, strongly endorse that. But I think this trade of parkland property is particularly important. The other -- what the gentleman before me spoke about, the people storing boats and chairs and destroying the mangroves, that's a real problem, and Collier County should be addressing it, but so should the landowner. The landowner has a responsibility to call. I -- you know, I'm not sure that I'm allowed to call and complain about those things, but the owner of the property has the responsibility to make sure it's not used in such a trashy way as some of it is. The last and final thing that I would suggest is that -- and there may be -- I'm sure some of this is overlap, but the rules at the rental property complement the rules at the condo associations that predate there. So all the Mainsail 1, 2, 3, and 4, Fairways 1 and 2, Tropic Schooner, we all have rules, and we think that it's important that those rules also apply in rental property in the area to maintain the value of our property, which is all we're asking to do, is to maintain what we have. For example, most of us do no allow motorcycles on the property, and -- so particularly overnight parking. And anything like that would be very helpful to ensure the future attractiveness and to maintain and, in fact, build on the beauty of Mainsail. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I have a question. You mentioned you would like to see it become a park. Are you suggesting that maybe the county should buy this land and convert it to a park? MS. FOLEY: Oh, gosh, no. No. I'm suggesting that SK Holdings take other property that they own and ask for it to be zoned parkland right on Mainsail Drive, because I believe they own all the property between the rental property and Mainsail 1. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you're asking that the developer convert this to a park? MS. FOLEY: Yes, yes, and that you ask him to do that as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I can't ask him to do anything. It's not my property. I mean, I can only recommend based on the Land Development Code. I can't say you need to build a park here. I just wanted to clarify, you wanted a park, but you want the developer to build a park? MS. FOLEY: I don't want anything built. I want to trade the designation of parkland from where they want to develop, okay, fine, develop there, and give us other equal amount of property as passive parkland on Mainsail Drive. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This land was once owned by Marco Utilities. That was -- and that's who they bought land from. Because originally it was going to be an expansion of the water plant, if I remember, or the water/sewer plant. I'm not sure. MS. FOLEY: But it's zoned for park. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. The second question, I just want to reiterate, if you see anything that violates the Land Development Code, chairs, debris, mangroves being destroyed, you have every right to call Code Enforcement. That young lady sitting in the back way back there, Jaime Cook, I'm sure she could help you understand you have every right as any other citizen in the county to make -- file an initial complaint through Code Enforcement, which will require Code Enforcement to come out. If it's an issue with the homeowners or the property owner or whomever, they will be issued a citation if they're found in violation of the Land Development Code. MS. FOLEY: Well, I do have their phone number in my phone, so, rest assured, we'll be chatting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. MS. FOLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Next speakers, please. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, the next two, David Abrams at the right podium and Marlene Mahony at the left podium, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'd just like to ask counsel, or maybe staff, is there any obligation of the landowner to have any parkland in this general area? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. There was a prior master plan that did show a park, but it was -- I'm not sure which direction it is, but to that side. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But that master plan -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But it was modified. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- didn't obligate them to use it as a park. That was just a concept they had? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think they changed it over time. I don't know if you have any more history, Mike? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. What I can say is it's not a park that's a public park. This would be an internal decision from the developer. And the original developer -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So there's no legal -- there was no legal obligation to provide a park for anybody, whether it was their own nearby residents or whatever. That was a concept that they had. MR. BOSI: There's no legal obligation for it to be built, and as any master plan, the designation can be changed to a different use if it, you know, goes through the public process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Abrams, you have the floor. MR. ABRAMS: David Abrams. I'm resident, along with my wife, at Mainsail Drive, 1042 Mainsail. I'm here today because I've looked at some of the statutory requirements regarding density, and I've heard the comment about the density being a ratio of four acres, 22 units per acre. And, quite frankly, I think that that is an accurate statement in this regard because what they are looking to do is they are taking a separate tract of ground that they acquired after the PUD was created, and they're trying to get it zoned for use by the PUD. That is, in my opinion, an infringement on the density requirement, because the density requirement deals with the four acres, not with the 321 acres which, interestingly, shows on the first PUD. This transaction is not increasing -- not dealing with the vested part of the original PUD. That was changed to 1,580 units, I think, in 1994. I don't remember the exact date; however, the point of the matter is that someone made a decision to reduce the density, not increase it. It was reduced -- the density was reduced by virtue of the fact that the PUD was changed by ordinance from 1,980 to 1,580. Now they want to increase it. They're using the additional four acres and arguing that, in fact, it's an increase in density but not by very much. I think this board, quite frankly, is relegated to looking at the four acres. I think that that's an important factor here because of the concentration of the density. They have 100 units, and immediately next door they want to put 90 more. I don't think that the Growth Management Plan, the current proposed Growth Management allows for that. I think that the most they could probably put on that property is maybe 64 units, not 90. And I think it's -- if you look at the Growth Management Plan, and it's -- hold on -- 2.05.01, the density standards and housing types. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's the Land Development Code. MR. ABRAMS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not the Growth Management Plan. MR. ABRAMS: Well -- but it deals with the Land Development Plan. If you read it, you will see that in a multifamily section -- they even give an example. If it's an RMF 6(4), it allows all uses and development standards of the RMF-6, but density is limited to four dwelling units. In this case, there's an issue. Is it six? Is it 12? Is it 16? And I believe that you have to look at the four-acre tract, not the 321-acre tract, which, by the way, is different. The original PUD shows, if I can, Exhibit E to the original PUD, shows 321.4 acres. They somehow now have 314. And if you look at the size and dimension of the golf course which is, I think, a major factor -- we're not looking at density within a golf course; it's between 183 acres and 173 acres of the 314. We're looking at a density factor that's much greater, especially in a concentrated area with 100 acres and, right next door, 90. I don't see how you can take a golf course, which is 173 acres, and use that as a multiplier to determine the density factor. The density factor deals with the housing and how much housing is allowed. Now, in conformity with that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have 30 seconds, sir. Mr. Abrams, just to let you know, you have 30 seconds to wind up. MR. ABRAMS: Okay. I would point out to you that if you look at 163.3215, it talks about development order materially altering the use or density of a use on a particular piece of property, not necessarily a golf course, and not necessarily 321 acres. So I would ask you to take a look at that, and I would also -- I looked at the staff proposal. The staff proposal talks about transportation issues, and it sort of slides by it because it looks like it was done sometime in May. Sometime in May, it is not in season. So when you get into that situation, you're going to find that there's probably a lot more traffic that impacts on it from Collier Boulevard. And I'll rest with that. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Ms. Mahony, are you -- MS. MAHONY: I'm going to relinquish my time to Zoom where Gary Ceremuga is going to be discussing the same thing I was going to discuss. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Who's next? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, we are now at Zoom speakers. Allen Butterfield is next. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Butterfield, can you hear us? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Butterfield? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Who's next? MR. SABO: Next is Gary Ceremuga, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Ceremuga, are you there, sir? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Ceremuga? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next, please. MR. SABO: Next is Ethel Quinn. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Quinn, can you hear us? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are we confident that we're connected to the public? MR. SABO: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are connected. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Are they unmuting themselves? MR. SABO: Yeah. We are sending "ask to unmute" requests to each speaker. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. SABO: All right. Next is Frank Sparicio. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Sparicio, are you there? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Is it possible we're muting them? MR. MILLER: We're good here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER: Oh, wait. Hold on a minute. No, they were not good here. You're going to need to try them again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, we'll start over again. MR. SABO: All right. Mr. Chairman, we're going to go back to Allen Butterfield, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Butterfield, can you hear us, sir? Mr. Butterfield? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next? MS. BUTTERFIELD: Hello. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Hello. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Who do we have? MR. BUTTERFIELD: I'm not muted. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you Mr. Butterfield? MS. BUTTERFIELD: This is Butterfield. Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we can. Go right ahead. MS. BUTTERFIELD: Oh, wow. Great. Thank you so much. We've been having a problem. I know that Gary, who is behind us, was also actually trying to speak, but you were unable to hear him. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we'll revert and find out who else wants to speak, but you go ahead, Ms. Butterfield. MS. BUTTERFIELD: Okay. Thank you so much. I want to thank Ms. Foley and Mr. Abrams and some of the other speakers for getting up and sharing their positions. I actually think that it will probably be approved even though I think that the transportation study might have not been full. I would like to propose, though, that, in good faith, that the roadway, the median, actually be improved. Somebody earlier -- I believe the first speaker mentioned about the fact that it was supposed to have had palm trees and a median all the way down to the airport, and that was never done. I think that that would actually go quite far to help mitigate the traffic noise and increase the beautification of the area. So it would be nice if the developer actually took that into account when they actually get approved, because I do believe they will be approved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, the applicant -- MS. BUTTERFIELD: And that is all. Thank you so much for -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Did you want to -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I wanted to follow-up on her question about the roads. Who is responsible for the roads -- the road in the community? Is it a county road? Is it an HOA road? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's more complicated than that. And let me say what I think is the case, and then correct me, Jaime, if I'm wrong. But I believe that there was a developer who had undertaken to do something -- a previous developer who had undertaken to do something by way of the median. Then that developer went into bankruptcy, and that the current applicant, the owner, does not inherit that legal obligation. Have I stated it correctly? MS. COOK: Again, Jaime Cook, director of Development Review, for the record. You are correct; however, the commitment within the PUD ordinance that has been there states, "Landscaping within the platted right-of-way would improve aesthetics and be of benefit to the community and the Marco Executive Airport. Landscaping within the right-of-way is encouraged." Based on that, I can't enforce that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I've been down that road before on that word. Thank you. MS. COOK: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Wait, wait, wait. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we've got Commissioner Shea and then Commissioner Vernon, but stay up there, Ms. Cook. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, I asked mine. I'm sorry. I forgot to take the button off. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So you're talking about being encouraged -- the previous developer was encouraged, never obligated? MS. COOK: Correct, yes. Now, if this petition were to move forward, any landscaping within the development, foundation plantings, the parking lot areas, buffers would still be required per our regular Land Development Code requirements, but Mainsail Drive is only encouraged, per the PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a clarification. It is a county road. So if there's a pothole in the road, they call the county. They don't call the HOA. MS. COOK: I believe that is correct, but Mike Sawyer can correct me if I'm wrong that it's not a county road. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because there's two issues: The road and the landscaping. MS. COOK: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Sawyer? MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. I'm actually currently trying to confirm that it is a county road and that we do maintain it. I believe so, but I'm trying to get confirmation on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Let us know. Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, next is Gary Ceremuga, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Ceremuga, are you there, sir? MR. CEREMUGA: I am. Can you hear me? I am. Can you hear? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, yes. Please go ahead, sir. You have five minutes. MR. CEREMUGA: Okay. Thank you. I'm an 18-year owner/resident on Mainsail Drive, so I'm going to give you a bit of recent history. The Marco Shores Planned Unit Development was designed for two-story low-rise residential buildings, and when the Hammock Bay Borghese condos were being built about 20 years ago, the developer, WCI, wanted to add a third story. And in consideration for the Marco Shores community, they offered to complete the palm tree line median to the airport. Well, sadly, WCI went bankrupt before they honored their commitment. I realize that was then and this is now and that was WCI and this is SK Holdings, but the goal remains the same. Over the years, there's been several unsuccessful attempts to get Collier County to get this done, but always not in the budget. This rezone request opens the door to get this median landscape project back on the table, in my view. With this proposed rezoning for 90 more apartments comes the potential of 180 more cars traveling up and down our quiet dead-end street. I know they were talking about 35 cars. They had to have done that in the middle of June when nobody's there. That's in addition to the 200 cars on the new -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're garbled, sir. Speak into the telephone. MR. CEREMUGA: I'm trying to talk right into it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Speak into the telephone. MR. CEREMUGA: I'm on the computer. Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now we can, yeah. MR. CEREMUGA: Okay. The 200 cars from the new 100 apartments are going up and down the road, and our tranquil neighborhood will be impacted forever. Mainsail Drive is very popular for walking, jogging, and bike-riding on the road. Our sidewalks are not conducive to this much activity. So, naturally, we're concerned about our safety, and we're worried about our market values. This amount of additional traffic and speeding will have a downward effect on the value of our homes. This is not what we bargained for when we bought on our quiet dead-end street. Collier County has done studies that have proven, and I quote Collier County, the benefits of median strip landscaping have been directly related to traffic calming and increased property values. To be fair, our Marco Shores community is asking for something in return for the rezoning of this property to soften the impact of our residents. We want the developer to shoulder the initial cost of landscaping the Mainsail Drive median strip from Hammock Bay to the airport. We're not asking for much. We liken our request to a buffer to enhance the area. Mark Wagner, president of Tropic Schooner, has been working with Collier County approved landscape businesses in quoting this project. The estimates for horizontal drilling, irrigation, and planting some 245 palm trees are in the 3- to $400,000 range. That's less than two months of rental income from the proposed 90 apartments. We feel this is proportionate to the impact of the development. If we come to an agreement on this project, we understand a Marco Shores MSTU -- for those of you who don't know, Maintenance Service Taxing Unit -- would have to be established for the future maintenance of the median. (Unintelligible) upwards of 740 if you add in the 100 apartments plus the 90 proposed, this cost would be minimal, almost unnoticeable. There are big winners in this rezone petition. Marco Shores is not one of them. Collier County gets their increased tax revenue, and the developer gets 90 more units of rental income. SK Holdings bought this property at a huge discount knowing -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thirty seconds, sir. MR. CEREMUGA: They paid about -- that's okay -- 740,000 for (unintelligible) acres, and they paid 2.1 million for the first one. I know the Collier County staff report dated August 23rd recommends approval of this rezone petition. Well, the Collier County taxpaying citizens of Marco Shores recommend an addenda to the rezone. That addenda: Give Mainsail Drive the finished tropical beauty it has long deserved, and everyone wins. (Unintelligible), Commissioner Rick, and the Board of Commissioners, the future of our tranquil neighborhood is in your hands. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. CEREMUGA: Thank you for your support. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Next speaker? MR. SABO: Our next speaker is Ethel Quinn, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Guinn [sic], are you there -- Quinn? Ms. Quinn? (No response.) MR. SABO: All right. We'll try the next one. The next speaker is Frank Sparicio. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Sparicio, are you there? MR. SPARICIO: Yes, I'm here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have the floor, sir. Five minutes. MR. SPARICIO: I'd like to reiterate what the earlier speakers have mentioned. And I'm a resident of Hammock Bay, and I live in 1294 Rialto Way. I've been there for 10 years. Was involved with some of the management of the property in our condominium. And I go back to the speakers who talked about the 1,580 units which were revised from the original plan, as I heard, 1,970, or whatever that number is. And I think the 1,580 was justly done. If you add what is already there, including the 100 apartments, that is 1,580 if you consider the two additional towers that would be built in Hammock Bay. The owner has already purchased that property and is just waiting to develop that property. Whether he builds two towers or the equivalent on a mid-rise, that will be the 1,580 units. On the traffic situation, I don't -- I don't think the airport expansion, which was just completed recently, has anything to do with the problem of guideline paths, because the guidelines are really very well done. They don't fly over the property. They go in a different direction. But the increased amount of traffic during the season for the airport is considerate. And getting the fire department and everything else down there if there were suddenly an accident is at question in the season. The traffic on Mainsail Drive in the season backs up at the light on 951, which we're very happy to have, by the way. But in the season -- along 951 all the way to 41, in season you can back that traffic up all the way to the Mainsail light. It takes you 20 minutes to get from the Mainsail light to 41 during the season. So the 1,580 was rightly done, and you add another 94 [sic] to that, and the increased amount of people who live in apartments on a square-foot basis versus a home in Mainsail and Hammock Bay, adds additional traffic, which I think some of the earlier speakers already mentioned. So, basically, I'm not opposed to housing. God forbid, we need more housing in the county, more good-rate housing, which will not be here, but I am opposed to additional units within that tract, which was a utility -- was a utility operation before, and it just happens that they suddenly found out, okay, we have four and a half acres, let's build on it. Well, planning is not always just about building and development. Its about preserving and increasing infrastructure. The Mainsail Drive improvements on landscaping is a very valuable consideration, but the main problems are traffic and the increased amount of traffic as this -- as this county, in particular this area, the Isles of Capri, the planning board probably is aware, are contemplating about three or four more mid-rise buildings which would just add to the traffic. On Marco Island, every lot is being built on, if you just happen to know about Marco Island, very few lots left, or they're tearing down and building bigger ones. So the traffic that was contemplated with the improvements to 951 years ago is not nearly enough to take care of seasonal traffic. We live in paradise, but that is not paradise from November to May. I will end with that. I would really recommend a negative approval to this property. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next speaker is Jim Winkelman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Winkelman, are you there? Mr. Winkelman? (No response.) MR. SABO: We sent a request to unmute. Maybe we can come back. The next speaker is Norman Trebilcock. CHAIRMAN FRYER: As a member of the public? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's representing the petitioner. MR. SABO: I just read what's in front of me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Trebilcock? Is he calling in? MR. TREBILCOCK: Hello. MR. SABO: There he is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. Mr. Trebilcock, is that you? Go ahead, sir. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, yes. My only point on this would be just maybe some clarification on some of the comments to date on the traffic study. I wanted to verify, the traffic study we submitted is dated May of this year; however, just for understanding, we do use the county's AUIR, the most recent 2022 AUIR, which has the background traffic that gets collected, you know, in season as well. So when somebody sees a traffic study dated in May, it's not that the traffic was collected in May. It is based on the most current data that Collier County has, which is the 2022 AUIR. So that's really just the main point of that. And then the trip generation we use is the Institute of Transportation Engineers' trip generation. And then the only other clarification I just wanted to verify. I did double-check the most recent plans for the improvements on Mainsail Drive, and it does identify Mainsail Drive as a public right-of-way, which would be a Collier County right-of-way. It's not a monitored roadway by Transportation Planning, but it is a county public roadway as it provides access to the airport there, so -- and that's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question. Norm, your traffic study, did it -- did you go as far as to study the impact at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Mainsail? And, of course, that's -- on the opposite side of Mainsail is the egress -- ingress/egress to the Isles of Capri and, of course, one of the petitioners brought up the recent rezoning. Have you looked at all of the traffic calculations in regards to at the intersection of Mainsail and Collier? And what was mentioned was a 20-minute backup, and I -- that's a lot. I find it hard to understand that it's 20 minutes. But have you -- did you look at the impact of that intersection? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, we didn't do the intersection analysis; however, we did do the roadway length there of Collier Boulevard, and it was within satisfactory levels of service. During the Site Development Plan analysis, sometimes we'll look at the operational analysis of, say, that intersection or something to see if any improvements are needed due to the project. But as far as the link analysis, it did show that there was a satisfactory level of service there at that link on U.S. -- I mean, Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: How many more registered speakers do we have at this time? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, we'll try Mr. Jim Winkelman one more time, and that would be the last. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Winkelman, are you there, sir? Mr. Winkelman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We're going to close the public comment segment of this hearing and ask Mr. Davies if he has rebuttal. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't really have much rebuttal. I stand by my previous comments. Your staff reviewed the density calculation. They also reviewed the Transportation Impact Statement. Your staff's recommending approval, as you know. I did speak with a gentleman late yesterday afternoon, which is the first time we heard from anyone after several weeks, having the neighborhood meeting. My client is certainly happy to consider any and all reasonable requests. Client's not going to build a park. Not going to landscape all of Mainsail Drive. But I did tell that gentleman yesterday -- excuse me -- late yesterday, which, again, is the first time we had heard from anyone, that we're happy to sit down between now and Board to consider any reasonable requests. But with that, Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything further. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. No one is signaling at this point, and I would encourage you to -- if you make some headway in those discussions, please present them to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. DAVIES: Absolutely. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else from up here? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I guess -- yeah, I have some questions. The third speaker, David Abrams, spoke extensively about you bought four additional acres and now -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I think your mic is too far away. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, thank you. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Better. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. The speaker No. 3, David Abrams, spoke about the four acres and how your -- as I understand what he's saying is you've got a PUD approved. You went out and bought four more acres, and you're trying to shove that inside the PUD on the density issue. I think it kind of goes to Commissioner Shea's question a little while ago, not to you, but a question he had. So what's your -- how do you respond to that? MR. DAVIES: Well, it's already in the PUD. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MR. DAVIES: So what we're doing is amending the PUD, which governs all of Marco Shores, and that's how you calculate the density. You've got to look at the entirety of the PUD acreage and the entirety of the units being proposed. That's how the county's calculated density for some time. I defer to staff as to -- there's another way that they look at it, but I know that they reviewed this petition and are recommending approval on that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Do you have any thought -- yeah, I was going to ask Mike next. Any different thoughts than what Noel just said? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. No, that is the way we calculate density within PUDs. All the property within the PUD is included within that density calculation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's how you get into such a high density. You have a golf course. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I think if we try to say that the last land developed, you know, can't take advantage of the rest of the land that's developed, then you have this tail end always getting shortchanged. And I understand it's like, yeah, but we're changing the use, but we're -- we are, and uses change all the time. And, you know, I've -- it's funny because my own personal experience was -- you know, I've been in Ave Maria since the very beginning, and the plans have changed over the years. And I was talking -- I think I was talking with my daughter about this, that -- and with a friend who was an attorney, by chance, and he -- or we were just mentioning that these things do change over time and you can't -- you know, whereas, when I was frustrated about something, I thought, well, that's not fair. You're changing it. And I realize, okay, the whole thing was put together, whatever, however many years ago, whatever project you're talking about, and, you know, decades have passed. I don't know how old this project is. Rough idea how old this PUD is? MR. DAVIES: I think the first ordinance was '81 or '82. MR. BOSI: Eighty-two. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. Okay. So that's decades later things change, and it's not reasonable to think -- you know, to hold people accountable to their initial ideas when they didn't hold them out as, you know, we guarantee we're going to do it exactly as this layout looks. You know, this idea that there's a process for flexibility based on practical concerns that landowners have, I think we just have to acknowledge that. And it does produce results that sometimes are frustrating, but I also think, in fairness to the landowner, any landowner, you know, we have a method by which these things are calculated, and we can't change it because we don't like the particular result. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. Quick question for Mr. Bosi. I believe it's been answered. I just want to make sure. When you said the original PUD included all of the area, at that point did the town or city of Marco own that site that eventually turned into the water treatment plant? MR. DAVIES: Well, I'd have to check the record. I don't know when the city purchased it. I don't think they owned it at the time of, like, that '82 approval, but at some point -- I know they opened it for many years and were operating the utility plant. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And just for my own clarification, that portion, the 4.1 acres, that Marco owned that your client purchased from, it was included in everything and could have been developed back then, let's say, if it was desired by any developer back at that time? MR. DAVIES: That's correct. It's part of the PUD. It was always part of the PUD. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It's always been part of the PUD? MR. DAVIES: Correct. I'm not trying to add it to the PUD. It's in the PUD today. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So as has come up in discussion, it's not looking at just those four acres independently? MR. DAVIES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you for the clarification. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. The consistent -- one of the consistent themes with the speakers has to do with this median, and Jaime gave us some clarification on the median, the palm trees, all that stuff. And was there a NIM? MR. DAVIES: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And were the concerns the same, pretty much, as they are here? MR. DAVIES: Certain concerns were raised. I know that's in the packet for today as far as the summary. I mean, I know there were other -- there were comments about landscaping on the median. There were comments about speeding drivers on Mainsail Drive. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Did you guys make any changes as a result of the NIM? MR. DAVIES: No. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MR. DAVIES: We hadn't heard from anyone since the NIM until, like I said, late yesterday. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Say that again. MR. DAVIES: So we had our neighborhood information meeting a couple weeks ago. I don't know when the date was, but we had it several weeks ago, and there were certain comments. A lot of the comments related to what exactly are you doing? What are you proposing? There were comments about whether the project had an affordable housing component, which it does not. There were comments about speeding cars. There were comments about landscaping. There were comments about don't do anything with the property. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But you made no adjustments? MR. DAVIES: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So I'm just trying to channel what they're thinking, and you're a different developer. Your client's a different developer. Are you guys willing to do anything on the median? Palm trees? Anything? MR. DAVIES: So like I said, Commissioner, we're happy to sit down after this with what the actual -- I'm not sure what the actual request is. If the request is for, at my client's cost, to landscape or add whatever it was, hundreds of palm trees from all the way down Mainsail Drive, I don't think that my client's going to agree to that. We haven't seen an actual proposal as to that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. It seemed like -- MR. DAVIES: We're happy to consider something, certainly, but I don't know what their proposal is. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I think that -- I don't remember the fourth speaker. I forgot his name. I think it was the fourth speaker gave a pretty specific thought process on that, and you may not have talked to him before. But I'm just -- I guess I'm a little concerned that you stood up in rebuttal and said, yeah, we're willing to kind of work with them, but I see no indication that -- and maybe you don't have to. I'm not saying you have to -- but no indication you tried to work with them on the median, the palm trees, or anything like that. I don't see anything of that from your side. MR. DAVIES: Sure. So let me go back. There was not a clear proposal or comments at the NIM: We want you to do A, B, or C. There were questions about the project. There were comments, like I said, about speeding cars, about affordable housing. There was a series of comments and clarifications that my client's team provided about what we were proposing. We had heard nothing from them; provided all the requisite contact information at the NIM. We are happy to consider requests. I haven't heard any proposals or requests until today and, like I said, late yesterday a gentleman called me and said he's going to come tomorrow and talk about something to do with landscape on Mainsail Drive. So I stand by my comments that my client is happy to commit to work with what the requests are. I need to understand what the requests are. The client has to consider it and evaluate it, and we're happy to do that. We have plenty of time before the Board of County Commissioners' hearing. But I still don't understand exactly when the request is, but we're happy to do it. We're happy to sit down with them and consider any reasonable request. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I guess I'd say to the public speakers, I thought, from my perspective, one of the Zoom speakers had some pretty specific proposals. Rather than everybody just complaining, that you pick a leader and go to them and push for something, and they said they'd work with you. And I don't think it involves hundreds of palm trees. And I understand that you may not feel like you're obligated, but I know the previous developer was encouraged. So I would encourage you to go to them and for you guys to have a respectful and specific proposal that's reasonable as to what you might want with respect to the medians and palm trees. MR. DAVIES: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. At this point I've got three commissioners signaling, but we're right up against 12:30, and as we have decided, we're going to reevaluate whether we're going to have lunch. Whether we decide to do so or not, we need to take a 10-minute break at this time, and so we will -- let's see. It's 12:28. We'll be back here at 12:38. We're in recess. (A brief recess was had from 12:28 p.m. to 12:37 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I thought it was 12:38 we're coming back or -- but we're back. MR. BOSI: I may be premature. I was consulting with Commissioner Sparrazza, and we were both on a different wavelength. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'm under the bus. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think any harm has been done. We're delighted to be back. Thank you. MR. BOSI: Welcome under. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we go first to Vice Chair Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I just had a chat -- Mr. Wuellner, is it? MR. WUELLNER: Wuellner. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wilner [sic]. He brought up the Deltona settlement. I don't know if my colleagues are aware of the Deltona settlement, but just brief education. In 1982, there was a settlement and, actually, Marco Shores was all of Fiddler's Creek, Isles of Capri, Hammock Bay, portions of -- even on Marco Island it was the Mackle brothers. There was a lawsuit to stop all dredge and fill that ended up ending dredge and fill through all of Florida, and to compensate for the loss of development rights in Marco Island, they moved the development to these -- what I just mentioned. It was all called Marco Shores at that time. A long history. That's just a brief -- briefly. But it -- there is a lot of density that was allowed because of that transfer of development rights off of Marco Island to what is now Hammock Bay and then Fiddler's Creek and Isles of Capri, and then they kind of broke off into separate PUDs, and, of course, Hammock Bay retained the name called Marco Shores. Fiddler's Creek named it differently. So that's just so you guys understand what the whole Deltona settlement was. But it was -- so when we're talking density, a lot of the density is now density by right because of the Deltona settlement. I don't want to get into any more detail on that because it's pretty -- pretty specific in regards to what they can and cannot do. And that Deltona settlement went almost all the way up to Manatee Road, just south of Manatee Road, which was part of the development rights. I just wanted to make sure you all knew that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. I'd like to piggyback off of what I think all of us learned from the first petitioner this morning, that given the opportunity, two entities that may not be in agreement, after a 20-, 25-minute break actually came to what I think we'll all agree was a wonderful agreement. I'm wondering if we could ask a commitment from the petitioner to guarantee they will at least sit down with representatives before the BCC meeting and have an open discussion and bring to the BCC meeting ideas, topics from both sides to -- if it's not hashed out by then -- hopefully it will be -- to open it up for discussion at the BCC meeting. MR. DAVIES: You beat me to it, Commissioner. That's what I was going to suggest, which is that -- happy to make any condition of your recommendation today to include that my client, the team here, the professionals, will sit down with whoever wants to attend from the neighbor group and work through what their proposal is. Like I said, I'm still not sure exactly what the proposal is. My suggestion to them is that the condition include that they get together and come up with something that we can present to the client so that he can -- him and his team can understand what it is, what's that going to cost so that we can work through that. And we're happy to do that in good faith and to commit to that today as a condition of any recommendation. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. I think that's a great path forward. Thank you for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Ms. Ashton, if I could ask counsel a question. What, from this 1981 recorded project development document is still valid? Because there's been a lot of talk about what has been reduced by number of units, how many -- I mean, the document states -- it starts out by saying they could develop 500 acres, and then it drops down to 300 and change. Now we're at X amount of units. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Perry reviewed the project, so I'm going to have him answer the question. He's a little more familiar. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. MR. PERRY: Commissioner, this was originally zoned 1981, and since then there's been six amendments to the zoning. And so the initial document has been amended five subsequent times. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So this is really out of date that's in this packet piece? This is -- MR. PERRY: You would need to look at all six together. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: All six together to figure out what's available. MR. PERRY: And, typically, when there's a substantial amendment or when we have a lot of changes over time, we have the developer restate the entire PUD document. This is not the case with this particular amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. My other question is for Mike. So if there's debate on who owns the roadway, how do we get to an end conclusion on that as to -- is it -- is it -- basically, is it a county maintained road, or is it the developer who put it in responsible for those associations on it? MR. BOSI: The developer was not required, per the PUD, to -- they were encouraged to provide for the median landscaping. I believe it is -- and I think Mike was looking for confirmation that it was a public road, and I think we're getting the head nod that it is a public road. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: It is a public road. So the maintenance of the roadway, just not the medians, is the county's responsibility, correct? MR. BOSI: I think the medians would be included -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The medians would be included in that? MR. BOSI: -- within the maintenance. MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. It is a county-owned road. It is county maintained. So, therefore, anything that were to occur as far as additional plantings and that sort of thing would have to go through the county as far as permitting. This isn't part of our roadway beautification program, because those are only for our main roads. It isn't for local roads. This would be a local road. So we would have to likely run this through as a right-of-way permit, have it reviewed, and then have some sort of maintenance agreement as far as who is going to maintain it in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. MR. SAWYER: And that would include the landscaping and the irrigation and everything that would go along with that. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: What I would recommend to the petitioner and the residents there is -- obviously, this road sat for a number of years looking the way it does, and there was no conversation of how do those that are here improve it. There's a number of roads in this county that you have multiple homeowners associations that back up to, and they're responsible for that, and they have a shared cost. I would -- I would urge those residents and the applicant to talk of that shared cost. I'm not saying all of it should be shouldered by the developer because they're coming in not having a responsibility for that. But I think once you come to an agreement -- and if the county's involved in that as well, that cost to maintain it will have to be shared either on a per unit or association basis. But that would be my recommendation is to figure out a way to come together. And I'm not saying to the fellow members on the board that it's the developer's responsibility to landscape the whole thing, because I think that's a cost that could have been done prior, because it sat like this for so many years. But now that we know that it is a county responsibility and there is going to be county interaction, you can probably find a better headway there to get to your endgame of what you want, which is a much better appearance for that street. That's all I have, Chair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Mike, since you're up here, the monument and the landscaping around Mainsail at the intersection of Mainsail and Collier, does the county maintain that? MR. SAWYER: I don't have specifics on that, quite honestly, Commissioner. What I do know is that Road and Bridge is indicating to us that the road is considered to be in good and fair condition. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Because I know there's a monument there for the entry, and I believe that was constructed when they built the three towers. There were supposed to be five built. Of course, WCI went bankrupt. So there is some -- they must have formed something or somebody must have taken responsibility, whether that's the homeowners association or whatever. What I'm going to recommend -- and I'm looking at just the two parcels that are asked to be developed. And Mr. Davis, I would recommend -- because I look at three principal owners here: The county who owns the road; I look at the airport authority, because that's their main access to their terminal, and that's a brand-new terminal. Well, basically year and a half old. I believe the airport authority, and I believe the county had some obligation to do some improvements to the median, and I would recommend that we look at requiring the developer, the county, and the airport authority somewhere -- come to an agreement. I don't know what cost share would be involved -- because it would have to be a beautification requirement under the county, Mike, as you just stated. But I think it would be -- part of the approval of this would be that the developer, if they could reach an agreement with the county and the airport authority -- which, of course, is the county -- to provide improvements to that -- at least that portion of Mainsail road, that they should be required to do so. And I think that's what we should be looking at as part of this. I'm not saying they have to do the entire Mainsail. I think there's a lot of other players involved for the rest of Mainsail. But certainly where they're developing these two lots would certainly add to the -- I think what the -- a portion of what the residents are looking for. So that's my recommendation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, I think what I wanted to say is obsolete now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That was a while ago I pushed that button. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Overcome by events. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just an observation. You could get my vote with a slam dunk if you took those 90 homes and put them in some sort of affordable housing package. It's not the greatest location, but if you attack the essential services personnel and could make something like that work at the 80 percent -- even 100 percent would be nice out there. I'm not saying you won't get it either way, but you could get it with a slam dunk if you did that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I remembered what it was. So, I guess, my understanding is there's no obligation to agree. There's an obligation to hear out the specific proposals of the residents, and the petitioner may or may not, you know, be willing to move. But it sounds like you wouldn't be bringing it if you thought it was futile; you wouldn't be agreeing to it. MR. DAVIES: No, I don't think it's futile at all. I think we're light on details at this point, and so we need to understand what it is and assess it and get to work before the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. At this point no one else is signaling. I think it would be appropriate for us to deliberate and have a motion. Anyone care to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That was from Commissioner Schumacher. Thank you, sir. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's moved and seconded to approve as submitted. And let's see. Yes, we'll -- first Commissioner Vernon wants to be heard. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I'm going to support something, but I'm a little confused because I think Commissioner Sparrazza suggested something, and Commissioner Schumacher sort of echoed that, and I'm not sure whether that's a modification because the applicant agreed to it, and I think it was more than just listening to a proposal. It was a commitment to go -- you know, go out and meet them part of the way as to some kind of proposal, and then Commissioner Schmitt had a little -- I think that was possibly an amendment. So I'm a little confused. And I'm going to support it, but I just want to make sure we're clear on what we're -- what we're voting on. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My question as well. I'm trying to figure out, what are we voting -- we voted approval, but subject to what? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Can I amend my -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah. Can I amend my motion to approve that the petitioner and the residents, as well as the airport authority and the county, come together with some type of agreement for that median area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Meet and confer and, one hopes, come up with an agreement. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: On Mainsail Drive. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And put the onus on the applicant to make that effort, since they are the applicant, to bring everybody together? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Is that acceptable to the seconder? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, yes, yes. So the obligation is to have the meeting -- a meaningful meeting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: May I add one extra comment to that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: As discussed, should it possibly include whatever HOAs are associated with the entire Mainsail? Not that they will need to participate, but they should be at least included in the meeting in case they wish to spread funding of this project out where everybody can benefit. I'd hate to see just the airport, the petitioner, and the county be included when, heck, everybody on the entire project said I'll give 5 bucks every quarter to get trees going or something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before I ask the mover and seconder to agree, would that be acceptable to the applicant? MR. DAVIES: Yeah, I think that's acceptable. The gentleman I spoke to yesterday said -- I think he had authority from those HOAs in the area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. DAVIES: So with respect to the concept, no objection, certainly, that all parties need to be at the instant meeting and that my client is agreeable to good-faith discussion about that, and hopefully that leads to an agreement. I can't commit my client to agree to something I don't know what it is, right, as a legal matter, but I -- we need to understand what it is. We'll review that in good faith and provide whatever update comes from that to the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Does the movant agree to including the HOAs? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the seconder? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any further discussion? Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm guessing my affordable housing request is dead. MR. DAVIES: Respectfully rejected. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Although, if I could just -- from the NIM notes that I saw on the rent that is being collected now on the first project, they are within that 100 percent to 120 percent without -- as they're market rate without affordable housing. So I applaud the developer and the petitioner for being able to do that versus some of these apartments that we see are charging astronomical rates. MR. DAVIES: That's right. Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Now, I'll call the question. All those -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I was going to make a -- I was just going to make a two-cent comment to the folks who spoke. You know, it's a little bit of a tricky process, but it's -- and I don't want to take any responsibility off the developer, but it's hard for them to know what you want without some type of proposal. On the other hand, it's hard for them to accept something presented as a demand. So it's that in between where you get a -- you got it; you're shaking your head. Okay, good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. WUELLNER: We just want the meeting to be here in Collier County. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, okay. That's assumed. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, all. Now, the next two items -- I just want to set the stage here and test our scheduling, if we still feel the same way. In both cases here, these GMPAs that are coming to us, we, as a Planning Commission, have already voted upon them unanimously and sent them up for transmittal, and the State of Florida came back with a few suggestions that staff has attempted to address. Ordinarily -- well, I'll tell you, in my case, I almost always restrict my adoption hearing comments to things that are new. And I remember vividly the facts here, and I remember my vote in favor. So I'm going to limit myself to the few tweaks that are before us. Having said that, though, you're not, by law, limited. If you want to reopen something that was voted upon way back when, you're welcome to, but I just think -- I would -- I would advise against it, but, you know, you don't have to take my advice. ***All right. Having said that, the next matter, PL2021000660, the Collier County Housing Initiatives GMPA. The matter is purely legislative, so no need for swearing in and no need for ex parte. MS. MOSCA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Michele Mosca, for the record, with Community Planning and Resiliency Division. What I'd like to do is provide a brief presentation, probably about five slides, just to give you a summary. The last time you-all heard this -- and I think, Commissioner Schumacher, you may not have been on the commission then. It was back in May of 2022, so I can't -- I don't recall. The second petition that you'll hear, the East Naples, I believe this entire board was seated at that point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: So what's before you is the remaining initiatives from the ULI study, the 2017 housing study. And these affordable initiatives are applicable only to the urban areas of the county. In yellow, you'll see the coastal urban area. And I can -- I believe everybody knows where this is located. So all of the coastal urban area of the Future Land Use Element, in addition to that, Golden Gate City, and then also the Immokalee urban area. This is a snapshot of all five of the initiatives and, as you can see, that there's the commercial mixed-use by-right subdistrict, the conversion of commercial by-right subdistrict, strategic opportunity site subdistrict, transit-oriented development subdistrict, and the mixed-use activity center and interchange activity center subdistricts. Within the Future Land Use Element, the coastal urban area, all five of those initiatives are applicable, and properties are eligible under specific criteria. Within the Golden Gate City or Golden Gate area master plan, three of the initiatives are applicable to those areas, and then in the Immokalee urban area, it's just the transit-oriented development subdistrict. So let me just take a brief moment just to summarize the five different initiatives. You have two by-right subdistricts, commercial mixed-use as well as the conversion of commercial, and what that allows is projects to develop up to 16 dwelling units per acre without a rezoning. The next is your strategic opportunity site subdistrict, and this provides for employment centers with a mix of qualified target industry business with a residential and commercial mix, and the allowance here is up to 25 dwelling units per acre. The next one is your transit-oriented development, and that allows projects to have a base density of 13 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of up to 25 dwelling units per acre with affordable housing. And what this provides for are these developments along existing or proposed transit routes. And, lastly, the mixed-use activity center and the interchange activity center subdistricts. This allows for properties to develop up to 25 dwelling units per acre. What's being excluded are certain activity centers that are within the Coastal High Hazard Area as well as Golden Gate Parkway activity center. The transmittal recommendations you see on your screen. Again, you heard this back in May of 2022, and the Board heard this in March of 2023. The CCP [sic] recommended approval based on staff recommendations with the sunsetting provision for that by-right subdistrict for a five-year period, and then the Board of County Commissioners recommended approval based on the CCPC's recommendations with the removal of C-4 and C-5 commercial properties with the by-right subdistrict, and this was to allow for additional development potential on those C-4 and C-5 properties. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now, Ms. Mosca -- MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- before we go further, a conversation that we had a couple days ago having to do with what is to be sunsetted and what is to be retained, and it's my understanding the by-right concept was to be sunsetted. Would you say some more about that? And I think some language maybe needs to be tweaked. MS. MOSCA: Definitely. I do have that. I was going to wait to the end, but maybe -- Michael, can you put this on the visualizer. So as I mentioned earlier, there were two by-right provisions. That is the commercial mixed-use as well as the conversion of commercial. So that will happen -- let me just pull my documents. If you have your ordinances in front of you, on Pages 1 and 3 of the Future Land Use Element ordinance, the commercial mixed-use by-right subdistrict, that subdistrict previously appeared in the Future Land Use Element. So if the Board was to decide not to extend that five-year period, that subdistrict would remain; however, A6 and B of that subdistrict would be deleted. And then in the conversion of commercial by-right, the entire subdistrict would be deleted if, in fact, the by-right provision went away and the five-year period was not extended by the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. No one is signaling at this point. And, again, there are just a few little tweaks here that have been added or changed since we last saw it. But having said that, as the Planning Commission, we're welcome to open the door to everything if we want. Anyone want to be heard on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'd entertain a motion for approval. MS. MOSCA: Do you -- okay. Let me just go to the end. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have -- I'm sorry. Is there a member of the public? My mistake. Please come forward. I got ahead of myself. So sorry. Have you registered? MS. ESTRADA: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And you've been sworn in? MS. ESTRADA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, wait a minute, we don't. Never mind. MS. ESTRADA: Yeah. My name is Ilen Estrada, and I live at 3541 31st Avenue Southwest. Whatever changes happen in Golden Gate City directly affect me, my family. I have two grandchildren. One goes to Golden [sic] Elementary and the other one goes to St. Elizabeth Seton. We also own a business right on Golden Gate Parkway, so we are directly impacted. Any changes definitely -- it's been a very curious situation listening to all these beautiful projects that are going up in Collier County, and none of them have affordable housing but, yet, it seems that Golden Gate City, Golden Gate Estates are always the ones that are considered for affordable housing. We are in a terrible need of affordable housing, and as the government affairs director of NAHREP, which is the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate, we promote acquisition for affordable housing, but we promote it through special financing and opportunity for young couples and families to buy their homes. So this is something close and dear to us. I'm also a realtor with Coldwell Banker, and we are definitely confronting a perfect storm with the way the economy is, the house of -- pricing for homes, and also interest rates at 8 percent. So affordable housing is, like, something that is becoming less and less obtainable in Collier County. But, by the same token, we want to -- and we want to promote homeownership. And I see that these projects -- I would understand and agree to this on a personal basis if the low or very low, as specified, income would be for people who are civil servants already working in our county. Many of our people have to go out of the county because they can't afford the county. So if we -- if this is something that has been adopted already, and we do not have a say on it anymore because we're late to the table, I would suggest that these affordable housings be, first and foremost, available to firefighters, to nurses, to people who currently serve our community. I believe that is very good, the fact that it's going to be close to public transit, but most of the people that use public transit nowadays, and anybody that goes on Collier Boulevard will see it at 5:00 and 6:00, you will see people from Immokalee Road who come in in buses to work and then leave, so they're not really residents of this area that we are discussing right now. As a matter of fact, according to the records that I have -- and they're probably old -- but it says that 80.1 percent of people who live in Golden Gate City own a car, and they don't use public transportation. So most of the public transportation that is being used right now are from people that do not live in the area that come into the area to work. But my suggestion is that this is precious what's being done. It's already been decided, like I said, so there isn't much that we can do about it to stop it or change it or make adaptations, I believe, unless you folks can correct me, but I believe that those homes or those apartments should be reserved for people who already work for us, serve our community, and that's just my opinion, and I respectfully thank you for giving me the time to express myself. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ms. Mosca or Mr. Bosi want to reply to that or give us your take? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Now, we have no provisions within these that they are exclusive for essential service providers. The majority -- not the majority, but a number of these proposals do require that 100 percent of the units are made affordable, but I would say that -- to the speaker's comments, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners regularly requires, when we do have an affordable housing project in front of us, that an additional marketing effort is made to the essential services personnel to be made aware of these opportunities and first offers of opportunities are provided to those essential service providers. So I think we are doing -- currently doing what the speaker is asking us to do, to make these housing units that are income restricted available to our essential services personnel. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So even if -- let's say essential services personnel get offered this and they don't take it up, the restrictions on income remain, but it's no longer the highest -- the most desirable tenants, if you will, but it still remains income restricted, and it sounds as though your concerns are being addressed. MS. ESTRADA: Right. Well, there was another concern that I didn't voice because, as you stated, this has already been decided on, so -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it really -- it hasn't. MS. ESTRADA: It hasn't? CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is part of the process. This is like a second reading. We're here at adoption. We're going to make our recommendation. The Board of County Commissioners can do exactly as they please with it. MS. ESTRADA: Then if there's still time to do something about it, as a property owner, I am not in agreement with a lot of these things that are being built because it directly affects me as a resident and as a -- the property value of my home and our homes and, also, it affects traffic drastically. Every day we risk our lives just crossing the canal from Collier Boulevard up to 31st. There's no light there or anything. So there -- there is an increase of density that is being proposed. I have an acre and a quarter. I cannot build, on an acre and a quarter, a guesthouse for my mom who's 85 years old but, yet, we have 25 dwellings proposed in one acre right across the canal. So, you know, it's kind of hard for us to be in accordance with something like that that is going to increase the density, the traffic, which is terrible right now. And I -- you know, I don't know if the infrastructure has been looked at, and how is it going to affect our infrastructure? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I guess I'm confused, because I thought I heard you say you thought that affordable housing was something you were urging us to do and not -- MS. ESTRADA: I do. Affordable housing -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. I heard you say that affordable housing was something that you were advocating for, and now I hear you saying "except if it's near me," and that's all. MS. ESTRADA: Affordable home purchase. I believe and I promote affordable housing in the sense for a person to be able to afford to buy their home. We're talking two different subjects. This is affordable units. This is affordable units. This is not going to be for sale. I'm assuming these are not condos that are being proposed. Am I wrong? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, this is a proposal for restrictions or requirements. It's not -- it doesn't say the form, whether it would be rental units or purchase units. It could be either. MS. ESTRADA: It could be either? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. MS. ESTRADA: Okay. That's fine. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But typically the rental units are the priority, because most people don't have the down payment for the home. So even if you could make the homes less, they still can't buy into it. So the focus tends to be on rentals right now to solve a lot of that problem. MS. ESTRADA: Right. Well, I believe that that area, if I'm not mistaken -- maybe you could correct me. But through USDA, they could purchase and also FHA, and there's also down payment assistance. So those are available to purchase homes, if those programs are still available, of course. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Mike, back on that. Like, could you file for a conditional use if you had an acre and you wanted to put on a guesthouse? That would come through here, correct, or maybe a HEX and -- MR. BOSI: Through the HEX, but the -- the income -- or the restriction for a guesthouse is one acre. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Is one acre. MR. BOSI: Is one acre. Now, there may be a nonconforming lot issue that she runs -- that she would run into that would -- that maybe creates some complications, but the code states that you need an acre to have a guesthouse within the county. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The other question I had, because you're in real estate, you probably know this better than I would. How has the turnover been in Golden Gate City in the last two years in sales? Have you seen houses come on and sell immediately? MS. ESTRADA: Actually, yes. The market was very hot, just like anywhere else. Property values have risen. I mean, homes in Golden Gate City, there are houses that are $700,000. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So those rents that originally were under that owner before they sold would have been affordable. Then they sell the property. The new owner comes in and says, hey, now I've got a bigger mortgage, and that rent then goes down to the tenant that's there, correct? MS. ESTRADA: Definitely, definitely. My mom is 85. She pays $1,100 a month for a one-bedroom apartment. So, I mean, it's very difficult, and I totally understand that, and that's why I'm glad that what I said is already being considered, the fact that the people that serve our community are the first ones that should have first choice in getting into these units. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah, and I agree, and I think this commission has done, and the planning department as well, of putting a number of affordable units on the table in the last six months. I mean, it's been -- that's six months that I've been here that I've seen. Before that, I've seen what's been coming online and what's been approved. So I think that is in the Board of County Commissioners' sight, and it's in front of this commission as well as the planning department to make sure that those units are being scheduled online. The other question I had is -- and maybe Ms. Cook or maybe Cormac can answer this. There's a number of programs within this county through HUD. If you were going to rent out a unit and you wanted to make it affordable, you could go through a HUD program to pay for the improvements to that, like, and then there's -- I know there's some outlines to it as the -- it's income restricted for you to qualify, so on and so forth. Do you have any information on that? MR. GIBLIN: Sure, I can help you with that. Cormac Giblin, director of Housing Policy and Economic Development. The county does run several programs through our community and human services division, most particularly the SHIP program. There are some other home programs and CDBG programs that assist folks with down payment assistance or repairs to buy a house and turn it to -- make it livable. You can buy a fixer-upper, if you would. You could buy a duplex and live in one side and rent out the other. So there are -- there's funding available. It's very limited funding, and there are strings attached, as it would be with any state or federal funding. But there are programs available through the county. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Is it being utilized? MR. GIBLIN: It's being utilized to the full extent, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Full extent. Thank you. That was going to be my question. MS. ESTRADA: We've been using that program for the last, what, 20, 30 years, the SHIP program. It's an excellent program, and also USDA. So we are aware of those programs, and we have used it with our community that we serve, and our goal is to have homeownership, to increase homeownership. That's just better for the -- for the community in general, especially our children, you know, who have now stability because their parents are in their home. They're not going to be moving every year from apartment to apartment. So to promote homeownership, affordable homeownership is our goal, for sure. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I agree with you 100 percent. My only thought on this is it's hard to restrict a free market. And Golden Gate City, with its proximity to everything around it, makes it very desirable, which then causes, just as I had said, somebody resells a unit, now the rents go up, and it's those types of things. I think what the staff has presented before us allows for some of those commercial areas, especially if you look down on, like, Salt Alley. Like, some of those commercial districts down there where many of those are closed out and gone, this allows for commercial and residential mixed-use. So I understand where you're coming from with it should be from that low and very-low population that does service this community should have the first right for this, which, I think if that were to come before this commission, if somebody was going to renovate one of those rundown buildings and put some apartments in there in addition to the commercial, I think that would be on -- it would be the first thing on my mind, I know that, because I live in District 3, and know what you're talking about. But I know the commission also feels the same on that. MS. ESTRADA: Right, exactly. I think my point, what I was trying to say, is that these apartments should service the people that already live here and not have an in-stream of people from other counties that do not serve this community already. And I think that's what I was trying to say. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I gotcha. MS. ESTRADA: That, you know, our people, the ones that serve us every day, our Sheriff's Department, nurses, you know, everybody, civil servants, should have, you know, the first rights to these units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. MS. ESTRADA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other registered speakers on this? MR. SABO: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: We do not, all right. There's another lady in the room. Anyone -- any member of the public who's not registered wish to be heard on this, now would be the time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we see no hands, so we'll close the public comment portion of this hearing, and we will take the matter under consideration. According to my notes, there are basically three changes that staff made resulting from what was sent from the state excluding the -- from coastal high hazard, No. 1; No. 2, maximum of 130 acres for the entire urban mixed district; No. 3, maximum FAR of 0.5. And I think in every other respect this was the same that we saw last time it came before us. MS. MOSCA: Commissioner Fryer, if I may, just for clarification, that 130 acres was just specific to the SOS, strategic opportunity site subdistrict, not the entire urban area, so just specific to that subdistrict, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, thank you. Thank you for that clarification. All right. No one it signaling at this point. I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve as presented by Ms. Mosca. I don't think there was any other stipulations or changes. So I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of approval as submitted, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Ms. Mosca. Thank you, Mr. Bosi. All right. Moving right along. Similarly, the next matter has been before us before, and there were some comments from the state which were addressed by staff. I mean, everything is back before us, but I personally would only look at the changes because I've already voted on the thing, and my opinion hasn't changed. ***So this is PL20230000930, the U.S. 41 East Overlay and South U.S. 41 TCEA expansion Growth Management Plan amendment. Purely legislative, so we'll go right to -- go ahead, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: Yep. Again, for the record, Michele Mosca with the community planning staff. I'll just, again, do a very brief summary. As a reminder, this is the Growth Management Plan amendment that implements, in part, the East Naples Community Development Plan that was accepted by the Board back in 2020. If you all are familiar with the boundary, again, just very quickly, the boundary of the U.S. 41 overlay begins about Palm Drive. That's east of the government center, the Walmart area, and extends along U.S. 41 just east of Greenway Road, which is the dividing line of the urban boundary and the ag rural lands. It's approximately 9.4 acres. This overlay is, again, the FLUE overlay. Specifically establishes three regional centers that you can see here identified on the map in purple, which are also synonymous with our Activity Centers 16, 17, and 18. They're located, again, at the edge of the government center, and this would be the most westerly portion here; and then Rattlesnake Hammock and Thomasson, here; and then, finally, Collier Boulevard and U.S. 41. There are also four community centers that are established by this overlay, and those are identified in green. Beginning further west at the town center, moving down along U.S. 41 at St. Andrew's Square, and then moving further east, Whistler's Cove, and then finally the Greenway Road area. And then, finally, these blue areas that you see along the corridor, those are the corridor segments that -- those are the areas between and have minimal regulations in the FLUE overlay. Again, just quickly, through various incentives and development standards, the overlay will allow increased density, height, and economic development uses in the regional centers as well as the community centers, and as you can see, the density in the regional centers would be allowed up to 20 dwelling units per acre with specific criteria, economic development uses, and in the community centers, the smaller centers would allow up to 16 dwelling units per acre, economic development uses, and both of those would allow height increases as well as the corridor segment. Within the corridor segment, we're adding economic development uses. Those are uses that aren't currently allowed in the area. Additionally, the amendment expands the existing transportation concurrency exception area. That's on the left side of the screen. From its southern terminus from Rattlesnake Hammock to the east side of U.S. 41, you'll see the second portion. This is to accommodate the proposed density increase as well as the uses. Again, you saw this at transmittal back in March of 2023, and the Board, in April, and both bodies recommended transmittal to the state for review. As the Chairman stated, we received two comments. These comments form the basis of a noncompliance finding if staff doesn't adequately address the state's comments. The two comments we received, they were concerned about increase in density in the Coastal High Hazard Area, and any of those impacts on evacuation, et cetera. FDOT, Florida Department of Transportation, they were concerned with increased trips on the roadways potentially adversely impacting those facilities. Staff addressed all the comments. We feel like we adequately addressed those. We established a maximum number of 900 dwelling units from -- it was roughly 3,500 that could participate in the program, so that's down significantly. Additionally, we also require applicants who come through this process to have their petitions reviewed by the Bureau of Emergency Services for any hazard mitigation. Staff is recommending that the CCPC forward the Board a recommendation to adopt to the Florida Department of Commerce with staff's suggested additions to the overlay. And with that, if you have any questions... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just a quick question. Both of these -- I assume there's nothing in Live Local that we're contradicting. This is compliant with that new law, right? MR. BOSI: This is -- MS. MOSCA: Correct. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. This is completely separate from Live Local. Live Local imposes the allowance for development of residential development -- of affordable housing in areas not zoned for -- not zoned for residential development. This is -- this is completely separate from that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So there's no conflict? MR. BOSI: No conflict. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one else is signaling at this time. Anyone else wish to be heard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, we can discuss or we can move. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'll make a motion to approve, Chair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve for recommendation of adoption of the material before us. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Ms. Mosca. Thank you, staff. Okay. With that, we go to old business, which there, I believe, is none. New business, likewise, none. Public comment. I think all the members of the public have successfully escaped, so we'll assume there's none of that. Therefore, without objection, we're adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:24 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______________ or as corrected _____________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.